So what do you think about this Libya thing??
 

Why are we not talking about this?

So now it appears that we are in part of 3 conflicts in the middle east. I understand that Qaddafi's a bad guy and all that but isn't whats going on there a civil war?

Why do you think we are there (I know a supporting role). For the first time I can ever remember France is leading this thing (help me understand that too). Hell next thing you know Germany will be send planes. Obama said no troops will be on the ground.

OK so we have the all the right reasons - why did it take so long? A little late IMO.

Let me hear your thoughts

The USA just launched cruise missles in anticaption of wiping out Libya's air defenses.

It's starting...

I've got REAL mixed emotions...I am glad the US isn't the "primary" ball carrier however. I'm a walking contradiction 'cause I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in '03 (but at the time, SH was hunkered down, and not doing too much harm imo). That said, I personally could not stand idly by and watch someone kill innocents (consequences be damned), and as a nation I don't think we can either although we have MANY times. I just don't know...

I'm also really mixed about it... on one hand, their leader is a pretty bad guy but on the other hand we can't afford what we're already involved with and can't be responsible for taking out bad leaders worldwide.

didn't this just happen in Iran not too long ago? and nothing! Why now? maybe not such a big bully this time?

It might be a sign of the times with way too many variables and interests involved..........that been said we need a third on-going military involvement as much as we need a bad rash in the baaaaaalls...........just saying !

Here is how it played imho:

Gaddafi (or whichever spelling you use) has unleashed his army (with a heavy dose of hired guns). The protesters are really poorly organized & don’t stand a chance against a force with ANY semblance of organization. G is winning. This lights a fire under the UN Security Council. France & Britain are go. But. Russia & China are draggin’. And Germany as well? The US privately is go but can’t appear too enthusiastic with two other theaters in play. And mixed public opinion at home. We all know G is a fruitcake but do we want our sons & daughters killed there? Over a fruitcake?

So . . .

The UN Res passes (squeaks through with notable abstentions) & France wants a bit of hero status & limelight & jumps the gun. Good for them. Now the full party has begun.

Ian

What are we gonna do when the Saudi regime starts using force on its protesters? Give them a pass because they sell us oil?

This should go to PARF right about now. Yes this did happen in Iraq not long ago. Among the differences are that the US was pushing to take action thinking not only was SH gonna annihilate a bunch of innocents but that he also had WMD's with which to do it. It took 17 violations of UN Res'ns and still no action by the UN which gave birth to the 'Bush Doctrine'. In this situation, however, the US was silent up front but quietly leaned very heavily on the UN Security Council which included our begging China and Russia to abstain rather than vote against military action which to date consists solely of a No Fly Zone and 0 US troops in the ground (so far). France was all gung ho this time because why? Yep, France (as far as I'm told) is way more dependent on Libyan crude than Iraqi crude. As such, this can be called Sarkozy's War for Oil even though we launched over 100 Tomahawks at >$1M per pop that we certainly cannot afford. Lets see if we see any bumper stickers saying 'War Is Not The Answer' or 'Stop Obama's War'.

Before it does...

In '90, I was 100% behind Bush I's rationale and subsequent actions.

In '01/02 I held the same support for GWB's course of action in Afghanistan...but we've failed...time to get out "now".

In '03 I was 100% against. I simply didn't buy into it...didn't pass the smell test then and still doesn't.

In '11, I'm again on board with our course of actioins with mixed emotions...

Has nothing to do with politics from my perspective...I voted for all three.

military ventures are expensive.

revolutions are earned with blood.

outside interference is just welfare.

politics by proxy.

Sadam really was the only good genocidal dictator. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I think that you let your BDS cloud your view. --you're not alone in that, of course.

Call me insensitive but I really don't care about the Libyans. They can have their own civil war without our help. We will be made out to be the "bad guys" in this, just watch...

Obama just watched the Iranian horror unfold . . .all of those dead student, who just wanted to live in the 21st century, like so much of the rest of the world. So very sad.

With the advent of the internet, I expect that we'll see more of this.

I'm very much a hawk on military action, and reluctantly accept that it is often the most appropriate course of action for the West. Certainly, if there is good evidence of a threat to our security we should take action to neutralise or contain that threat. This often means military action.
But......................

What are we trying to achieve here? Gaddaffi will win over the ragtag opposition without air power. Removing air power will just delay the inevitable failure of the rebellion. The only way to win a war is ground troops (which we are not prepared to commit) and the only way to win the peace is occupation and imposition of a working democracy.

The rebels are crying for Western (read "U.S.") military support now. One week after we depose Gaddaffi, those same people will be setting IEDs by the roads to get our kids. How long before we see our pilots being dragged through the streets?

Getting involved in this is like trying to break up a fight between 2 pit-bulls. It will be painful, expensive and dangerous; and 2 minutes after we leave they'll be right back at each other.

Let's concentrate on resolving Iraq and Afghanistan and supporting Israel. Military action in the rest of the disaster that is the middle-east should be aimed at containing threats to the West and her allies, not attempting to resolve ancient tribal hatreds purely out of altruism.

I'm a bit dense, have seen BDS mentioned before, but have never known what it stands for. I voted for GWB, and thought he was doing a pretty damn good job until he went off-track in '03 from my perspective. So if I have BDS "now" (and I'm SURE I do :)), that's where it began. I've voted for McCain, then against. I've voted for GWB, then against. I've voted for Obama, then...???

okay, but... on board NOW because we have a clear objective and smart exit strategy? :cool:

Iawc :)

Didn't we try this crap in Somalia? Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been sufficient, but they apparently are not. The Libyans want us to fight their civil war for them, drop our bombs, spill our blood and spend our $ so they can chant "Death to the US" in a year from now (or less)...

Oh, BDS is Bush derangement syndrome.