No Fly zones over Libya?

[WildCat]

If there were an similar uprising in the USA it would also be eradicated by violent means.

That's the thing about having free elections, it kind of eliminates the need for a violent uprising.

 

[bikerdruid]

Libya is a totalitarian state. The USA is a liberal democracy. The only people who think they need an armed uprising against it are commies and other weirdos.

actually, the u.s. is a 'democratic republic'. (in theory only)

 

[FireGarden]

What other things were tried, by whom and for what end?

I heard a lot of rhetoric, including Obama's insistence that Gaddafi must leave now.

The sanctions were more than rhetoric, and are being applied by pretty much everyone. (Though there was an article at the time which said that oil money was still going to Libya's central bank and there was some talk of changing that, which I assume would take recognising some other Libyan government).

Yes, the aim was almost exclusively to get Gaddafi to leave. And leave to what? There are criminal charges against him with international courts gearing up an investigation.

March 3rd:
http://www.channel4.com/news/international-criminal-court-to-investigate-gaddafi

Were we supposed to look the other way? Because that seems to be the only option not tried. The rebels were losing ground. And a couple more days might have left them without Benghazi -- or at least in a very bloody battle to keep it.

The choice wasn't war or peace. The war was happening. The choice was whether to sit back and watch or take a stand. Maybe there has been too much bombing, I don't know. But I don't think taking a stand could have been done effectively without bombing some of the tanks which were at Benghazi.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

... telling the rebels that they have to stop attacking. But, technically, we're not supposed to be there to fight for them. Just to keep civilians safe. And, in principal, that means civilians on both sides.

I would be much more comfortable with this kind of a peace-forcing operation, at least for now, than with picking sides so immediately.

 

[WildCat]

actually, the u.s. is a 'democratic republic'. (in theory only)

Are you going Tea Party on us now?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

When asked yesterday how long the UK would be involved in military operations in Libya, the Armed Forces Minister replied "How long is a piece of string?".

Not exactly "we'll fight them on the beaches" is it?

lol

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some here vilify the intervention on the ground that we do not do anything to support the Bahreini (for instance) uprising. Ok that's a fair topic of discussion. But in doing so they also try to cast as many doubts as possible on the sincerity of the uprising (which apparently is the only illegitimate, artificial uprising since we decided to help it.) and brandishes national sovereignty as the end all of international relations.

I think what is vilified is inconsistent and arbitrary action, rather than action that is based on any generally-applicable principle.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Were we supposed to look the other way? Because that seems to be the only option not tried. The rebels were losing ground.

So was it impossible for anyone to identify the rebel leaders and find out what their aims are? Did someone try to mediate negotiations between the rebel leaders and Gaddafi's government?

And was the aim of the intervention to protect Benghazi? The rationale for this internal intervention was that there was some immediate threat to international peace?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Or simply that they are acting on chaotic and conflicting reports, the uprising isn't exactly a cohesive body with a central spokesperson and the government (all of them!) have their own propaganda purposes behind any media releases.

Either way, whether there is active deception on the ground or whether there are just conflicting and fragmented reports coming out, CL's point still stands. What we (and our gov'ts) know about the ground situation there is likely spotty at best.

(While it is not direct evidence that West Gov'ts are operating on limited intelligence about the situation on the ground, I don't think you can take the recent bungeld MI6 operation as a sign that their intelligence is particularly good...)

 

[Laeke]

I would like to adress further the point raised by Caustic Logic.

Should we apply reasonable skepticism to what we are being told and the rebels?
Of course.

There is a point however when this skepticism is no longer reasonable but do seem to be thinly veiled bias. I'm nt trying to shut out any debate on this issue, I believe I have stated clearly that the outcome of this intervention, even if it suceeds, may not be positive on mid to long term. I do not claim to have extensive knowledge of the rebels, their cohesion (or lack of), nor that they will institute a democratic paradise if they win.

