The Libyian Situation

[Eagle1855]

Was he BBQed or grilled? Because there is a big difference in the backyard world. Low and slow or open fire?

And if BBQ, can you tell us which place in Texas you prefer to do this?

(mods please merge threads)

[eulessismore]

While I agree with much of your post you should realize that Arab nations do not have the ability to project force very far away from their borders. Very few nations have that capacity and really none of them are Arab. Additionally, their pilots would be in for an actual fight as opposed to our guys having a turkey shoot. The only forces native to the region and capable of enforcing a no fly zone belong to the Israeli military and we all know how that would turn out.

Well, you and the events folloring my original post in this thread, actually changed my mind on this one. I was in favor of letting the Arabs handle it, but for various reasons, including the ones you've mentioned, that wouldn't have worked. Rather than take a partisan view, I've chosen to decide that the recent events have proven Reagan correct about Qadhafi, or however it's spelled, and hope the current coalition finds a more permanent solution to him.

I only wish the best for the U.S. and Allied military personnel who are actually doing the fighting. Although, it's easy enough to think this will be a "turkey shoot", nothing is as easy as it first seems, and nothing is without risk.

[Army of Dad]

Well, you and the events folloring my original post in this thread, actually changed my mind on this one. I was in favor of letting the Arabs handle it, but for various reasons, including the ones you've mentioned, that wouldn't have worked. Rather than take a partisan view, I've chosen to decide that the recent events have proven Reagan correct about Qadhafi, or however it's spelled, and hope the current coalition finds a more permanent solution to him.

I only wish the best for the U.S. and Allied military personnel who are actually doing the fighting. Although, it's easy enough to think this will be a "turkey shoot", nothing is as easy as it first seems, and nothing is without risk.

You are correct about nothing is without risk. During the original turkey shoot in WWII we absolutley smacked the piss out of the Japanese forces we faced downing their planes at a 10-1 ratio. While it was a huge victory we still suffered losses. In more modern times every time an Arab air force has fought a western force they get smacked out of the sky. They do not have the equipment and, more importantly, the training to stay in a hostile sky with our pilots. Since all no-fly zone enforcement operations involve the destruction of ground targets golden BBs will be flying and I pray that they do not find our people.

I do think that Arab nations should take the lead in any ground troops (peacekeepers) that ever end up getting involved.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I sometimes listen to a "conservative guy" on radio when coming home from the evening classes I teach.... A week a two ago they were criticizing our President for not getting involved in Libya situation... Last night they were complaining because he now has. There is no pleasing these folks. ---I am amazed their "fans" never question or realize it when they start saying the opposite of what they were saying earlier ---

They complain about the economy and ignore when it all started (2008). Same with the national debt.. the last guy's administration increased it more than all previous 42 administrations combined. The radio guys have no credibility. My only hope is that we absolutely do not put ground troops in the country, even Reagan bombed Libya back in the 80's and it was the right thing to do. It sent a message about so many terrorists coming from and hiding there.

My largest concern is that we don't have a worse government take over any of those countries as happened in Iran during the late 1980's. I thought the same same about Iraq.. Saddam was an evil person but at least terrorism wasn't being done to us (or Europeans) by them. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, most of those people involved were Saudi citizens (as is Ben-Laden). I suppose time will tell if we are doing the right thing, but I want us to stay away as much as possible from those Middle East situations. At least our President didn't declare this to be a Crusade as the last one said a couple of times. Crusade to them means Christian war or invasion.... which is exactly what the original ones were.

..

Edited March 24, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green Matt]

I would love for us to start letting other countries solve their problems themselves. My biggest concern is that we have absolutely no clue what Libya is going to look like once we help the rebels overthrow Qaddafi. Whoever takes over may be much better than Qaddafi, but it could also be much, much worse.

