35
   

military action against Libya

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 01:22 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:


More tiresome suggestions that you know the inner motives of others, while they can't possibly know yours.


This is factually incorrect - I've never asserted that others can't possibly know my motives. Not once.

The motives of your politicians are transparent and the entire enterprise they forward wouldn't work, if it wasn't for the willing ignorance of vast swathes of our populace - including those such as yourself, who are educated enough to know better, but simply don't have the time or inclination to actually look things up to see if they are true.

Quote:
More tiresome assertions that you have or can provide proofs of your wild assertions - proofs that you never get around to providing.


Which assertions? Be specific. This is also factually incorrect in that I regularly provide evidence and logical reasoning to explain why I feel the way I do. This is nothing more than a slur on your part. In fact, it's worse than that - you are accusing me of engaging in behaviors that describe you to a T, George. 'Wild Assertions that you never get around to proving' describes 1/2 your posts here on any topic related to politics or the economy.

Quote:
More tiresome accusations of evil intent and conspiracy on the part of all who don't hold your prejudices.


It's not a conspiracy, and what more, I never said it was. I also never said anything about Good or Evil. Don't put words in my mouth if you want to be taken seriously, and even more so, when you lie about what I've said, it blunts the force of your criticisms. Actively hurts what you are attempting to do. You'd be better served to respond to what I actually said then to engage in this hyperbole.

Quote:
More whining accusations that you are "being attacked" by those who merely express disagreement and even offer explanations for that disagreement.


I'm not whining, George Laughing Laughing I'm making fun of your inability to defend your own party's statements on this and other issues. You don't even try to do so. And once again you don't attempt to do so here. You merely shift the topic of the conversation to... me. For some reason.

Quote:
Grow up.


It's me that's losing control here? Laughing Laughing

You've basically abandoned the argument completely at this point; if we were in a debate you would have gotten creamed. Try and stay on point next time.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 01:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are merely trying to change the subject, which involved the situation in Libya and our government's response to it. What media and Republican critics say about it isn't really material: indeed it is but a distraction introduced into the dialogue by you. You can continue to thrash at your straw man all day for all I care.

The answers to most of your questions and denials are to be found in your own posts. Read them.

However, I do note your attempt to make it look like you have recovered your grip on yourself. Not very good, but transparent nonetheless.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 01:39 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You are merely trying to change the subject, which involved the situation in Libya and our government's response to it. What media and Republican critics say about it isn't really material: indeed it is but a distraction introduced into the dialogue by you.


Yes, I decided to talk about a different aspect of the situation. That will happen from time to time in threads on A2K Smile

Quote:
You can continue to thrash at your straw man all day for all I care.


Don't respond if you don't want to discuss things with me. Personal responsibility and all that. You can hardly blame me for thinking that you want to engage in conversation on a topic when you... respond to me on that topic.

Quote:
The answers to most of your questions and denials are to be found in your own posts. Read them.


Weak dodge, you fool no one.

Quote:
However, I do note your attempt to make it look like you have recovered your grip on yourself. Not very good, but transparent nonetheless.


I think you're mostly a nice guy too, George. Not too willing to sink your teeth into red meat on issues, but a nice guy.

I stand by everything I said, and most especially about the serial lying that is at the heart of your party's communication strategy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 01:56 pm


Obama apologists are perplexed.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 01:58 pm
"We're still left with an ad hoc coalition here that will be increasingly struggling to survive"

Quote:
There is no centralized chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a coordinated fashion," Laurent Teisseire, a spokesman for the French Defense Ministry, told reporters.

But the lack of a clear command structure for the future, or the possibility that it won't be NATO at the head of it, has already led Italy, Norway and Luxembourg to express reservations about their involvement in the campaign.

In addition, without a central command, exactly what kind of operations are necessary or allowable would remain subject to differing interpretations. For example, disagreements have already surfaced — between and even within nations — over whether Kadafi himself is a legitimate target under the U.N. resolution, which authorizes "all necessary measures" for protecting Libyan civilians without specifying how far that goes.

"You have a tremendous amount of indecisiveness and a lack of clarity as to the mission statement itself, because … U.N. Resolution 1973 understandably had to be written in a very fluffy manner in order to get the most amount of consensus," Seener said. "It's bound to create objections."


cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:10 pm
@Irishk,
When Obama said "days and not weeks," how many days has it been since the first strike in Libya? Are we now disengaged? That would be the best news as far as I'm concerned.

