No Fly Zone/New Front

[kalm]

Can we afford it? Then again there's oil there, so can we not afford it? By we, does that mean us or can we get some help with this one? Should we cut taxes just in case we need the extra dough?

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.h ... bya_no_fly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

Can we afford it? Then again there's oil there, so can we not afford it? By we, does that mean us or can we get some help with this one? Should we cut taxes just in case we need the extra dough?

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.h ... bya_no_fly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hilarious article.
Thanks to this "author", I now know Clinton, the French, and the English are now considered "neocons".

[TwinTownBisonFan]

eh - a joint NATO peacekeeping mission ala Kosovo makes more sense than going it alone...

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm going to need help on this, so maybe some of you experts, especially Libs such as TTBF, can point me in the right direction.

Is Qaddafi bombing civilians by the thousands or is he targeting rebels...and how can anyone tell (I've seen very few rebels wearing a sign that says, "I'm a rebel with a cause"...especially one big enough to be seen from the air).

If he is bombing rebels, then he is bombing legitimate threats to his government. So why are we imposing a no fly zone in a country essentially in the middle of a civil war? It appears Q-boy has a bunch of people on his side...certainly not a majority, but a significant number. And the rebels aren't exactly organized into one cohesive opposition force that has enough unity to start a legitimate government that will be accepted by all areas of a very divided Libya.

The two sides are fighting to determine who will govern Libya...but we intend to limit one side's air power because that side has an unfair advantage? What happens of the rebels get more tanks than Q-boy...do we start bombing rebel tanks because they'll have an advantage? And what do we do afterwards...if the rebels win? Do we allow the different tribes to set up their own governments or will we allow the majority to force their government on some minority tribes based upon some artificial lines drawn up by old fart European invaders? We already allow the Kurds ot have some autonomy in Iraq...so how do we not justify allowing the break up of Iraq?

As long as Q-boy isn't slaughtering his people with massive bombing runs, then our interference isn't about a humanitarian effort. By chosing a side, and providing a no fly zone clearly does just that, we are recognizing and supporting people that don't like their current government and want to govern themselves and not have a government imposed on them.

Funny then, I wonder what Obama would do if some of our own states rebelled and decided to leave the Union?

[kalm]

I'm going to need help on this, so maybe some of you experts, especially Libs such as TTBF, can point me in the right direction.

Is Qaddafi bombing civilians by the thousands or is he targeting rebels...and how can anyone tell (I've seen very few rebels wearing a sign that says, "I'm a rebel with a cause"...especially one big enough to be seen from the air).

If he is bombing rebels, then he is bombing legitimate threats to his government. So why are we imposing a no fly zone in a country essentially in the middle of a civil war? It appears Q-boy has a bunch of people on his side...certainly not a majority, but a significant number. And the rebels aren't exactly organized into one cohesive opposition force that has enough unity to start a legitimate government that will be accepted by all areas of a very divided Libya.

The two sides are fighting to determine who will govern Libya...but we intend to limit one side's air power because that side has an unfair advantage? What happens of the rebels get more tanks than Q-boy...do we start bombing rebel tanks because they'll have an advantage? And what do we do afterwards...if the rebels win? Do we allow the different tribes to set up their own governments or will we allow the majority to force their government on some minority tribes based upon some artificial lines drawn up by old fart European invaders? We already allow the Kurds ot have some autonomy in Iraq...so how do we not justify allowing the break up of Iraq?

As long as Q-boy isn't slaughtering his people with massive bombing runs, then our interference isn't about a humanitarian effort. By chosing a side, and providing a no fly zone clearly does just that, we are recognizing and supporting people that don't like their current government and want to govern themselves and not have a government imposed on them.

Funny then, I wonder what Obama would do if some of our own states rebelled and decided to leave the Union?

We're on the side of freedom.

[Rob Iola]

So is this the right war?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Cluck

There's evidence, given by Colonels who've defected from his forces, that he IS attacking and slaughtering his own people, and he's bringing in mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa to do it - and that the only way they are able to do that is with air support from bombing and strafing runs by his planes.

[GannonFan]

Cluck

There's evidence, given by Colonels who've defected from his forces, that he IS attacking and slaughtering his own people, and he's bringing in mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa to do it - and that the only way they are able to do that is with air support from bombing and strafing runs by his planes.

Well, just playing devils advocate here, we relied on intelligence from disgruntled, exiled Iraqi insiders with regards to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That didn't work out so well in terms of reliability. Just saying.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Cluck

There's evidence, given by Colonels who've defected from his forces, that he IS attacking and slaughtering his own people, and he's bringing in mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa to do it - and that the only way they are able to do that is with air support from bombing and strafing runs by his planes.

