Libya

billythrilly7th · Mar 11, 2011

Well, just watching a news report on CNN leads me to believe that the entire free world has let the Libyans down.

Rebel forces getting decimated by Qaddafi are expressing resentment and disappointment To the reporters that no one helped them.

They believed the world would back up their desire and life risking effort for freedom.

But as usual, the Unites Nations is worthless.

NATO and the diplomats don't seize the moment.

And nothing has happened.

And it looks like Qaddafi, an arch terrorist and brutal murderer, will reign on.

Makes me sad.

Dommo · Mar 12, 2011

Unfortunately revolutions have to happen on the inside, or else you risk the legitimacy of the movement. At the start when the Rebels were pwning Qaddafi, they didn't want any US involvement, and now when things aren't going there way they want us to win their war for them.

Secondly, where does this become the US's problem. We don't get oil from Libya, and we shouldn't be the ones who have to risk our blood and treasure for the interests of europe. The European nations in Nato have plenty of aircraft and weaponry to handle the No-fly zone/air support aspect of this job from bases in Italy and Malta.

Lastly, the Chinese and Russians are going to use their position on the security council to cock block us. They know that the No-fly zone is the right thing to do, but they're going to extort us for economic and diplomatic concessions in exchange for their blessings. I don't think it's worth spreading our cheeks and letting Russia and China tag team us in the ass, in order to protect the interests of other people.

billythrilly7th · Mar 12, 2011

Dommo said:
Unfortunately revolutions have to happen on the inside, or else you risk the legitimacy of the movement. At the start when the Rebels were pwning Qaddafi, they didn't want any US involvement, and now when things aren't going there way they want us to win their war for them.

Secondly, where does this become the US's problem. We don't get oil from Libya, and we shouldn't be the ones who have to risk our blood and treasure for the interests of europe. The European nations in Nato have plenty of aircraft and weaponry to handle the No-fly zone/air support aspect of this job from bases in Italy and Malta.

Lastly, the Chinese and Russians are going to use their position on the security council to cock block us. They know that the No-fly zone is the right thing to do, but they're going to extort us for economic and diplomatic concessions in exchange for their blessings. I don't think it's worth spreading our cheeks and letting Russia and China tag team us in the ass, in order to protect the interests of other people.

I know. Thats part of my point. Evil countries allowing evil to continue while NATO, supposedly the defender and beacon for freedom and good, stands by and does nothing. So evil simply wins.

If we don't want to get involved for personal reasons like we don't want to get blamed or costs, etc, so be it. But screw the Chinese and Russians. Their days are numbered as well. Especially the Chinese.

It's just a shame NATO can't move swiftly and uniformly to AT LEAST impose the no fly zone. Give the rebels a shot to take care of it.

Oh well. I guess arch terrorist, murderer, thug Qaddafi gets to be king for another decade or so.

Real nice.

blacbird · Mar 12, 2011

I saw a retired Admiral named Nathman interviewed a couple of nights ago on this "no-fly zone" issue. He is a veteran of "no-fly zone" operations in Bosnia and Iraq, and a guy with a big slug of credibility. He made a really key point that imposing such a military procedure was a complex and risky operation, and would require significant movement of important military manpower and materiel from other places where we already need it. It isn't a simple issue.

Bartholomew · Mar 12, 2011

blacbird said:
I saw a retired Admiral named Nathman interviewed a couple of nights ago on this "no-fly zone" issue. He is a veteran of "no-fly zone" operations in Bosnia and Iraq, and a guy with a big slug of credibility. He made a really key point that imposing such a military procedure was a complex and risky operation, and would require significant movement of important military manpower and materiel from other places where we already need it. It isn't a simple issue.

Click the unit. Right click on the strategy map where you'd like it to move. Easy.

I jest.

Bird of Prey · Mar 12, 2011

billythrilly7th said:
I know. Thats part of my point. Evil countries allowing evil to continue while NATO, supposedly the defender and beacon for freedom and good, stands by and does nothing. So evil simply wins.

If we don't want to get involved for personal reasons like we don't want to get blamed or costs, etc, so be it. But screw the Chinese and Russians. Their days are numbered as well. Especially the Chinese.

It's just a shame NATO can't move swiftly and uniformly to AT LEAST impose the no fly zone. Give the rebels a shot to take care of it.

Oh well. I guess arch terrorist, murderer, thug Qaddafi gets to be king for another decade or so.

Real nice.

NATO's perfectly willing to impose a no fly zone, as long as it's the American military at risk and American "money" - I put that in quotes because we don't have any - that finances it, and of course, America that takes the blame if it doesn't work out as a democracy. No thanks. . . .

mscelina · Mar 12, 2011

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_17596756?nclick_check=1

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Friday that U.S. and international actions are starting to have an impact on Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and that the U.S. is still debating military actions to stop Gadhafi from slaughtering more of his own people.

