35
   

military action against Libya

 
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 04:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
There were two points I pointed out:

1. Libya is small population-wise and very difficult to remove.
2. It became a civil war. (Civil war should be a red flag).

On these two points the US should have stayed out. All screaming mimis should now volunteer for military duty if the US involment stretches beyond a week. Death or the threat of harm coming your way concentrates the mind mightily.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 04:35 pm
Wolf Blitzer is absolutely hammering the Deputy National Security Adviser (Denis McDonough) on Odyssey Dawn operations. Wants to know where the money's coming from (hundreds of millions of dollars)...McDonough says that's an exaggeraton ... Wolf says, "Do you know how much a Tomahawk missile costs???" Wolf says we've spent $160M on Tomahawk missiles alone.

Suggests to Mr. McDonough that some of the $30B in frozen Kaddafi assets should be used to fund Odyssey Dawn. McDonough says, "that money is for the Libyan people"....assures Wolf the Kaddafi family won't get it.

Wolf wants to know when command and control will be handed over...McDonough won't give him a date...says, "days not weeks".
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 04:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Good news for Obama is that the vast majority of Americans support his actions in polling.


REALLY?
Quote:

The March 21 poll was conducted just days after the United States joined other countries in conducting airstrikes against Libya to enforce a United Nations no-fly zone. The U.N. passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone in response to reports that Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi had attacked Libyan forces opposed to his government.

The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades

Disapprove 37%

no opinion 16%

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 05:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

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.
Yes, and our nation would be better off if he acted (or chose not to act) more decisively.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
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....
True, but it might have been better than what we have now. He could, for example, have publicly asked what the Arab League was actually willing to do to back up their formal request for intervention and made any U.S. intertvention conditional on their active participation (not just Qatar & The Emiates, but Egypt & Saudi Arabia & others). Alternatively, he could have announced that, under no conditions would we get involved.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.
If Ghadaffi was to remain in power then the most merciful outcome for the Libyan people would probably be the one that gave Ghadaffi the quickest, easiest victory. The worst case would probably be a continued resistance ending in failure - and could well be what we're looking at.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


Hamlet couldn't make up his mind either.

I suspect G.W. Bush went through a similar agonizing process after 9/11, but you weren't very sympathetic then.

In any event let's hope for the best. Success over Ghadaffi is still possible, and we should hope and strive for that.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 05:46 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I suspect G.W. Bush went through a similar agonizing process after 9/11, but you weren't very sympathetic then.


Rolling Eyes the situations were hardly similar. There was no exigent situation which demanded either our or international intervention in Iraq.

The only agonizing thing for Bush was figuring out how to lie to the country convincingly enough to get them to approve the war and to forget about OBL. And the historical record clearly shows that that's exactly what they did.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 05:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You appear to demand sympathy more than you are willing to give it,

We shall soon enough see what the verdict of history says about your hero.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 05:57 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

We shall soon enough see what the verdict of history saya about your hero.


Demanding sympathy for who?

Bush wasn't my hero and neither is Obama. I remind you again that I was and still am against the decision to go to war in Libya, and I believe that it will end quite badly for us.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 06:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

[Bush wasn't my hero and neither is Obama. I remind you again that I was and still am against the decision to go to war in Libya, and I believe that it will end quite badly for us.

Cycloptichorn


And you think that won't seriously injure Obama in the political arena, or that the prospect of it hasn't done so already ????????
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 06:07 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[Bush wasn't my hero and neither is Obama. I remind you again that I was and still am against the decision to go to war in Libya, and I believe that it will end quite badly for us.

Cycloptichorn


And you think that won't seriously injure Obama in the political arena, or that the prospect of it hasn't done so already ????????


No, I believe it WILL do so. I don't believe it HAS done so yet, because America doesn't really understand what we're doing there and 'saving innocent people' always sounds really good. Obama is doing his best to salvage the situation by vowing the keep our ground troops out of there. If he is able to successfully do that, there's a good chance that we won't see much lasting effect from it; and, as you say, if the best case scenario plays out, it could end up being a feather in his cap. Though I highly, highly doubt this will happen.

This isn't to say that those who criticize him aren't being hypocrites themselves; Newt in particular is taking heat for flip-flopping on this today and his explanation was pathetic, so much so as to be ridiculed by pretty much everyone on both sides.

I think it was a mistake for Obama. But the guy has surprised me and others in the past by pulling what looks like a bad situation out of the fire and turning it into a feather in his cap. Let's hope it's not a flaming feather this time.

