No Fly zones over Libya?

[BeAChooser]

Change has certainly come to America.

It would be wrong to call this a mistranslation, it was a wilfull, hypocritical and malicious deceit.

That's exactly what it was. The same sort of willful, hypocritical and malicious deceit that Bill Clinton used to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia in defense of another group of terrorists, the KLA. Some things never change it seems, at least not where democrats are concerned.

 

[Thunder]

That's exactly what it was. The same sort of willful, hypocritical and malicious deceit that Bill Clinton used to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia in defense of another group of terrorists, the KLA. Some things never change it seems, at least not where democrats are concerned.

and yet, due to Bush's invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists have poured into Iraq.

thanks Bush, for making Iraq a new battleground for the War on Terror.

 

[Toontown]

There is nothing wrong with occasionally offing a tyrant. The message value to other tyrants alone makes it a useful strategy. Nor does the offing of one tyrant require the offing of another, in the interest of some idiotic simian consistency. We lack the resources or the will to do them all, so we should at least keep them guessing. They should all have a creepy feeling up the backs of their necks telling them they could be next.

You people want to be civilized, or not? You want to be civilized, you police your freaking monkeyball. If you're not even willing to do that much, you've got no right to complain about anything.

 

[BeAChooser]

In his speech today, Obama said … “In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale." He said if he had waited “one more day,” Libyan rebels could have suffered a “massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Were we? Is this really true? Or is it just propaganda, like all the claims about genocide that were made to justify what Clinton did in Kosovo? Well I guess all I can say is "Thank goodness that massacre didn't happen."

 

[BeAChooser]

In his speech today, Obama said "And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action". LIAR.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Yes. Obama could have brought evidence that Gaddafi was wrong when he claimed these weren't his people but foreign Islamic terrorists (I believe he even said they were Al Qaeda), but instead, Obama merely claimed that Gaddafi said he would show no mercy to his own people.

You seem to have misunderstood the point. Let me repeat the quote and highlight the parts you can't understand

“We will come house by house, room by room. It’s over. The issue has been decided,” he said, offering amnesty to those who laid down their arms. To those who continued to resist, he vowed: “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”

This is what Obama twisted to "he said he would show no mercy to his own people"

Did India show mercy to those in the Mumbai attacks? Did we expect them to?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_LIBYA_FACT_CHECK?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

… snip ...

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

… snip …

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance.

… snip …

Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

… snip …

The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

… snip …

Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Obama said exactly what I expected him to say. We are there not simply to protect civilians, but to protect civilians from the murder tyrant Ghaddafly.

The rebels and the Arab League asked for a no-fly zone, and that's exactly what we gave them. If we waited one more day, it would have all been over.

Now, clearly those who have an obsessive hatred of Obama because he is black, Kenyan, Communist, Muslim, a Democrat, will hate this mission regardless of the facts...or the countless lives helped.

But one thing is certain: you CANNOT oppose the liberation of Iraq from Saddam & the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, and yet support assisting the Libyan people get rid of Gaddaflee.

...unless of course you are a pathetic hypocrite.

FYP

 

[JihadJane]

Obama said exactly what I expected him to say. We are there not simply to protect civilians, but to protect civilians from the murder tyrant Ghaddafly.

The rebels and the Arab League asked for a no-fly zone, and that's exactly what we gave them.

The UN takes orders from a bunch of dictators (Arab League) and some dodgy insurgents.

Since when did siding with one side in a cvil war have anything to do with establishing a no-fly zone?

If we waited one more day, it would have all been over.

Evidence?

Now, clearly those who have an obsessive hatred of Obama because he is black, Kenyan, Communist, Muslim, a Democrat, will hate this mission regardless of the facts...or the countless lives helped.

But one thing is certain: you CANNOT support the liberation of Iraq from Saddam & the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, and yet oppose assisting the Libyan people get rid of Gaddaflee.

...unless of course you are a pathetic hypocrite.

Oooh, you misspelly his name. How clever!

Obama is showing the world that, like his predecessor, the President of the United States of America is prepared to disregard international law in order to perpetrate an orgy of violence in a foreign country that is no threat to the US.

 

[egslim]

There is nothing wrong with occasionally offing a tyrant. The message value to other tyrants alone makes it a useful strategy. Nor does the offing of one tyrant require the offing of another, in the interest of some idiotic simian consistency. We lack the resources or the will to do them all, so we should at least keep them guessing. They should all have a creepy feeling up the backs of their necks telling them they could be next.

Ok.

We're talking about people who are ruthless with regards to their internal political opposition, and have even less regard for the lives of foreigners. Who know their overthrow means death for themselves and their close relations.

How do you think these people will respond to the threat of being next? Do you honestly expect them to cower in a corner, waiting until it's their turn?

The message you're sending them is they need to work harder to obtain nukes and chemical weapons, the latter in combination with a good delivery-system. The threat of foreign invasion is the best argument for nuclear proliferation. These interventions speed that up.

 

[JihadJane]

Ok.

We're talking about people who are ruthless with regards to their internal political opposition, and have even less regard for the lives of foreigners. Who know their overthrow means death for themselves and their close relations.

How do you think these people will respond to the threat of being next? Do you honestly expect them to cower in a corner, waiting until it's their turn?

The message you're sending them is they need to work harder to obtain nukes and chemical weapons, the latter in combination with a good delivery-system. The threat of foreign invasion is the best argument for nuclear proliferation. These interventions speed that up.

What? You mean more violence with big missiles isn't the answer?!

 

[egslim]

What? You mean more violence with big missiles isn't the answer?!

Depends on what kind of outcome is desired.

 

[Laeke]

Who know their overthrow means death for themselves and their close relations.