Now allow me to quote your post:
About the regime willingness to comply with UN resolution 1970 and international critics:

Says articles in the media.

- Says Kadhaffi in his speeches, do you not remember that just before the intervention the regime said several times they were going to attack Benghazi with "no mercy"? Of course he could just be blowing hot steam. However
- Says the events that were reported: Some days ago, insurgents were in several cities in the West. They were apparently pulled back to East, as Kadhaffi troops were going in direction of Benghazi.

Ever since the regime get ahold of itself, he pushed back the rebels, claimed to retake cities (and did so in several cases), and all was conducted by force.

In a response to LGR (which I may find and link if you want so), a Libyan spokesperson was reported the 22 March to have said that the regime claimed Misurata "3 days ago" (19, 18?) and that they were currently purging "terrorists elements" in the city. Let's say it is true, for the purpose of this discussion: is it reasonable to infer than taking a city and hunting terrorists elements were done by force and imply some sort of offensive action?

If you do have facts that seems to point out that the regime was willing to not use force and not stomp the opposition, please do provide links, I am of course willing to discuss it with you.
If you do bring up the Chavez mediation, please let me know if the regime followed on this beyond "accepting it".

I'm looking at the Benghazi situation and the supposed breaking of the cease-fire at the moment, vis-a-vis Benghazi. His government swore they weren't attacking the city ayt all, only heading there.

Heading there to do what? Sightseeing? What purpose other than aggressive could motive heading further down towards enemy lines?
Unless I am mistaken, you do not say when this statement was made. I ask because it could help with the point below.

Apparently someone was shooting something around there. The government insisted it was the rebels shooting each other to try and "bring in the West." I can't see ruling that out - some hard-line fanatics willing to kill a few with random shelling to panic the West into its intervention, right away.

You can believe so, but the only source you have for this is the Libyan governement itself, I gather. While it does seem reasonable to apply skepticism to rebel reports, why would you not do the same for what the regime says? You cannot rule out that it was all some sort of elaborate false flag, but is it any less plausible that the regime is continuing to fight? It's not like they are very adamant about respecting their cease-fires as well, announcing it twice in 3 days, and mixing it with bellicist statements.

There are no photos of this attack and more importantly no photos or any other evidence coming close to proving any Libyan forces were even near the city. None. (that I've seen yet).

If by chance the statement of forces heading towards Bengazhi were barely a few days before the 19 March, wouldn't it make it plausible that the Libyan army was somewhere in the region of the city?

Besides, I point you there. Just do a research for the pictures by Goran Tomasevic of Reuters. Many of them are descibed as dated of the 20 March, "along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah".
The French army also reported having engaged and destroyed armored vehicles on the 19 March.

Now of course, you could always say that:
- The photo description is incorrect.
- The journalist lies/is mistaken.
- The French army lies/is mistaken.
- Any other infos from the rebels that could confirm this are muddy/biased/manipulated/outright fake.
- This is all an elaborate setup by the rebels: instead of using tanks they may salvage for military uses, just plant them there to be destroyed by the Western forces.

Is what I listed impossible, strictly speaking? Of course not.
Does it constitute "reasonable skepticism"? I'm not sure.
As far as I can tell, I feel pretty safe in saying that around the 18-19-20, mechanized forces of the Libyan Army were in the region of those rebel-held cities. Can I prove to you without a shadow of doubt they were taking offensive action against Bengazhi? Maybe not.

But I refer you to the previous answers: As you said so yourself, forces were "heading" to Benghazi, forces "claimed" Misurata (this is dated to the 23 here but I did read it on the 22), does that not strike you as a tad contradictory with the decision to "stop all military actions" announced by Libya foreign affairs minister on the 18 (please correct me if needed)?

I think what is vilified is inconsistent and arbitrary action, rather than action that is based on any generally-applicable principle.

Some in this thread do vilify the action in itself, which is their prerogative, but I cannot agree with some of the arguments presented.
I said in another thread I was more than willing to admit than the rationale behind this action is not applied consistently, and that there are some glaring double-standards.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Should we apply reasonable skepticism to what we are being told and the rebels?

