PDA

View Full Version : Should we have attacked Libya?



David W Pratt
03-26-2011, 03:53 PM
Should we have attacked Libya?

wardd
03-26-2011, 04:10 PM
probably

LeeG
03-26-2011, 04:26 PM
only on Mondays

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-26-2011, 04:32 PM
False question.

"We" did not "attack Libya", "we" enforced a UN resolution which prohibits the Libyan government from attacking its own citizens.

And YES WE SHOULD

Hot Air
03-26-2011, 04:33 PM
And miss out on being allied with AQ forces and other assorted Jihadists? Are you kidding me? One can never engage too many Muslim countries. Two wasn't nearly enough.

John Smith
03-26-2011, 04:47 PM
False question.

"We" did not "attack Libya", "we" enforced a UN resolution which prohibits the Libyan government from attacking its own citizens.

And YES WE SHOULD

That is what I was about to post. Thanks. Well said.

John Smith
03-26-2011, 04:49 PM
That is what I was about to post. Thanks. Well said.

Also, ask Newt. He'll give you a solid reason as to why he would have attacked, he would have immediately done a no fly zone, and why he'd not get involved at all.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-26-2011, 04:50 PM
Of course we should have bombed Libya. Honestly, we're being pansies for stopping there. The UN security council, with American and European leadership, has decided it gets to choose who controls foreign oil fields. That means it's high time we get to work toppling hostile regimes that have oil.

The Saudis act all friendly and stuff, but behind the scenes they're basically dictating prices to OPEC. That's gone on long enough, it's time the right people start dictating prices. We need to get a puppet regime ready, then bomb the living snot out of Saudi Arabia to pave our guy's road to power.

Venezuela. Let's be real, Chavez is a Commie, 'nuf said. We should have been dropping bombs last week.

Nigeria is a mess, the people live in squalor, the government is corrupt as all hell, and just to top it off, they can't even extract their oil without dumping half of it into the river. They need some freedom bombs. As an added bonus, bombing may result in a reduced scamspam in our inboxes.

Those three should be enough for now, but don't worry, once we're done with them there's all of Central Asia and Russia to look forward to.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-26-2011, 04:51 PM
"AQ forces and other assorted Jihadists?"

You've been drinking Captain (the "Colonel" was a self-promotion) Gaddafi's Kool-Aid.

Libya is most certainly a Moslem country but Libya's national brand of Islam, the Senussis, stand in approximately the same relationship to Islam as the Methodits do to Christianity. Try a little gentle Googling.

Hot Air
03-26-2011, 04:53 PM
What were all those Libyan methodists doing in Iraq?

PeterSibley
03-26-2011, 04:57 PM
"AQ forces and other assorted Jihadists?"

You've been drinking Captain (the "Colonel" was a self-promotion) Gaddafi's Kool-Aid.

Libya is most certainly a Moslem country but Libya's national brand of Islam, the Senussis, stand in approximately the same relationship to Islam as the Methodits do to Christianity. Try a little gentle Googling.

What ? Disturb layer on layer of happy prejudice ?

John Smith
03-26-2011, 05:01 PM
Of course we should have bombed Libya. Honestly, we're being pansies for stopping there. The UN security council, with American and European leadership, has decided it gets to choose who controls foreign oil fields. That means it's high time we get to work toppling hostile regimes that have oil.

The Saudis act all friendly and stuff, but behind the scenes they're basically dictating prices to OPEC. That's gone on long enough, it's time the right people start dictating prices. We need to get a puppet regime ready, then bomb the living snot out of Saudi Arabia to pave our guy's road to power.

Venezuela. Let's be real, Chavez is a Commie, 'nuf said. We should have been dropping bombs last week.

Nigeria is a mess, the people live in squalor, the government is corrupt as all hell, and just to top it off, they can't even extract their oil without dumping half of it into the river. They need some freedom bombs. As an added bonus, bombing may result in a reduced scamspam in our inboxes.

Those three should be enough for now, but don't worry, once we're done with them there's all of Central Asia and Russia to look forward to.

I tend to agree to the extent that the UN, if it is to be involved, should be more aggressively involved. A line needs to be determined where, if crossed, those who cross it are criminals and the UN resolution should be to capture them and bring them to trial.

Slaughtering your own people would be one way to cross that line.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-26-2011, 05:11 PM
Slaughtering your own people would be one way to cross that line.

Sure, as long as we're talking about guys who are on the same playing field. I mean, come on, Zimbabwe and DR Congo don't count. We've gotta have some standards, gold, gemstones, and rare earth minerals are great and all, but they're not fossil fuels. We should reserve bombing missions for those campaigns that will result in tangible benefits for the American consumer market, primarily lower gas prices.

Hot Air
03-26-2011, 05:12 PM
http://articles.cnn.com/images/pixel.gifThis from CNN pointing out all of ACB's methodist jihadist running around Iraq. Think any of them might have gone home?

"More militants from Libya are turning up in Iraq, U.S. military researchers say.
U.S. Military Academy researchers studying documents note the continuing predominance of Saudis among foreign fighters.
But an "apparent surge" in Libyans could be tied to "the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al Qaeda," a West Point report says.
The Libyan group officially joined al Qaeda on November 3, according to the report, called "Al Qaeda's Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records."


http://articles.cnn.com/images/pixel.gif
Advertisement


http://articles.cnn.com/images/pixel.gif
The 30-page report reviewed documents seized in a September raid in the Sinjar area close to the Syrian border. The data at that time was called "an al Qaeda Rolodex" by one official.
The report lists the identities of 595 foreign nationals who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. Of those, 244, or 41 percent, were Saudis, and 112, or 18.8 percent, were Libyans, the report said. Others were from Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco and Jordan. Watch where a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq torture chamber was found
The report said that previous research found no more than 4 percent of foreign fighters were Libyan. But the records indicate that Libyans began arriving in Iraq -- almost all by way of Syria -- in greater numbers in May.
The report said that most of these recruits hail from cities in northeastern Libya, where "jihadi-linked" militants have a strong presence" and that Libyan fighters were more likely than other nationalities to be labeled as suicide bombers.
"Recent political developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the prevalence of Libyan fighters in Iraq, and the evidence of a well-established smuggling route for Libyans through Egypt, suggests that Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al Qaeda," the report said.
The Sinjar Records indicated that al Qaeda in Iraq uses criminals and smugglers rather than its personnel to bring militants into Iraq.
The university connection is strong, with nearly 43 percent of the 157 fighters who listed their occupations saying they were students. Other occupations were teachers, doctors and engineers. There was even a massage therapist in the group.
The average age of the fighters was 24 to 25, and the median age was 22 to 23. The age of the oldest fighter crossing into Iraq was 54 and the youngest was 15."

