Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

Not to mention that enforcing a "no-fly" zone would intimate that Allied planes are going to be the one enforcing it. Therefore taking out any anti-aircraft threat resides within that mandate. Tanks, SAM emplacements, and communication infrastructure would fall within that definition.

Back on page one I said :




The only thing that surprises me is that anyone ( from gbaji to the Arab league) thought that it would mean anything less.

Doesn't keep me up at night nearly as much as it does you :)

Congress doesn't have to be away for the weekend; the fact that Congress was away is why the formal notice arrived today instead of on Saturday. Had military action started today, he could have still said "Go" on the missile strikes and then penned a letter to John & Harry.


I know, right? If only there was some way we could convince France to blow up those tanks outside Benghazi...

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 7:22pm by Jophiel

Sure. But both are connected to (and justified by) one thing: "protecting civilians". You do understand that the reason for a no-fly zone was to prevent air bombing of civilian populations, right? It isn't an end to itself. I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning" with this line of argument. The "one thing" I was speaking about was the objective of protecting civilians.

Do you see how those acting on the humanitarian desire to limit casualties from air bombings might just think that using massive air strikes to accomplish that sorta defeats the purpose?



You're missing the point. I'm not talking about how *I* perceive those things. I'm talking about many of those in the UN and the Arab League to gave a green light to this perceive those things. They very clearly did not have air operations of this nature in mind when they agreed to allow actions to help protect against civilian loss of life.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 5:33pm by gbaji

If I had a been given a penny for every time I've talked about how its the perception of events that is important, and not the intentions, and been knocked back on this board, (especially by Gbaji) i would be able to go out for a quiet dinner on my own at a mediocre sort of restaurant in an average part of town.

Your own persecution complex aside, I've been incredibly consistent in my assertion that the claim to just be about helping protect civilians is a blatant lie and is being used to assert military action in support of the rebels. I've been arguing all along that the choice to deceive the UN and Arab league to green light these attacks will likely be seen more negatively than had they simply acted unilaterally (or at least without the UN and League support).

I've stated several times my amazement that anyone might think they'd get away with this just by calling it something else. I don't think they will. In fact, I think it'll hurt us more in the long run than if we'd just come out directly saying we're going to help the rebels win the war and then followed through with that.

It would have at least been honest.

Ah yes. I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

That about it? I mean, I said that the resolution did one thing, but (hur hur!) there was... wait for it... more than one thing in the resolution! Hahaha. UR Dumb!

Really? That's your sole contribution? You'll just ignore the fairly salient point that the folks who agreed to the resolution clearly did not think that it included things like bombing every Khdaffi held military location in the country, and obliterating lines of tanks driving down a road. You'll ignore a prediction that this will cause some serious political fallout? That's less important to you than pointing out that I said that the resolution did "one thing"?


Sure looks to me like you view this like you're scoring points on some board somewhere by spotting an inaccuracy in my post. Um... Grats I guess? Me? I'd rather be right about what I'm saying even if I'm wrong about how I say it than the other way around.

I should be gracious about you obsessing on word choice while ignoring post content and meaning? Why?




Correcting me about what though? Seriously Joph. Your "correction" doesn't change anything about what I was saying. It's pure semantic nit picking. The broader point, that what was sold to the UN and Arab league as a purely protective measure has been used to launch massive offensive air strikes and that this might just be looked on unkindly by those aforementioned groups, still kinda stands unchanged.

Whether they agreed to "one thing" or "more than one thing" in the resolution doesn't change the fact that they absolutely did not sign on to a "bomb the hell out of Khadaffi's troops" resolution.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:45pm by gbaji

You mistake me for someone who actually opposes the "bomb the hell out of Khdaffi's troops" approach. I just think it's a mistake to go about it in such a dishonest and underhanded manner.

We all know where this will have to lead us. Better to have picked a desired end result and worked towards that than the mealy-mouthed approach being used. As I've said before, we run the risk of starting this, then trying to appease the folks we lied to in the UN resolution, and end out with some kind of stalemated disaster of an eternally maintained civil war in Libya as a result. Or. We end up backing off and looking like idiots. Or, we end up doing what we should have done on day one and telling the UN and Arab league to shove it and fully backing the rebels.


We're playing a dangerous game with this. What happens if the rebels can't win with us just providing air support? What happens if we have to back off that support to just a "real" no-fly zone (no bombing) once the rebels are no longer backed up in a corner? How does that finish the war? How many more people will die because we've even played lip service to the goal of just "protecting civilians" instead of "winning the war". I just think that this will play out badly, and will end badly, and take a really long time getting there.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:54pm by gbaji

lol

ok

You mistake me for someone who was directing that at you and not at Paulsol who was citing who voted for and who abstained.

I corrected you, Gbaji!! Are you going to be okay?? Do you need a glass of water or anything? A teddy bear?

My outrage is directed at anyone who thinks that peace can be obtained by starting wars.

cUnt.