Libya and Planetside

Raymac · 2011-03-29, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but I figure it could always be moved if needed.

Watching the coverage of the conflict in Libya, I can't help but be reminded of many battles we've had in Planetside. I mean it feels like a classic Planetside field battle between 2 bases that are far apart i.e. between Baal and Akkan on Ish.

One side will have the momentum and push forward until their supply lines are stretched to where the defender has the advantage and force a retreat. Then as that other side pushes their new advantage, their supply lines get stretched and they stall, and start to get pushed back again.

I've been in alot of back and forth battles like this in Planetside, so I just automatically make the connection even though I know PS is far from real war. The issue that worries me about this is that these battles are typically very very long stalemates that arn't easily broken.

So unless the rebels can organize a massive Gal drop with a few OS's...I'm thinking this is going to be a very long civil war. What do you guys think?

DviddLeff · 2011-03-29, 03:38 PM

From the sounds of things the rebels (NC) are fighting from AMSs against the tech plant owning Gadaffi led TR.

However the rebels have support of the UN VS air force.

Perhaps it's a bit insensitive, but hey, when I heard the Disney cruise ship had pulled up in Miami to investigate the disappearance of a girl I yelled a CSI style YEEEEAAAAH!

Kyonye · 2011-03-29, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I'm not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but I figure it could always be moved if needed.

Watching the coverage of the conflict in Libya, I can't help but be reminded of many battles we've had in Planetside. I mean it feels like a classic Planetside field battle between 2 bases that are far apart i.e. between Baal and Akkan on Ish.

One side will have the momentum and push forward until their supply lines are stretched to where the defender has the advantage and force a retreat. Then as that other side pushes their new advantage, their supply lines get stretched and they stall, and start to get pushed back again.

I've been in alot of back and forth battles like this in Planetside, so I just automatically make the connection even though I know PS is far from real war. The issue that worries me about this is that these battles are typically very very long stalemates that arn't easily broken.

So unless the rebels can organize a massive Gal drop with a few OS's...I'm thinking this is going to be a very long civil war. What do you guys think?

The Civil War may last a while but not necessarily with the current fighting. I don't see the fighting last for a long time to come. It's the politics that will be endless. Many nations are now calling for Qaddafi to step down. I can't believe we (the U.S.) opened up trading wit that country back in 2004.

Firefly · 2011-03-29, 08:06 PM

I can't believe we didn't do a goddamn black-of-night snag-and-bag on that ulgy motherfucker and bring him in for justice.

America has lost its edge, and its way. Diplomacy and being nice is all well and good, until some upstart little shit feels unappreciated and blows up your people. Waving a goddamn olive branch at them and treating them like they're legitimate instead of exterminating them with extreme prejuduce? Really?

Now look where we are. If we'd fucked that Arab cocksucking son of a bitch in the ass the first goddamn time, we might not be firing a lot of cruise missiles at him, having a plane crash-land in his backyard, seeing a bunch of Libyan people disappearing. Oh but no, we have to play nice-nice and sing some fucking Kumbaya with the shithead because we don't want to accuse him or any other Arab of being a terrorist. Why don't we just give the douchebag a fucking laptop and Facebook account, and play Farmville with him?

Raymac · 2011-03-30, 01:41 PM

I don't know. I like dropping bombs on bad guys as much as the next guy. I even had a cousin on that Pan-Am flight he blew up. I just think this Libya thing is one we should sit out.

I know we are America (Fuck Yeah), but the rest of the world (especially the Arab world) has become awfully ungrateful for all the aid we provide. Considering our soldiers and marines in that shithole of Afghanistan should be getting even more support, I don't like the idea of diverting assets to help a bunch of people that may be just as anti-American as Qaddafi is.

I think Libya is one we should have sat out, but since we are already kind of invloved, we need to get un-invloved as soon as possible. They just hate America over there, so no matter how much help we give them, they will be burning our flag in a few monthes. So I say, fuck 'em.

