Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#1 Mar 09 2011 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It is my belief that President Obama should take a firmer stance in supporting a potential no-fly zone in Libya. I'm not saying to start firing missiles this afternoon, but strongly supporting the French-British proposal would be a start. I do see that the Enterprise has moved from the N. Arabian Sea into the Red Sea for "maritime security" which gives me some hope that it's being prepared to move back into the Mediterranean. Still, I'd like to see a stronger stance on it made soon.

I've heard conflicting reports on rebel requests for such assistance and do think the action itself should be dependent upon such a request.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Mar 09 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It is my belief that President Obama should take a firmer stance in supporting a potential no-fly zone in Libya. I'm not saying to start firing missiles this afternoon, but strongly supporting the French-British proposal would be a start. I do see that the Enterprise has moved from the N. Arabian Sea into the Red Sea for "maritime security" which gives me some hope that it's being prepared to move back into the Mediterranean. Still, I'd like to see a stronger stance on it made soon.

I've heard conflicting reports on rebel requests for such assistance and do think the action itself should be dependent upon such a request.

So long as we're not putting U.S. troops at risk over a local civil war I'm all for it.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#3 Mar 09 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I suppose there's always "risk" although some sources say most of the dirty work of removing the anti-aircraft infrastructure can be handled with sub-launched missiles and drones. Eventually, you'll probably have someone in a jet flying over Libya though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 09 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
You really want to adopt another muslim country?

You're all heart!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#5 Mar 09 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I agree with paulsol - we should help Gaddafi bomb the rebels.

It's what Blair would have wanted.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#6 Mar 09 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
This could all be solved by diplomacy. By which I mean the work of a few intel operatives in exchange for certain preferential treatment by new leadership.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#7 Mar 09 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
By which I mean the work of a few intel operatives in exchange for certain preferential treatment by new leadership.


It's worked so well in the past...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#8 Mar 09 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
By which I mean the work of a few intel operatives in exchange for certain preferential treatment by new leadership.


It's worked so well in the past...


It's cheap and by the time it stops working there is a new business partner ready to step up.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#9 Mar 09 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,288 posts
Someone let Doc Brown known that the Libyans really need that plutonium back.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#10 Mar 09 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Someone let Doc Brown known that the Libyans really need that plutonium back.
On a related note, I like to imagine the entire Libyan army consists of guys with rocket launchers driving Microbuses.
#11 Mar 09 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Am I the only one who keeps reading the title as "******* No-Fly Zone"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Mar 09 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,288 posts
gbaji wrote:
Am I the only one who keeps reading the title as "******* No-Fly Zone"?


Yes
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#13 Mar 09 2011 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
This is all going to end up with another sunni based sharia law state, and someday we're going to look back fondly and remember the days when the crackpot clotheshorse was all we had to worry about.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 Mar 09 2011 at 9:41 PM Rating: Default
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,102 posts
Am I the only one that just doesn't give a **** about Libya? It's a large expanse of desert with fewer people than the population of New York city. As long as they don't interfere with shipping in the Med or stop selling us their precious oil, the rest of the world should let them fight it out and then make nice with whichever side wins. If the winning side doesn't want to make nice, then is the time to get involved.

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 10:42pm by Turin
#15 Mar 09 2011 at 9:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Turin wrote:
As long as they don't interfere with shipping in the Med or stop selling us their precious oil, the rest of the world should let them fight it out and then make nice with whichever side wins. If the winning side doesn't want to make nice, then is the time to get involved.

Of course, when all the oil infrastructure gets blown up while deciding which side wins, this might affect how much precious oil you get.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 09 2011 at 9:57 PM Rating: Default
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,102 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Turin wrote:
As long as they don't interfere with shipping in the Med or stop selling us their precious oil, the rest of the world should let them fight it out and then make nice with whichever side wins. If the winning side doesn't want to make nice, then is the time to get involved.

Of course, when all the oil infrastructure gets blown up while deciding which side wins, this might affect how much precious oil you get.


All they have over there is oil and sand. While I'm sure there are plenty of lesser educated folk just in it for the slogans and the fighting, I don't think the leaders of either side are so short sighted as to believe they could get by without said infrastructure. If left to their own devices, I don't think their oil industry would suffer much damage. It's only when outsiders get involved that it will start to be in any real danger.
#17 Mar 09 2011 at 10:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Turin wrote:
While I'm sure there are plenty of lesser educated folk just in it for the slogans and the fighting, I don't think the leaders of either side are so short sighted as to believe they could get by without said infrastructure. If left to their own devices, I don't think their oil industry would suffer much damage.

