military action against Libya

Easier to say than to do.

I remain amazed that we did this.

I can sort of understand; for example, in respect to threats re knocking out mediterranean ships, if there were threats. On the face of it, the response seems hysteric to me. I also think it's another arrow in the side of "people just getting along" - not that we should turn away at genocide, but interfering in an apparent civil war in countries where people emigrate to europe seems stupid, not that I know how many Libyans are interested in doing that.

It seems like we never learn.

But we have. We are not stopping troops who are chasing down innocent civilians or firebombing defenseless cities. We are attacking to degrade the Libyan army so that it can't continue to prosecute the civil war. We are helping the rebels, not civilians. Sure, civilians will be helped in the short term by forcing a slowing of the civil war, but unless we are willing to bomb Libya the way we did Serbia, I don't see a short term solution to this issue other than the UN protecting the rebel forces forever.

I wonder how many terrorists Obama is creating by this policy? Wasn't that one of his criticisms of Bush's wars?

Huh?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

I agree. Obama is a hypocrite. He criticized Bush for invading a country that never attacked us and here he is bombing the crap out of a country that never attacked us. Obama also said Bush's policy at Gitmo was also "creating terrorists". Obama hasn't closed Gitmo either so there's another hypocritical policy by our dear leader.

I get his point, though we are probably have different views otherwise (or maybe not, I don't know).
People don't like drones, etc., coming at them by people from far away.

????????

Did I miss the report that Iraq asked for Bush to send troops into Iraq. How about a link to that so I can compare it with the Libian thing.

My Condolences To The People that are being mamed and dying and their families. Are we sure that this is a last resort? Murder is murder. 18 year old kids are being sent to acomplish this task. Have we thought about the long term effects on these people? Is it a consideration of the general public? Are we paying for what we destroy? How much is gona cost? If we orphan a kid are we gona take his parents place? I do hope that the general public is aware of all of this when they see a Bomb being dropped. Other wise make a world court. If someone is guildty of a crime. Let them be judged on a court of his world peers. Do what ever. Come up with something But military option is a last resort and all the prior soldiers like myself will tell you that. Thank for tanking the time to read this.

good point, and considering that Obama and his people were burning up the phone lines for many days to set this up, and given that less than a week ago Obama said that Gadaffi "had to go" and now his Generals claim that when his compound his bombed that they are not targeting Gadaffi I think it is high time for an explaination for what the presumed end game is here. This is an already radicalized society, and a nation with oil to sell if it wants to finance terrorism, we dont want to be with-in 1000 miles of any further action that would fit nicely in the "the West must be brought to its knees" school of thought.

As opposed to just recently when it did finance terrorism ?

Yes, there is that, isn't there?

Your response is predicated upon your interpretation of events. The French, acting alone, decided to send aircraft to the airspace over Libya, before the Paris conference had come to a decision. The French, acting alone, attacked the Libyan armored column. Now, it is true that the Admiral in his press conference yesterday alluded to that attack. However, his remarks were based on the notion that attacking the arrmored column, which was advancing on Benghazi, was an example of protecting civilians. So you'd need to take up your debate with the Chair of the Joint Chiefs.

As for the question of whether or not the UN will protect Libyan civilians indefinitely, i've already asked that question days ago. I also asked if the UN thought to partition Libya. If i get an answer from soneone in authority, i'll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, i'll be as skeptical of your allegation that we are choosing sides in a civil war as i am of United Nations' intentions.

Fair enough, but the US dropped a cruise missile on Gaddafi's residential compound and the U.S. military said the international assault would hit any Gaddafi forces on the ground that are attacking the opposition. That sounds like the US is clearly on the side of the rebels and that this operation is a lot more than a no-fly zone like that over northern Iraq in the '90s. I think my interpretation is reasonable based on how events are unfolding.

I'm sure you think your interpretation is reasonable, i'm sure you believe that you arrived at that conclusion by a process of reasoning. However, the UN resolution called for international action to protect the citizens of Libya from attacks by the Libyan military. You're going to have a hard time arguing that complying with the resolution constitutes taking sides in a civil war, given that the authority was given for the express purpose of protecting those citizens. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, but rather that you haven't proven that you're right.

Earlier, in this thread or another one, i responded to Irish K on the subject of whether or not 114 cruise missile attacks were necessary. That comes down to the nature of modern air operations. No nation with a modern, sophisticated military (which, by the way, does not include Libya) is going to conduct air operations over any other nation's territory without first removing their air defense assets, including command and control centers. Attacking Kadaffi's compound can be justified under the rubric of taking out command and control centers.

Now, i don't dispute that there may be a good many military men out there with a "let's get that son-of-a-bitch" attitude. Kadaffi has been a pain in the ass at the least and a terrorist at the worst since he took over in 1969. So while you are justified in asking why we would be taking sides in a civil war, i suggest to you that this is much more about a brutal, murderous loose cannon who has almost no friends in the international community. What is more disturbing to me is that we are turning a blind eye to events such as Saudi troops backing up the King of Bahrain in suppressing the protestors there who want to get rid of a corrupt government. The hypocrisy of policy bothers me much more.

Especially since those Saudi troops really are firing on civilians and not armed rebels. That column of tanks and personnel carriers the US, French and UK planes hit looked like it was moving to fight the rebel forces occupying a town. It certainly wasn't indiscriminately shooting up civilians although that town definitely has civilians in it. Other than establishing non-militarized zones where civilians can flee to wait out the war, I don't see how you actually protect civilians in a war zone. That's not to say that Kadaffi isn't an evil player and we don't want him to lose. I just think we are clearly helping the rebels and not "protecting civilians" by going after Libyan ground troops. When the French helped the US revolutionary troops, I don't think they went around claiming they were "protecting civilians".

First, don't bowdlerize history with simplistic and naïve interpretation. France helped the United States to become the United States because it was a blow against their traditional enemy for generations. Second, you must not be very well informed if you are unaware that Libya has been a Stalinist-style police state since Got-Daffy took over, and that the Libyan military definitely has been indiscriminately killing civilians. Both CBC and BBC interviewed people in Misratah who assert that Libyan army snipers had taken up positions on the roofs of apartment buildins from which they were indiscriminately shooting men and women in the streets. Third, the UN resolution authorizes all necessary means to prevent the Libyan military from attacking civilians, and the drive on Benghazi would definitely have done that.

Finally, you are focused on the notion that we are "helping the rebels," without acknowledging that men and women of conscience regarding this episode in good faith can come to different conclusions. CBC within the last hour interviewed General Romeo Dellaire, who was the commander of the UN force in Rwanda at the time of the massacres. His focus (understandably) was entirely on the need to protect non-combatants, and he doesn't give a rat's ass about whether or not a by-product of the effort is to aid the rebels militarily. Of course, some people might reasonably allege that the best way to ultimately protect the citizens of Libya will be to drive Kadaffi out of power.

Just because your obsessed with the notion that we are taking sides in a civil war is not evidence that that is all, or primarily what is going on. Once again, i'm not saying you're wrong, but i am saying you haven't demonstrated that that is what is going on.

His argument aside, it seems pretty clear to ME that this is what we're doing.

- Rebels take up arms against the government
- Government counter-attacks with the military

How is this not a civil war again?

- We decide to support the rebels, b/c we don't like the current government.

How is this not us meddling in a civil war?

Cycloptichorn