- Status
The hell? The French taking the lead in a military action?
Well, when it is their oil getting cut off....
Well, when it is their oil getting cut off....
I doubt he has broken a 30+ year habit of never sleeping in the same location twice in a row. He's hard to hit. You would have to take out dozens or residences.
Still, it sends the message even if we don't take him out with that strike...
Like when Regan killed his daughter. I kept Qaddafi off our radar for a few decades.
The Arab League has critisized the bombing of pro-Gaddafi targets in Libya:
This is odd, considering the support they gave the no-fly zone to begin with. Is this simply token critisism for the benefit of arab domestic concerns, a legitimate call for more target discrimination (apparently a few dual-use targets were bombed), or did the arabs really think the no-fly zone would be the extent of involvement in Libya?
They're concerned about Gaddafi committing atrocities once he recaptures rebel strongholds. Or should the rest of the world just stand by and let that happen?
My sentiments exactly. I'd have preferred it had they (France and Britain) just kept out, as getting involved in an open-ended operation in somebody else's civil war can be quite risky, and the payoff uncertain. The EU has had good trade relations with Libya, and Gaddafi's administration has co-operated in cracking down on illegal immigration into the EU - Libya is a major transit point in that regard. I feel the EU would have been better off sitting this one out, and Sarkozy, Cameron and Barroso keeping their mouths shut or at least toning it down a bit.
As it stands, the option of not getting involved has expired. I feel little choice in the matter remains other than to topple Gaddafi.
And if the rebels win, what assurances do you feel exist that they will form a democracy and stabilise the country? You can kick out the shah, but that doesn't mean the ayatollah who follows will be an improvement.
I don't have any, but I'm not naïve enough think that I can't act without a 100% guarantee of success. It's risky, I'll concede that. But trying and failing is always better than doing nothing when you know there's a problem.
I'm more concerned that the US/EU is going to try to arm the rebels so they'll have a better chance to win. I really, REALLY don't want us to have to come back in another 20-30 years and try to fight off guys using guns we originally gave them.
AGAIN.
AGAIN.
This is true. I just want to enforce a no-fly zone and monitor for any kind of human rights violations. Beyond that we should just sit back.
I may actually be able to provide one. Apparently, the National Libyan Council has proclaimed a strong stance against arbitrary arrests, which is a good sign and is being hailed as such by some human rights organisations. Of course, such proclamations can easily be a propaganda stunt, and the composition and support base of the NLC (apparently consisting of disaffected officials and military personnel, tribal leaders, islamists, some genuine democrats) make the odds for democracy seem shaky at best and quite dependent on how the post-fighting phase is handled. Still, it's better than nothing.
While I agree with the sentiment, I suspect the goals of the air campaign go further than that. I feel the ousting of Gaddafi is and should be a priority. Given his superiority in ground assets, a simple no-fly zone is not likely to accomplish that.
If air power proves insufficient to get the job done, I actually think arming the opposition might be a potential course of action, and likely much more preferable to sending in conventional ground forces or scrapping the campaign entirely. What you say is true, however Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, and 85% of it's exports of crude are gobbled up by the EU. If they will prove a problem in a few decades, it can easily be with the weapons we are going to sell them in the future. Of course, with the latter option the arms manufacturers stand to make some money out of it, which is good for the economy
To make matters more complicated, why aren't the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi air forces front and center for the no-fly zone/targeted strikes? They all have them, mostly trained by us, and should be able to contribute a squadron or two...
The no-fly zone already leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and the way that there's all this talk of "unity" and "international cooperation" but the Arab League countries seem content to sit on the sidelines and armchair fight sours it even further.
If the US was mostly handling logistics and intelligence while other countries performed the strikes, I'd feel much more comfortable about this whole endeavor, if not really actually comfortable.
The no-fly zone already leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and the way that there's all this talk of "unity" and "international cooperation" but the Arab League countries seem content to sit on the sidelines and armchair fight sours it even further.
If the US was mostly handling logistics and intelligence while other countries performed the strikes, I'd feel much more comfortable about this whole endeavor, if not really actually comfortable.
The other Air Forces are not front and center because they don't do it as well as the "West."
Dave
Staff member
You all know me as being a left-leaning, pro-Obama guy...How the FUCK does a no-fly zone blast apart a Gaddafi compound?