wardd
03-26-2011, 05:13 PM
russia and china abstained, that's as close to approval from them we'll get

bobbys
03-26-2011, 05:17 PM
I had just about lost faith in Prez Obama but when he went and bombed the chit outta people all willy nilly like he restored my trust in the sacred Office of the Prez!!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-26-2011, 05:50 PM
Hot Air should perhaps check on the dates of documents that he cites.

The LIFG broke with Al-Qaeda in 2007; indeed I had the pleasure of seeing Noman Benotman, wearing a very spiffy suit and tie, being interviewed on the BBC on this very subject as recently as last night.

Keith Wilson
03-26-2011, 07:02 PM
Probably yes; it seems like the least bad alternative.

Hot Air
03-26-2011, 07:08 PM
No Jihadists here. Just your local Methodists. Please carry on.


Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links (Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html)):

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25″ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”.
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military’s West Point academy has said the two share an “increasingly co-operative relationship”. In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.
Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of “the stage of Islam” in the country.
British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for “Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya” had “shaken the enemies of Islam and the Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese”.
Libyan Islamists stand to gain with or without Gadhafi (Duetsche Welle (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14934994,00.html)):

An alleged dual British-Libyan jihadist has been paraded in front of the international media to support the regime’s claim that the revolt against Gadhafi’s 41-year rule was being directed by al-Qaeda.


Libya has put the spotlight on the fact that it may be one of the Middle Eastern and North African countries where militant Islamists emerge strengthened from the Arab struggle to throw off the yoke of authoritarian rule.
Salah Mohammed Ali Abu Obah, a 43-year old Manchester resident, said he was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an al-Qaeda affiliate founded by Libyan fighters in Afghanistan. He said he had been detained earlier this month by Libyan security forces in the town of Zawiya, west of the capital Tripoli. Abu Obah described himself as a low-level LIFG fundraiser.
Abu Obah’s statements did little to substantiate Gadhafi’s claim but fuelled Western concerns that jihadists and militant Islamists were playing a key role in the Libyan revolt unlike elsewhere in the world where they have largely been relegated to the sidelines. Abu Obah noted that the LIFG had broken its ties to al-Qaeda in 2007 around the time that its imprisoned leaders engaged in serious dialogue with the regime as part of the government’s rehabilitation program.
“The part of the LIFG that I am with does not belong to al-Qaeda,” Abu Obah said.
The LIFG alongside dissident elements of the Libyan armed forces are the only two groups within the Libyan opposition with battle experience. The Libyan jihadists fought a bitter insurgency in eastern Libya in the 1990s.
Many of the Islamist fighters who are facing off against Gadhafi’s forces were released from prison last year as part of the government rehabilitation program that was overseen by Gadhafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, in which they repented their ways, but did not fully renounce violence.
Analysts said the jihadists’ role in the struggle to topple Gadhafi would strengthen their position irrespective of what the outcome is of the battle for Libya. They said the fighters’ attitudes once the battle is over would constitute a litmus test for government rehabilitation programs in several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Mauritania. The Saudi program has so far had an 80 percent success rate.

bobbys
03-26-2011, 08:32 PM
How do Methodits differ from Bapdits?.

Methodits Bomb by Air, Bapdits by Water....

George Jung
03-26-2011, 08:39 PM
Methodist air is a euphemism? Very well done....


I'm surprised at the reluctance of so many to vote on this, even anonymously. Don't get shy now!

For those who feel the US should not be involved in Libya, presumably you were okay with Gadaffi killing all those civilians? I'm curious your thought process.

JimD
03-26-2011, 08:40 PM
Sure, as long as we're talking about guys who are on the same playing field. I mean, come on, Zimbabwe and DR Congo don't count. We've gotta have some standards, gold, gemstones, and rare earth minerals are great and all, but they're not fossil fuels. We should reserve bombing missions for those campaigns that will result in tangible benefits for the American consumer market, primarily lower gas prices.

Dr, you are so naive! (Like the way I threw in the exclamation mark?) Its not about lower prices. Its about higher profits.

JimD
03-26-2011, 08:42 PM
Of course we should have bombed Libya. Honestly, we're being pansies for stopping there. The UN security council, with American and European leadership, has decided it gets to choose who controls foreign oil fields. That means it's high time we get to work toppling hostile regimes that have oil.

The Saudis act all friendly and stuff, but behind the scenes they're basically dictating prices to OPEC. That's gone on long enough, it's time the right people start dictating prices. We need to get a puppet regime ready, then bomb the living snot out of Saudi Arabia to pave our guy's road to power.

Venezuela. Let's be real, Chavez is a Commie, 'nuf said. We should have been dropping bombs last week.

Nigeria is a mess, the people live in squalor, the government is corrupt as all hell, and just to top it off, they can't even extract their oil without dumping half of it into the river. They need some freedom bombs. As an added bonus, bombing may result in a reduced scamspam in our inboxes.

Those three should be enough for now, but don't worry, once we're done with them there's all of Central Asia and Russia to look forward to.

I'm not so sure about Venezuela, and Russia and central Asia might be overreaching a bit, too. The focus should be kept on protecting the civilians of the Islamic oil producing nations.

botebum
03-26-2011, 08:45 PM
.

