No Fly zones over Libya?

[Thunder]

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/28/obama-arming-al-qaeda

"He was warned that should we reach a point where NATO needs to re-arm the rebels -- it appears that time is coming now -- we will be arming the very enemy that we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," says a career employee at the State Department.

Should be interesting to see if Obama mentions that in his speach tonight. Bet he doesn't.

um..it wasn't Obama's decision that brought Al Qaeda into Iraq. It was YOUR President, George W. Bush, who did that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So now that we've weakened government forces and rebel forces move to take over government-held cities, will we bomb the rebels to protect civilians?

Or maybe come clean and admit that we entered a civil war on the side of the rebels?

 

[Thunder]

we are in Libya to give the rebels a fighting chance.

that's....it. any other reason is pure bologna.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

we are in Libya to give the rebels a fighting chance.

Doesn't that mean our military intervention in Libya has been in support of the rebels?

And since the rebels seek to throw out Gaddafi, isn't that an end that we are supporting with our military intervention?

I think even your formulation is disingenuous, even though you go significantly farther than the "humanitarian" mission to protect civilians, nonsense.

ETA: I heard a caller on a radio talk show claim that the U.S. was acting like a referee trying to make it a fair fight. Someone else pointed out that referees don't punch one fighter in order to make it a fair fight.

 

[Thunder]

Doesn't that mean our military intervention in Libya has been in support of the rebels?

And since the rebels seek to throw out Gaddafi, isn't that an end that we are supporting with our military intervention?

 

[JihadJane]

we are in Libya to give the rebels a fighting chance.

that's....it. any other reason is pure bologna.

That's not what the UN resolution says.





What a surprise that the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan are, once again, behaving like lawless bandits.


Libya: Coalition bombing may be in breach of UN resolution's legal limits:


Concern over the legality of the military action in Libya reignited on Monday as rebel forces surged into the space created by the international bombardment of Colonel Gaddafi's military.

Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London, warned that coalition forces were facing a "major problem" to justify their latest strikes on legal grounds and Lord Ashdown, the former high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the coalition forces led by Britain, France and the US were facing "a moment of danger" over the legality of their actions. He said "continued support for this looks as though it is leading to support for regime change, which legally is beyond the [United Nations] security council resolution".

...

But Sands said it was becoming increasingly hard to justify the strikes on the Libyan leader's forces as pre-emptive.

"The resolution is concerned with the protection of civilians, so a military attack on Gaddafi's retreating forces could only be justified if it could be shown to be related to that objective," he said.

 

[Thunder]

That's not what the UN resolution says.

no kidding.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Add to this the fact that our president and our secretary of state have both said that Gaddafi has to go.

There's no way you can claim that we intervened and significantly weakened Gaddafi's military forces, and that we have been in favor of self-determination.

 

[Thunder]

Add to this the fact that our president and our secretary of state have both said that Gaddafi has to go.

There's no way you can claim that we intervened and significantly weakened Gaddafi's military forces, and that we have been in favor of self-determination.

and there is no **** ing way we are gonna let Ghaddafly win, even if no civilians are threatened.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Sands said it was becoming increasingly hard to justify the strikes on the Libyan leader's forces as pre-emptive.

"The resolution is concerned with the protection of civilians, so a military attack on Gaddafi's retreating forces could only be justified if it could be shown to be related to that objective," he said.[/I]

Is there even any real-world difference between us directly striking Gaddafi and driving him out, and us weakening Gaddafi's forces significantly enough that the rebels can come in and drive him out?

Again, if our involvement is about protecting civilians, then we should surely start bombing rebel forces moving toward government-held cities just as we bombed Gaddafi's forces when they marched toward rebel-held cities.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

and there is no **** ing way we are gonna let Ghaddafly win, even if no civilians are threatened.

So again, doesn't that mean we have entered a civil war in order to oust Gaddafi?

Is there any other definition of "let Gaddafi win" than "let Gaddafi remain in power"? This is clearly intervention into a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of bringing about regime change.

 

[Policenaut]

If "protecting civilians" is the motivation then we (and the rest of the world that signed on to this do-gooder act) look like idiots. Why didn't they intervene when Iran was killing it's civilians (a place that is a threat Mr. Gates) and why not with several other countries in the middle east that right now are killing their civilians just like Libya?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If "protecting civilians" is the motivation then we (and the rest of the world that signed on to this do-gooder act) look like idiots. Why didn't they intervene when Iran was killing it's [sic] civilians (a place that is a threat Mr. Gates) and why not with several other countries in the middle east that right now are killing their civilians just like Libya?

Or for that matter, why aren't we "protecting civilians" in the civil war in the Ivory Coast?

I will be curious to hear how Obama frames it in his speech tonight. The "days not weeks" thing is already hard to swallow--just as was his claim that we would only be in a supporting role to European and Arabian nations in the coalition. I would like to see him repeat the "just protecting civilians" stuff with a straight face--especially if he adds in "Gaddafi must go" again.

I hope he takes questions, and I hope some very pointed questions get asked.

 

[BeAChooser]

um..it wasn't Obama's decision that brought Al Qaeda into Iraq. It was YOUR President, George W. Bush, who did that.

um ... no, al-Qaada was in Iraq before we invaded.

And perhaps you missed the missed the point that was being made.

Let's find out.

Do you approve of Obama helping the Libyan rebels if the rebels are closely associated with al-Qaeda?

Because remember, regardless of whose decision put us in Iraq, al-Qaeda didn't belong there either, and they are responsible for hundreds of American deaths there ... not to mention the deaths of thousands of Iraqis ... not to mention all those who lost their lives on 9/11. So should Obama do something that would be perceived as making them allies ... something that might arm them or make them even more powerful? Remember, Libya has both oil and WMD. Think what al-Qaeda could do with that?

 

[BeAChooser]

we are in Libya to give the rebels a fighting chance.

that's....it. any other reason is pure bologna.

So if Obama tells us something different tonight, he would a liar?

 

[Thunder]

So if Obama tells us something different tonight, he would a liar?

if he doesn't say a thing about assissting the rebels in their goal of stopping Ghaddafly, then he would be a politician...not a liar.

but I expect him to be somewhat honest with the American people tonight, as he is not a Republican.

 

[Thunder]

um ... no, al-Qaada was in Iraq before we invaded.

yeah, and Saddam Hussein did 9-11.

and Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program.

and he had an active chemical/bio weapons program.

 

[BeAChooser]

If "protecting civilians" is the motivation then we (and the rest of the world that signed on to this do-gooder act) look like idiots.

That's exactly what the UN resolution supposedly justifying this states. So we (or at least Obama and company) must be idiots. Stuck On Stupid.

 

[BeAChooser]

Or for that matter, why aren't we "protecting civilians" in the civil war in the Ivory Coast?

Or in Sudan? Look what Muslims have been doing to black Christians there. Some would call it REAL genocide. But where's Obama and NATO?

 

[Thunder]

one could indeed argue that assisting the rebels against Khadafee, is the same as helping civilians.