No reason to think that either side, when faced with losing, would go to a scorched earth policy of blowing that stuff up, huh? I mean, if Gaddafi senses he's losing, he sure wouldn't want to hurt Libya or anything before he's hung from a tree.

That said, I'm sure you're far from the only person who doesn't care what happens in Libya.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 09 2011 at 10:30 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Someone let Doc Brown known that the Libyans really need that plutonium back.
On a related note, I like to imagine the entire Libyan army consists of guys with rocket launchers driving Microbuses.

Actually, that's the rebels. And they seem to be doing pretty well.

Though I'm sure a few well-placed cruise missiles would be appreciated.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#19 Mar 09 2011 at 11:16 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
paulsol wrote:
You really want to adopt another muslim country?

You're all heart!
Yes, we get it, you'd rather we left a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq and wish to continue ignoring any good done because the war was a ************

As far as Libya goes--any call to action has to be considered extremely carefully, of course. Gadaffi will fall relatively soon; it's merely a matter of damage control. I support the no-fly zone.
#20 Mar 09 2011 at 11:29 PM Rating: Default
****
4,150 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
paulsol wrote:
You really want to adopt another muslim country?

You're all heart!
Yes, we get it, you'd rather we left a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq and wish to continue ignoring any good done because the war was a cluster@#%^.
Smiley: rolleyes

LeWoVoc wrote:
it's merely a matter of damage control.
Smiley: oyvey



LeWoVoc wrote:
I support the no-fly zone.
You support bombing the airports, AA emplacements, destruction of fuelling, maintainence and base infrastructure and all the other things that that would involve? Eventually you would have US pilots getting shot at and prolly shot down too....All for....What exactly? So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead? Whats the difference? Its an African problem in an african country. Let the aFricans sort it out.

Unless you havn't noticed, the Libyans have asked the Euros and the Yanks to keep the **** out of it.

Its not your problem. Why do you feel the need to become involved?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#21 Mar 09 2011 at 11:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Unless you havn't noticed, the Libyans have asked the Euros and the Yanks to keep the @#%^ out of it.

EuroNews wrote:
At a news conference in the Libyan city of Benghazi the Interim National Council has rejected any negotiation with Muammar Gaddafi and called for a UN no fly zone over the north African country.

From there Francesca Cicardi reports.

“The Libyan revolutionary government asked again for international aid, and said that any help will be welcomed, even military,” she said.

“Rebels confirmed they have had contact with foreign countries but didn’t specify which ones. They hope that their diplomatic representatives are speaking with EU governments and are hoping to get their backing.

“The rebels keep on asking for a no-fly zone and in the news conference made a point of thanking the Gulf states for supporting this option. It’s still uncertain how to put it in place, as the rebels reject any presence of foreign troops in Libya.”
Belfast Telegraph wrote:
As Colonel Gaddafi's forces carried out bloody assaults on rebel-held towns yesterday, the question from many Libyans was simple: Why is the West failing to offer help in our desperate time of need?
[...]
The Benghazi-based rebel leadership has called for a no-fly zone and airstrikes against the regime. Former justice minister Abdel Jalil, one of its leading members who yesterday had a price put on his head by the regime, said that the West must “help to protect Libya's people from Gaddafi's assault and help put an end to his war”.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Mar 10 2011 at 12:18 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I don't really see how the rebels are winning. They seem to be doing the other thing.

You know, losing.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#23 Mar 10 2011 at 4:08 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
192 posts
Half the problem is they can't seem to decide on what help they want. They want outside help to get involved without getting involved. For every person there asking why nobody is helping you have another telling us not to interfere.

Pretty much why everyone is just hanging back for now.

The only danger I can think of is first Tunisia, then Egypt, now Libya... Who next? Can't help them all at the same time.

Additional Note: Just read a BBC report that a few of their reporters were detained and tortured. Poke the hive long enough with a stick and the wasps will come out and sting you.

Edited, Mar 10th 2011 7:53am by Xakz
#24 Mar 10 2011 at 4:13 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Yeah, I'm sure BBC gunboats will be there any moment.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#25 Mar 10 2011 at 5:30 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
192 posts
Sadly it doesn't take much to wind up our media, especially the government funded one.