[KRAM1]

I would like to hear, now that Pres. Obama, has his very own war...can't blame Bush for this one...just what the heck the objectives are and how the heck anyone thinks you can win this thing without boots on the ground? Is this going to be the first armed conflict won by air power alone? I seriously doubt it. That "exit strategy" that our president kept asking for in his run to the presidency is certainly lacking here as well. Not knocking Obama here as much as pointing out the difference between running for president and talking about decisions you know very little about and actually having to make those decisions and live with the consequences.

So, what's the exit strategy and what's the goal? We seem to be hearing different things daily from the oval office...our goal is to remove the current leadership of Libya to well, it may not be possible to remove the current leadership. Is this going to be another seemingly never-ending stalemate in the dessert? Don't know...too early to tell, but it has all the ear makes of another long drawn out conflict where mainly the civilian population suffers.

Was it the right thing to do? Perhaps, but in my opinion the US and its allies waited way to long to act and lost the initiative. How can the US support a three front war successfully? Obama is the first president to try to handle a three-front war since maybe the Romans.

I am just scatter-shooting here with some random thoughts on this situation. The US does seem to be trying to hand this over to NATO, but that would only place the US forces (who will still probably shoulder the burden of this front) under the command of potentially some other nation's commanding general, etc. Result for the American forces and US tax payer would be the same...as it has been in most NATO led actions.

Too early....too many questions, but a concern for the US, its Allies and the people of Libya none the less.

[Coffee and TV]

I would like to hear, now that Pres. Obama, has his very own war...can't blame Bush for this one...

lol!

[All About UNT]

good comments all around in here. Glad to see a solid forum on the matter. Talk about conundrum.........Obama was (as mentioned earlier) expected by so many to break the international sovereignty laws that Bush broke (and paid in his reputation points dearly for). He wound up making a decision based off of the thought that with Libyans dying in the streets that the US coming to the rescue or "doing our part" would both enhance our prestige as a nation and his own as a president capable of making tough decisions. What he could not predict (same as Bush apparently) is that once Gaddafi is out of power...and that will not be for months....there will be very serious tribal fractions that will continue the conflict (beat me on it). Anytime there is such a haphazardly arranged "opposition movement" with no true leaders and goals outside of replacing a dictator then you have a massive power vacuum. You saw it in Iraq (still resonates there) and it still exists in Afghanistan. Arabs and so many other cultures out there cannot embrace the nationalistic ideals that are required to have a proper democracy. To them...the Tribe is still far more important than the nation. While not everyone buys into that belief...there are plenty that do and their numbers are great enough to cause in-fighting for a long time to come. I do not envy Obama right now since the decision was one where he was damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. While Libya does not have a history of having Islamic terrorists and/or an Al Qaeda influence...you had better believe that they will flock there. The only positive in the situation is that they will not come in the numbers that they came to Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Islamists are both homegrown and flow right out of the passes from Pakistan a mere donkey's ride away in Waziristan. Iraq's come across from Saudi Arabia, Syria and to a lesser extent Jordan. I just cannot understand why the world continues to expect us to step in every time and then criticizes us when we do? Wasn't that a Kosovar muslim kid who shot up our airmen in Germany? Did anyone bother to tell that pencil-di*k that we are the only reason his people live in peace? Did anyone remember when we stepped into that little genocidal situation in the Balkans and stopped it from continuing? Or feeding malnourished and dying people of Somalia only to have our Black Hawk Down incident? When do we learn that stepping in (while it feels good for us) does not accomplish anything for us as a nation?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I would like to hear, now that Pres. Obama, has his very own war...can't blame Bush for this one...just what the heck the objectives are and how the heck anyone thinks you can win this thing without boots on the ground? Is this going to be the first armed conflict won by air power alone? I seriously doubt it. That "exit strategy" that our president kept asking for in his run to the presidency is certainly lacking here as well. Not knocking Obama here as much as pointing out the difference between running for president and talking about decisions you know very little about and actually having to make those decisions and live with the consequences.

