Libya Superthread

NATO still has not been able to kill Gaddafi, they still have not been able to bomb the army into submission, the fact that even women are joining the militias to fight off the rebels says something. And if I was a Libyan women I would damn well fight for my rights too.

If you don't know they haven't been doing a good job at stop NATO strikes on Tripoli have they. Also this how close the rebels are the marker is the latest city they have captured
Also their goal is not to kill Gaddafi it's to remove him form power and put him on trial.

you first must see the aircraft you are shooting at for AA to work, B-2's are a little hard to spot. F-22's are to fast for ground based non missile AA to hit them. most NATO bombs/fighters are armed with counter-measures that can throw off ground based missile AA. but given the fact the NATO has ran over 200 strikes on targets inside of Tripoli alone i doubt the Libyan AA screen if working very well.

Seriously, just ask yourselves this. If it were not a popular revolution would it have not taken no more than a month? Why would people fight in militias for Gaddafi? Why would all these villages, including the one with the market that NATO just bombed killing 14 civilians, with small to no military presence not rise up?

some people do not wish to fight, good for them. the US revolution was fought by 40% of the people in the 13 colony's, 20% did not fight and 40% supported the British

Actualy theese aa guns are fairly pointless against modern jets at least the ones in service in lybia. Also most of them have ben destroyed. AA-Guns are always the first priority of airstrikes, thats what cruisemissiles are for and thats what we seen since desert storm. First kill of enemy aa capabilities with cruise missiles then launch airstrikes. That is the current way to start a war. Never since the last 30 years has there ben a ground invasion before air superiority. The reason is imminent you can't advance troops if the enemy has the capability to launch air atacks on them ( a lesson germany had to learn during the second world war) and we seen that here to, ghadaffis forces advanced till the airstrikes stoped them and are now on the defense. They basicly can't advance anymore because the second they move their tanks out of civilian areas they get spoted by drones and whiped out imidiatly, theres basicly no cover in the desert to hide them and it is easy to spot tanks and vehicles in the desert at night because of the heat from the engines and at day because of the giant sandcloud thei styr up.

If you people are so in favor of democracy then why should fewer have a say over a majority?

If they are the minority your would maybe have a point but that is debatable and will be decided after the war. But even if ghadaffi would have the majority of the country behind him that still doesn't give him the right to crack down peacefull protests and rule the country without free elections. And to be honest if he would have the majority he wouldn't have to crack down on them he could simply hold fair elections but the fact that he has decides to kill his oposition and crack down on them kind of incites that he does not.

If the rebels actually had the majority they would not have needed NATO to fight their battles. If it was the majority all they would have had to do is supply them.

Even if they have a majority they don't have the weapons they need outside countries for weapons and support or this would drag on forever.

you do no win war without air-support and armored support

First of thats a stupid comparison! Comparing free elections who every one has the same weight (1 vote) to a war, where one side has a trained army and the weapons, that is just stupid.
You can have one million people on the street without weapons, organisation and training against 100 trained and organized soldiers with enough suplies and heavy weapons or alternatively 2 tanks, guess who wins? It is absolutely bullshit to compare political-suport to military strenght. Thats the verry essence of opression control many with the means of a few it is not hard to do.

edit: i guess the NATO doesn't wana arm those people blindly it has biten them in the ass for to many times. remember afghanistan? much of the weapons us troops face came from the us.

This whole operation changed from humanitarian aid to regime change pretty fast.

Actually enforce a No Fly Zone for Libya then, supply the rebels and if the rebels actually have a majority they will win. But seeing as NATO is having to fight the rebels battles, the rebels could not do it on their own. But again even doing that is against international law, because you can not intervene in a civil war. But when has NATO been one to follow international law?

They are winning if you saw the map I put up.

Thats not winning. But even if they were, it is because of NATO, not the fact that they have the majority, because obviously they do not.

They do they don't have the weapons and advancing is winning to me.

Then the Nazi's won in Russia right?

No. You see, we can't do that. Because that would be ACTUAL humanitarian aid.
We have to provide them with our humanitarian aid. (Which is basically shooting missiles into the country and backing one side rather than try to get both sides to come too some kind of an agreement.)

and that has to do this how? the nazi's were winning until they lost the men and leadership and russia had far better tanks and a single front war to fight.