Besides, an army on journalists might cure two problems in one. Fighting over there and our media here all gone in one go. Lovely.
#26 Mar 10 2011 at 6:42 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
paul wrote:
Its not your problem. Why do you feel the need to become involved?


Because that is what the western world does. Instead of focusing on our own problems we feel the need to extend our problems to other people in the notion of lending a helping hand.

Lewo wrote:
Yes, we get it, you'd rather we left a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq and wish to continue ignoring any good done because the war was a cluster@#%^.


You mean like you did in '91. But yea thats why you were in Iraq to get rid of Saddam. Or at least that was the second excuse after the American public found out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. What reason are we on now?

Personally I say let them sort the **** out themselves. The last few civil wars the West jumped into didn't exactly pan out well for us.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#27 Mar 10 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Lewo wrote:
Yes, we get it, you'd rather we left a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq and wish to continue ignoring any good done because the war was a cluster@#%^.


You mean like you did in '91. But yea thats why you were in Iraq to get rid of Saddam. Or at least that was the second excuse after the American public found out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. What reason are we on now?

Personally I say let them sort the sh*t out themselves. The last few civil wars the West jumped into didn't exactly pan out well for us.

Except he was committing genocide on the Kurds, used chemical weapons on his own people, invaded Kuwait, and gave diplomat status to any terrorist that just happened to be waltzing through Baghdad. Don't get me wrong here, Bush was an idiot and handled the war and the domestic side of things horridly. I have no illusions that his intentions were pure, but the cause was just.

You were right on one point, though... we should have taken him out earlier.

Edited, Mar 10th 2011 9:44am by LeWoVoc
#28 Mar 10 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
I think the cause justifies intervention. I just hate to see us get embroiled in another middle-east mess.

Maybe Barry knows something about the fate of Gaddafi that we don't.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#29 Mar 10 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think the cause justifies intervention. I just hate to see us get embroiled in another middle-east mess.

Yeah, the Libyans did less to us than the Iraqis or Afghans did, so we would totally be justified in putting our soldiers in harm's way for them. We have such an awesome track record of intervening in civil wars.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#30rdmcandie, Posted: Mar 10 2011 at 11:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh and why not intervene in other sh*t hole civil wars that start up in Africa, you know the laundry list of regime changes and mass carnage on the civilian population that the West rarely bats an eye too. Let them fight their own fight. If they fail they fail, if they win they win. Honestly who really gives a sh*t, its not like Libya is useful for anything.
#31 Mar 10 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really, I couldn't care less about the oil aspect. I do think that this is a chance for the West to (A) Slow the attacks Gaddafi is making on the Libyan people and (B) Assist in deposing the dictator without heavier intervention. You don't have as clean a chance in most countries since their conflicts are much more deeply embroiled.

I'm fairly confident that the bulk of Kosovo doesn't spent their days ******** about how NATO should have never gotten involved and just left that nice Milosevic fellow alone.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Mar 10 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
paulsol wrote:
Its not your problem. Why do you feel the need to become involved?
Ask the local forum Republicans. They'd do anything to lower crude oil futures even if it does mean spending billions to fight another unnecessary war that we're not involved in. It's ok, we'll make all that money back in marginally cheaper gas prices, lol. Someone else can worry about paying for that war of aggression, I got mine, Jack!

Personally I want nothing to do with them. UN sanctions against Libya are fine, but this is their problem and I'd like to leave it at that.



Edited, Mar 10th 2011 12:28pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#33 Mar 10 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
bsphil wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Its not your problem. Why do you feel the need to become involved?
Ask the local forum Republicans.

Why? It was the local forum "moderate" that proposed it here.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#34 Mar 10 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, I'm definitely a liberal. Less liberal than, say, Samira or Smash but liberal nonetheless.

I'm considerably less liberal than Gbaji is conservative, though which I suppose puts me in the "moderate" part of the board spectrum. I'm even willing to start threads saying I disagree with the president when he's from my party!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Mar 10 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, I'm definitely a liberal. Less liberal than, say, Samira or Smash but liberal nonetheless.

I'm considerably less liberal than Gbaji is conservative, though which I suppose puts me in the "moderate" part of the board spectrum. I'm even willing to start threads saying I disagree with the president when he's from my party!

Liberal is a pejorative in my book. I was being nice.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#36 Mar 10 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Child-rearing has left you soft and emotional.

Like a liberal.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 10 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nah, those little bastards haven't softened me. It's the puppy.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#38 Mar 10 2011 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
France has recognized the opposition rebel government as the legitimate government in Libya.

