US Military Action in Libya?

[Phatscotty]

I was playing on the military history of Libya-USA. It smells like Saddam all over again.

[CreepersWiener]

Any chicks in here?

[BigBallinStalin]

these is funny,again americans hurry to attack someone who dont attack america.
These is not nato or american war. What if some american soldier die? Who will be responsibile?

This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.


Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.

He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities.

[jay_a2j]

Yes, lets get into another meaningless war so that the US will be too weak to stop the Chinese invasion!

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....

Let's see

I'm curious what you were expecting.

Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?

well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.

Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.

On the one hand, the US is in no condition economically to support another war. Even if it were, what business does it have there? They've been burning American flags and saying the US is the "great satan" for years. There's no reason for a pre-emptive strike, since it's no threat to any other nation (except for the civil unrest spreading, which could be a good thing in any neighboring, repressive nations). When the populace of a nation rise up and overthrow their dictator on their own, then the responsibility of their actions rests solely with them. It forces those citizens to cooperate if it is going to succeed, which makes that cooperation and interdependence much more likely to continue when the time comes to set up the succeeding government. Also, what about every other nation which is experiencing civil unrest due to repressive leadership? If the US steps in here, why not in Egypt, Tunisia, or any other nation in the future? When do you stop? And why stop at a no-fly zone? May as well send in troops. I don't know, it's tough to avoid a slipperly slope on the issue.

In Tunisia, the king left without much of a fight. In Libya, Gaddafi is fighting to the death. Big difference. He doesn't give a shit, and he'll use whatever means he can to maintain control, even if it means destroying the oil facilities in the east to undermine those rebel cities' power. He'll even use his tanks and artillery to crash into rebel cities and kill many civilians.

If you could stop such an evil dictator from killing his own civilians, then why not act on the moral imperative? Granted, there are diminishing returns for more resource-intensive military actions, but what the US is doing now is acceptable.

However, another interesting thing to note is that the US government really shouldn't be involved in any of this. I don't see why the US shouldn't scale down it's military budget, and let mercenary groups be hired by organizations (that the US deems acceptable) who are willing to throw down enough cash to stop Gaddafi.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes, lets get into another meaningless war so that the US will be too weak to stop the Chinese invasion!

I wouldn't say "invasion," but China is certainly the biggest threat the US faces, and the US is hardly prepared for it.

[qwert]

"bigbalinstalin-
This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.


Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.

He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities."

How many time ,the history repeating. North Corea-Vietnam-Iraq-Afghanistan-Iran-Libya.
Ofcourse if US have 18 year old soldier who ready to die,in some coutries who are not thread for US, then its ok by me. Do you belive,that if US send troops, war will be over? Do you belive that in iraq war are over? What abouth Afghanistan? or Pakistan. And iran.
But this time its a little diferent, US want to try to involve other NAto members to participiate, but its look that they not want to send soldier into something what its not hes business. Im not in danger,and probably you are not in danger to, but young boys who are going to be in these crap, will be in danger to die, and for what? If you are comanding officer,what will you tell to familiy of soldier who die in libya " He die for American freedom" or what?

[thegreekdog]

There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.

[spiesr]

There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.

qwert did not ask that question, BigBallinStalin did. qwert quoted one of BigBallinStalin's posts that contained that line in his post but he got the format of the quote slightly off. You then made the mistake of attributing the contents of that quote to qwert.

[thegreekdog]

There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.

qwert did not ask that question, BigBallinStalin did. qwert quoted one of BigBallinStalin's posts that contained that line in his post but he got the format of the quote slightly off. You then made the mistake of attributing the contents of that quote to qwert.

Yes, qwert told me that via pm.

I believe qwert's answer is "no." And I agree.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, lets get into another meaningless war so that the US will be too weak to stop the Chinese invasion!

newflash, the Chinese don't need to invade us militarily. They already own us.

[PLAYER57832]

In the long run, the US need stop supporting dictators. But, that means saying "no" to some big corporate interests.

In the short term, I am on the fence. If the UN approves something like a "no fly zone", I could see it. If we can go in quickly, depose Khaddafi and GET OUT,t hat would be OK, but it seems that "ge out" part is complicated.

