No Fly zones over Libya?

[McHrozni]

And what do tank convoys we have attacked (on their way, presumably, to attack rebel-held Benghazi) have to do with Libyan air defense capabilities?

They have a lot to do with not making the no-fly zone useless.

The UN resolution and the US's actions have gone beyond enforcing a no-fly-zone. We have joined a civil war on the side of the rebels, even though we really don't know who they are or just what their intentions are.

Yup, we have chosen to side against a murderus dictator, which publically promised a bloodbath against his own people who don't support him and has already shown to be serious about it.

If you have a problem with that, please explain to me how standing by idly and watching people being slaughtered like cattle is somehow not "taking sides".

McHrozni

 

[Laeke]

And what do tank convoys we have attacked (on their way, presumably, to attack rebel-held Benghazi) have to do with Libyan air defense capabilities?

The UN resolution and the US's actions have gone beyond enforcing a no-fly-zone. We have joined a civil war on the side of the rebels, even though we really don't know who they are or just what their intentions are.

The UN mandate precises that civilians must be protected by any means necessary (except an occupation force).
The tank convoys attacked in the first days were around Benghazi, as far as we know (photos do attest of that). It has been stated that airstrikes will also try to disrupt the supply lines.

It is a very broad mandate.

 

[Sunstealer]

Analysis of Libyan air defence systems - http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/libyan-sam-network.html

 

[Thunder]

As opposed to watching them get slaughtered and terrorized into submission. Then we'd know which side they're on. The dead and terrorized side.

The sooner the French & Brits take this over, the better.

 

[dudalb]

And what do tank convoys we have attacked (on their way, presumably, to attack rebel-held Benghazi) have to do with Libyan air defense capabilities?

The UN resolution and the US's actions have gone beyond enforcing a no-fly-zone. We have joined a civil war on the side of the rebels, even though we really don't know who they are or just what their intentions are.

Uh, the UN resolutions included a provision to take whatever action necessary to protect the Civilian populations.

 

[dudalb]

I get the feeling that some of the people attacking the UN actions, would, if the UN has not taken action and Gadaffi had taken Bengasi and the slaughter he promised happened would be blasting the UN and Obama for not taking action.
They want some neat sollution in which Gadaffi is stopped without any violence. They are sorely lacking in realism.

 

[dudalb]

They have a lot to do with not making the no-fly zone useless.



Yup, we have chosen to side against a murderus dictator, which publically promised a bloodbath against his own people who don't support him and has already shown to be serious about it.

If you have a problem with that, please explain to me how standing by idly and watching people being slaughtered like cattle is somehow not "taking sides".

McHrozni

I think it is sort of automatic reaction against Military action under almost any circumstances that a lot of "Progressives" have. Which is one reason why I am not a Progressive.
They don't like that it comes down to a choice between allowing a dictator to slaughter his people or taking military action,and they try to evade that reality.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

In those towns that Gah'daffey forces recaptured, is there evidence of a systematic slaughter of civilians?

 

[Pardalis]

In those towns that Gah'daffey forces recaptured, is there evidence of a systematic slaughter of civilians?

We'll have to wait for the free press to come in and have a look.

If they re-took it by force, there must have been alot of casualties, knowing how crude and indiscriminate Qhaddafi's tactics are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When did Lieberman become a spokesman for the Obama admin?

When did I say he had?

I was making the point that it's duplicitous and disingenuous to claim that the U.S.'s role in intervening in the civil war in Libya is somehow neutral. (I just heard a caller on NPR who suggested we were acting in the role of a referee trying to keep the fight fair, but someone pointed out that referees don't throw punches if they think a boxing match is lopsided.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I get the feeling that some of the people attacking the UN actions, would, if the UN has not taken action and Gadaffi had taken Bengasi and the slaughter he promised happened would be blasting the UN and Obama for not taking action.

This argument is a false dichotomy, as if the only two possible actions the U.N. (or the U.S.) could have taken was to do nothing and sit idly by while violent injustice took place or to do what they did (i.e. enter the civil war on the side of the rebels).