Methodits Bomb by Air, Bapdits by Water....
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h92/botebum/email%20and%20blog%20smilies/smileyRoundLaugh.gif

Doug

seanz
03-26-2011, 08:49 PM
So, what are we hoping to achieve this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

George Jung
03-26-2011, 08:55 PM
What shall I call you, JimD - Professor? (Or MaryAnne?)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. So lets keep it simple.

Intervene in Libya? Or let the slaughter continue, unchallenged?

There's no right or wrong answer; just curious what you would do if you were King.

wardd
03-26-2011, 08:57 PM
didn't libya attack us first?

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 08:58 PM
Libya represents another foolish military adventure the US should have kept away from. We cannot afford to be the policeman of the world. Every time the President acts in this way without the consent of the Congress our system of government is further undermined. We have seen that benefits rarely accrue to the US as a result of these interventions. The Iraq war is an example. The lefties didn't like that one but seem to be OK with the Libya thing. Wonder why?

George Jung
03-26-2011, 09:03 PM
Good observation; why do you think the liberals (some, anyway) support this?

It's my impression Obama tried to stay out of this one (and has caught grief for that, of course; OTOH, if he continues breathing, someone will complain about that).

He had his arm twisted pretty hard, including by Hillary, France and England. My suspicion is, our allies, who certainly haven't supported Iraq/Afghanistan anywhere near the extent the US did, are awakening to the realization the US is not going to be gung ho as the previous administration; any new hotspots, they're going to have to pony up and do it themselves - or watch the meltdown in their (relatively speaking) backyard.

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 09:20 PM
Good observation; why do you think the liberals (some, anyway) support this?

It's my impression Obama tried to stay out of this one (and has caught grief for that, of course; OTOH, if he continues breathing, someone will complain about that).

He had his arm twisted pretty hard, including by Hillary, France and England. My suspicion is, our allies, who certainly haven't supported Iraq/Afghanistan anywhere near the extent the US did, are awakening to the realization the US is not going to be gung ho as the previous administration; any new hotspots, they're going to have to pony up and do it themselves - or watch the meltdown in their (relatively speaking) backyard. I think Obama realizes that he waited too long getting on board the Egyptian affair. Everybody wants to go with a winner. I think Hillary and the Euros must have made him believe the outcome would be similar and he better get on board if he wants something from the new regime. However, I think the outcome is still in doubt. The Lefties of course will support Obama all the way to the trash can.

botebum
03-26-2011, 09:22 PM
The Iraq war is an example. The lefties didn't like that one but seem to be OK with the Libya thing. Wonder why?I think you'd find that most people, left and right, agreed with the attack on Iraq initially. Then we found out that it was all based on lies by the Bush administration.

Doug

JimD
03-26-2011, 09:26 PM
What shall I call you, JimD - Professor? (Or MaryAnne?)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. So lets keep it simple.

Intervene in Libya? Or let the slaughter continue, unchallenged?

There's no right or wrong answer; just curious what you would do if you were King.

If I were king I would have intervened. Being king and able to cut through a little red tape I would have intervened a couple weeks sooner. Also, in for a penny, in for a pound. Ground troops would be next. We need to get some armed and dangerous blue berets in Benghazi and Tripoli asap. Otherwise the uprising is going to fizzle out.

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 09:31 PM
I think you'd find that most people, left and right, agreed with the attack on Iraq initially. Then we found out that it was all based on lies by the Bush administration.

Doug I have to agree with you regarding the lies of the Bush administration. But now that it's a done thing, can we say any benefit has accrued to the US for the expenditure of our blood and treasure? All we've done is strengthen the hand of our real enemy in the region - Iran.

JimD
03-26-2011, 09:34 PM
I think you'd find that most people, left and right, agreed with the attack on Iraq initially. Then we found out that it was all based on lies by the Bush administration.

Doug

Please tell me you're not serious, Doug. The rampant, flagrant, shameless dishonesty leading up to the war was obvious to anyone willing to see the truth.

Bill Griffin
03-26-2011, 09:39 PM
Yes, about 30 years ago. I also think Obama is correct in letting somebody else take the lead now. Pigs are flying by my window, too.

botebum
03-26-2011, 09:44 PM
Please tell me you're not serious, Doug. The rampant, flagrant, shameless dishonesty leading up to the war was obvious to anyone willing to see the truth.And yet Congress voted to back the plan, Democrats included.
Where were you then to tell us of our folly oh, Seer of the Future?

Doug

stumpbumper
03-26-2011, 09:44 PM
Yes. I hope we don't continue to take the leading role.

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 09:44 PM
Please tell me you're not serious, Doug. The rampant, flagrant, shameless dishonesty leading up to the war was obvious to anyone willing to see the truth.
So do I have this right. You were against the Iraq invasion, but you favor the Libya affair?

botebum
03-26-2011, 09:46 PM
So do I have this right. You were against the Iraq invasion, but you favor the Libya affair?I think he might have been being sarcastic in his "If I were King" post but I'm not sure.

Doug

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 09:49 PM
I think he might have been being sarcastic in his "If I were King" post but I'm not sure.

Doug You know, if Canada had a King (a real one), THEY could take the lead in some military adventures!

JimD
03-26-2011, 10:03 PM
And yet Congress voted to back the plan, Democrats included.
Where were you then to tell us of our folly oh, Seer of the Future?

Doug

I'm pretty sure I was here on the forum letting you all know.

SMARTINSEN
03-26-2011, 10:05 PM
You know, if Canada had a King (a real one), THEY could take the lead in some military adventures!

The NATO commander of this operation will be a Canadian.

wardd
03-26-2011, 10:08 PM
if we had not intervened and later if gaddafi felt threatened would he brig down some more airliners?

JimD
03-26-2011, 10:08 PM
So do I have this right. You were against the Iraq invasion, but you favor the Libya affair?

Yes, that's right. The Iraq thing stunk from the beginning. I'm not saying Libya is odor free but at least there is an uprising with significant popular support on who's behalf to intervene in a timely manner.