Well, just playing devils advocate here, we relied on intelligence from disgruntled, exiled Iraqi insiders with regards to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That didn't work out so well in terms of reliability. Just saying.

fair points all... however, we can also confirm from international journalists in the country that this is going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... on-zawiyah

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of intervening in a civil war... which is what this is turning in to - but I hate like hell the idea of watching these people get slaughtered and the depressing effect that it will have (and is already having) on the rest of the arab world/middle east as they attempt to oust their own dictators.

[GannonFan]

Well, just playing devils advocate here, we relied on intelligence from disgruntled, exiled Iraqi insiders with regards to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That didn't work out so well in terms of reliability. Just saying.

fair points all... however, we can also confirm from international journalists in the country that this is going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... on-zawiyah

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of intervening in a civil war... which is what this is turning in to - but I hate like hell the idea of watching these people get slaughtered and the depressing effect that it will have (and is already having) on the rest of the arab world/middle east as they attempt to oust their own dictators.

Are there even journalists in the country who are confirming this? The story you link only refers to witness accounts, not from the journalists themselves. I thought that was one of the problems regarding Libya is that we don't really have a clear picture of who is doing what in that country because of the lack of media coverage. Again, just devils advocate, but it still remains.

[Rob Iola]

Well, just playing devils advocate here, we relied on intelligence from disgruntled, exiled Iraqi insiders with regards to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That didn't work out so well in terms of reliability. Just saying.

fair points all... however, we can also confirm from international journalists in the country that this is going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... on-zawiyah

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of intervening in a civil war... which is what this is turning in to - but I hate like hell the idea of watching these people get slaughtered and the depressing effect that it will have (and is already having) on the rest of the arab world/middle east as they attempt to oust their own dictators.

I agree, watching this wanton murder and doing little or nothing about it is hard to stomach - but what's the desired end result of military action on our part? Is there a viable replacement government (enlightened, democratic, and palatable to Western sensibilities) that can be installed?

[YoUDeeMan]

Cluck

There's evidence, given by Colonels who've defected from his forces, that he IS attacking and slaughtering his own people, and he's bringing in mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa to do it - and that the only way they are able to do that is with air support from bombing and strafing runs by his planes.

You really are just a mindless Democratic tool.

OF COURSE he would be accused of attacking his own people...he's dropping bombs on them!

But is he dropping bombs on rebels or is he only targeting civilians? Is he using poison gas...as did Saddam? NOPE. But, according to you, it bothers you, to the extent that you are contemplating support for an intervention by Obama.

Let's be clear, Saddam was slaughtering his own people by the thousands...tens of thousands...each year. FAR more than Kwadoofus. But we should not be in Iraq, right...even though we freed their people from a dictator? But THIS Libyan dictator needs to be taken out by Obushma, because he is saving and freeing people!

And since you don't want us standing around doing nothing while people die at the hands of bad governments...you'll be asking Obushma to go into Chad, Ivory Coast, Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia....gosh, where do I stop?

Hey, Dems, want to go to war? Just put out stories that people are suffering under a bad guy (or guys) and the masses of suddenly war mongering Dems will support your efforts.

After 8 years of utter foolishness, the Dems are showing that they can do stupid better.

[Rob Iola]

TTBF, you're going to hate this, but ya gotta thank Bush for this not being a worse situation than it is (a humanitarian disaster).

If Bush hadn't whomped Saddam's butt, Libya would still have nucular weapons - and that would make this civil war a whole lot more serious and pretty much require an international intervention...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Cluck

There's evidence, given by Colonels who've defected from his forces, that he IS attacking and slaughtering his own people, and he's bringing in mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa to do it - and that the only way they are able to do that is with air support from bombing and strafing runs by his planes.

You really are just a mindless Democratic tool.

OF COURSE he would be accused of attacking his own people...he's dropping bombs on them!

But is he dropping bombs on rebels or is he only targeting civilians? Is he using poison gas...as did Saddam? NOPE. But, according to you, it bothers you, to the extent that you are contemplating support for an intervention by Obama.

Let's be clear, Saddam was slaughtering his own people by the thousands...tens of thousands...each year. FAR more than Kwadoofus. But we should not be in Iraq, right...even though we freed their people from a dictator? But THIS Libyan dictator needs to be taken out by Obushma, because he is saving and freeing people!

And since you don't want us standing around doing nothing while people die at the hands of bad governments...you'll be asking Obushma to go into Chad, Ivory Coast, Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia....gosh, where do I stop?

Hey, Dems, want to go to war? Just put out stories that people are suffering under a bad guy (or guys) and the masses of suddenly war mongering Dems will support your efforts.

