[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="RexerBot"] Let's say that NATO did get involved and used only air support. Wouldn't that eliminate the chance for casualties on their end?RexerBot

Anti-air defenses would likely be a problem. NATO was very lucky to only lose a single drone to enemy fire in Libya. Even a few dead or captured pilots can be a death knell to public support for any such action.

No, but that's not really the challenge. NATO seems to be relatively good at minimizing casualties in an air war, but you can never completely eliminate the possibility of material and human losses. Add that to there being likely pressure from the public of making sure there are absolutely no losses, and the prospects of another months long campaign (at least) flying with NATO countries and their civilian population are zilch, especially with military spending and political fallout from Iraq/Afghanistan already on everyone's mind and in the absence of any clear objectives and plans to unseat Assad from the Syrian opposition.

Is that from Silent Hill 2?

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

That would be too messy. A few key differences:

1. The opposition does not control any territory or really organized in any governmental sense.

2. There is no unified desire to take up arms against Assad.

3. Bad sectarian brew, like Iraq. Promote regime change there too heavy handedly...

4. Syria's military is surprisingly stronger, larger, and a lot more advanced than Gaddafi's. Expect casualties.

5. Allies like Russia, China, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not ready to abandon a key friend like Syria. Therefore, no U.N. resolution, especially after Libya.

RexerBot

Anti-air defenses would likely be a problem. NATO was very lucky to only lose a single drone to enemy fire in Libya. Even a few dead or captured pilots can be a death knell to public support for any such action.

That would be far too messy. A few key differences:

1. The opposition does not control any territory outright or really organized in any governmental sense.

2. There is no unified desire to take up arms against Assad.

3. Bad sectarian brew, like Iraq. Promote regime change there too heavy handedly...

4. Syria's military is surprisingly stronger, larger, and a lot more advanced than Gaddafi's. Expect casualties.

5. Allies like Russia, China, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not ready to abandon a key friend like Syria. Therefore, no U.N. resolution, especially after Libya.

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I would be more angry at 20%+ unemployment, large amounts of poverty, and economic neglect, as well as people reposting blatant lies on the Internet.

Frame_Dragger

Sounds like US in a few years.

And we get blatant lies on the Internet every time CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. publish anything on their websites.

People here in OT are too steeped in MSM propaganda to be able to recognize the truth.

I recommend Information Clearing House as a more reliable source. Any essay on the Libyan conflict that you read there will contain more truth than anything you'd read on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Some people it seems pride themselves in taking a contrarian stance, even when the facts are quite clear and well established and there is little reason to.Stesilaus can't seem to comprehend that Gaddafi's regime lost, even though the tactical situation was clearly in its favor and few analysts ever expected the rebels to prevail in a decisive military victory as quickly as they did, even with air / proxy backup (which was relatively light compared to other conflicts to begin with). He can't accept that Gaddafi's popular support and hold on power were clearly not that strong, and that there was little will to fight, despite having control of at least 60% of the population for most of the conflict, most heavy military hardware, having distributed at least 1 million weapons to what were claimed as supporters, and essentially squaring off against militias made up of men that had mostly never held a gun in their lives. Surely, a man loved so much for his generosity could rally a better power base in the face of clearly malevolent foreign aggression.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I would be more angry at 20%+ unemployment, large amounts of poverty, and economic neglect, as well as people reposting blatant lies on the Internet.

Stesilaus

Sounds like US in a few years.

And we get blatant lies on the Internet every time CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. publish anything on their websites.

People here in OT are too steeped in MSM propaganda to be able to recognize the truth.

I recommend Information Clearing House as a more reliable source. Any essay on the Libyan conflict that you read there will contain more truth than anything you'd read on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

"For Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets."

Yeah, right. Seems like the same unadulterated garbage on Canadian Mind Products and Infowars.

Also, you postedthis ridiculous article from the very same source back in August, which is not only full of false information, but was posted 3 days before the uprising in Tripoli and 11 days before the rebels took complete control. Isn't life ironic sometimes?

[QUOTE="OmenUK"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

I wouldn't say libyan people but just some savages.

M4Ntan

I would also be angry if the government gave me free electricity, a discounted house after my marriage, a discounted car, job security, and a good amount of money each month.

I would be more angry at 20%+ unemployment, large amounts of poverty, and economic neglect, as well as people reposting blatant lies on the Internet.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="OmenUK"]

I would not call them savages, after all we have not had to live under his regime for allthat length of time, I am sure there must have been much pent up anger felt towards him because of how the situation hasd been there, of course the only people that can confirm this are the Libyan people and I douby anything said in (ANY) national media outlet can be taken as being the whole truth.

Stesilaus

Checking on news of this, it's on... 2 sites... and Gamespot is the sixth google search result. I'm highly skeptical.

It would be astoundingly naive to believe that the toppling of Gaddafi was anything OTHER than the outcome of a Western plot.

I'm sorry if it seems incredibly far fetched to think that this was not a natural extension of the Arab Spring and the culmination of years of chronic political and economic problems all over the region, unless you are implying that is all a western plot as well.

Zoos = slavery?

gotdangit

Freedom is slavery ;).

A U.S Senator was killed in combat during the American Civil War. Does that count?limpbizkit818

Eh, I can think of plenty of lawmakers killed during times of war in all different countries. I'm more looking for dictators/heads of state (or government)/national leaders in terms of being seen as leading the country more than anyone else.