No Fly zones over Libya?

[mike3]

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.

What do you think should have been tried in the little time that was remaining? What would have been QUICK enough to meet the time limits that were imposed?

 

[BeAChooser]

what do we call folks who still believe Saddam had usable WMDs, an active nuclear program, and was helping Al-Qaeda?

Perhaps more aware of the facts than the rest? Or perhaps Skeptics regarding the conventional *wisdom*?

 

[BeAChooser]

Come back after Libya has been occupied for a year or two

LOL! Now surely you aren't saying Libya will be "occupied"?

 

[mike3]

Says articles in the media. 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. Rebel sources told the news all morning on March 19 that Gaddafi's forces were - at the same time - 20 km away, 5 km away, at the gate, shelling the city, inside the city, tanks in the streets, and so on (the tanks were later driven back, and all Gaddafi forces driven from the city).

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

Except that fighter jet. Libyan AF MIG, just buzzing over the rebel-held city, shot down from the ground, crashed, pilot ejects. THIS gets photographed and gets out. THIS is huge-size front page material. It's war. Gaddafi's jet, on its way to attack protesters, shot down by rebels, it was first presumed. He broke the cease fire.

Then it was a rebel held jet - they have those? Shot down in a friendly fire incident, but the pilot was okay. Then, it was shot down by Gaddafi's forces, and the pilot was dead. Okay.

If government forces were close enough to shoot down a jet over the southern outskirts of Benghazi, weren't they also close enough to be vulnerable to it? The no fly zone becomes no firing in self-defense at enemy air attacks zone. He broke the cease fire.

He's breaking it again every ten minutes, the media says, and every five minutes we get a tweet from around there swearing artillery genocide and apocalypse and another hundred dead and why haven't we made it stop YET? At this rate, going by reports compiled, Gaddafi may have killed like 100,000 people.

So ... what do we know, as opposed to what we perceive? Are we being rational skeptics to just accept one side and reject the other? Doesn't friggin' matter what we think, it's the big guns deciding what's real and what isn't and what's to be done about it. The media just explains - to them, and us, on their behalf - what we're to tell ourselves about why.

So how can we get actual facts so as to develop a facts-based assessment and opinion set about this problem instead of screwing around with conflicting media stuff?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yes because the Jewish League of New America gave him the moral authority to go to war with the south.

Is that from the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory think tank?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No, simply suggesting that this democrat will act like the last.

So, criticizing Obama for the things Clinton did.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Laeke - my complaints were a bit jumbled.

the gov. agreed to a cease fire, temporarily. They also promised (threatened) to re-take the city, perhaps hoping for a surrender. Ready to shoot if and when they decided. That's not repression. It's war. An option for peaceful surrender was presented. Is that really so unusual when territory has been seized from a government's control?

The cease-fire was called after the UN vote on a no-fly zone if they didn't stop shooting. So they did, for the time, until they saw ... yep, no rebel surrender. Hmmm, what to do?

The cease fire was announced the 17th. On the 19th it was reported the gov. broke it at Benghazi. (other cities reportedly as well, but I'm focusing on one city so Ican get half a grip on something). A cluster of conflicting reports about where the gov. forces were. No photographic evidence until that bizarre jet incident, whiich drew in the west more firlmy and acted as a trigger. With that news the French said "hours."

The photos you sent me to are from two days later. It's feasible they were that close two days earlier, when they were reportedly shelling Benghazi on the 19th, but again, no proof.

I think that covers it.

 

[funk de fino]

Laeke - my complaints were a bit jumbled.

the gov. agreed to a cease fire, temporarily. They also promised (threatened) to re-take the city, perhaps hoping for a surrender. Ready to shoot if and when they decided. That's not repression. It's war. An option for peaceful surrender was presented. Is that really so unusual when territory has been seized from a government's control?

The cease-fire was called after the UN vote on a no-fly zone if they didn't stop shooting. So they did, for the time, until they saw ... yep, no rebel surrender. Hmmm, what to do?

The cease fire was announced the 17th. On the 19th it was reported the gov. broke it at Benghazi. (other cities reportedly as well, but I'm focusing on one city so Ican get half a grip on something). A cluster of conflicting reports about where the gov. forces were. No photographic evidence until that bizarre jet incident, whiich drew in the west more firlmy and acted as a trigger. With that news the French said "hours."