Should we be skeptical about how Kadaff'hi is represented? Not to say he isn't vile genocidal megalomaniacal maniac pursued WMD slaughtered political prisoners terrorism etc., but regarding how he is being portrayed right now?

- Says Kadhaffi in his speeches, do you not remember that just before the intervention the regime said several times they were going to attack Bengazhi with "no mercy"? Of course he could just be blowing hot steam.

I'm interested in reading the speech transcript, if anyone has a translation.

 

[Laeke]

I'm interested in reading the speech transcript, if anyone has a translation.

Did not find the video code, so here's a link to AlJazeera on Youtube with the speech translated:
Hope you have 20 minutes to spare for incoherent rambling (translator not helping)

 

[Captain.Sassy]

In related discourse analysis news, along with the term 'citizen fighters', the (oxymoronic?) use of the term 'civilian fighters' to describe rebel forces has found its way into the Financial Times and Reuters, among others.

 

[Tolls]

I'm interested in reading the speech transcript, if anyone has a translation.

Try here at al-jazeera blog...scroll down to 8:46 and 9:01, about a fifth of the way down the page.

He likens himself to Franco, which is interesting...

 

[BeAChooser]

Should we apply reasonable skepticism to what we are being told

After our experience in Kosovo? Absolutely. There is an instance where a Democrat administration and NATO clearly lied to us over and over.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0323-20110323,0,508159,full.column

[Obama] was in El Salvador, standing with Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, when reporters asked him about his war in Libya.

… snip …

But there has been confusion over which member of his coalition will command the war. Will Obama ask a foreign general to direct American troops? Will President Nicolas Sarkozy of France take the coalition lead?

On Tuesday, Obama was asked about these command issues. It wasn't a trick. It should have been expected. He stood there, and he opened his mouth.

"I would expect that over the next several days you will have clarity and a meeting of the minds of all those who are participating in the process," Obama said.

… snip ...

You don't wait to find clarity a few days after you begin a war. You'd better have complete clarity before you ever give the order to fire in the first place.

Like I've been saying. Obama is Stuck On Stupid. He's behaving like a deer in the headlights. And many of you liberals want to reelect him? Is so, perhaps you yourselves need a bit of clarity.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/23/501364/main20046134.shtml

the U.S. military is spending upward of $1 billion in an international assault to destroy Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses and save rebels from likely defeat, according to analysts and a rough calculation of the military operation so far.

In a search to find … "clarity"?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

He likens himself to Franco, which is interesting...

lol that is an interesting comparison.

Anyways at a couple of points in that partial transcript he seems to be offering amnesty to rebel fighters who put down their arms:

Throw away your arms and find a way out of the city, and then you are saved. Those young men who have been taken advantage of - those infidels who are attempting to burn down our country to the ground, we should have no mercy on them. Those are the traitors, used and abused by those infidels from Qatar, unfortunately, Kuwait and other countries. How stupid can you become to be taken advantage of to that extent in Benghazi? Now you're hungry and thirsty - we don't have a natural disaster like the one that happened in Japan recently ... but those infidels and traitors we promise to deal with. But the peaceful individuals of our people ... should put down their weapons, there is no danger.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_32

Obama rules out 'land invasion' in Libya

Now when did we hear a claim like that in the not too distant past?

Oh yes … on March 24, 1999, when another democrat, Bill Clinton, on the first day of the war in Kosovo, proclaimed "I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war."

Yet interviews after the war, with senior officials in the Clinton adminstration, prove that Clinton was just days from authorizing an invasion that would have involved as many as a 100,000 US troops.

Wonder if Obama means what he says? Afterall, we have so many other examples of him saying one thing then doing the opposite.

 

[Thunder]

I do not expect Obama to put American troops in Libya.



.........except for Special Ops teams that we will never know about.