JimD
03-26-2011, 10:09 PM
I think he might have been being sarcastic in his "If I were King" post but I'm not sure.

Doug

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 10:09 PM
The NATO commander of this operation will be a Canadian. Excellent, and when the troops hit the beaches of Libya I hope he will be in personal command of his legions.

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 10:15 PM
Yes, that's right. The Iraq thing stunk from the beginning. I'm not saying Libya is odor free but at least there is an uprising with significant popular support on who's behalf to intervene in a timely manner. The "significant popular support" of the Libya thing "stinks" too, of Al Qaeda. Dictators like Gadafi (and Saddam Hussein) serve a useful purpose in keeping "significant" dangerous elements busy.

SMARTINSEN
03-26-2011, 10:25 PM
Excellent, and when the troops hit the beaches of Libya I hope he will be in personal command of his legions.

Fat chance, they are doing it all from their air-conditioned offices in Italy and Germany.

hanleyclifford
03-26-2011, 10:32 PM
Fat chance, they are doing it all from their air-conditioned offices in Italy and Germany. That is exactly the problem. People who start and run wars should get a little sand up their backsides - if that were the case, there would be a helluva lot fewer of them.

Dave Gray
03-26-2011, 10:34 PM
No. UN action or not, we have no business there. Is Syria next?

SMARTINSEN
03-26-2011, 10:39 PM
If I were king I would have intervened. Being king and able to cut through a little red tape I would have intervened a couple weeks sooner. Also, in for a penny, in for a pound. Ground troops would be next. We need to get some armed and dangerous blue berets in Benghazi and Tripoli asap. Otherwise the uprising is going to fizzle out.

Syria next? Assad has started butchering the people. Jordan?

SMARTINSEN
03-26-2011, 10:43 PM
Can't seem to be able to edit. Cross-post with Dave Gray.

George Jung
03-26-2011, 10:45 PM
I think 'edit' is on hold, pending repairs to the new and improved system....

say what ya mean, straight up!

Dave Gray
03-26-2011, 10:49 PM
The unstated objective has to be to disrupt OPEC, which, for a cartel, has lasted a long time. If the UN were worried about humanitarian goals then they would be working on Japan and Haiti. In other words, there is something to gain in this action, and perhaps it is thought that there is not a lot to lose.

George Jung
03-26-2011, 10:53 PM
Interesting points.

What do you think *we* could do for Haiti and Japan?

Are either of those countries even remotely interested in 'intervention' by outsiders??

I'd gathered they were not.

coelacanth2
03-26-2011, 10:56 PM
Just to stir tings up a bit:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec

SMARTINSEN
03-26-2011, 11:03 PM
What do you think *we* could do for Haiti and Japan?

Bomb them? *We* are quite good at it.

George Jung
03-26-2011, 11:16 PM
I'm sorry - I was asking how we could help them....

unless you think they're beyond redemption?

hanleyclifford
03-27-2011, 07:20 AM
If the US really wanted to help Haiti we could offer them statehood.

George Jung
03-27-2011, 09:07 AM
Tell me - how does statehood help? Federal aid? Free movement to mainland USA?

I don't see how it changes the basic problem - no agriculture to speak of, no industry, no infrastructure.

JimD
03-27-2011, 09:34 AM
The "significant popular support" of the Libya thing "stinks" too, of Al Qaeda. Dictators like Gadafi (and Saddam Hussein) serve a useful purpose in keeping "significant" dangerous elements busy.

Yes, that's the problem, more or less. Maybe they're not AQ but who exactly are they? I find it hard to believe it is all the result of idealistic university students and democracy minded white collar professionals spontaneously grabbing some weapons and deciding to take control of the country. There's got to be some faces in the shadows we're not getting a look at. The closest thing to an historical analogy that I followed closely was the so called Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua in 1979. Sure, there was a general popular uprising, spontaneous in many ways. But the Sandinistas had been a paramilitary organization since the 60s and were in a position to emerge as leaders of the new headless dictatorship. So what are the organizations, clandestine or otherwise, in Libya capable of forming a new government? I haven't a clue. Which means on the one hand I'm in favour of supporting them but on the other I really don't know who they are. This question has been raised in the popular media and I've yet to hear a very satisfactory answer.

George Jung
03-27-2011, 09:42 AM
Interesting perspective, and it strikes me - perhaps it explains Obamas' initial reluctance.

I've no doubt 'the masses' haven't a clue what's the real story.

Bob Adams
03-27-2011, 09:53 AM
Just to stir tings up a bit:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec


Oh my. Yup, that will get some jucies flowing!

S.V. Airlie
03-27-2011, 10:02 AM
?????

JimD
03-27-2011, 10:08 AM
Should we have taken that left turn at Albuquerque?

JimD
03-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Just to stir tings up a bit:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec

That was almost all funny

JimD
03-27-2011, 10:18 AM
not for the extreme left I bet

Some people just can't take a joke.

JimD
03-27-2011, 10:51 AM
especially the left... :)

I suspect that cartoon video was not created by anyone very far right of center. Its too genuinely clever. The Left may not be able to take a joke, but the Right doesn't know how to tell one. Its a sad situation all around. Funny, mind you. But sad...

coelacanth2
03-27-2011, 10:52 AM
SMARTINSEN, what about the Marshall plan? Postwar rebuilding of Japan and Germany was a rather decent thing to do (see "Japanese treatment of POWs) for former enemies and has arguably helped world stability since. I don't think anybody else has done similar, ever, although I may be wrong. Look what happened in Europe after WW1 with the punitive damages levied on Germany.

We aren't all bad, you know.

JimD
03-27-2011, 11:02 AM
SMARTINSEN, what about the Marshall plan? Postwar rebuilding of Japan and Germany was a rather decent thing to do (see "Japanese treatment of POWs) for former enemies and has arguably helped world stability since. I don't think anybody else has done similar, ever, although I may be wrong. Look what happened in Europe after WW1 with the punitive damages levied on Germany.

We aren't all bad, you know.

