No Fly zones over Libya?

[funk de fino]

Isn't it wonderful to live in a nation, where foreign policy always goes the way you want: war? Democrat or republican, you get to squeal in wargasmic ecstasy over and over again, and flame the hippy liberals that love oppression and dictators. Over and over again, your point of view wins.

Ha ha, uninformed rant. I am Scottish nationalist. My view is not winning. My country does not even has self determination so do not bleat at me with your nonsense about my easy life.

I have friends and colleagues in Libya. In Tripoli in fact and I cannot get hold of them. Did I want outsiders to step in and stop peaceful protestors be shot. Yes.

That's why you think we are free.

You have proved you have no idea who we is.

For those of us constantly opposing these stupid wars, the charade is just about figured out.

This is not a war. I have fought in a 2 wars. I opposed the Iraq war. I would oppose an invasion to get rid of Gadaffi. However using force to stop him massacring innocent people from that country is something I support. You don't like it. Boo Hoo.

 

[funk de fino]

Scotland/England/America/France same thing. All corporate controlled "democracies" that rob from the poor and give to the rich and engage in wars on whims of fancy.

Epic fail. My party of choice oppose wars. Made them pretty unpopular in the UK for a while.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't think that any other US prez would have acted differently

I don't think that a Republican President would have behaved the same.

Either he/she wouldn't have gotten involved at all, or he/she would have acted more decisively much earlier ... back when Ghaddafi was on the run and disorganized.

 

[BeAChooser]

So would not going to war have been even weaker, or what?

Keep in mind that according to Obama we aren't at war.

And sometimes not getting involved is a sign of strength and wisdom.

And what I was specifically referring is the weak manner in which Obama has decided to involve us. It's almost sure to fail and create bigger problems.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I don't think that a Republican President would have behaved the same.

Either he/she wouldn't have gotten involved at all, or he/she would have acted more decisively much earlier ... back when Ghaddafi was on the run and disorganized.

either eat the cold porridge or the burning hot porridge
republicans are like goldilocks in reverse eh?

 

[Pardalis]

Keep in mind that according to Obama we aren't at war.

And sometimes not getting involved is a sign of strength and wisdom.

And what I was specifically referring is the weak manner in which Obama has decided to involve us. It's almost sure to fail and create bigger problems.

What would McCain have done?

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...25/009-libye-union-africaine-diplomatie.shtml

I know this is a French article, but just look at the picture. Below it's written "Libyan insurgent". Jesus, are these the insurgents we are helping?

Is that a musket gun he is holding?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC tried to attack Obama by mentioning the UK navy previously.

LIAR.

Here is what I posted (post #564)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-missiles.html

Libya: Navy running short of Tomahawk missiles

The Navy could run out of Tomahawk missiles after a fifth of the Navy stockpile has been used against Libya, sources disclosed yesterday.

Shades of Kosovo. Remember that? When the US exhausted nearly it's entire cruise missile inventory …

There is no mention of Obama in that post. And the only thing I noted is that this was similar to what happened in Kosovo when the US exhausted it's cruise missile inventory.

You are nothing but a LIAR, FDF.

 

[funk de fino]

LIAR.

Here is what I posted (post #564)



There is no mention of Obama in that post. And the only thing I noted is that this was similar to what happened in Kosovo when the US exhausted it's cruise missile inventory.

You are nothing but a LIAR, FDF.

Why post irrelevant UK stuff? You thought it was the US navy and this would be another thing to bash Obama for. Helps to read your sources first eh?

It was a dig at your other creepy obsession regardless eh?

 

[bikerdruid]

don't try and confuse BAC with facts....
he and the facts are often widely separated,.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why post irrelevant UK stuff?

Why LIE about what I posted?

You thought it was the US navy

No I did not. I gave no indication I thought that. I merely noted that this is "shades of Kosovo". And it is.

And there are other comparisons one can make between Kosovo and this.

They've gone into Libya on the pretext of *genocide* that may turn out to be false ... just as it turned out to be in Kosovo.

They've allied themselves with a group of *rebels* who may be aligned with terrorists (al-Qaeda), much like Clinton aligned us with the KLA (a terrorist group) in Kosovo.

They claim they are only attacking military targets. But are they? Afterall, they falsely claimed that in Kosovo.

Clinton claimed there would be no "boots on the ground" in Kosovo. Turned out when the Serbs folded we were only days from ordering an invasion involving perhaps a 100,000 Americans. Can we believe Obama's similar claim in Libya, given that there are already numerous sources saying US special forces are "on the ground" and reports that other US soldiers are on the way?

"Shades of Kosovo". Get it?

 

[Laeke]

Is that a musket gun he is holding?

Looks more like some sort of flare gun (like you could have on a boat) to me.

 

[Pardalis]

Looks more like some sort of flare gun (like you could have on a boat) to me.

Ah, right, thanks. I thought this guy was going a bit far with the pirate look

 

[mike3]

I don't think that a Republican President would have behaved the same.

Either he/she wouldn't have gotten involved at all, or he/she would have acted more decisively much earlier ... back when Ghaddafi was on the run and disorganized.

So then after missing that window, it would actually be okay to let Qaddafi keep on doing whatever he's doing, no matter how bad? To sit by with the capability to do something and not do it?

Also, how do you rate the performance of the last Republican president, GW Bush Jr?