The US will now be blamed for the current confusion surrounding this crisis, because Obama didn't spell out the parameters of getting involved in the first place. If the coalition forces knew before hand, why is there so much confusion today?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think we're on day 5, but to be fair to the president, he was referring to our handing the mission over to someone else...not that we'd no longer be there in some type of supportive role. This wouldn't even be an issue if Turkey and France weren't making waves due to their concerns of Muslim sensibilities (NATO is seen as primarily a Western military force). I get why Turkey, especially, as a Muslim country, wouldn't want to be involved in a 'war' against their fellow Muslims, but a) it's not a war...it's a humanitarian effort and b) it was a Muslim country that ASKED for the no-fly zone.

More worrisome, DoD Sec'y. Gates has said today that there's no time-line for an end to this mission -- at least as far as U.S. involvement is concerned.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:53 pm
@Irishk,
Thanks; that probably brings me up to date - I think.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 02:54 pm
@Irishk,
Quote:

More worrisome, DoD Sec'y. Gates has said today that there's no time-line for an end to this mission -- at least as far as U.S. involvement is concerned.


Okay, so that part doesn't really concern me as much, because 'US involvement' can mean a lot of different things. These guys are notorious for making ambiguous statements so as not to get burned by some intrepid reporter later.

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm a natural born worry-wart, I think. Here's some of what he said...

Quote:
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday there was no "timeline" for when UN-backed military operations in Libya would end, and that the outcome of the conflict remained unclear.

Speaking during a visit to Cairo, Gates said the UN Security Council resolution that authorised a no-fly zone was "not time-limited" and that it was unrealistic to expect military action to be over in a matter of weeks.

"So I think that there is no current timeline in terms of when it might end," Gates told reporters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110323/pl_afp/libyaconflictusmilitarygates
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:02 pm
@Irishk,
So now, the reality is that the "days not weeks" is open ended concerning US involvement.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:03 pm
This thread is a mess. I deny that anyone here ever blamed "generals" for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. In fact, as i recall, military observers were saying what serving officers couldn't say: that it was an idiotic idea. MM is correct, regardless of advice from serving officers, it is Mr. Obama's decision.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
So now, the reality is that the "days not weeks" is open ended concerning US involvement.

Yes, but again, the president didn't say our 'involvement' would last days, not weeks. He said the U.S. would hand over control of Odyssey Dawn in days, not weeks.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:12 pm
@Irishk,
Quote:
He said the U.S. would hand over control of Odyssey Dawn in days, not weeks.
And it becomes more clear by the day that what he really meant was that US planes would not be flying routine sorties, and that the US fingerprint on operations will be camouflaged....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:16 pm
@Irishk,
That makes it even more "interesting," because the idea of the US taking a back seat in military operations is almost unheard of.

I also wonder how congress will play into this military action? It's really not a war, but do they have to approve funding for it?
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:33 pm
@Irishk,
True enough, but the world and other nations don't accept responsibility for the contradictions that lie among their various words and actions. That was my basic objection to those here who earlier demanded instant action by the supposed "international community" (it may be international but it surely is no community) to relieve ther suffering of the Libyan people at the hands of a tyrant they have endured for over forty years.

The cynical action of a very well armed Arab league in first calling for the establishment of a UN enforced no fly zome over Libya, but which then failed almost completely to lift even a finger to impose it ... and later expressed horror that someone might actually have to fire a shot to do so .. . all tells the story quite well.

I'm sure that our President has good intentions in all this, as very likely do the UK and France. Unfortunately good intentions don't necessarily make for actions that are either wise or effective. I made the point earlier about the prevailing cynicism and lack of gratitude in the world for actions we have (not always wisely) taken to limit dangers to ourselves and others, and noted that, in my view, the Libyan problem was not worth the cost to us. I also suggested that the world needs an example of American indifference to help it better recognize its own responsibilities and the difficulties that inevitably attend constructive action.

I'm quite sure that these and other considerations were well-known to all the key people in the Administration, including the President himself. They have said what they have said and done what they have done, leaving us all with more than a little confusion about what they really mean and what they will do. Indeed, as you noted, key Administration officials such as Secretary Gates, and earlier Secretary Clinton have made public statements that have added to the confusion and speculation, creating the impression of indecision, confusion, and possible discord within the government. Some level of this stuff always occurs, but what we are seeing now, given the intrinsic fluidity and uncertainty prevailing in the "coalition" we have joined is truly worrisome. Both we and the Libyan people appear now to be in a worse situation than what appears likely had we done (and said) nothing at all.