After 8 years of utter foolishness, the Dems are showing that they can do stupid better.

1. we waited 10 years for saddams atrocities to be worthy of action? yeah - that was the reason we went in...

2. I haven't said we should go in there and "liberate" anything...

3. as for intervening in domestic crises in other countries, that's why I'm saying I have mixed feelings about it...

it's mind-boggling by the way that you either cannot see (or willfully choose to ignore) the difference between working with dozens of allies (like all of nato) to enforce a no-fly zone, and plunging headlong and virtually alone into occupying the entirety of a country.

again - I have mixed feelings, but then this is a nuanced and complicated problem that can't be solved with bumper sticker slogans.

more to the point - what, prey tell would you do?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

TTBF, you're going to hate this, but ya gotta thank Bush for this not being a worse situation than it is (a humanitarian disaster).

If Bush hadn't whomped Saddam's butt, Libya would still have nucular weapons - and that would make this civil war a whole lot more serious and pretty much require an international intervention...

it was certainly a positive side-effect to a VERY negative situation... I'm also not entirely convinced we needed to invade Iraq to get Libya to give up WMD programs...

[YoUDeeMan]

1. we waited 10 years for saddams atrocities to be worthy of action? yeah - that was the reason we went in...

2. I haven't said we should go in there and "liberate" anything...

3. as for intervening in domestic crises in other countries, that's why I'm saying I have mixed feelings about it...

it's mind-boggling by the way that you either cannot see (or willfully choose to ignore) the difference between working with dozens of allies (like all of nato) to enforce a no-fly zone, and plunging headlong and virtually alone into occupying the entirety of a country.

again - I have mixed feelings, but then this is a nuanced and complicated problem that can't be solved with bumper sticker slogans.

more to the point - what, prey tell would you do?

Nope, we didn't go into Iraq to save people from being exterminated by a dictator, but we did save people from being exterminated by a dictator. What, no love for that? It is what you are contemplating now...and there will be killings and civil war in Libya afterwards...so what's the difference? Oh, it's Obama making the call.

And who the hell cares if we didn't work with other countries (oops, we actually did)...are you morals only valid when other countries approve? Very lemming-like, don't you think?

Bottom line...WE, as in Obama and Co. (how many people in his party are stomping the floor calling him a warmonger for increasing our troops in Affy, not gettting out of Iraq, and now building up our forces to bomb some Libyans) decide that a dictator should go...we even told him he needs to step down. How funny is that? "Sir, you are not running your country the way we think you should...if you don't stop being bad, we will bomb your forces and let the people who believe in you die like the dogs we've determined them to be at the hands of some rag tag divided tribes. We believe they will allow you and your supporters to live and ley bygones be bygones (ignore those reports about racism and the killing of Africans) and that Libya will join together in peaceful harmony...or maybe not. Either way, we want you out."

Too funny.

As for what I would do? I would have put us on a pace to get off MidEast oil decades ago. Otherwise, I'd ignore the place, except for stirring up the pot between the Shite and Sunis to get them to kill each other. And I'd just employ the occassional airstrike or assasination whenever the creeps decide to get out of hand.

Let them go pound sand.

[kalm]

1. we waited 10 years for saddams atrocities to be worthy of action? yeah - that was the reason we went in...

2. I haven't said we should go in there and "liberate" anything...

3. as for intervening in domestic crises in other countries, that's why I'm saying I have mixed feelings about it...

it's mind-boggling by the way that you either cannot see (or willfully choose to ignore) the difference between working with dozens of allies (like all of nato) to enforce a no-fly zone, and plunging headlong and virtually alone into occupying the entirety of a country.

again - I have mixed feelings, but then this is a nuanced and complicated problem that can't be solved with bumper sticker slogans.

more to the point - what, prey tell would you do?

Nope, we didn't go into Iraq to save people from being exterminated by a dictator, but we did save people from being exterminated by a dictator. What, no love for that? It is what you are contemplating now...and there will be killings and civil war in Libya afterwards...so what's the difference? Oh, it's Obama making the call.

And who the hell cares if we didn't work with other countries (oops, we actually did)...are you morals only valid when other countries approve? Very lemming-like, don't you think?

Bottom line...WE, as in Obama and Co. (how many people in his party are stomping the floor calling him a warmonger for increasing our troops in Affy, not gettting out of Iraq, and now building up our forces to bomb some Libyans) decide that a dictator should go...we even told him he needs to step down. How funny is that? "Sir, you are not running your country the way we think you should...if you don't stop being bad, we will bomb your forces and let the people who believe in you die like the dogs we've determined them to be at the hands of some rag tag divided tribes. We believe they will allow you and your supporters to live and ley bygones be bygones (ignore those reports about racism and the killing of Africans) and that Libya will join together in peaceful harmony...or maybe not. Either way, we want you out."