Cycloptichorn
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 06:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Obama is doing his best to salvage the situation by vowing the keep our ground troops out of there. If he is able to successfully do that, there's a good chance that we won't see much lasting effect from it;


It should be quite easy for Obama to keep ground troops out if he wishes to do so.

The UN resolution explicitly does not authorize ground troops.

All Obama has to do is say that he won't send ground troops in without first getting authorization from the UN Security Council and the Arab League.

I think it is safe to presume that such authorization will not be forthcoming (especially if Obama does not push to get it in the first place).
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 06:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You appear to make some rather fine distinctions here. I think Obama has already been badly injured in the public mind. Even some of his fawning admirers on the Nobel Committee are having second thoughts.

Do you believe that any of GW Bush's critics were hypocrites as well?

You rather freely accuse others of being imprisioned by their own political prejudices. Do you believe there is any possibility that you might have succombed to a bit of that as well ? Or are you, by definition, immune to such human foibles?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 06:25 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You appear to make some rather fine distinctions here. I think Obama has already been badly injured in the public mind. Even some of his fawning admirers on the Nobel Committee are having second thoughts.


I haven't yet seen any evidence of this. But then again, you've been convinced that Americans are turning against his agenda 'in increasing numbers' for about a year now, and I haven't seen any evidence of that, either. So I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:
Do you believe that any of GW Bush's critics were hypocrites as well?


Of course, some of them were! No shortage of hypocrisy in the world.

Quote:
You rather freely accuse others of being imprisioned by their own political prejudices. Do you believe there is any possibility that you might have succombed to a bit of that as well ? Or are you, by definition, immune to such human foibles?


One would think that I wouldn't be criticizing Obama for making what I consider to be a mistake, if that were the case, don't you think? If I were the claque you've accused me of being in the past, surely I'd be fawning over him and talking about how obvious it was that he made the right decision.

It's easy to randomly accuse someone of whatever you like, but the accusation only has impact if you can point out actual flaws in people's behavior.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 07:18 pm
But you, Mr. President, you don't even seem to think enough of us to lie to us!!

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 07:36 pm
@Irishk,
I'm glad to find out I'm not the only one who doesn't know which way we're headed.

Quote:
Allied warplanes are bombing ground forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to prevent them from killing civilians in rebel-held cities, a top U.S. officer in the campaign in Libya said Wednesday.


The provisional government for the rebels in Benghazi has been pleading for the coalition to do more than attack Gadhafi's air defenses, saying his heavy armor was wiping out its lightly armed opposition soldiers.

Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber said the American-led coalition has begun targeting Gadhafi's artillery, tanks, mobile missiles and the "beans and bullets" that he supplies to his forces.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 07:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I really don't see how he can last much longer. He has to know he's out-numbered, out-gunned, out-missiled...out-everything. Surely we can take him out. He's one little pervert against the world!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 08:29 pm
@Irishk,
I'm not sure that's been the issue from the pov of the US: I don't think we have any authority to go beyond securing the no fly zone, but what do I know?
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 08:35 pm
So when is BO going to start bombing Yemen? There are a bunch of al queda there all in one place. Nice target. Isn't that who BO said we were at war with?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 09:43 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
I really don't see how he can last much longer. He has to know he's out-numbered, out-gunned, out-missiled...out-everything. Surely we can take him out. He's one little pervert against the world!


Air power cannot force him to leave. And the rebels clearly are not going to be an effective ground force.

I can see a situation where 20 years from now the EU is still running this no fly zone to protect Libyan civilians, with Kadaffy still ready to pounce on the rebels if the no fly zone is withdrawn.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 09:45 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
So when is BO going to start bombing Yemen? There are a bunch of al queda there all in one place. Nice target. Isn't that who BO said we were at war with?


We started bombing al-Qa'ida targets in Yemen about 9 years ago. We did not stop when Obama came into office.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 09:41 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Air power cannot force him to leave. And the rebels clearly are not going to be an effective ground force.

I can see a situation where 20 years from now the EU is still running this no fly zone to protect Libyan civilians, with Kadaffy still ready to pounce on the rebels if the no fly zone is withdrawn.

In retrospect, that's what the no-fly zones accomplished after the first Gulf War. It created protected zones for the northern and southern parts of the country. The Kurds in the north genuinely benefitted from that protection.

In regard to war or any resolution thereof, it merely perpetuated the stalemate status quo that resulted after the first Gulf War.

Right now it seems that the situation in Libya is headed towards the kind of situation that resulted in Iraq after that war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 07:30:22