The Marshall plan was a result of looking what happened to Germany after WWI. Hitler happened to Germany. The Marshall plan was in part a response to prevent yet a new Hitler from happening to Germany. It wasn't just out of kindness.

S.V. Airlie
03-27-2011, 11:25 AM
No the economic situation that existed in Germany because of WW1, elected or put Hitler in office...If Germany had been stable in the '30's, Hitler probably would not have gotten in office.

hanleyclifford
03-27-2011, 12:05 PM
Tell me - how does statehood help? Federal aid? Free movement to mainland USA?

I don't see how it changes the basic problem - no agriculture to speak of, no industry, no infrastructure. Statehood brings stability so investment and economic growth can occur. Statehood would reduce corruption and incompetence to standard US levels. Haiti has enormous agricultural potential and tourism potential. Under US law and restraint the most basic rights and services would become available to a people who have almost nothing.

wardd
03-27-2011, 12:17 PM
SMARTINSEN, what about the Marshall plan? Postwar rebuilding of Japan and Germany was a rather decent thing to do (see "Japanese treatment of POWs) for former enemies and has arguably helped world stability since. I don't think anybody else has done similar, ever, although I may be wrong. Look what happened in Europe after WW1 with the punitive damages levied on Germany.

We aren't all bad, you know.

the marshal plan was for germany after the disastrous morganthau plan

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-27-2011, 12:19 PM
One more time, nobody attacked Libya; this thread is inane.

Hot Air
03-27-2011, 12:30 PM
I am willing to bet there are some folks in Libya that feel they are under attack - or at the very least there is a kinetic miltary action raining missles on their heads which they might mistake for an 'attack.'

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-27-2011, 01:00 PM
As I said at the start, the question is moot; once France, acting in support of a Security Council resolution, had hit the armoured units outside Benghazi there was no alternative but to continue, because Gaddafi has nursed grudges for years in the past (we now know that he did order the bombing of Pan Am flight 101) and it would have been unsafe to leave him in command of anything.

US citizens can dicuss whether they feel they were bounced into unwanted military action by France if they like, but there is a Security Council resolution...

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-27-2011, 01:34 PM
Dr, you are so naive! (Like the way I threw in the exclamation mark?) Its not about lower prices. Its about higher profits.

That's just crazy talk. When Tunisia fell, crude prices started to rise, as people in other countries protested, they rose more. Now I know, those prices are for delivery a few months down the line, but it's important that my price at the pump rises 20% in anticipation of higher crude prices. It is of paramount importance that the oil companies have sufficient funds to keep purchasing crude when the prices rise, and it's my patriotic duty to supply them with those funds.

Surely once the protests have died down and we see that the oil has kept flowing, crude prices will fall. Then my price at the pump can return to pre-spike prices. It's a complex, long term cyclical thing, and for you to say it's all about profits makes me sick. That's like saying that the governments and militarys of the world are working for the benefit of a few corporations and monied interests, not the people they're supposed to represent. It's ludicrous.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-27-2011, 01:36 PM
I'm not so sure about Venezuela, and Russia and central Asia might be overreaching a bit, too. The focus should be kept on protecting the civilians of the Islamic oil producing nations.

Well, at least you're leaving those bastards in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria on the table, they've been askin' for a whoopin' for a while now.

I am curious though, why do you want to confine military intervention to Muslim oil producing countries? Is oil from non-Muslim countries somehow inferior?

We've already done the uncomfortable part, we've told the world in no uncertain terms that Europeans and North Americans have the right to pick and choose the leaders of oil producing countries. If your country has oil, and you're a bad enough leader as to be troubled with a civil war, you'd best believe we're gonna pick a side. If you play your cards right, you'll come out of it like Bahrain, and we'll look the other way while Saudi tanks roll in to help you squash the uprising. If you p!ss us off, well, you're asking for the Ghaddafi treatment, and it's bombs away.

The policy is out there now, it's public, so I ask why are we limiting ourselves to Muslim oil? Is there something wrong with Venezuelan oil? Have the people of Venezuela not suffered under Chavez? Hasn't he committed enough acts of political violence? What about Trinidad and Tobago? They've got more undersea hydrocarbons than you can shake a stick at, the people are poor, and we're not even trying to overthrow their government. Don't even get me started on the Canadians. I mean, your government gets all that money from the oil industry, but they stand idly by and watch their citizens be killed. Why won't they take care of the bear problem? Because they want you to die, that's why. We should have stepped in to rescue you guys from your government long ago.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-27-2011, 01:38 PM
One more time, nobody attacked Libya; this thread is inane.

'Cuz dropping bombs on sovereign nations isn't an act of war, so long as you can get enough other countries to say it isn't.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-27-2011, 02:02 PM
Hamlet:
Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so.

Act 2 scene 2

John Smith
03-27-2011, 02:06 PM
Libya represents another foolish military adventure the US should have kept away from. We cannot afford to be the policeman of the world. Every time the President acts in this way without the consent of the Congress our system of government is further undermined. We have seen that benefits rarely accrue to the US as a result of these interventions. The Iraq war is an example. The lefties didn't like that one but seem to be OK with the Libya thing. Wonder why?

I don't think it's all that simple. If we are to be part of the UN, then we should be part of UN decisions, and an participant in enforcing those decisions. Some may remember that when Bush changed the goal in Iraq from disarming Saddam to removing him, he lost UN support, and we had "freedom fries".

Then, of course, we have Newt's comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64beH96LAnE

If I have a problem, and I do, it is with the inconsistancy of the UN, and the partial commitment they make to the cause. It's not enough, to my way of thinking, to simply take measures to stop the slaughter of the citizens by the government and/or equalize the weaponry. If the UN is not going to tolerate such actions, its response should be to take out the leaders who have done so. And, let's no make it depend on resources.

Had this been the position of the UN back when Saddam was actually gassing his own people, he would have been taken out then by NATO forces and put on trial for those crimes.

John Smith
03-27-2011, 02:16 PM
I think you'd find that most people, left and right, agreed with the attack on Iraq initially. Then we found out that it was all based on lies by the Bush administration.