Rbstr · 2011-03-30, 01:50 PM

The Arab League, The Arab League, supported international intervention. If there was any time to participate in a multilateral intervention, this was one of them. This isn't some bullshit unilateral action on the grounds of American moral superiority or interests. Yeah, it's not very important to our interests, but it's important to allies...and we haven't done a particularly good job of keep their support in the last decade.

The key is to not get involved beyond the no-fly zone and air strikes. Then let the closer, more involved, countries take over. I worry a bit about how there's been a bit of wishy-washiness on what the acceptable outcomes of the whole thing are.

Raymac · 2011-03-30, 02:01 PM

The Arab League said they wanted the no-fly zone, but as soon as we launched our cruise missiles, they came out and said we were being too tough. They quickly back pedalled thanks to some behind the scenes diplomacy, but they arn't very enthusiastic about actually helping with the no-fly zone. So that really makes me wonder how much they really wanted it.

You're right in that this isn't a unilatteral action, but not by much. Russia is calling it a crusade, China isn't going to lift a finger to help, and I've already talked about the Arab League. I know there was more time back then, but there was a much broader coalition for the Iraq war.

The part that bothers me the most right now, is we are talking about arming the rebels, and we still don't know who they are. And along with arming, they are already discussing bringing trainers in to teach these rebels how to use the weapons we will be giving them. And anyone that knows anything about the history of the Vietnam War knows all about sending "trainers" into a warzone.

As the President said, this Libya thing is a shit sandwich. I know it's a great opportunity to get rid of Libya's Danny Trejo, but I'm hesitant about opening up yet another front in the muslim world. Germany never did well with a 2 front war.

Rbstr · 2011-03-30, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

You're right in that this isn't a unilatteral action, but not by much. Russia is calling it a crusade, China isn't going to lift a finger to help, and I've already talked about the Arab League. I know there was more time back then, but there was a much broader coalition for the Iraq war.

Well, this is wrong, it's a NATO action backed by the UN Security Council. Iraq was damn near unilateral, did you mean afghanistan?
Of course Russia and China won't like it. Russia is against nearly anything we do, simply because we're doing it. They're super pissed about NATO's expansion in any way.

Like I said, we shouldn't be doing anything beyond the no-fly and airstrikes, don't escalate our presence to ground troops (Vietnam parallels are a stretch, arming the rebels would be more akin to Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen) . That's a high bang-for-the-buck thing in terms of international cooperation.

Raymac · 2011-03-30, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Well, this is wrong, it's a NATO action backed by the UN Security Council. Iraq was damn near unilateral, did you mean afghanistan?

No, I meant Iraq. That stupid "Coalition of the Willing" had more countries involved than we did when we started enforcing the Libya no-fly zone. Of course, alot of those countries were military "powerhouses" like El Salvador, but still there were more. Now that NATO has taken over, it might be a little more even if you count all the NATO countries (although I wonder how active countries like Turkey and Germany are).

Yeah, a parallel to Vietnam is definitely a stretch I admit, but when you talk about sending in "trainers" it still brings up the memory of Vietnam. Plus even if it is more like arming the Mujadeen in the '80s that didn't exactly work out real well in the long run. Considering how much love for America I've seen out of the Arab world, it's not a stretch to think these rebels arn't America's biggest fans so giving them anything, even MRE's make me wince.

There seems to be a great short term opportunity here in Libya, but we need to stay focused on the long term and not put all of our stock in "Hope" that the "Change" will be a good one.

Rbstr · 2011-03-30, 09:09 PM

You can't call the Iraq Invasion much more than bilateral at best...Out of something short of 200k in the invasion we made up 150k of it, the UK 46k. It only went more US from there.
That was our war because we wanted it. It had nothing to do with supporting rebels, preventing imminent slaughter or even some lofty humanitarian goal.
Nobody here gave a shit weather or not El Salvador supported it or not. Or anyone else, save the UK, for that matter.

Libya is a wholly different international situation. Participation is easy points.