Too early....too many questions, but a concern for the US, its Allies and the people of Libya none the less.

---There is a huge difference in Iraq and Libya.

First: we didn't start this one, it existed before we finally became involved..

Second: I don't expect us to ever put ground troops in there, so a minimum of American casualties.

Third: I am not hearing Europe or many other countries claiming our intel is faulty and for us to wait, which was happening before the Iraq invasion.

Four: There are a lot of other countries really involved in this one and wanting to take part (even France), and not just ones that felt they owed us to help.

Five: A lot of people in Libya are already actively trying to overthrow the current regine, wasn't happening in Iraq.

---- We are not "THE" leader in this deal, just one of them, and sorta supporting the locals who are being killed.

We aren't trying to "win" this one. The locals will have to win it, but other countries can even the playing field by taking out planes and armour to prevent out and out murder of civiliians...

.

Edited March 25, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Army of Dad]

good comments all around in here. Glad to see a solid forum on the matter. Talk about conundrum.........Obama was (as mentioned earlier) expected by so many to break the international sovereignty laws that Bush broke (and paid in his reputation points dearly for). He wound up making a decision based off of the thought that with Libyans dying in the streets that the US coming to the rescue or "doing our part" would both enhance our prestige as a nation and his own as a president capable of making tough decisions. What he could not predict (same as Bush apparently) is that once Gaddafi is out of power...and that will not be for months....there will be very serious tribal fractions that will continue the conflict (beat me on it). Anytime there is such a haphazardly arranged "opposition movement" with no true leaders and goals outside of replacing a dictator then you have a massive power vacuum. You saw it in Iraq (still resonates there) and it still exists in Afghanistan. Arabs and so many other cultures out there cannot embrace the nationalistic ideals that are required to have a proper democracy. To them...the Tribe is still far more important than the nation. While not everyone buys into that belief...there are plenty that do and their numbers are great enough to cause in-fighting for a long time to come. I do not envy Obama right now since the decision was one where he was damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. While Libya does not have a history of having Islamic terrorists and/or an Al Qaeda influence...you had better believe that they will flock there. The only positive in the situation is that they will not come in the numbers that they came to Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Islamists are both homegrown and flow right out of the passes from Pakistan a mere donkey's ride away in Waziristan. Iraq's come across from Saudi Arabia, Syria and to a lesser extent Jordan. I just cannot understand why the world continues to expect us to step in every time and then criticizes us when we do? Wasn't that a Kosovar muslim kid who shot up our airmen in Germany? Did anyone bother to tell that pencil-di*k that we are the only reason his people live in peace? Did anyone remember when we stepped into that little genocidal situation in the Balkans and stopped it from continuing? Or feeding malnourished and dying people of Somalia only to have our Black Hawk Down incident? When do we learn that stepping in (while it feels good for us) does not accomplish anything for us as a nation?

Why would people care to remember a fact like that? Or us putting a stop to brutal and genocidal dictators in Germany, Iraq, and eventually, the Soviet Union? Or when heavily armed teenagers show up in a village it is cause for terror, except when those teenagers are US soldiers/marines? Or the US leading most humanitarian relief missions after major natural disasters?

Those facts only put the US in a positive light. That is all too often not a good thing on the international stage no matter which party is in control here. Doing what is right is hard (and hard to know what to do sometimes). We are Americans, it is what we do and we have learned the hard way that turning turtle often ups the cost in blood and treasure later. We learned that lesson well after WW II in part because we didn't learn it well after WW I. As much as I sometimes would like us to leave things alone in other parts of the world it often isn't in our best interests in the long term.

[KRAM1]

---There is a huge difference in Iraq and Libya.

First: we didn't start this one, it existed before we finally became involved..

Second: I don't expect us to ever put ground troops in there, so a minimum of American casualties.

Third: I am not hearing Europe or many other countries claiming our intel is faulty and for us to wait, which was happening before the Iraq invasion.