Doug

I don't know what the numbers were, but I do remember protests here and abroad. I was among those who didn't believe Saddam had the weapons we were told he had, and kept looking for the "evidence" that was never shown. Following Gulf War 1, the UN weapons inspectors, Blix and Ritter, reported he had been relieved of whatever weapons he had. Since that war, the world was watching him, and we have satellites that can read license plates. I could not reconcile this technology with him "sneakingly buiilding" such weapons.

If you go back and read Hillary Clinton's floor speech of Oct. 10, 2002, she is very specific in her reasoning for voting for that resolution. Reason number 1 was the resolution might lead Saddam to granting previously denied access to the weapons inspectors (which is what happened), and Saddam could be disarmed of any illegal weapons without invading. It was Bush who pulled the inspectors once they had access. I would guess he did that because he knew they would find no weapons, and he'd be denied his invasion.

It's also important to note that WMD's was not the reason we invaded by the time we actually invaded. It had been replaced with "freeing the Iraqi people". To me, this, again, indicated Bush knew there were no weapons.

Iraq was much different than Libia. It was not sanctioned by the UN. Libia is.

I don't object to our participating in a UN sanctioned action in Libya. I do question the nature of the action. UN should get involved in all cases where the leader slaughters his own people, but that action should be sanctioning the arrest (dead or alive) of the designated criminal.

What would be the cost of a successful plan to capture Qadaffi?

John Smith
03-27-2011, 02:20 PM
I have to agree with you regarding the lies of the Bush administration. But now that it's a done thing, can we say any benefit has accrued to the US for the expenditure of our blood and treasure? All we've done is strengthen the hand of our real enemy in the region - Iran.

Agreed. I was against going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Al Qaeda was not a nation, and I did not believe they could be destroyed by invading specific nations.

Libya is a different situation.

It angers me that we have wasted all the blood and treasure in the two wars Bush started. My anger continues when I get emails about our troops in those places keeping us safe. It's a misguided effort, IMO, to justify them being killed and wounded.

John Smith
03-27-2011, 02:25 PM
And yet Congress voted to back the plan, Democrats included.
Where were you then to tell us of our folly oh, Seer of the Future?

Doug
That's not entirely true. It's become one of those accepted myths. Congress voted, basically, to authorize the use of military force, if necessary, to remove from Saddam any weapons he had that were contrary to what UN resolutions allowed him to have.

It's important to note that this resolution passed in Oct. 2002. In November of 2002, the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution supporting this action. The purpose of both resolutions was to insure Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions. (turns out he was). These resolutions were necessary because he was not cooperating with the weapons inspectors. Once these resolutions were passed, he decided to grant the inspectors full access. NOTHING ELSE WAS NEEDED. GIVE THE INSPECTORS A COUPLE OF MORE MONTHS AND THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED.

Bush is the one who then changed the course of history. He yanked the inspectors once they gained the previously denied access, and invaded.

John Smith
03-27-2011, 02:28 PM
So do I have this right. You were against the Iraq invasion, but you favor the Libya affair?

If I may address that, if we were going to deal with Saddam, we should have dealt with him when we drove him out of Kuwait. That war was based on all he had done prior. We then based the invasion in 2003 on things he had done prior to his going into Kuwait.

John Smith
03-27-2011, 02:30 PM
Tell me - how does statehood help? Federal aid? Free movement to mainland USA?

I don't see how it changes the basic problem - no agriculture to speak of, no industry, no infrastructure.

Interstate highways.

bobbys
03-27-2011, 03:09 PM
It takes a Dump truck full of Rationalizations theses days to be a Liberal, However i can see their glee the Prez Consulted The Arab league, NATO, The UN before the congress and the American people to bomb willy nilly a Country that has not attacked us with no clear cut case of how much this will cost, Who will be the eventual victors, What Exit Strategy ,The statements we are not targeting Their leader .
Now our dovish liberal Forum members when a Republican is in Office, Turn Hawkish with all sorts of excuses how "different" it is this time.


Like the One fellow said on Meet the press today.


Give War a Chance.


Next thing you know ole Pete Seeger will be out with his Banjo in support of this nightmare.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-27-2011, 03:25 PM
Bobbys, I am interested in your contention that Gaddafi's Libya has not attacked the USA. I think you might find that President Reagan and President HW Bush disagreed with you - but maybe you don't count them as "proper Republicans"?

bobbys
03-27-2011, 04:03 PM
Bobbys, I am interested in your contention that Gaddafi's Libya has not attacked the USA. I think you might find that President Reagan and President HW Bush disagreed with you - but maybe you don't count them as "proper Republicans"?.

From ABC news...

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country.
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

George Jung
03-27-2011, 04:42 PM
Are you alluding to the airline bombings?

John Smith
03-27-2011, 06:31 PM
It takes a Dump truck full of Rationalizations theses days to be a Liberal, However i can see their glee the Prez Consulted The Arab league, NATO, The UN before the congress and the American people to bomb willy nilly a Country that has not attacked us with no clear cut case of how much this will cost, Who will be the eventual victors, What Exit Strategy ,The statements we are not targeting Their leader .
Now our dovish liberal Forum members when a Republican is in Office, Turn Hawkish with all sorts of excuses how "different" it is this time.


Like the One fellow said on Meet the press today.


Give War a Chance.


Next thing you know ole Pete Seeger will be out with his Banjo in support of this nightmare.

I can only speak for myself, and I think you're nuts. No offense. There is a great deal of mixed sentiment on our going into Afghanistan. At that point in time, President Bush had a 'blank check' which he ought not have had. Iraq was invaded specifically without UN support, after Bush had promised to get UN support, he then decided he'd invade regardless of the un headcount.

I agree that this new operation shows we have "magic" money to throw at military operations. I also believe, very strongly, that if we are to be a member of the UN, and we believe in democracy, then our hands are tied.

The conflict in Libya (War if you like) was not started by us.