Seriously, I can see the Arab League getting up in arms about this as Obama is starting to become "WII - The Return of the Dubya". I have many, many, MANY doubts about this action and feel it's unnecessary and damaging to the interests of the US. Why are we getting involved in a civil war? Why are we taking sides? Any reason other than oil? What about Bahrain, Yemen, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc.? Hell, we didn't do anything about Egypt - which we shouldn't have.
We need to stop what we are doing in the Middle East.
Seriously, I can see the Arab League getting up in arms about this as Obama is starting to become "WII - The Return of the Dubya". I have many, many, MANY doubts about this action and feel it's unnecessary and damaging to the interests of the US. Why are we getting involved in a civil war? Why are we taking sides? Any reason other than oil? What about Bahrain, Yemen, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc.? Hell, we didn't do anything about Egypt - which we shouldn't have.
We need to stop what we are doing in the Middle East.
If the actual powers in the Middle East aren't willing to get involved besides shaking their fingers admonishingly, we shouldn't be there.
The "powers" of the middle east are too far away to affect Libya. Italy and France are right there. The US and UK have the ability to attack from the sea.
Saudi Arabia is putting down its own little uprising, also it would have to violate the the Airspace of Isreal and Egypt to get involved, and cover huge amounts of distance. In reality the other nations do not have the ability to project power. They will have minor league Air Forces that are mainly a defensive tool. Unless you want to see S.A. or Iran with an aircraft carrier and all the naval ships it would take to support and defend it when it is out to sea.
Saudi Arabia is putting down its own little uprising, also it would have to violate the the Airspace of Isreal and Egypt to get involved, and cover huge amounts of distance. In reality the other nations do not have the ability to project power. They will have minor league Air Forces that are mainly a defensive tool. Unless you want to see S.A. or Iran with an aircraft carrier and all the naval ships it would take to support and defend it when it is out to sea.
Because the command and control is routed through that old bombed out building they keep showing on the news. Now it is even more bombed out.
Dave
Staff member
So "no fly zone" means "we'll blow up your command centers" instead of "we'll shoot down planes in the air?
Huh.
We can not put our planes into their airspace if their air defenses are left alone.
Their missile defenses are quite dangerous.
Their missile defenses are quite dangerous.
Dave
Staff member
Also the excuse to bomb their personnel convoys and tanks.
This is a bad idea with poor execution. Unless they were fired on by AA missiles, we should not attack ground targets. Now, if we HAVE been fired on I can see it, but I have not heard that we were.
You don't take the chance to let their AA take you out. You suppress first then you can do the no fly zone.
I don't know where we got the mandate to stop that column from going into a civilian held town. But at least there are a few more women and children alive today because of it.
Don't forget what Qaddafi is capable of. The airports throughout Europe better be ready to stop his special forces from blowing up more planes. The police also need to watch for their special forces blowing up more Discos.
I don't know where we got the mandate to stop that column from going into a civilian held town. But at least there are a few more women and children alive today because of it.
Don't forget what Qaddafi is capable of. The airports throughout Europe better be ready to stop his special forces from blowing up more planes. The police also need to watch for their special forces blowing up more Discos.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm sure I'd be remiss in my forum duties if I pointed out how completely and utterly apeshit the media and the left would be going if it was a president of any party other than Democrat who was presiding over this situation. And god help us all if this had happened under Dubya's watch.
Just like Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada...
No the mainstream press falls inline every time.
No the mainstream press falls inline every time.
GasBandit
Staff member
Until 2006, we had repeated daily trumpetings of casualty numbers and incessant media acrimony. It dropped off a little after the republicans took the shellacking that lost them congress and the senate, and then went completely mute after Obama was elected.
Previously, Clinton was happily enacting regime change at will in east europe with the enthusiastic backing of his media vassals.
If Dubya had taken us into Libya while Afghanistan and Iraq were still ongoing, DC would practically be in flames.
Luckily we are out of combat operations in Iraq. But this is a different part of our military operation at work here. If we invaded, yes there would be fall out.
I need to watch some Fox News to see how the Hawks are handling the news that a Democrat is helping the UN save civilian lives.
I need to watch some Fox News to see how the Hawks are handling the news that a Democrat is helping the UN save civilian lives.
GasBandit
Staff member
So far the talking heads I've heard sound like they did back during Bosnia - Slightly conflicted but conditionally supportive.... with a few dashes of "why the hell did we take so long to make up our minds about this." They've got to get their digs in somewhere, after all.
Added at: 15:04
Well, I may have to eat my words... Kucinich wants impeachment proceedings.
- Status