Ben Ali and Moubarak are both alive, along most of their close relations. And I do not think the powers involved in the coalition said they wanted to kill Kadhaffi, they want him to "go". In fact, this is currently planned. As you point out, offering no alternative to an enemy head of state is generally understood as a diplomatic blunder and I am not aware that this mistake has been done recently.

Efforts appear to be under way to offer Muammar Gaddafi a way of escape from Libya, with Italy saying it was trying to organise an African haven for him, and the US signalling it would not try to stop the dictator from fleeing.

And gotta love this

A senior American official signalled that a solution in which Gaddafi flees to a country beyond the reach of the international criminal court (ICC), which is investigating war crimes charges against him, would be acceptable to Washington

"He should be brought to Justice, but really we're not gonna lose sleep over it if he escapes"

Tyrants being killed by foreign powers is not the rule, AFAIK. Bogus trials and executions by their own people seems to be the norm, and only happens when the regime crumbles for good.

As for nuclear (or other nasty) weapons, I believe countries will try to pursue them no matter what, as long as there will be wars, no matter who participates in it. Nuclear weapons are just too much of an advantage. Having them guarantee the existence of a nation, long lasting peace for its citizens, and a serious boost to your international leverage.

 

[egslim]

Ben Ali and Moubarak are both alive, along most of their close relations.

Moubarak was kicked out by his military, and without foreign military intervention. He never had the same absolute power people like Saddam and Gadaffi held.

Tyrants being killed by foreign powers is not the rule, AFAIK. Bogus trials and executions by their own people seems to be the norm, and only happens when the regime crumbles for good.

Indeed. But such crumbling is often the result of intervention like Toontown advocates.

As for nuclear (or other nasty) weapons, I believe countries will try to pursue them no matter what, as long as there will be wars, no matter who participates in it. Nuclear weapons are just too much of an advantage. Having them guarantee the existence of a nation, long lasting peace for its citizens, and a serious boost to your international leverage.

Pursuing nuclear weapons also has a cost, it often leads to painful sanctions and diplomatic isolation. If a country is under threat from a US-intervention some time in the future, then that cost is undoubtedly worth it. Without that threat, quite possibly not.
As you say there will always be some motivation to obtain them, but it will be reduced if not needed to protect against invasion.

 

[Laeke]

Moubarak was kicked out by his military, and without foreign military intervention. He never had the same absolute power people like Saddam and Gadaffi held.

Maybe not, but what are the examples of tyrants being killed as a result of an intervention? And moreover directly?

Indeed. But such crumbling is often the result of intervention like Toontown advocates.

How many instances in recent times though? Even Saddam Hussein was tried and executed under the responsability of the new Iraq authorities. Did he have absolutely no way out of this before (honest question)? (Quick note: I do think the political conduct of the Iraq War was poor...)

Pursuing nuclear weapons also has a cost, it often leads to painful sanctions and diplomatic isolation. If a country is under threat from a US-intervention some time in the future, then that cost is undoubtedly worth it. Without that threat, quite possibly not.
As you say there will always be some motivation to obtain them, but it will be reduced if not needed to protect against invasion.

I am not certain that western interventionism makes a real difference there, even if I hear your arguments about the cost of getting them. The fact that Israel has nukes, and would still have them even without US support, is certainly a motivation for the countries of the region.
Even without direct military action from powers abroad, competing regional powers will have an incentive to do so, like India and Pakistan.

 

[JihadJane]

Depends on what kind of outcome is desired.

It's safe to assume that the desired outcome is a further bloating of the war industry (including juicy "reconstruction" projects) and a Libyan regime that is amenable to "International Markets". i.e privatization of Libya's oil industry.

 

[Laeke]

privatization of Libya's oil industry.

Please elaborate. Privatizing what and for what purpose(s).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You seem to have misunderstood the point. Let me repeat the quote and highlight the parts you can't understand



This is what Obama twisted to "he said he would show no mercy to his own people"

I was agreeing with you. I went on to point out that Obama also claimed that
Gaddafi said this about his own people, but Gaddafi has claimed that these terrorists--I think he even said it was Al Qaeda.

While I don't agree with Gaddafi, the fact is, we don't know who the hell the rebels are or what they want. Which is, in part, why I've been criticizing the decision to enter a civil war on the side of the rebels (and to do so under false pretenses).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe not, but what are the examples of tyrants being killed as a result of an intervention? And moreover directly?

More important than examples of it, what is the legal justification for it, and how exactly does one discern who is a tyrant?

ETA: Contrary to what Obama said, I believe we should try to live based on ideals, principles, and laws rather than considering every decision to be a sui generis case. I think part of the reason for having laws, principles and ideals formed in other than the passion of the moment is to avoid making decisions that are overly colored by the idiosyncrasies and fleeting short-term goals of the present case.

 

[Laeke]

More important than examples of it, what is the legal justification for it, and how exactly does one discern who is a tyrant?

The moral or legal perspective is not the point of my question.
I raise doubts as to the fact that "tyrants" or contested heads of state are facing "victory or death" scenarios from day one in all cases, and would suggest those are not that common today. A lot of contested leaders seems to have been able to escape, provided they do not wait the very last moment. Even when they are facing judicial pursuits (national or international), they often manage to stay many years in a quiet exile.

I am also pretty sure that foreign military intervention almost never state that killing the enemy leader is an objective and is always careful to maintain the possibility for him to step down and flee. I think the second Iraq war may qualify, but this does not make it a rule nonetheless.

As such, while discussing this is interesting, it doesn't seem like it is really relevant, either to Libya, or to international interventions as they are currently conducted. Unless I am mistaken and that fellow JREF members will point me to examples I may have forgotten.