Four: There are a lot of other countries really involved in this one and wanting to take part (even France), and not just ones that felt they owed us to help.

Five: A lot of people in Libya are already actively trying to overthrow the current regine, wasn't happening in Iraq.

---- We are not "THE" leader in this deal, just one of them, and sorta supporting the locals who are being killed.

We aren't trying to "win" this one. The locals will have to win it, but other countries can even the playing field by taking out planes and armour to prevent out and out murder of civiliians...

.

Apologist at work.

[Censored by Laurie]

Apologist at work.

Prove it.

/raises level of discourse...

[Green P1]

good comments all around in here. Glad to see a solid forum on the matter. Talk about conundrum.........Obama was (as mentioned earlier) expected by so many to break the international sovereignty laws that Bush broke (and paid in his reputation points dearly for). He wound up making a decision based off of the thought that with Libyans dying in the streets that the US coming to the rescue or "doing our part" would both enhance our prestige as a nation and his own as a president capable of making tough decisions. What he could not predict (same as Bush apparently) is that once Gaddafi is out of power...and that will not be for months....there will be very serious tribal fractions that will continue the conflict (beat me on it). Anytime there is such a haphazardly arranged "opposition movement" with no true leaders and goals outside of replacing a dictator then you have a massive power vacuum. You saw it in Iraq (still resonates there) and it still exists in Afghanistan. Arabs and so many other cultures out there cannot embrace the nationalistic ideals that are required to have a proper democracy. To them...the Tribe is still far more important than the nation. While not everyone buys into that belief...there are plenty that do and their numbers are great enough to cause in-fighting for a long time to come. I do not envy Obama right now since the decision was one where he was damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. While Libya does not have a history of having Islamic terrorists and/or an Al Qaeda influence...you had better believe that they will flock there. The only positive in the situation is that they will not come in the numbers that they came to Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Islamists are both homegrown and flow right out of the passes from Pakistan a mere donkey's ride away in Waziristan. Iraq's come across from Saudi Arabia, Syria and to a lesser extent Jordan. I just cannot understand why the world continues to expect us to step in every time and then criticizes us when we do? Wasn't that a Kosovar muslim kid who shot up our airmen in Germany? Did anyone bother to tell that pencil-di*k that we are the only reason his people live in peace? Did anyone remember when we stepped into that little genocidal situation in the Balkans and stopped it from continuing? Or feeding malnourished and dying people of Somalia only to have our Black Hawk Down incident? When do we learn that stepping in (while it feels good for us) does not accomplish anything for us as a nation?

When did we lose the ability to -1 you? Where have I been?

[All About UNT]

hmmm...I seem to have retained my power to do so on you. Muah hah ha ha ha ha!

[UNT90]

---There is a huge difference in Iraq and Libya.

Four: There are a lot of other countries really involved in this one and wanting to take part (even France), and not just ones that felt they owed us to help.

Five: A lot of people in Libya are already actively trying to overthrow the current regine, wasn't happening in Iraq.

---- We are not "THE" leader in this deal, just one of them, and sorta supporting the locals who are being killed.

We aren't trying to "win" this one. The locals will have to win it, but other countries can even the playing field by taking out planes and armour to prevent out and out murder of civiliians...

.

History shows that the highlighted is never a good argument in support of a war, especially when you expect them to take a major role in the front line fighting on your side.

The only problem I have with Lybia is that we probably waited too late to make an impact and we are not targeting the guy that we say is the problem. I understand the sensitivity of the issue, but if you don't have the balls to go after the main criminal (which he is), don't go in at all.

I would be interested to know what you think we should do on Syria now, since they are also slaughtering their own civilians. The situation is fairly comparable, minus one thing. Oil.

Have you suddenly become George Bush?

[UNT90]

I wonder how many understand the relationship of what the USA did in Iraq and what is happening in the rest of the middle east today.