SoS Clinton says she'll swing by Libya next week sometime to chat.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 11 2011 at 4:01 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
192 posts
Jophiel wrote:
France has recognized the opposition rebel government as the legitimate government in Libya.

SoS Clinton says she'll swing by Libya next week sometime to chat.


The UK have now also joined France in denouncing Gadaffi's rule. Basically we're waiting for international support before progressing further it seems.

Source: BBC
#40 Mar 15 2011 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,492 posts
Vive le Caliphate!

Makes me feel all snuggly that we've clapped handies at the removal of Mobbarrak in Egypt and the 'liberation' of free (predomninantly Moslem) people from pro-west despots.

Like we did in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. . . Those all went swimmingly well, I thought.

Those joyful happy Egyptians, Tunisians (and before long, Libyans, Syrians, Jordanians) will in all probability soon establish Sharia states, tenderly nurture Al-Q'aeda nut-jobs and visit a Wal-Mart near you.

Keep the fUck out and let 'em sort out their own mess.

Oh, and Hi. I'm Nobby and I'll be your token limp-wristed British cnut for the evening. Now go fUck yerselves.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#41 Mar 15 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
President Obama on Monday sought European support to further “tighten the noose” around Qaddafi.

Sounds like committing to a position to me.

In other news, the rebels are getting their **** boxed in, so it's a great time for someone to fix their problems.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#42 Mar 15 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
President Obama on Monday sought European support to further “tighten the noose” around Qaddafi.

Sounds like committing to a position to me.


Nah. Sounds like hemming and hawing and not taking any sort of firm position until the mess sorts itself out and relieves them of the need to act. Not that any action taken wont have consequences, but by doing nothing you just make yourself irrelevant on the foreign political scene. It really looks more to me like Obama is so afraid of making a mistake (and I honestly can't blame him), that he's doing nothing.

Doing nothing is still doing something though. A lesson I thought we'd learned already.

Quote:
In other news, the rebels are getting their sh*t boxed in, so it's a great time for someone to fix their problems.


Yup. The time to act really has already passed IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Mar 15 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
Hi cnut Smiley: smile

I got rated to default for suggesting that, but unfortunately the desire to 'intervene' (for their own good of course) runs deep and strong in our american cuzzie-bros.

I don't think the fighting keyboard 101s really comprehend that enforcing a no-fly zone would be an act of war, and an act of war against a country that hasn't attacked you is prohibited under the Geneva conventions (not that they gave a **** the last couple of times) and should be obviously avoided.

If, on the other hand, the arab/african states want to have a bit of a werd, then i'd be all up for some of that.


Signed, LimpwristednonnuclearNZer.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#44 Mar 15 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
President Obama on Monday sought European support to further “tighten the noose” around Qaddafi.

Sounds like committing to a position to me.


Nah. Sounds like hemming and hawing and not taking any sort of firm position until the mess sorts itself out and relieves them of the need to act. Not that any action taken wont have consequences, but by doing nothing you just make yourself irrelevant on the foreign political scene. It really looks more to me like Obama is so afraid of making a mistake (and I honestly can't blame him), that he's doing nothing.

Doing nothing is still doing something though. A lesson I thought we'd learned already.

Quote:
In other news, the rebels are getting their sh*t boxed in, so it's a great time for someone to fix their problems.


Yup. The time to act really has already passed IMO.


No, reserving your support until it is needed is a perfectly valid strategy. It's much better for the rebels politically if they overthrow Qaddafi without outside intervention, so not coming out of the gate with heavy pressure is actually preferable. However, now that they are in much rougher shape, they will be more open to (And appreciative of, politically, which is to our benefit) outside aid. The statements made by Obama are quite a heavy volume of support diplomatically speaking, if he had gone with a straight combat damage mitigation motive that would have been much weaker support of their revolution.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#45 Mar 15 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
President Obama on Monday sought European support to further “tighten the noose” around Qaddafi.

Sounds like committing to a position to me.

The position is "We won't do anything until the UN and the EU and the Arab League and the African Union and maybe Gaddafi's mom all sign off on it."

It's looking as though it's already too late. A real shame.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Mar 15 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yup. The time to act really has already passed IMO.


No, reserving your support until it is needed is a perfectly valid strategy.


When it was really needed was last week when the key battles that almost certainly decided the course of the attempted revolution were being fought and the rebel forces were begging us to inhibit air operations against them to give them a chance to win.

