Can someone tell me why we are bombing Lybia? I know that MQ is a bad person, had ties to terrorist in the past, and was leading the government forces in a civil war, but he threatened us (meaning the US and our main allies) how?

If there was a reason did we react too late?

I spent the past weekend working on projects with my kids and not paying much attention to the news cycle.

Oh man that is a really bad misspelling.

On subject, Libya doesn't threaten us at all. Libya is insignificant on the world stage. He DID react too late, and it's a huge waste of money.

Yet another US intervention that wasn't needed, and now we're saddled with it. We have too many higher priorities. Too many.

The UN passed a resolution. France attacked first IIRC.

I don't really see where we had any business, even with a UN resolution =/

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

With the amount of money the US spends on Defense, I figured most people would be all too happy to put some of it to use.

What's amusing is that most of the press I've seen on the issue since the air strike centers around how the UK and France were spearheading the attack yet the vasty majority of the cruise missiles (anyone have any idea what each of those puppies are worth?) were fired from American sources and how the US government has then had to defend it's position on the matter. 'The French started it!'

The fact that the Canadian government sent SIX F-18s also amused me.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

sorry about the typos... too tired to re-read before I posted it.

There wasn't even a WMD or Terrorist Camp story to say why it needed to be done. I did see a couple stories from non-US papers that called Obama a weak president and that some of the EU leaders along with the Russian leaders were calling Obama out for not doing or saying anything of substance over the past few months.

Add the "kill squad" photos and there is some major excrement hitting the propeller right there.

Do we even know if the people we're supporting are better than the current regime?

That is what I have been wondering about Egypt as well

Time to get out of Afghanistan.

No, no they are not better than the current regime (for us).

We reacted far too late, and even though it is a UN resolution the US is putting the largest amount of assets towards it. Our planes are flying CAP, our fleet is firing cruise missiles.

From what I've heard, the French Mirages has been taking out tanks to enforce the no fly zone. That'll show them hovertanks.

I'm not sure why we are getting involved in a country's civil war. History has shown us time and time again that it is far less painful to let them fight it out.

I think I just need to stop paying attention to the news. I can't stomach another 5 years of this garbage.

So the administration didn't give a reason why we are bombing?

Well it can be assumed that it is to stop the violence against civilians. Latest word is that both sides are executing people so it will be interesting to see how that is handled. If we stop the Libyan loyalists from taking the rebel stronghold the rebels will still be executing government supporters.

5 years? You mean (life expectancy - your age) years?

You always seem so shocked and offended when politicans go back on their word or double-talk and other nonsense. =/ I would think you'd be used to it by now.

That would be my assumption that Obama gets re-elected.

McCain says we should've went in sooner. So we'd be there either way.

I'm just saying.

So, if the current leader of a nation (legitimacy debates aside) can't use their military to put down what amounts to an armed insurrection, how are they supposed to do it?

(note: I don't support Gaddafi, in any way shape or form, but the UN dictating what a sovereign nation's leader does within the borders of their own country beyond saying "we don't like that, stop it" is a terrible slope to slip down)

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

It wasn't an armed insurrection when it started. They were protesting and their so called leader ordered his troops to fire on them. Once they had been fired upon it was on from there.

So if the goal is regime change.. does that make Obama a neocon?

Ok then, what's the problem? We're not talking Bosnian genocide here. Not that I approve, but I don't see why our involvement is remotely necessary short of it occurring on our continent.

Does anyone actually believe that the purpose international involvement is for the people of Lybia?

This is a mess. A sampling of overseas headlines:
- Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
- French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
- Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
- Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
- No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
- U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
- Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
- Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

Looks like a leadership vacuum...

Lybian oil reserves aren't all that impressive if that's where you're going..

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

No but it could be payback for Lockerbie and his various other asshat moves.

I think this about covers it.

Also it gives us a reason to buy/produce more weapons if we use them up. Think of it as an extra bit of economic stimulus since i believe most of the weapons/munitions we use are made in America.

That's true.. All spending IS stimulus, after all.

That is true, sir.

Funny...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ategy.html

I think the term "exit strategy" is a little bogus and misleading, no matter what conflict we are talking about. No one knows exactly how things will happen once we enter a conflict. We didn't have a defined exit strategy in any war we have fought since our country began. Shit happens. We react. People die. War sucks.