I bet not many.,

[UNTFan23]

I wonder how many understand the relationship of what the USA did in Iraq and what is happening in the rest of the middle east today.

I bet not many.,

Do they have to do it all at once?

[UNTLifer]

My problem with Libya, and Obama in general, is that he goes about his business without the knowledge or approval of Congress. He skirts the law as best he can and then "escapes" to another country, in this case Chile, to avoid the immediate backlash. Then again, the liberal media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc... will never call him on any of this. Some of you may not have like Bush or how he went about his business, but the man did what he thought was in the best interest of the United States, not the world, and was upfront and communicated to Congress what his actions would be. In fact, in the case of invading Iraq, the Democratic led Congress approved of this move.

Obama has no foreign policy and no leadership skills.

[eulesseagle]

The United States should have never gotten involved in this Libyian civil war. The surrounding arab countries will not get directly involved because they know the dangers of sectarian violence overflowing from this civil war into their own country between competing rivals. As always the case with this so called modern day pan-arabism, they would rather have some other western nation spill their blood for their freedom than their own. It is too easy for the arabs to state, before the press, the keywords of democracy, our innocent women and children are being slaughtered, and have the liberal western press photograph these scenes. I do not remember how many times I saw Vietnamese Monks setting themselves on fire before the press, starving Ethiopians, "crimes against humanity" in the old Yugoslavia of serbs v. croats, and the list goes on all wanting democracy....or so they say to get someone to fight and die for them.

Arabs wanting democracy is like filling my gas tank full of water and expecting it to run.

In the case of Libyia, the United States does not know who the rebels really are, what their beliefs are, or the "political" make up of their rag tag band of merry men. Gadaffi, like Sadam Hussain (sp) was able to keep the sectarian violence under control by sectarian violence and both were a counter balance to other regional conflicts. I really did not care when Iraq, Turkey, Iran were killing the Kurds even though these images were paraded before us. I really do not care about all the other sectarian violence that Arab countries are involved in because.....one, it has never stopped in hundreds of years and nobody can convince me that someone has a better idea how to make everyone get along.

So, let the arabs fight and die in their own internal civil wars and they will always find a way to be a strategic counterbalance in their own region. The United States and Europe should just stay out of these civil wars because western blood is too valuable to be spent on the unappreciative sands of desert despots.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/mideast_rocked_by_new_clashes_oo4ACPi3EUoaEdr7ZhdrAL

Edited March 26, 2011 by eulesseagle

[UNTflyer]

So... now we're on the same side as al-Qaeda?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Good call, Obama. Good call.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

My problem with Libya, and Obama in general, is that he goes about his business without the knowledge or approval of Congress. He skirts the law as best he can and then "escapes" to another country, in this case Chile, to avoid the immediate backlash. Then again, the liberal media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc... will never call him on any of this. Some of you may not have like Bush or how he went about his business, but the man did what he thought was in the best interest of the United States, not the world, and was upfront and communicated to Congress what his actions would be. In fact, in the case of invading Iraq, the Democratic led Congress approved of this move.

Obama has no foreign policy and no leadership skills.

Did we have permission of congress when we invaded Granada, Panama, or bombed Libya under Reagan.... Nope.

We have not only declared war (by congress) only 5 times in US history... we have had over 200 "warlike" incidents, most done by the White House only... includes a lot--including a lot of Viet Nam escallations, the Gulf War, and Korea. There was no declaration fo war in the Gulf War or Iraq invasion (which was not provoked at all... and no mass killing of local citizens was taking place as has been taking place in Libya. You are just trying to find fault and not looking at history.

Guess you aren't listening to those networks... several on there have criticized him and even these actions, just as they did the previous person.... Some Democrats even oppose this ---as did Bob Dole who opposed Bush Sr. when he began the Gulf War in 1990 (he later agreed that he had been wrong to do so). I thought the Iraq INVASION was bad mistake then but I approve of this which is not an invasion either (not that anywone cares about my oppinion) ....as long as we keep ground troops home. Let the locals fight it out and decide the situation.. A no-fly zone keep evens the situation a bit and doesn't allow a few to conquer the many.

