military action against Libya

@RABEL222,

I don't at all agree with you--because i have no reason that you have a crystal ball with regard to Libya, because nothing has really changed in Egypt which still has its military-corporate government, and finally because the rest of that drivel is just predicable anti-capitalist paranoia. I don't think much of capitalists, either, but that doesn't warrant wild-eyed paranoia.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So its up to us, as part of NATO, to assume the role of "worlds police force" for this operation???

If thats the case, we need to get the hell out of there.
Libya is not our problem, we have no business being there, and we need to leave.
Let the rest of the world bear the brunt for a change.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

Basically let the Arabs deal with their problems for poor government and not focusing on population control. I saw in a dvd that sub Saharan people have many wives and men have ten or more children each. This is a case where there is a inbreeding genetically and in terms of cultural as one father's culture would propagate thru ten of his children.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, It's obvious you have not read my posts.

1 Reply

The Muslim Brotherhood is across the border.

Quote:

Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/WORLD/africa/03/25/libya.islamists/t1larg.qaradawi.2007.gi.afp.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/25/libya.islamists/index.html

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So its up to us, as part of NATO, to assume the role of "worlds police force" for this operation???

If thats the case, we need to get the hell out of there.
Libya is not our problem, we have no business being there, and we need to leave.
Let the rest of the world bear the brunt for a change.

Sounds good to me. Turkey is a part of NATO, and they seem to have decided it's really not their thing. Not sure the value of forming an organization if everyone goes their own way, but it is what it is.

3 Replies

@roger,

roger, That's the reason I laughed at the concept of NATO taking over control of this crisis. 28 countries have a difficult time agreeing to anything; that's true of 28 people deciding on any controversial issue.

0 Replies

@roger,

They haven't given up on NATO potentially controlling both parts of the conflict, though. Once the meeting adjourned late last night (Brussel's time) and there was an agreement on the no-fly zone part of the operation, Hillary addressed the nation and said...

"All 28 allies have also now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission under Resolution 1973."

She then went on to say that she'd be involved in the negotiations and seemed pretty upbeat that they'd be able to get it accomplished. (If anyone can crack heads, it's her, I think).

The NATO Sec'y. General Rasmussen, however, made it very clear that NATO was only enforcing the no-fly zone, with the U.S. still leading its coalition on the 'protection' mission. (IMO, that's going to be the hardest part with the most potential for collateral damage).

Of course, CNN had plenty of military experts on hand. They all seemed to agree that it's not a good idea to split the operation up this way since it makes the overall mission more difficult by having 2 different groups reporting to 2 different command and control centers.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

When you look at it, then there are three command centres: control of the arms embargo, led by an Italian vice admiral, and of the no-fly zone, commanded by Canadian Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard as commander of NATO forces in Libya.
The he third mission, which includes air strikes to stop Gaddafi from attacking his opponents, will still be - perhaps that'll change over the weekend - under US-command.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Good info, Walter. Thx for sharing it.

0 Replies

@roger,

NATO wasn't intended for this kind of thing. It was intended to be for collective defense, not collective offense. I don't think it's fair to make it out to be vacillation (as the "squabbling" is often portrayed in the media these days) when those who repurpose the treaty for humanitarian intervention are the vacillators.

This isn't what they signed up for at all.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

They haven't given up on NATO potentially controlling both parts of the conflict, though. Once the meeting adjourned late last night (Brussel's time) and there was an agreement on the no-fly zone part of the operation, Hillary addressed the nation and said...

"All 28 allies have also now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission under Resolution 1973."

She then went on to say that she'd be involved in the negotiations and seemed pretty upbeat that they'd be able to get it accomplished. (If anyone can crack heads, it's her, I think).

The NATO Sec'y. General Rasmussen, however, made it very clear that NATO was only enforcing the no-fly zone, with the U.S. still leading its coalition on the 'protection' mission. (IMO, that's going to be the hardest part with the most potential for collateral damage).

Of course, CNN had plenty of military experts on hand. They all seemed to agree that it's not a good idea to split the operation up this way since it makes the overall mission more difficult by having 2 different groups reporting to 2 different command and control centers.