Too funny.

As for what I would do? I would have put us on a pace to get off MidEast oil decades ago. Otherwise, I'd ignore the place, except for stirring up the pot between the Shite and Sunis to get them to kill each other. And I'd just employ the occassional airstrike or assasination whenever the creeps decide to get out of hand.

Let them go pound sand.

Dear rest of the world. For right or for wrong we have tried to intervene in the past, but we've simply lost the financial ability and the interest to do so any longer. Anything beyond providing some intelligence to assist in a sniper's bullet, is up to you.

[YoUDeeMan]

Dear rest of the world. For right or for wrong we have tried to intervene in the past, but we've simply lost the financial ability and the interest to do so any longer. Anything beyond providing some intelligence to assist in a sniper's bullet, is up to you.

Not bad, kalm.

One small add on:

"However, if you fvck with us, or allow your people to fvck with us, we'll kill, by any means necessary - large scale or small scale - those we think are responsbile (that means you, Saudi princes...and you, fill-in-the-blank dictators)."

[kalm]

Dear rest of the world. For right or for wrong we have tried to intervene in the past, but we've simply lost the financial ability and the interest to do so any longer. Anything beyond providing some intelligence to assist in a sniper's bullet, is up to you.

Not bad, kalm.

One small add on:

"However, if you fvck with us, or allow your people to fvck with us, we'll kill, by any means necessary - large scale or small scale - those we think are responsbile (that means you, Saudi princes...and you, fill-in-the-blank dictators)."

I'm down with that.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

1. we waited 10 years for saddams atrocities to be worthy of action? yeah - that was the reason we went in...

2. I haven't said we should go in there and "liberate" anything...

3. as for intervening in domestic crises in other countries, that's why I'm saying I have mixed feelings about it...

it's mind-boggling by the way that you either cannot see (or willfully choose to ignore) the difference between working with dozens of allies (like all of nato) to enforce a no-fly zone, and plunging headlong and virtually alone into occupying the entirety of a country.

again - I have mixed feelings, but then this is a nuanced and complicated problem that can't be solved with bumper sticker slogans.

more to the point - what, prey tell would you do?

Nope, we didn't go into Iraq to save people from being exterminated by a dictator, but we did save people from being exterminated by a dictator. What, no love for that? It is what you are contemplating now...and there will be killings and civil war in Libya afterwards...so what's the difference? Oh, it's Obama making the call.

And who the hell cares if we didn't work with other countries (oops, we actually did)...are you morals only valid when other countries approve? Very lemming-like, don't you think?

Bottom line...WE, as in Obama and Co. (how many people in his party are stomping the floor calling him a warmonger for increasing our troops in Affy, not gettting out of Iraq, and now building up our forces to bomb some Libyans) decide that a dictator should go...we even told him he needs to step down. How funny is that? "Sir, you are not running your country the way we think you should...if you don't stop being bad, we will bomb your forces and let the people who believe in you die like the dogs we've determined them to be at the hands of some rag tag divided tribes. We believe they will allow you and your supporters to live and ley bygones be bygones (ignore those reports about racism and the killing of Africans) and that Libya will join together in peaceful harmony...or maybe not. Either way, we want you out."

Too funny.

As for what I would do? I would have put us on a pace to get off MidEast oil decades ago. Otherwise, I'd ignore the place, except for stirring up the pot between the Shite and Sunis to get them to kill each other. And I'd just employ the occassional airstrike or assasination whenever the creeps decide to get out of hand.

Let them go pound sand.

got it, Mr. Lindbergh.

[YoUDeeMan]

got it, Mr. Lindbergh.

Yet you were down with the previous post.

Comparing WWII to the Middle East...Hitler to Saddam. See, you really are a secret fan of Obushma/Cheney/mano-a-manoBiden!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

got it, Mr. Lindbergh.

Yet you were down with the previous post.

Comparing WWII to the Middle East...Hitler to Saddam. See, you really are a secret fan of Obushma/Cheney/mano-a-manoBiden!

don't put words in my mouth... I simply inferred you were being an isolationist.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yet you were down with the previous post.

Comparing WWII to the Middle East...Hitler to Saddam. See, you really are a secret fan of Obushma/Cheney/mano-a-manoBiden!

don't put words in my mouth... I simply inferred you were being an isolationist.

Yet another backpeddle by TTBF.

Isolationist? Hardly. The world is a big place...for business and politics. And you must have missed the part about stirring up trouble between the Shites and Sunnis. Selective reading and/or reasoning on your part...not a surprise.

Different tactics....long term views.