I personally like a little ambiguity... I think it's called "honesty." We don't totally know how this is going to turn out. I think it's a whole lot better than "We're going to invade, topple Saddam, and be out by 2003" exit strategy. I guess I prefer honest ambiguity to false clarity.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

just when Obama had truly started to win me back, he had to go and do this. /shakes head

_________________

Mar 18: Obama tells Congress Libya operation to "last days not weeks".

Mar 27: Obama admin says Libya operation could continue for months.

Is that honest ambiguity, Fribur?

The source of that first quote suggested that only the "heavy kinetic activity" would last that long, which makes more sense. He didn't really say anything about how long the involvement itself would take.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... weeks.html

Also, source on Obama "admin" saying that it could last for months? Closest I've found are unnamed US "officials", which may not be directly involved with his administration. Seems a little loose to try and claim a major contradiction on Obama's policies/statements.

Also note the line after that in the blog, "after which he said the US would then take more of a supporting role." Clearly he indicated our involvement/the operation would not continue! O wait

Look at all of the cowards who defend a corrupt leaders ability to commit genocide on their own people.

Being on the losing side of a civil war is not genocide.

By the logic Karthun is using, the United States committed genocide against their own people during the civil war.

I demand reparations.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I must have missed your outrage over the lack of involvement in areas such as Darfur.

Let's not get wishy washy with the definition of genocide, either.

I've got first-hand knowledge of what constitutes a genocide and this most certainly is NOT it.

I guess Karthun supports the Iraq war.

I thought you were the guy cheering Obama's election, happy to see the new era of "smart power" he would usher in.

/aside but I'm reminded of this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/tortured-ugandan-political-prisoner-wishes-uganda,3200/

haha.. nice. this one also comes to mind.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/northe ... n-wes,305/

Genocide is a little tricky to pin down because it can be whatever you want it to be(doesn't have to be racial killings - cultural, political, or national genocide is perfectly possible under the definition), but it seems like the definition revolves primarily on its "systematic" qualities with perhaps an emphasis on elimination.

Looking back at the civil war analogy... I dunno, it does seem like Gaddafi wants to simply get rid of the group opposing him rather than figure out a way to defeat them, and then somehow come to terms with them as we did in the civil war.

Of course, personally I'd gladly have chosen that our nation did not endure a civil war rather than decide to attack the South. I believe there were other ways to end slavery and while historically having one solid meganation has been a significant boon, having 2 competing nations(friendly competition, hopefully) may well have had its own share of rewards. Not a fan of killing a nation's own people in particular, at any rate.

There will always be something unjust going on in the world, and the job of our leadership is to determine which of these we should intervene in. I would prefer to not be involved in this fight at all, but the way Obama is doing it could be worse. As for the quote of how he said the president didn't have the power to do this, he was wrong back then, not now.

I doubt he was ever truly wrong in the sense that he was misinformed. Rather he was intentionally making an incorrect statement and playing the usual political game of, "If the other party is doing it, it must be wrong, even if I did the same thing yesterday."

You spelled he's just an arrogant hypocritical hack wrong.

You spelled "he's a politician" wrong.

How are people not used to this yet, and when are people going to stop just pointing fingers at the "other team" about it? You'd think voters would have caught on and just become genuinely sick of it already and stop the "team" mentality.

He did not threaten us directly, however he did threaten to set a bloody precedent for dealing with the wave of democratic sentiment brewing among the populace in that region. His 'we will go from door to door' to stop the uprising was a pretty clear statement of action on how he was going to proceed, namely by butchering all resistance.

If we did nothing, he would have not only brought an end to resistance in Libya, but given other leaders a clear template on how to deal with popular uprising.

It is arguably in our interest to see democracy spread rather then be crushed. We want more Egypt-type scenarios, not bloodbaths.

For those saying we acted 'too late', it was in our interest to be seen as not acting (again) unilaterally as we did in Iraq...we did not act until the Arab League signed off on the course of action. We are not the only players here. It is interesting the the tone here is that because we are taking part in this, we are by definition driving this...I do not believe that is the case.

It is not really costing us much more then plane fuel and lip service as the European nations of NATO have a much bigger vested (read: oil) interest and they are likewise at this time doing most of the action. That may change, of course, but I'd imagine we will be happy to let Britain and France take the lead on this, as they should.

Why does "in our interests!" need to end up in sticking our nose into other nations' affairs?

