No Fly zones over Libya?

[DanishDynamite]

The strange thing is, since the word civilians seems to recently have been completely redefined, you are probably right.

The strange thing is, no re-definition is needed. But I'm curious: What re-definition are you talking about?

 

[Laeke]

You do not think that arming the protesters, who must fight againt tanks and artillery, with heavy weapons will help make the playing field even. I see.

I do not believe it would be enough, and more over, I do not believe (from a material, political angle) it is possible to supply them with anything heavier than rocket launchers or small cannons in the quantities it would require to make the field even from an armement standpoint.
Insurgents will have to loot what they can get on Kadhaffi's army.

But considering we've been ping-ponging this for a few messages, I offer you "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

Openly supplying the protestors (civilians) with heavy weapons would obviously not be counter to the UN resolution.

Well, I am not savvy regarding international law regulating warfare, but do they remain "civilians" when they are manning turrets? Not rhetorical, but honest question.

I still see it as obviously contrary to the UN resolution: There's civilians on the other side too, and giving heavy weapons to inexperienced civilians (to use your term) certainly has a severe risk of backfiring. And supplying weapons to one side certainly sounds like offsetting, delaying or reducing chances for a ceasefire. Supposedly we want them to stop fighting.

Also, I have not looked the particulars, but Libya's regime is under an arms embargo since UN resolution 1970.
Taking sides even more blatantly could have political consequences that would break the thin international consensus we require to operate.

Or so I believe. I think I spoke my view and this and will not pursue you to continue at all costs this discussion, if you wish.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I do not believe it would be enough, and more over, I do not believe (from a material, political angle) it is possible to supply them with anything heavier than rocket launchers or small cannons in the quantities it would require to make the field even from an armement standpoint.
Insurgents will have to loot what they can get on Kadhaffi's army.

But considering we've been ping-ponging this for a few messages, I offer you "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.



Well, I am not savvy regarding international law regulating warfare, but do they remain "civilians" when they are manning turrets? Not rhetorical, but honest question.

I still see it as obviously contrary to the UN resolution: There's civilians on the other side too, and giving heavy weapons to inexperienced civilians (to use your term) certainly has a severe risk of backfiring. And supplying weapons to one side certainly sounds like offsetting, delaying or reducing chances for a ceasefire. Supposedly we want them to stop fighting.

Also, I have not looked the particulars, but Libya's regime is under an arms embargo since UN resolution 1970.
Taking sides even more blatantly could have political consequences that would break the thin international consensus we require to operate.

Or so I believe. I think I spoke my view and this and will not pursue you to continue at all costs this discussion, if you wish.

You spoke your view and I spoke mine. The ability to do so, no matter where you are, who you are, what you are, etc, is really what this is about. At least in my view.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/obama-fails-grasp-gravity-going-war

Obama fails to grasp the gravity of going to war

… snip …

"I am completely mystified," says former top Bush aide Karl Rove, who supports the Libya intervention, "that this administration, of all administrations, makes a decision on a Tuesday night and does not bother to call anybody in Congress until Friday morning, 90 minutes before the policy is going to be executed, to tell them what is going to happen. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had tried to do that? We'd have been barbecued!"

… snip …

"The president has gotten us involved in a war, but they won't call it a war," says Peter Wehner, another Bush White House veteran. "Muddled thinking creates muddled language, and we're getting a lot of muddled language." There's no sign that will change anytime soon.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Well, it is a great day for democracy and human rights. Don't take my word for it, take the word of former regime officials

After talking for a little more than an hour, Mr Sodani was led away. As he departed, he made one final pronouncement: "I have full confidence in the fairness of the revolution and the revolution's judges. This country would be a far better place in the future than it was in the past." There was no mistaking the fear in his voice.

 

[McHrozni]

Yeah! Civil War rocks! Wasn't Afghanistan really awesome?

Compared to standing by and watching a brutal dictator take it out on his own people?

McHrozni

 

[JihadJane]

'Libya Rebels: Gaddafi Could be Right About al-Qaeda

Two documents suggest northeast Libya, centre of rebellion, is an al-Qaeda' hotspot

"As former CIA operations officer Brian Fairchild writes, amid 'the apparent absence of any plan for post-Gaddafi governance, an ignorance of Libya's tribal nature and our poor record of dealing with tribes, American government documents conclusively establish that the epicentre of the revolt is rife with anti-American and pro-jihad sentiment, and with al-Qaeda's explicit support for the revolt, it is appropriate to ask our policy makers how American military intervention in support of this revolt in any way serves vital US strategic interests'.

As [Alexander Cockburn] wrote here a few weeks ago, 'It sure looks like Osama bin Laden is winning the Great War on Terror'. But I did not dream then that he would have a coalition of the US, Great Britain and France bleeding themselves dry to assist him in this enterprise."

 

[little grey rabbit]

This is terrible
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/libya-biggest-tribe-march-benghazi?intcmp=239

More aggression and terror by Gadaffi loyalists towards the protesters.

Do you think the French ought to bomb this column also?

 

[WildCat]

Have you ever considered that it may just be you are out of your intellectual depth here?

It's hilarious when Holocaust deniers suppose themselves to be deep thinkers rather than th knee-jerk reactionary bigots they really are, with the intellectual depth of a kiddie pool.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Well written article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/23/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The line is blurry and how free you are to abuse your citizens clearly depends, at least partly, on how helpful you are to the big dogs (see above reference to Yemen's assistance in America's secret wars, or the fact that Bahrain is home to the U.S. 5th Fleet); or how powerful and well connected you might be.