The photos you sent me to are from two days later. It's feasible they were that close two days earlier, when they were reportedly shelling Benghazi on the 19th, but again, no proof.

I think that covers it.

OK, so what was the reaction required for the killing of peaceful protestors. Forget the rebels for the moment. Go back to the seeds of this dispute.

If the US army gunned down a load of tea party members at one of Glenn Becks rallies what would you say to that? Would you expect people to fight back? Or surrender?

 

[Bill Thompson]

The invasion of Iraq was conducted by three countries.

Three.

The current war on Libya has 14 participants so far.

Come back after Libya has been occupied for a year or two if you want to compare occupation forces.

For comparison the 1991 Gulf War had 32 participants.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Republicans voting 98% in favor in the Senate, and 97% in favor in the House. Democrats supported the joint resolution 58% and 39% in the Senate and House respectively. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

This does not compare with Obama bombing the Libyan Loyalists without the authoirization of Congress and without any Constitutional authority.

The number of countries that are involved also does not matter. Right or wrong is not determined by the number of countries who are wrong.

 

[JihadJane]

'U.S. slaps sanctions on 14 Libyan oil companies'

 

[WildCat]

Here's a pic of anti-Khadaffy Libyans stepping on a picture of Khadaffy. They've apparently drawn on a Hitler moustache, and several (backwards) swastikas.

They also adorned it with several Star of Davids, apparently Khadaffy wasn't sufficiently anti-Jew or anti-Israel enough for them or something.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2053369_2248426,00.html

 

[Bill Thompson]

Here's a pic of anti-Khadaffy Libyans stepping on a picture of Khadaffy. They've apparently drawn on a Hitler moustache, and several (backwards) swastikas.

They also adorned it with several Star of Davids, apparently Khadaffy wasn't sufficiently anti-Jew or anti-Israel enough for them or something.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2053369_2248426,00.html

We are falling victim to "Wag The Dog".

What we are not being told is how many of the anti-Khadaffi people are clueless dolts. I mean, they are flying the Libyan monarchy flag, for gods sake. And we are not being told how many Lybians are willing to die for Khadaffi. What if there are more Libyan Loyalsts? What if they are more reasonable and are on better political footing than the rebels?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I cannot blame you for listening to the whole tape but he repeats this over and over, but it is not very coherent.
He says that if people leave arms "outside" or "at the gates of the city" they will not be attacked, but either it is "flee, escape" or "stay in your homes", he once speak about "searching every home" and "every alley".
This is all mixed with rhetoric like No Mercy/Those traitors will be dealt with/ We will wipe this shame/those people (he uses both at different points.)

Carrot and stick effort to end a war on one's own terms, as peacefully as possible (threats over violence) = imminent genocidal holocaust and WHY HAVEN"T WE STOPPED IT YET?

Mike 3:

So how can we get actual facts so as to develop a facts-based assessment and opinion set about this problem instead of screwing around with conflicting media stuff?

Good question. First step is to know you can't usually know the truth (photos are good, 99% reliable, reports ... less so). Next, you have to want to know the truth, and I fear that's where we're breaking down. And at step one (we know there's a mass slaughter of civilians, as usually defined, happening or coming). Next, you'd look at all (or the main) available reports and statements, any supporting evidence for each interpretation. Then you consider it all for what makes the most sense. I'm not sure these last steps are happening, again, because of a jam up at the first two.

Funk de Fino:

OK, so what was the reaction required for the killing of peaceful protestors. Forget the rebels for the moment. Go back to the seeds of this dispute.

If the US army gunned down a load of tea party members at one of Glenn Becks rallies what would you say to that? Would you expect people to fight back? Or surrender?

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.

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.

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.

 

[UWdude]

That is hilarious. From someone who cries foul at police brutality against a few idiot students at demos in the UK. And also tries to blame all violence at protests on the police or their agent provocateurs.

You then are looking to defend a man who indiscriminantely ordered the shooting of many, many peaceful protestors.

You now think it is OK to stand by and watch such violence meted out against protestors?

Think yourself lucky you did not attend any of your protests in Libya.

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.

That's why you think we are free.

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

 

[Caustic Logic]

a bit more
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/03/libya_un_airstrikes_aid_rebels.html
Shows a photo of that downed rebel fighter jet. Caption still says:
A Libyan jet bomber crashes after being shot down in Benghazi on March 19 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. (Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images) #

The jet has rebel flag (monarchy flag) on the tailfin, at least says Rick Leventhall of Fox News after seeing the wreckage. Nothing else there could have conducted air strikes on the city. We are getting so much crap, confused information

 

[Laeke]

Caustic Logic:

The cease fire was announced the 17th. On the 19th it was reported the gov. broke it at Benghazi.