At the risk of repeating myself, my problem is the role of the UN; it needs to be more aggressive than just equalizing the weaponry, which it cannot do.

S.V. Airlie
03-27-2011, 06:36 PM
I wonder whether those in the middle east would agree that the US did not lead any action in Libya and that it was the UN responsible for doing so..

JimD
03-27-2011, 08:27 PM
please don't ignore the point

What point? That you aren't all bad?

JimD
03-27-2011, 08:34 PM
That's just crazy talk. When Tunisia fell, crude prices started to rise, as people in other countries protested, they rose more. Now I know, those prices are for delivery a few months down the line, but it's important that my price at the pump rises 20% in anticipation of higher crude prices. It is of paramount importance that the oil companies have sufficient funds to keep purchasing crude when the prices rise, and it's my patriotic duty to supply them with those funds.

Surely once the protests have died down and we see that the oil has kept flowing, crude prices will fall. Then my price at the pump can return to pre-spike prices. It's a complex, long term cyclical thing, and for you to say it's all about profits makes me sick. That's like saying that the governments and militarys of the world are working for the benefit of a few corporations and monied interests, not the people they're supposed to represent. It's ludicrous.

Ah, but there's a flaw in your argument: Prices never return to pre-spike levels. The outrageous spike was just a distraction, a ploy to make you sigh in relief when post spike prices drop to well above pre-spike prices.

JimD
03-27-2011, 08:39 PM
'Cuz dropping bombs on sovereign nations isn't an act of war, so long as you can get enough other countries to say it isn't.

Furthermore, nobody said there was a formal act of war against Libya. You don't need that to attack someone. ACB, perhaps you have some hair splitting rational for claiming that 160 cruise missiles and umpteen fighter bomber sorties somehow does not constitute an attack but I can't imagine what that rationale might be.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-28-2011, 01:25 AM
If you cannot see the difference between "protecting the civilian population of" and "attacking" then I am not sure that I can help you. Did NATO attack Bosnia? Did Britain attack Sierra Leone?

skuthorp
03-28-2011, 05:24 AM
The trouble with popular uprisings is that the usual diplomatic relationships are swept away and years of contacts are worth nothing. Indeed those old contacts may be a big hindrance to establishing new ones. If you are going to intervene in a popular uprising/civil war you'd better be sure who is going to win before you do.
As the whole region becomes unstable the old (if unpleasant) relationships will be missed by those in FO's round the world.

hanleyclifford
03-28-2011, 06:19 PM
The President will be speaking on this subject in a few minutes. Let's listen and then continue the discussion.

perldog007
03-28-2011, 06:45 PM
No. They weren't bothering us. Let the Arab league sort it out unless and until one of them attacks us.

I think a better response would have been Carter era style conservation to reduce demand and drive down the price of oil.

Our consumption is arguably driving the madness. The dope smoking leftist in me wants to go old school earth day and take the profit of American decadence out of the equation. Instead of tomahawks spend that money on tax breaks for telle-commuters, people who work close to home. fuel efficient cars, and the like.

That way the people get the money, we still have the bombs and such if they do bother us, and it makes the world better not worse.

I feel for the people there, but finding choirboys in that fight could tend to be a burdensome exercise. Do our defense contractors need more money and does the middle east need more violence? We should have stayed out of it from the beginning. YMMV.

President just said he refuses to wait for images of mass graves before taking action..... Didn't seem to bother him when the graves were filled with Kurds.. just sayin' but that was then and this is now, right?

hanleyclifford
03-28-2011, 07:13 PM
If the rebels are able to bring Gadafi down the President is going to look good.

JimD
03-28-2011, 09:31 PM
If you cannot see the difference between "protecting the civilian population of" and "attacking" then I am not sure that I can help you. Did NATO attack Bosnia? Did Britain attack Sierra Leone?

They attacked Libya for the stated purpose of protecting the civilian population. They did not use harsh language to protect the civilians. They did not jump up and down and wave their hands in the air to protect civilians. They attacked with deadly military force. If you can't see that then you are the one there is no help for.

perldog007
03-28-2011, 09:38 PM
If the rebels are able to bring Gadafi down the President is going to look good.

Unless the replacement is controlled from Tehran or the tribal area of Pakistan. If a democracy arises it's a huge win. If a government not hostile to the U.S. emerges large win.

wardd
03-28-2011, 09:40 PM
No. They weren't bothering us. Let the Arab league sort it out unless and until one of them attacks us.

I think a better response would have been Carter era style conservation to reduce demand and drive down the price of oil.

Our consumption is arguably driving the madness. The dope smoking leftist in me wants to go old school earth day and take the profit of American decadence out of the equation. Instead of tomahawks spend that money on tax breaks for telle-commuters, people who work close to home. fuel efficient cars, and the like.

That way the people get the money, we still have the bombs and such if they do bother us, and it makes the world better not worse.

I feel for the people there, but finding choirboys in that fight could tend to be a burdensome exercise. Do our defense contractors need more money and does the middle east need more violence? We should have stayed out of it from the beginning. YMMV.

President just said he refuses to wait for images of mass graves before taking action..... Didn't seem to bother him when the graves were filled with Kurds.. just sayin' but that was then and this is now, right?

bringing down an airliner )(and trying to kill a president doesn't count?) strike this part)

perldog007
03-28-2011, 09:53 PM
bringing down an airliner )(and trying to kill a president doesn't count?) strike this part)

That was a while back, and Reagan did bomb his compound for the latter. In any case I have run into people who tried to hurt me years earlier, but the law would not allow self defense if I smoked them after the fact when they weren't posing a danger. If he was attacked as soon as we knew Libya was behind the bombing(s) then that's one thing.

What's next, a bombing raid on the U.K. to make up for that Bombardment of Lewes Delaware that killed a chicken and a pig in the nineteenth century?

hanleyclifford
03-28-2011, 09:53 PM
It is hard to have any sympathy for Gadafi. His downfall would represent some form of justice for his criminal actions against civilians. But I share your concern that something worse could replace him.