 

[WildCat]

Well written article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/23/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The line is blurry and how free you are to abuse your citizens clearly depends, at least partly, on how helpful you are to the big dogs (see above reference to Yemen's assistance in America's secret wars, or the fact that Bahrain is home to the U.S. 5th Fleet); or how powerful and well connected you might be.

Or it has to do with the best interests of the countries in question at the time. Sometimes there are no good choices, just varying degrees of bad ones.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...the-weakest-commander-in-chief-in-us-history/

Is President Obama the weakest Commander-in-Chief in US history?

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released today reveals a striking lack of public confidence in President Obama’s ability as Commander-in-Chief, with just 17 percent of Americans describing his leadership as “strong and decisive”, compared to 36 percent who believe it is “indecisive and dithering”.

I think they are being too kind. Obama is being deliberate weak and there's another name for that.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Or it has to do with the best interests of the countries in question at the time. Sometimes there are no good choices, just varying degrees of bad ones.

I agree. The way I look at it, pretty much every government in the West is opposed to killing protesters, generally. That isn't to say other factors don't outweigh that interest.

Whether or not we step in depends on a confluence of factors, including whether it's practical, UN endorsed (for some of us), the likely costs of action, and whether or not it aligns with other national interests. When Canada joins bombing coalitions, as a Canadian, I think that this country should consider whose interests are being served by the bombing campaign (since interests are obviously at stake).

If Canada's interests aren't at stake but we want to bomb someone because they killed civilians, then perhaps we could bomb the armed forces of Cote D'Ivoire more cheaply than the armed forces of Libya. Or something along those lines. I'm being part tongue-in-cheek here.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262725/president-reticent-stanley-kurtz

Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displace Qaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it. But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that’s staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law. That requires a “pure” case of intervention on humanitarian grounds. Power’s agenda would explain why Obama acted when he acted, and why the public rationale for action has not included regime change.

Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted. ... snip ...

Instead, the president’s long-term goals have remained murky. He’s been impossibly vague on regime change, narrowly focused on the danger to Benghazi, and has said relatively little about the aspirations of Power and her associates to enshrine the principles and precedents of humanitarian intervention in international law.

As with health care, Obama’s talk isn’t working because he cannot afford to specify broader ideological motivations he knows the public won’t buy.

Remember, this is the most transparent administration in history.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Hey Chooser
Not to be a thread nazi or anything but maybe the discussion of the internal machinations of the US decision making process are more of a US politics thingy?

Most of what you're posting could be found by googling "conservative obama libya"

 

[BeAChooser]

Hey Chooser
Not to be a thread nazi or anything but maybe the discussion of the internal machinations of the US decision making process are more of a US politics thingy?

So you want to talk about the justification for Libya No Fly Zones without discussing the motivations of Obama? LOL! Did you consider that maybe this thread is just in the wrong section of this forum because frankly I can't imagine how you can possibly discuss what is happening vis a vis Libya without talking about Obama, his decision making process and how US politics affects that decision making process? Even the decision to not allow helicopters to turn the tide against anti-Saddam protests after the first Gulf War … also mentioned in the OP … involved the US. So no, I don't feel that any of what I've posted is off topic to the issue in this thread. The US is part of the "International Community" mentioned in the OP and has provided a very significant portion of the resources to enact this No Fly Zone. Therefore, the question of whether the US, as part of the international community, should stop what was CLAIMED to be happening in Libya suggests I have every right to intrude on your discussion.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

don't flip out on me dude
really
I don't think that any other US prez would have acted differently

getting mad at obama for doing what the us does in these situations is a partisan thing

 

[mike3]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...the-weakest-commander-in-chief-in-us-history/



I think they are being too kind. Obama is being deliberate weak and there's another name for that.

So would not going to war have been even weaker, or what? As you seem to oppose this campaign -- thus shouldn't it be a good thing we have a "deliberate weak" guy like that?

 

[funk de fino]

So would not going to war have been even weaker, or what? As you seem to oppose this campaign -- thus shouldn't it be a good thing we have a "deliberate weak" guy like that?

Don't point out the hypocrisy. It will be ignored anyway. BAC tried to attack Obama by mentioning the UK navy previously. Proof positive only one line is read in any source BAC provides.

 

[funk de fino]

Funk de Fino:

The many protesters killed in Tripoli, and perhaps elsewhere (no expert yet) is something I don't dispute. That's something to be dealt with, if it happened in isolation. As it happens, the war has eclipsed all that, and we're currently moving on fears of repression in the oil-heavy areas trying to at least secede.

The military action has eclipsed it. However until the coalition stepped in some of those innocent peole were still being shot.

If the scenario you outlined happened, I'd suspect most people here would accept the media explanation for why they had to shoot. Others wouldn't, would rebel, would be arrested or shot in gunbattles or, if they managed to seize whole cities, cities would be attacked and they'd be crushed. I'd be confused and worried about what was really going on, and trying to sort it out.

Why did Libya military or the mercenaries have to shoot peaceful protestors?

Unless you add a hypothetical superpower bigger than us, outside the country but sympathetic to the tea-partiers, with better media saturation and offering all kinds of promises of victory and rewards if they win, and willing to take over our air space to protect them in their stated push to take it all and topple Obama. Then I'd be more worried yet.

Incorrect. I do not have to add anything.