 

[BeAChooser]

And speaking of liars …

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/candidate-obama-2007-americans-have-righ

A new video shows President Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate in 2007, saying that the American people have a right to know about and participate in the debate over U.S. foreign policy decisions and whether the nation uses military force.

… snip …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I968TpgDyCQ&feature=player_embedded

 

[BeAChooser]

So then after missing that window, it would actually be okay to let Qaddafi keep on doing whatever he's doing, no matter how bad?

Who suggested that? I simply stated what a Republican would have done given the circumstances weeks ago.

Now? Hard to say what's right. Delay has created a stalemate. And now it seems Obama and company don't have the fortitude to do what is necessary to break it. Obama himself just ruled out assassination of Ghaddafi as an option. Ruled out "boots on the ground". What's left?

So if your asking me what I'd do NOW ... well you heard what Gingrich and McCain have been saying, haven't you? I tend to agree with Gingrich. We cannot let Ghaddafi be perceived to have won. And we need to make sure that whatever form of government is set up in Libya is something that we can live with ... something that won't be supporting al-Qaeda with billions in oil money and WMD technology (which exists in Libya). Which is now a definite possibility. By the way, did I mention that Libya reportedly still has chemical weapons? Can we afford to let them fall into al-Qaeda hands? Should we worry that perhaps Ghaddafi might decide to use them against the US or European nations as this drags on and on? Hmmmmmm?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Epic fail. My party of choice oppose wars. Made them pretty unpopular in the UK for a while.

Who is your party of choice as the Liberals, Labour and the Conservatives have all been very enthusiastic about "interventions" ie wars in the past. The Greens? British National Party?

BTW, is William Hague insane?

Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague, told MPs that the people of Misurata and Ajdabiya were facing ''appalling danger'', with Colonel Gaddafi's forces intent on a massacre.

''Coalition air strikes are helping to relieve the pressure on its citizens, many of whom are trapped in their homes without electricity or communications, with dwindling supplies of food and water and facing sniper fire if they ventured into the streets, while the local hospital is swamped with casualties.

''Ajdabiya continues to be under attack, with reports of civilian deaths from tank shells.

''This underlines the appalling danger its inhabitants would be in without coalition action.''

Does he seriously think that coalition airstrikes have made life more pleasant for people in Ajdabiya?

There seems to be a lot of double speak that when the Libyan army defends itself by shelling advancing rebels from Benghazi that they are in fact shelling civilians in Ajdabiya.

I don't think anyone seriously believes this, but leaders keep repeating it so they have an excuse to keep providing air support to the insurgents.

Has there ever been more of a mockery of a UN Security Resolution? The Libyan Government made a massive mistake when they tried to implement a ceasefire on the outskirts of Benghazi - they should have gone straight in.

Countless lives would have been saved.

 

[mike3]

Who suggested that? I simply stated what a Republican would have done given the circumstances weeks ago.

Now? Hard to say what's right. Delay has created a stalemate. And now it seems Obama and company don't have the fortitude to do what is necessary to break it. Obama himself just ruled out assassination of Ghaddafi as an option. Ruled out "boots on the ground". What's left?

Do you think the better option then would have been to go and go full out on this and wrest Qaddafi from power ourselves?

So if your asking me what I'd do NOW ... well you heard what Gingrich and McCain have been saying, haven't you? I tend to agree with Gingrich. We cannot let Ghaddafi be perceived to have won. And we need to make sure that whatever form of government is set up in Libya is something that we can live with ... something that won't be supporting al-Qaeda with billions in oil money and WMD technology (which exists in Libya). Which is now a definite possibility. By the way, did I mention that Libya reportedly still has chemical weapons? Can we afford to let them fall into al-Qaeda hands? Should we worry that perhaps Ghaddafi might decide to use them against the US or European nations as this drags on and on? Hmmmmmm?

How would we make sure that whatever government is set up is something that doesn't support Al Qaeda? And what other stipulations do you make -- do you want the form of government to be an American one that serves US interest all the time? (Note that a government can not support US interest and also not support Al Qaeda) What if that's not what the people want? Because if that's the case, then it starts to smell like imperialism as then I believe we are exerting too much power and trying to just control things and make them the way we like them, not necessarily what is/isn't best for the People of Libya, our own People, and the world in general. And that was the problem I had with the wars in Iraq, etc. Would you want a "long hard slog" occupation like in Iraq? If so, how would we avoid oil interest truly creeping in? Heck, even the perception of an oil war? (Land troops going in and taking over could look even more like that)

And do you think the countries who critique this campaign would have been MORE supportive if it had been MORE aggressive?

 

[geni]

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.

So RPG-29s. If half the denials about those things are true they have an impressive combat record. Dead simple too. Point and shoot. A delopment of the old RPG-7.

 

[McHrozni]

So RPG-29s. If half the denials about those things are true they have an impressive combat record. Dead simple too. Point and shoot. A delopment of the old RPG-7.

I would say the rebels need that, plus some mortars or such to allow them to surpress fortified positions, plus maybe some light weasons: machine guns, assault rifles, hand grenates and ammunition.

That would at least give them a chance on the offensive. Right now they're almost entirely dependant on planes "enforcing the no-fly zone" for supression of fortified positions and anti-tank warfare, which means the moment the coalition wavers they're vurneable to attack and face annahiliation within days.

Now that the international community intervened on their behalf, the only acceptable solution is a rebel victory. I certainly hope they won't turn out to be the worse of the two evils.

McHrozni