It also depends on those you are arguing against voicing opinions or otherwise behaving in the way you claim they would, which is a straw man argument.

 

[dudalb]

This argument is a false dichotomy, as if the only two possible actions the U.N. (or the U.S.) could have taken was to do nothing and sit idly by while violent injustice took place or to do what they did (i.e. enter the civil war on the side of the rebels).

It also depends on those you are arguing against voicing opinions or otherwise behaving in the way you claim they would, which is a straw man argument.

Please name a third option that had a chance in hell of working .

 

[Captain.Sassy]

We'll have to wait for the free press to come in and have a look.

If they re-took it by force, there must have been alot of casualties, knowing how crude and indiscriminate Qhaddafi's tactics are.

So are does this mean that until we have evidence of the systematic targeting of unarmed civilians we should assume that this is what the regime is doing? Or is it that Gahdafhi regime is using disproportionate force in responding to the rebellion that justifies the airstrikes?

 

[Pardalis]

So are does this mean that until we have evidence of the systematic targeting of unarmed civilians we should assume that this is what the regime is doing? Or is it that Gahdafhi regime is using disproportionate force in responding to the rebellion that justifies the airstrikes?

There's also his and his son's own words, such as: "We will fight to the last man and woman", and "rivers of blood", which don't bode well for their methods.

Oh right, I forgot, only the US cause civilian casualties...

 

[Captain.Sassy]

There's also his and his son's own words, such as: "We will fight to the last man and woman", and "rivers of blood", which don't bode well for their methods.

Oh right, I forgot, only the US cause civilian casualties...

Context is important. Did they say "last man and woman" meaning "we will keep killing civilians until the last man and woman in these cities are killed", or meaning "each man and woman supporting us is willing to die for our cause"?

 

[Pardalis]

Capt, You obviously have decided to take the denialist stance, so any report of slaughter you will nitpick and try to play with semantics.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Pardalis, the question is valid. Do you in fact take that statement as intent to slaughter every last Libyan? It's a ridiculous and alarmist reading. Par for the course these days.

 

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, the question is valid. Do you in fact take that statement as intent to slaughter every last Libyan? It's a ridiculous and alarmist reading. Par for the course these days.

No, but it shows how resolved they are to squash the resistance by any means necessary.

Speaking of alarmist reading, I find it ironic coming from someone who quotes an anonymous guy on the internet who thinks vaccines are a plot to kill people as a credible source.

Here are a few snippets of your "Rothscum" fellow on these very boards.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No, but it shows how resolved they are to squash the resistance by any means necessary.

Speaking of alarmist reading, I find it ironic coming from someone who quotes an anonymous guy on the internet who thinks vaccines are a plot to kill people as a credible source.

Here are a few snippets of your "Rothscum" fellow on these very boards.

Citing one guy who elsewhere makes alarmist claims is not the same as personally insisting on an alarmist reading of what Gaddafi or his sons have said (which you insist you aren't doing, just sniping at someone who refused to take that stance).

Also, your link above for the word slaughter shows little or none of that. More rebel reports, no evidence, tanks being taken, Gaddafi forces targeted by the world community, and so on. Not to mention that site features the shadiest version of that 130 soldiers slaughtered by Gaddafi's forces story. The rebels seem to have done it themselves, adding 130 of the 230 reported Benghazi dad at the time, all attributed to Gaddafi, of course. (see this thread, if you haven't already)

Is it all as entirely clear as you thought?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please name a third option that had a chance in hell of working .

Define, please, "working".

I'm no expert, but we do have a cadre of diplomats who are good at negotiation and diplomacy. To claim that we have exhausted diplomacy by this point is pretty premature, since it's not even clear even what we want or who the parties for negotiations might be.

As it stands, right now we don't even really know who the rebels are or what they have in mind.

What if their discontent is largely at Gaddafi's reluctance to attack Israel?