Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#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
*****
16,594 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:
I lost my post
#29 Mar 10 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 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
*****
10,246 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
*****
10,246 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
*****
10,246 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
*****
19,518 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
*****
13,228 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
******
34,933 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
****
4,158 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
*****
13,228 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
******
34,933 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
*****
13,228 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
******
34,933 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
****
4,158 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
****
4,158 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (67)