You know... You can want something and not necessarily pursue it. In fact, sometimes the best way to get what you want is precisely not to pursue it. We have a habit of turning people off to our ways by shoving it down peoples' throats.

That's not to say I would suggest no action anywhere, but the "in our interests!" justification is overused and ignores a particularly effective method to get people to see eye to eye with you.

It's in Iran's best interest to chase us out of the Middle East. Does that justify a tactical nuclear strike on our forces in Iraq?

I rather US just always play a supportive role and never enter a country let someone else do the dirty work.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

It is when you specifically target civilians who are members of a different tribe or group.



I agree with you that slavery is a form of genocide but I doubt that you were trying to claim this with your pithy statement.



Your right, I did and still do. You on the other hand seem to think that the west's hands off in Darfur and in Rwanda were the correct decision and we should take a hands off approach in Libya.



http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm

That works for me.



So do I and while Srebrenica's has population of 40k, Az Zawiyah was cleansed and it HAD a population of 280k, no one knows how many people are left and there are few men over the age of 15 left in the city.

Benghazi has a population of over 1 million. Libya is far worse then Bosnia and Kosovo.



Soft Power and that is exactly what happened.

This is such an ignorant that it barely deserves even this response. Here's the difference, chief. We KNOW what happened in Srebrenica (and for the record, that's a SINGLE, albeit the largest, example in Bosnia, it was far more widespread than there.) mostly because the media couldn't avoid it. Much of my duty cycle there involved going from mass grave site to mass grave site throughout the country helping identify the bodies. They loaded people in buses, made them dig large holes, and shot them. They were exceedingly efficient at it. I'd more than welcome hearing what YOUR firsthand knowledge of a genocide is, as you're very quick to assign the description here without many facts. Understand that it's been documented that many of these folks have fled the cities, or in the case of many men, have joined the rebels.

I'm sorry but the jury is still out here. By stating that this is a genocide, this early, you're cheapening the impact of the meaning this word is meant to represent. However, this doesn't mean I condone these actions in any way. But to think it compares to Bosnia or Darfur with the facts we have now? You're a fucking clown.

Let's see.

1) He went with less international support than any action Bush or Clinton took.
2) He went without any support from Congress.
3) Perceptions in the arab world appear to be pretty much identical to other recent interventions (it ain't going over well).

Do you know what soft power is? Here's a hint: it doesn't involve bombs!

What the fuck do you think happened in Az Zawiyah? Should the international community sit by and wait until the mass graves are found or should we do something and prevent the mass graves from even being dug in the first place? You seem to be leaning towards the latter. You seem to believe that having the international community wait and let genocide occur is better then intervening and stopping the genocide from happening in the first place. How ashamed I am to have ever served in the same military as you. How ashamed I am to be a citizen of the same country as you.

- Ben Franklin

No, I'm against instantly categorizing something as a genocide and intervening and possibly exacerbating an even larger problem. I'm as much against that as I am about doing nothing. For your information, I was VERY much against our lack of action during the Balkans. The entire reason Srebrenica was possible was because of VERY piss poor UN intervention w/o any understanding of the level of the conflict. The enclave there was poorly manned and the Mladic walked right in with barely a shot fired.

The actions in Libya are poorly planned, with no end goal and very little in the way of understanding the people we are supporting. You see this shit as black and white, when it's not. It's very easy to think of this in a WWII mindset. Hitler was a bad bad mother fucker with a very clear and stated goal that was of near immediate international impact. Today's global politics are not nearly as black and white.

Also, feel free to be ashamed of having served in the same military as me. To be frank, I'm ashamed of my own involvement that late in the game myself. I have to medicate in order to properly sleep. I will take the guilt of my country's inaction to the grave with me. Even with this knowledge, I know the importance of not making a bad situation worse with knee-jerk response.

Yay for generic idioms.

Prevention is indeed worth more than the cure if we're actually preventing something. Hypotheticals that are about as well-grounded as "Well, Pakistan and India might go to war in the next 20 years, and during that time genocide may take place with this particular regime that will probably be responsible for it if we stand by and do nothing!"? Not so much.

You guys should just beat each other up IRL.

Gaddafi's forces were 10 miles from Benghazi and had already started shelling with artillery. This was after Gaddafi said he would "cleanse Libya house by house".

And India and Pakistan are a poor example for you because there are UN forces observing the ceasefire.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/

oh joy!

Full Story here

We don't need this now