We did nothing. Anything we do now is too late. It doesn't matter if it was the politically expedient thing to do (I'm not saying it wasn't), but if you're holding out for Obama and co. to come riding over a hill at the last minute and saving the rebels from certain defeat, you're in for a big disappointment.

Quote:
It's much better for the rebels politically if they overthrow Qaddafi without outside intervention, so not coming out of the gate with heavy pressure is actually preferable. However, now that they are in much rougher shape, they will be more open to (And appreciative of, politically, which is to our benefit) outside aid. The statements made by Obama are quite a heavy volume of support diplomatically speaking, if he had gone with a straight combat damage mitigation motive that would have been much weaker support of their revolution.


None of this matters though. The momentum has shifted. Even if Obama wanted to help them now, public support for any action seen as being on the losing side will be nearly impossible to get. If he was going to act, he needed to either do so two weeks ago when the rebels appeared to be winning, or even last week when things started to turn against them, but perception was still in their favor. Waiting until after they've suffered several major defeats and have been basically pushed back into a corner of the country and have no effective means of pressing any attack anymore effectively took the choice out of Obama's hands.

What he's doing now seems more like damage control to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Mar 15 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
I still think my initial plan would have been the best move earlier. Now it's more tricky, as unnecessary turbulence isn't at all what we want.

We shall see.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#48 Mar 15 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Actually, I want to make another point about this that I missed before:

Timelordwho wrote:
No, reserving your support until it is needed is a perfectly valid strategy. It's much better for the rebels politically if they overthrow Qaddafi without outside intervention, so not coming out of the gate with heavy pressure is actually preferable. However, now that they are in much rougher shape, they will be more open to (And appreciative of, politically, which is to our benefit) outside aid.


Even if that were the strategy (and I'm not sure it was), it wouldn't work. If your concern is making it look like the rebels are somehow beholden to us for their success, then waiting until they really need our help kinda defeats the purpose. Had we offered assistance or even just statements of support back when the rebels appeared to have the upper hand, no one could say how much of the outcome was from the rebels on their own and how much was from US support. They could save face by insisting that they didn't really need us, but were so strong and powerful that the US had no choice but to recognize them as the next power in Libya. Now, if the US offers help, there's no way to do that. Any victory now (and I doubt it's possible anyway) would clearly be seen as happening only because the US stepped in. It would be the US winning, not the rebels.


I agree that had the rebels won on their own, that would have been better for them entirely. But that's what I was referring to by making yourself irrelevant on foreign policy. You can always just sit back, take no position, and let things happen. My larger point is that the Obama administration seemed primarily to just not want to commit to any course at all. Even the latter choice could have been clearly stated as policy ("We're not going to interceded with a purely internal affair of the Lybian people... blah blah blah..."). But they didn't do that either. They just kinda sat on the sidelines being very careful not to say anything that could even be interpreted as a policy position.


There are problems with that approach IMO. In this particular case, it may not end out mattering much, but it's somewhat indicative of what we've seen of foreign policy from this administration as a whole, not just in this one case. They dithered on the fence with Eqypt (very mixed messages), hardly mentioned Tunisia, and were utterly silent regarding Iran. Similar lack of clear position has been the response to uprisings in Yemen and Saudi Arabia as well. IMO, that's kinda troubling. If these are the "tests" which we were warned would come if Obama was elected, I'm not sure he's passing them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Mar 15 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
Quote:
They dithered on the fence with Eqypt (very mixed messages), hardly mentioned Tunisia, and were utterly silent regarding Iran. Similar lack of clear position has been the response to uprisings in Yemen and Saudi Arabia as well. IMO, that's kinda troubling.


Now if only Obama would halt all sales of weaponry and withdrew funding from all the regimes that routinely oppress/torture/imprison either their own citizens or other peoples who are currently living under occupation, then I would truly start thinking that perhaps he's on the right track.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#50 Mar 16 2011 at 1:31 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
I hoe all the armchair warriors who want to have a no-fly zone over Libya enforced are willing to do the same for the Bahrainis....

Quote:

Military troops have opened a large-scale assault against hundreds of anti-government protesters occupying a landmark square in Bahrain's capital.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#51 Mar 16 2011 at 6:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When they have 75% of the country under their control as the Libyans did, let me know. Or else, you know, just grab random examples and say they're all the same.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
RavennofTitan, Anonymous Guests (45)