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.

I think it has taken so long for any country to take action because there is unrest in so many countries for exactly the same reason. iran, bahrain, yemen, as well as libya. iran is a no go because it would be a huge undertaking and no one in the united states would stand for it. we don't care about iranian college students who took our people hostage in 1979.
bahrain is too close to saudi arabia, and they determine our mid east strategy. yemen? not enough oil?

By the end of '08, I definitely had most of the symptoms, but don't "quite" fit the technical definition...

Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush"

Now if I was "otherwise normal", that'd be a whole 'nuther story :)

edited: ps: Is ODS applicable now?

and China will send us $ to buy more tomahawks.

Libya is about one thing : Fortress Europe.

Eg, It's the first line of defence for widespread African emigration to Europe.
That's why Kaddafi was on speaking terms with most of Europe in the recent years before the uprising.
That's why the French were the first to go in with the Rafale's.

Ok, there's a bit of oil there as well... that's a nice bonus.

Stijn is on the money...;)

France has led this assault because of its own internal issues. This is what comes of French Mandates across the ME and North African regions...(the Italians don't count - they made a hash of things and their controls were shortlived). Britain too...

This is a civil war. Who are these militia and protesters? They are not 'innocents'; they are tribal fighters in a country (and region) that is historically tribal.

Now the so-called allies have dipped their toes into this mess there is no going back :(. Should 'we' support an allied assault on Gaddafi? NO. Should we just sit back and witness a mounting death toll from war...well no...this is another conundrum; like so many before in history.

I am no fan of Gaddafi; but he holds the key to the European gate so to speak.

If it were not for the strategic position of Libya on the world map (and a 'bit of oil'); this mess could be left to the Libyans. But it shares borders with Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt .... not one stable country among that list.

I don't believe this is about Gaddafi or the opposing militia. This is about the West and Europe particularly being in fear of what is happneing across that entire region. Are they truly supporting the militia? I do not believe so - this is about trying to control the situation. Sadly the allies seem to never learn though...'liberate' from one despot and others will rise to fill the void.

Now my opinions won't be popular with most of you....so flame away boys...but it is time that we accept that world peace is not an option. History tells us so. There will always be uprisings, battles for control and war. I don't like it; but I have to accept it...

Very true. The whole Med basin is an incestuous rat's nest of historical tribes which have been warring with each other since our hunting & gathering days.

Ian

Well, that is what many of us already knew too, and history has shown what happened when Nutz like Gaddafi go unchecked or ignored..:(

I really appreciate the perspective from folks outside of the USA...everyone's actually.

I have hopes for Egypt re getting out from under despots. Mainly b/c our Army has trained their Army.

You accept it and so do I. But, do we have to get involved? The Middle East thing seems like a copycat deal, Egypt leads off.......

Is the Libyan thing simply a faction that we like? Do they have enough internal support? If the US needs to learn anything, it's to not under-support the underdog. If we can't simply invade and take over, we should leave it the hell alone.

And I'm not so much for the former, but as Lisa says, there will always be wars. We need to pick our battles better, do it quicker, take over, build the economy and infrastructure and hope we have an ally left as a result.

Anything less is like playing poker with Islamic Mamluk cards.

Uh, what's the game? Oh, you get how many tens of thousands to play your hand?

We are such duffers even with our Callaways and carbon fiber bling.

There's just no pleasing this group. When France doesn't go in, they are wusses, when they lead the way, they have ulterior motives... Tough crowd ;-) It's *all* about ulterior motives, always, no matter who leads or follows... in this case the sooner you stabilize the region, the less influx of immigrants you are gonna get. It helps also that the guy is clearly deranged.

I grew up in Europe and Khadafi (Ghadaffi now? K->G?) always was a little terrorist sponsoring ****. I distinctly remember several bombings here and there that were tied up to Libya with a bow. Call me insensitive if you want, but Saddam Hussein at least was largely secular and wasn't harboring terrorist camps. Libya on the other hand, ughh....