George Jung
03-28-2011, 10:07 PM
They attacked Libya for the stated purpose of protecting the civilian population. They did not use harsh language to protect the civilians. They did not jump up and down and wave their hands in the air to protect civilians. They attacked with deadly military force. If you can't see that then you are the one there is no help for.


So.... your favored response would've been to 'use harsh language..... and jump up and down.... wave their hands to protect the civilians'? Hehehe....

Good to know - who not to call if I find myself in a jam....

But all the emotionalism aside, the efforts by some to say we're not consistent in our responses is just simplistic and a bit silly. It's almost never a black/white, either/or situation, is it? Some try to paint it that way, but it's not that simple.

hanleyclifford
03-28-2011, 10:16 PM
ABC poll shows only 47 % approve of the Libya action.

perldog007
03-28-2011, 10:34 PM
It is hard to have any sympathy for Gadafi. His downfall would represent some form of justice for his criminal actions against civilians. But I share your concern that something worse could replace him.

Or nothing at all could replace him, like the collapse we saw in Iraq. I'm not up for another one of those. I'm too old, my son's too old he's now a Sgt with a dodgy knee. I would have hoped that we learned something from that particular accomplished mission.

perldog007
03-28-2011, 10:41 PM
They attacked Libya for the stated purpose of protecting the civilian population. They did not use harsh language to protect the civilians. They did not jump up and down and wave their hands in the air to protect civilians. They attacked with deadly military force. If you can't see that then you are the one there is no help for.

John Hinckley shot the President of the United States, a Secret Service Agent, and Mr. Brady to impress Jody Foster. He attacked with an R.G. .22. What does that have to do with the matter under discussion? Sometimes scat don't work out like you want it to.

Unfortunately civilians all over are under threat. Have you looked at the rates of unsolved murders of young black girls in Washington D.C.?

The people in Libya aren't necessarily our friends on either side of that fight. In Iraq we ( should have) learned the hard way that simply removing a dictator does not always spontaneously manifest puppies, rainbows, and cotton candy.

hanleyclifford
03-28-2011, 10:43 PM
We do have to be careful about going around knocking off dictators. Saddam Hussein was the best friend we had in the region. He kept the Iranians busy including an eight year long war during which both sides took delight in slaughtering each other.

perldog007
03-28-2011, 10:45 PM
We do have to be careful about going around knocking off dictators. Saddam Hussein was the best friend we had in the region. He kept the Iranians busy including an eight year long war during which both sides took delight in slaughtering each other.

True that, what if we don't put Momar down for the dirt nap? Will he forgive and forget because Islam is a religion of peace? Too late to worry about all that now.

hanleyclifford
03-28-2011, 10:48 PM
True that, what if we don't put Momar down for the dirt nap? Will he forgive and forget because Islam is a religion of peace? Too late to worry about all that now. Yeah, as the Brits would say, "we've already mucked it up"...

ChaseKenyon
03-29-2011, 03:47 AM
That is what I was about to post. Thanks. Well said.

Precisely
the truth is always in the details.

David W Pratt
03-29-2011, 08:54 AM
Whether we should or should not have attacked, we should at least admit that it is an act of war.
And I still say Bush should have attacked so the papers could have run the headline "Dubya in Libya."

JimD
03-29-2011, 09:06 AM
John Hinckley shot the President of the United States, a Secret Service Agent, and Mr. Brady to impress Jody Foster. He attacked with an R.G. .22. What does that have to do with the matter under discussion? Sometimes scat don't work out like you want it to.

Unfortunately civilians all over are under threat. Have you looked at the rates of unsolved murders of young black girls in Washington D.C.?

The people in Libya aren't necessarily our friends on either side of that fight. In Iraq we ( should have) learned the hard way that simply removing a dictator does not always spontaneously manifest puppies, rainbows, and cotton candy.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The thread title refers to an attack on Libya. Mr Bennett says there was no attack. I otoh take the side of the thread title that there was indeed an attack. What does Hinckley or the unsolved murders of young black females have to do with this?

JimD
03-29-2011, 09:11 AM
So.... your favored response would've been to 'use harsh language..... and jump up and down.... wave their hands to protect the civilians'? Hehehe....

Good to know - who not to call if I find myself in a jam....

But all the emotionalism aside, the efforts by some to say we're not consistent in our responses is just simplistic and a bit silly. It's almost never a black/white, either/or situation, is it? Some try to paint it that way, but it's not that simple.

Sheesh this gets annoying. Read the thread. I have not written a single word critical of the attack or at any time suggested harsh language or bodily gestures would have been more appropriate.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
03-29-2011, 09:43 AM
I hope you don't think I am hair splitting, Jim, but I agree there have been attacks - I just don't think they have been an attack on Libya.

When the UN Security Council issues a resolution calling on member states to protect the population of a nation from that nation's government the normal assumption that the government represents the nation must surely be in question.

So the various nations engaged in firing cruise and other stand off missiles at military targets and in destroying tanks have not to my mind been attacking Libya.

JimD
03-29-2011, 12:49 PM
I hope you don't think I am hair splitting, Jim, but I agree there have been attacks - I just don't think they have been an attack on Libya.

When the UN Security Council issues a resolution calling on member states to protect the population of a nation from that nation's government the normal assumption that the government represents the nation must surely be in question.

So the various nations engaged in firing cruise and other stand off missiles at military targets and in destroying tanks have not to my mind been attacking Libya.

There is certainly room to define what constitutes 'Libya'. Obviously, the military initiatives have occurred on Libyan soil, and have been directed at the standing forces of the regime that has controlled that soil for a long time. And I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. I see your point of view and in many ways agree with it. But at the same time there are so many unpopular regimes that do not express the will of their governed populations that we could attack a different country every day of the month and yet still claim to have not actually attacked any of them. I see it as a slippery slope kind of thing.

George Jung
03-29-2011, 01:03 PM
So.... the difference is, the UN Security Council decided on this action.

What was the basis of their action? How is this situation different, in their eyes?