"Across the board, we are slowly tightening the noose on Gadhafi," Obama said at a White House news conference. "He is more and more isolated internationally both through sanctions as well as an arms embargo."

Likening Gadhafi's attacks to 1990s government attacks on people in the Balkans and in Rwanda, Obama said that the U.S. and the world have an obligation to protect innocent life.

He said that the around-the-clock surveillance of the country that NATO has ordered will provide "some sort of alert system if you start seeing defenseless civilians who're being massacred by Gadhafi's forces."

He repeated statements made for several days by his aides that he's weighing military options, including a possible allied effort to enforce a no-fly zone aimed at stopping Gadhafi from striking rebels from the air, but he announced no new actions.

"I have not taken any options off the table," Obama said.

And Obama won't take the military option off the table. He can't. And eventually, just like he did in the 80s, Qaddafi's stupid ass will retaliate against the no-fly zone and Obama will be forced to intervene on a greater level. Our government, regardless of what party is in power, embraces the self-imposed obligation of the US as the defender of democracy in this world for good or for ill. Qaddafi's regime has been a pain in the ass in the past, although in recent history he's laid low and kept out of our way. In a lot of ways, I think his early overtures to the Obama administration stemmed from a perception on his part that the new President was going to be somehow weaker in regards to ME diplomacy. (Again, just my opinion) I also think that the Obama administration is unlikely to back down in the face of the ongoing unrest in the ME to combat that very perception. So, in a lot of ways, the President may be forced to take a stronger stand on this than he would have initially preferred. The tragedy in Japan may push this to the back burner for a few days or weeks, but I doubt it'll stay there for long. In the end, it's going to depend on the regime's response to international pressure.

Bird of Prey · Mar 12, 2011

mscelina said:
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_17596756?nclick_check=1

And Obama won't take the military option off the table. He can't. And eventually, just like he did in the 80s, Qaddafi's stupid ass will retaliate against the no-fly zone and Obama will be forced to intervene on a greater level. Our government, regardless of what party is in power, embraces the self-imposed obligation of the US as the defender of democracy in this world for good or for ill. Qaddafi's regime has been a pain in the ass in the past, although in recent history he's laid low and kept out of our way. In a lot of ways, I think his early overtures to the Obama administration stemmed from a perception on his part that the new President was going to be somehow weaker in regards to ME diplomacy. (Again, just my opinion) I also think that the Obama administration is unlikely to back down in the face of the ongoing unrest in the ME to combat that very perception. So, in a lot of ways, the President may be forced to take a stronger stand on this than he would have initially preferred. The tragedy in Japan may push this to the back burner for a few days or weeks, but I doubt it'll stay there for long. In the end, it's going to depend on the regime's response to international pressure.

My guess is that if Obama sends any military intervention, Gates will resign and so probably will any number of exhausted military commanders. We are not an empire builder - we're too broke -nor can we keep massaging these big egos in the White House that throw American lives away as if they meant nothing. . . .

billythrilly7th · Mar 12, 2011

Bird of Prey said:
NATO's perfectly willing to impose a no fly zone, as long as it's the American military at risk and American "money" - I put that in quotes because we don't have any - that finances it, and of course, America that takes the blame if it doesn't work out as a democracy. No thanks. . . .

I agree.

My point is not that the United States isn't doing anything. It's that NATO and the world is doing nothing. Hillary said that we'd be willing to do it, if there was some unity and agreement and work done by others. She basically said what you said. "Yeah..we want to do it..but we're not doing it alone."

And so far, nothing.

:Shrug:

Bird of Prey · Mar 12, 2011

billythrilly7th said:
I agree.

My point is not that the United States isn't doing anything. It's that NATO and the world is doing nothing. Hillary said that we'd be willing to do it, if there was some unity and agreement and work done by others. She basically said what you said. "Yeah..we want to do it..but we're not doing it alone."

And so far, nothing.

It's sad but we have a near idiot of a president who has spent billions on a real jerk like Karzai - not to mention wasted American lives - so we're completely tapped out when it comes to people who need our help, and more than likely deserve it. . . .

MattW · Mar 12, 2011

No fly zone will be hard to impose - it's not like the Libyans have to comply. In Iraq, at least, we had the preceding wars to set up the planes and airfields, and a shooting war in which planes were grounded by the destruction of command and control, AA, and radar infrastructure. None of that is in place or even ensured in Libya.

It could get costly, and I've read that it still might not be effective against helicopter gunships (which are great at "dispersing" crowds of lightly armed revolutionaries).

And yes, we are letting them down.

Libya

billythrilly7th

Dommo

On Mac's double secret probation.

billythrilly7th

blacbird

Bartholomew

Comic guy

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member

billythrilly7th

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member

MattW

Company Man