I don't quite understand how Libya bought its respectability again (well, I do know, they paid off the lockerbie families and hired a Washington lobbying firm, I kid you not), but Khadhafi was and still is a terrorist sponsoring ****. The silly parade in Italy a few month ago with that other corrupt %$% Berlusconi was an embarassment to the western world.

I was dead seat against Iraq, but I'm quite happy with Libya's air farce getting pounded. I hope the rebels can recover and go finish the job... We definitely don't need to be on the ground in 3 muslim countries !

I am opposed to getting involved in civil unrest in other countries, particularly where it is unclear (to me) who the "rebels" are. We have screwed up this scenario so many times and I don't see how this will be any different.

I fully support France doing that they're doing. They're in the right and I appreciate their taking the lead here. No criticism at all from me.

Q, indeed, bought his acceptance back the way you state. But short of assassinating him, what else was the world to do? Keep him shunned as a pariah state indefinitely, while many countries still quietly do deals with him? He should have been taken out 25 yrs. ago, but we are where we are.

Milt,

My honest, unabashed opinion is to get the hell out and stay the hell out. And to hell with the consequences...this business of the West trying to find, no make a solution in any of these regions has to stop.

The Sauds have now entered Bahrain (at their pleading)...there are riots in Syria...Yemen is a cesspool of violence...Algeria, Tunisia...you guys know the list. And no I won't buy the we have to defend Israel argument either. Israel can take care of herself...seriously.

This meddling and fluffing around the edges is costing 100s of millions of dollars every day...not to mention the human cost. The West has not helped the Arab/ME/North African nations in all their years of meddling. They have cocked things up in the main for decades...I want them all to go home and let the Arabs sort themselves out. I want a deaf ear and a blind eye to it. If they finish themselves or each other off, so be it. It's time we step out and stay out. Maybe the English should stay...if they can afford it...to fix the messes they caused when they sat down and divvied up the entire bloody region with the flick of a pen after WWII...

Sorry guys...this whole situation is really upsetting me...even though people are being displaced all over the region (not to mention the Palestinians who have been displaced for decades now)...we need to let the ME handle their own messes; in whatever barbaric or undemocratic way they choose. You have to remember: OUR WAY IS NOT THEIR WAY...and we cannot force our way upon them. If 'they' invade 'us' well then the ballgame changes...but until such time we have to stop sticking our gluey noses in...we don't solve the problem; at best we push it underground for a moment...

You know 'our' problem? We are so damned arrogant...who died and made 'us' God???

Off to Parf we go I'll guess...my doing...oh well :rolleyes:

Generally speaking, I'm 100% in agreement with you there (and Lisa, who squeezed a post in there before I could read it), but in the case of Muhammar Khadafi, I'm making an exception. He's megalomaniac garbage, and I'd be dancing a little jig if a missile accidentally blew up his a$$. But all in all, yes, it'd be better if we stayed away, but at what point do internal affairs become genocide? Still happy about Kadhaffi getting his a$$ handed to him though, sorry...

Accidentally, my ass. Q and his family should be targeted and taken out.

If 'we' were serious about this whole catastrophe we'd be taking our tactics back a few decades...what happened to the good old days when a CIA or Mossad squad would take out the target? Clean, quick, no messing around...

You want this job done...then I say pick up the phone to Israel...and send in the Mossad.

I am not blood thirsty...I just want effective results. Even war is so PC now it is sickening.

But before you pick up that phone, you had better be sure that a void will not be left, or the replacements are not worse than the predecessors...and in EVERY country in the ME/Arab/North African region I cannot be sure of that.

I'm totally on board with Lisa's opinion. Get out of it and stay out of it. After all the USA is the oft mentioned "West" and will bear a huge part of blame when things get worse(as they surely will) even though we claim to be playing a supporting role.

Historically justified, but why now? It bugs me that the world gets all high and mighty and moralistic and meddlesome now when Q is the same guy he's always been.