military action against Libya

@hawkeye10,

It is a revolt and there was no ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia so US intervention is not required. In Iran when the Shah was removed the Mullahs kept quiet while everyone else did the work for them in removing the Shah. Be careful with Libya. Whoever is waiting in the wings are just rubbing their hands as others do the work for them in removing Gadhafi. Gadhafi is a secular leader though brutal but a force to keep back the Muslim extremists. The choices are not good. Choosing two devils. But choose the right devil.

3 Replies

@talk72000,

Also, I've read that giving arms to the rebels will probably end up in the hands of the Taliban. It was a bad choice from the very beginning; we still don't know who will end up the leaders in Libya.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Also, I've read that giving arms to the rebels will probably end up in the hands of the Taliban.

The Taliban do not need to carry arms from North Africa to Afghanistan . They are already well financed and equipped .

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Quote:

there was no ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia so US intervention is not required.

Perhaps they should intervene after the massacre.....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Hey, dummy! It doesn't matter whether the Taliban is well financed and equipped. Adding to their military equipment is not a bright idea by anyone's measure - except your's.

FYI, there's an arms embargo to Libya.

1 Reply

@MJA,

Quote:

The military offensive in Libya as well as the other countries we have invaded is a far far cry from "The British are coming!" and the defense of our own.

So if it is you, rebellion is acceptable . If it is anyone else, then they are in the wrong .

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

We'll probably never know how much of Hillary is really Hillary - unless she suddenly resigns and tells why, which I don't see happening. State is part of the Executive, and we know who the boss is, more or less.

1 Reply

@roger,

All we know at this point in time is that Obama listens to Graves, the generals, and some in his cabinet. It would only be a guessing game in trying to figure out who has the most influence on his decisions. Obama is ultimately responsible.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Adding to their military equipment is not a bright idea

Cant you read stupid ? It will not be adding to their military equipment...they are not going to carry guns and ammo across to Afghanistan . Unless you think someone is going to give them a nuclear armed submarine, then it will make no difference to Al Qauda and the Taliban whatsoever...

FYI, the arms embargo is against LIBYA.... a country with a government....they would be arming the REBELS fighting against that government...I hope this clears things up for you....

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

It is a revolt and there was no ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia...

There was no ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia either. Kosovo was about taking that Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation off the front pages of American newspapers.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

What's it to you? You don't care about Arabs anyway. Your interest is the oil. They are fighting against each other. Knowing full well what Gadhafi is like they assessed the situation. They took the risk. It is not like it happened the first time. The situation isn't good as it is a choice between two devils. Saudi Arabs the Wahhabis have been exploiting the poor by getting abandoned children, feeding and filling their heads with Jihadism. All those poor people are probably Wahhabi recruits all grown up.

1 Reply

David Gergen re reader response the the Obama speech

Quote:

It surprised me that readers seemed split on this question because I felt -- as did other commentators and indeed, many Republicans in Congress -- that President Obama had made a compelling, humanitarian case for why he sent in U.S. forces. Your responses suggest that a lot of Americans did not rally round on this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/30/gergen.comments.libya/index.html?hpt=T1

which we see here at A2K with some from both political sides condemning this military move on the part of the US and Nato. We also see the CNN poll which very strongly goes against arming the rebels even though Obama is clearly headed in that direction. Once again the elites are out of step with the people that they claim to lead.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk, The biggest problem I see in this whole affair is that some of those Middle Eastern countries have a military that could have assisted the Libyans with the no fly zone, and they didn't. Our involvement only exposes the many conflicts that will end up proving once again that it was a lose-lose for the US. Good intentions begins at home. Why are we laying off teachers, and cutting off unemployment benefits for those who have lost jobs, while we spend millions on bombs and warfare?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Getting into Vietnam was easy as well.

2 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

Getting into Vietnam was easy as well.

I dont remember which columnist said this but I am down with the opinion that the reasons Obama used for this military action leave him no choice but to escalate if the Libyan people cant or wont get rid of Gadhafi now that we have demanded it. We know where this train goes, and given this the fact that the CIA is already on the ground doing intell and training comes as no surprise.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I think the truth here is that there are no courses of action (or inaction) available to us or the President that don't involve either risks, uncertainty or likely bad side effects. It's a lot easier to criticize any particular course of action in such a situation than it is to determine what you WILL do and say. I have suggested that we do nothing in Libya mostly to give the critics of the world a taste of the absence of American involvement or leadership. Easy for me to say, in that I don't have any political or moral responsibility for what occurs in Libya. Obama, however doesn't have that luxury: he must do and say something, and, whatever choices he makes will involve contradictions and risks.

Obama has also had to face the contradictions with criticisms he levelled at his predecessor on a host of issues, ranging from the Libya situation to the dispositions of our prisoners in Gitmo. This too is a part of the fate of anyone who pursues a prominent place in government. Life and unfolding events have a way of exposing one's earlier mistakes and unjust criticisms. No one is immune to these matters, and the issue really is determined by how, in the long run, he deals with them. It takes grace, courage and endurance to deal with all this. I hope Obama does it all well: we shall see....

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I think the truth here is that there are no courses of action (or inaction) available to us or the President that don't involve either risks, uncertainty or likely bad side effects

I think the line is clear....if we dont like what is going on in a nation we have the right to use political and economic force to impose our will, but not military force. ONLY an overt hostile act AGAINST US that is a threat to OUR safety justifies the use of military force against another people. Other than that, when it comes to military force, it is up to us to mind our own business.

Obama's argument is "my morality demanded that I impose my will in Libya through military action". No, in my world that dog does not hunt.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
President Obama delivered a clear message last night: The U.S. military mission in Libya is strictly limited. In fact, it's virtually over.
Then he outlined a series of rationales, goals, and commitments of which the military campaign is just a part.

This won't work. The military campaign will be judged by the commitments the president has laid out. Either he will have to expand the campaign, or, if he halts it short of his commitments, it will be judged a failure.
http://www.slate.com/id/2289748/

Yep, and it was a craven act for this reason and because he was constantly arguing against a position that almost no one is taking, that we should approach this as we did Iraq

The argument that it was about preserving life and prefenting bloodshed sure sounds a little empty with the idea of arming rebels, and giving cia support... It is all like fixing a scratch with an amputation...

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Obama at this point might as well come clean that he intends to push on with his will until Gadhafi is gone, regardless what Libyans or anyone else wants or thinks is right. THat would at least have the benefit of being honest, and give him a chance of coming out better in history than GHWB will.

Honesty has too much to do with honor to inhabit that office... It is all about the math; what can be gained at what price... What we will gain from Iraq and Afghanistan is a whole lot of nothing for the investment of everything... People figuing that one were dreaming, and dreaming without even a pencil... Seriously... No rational person could reasonably expect gain, short term or long out of Iraq...

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Considering how arming the Mujahideen worked out Obama should have his head examined for even considering the move. Gadhafi is a nut, but at least he was in a box and was no threat to us, the rebels if they win may or may not be. Come to think of it Saddam was in a box as well, but like Bush Obama sees the need to play with fire. We got burned in Iraq(in serveral ways, the worst likely to be the freeing up of IRAN to rule the region)...we'll see how this works out.

What do you need??? A chrystal ball... You can see how it has turned out... Ten years later and we can't turn our back on the place...

0 Replies

military action against Libya

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know