..

Edited March 26, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTLifer]

Did we have permission of congress when we invaded Granada, Panama, or bombed Libya under Reagan.... Nope.

We have not only declared war (by congress) only 5 times in US history... we have had over 200 "warlike" incidents, most done by the White House only... includes a lot--including a lot of Viet Nam escallations, the Gulf War, and Korea. There was no declaration fo war in the Gulf War or Iraq invasion (which was not provoked at all... and no mass killing of local citizens was taking place as has been taking place in Libya. You are just trying to find fault and not looking at history.

Guess you aren't listening to those networks... several on there have criticized him and even these actions, just as they did the previous person.... Some Democrats even oppose this ---as did Bob Dole who opposed Bush Sr. when he began the Gulf War in 1990 (he later agreed that he had been wrong to do so). I thought the Iraq INVASION was bad mistake then but I approve of this which is not an invasion either (not that anywone cares about my oppinion) ....as long as we keep ground troops home. Let the locals fight it out and decide the situation.. A no-fly zone keep evens the situation a bit and doesn't allow a few to conquer the many.

..

My comment about Obama doing stuff outside the normal procedures goes way beyond Libya, but it is just the latest. Regarding Libya, Obama decided to bomb them, yet nobody knew the intention of the mission. How about Obama and his appointed czars to get around senate hearings? How about Obama trampling on the Constitution? I could go on and on.

Just trying to find fault? It's not hard when it falls at my feet every day. The man is a joke of a leader. You may not have liked Bush, but we knew where he stood on the issues. Every time their is some sort of crisis Obama is either out of the country or on vacation. He has weakened our military and our image globally and his economic policies have been epic failures.

Edited March 26, 2011 by UNTLifer

[eulesseagle]

Since Bush I the US have fought in Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and "IF" John McCain & Liberman had their way we would be fighting the Russians in Georgia and bombing Iran.

President Washington advised us not to get involved in foriegn entanglements.

Today's regional conflicts should be taken care of by the regional regiems. The Arab League should have rolled in Egygt's approximate 1/2 million man armed forces across the Libian border if they were that concerned about their next door neighbor.

The African Union should have had the moral responsibility to stop the Tutsi - Hutus slaugher in the 70's and the 90's and another million or so Ibos (sp) in Nigeria in the late 60's.

The Arab League should have had the moral responsibility to stop the sluaghter of hundreds of thousands in the Sudan.

Up through Kennedy the United States was keeping out of regional conflicts with the exception of Wilson. Kennedy began to withdraw advisors and LBJ drew us into that s***hole.

These regional conflicts / civil wars cost the US American blood, money and suffering in engagements and conflicts where American interests are NOT at stake and where we were not attacked.

[UNT90]

So funny to see those that are in complete support of the Iraq and Afganistan war to be against the Lybian action.

Even more funny to see those that were so against the "Bush oil war" in Iraq be in complete support of Pres. Obama's unilateral, non-congressionally approved action in Lybia. If Bush had done the same thing, these same folks would be going ballistic with the fascist rhetoric.

As long as it is "my side" doing it, I'll defend it, critical thinking be damned!!

Quite amusing.

[Coffee and TV]

So funny to see those that are in complete support of the Iraq and Afganistan war to be against the Lybian action.

Even more funny to see those that were so against the "Bush oil war" in Iraq be in complete support of Pres. Obama's unilateral, non-congressionally approved action in Lybia. If Bush had done the same thing, these same folks would be going ballistic with the fascist rhetoric.

As long as it is "my side" doing it, I'll defend it, critical thinking be damned!!

Quite amusing.

So funny to see you package people's complex thoughts and opinions into simple little amusing tidbits so you can make cute little comments.