›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Obama is talking about sending troops to Libya.

ThaedThaed
edited February 2011 in Everything Else
So watcha think about that? Hmmm?
«1345678

Comments

  • GreyHugeGreyHuge
    Needs more cowbell.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    Libya? I hardly know ya.
  • Josh BytesJosh Bytes
    Here we go again.
  • AdelbertAdelbert
    Could you please provide a link?
    Google failed me :(
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    I'd sign up for that.
  • CremlianCremlian
    All i see is "considering Sanctions" Honestly I could see a U.N. Peace keeping mission or NATO action. If Libya is turning it's military on it's citizens then it's kinda time for people to get involved.. Tanks kill a lot of people before they are stopped.
  • MattMatt
    Damn it, I really hope this is not true. Seriously, we need to be pulling back all of our overseas operations, not expanding them. The financial cost is just too much to bear to maintain this. We need to be slashing government, and while I advocate that we should still have a strong national defense, we can do that by pulling back and focusing on defense not offense. If it requires letting other areas go to hell in a handbasket then so be it.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited February 2011
    The United States has a vested national interest in making sure that bit.ly continues to function.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • AprecheApreche
    Yes no maybe.

    To the shores of Tripoli...
  • RymRym
    The no-fly zone is a go. There will likely be UN airstrikes within hours. The rebels in Benghazi are reported to have been celebratory upon hearing the news.
  • AprecheApreche
    There will likely be UN airstrikes within hours.
    Why would there be an airstrike? To destroy planes on the ground? Doesn't no fly zone must mean they shoot down any places coming or going or passing through?
  • RymRym
    Doesn't no fly zone must mean they shoot down any places coming or going or passing through?
    Traditionally we exercise air superiority by engaging and destroying any belligerent aircraft in the zone. In doing so, even before any engagements, patrol and interception missions are highly likely to become targets of anti-air measures from ground installations. In order to maintain air superiority, we would then destroy these installations.

    So yes, airstrikes are likely.
  • WalkerWalker
    edited March 2011
    So yes, airstrikes are likely.
    Essential, according the well-informed-sounding person I heard on NPR today.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • AprecheApreche
    Oh duh. Yeah, sort of impossible to maintain a no-fly zone with your airplanes if there are anti-aircraft installations on the ground.
  • RymRym
    So, I've actually read the resolution. It's actually extremely broad, and allows for ground forces, occupation, and direct attacks in the interest of protecting civilians.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Sounds good.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2011
    For all of these reasons, this is still not a good idea.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    edited March 2011
    There's also always a chance that we help the rebels, the get in power, end up being worse then Quadaffi (granted, that would take some serious effort), and then we have another Iran.
    Thank being said, Libyan rebels have asked for our help specifically, and even protesters in Egypt were telling Hillary Clinton to send help to Libya.
    It's not an easy decision either way, but Obama tends to be pretty thoughtful about every move he makes, so hopefully things will play out well.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    There's also always a chance that we help the rebels, the get in power, end up being worse then Quadaffi (granted, that would take some serious effort), and then we have another Iran.
    Yes, and before that even happens, we run the risk of being involved in a ground war. AIr strikes alone might stop Ghadaffi from using airplanes against the rebels, but a significant amount of force used against rebels is on the ground. How are air strikes going to solve that?

    Also, how are we going to pay for this? This comes at a time when budget concerns are taken so seriously that republicans in the House can actually pass legislation cutting off funds from NPR. If we can't afford NPR, how can we afford involvement in a third theater of military operations?
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited March 2011
    Sure, a no-fly zone won't stop Gaddafi's use of ground force, but it's a deterrent and it sends a message to him that the UN is willing to interfere in his country. Hopefully, that's all it will take, but Gaddafi is insane enough that I very much doubt that will be the case.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    We CAN afford NPR. The Republitards are just using O'Keefe's steaming, festering pile of shit as an excuse to attack a neutral news source. Murdoch and his ilk have been buying up media outlets for years, and when they couldn't get everyone to buy their line of insane Gleck, they felt it necessary to go after everyone who didn't agree with them.
    The amount of money that would be saved by cutting NPR funding would be unjustifiably small and do very little.
    It's a stunt.
  • AprecheApreche
    Why only Libya and not Bahrain as well?
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    edited March 2011
    Why only Libya and not Bahrain as well?
    That's a good question. Bahrain is pretty important oil-wise as well. It may be because there aren't reports coming from there that they want our help (at least, none I've heard). Another reason is that the Saudis sent in military troops to assist the Royalists, and Saudi troops and American troops shooting at each other would be a real possibility. This would be terrible for both the Saudis and the US.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • RymRym
    Why only Libya and not Bahrain as well?
    Because Saudi Arabia is helping put down the uprisings which, there, unlike in many other Arab states, are largely sectarian.
  • CremlianCremlian
    That's a good question. Bahrain is pretty important oil-wise as well. It may be because there aren't reports coming from there that they want our help (at least, none I've heard). Another reason is that the Saudis sent in military troops to assist the Royalists, and Saudi troops and American troops shooting at each other would be a real possibility. This would be terrible for both the Saudis and the US.
    Ummm... Because Bahrain is an ally stupids. Our 5th Fleet uses Bahrain as a home port. If we fuck up relations with Bahrain we lose the ability to use our fleet in that area easily....
  • AprecheApreche
    Black Dynamite: I just got one thing to lay on you cats, and then I'll split. I am declaring war on anybody who sells drugs in our community.
    Bahrain: But Black Dynamite, I sell drugs in the community.
    Black Dynamite: Don't worry, we cool. I really only want to declare war on Libya.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Sure, a no-fly zone won't stop Gaddafi's use of ground force, but it's a deterrent and it sends a message to him that the UN is willing to interfere in his country. Hopefully, that's all it will take, but Gaddafi is insane enough that I very much doubt that will be the case.
    So, we are willing to spend millions of dollars on a message? To Ghadaffi, a guy who doesn't usually respond well to messages? Nice.

    What do you think motivates Ghadaffi? The search for peaceful and amicable settlement of disputes, or the desire to remain in power? What do you think Ghadaffi will do, other than stop using planes to kill rebels and just concentrate on killing rebels on the ground instead? How long do you expect a ground war to last there? Even if it's a supposed U.N. action, which U.N. nation do you think will have to send in the largest number of troops?

    We maintained a no-fly zone over Iraq for a decade, and it resolved nothing.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited March 2011
    Ceasefire?
    I think Moussa Koussa just announced a ceasefire.
    (He was speaking live on AJE)

    So, @Joe: if you think that wasn't worthwhile, fuck you.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited March 2011
    Yep, an immediate ceasefire was announced.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2011
    Ceasefire?
    I think Moussa Koussa just announced a ceasefire.
    (He was speaking live on AJE)

    So, @Joe: if you think that wasn't worthwhile, fuck you.
    Now, who here can honestly say that they anticipated this result would occur so quickly?

    I think it's very worthwhile, considering no air strikes had to happen at all. I must say that I'm tremendously surprised that they folded so fast. Maybe the U.N. had intelligence that they would be likely to fold this fast. If they did, this all was very well-played. If they didn't, this was just dumb luck turning an ill-advised gamble into an illegitimate win. I'm going to choose to believe that they had intelligence that Ghadaffi would fold fast so that I can feel like this was a legitimate win.

    If you can get what you want by a mere threat without spending any money, destroying any property, or killing anyone, that's very cool. It's kind of rare for that to happen, but it's good when it does.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
Sign In or Register to comment.