Critics of the President lay almost all of this result on his poor leadership. I believe that is an exaggeration in that the international siutuation itself doesn't permit much clarity. However, it would be very difficult to make the case that he has acknowledged these limitations and contradictions, done anything to lay them at the feet of those responsible or even outlined a clear path for the country he leads.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:38 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However, it would be very difficult to make the case that he has acknowledged these limitations and contradictions, done anything to lay them at the feet of those responsible or even outlined a clear path for the country he leads.


Would it really be helpful for Obama to make comments like this at this time? I'm quite sure that his group is doing everything they can to hold the situation together behind the scenes and come up with some sort of acceptable outcome for us. Public statements criticizing our putative allies in this matter would likely have the opposite effect.

I agree that it has left us citizens in a confused area, as nobody seems to be really clear as to what is going on or where this thing is going.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I got a very good lesson in leadership once a long time ago when I was in a squadron on Nimitz but was detailed to con the ship on a night passage through the Straits of Messina. The bridge was then a dark and unfamiliar environment for me, and I was nervous about screwing up. I hesitated, looking intently at a radar picture of a narrow channel crowded with ferry boats going from Sicily to Calabria and small fishing boats everywhere. "What are you doing, OBrien" shouted an irritated Captain. "Looking for a clear course ahead", I replied. "**** he said (in his Mississippi accent), "look out for the rocks, steer a straight course and the fishing boats will get out of your way." He was right: they did.

Indecision and tentativeness on the part of the leader confuses everyone, including those willing to accomodate him.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 03:53 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I got a very good lesson in leadership once a long time ago when I was in a squadron on Nimitz but was detailed to con the ship on a night passage through the Straits of Messina. The bridge was then a dark and unfamiliar environment for me, and I was nervous about screwing up. I hesitated, looking intently at a radar picture of a narrow channel crowded with ferry boats going from Sicily to Calabria and small fishing boats everywhere. "What are you doing, OBrien" shouted an irritated Captain. "Looking for a clear course ahead", I replied. "**** he said (in his Mississippi accent), "look out for the rocks, steer a straight course and the fishing boats will get out of your way." He was right: they did.

Indecision and tentativeness on the part of the leader confuses everyone, including those willing to accomodate him.


Yeah, but Obama's not the leader of the free world! He's just the leader of OUR nation.

This is another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we were more heavy-handed on this it would likely spark a negative response amongst some parties, which would then have to be dealt with....

Hardly an ideal situation. I get the impression that there were serious worries last week that the rebels were totally useless and Qadaffi really was going to slaughter a ton of people. If we hadn't stepped in, that certainly would have been the case - at least, things were trending that direction and since then we haven't seen any real cohesion on the part of the rebels.

I imagine Obama sitting there and asking himself, how much are a thousand lives worth? Ten thousand? If we do nothing, what will be said about us - who could have stepped in, but didn't? I know there are a million counter-arguments but the decision must have been an agonizing one in the face of the facts on the ground at the time.

I wouldn't want Obama's job, for nothing. Never.

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 04:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
That makes it even more "interesting," because the idea of the US taking a back seat in military operations is almost unheard of.


I think so far we (the U.S. Navy) have done the lion's share while in control and command, so you'd think we'd be doing less after handing that control over to someone else. But...there's an article today in the Huffington Post that says we might still even after handing over control....

Quote:
Adm. Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, said that he has received no guidance on the path ahead for command and control of the no-fly zone, no-drive zone, no-sail zone, arms embargo enforcement, and any other missions currently being managed by U.S. Africom Commander Gen. Carter Ham, who is in Germany. NATO has been battling internally over whether to take command, while the French government's latest proposal is to set up a "political steering committee" made of Western and Arab foreign ministers.

Diplomatic sources told The Cable that the United States has communicated to its European partners that it wants to hand off command of the Libya war by the end of this week. But the White House hasn't said whether it supports the French plan. Meanwhile, the Navy, which is conducting the bulk of the operations, has no idea what the transfer of control will look like, or when it might take place.


On transferring control...
Quote:
"They're still working that," Roughead said, adding that he doesn't believe the absence of a future command structure has a negative impact on the ongoing operations. He said previous models of international command and control don't apply.

Roughead also said there's no guarantee that U.S. military forces would be able to decrease their presence or activities when the transition takes place. In other words, the U.S. military might give up control, but still be doing most of the work.


Link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 04:58:28