[thegreekdog]

In the long run, the US need stop supporting dictators. But, that means saying "no" to some big corporate interests.

In the short term, I am on the fence. If the UN approves something like a "no fly zone", I could see it. If we can go in quickly, depose Khaddafi and GET OUT,t hat would be OK, but it seems that "ge out" part is complicated.

So you approved of the second Iraq war (apart from the "not getting out quick" part)?

[saxitoxin]

"bigbalinstalin-
This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.


Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.

He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities."

How many time ,the history repeating. North Corea-Vietnam-Iraq-Afghanistan-Iran-Libya.
Ofcourse if US have 18 year old soldier who ready to die,in some coutries who are not thread for US, then its ok by me. Do you belive,that if US send troops, war will be over? Do you belive that in iraq war are over? What abouth Afghanistan? or Pakistan. And iran.
But this time its a little diferent, US want to try to involve other NAto members to participiate, but its look that they not want to send soldier into something what its not hes business. Im not in danger,and probably you are not in danger to, but young boys who are going to be in these crap, will be in danger to die, and for what? If you are comanding officer,what will you tell to familiy of soldier who die in libya " He die for American freedom" or what?

I'm not sure what you said, Qwert, but I think I agree with it -- some time ago I kept saying, but no one would listen, that these rebellions are all NATO plots. As a Serbian you already know this well since it was the CIA who manufactured OTPOR ... the last "spontaneous youth movement" that captured everyone's imaginations.

1 - I said - weeks ago on this forum - it would emerge that the CIA-run OTPOR is behind this whole thing. For the first time, yesterday, VEST reported that their reporters have spoken with Egyptians who said they were flown to Serbia last year to receive revolutionary training (http://www.vest.com.mk/?ItemID=3D619CB1 ... A078B604A3). I guess ol' Saxi does know what he's talking about? And yet, despite the serious and significant implications of this, the article has appeared only in this one Macedonian newspaper.

2 - Russia yesterday reported their satellite imagery has shown zero evidence of air attacks by the Jamahiriya's Air Force on "protesters." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncgsS0F ... r_embedded) Yet CNN keeps reporting YouTube videos and press releases saying there have been as fact.

3 - Libya spends less on their military than Denmark. Denmark! They have 50,000 troops. If everything we've been told is to be believed, how on Earth can a brutal dictatorship not only keep power but continue to control more than half the country and launch a counter-offensive in a nation of 6 million with a 50,000 man army half of which has defected? (hint: because the insurgency is, in fact, small to the point of comedy ... if the US intervenes it will because their agents have been unable to do the job in toppling Qadaffi and securing the oil)

The west must stop sabre rattling, demilitarize the Mediterranean and lift the sanctions. Even so much as a no-fly zone is a euphemism for a declaration of war. There is no basis in law for any state to unilaterally impose a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation and, if Russia says there is no proof any aircraft have been used against protesters at all, the UN will be unable to pass an authorizing instrument. If OTAN dares to impose a no-fly zone over Libya they will reveal their true, brigandish nature once again.

[BigBallinStalin]

"bigbalinstalin-
This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.


Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.

He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities."

How many time ,the history repeating. North Corea-Vietnam-Iraq-Afghanistan-Iran-Libya.
Ofcourse if US have 18 year old soldier who ready to die,in some coutries who are not thread for US, then its ok by me. Do you belive,that if US send troops, war will be over? Do you belive that in iraq war are over? What abouth Afghanistan? or Pakistan. And iran.
But this time its a little diferent, US want to try to involve other NAto members to participiate, but its look that they not want to send soldier into something what its not hes business. Im not in danger,and probably you are not in danger to, but young boys who are going to be in these crap, will be in danger to die, and for what? If you are comanding officer,what will you tell to familiy of soldier who die in libya " He die for American freedom" or what?

I'm not for some kind of amphibious assault. That's not necessary because the rebel factions seems to be doing that job well enough.


So, are you against the US's (with NATO) military action that consists of denying Gaddafi air control over his own country?