Never said anything about the bad/good of Afghanistan's civil war meddling. It's just a closer example. Both are shaky anyway, there's no Evil Empire we're fighting by proxy.
The most similar are the eastern european interventions. Those went rather well.

Baneblade · 2011-03-31, 12:54 AM

Let the Arabs play in their sandbox... and sanitize the ones that try to leave it.

Raymac · 2011-03-31, 03:13 PM

@Rbstr: You're right. In reality it was the US + UK, but technically there were a few more countries but they really didn't count for much.

Overall, I wish Libya was one we could have just stayed out and let the EU and Arab League handle. I'm tired of people complaining about the US being the world police, but then when something like Libya happens, who does everyone come running to? Thats right the US.

Now that we got engaged in Libya, I think the best thing for us is to just back off. We fucked up their air defenses so anyone else can fly safe, so now we should just sit on the sidelines, offer our moral support, let the State Department and CIA work the back channels, but keep our boots off the ground.

I don't remember us using our military in those eastern european interventions you mentioned, and plus that was a much different time when their Sugar Daddy USSR was crumbling. Libya doesn't have a Sugar Daddy and we are already using our military. I guess the closest thing to Libya was Kosovo and that did kind of work out ok for us.

Firefly · 2011-04-01, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I don't know. I like dropping bombs on bad guys as much as the next guy. I even had a cousin on that Pan-Am flight he blew up. I just think this Libya thing is one we should sit out.

I know we are America (Fuck Yeah), but the rest of the world (especially the Arab world) has become awfully ungrateful for all the aid we provide. Considering our soldiers and marines in that shithole of Afghanistan should be getting even more support, I don't like the idea of diverting assets to help a bunch of people that may be just as anti-American as Qaddafi is.

I think Libya is one we should have sat out, but since we are already kind of invloved, we need to get un-invloved as soon as possible. They just hate America over there, so no matter how much help we give them, they will be burning our flag in a few monthes. So I say, fuck 'em.

Considering the "rebel government" has been begging the US for training and support, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Considering al'Qaida went on record a few weeks back condemning us for not giving two shits about Libya or its people being slaughtered, I'd say you're wrong.

I'd also like al'Qaida to apologise for that stupid statement, considering we're fucking al'Trejo up.

xmodum · 2011-04-01, 04:44 PM

I'm more worried about the Kurds. Claiming Kirkuk is their "Jerusalem" and they want it. The fact that Kirkuk controls 6% of the world's oil so they would become a powerhouse in the oil market over night if they did. And the fact that the Kurds here dislike Americans very much, aaand there's a couple million of them here in Iraq, not to mention many more millions in Turkey next door, all want Kirkuk seeing as they do not own any land, but are still a recognized nation. They want land, rich land, they have the power to take it. And it will cause many more problems here then civil war.

It's also kinda cool being in Baghdad right now, where things are pretty calm, its like being in the eye of a huge storm. We do have the occasional riots and demonstration of a couple hundred Iraqi's wanting us to either leave or for living conditions to get better.

<---Survivor of Day of Rage 2011 (Protest leader called for 10 million Iraqi's to show up at the IZ (Where I live) to protest, riot, and kill us if need be to get us to leave, only 10,000+ showed up and didn't make it past the first checkpoint, about 10 million all over IRaq did protest on that day though.)

xmodum · 2011-04-01, 04:50 PM

Sorry to get off the Libya conflict, I'm not following it, I'm more worried about Iraqi problems lol.

Oh and war is nothing like a video game, kinda made me laugh, the original post's comparison of riots to Planetside. But yea, No game I ever forsee can get your adrenaline rushing like the screaming ear popping sound of a 107mm rocket flying at you till it hits the ground 50 meters away from you luckily not exploding but throwing dirt all over you. Or the sound of random gunfire all around you as IA's shoot at their own ignorant cab drivers who can't follow proper procedure to entering a checkpoint.

Hehe....nothing like what I thought a war could be. But I love it.