This has hillery's fingerprints all over it... What gain could Obama see it the thing except in all the damage Hillery could not do to him for not getting involved... She is a chicken hawk... I think it will still kill Obama... I think it will ruin his support with the dems, and the repubs will leave him covered with bootprints... It is not the right way to go to war... It is not the democratic way, the way democracies should go to war... This is another war of choice... We have no idea of who we are supporting, but I think is that, no matter who wins they lose, because once we get rid of Gadaffi, getting rid of whoever replacces him will be a cake walk... This is more war about oil...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

I think it will still kill Obama.

Ya, but he is only one man so THAT is not a big deal.....what will be a big deal is if this is one more in a long line of recent events that indicate that following the lead of the USA is not a smart move....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I think it will still kill Obama.
Ya, but he is only one man so THAT is not a big deal.....what will be a big deal is if this is one more in a long line of recent events that indicate that following the lead of the USA is not a smart move....

I would be willing to bet that most of those trying to save the world from Gadaffi want to save the oil there for themselves...But; the United Nations, in proving to be a tool in our hands will prove itself useless at some point in stopping world war... It is the League of Nations all over again... The only teeth it has is ours... What are we going to do when we go broke and get over extended??? We will call the UN, only to find we are the UN

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

I would be willing to bet that most of those trying to save the world from Gadaffi want to save the oil there for themselves.

I dont claim to know the real reason, but the claimed reason is that we are fighting on the side of the libyan people against Gadaffi. It gets very interesting though to watch the gymnastics required to deal with the fact that so many of the libyan people support Gadaffi enough to be willing to die defending his regime. The approach of choice is to only quote the rebels, and to allege that all those fighting for the other side are defective. As usual, our journalists flirt with gross incompetence and degrading their work into propaganda...

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Do you think they would be better at organising a defence ? Wouldnt national interests produce more moribundity if they were at stake themselves ? During the Cold War France held back to be a Strategic Reserve.....or organise their own surrender if the Germans and USA failed to stop the Ruskies .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

The French forces were removed from SACEUR's command, but France was still a member of NATO. And French forces were still in the southwestern region of Germany, presumably would have been used in a NATO war.

To "stop the Russians", in Germany had been Belgian, British, Canadian, Danish, Netherlands and US-American troops besides the Germans.

German troops (and those from other NATO countries) frequently made exercises with the French.

1 Reply

I am a neo-con, I'm all in favor of a righteous American military coming to the rescue of benighted Wogs.

However...

Before invading Iraq, Bush sought and obtained the approval of Congress. Then he went on to secure the approval if the UN, and when he finally did invade Iraq he did so with a coalition that was approx 3 times the size of Obama's Libyan crowd.

Obama hasn't even given a nod to congress and yet the MSM couldn't care less.

Imagine if Bush tried to ignore congress.

Additionally, Obama is desperately trying to transfer leadership of the kinetic military action in Libya to some other poor sotted nation.

So now we find ourselves in a world where France, not the US, is leading the West.

Some of you will find this all too perfect, but you will not ask yourselves why France and Britain are so ginned up to assume leadership.

There are rewards for being The Leader. The French and British know this.

Obama is perhaps the first American president who, not only, doesn't care whether or not we preserve our Big Dog status, but would like to see us cede it to another nation.

That will not fly with Americans, nor should it. We spend a **** load of tax money to sustain the Big Dog status, and we don't need or want a president that runs shy of such status.

This crap could and should kill him in his re-election efforts.

If this crisis hasn't shown what an inept and pitiful leader Obama is, then nothing short of Armageddon will.

If and when The Apocalypse comes and Obama is president, we can count on him to negotiate appeasement towards The Whore of Babylon.

Good grief but he is an ineffectual, abstract minded, putz!

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Un uh. If anything gits him in the middle east, it will be his indecisivenes both here and in Egypt. As Georgeob mentioned, even a decisive decision to stay out would have been better received.

I kind of have to admit, both those situations would have been losers no matter who was president.

0 Replies

Someone might want to let the Libyan rebels know there is a difference between a mercenary and a migrant worker.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324/2

0 Replies

military action against Libya

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know