I have the cease fire on the 18 myself, would be logical as on the 17 in the evening, Libyan time, the Kadhaffi speech was heard.

You'll find reports in Reuters article (and subsequently in news outlets) that testimonies says no cease fire was enforced on the 18.
There's reports indicated there for the 18th March, either cities under attack or troops continuing advance (in a totally non-aggressive manner, of course...)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/18/libya-military-action-live-updates
And also for the 19 You can scroll down to 10.19am for reports of "sporadic but fairly intense fighting" by a western journalist in Benghazi.

I could also point you to Reuters for more precise statements and names, but I doubt that it would amount to much, as we on this message board are not able to confirm any much further than "a Misurata resident on the phone".

As per the own admission of the Libyan governement on the same date, they had troops in the region of the city of Benghazi.
"The other point is that armed forces are now outside Benghazi and have no intention of entering the city."
Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim, after the first cease fire declaration.

So yeah: Libya is totally willing to enforce a cease-fire, if this cease-fire means surrounding enemy strongholds & moving towards them, then wondering to be shot at?
Kadhaffi is totally rolling with the UN, all this while sending letters to the countries that will enforce the NFZ saying we will regret it.

An option for peaceful surrender was presented.

I do not find any sort of details about demands going with the ceasefire. Did the regime offered a proper proposition of surrender with exact terms? A cease fire is not a surrender proposal. Any ultimatum, delay, that could justify resume fighting at a certain date?
If so please point me to the information.
Because otherwise, you are the one filling pretty big blanks.

The Kadhaffi speech to Benghazi does not count as it predates the cease fire, and do not constitute what I would call "proper terms".

No photographic evidence until that bizarre jet incident, whiich drew in the west more firlmy and acted as a trigger. With that news the French said "hours."

You are overestimating the importance of the jet accident and underestimating the time it takes to prepare such a military operation, methinks.

The meeting in Paris that was held the 19 (with the Heads of State, Clinton, Ban Ki Moon, Arab League & co) was decided upon on the 18. The UNSC already voted the resolution. The "West" or the Coalition was already commited to the military action.

France announced that the NFZ was already being enforced at the end of said meeting (2:48pm on the Guardian feed): the order to the military units to go over Libya has been send for likely what was several hours. Airstrikes came later that day but that is not the point.

It's feasible they were that close two days earlier

According to the Libyan regime, they were (see former quote).

as peacefully as possible

Yeah, after one month of repression and violence, that is.

 

[dudalb]

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.

That's why you think we are free.

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

Uh, funk de fino is Scottish.
But don't let that interfere with your little rant.

 

[egslim]

Yeah, I want Chavez to step in and offer Gadaffi a safe way out. I wonder why Chavez isn't going to do it?

If the goal is to save civilian lives, which is the stated purpose of the UN-resolution, then it makes sense to offer Gadaffi a way out. The alternative is for him to fight to the death, and that will surely include many civilian deaths as well.

And without a place of sanctuary and immunity from prosecution, the calls for him to step down amount to asking him to commit suicide, and have many of his family killed in the process. That's just stupid.

I share your doubts. As best as we can tell, insurgents are not very organised. The NCT did try to set something (city councils, represented within a larger structure) but I do not know if it was implemented or if it is efficient.

Yeah, but those are civilian structures, not military. City councils don't command offensives.

These rebels just gave Gadaffi the proverbial finger when he ordered them to stay home. They're not going to slavishly follow orders from a provisional government when they disagree with its policies - and some are bound to disagree.

Possibly, though F-15s have certaionly crashed before. But its combat record against other planes still stands at 104-0.

Which is great, except instead of putting more ducks in the air for the F-15s to shoot down, the people you fight now have moved on to tactics where air power is of little use. IED's, un-uniformed and city-fighting.
It's like having prepared an all-star team for a footbal match, only to find out your opponents switched to cricket.

Neither is Khadaffi's "army".

This is a tribal fight. No professional armies are involved.

Well, the modern professional national army is an historical and even geographical anomaly. Something of the last few hundred years, and mainly a European phenomenon. Much of Africa never adopted it.

I even wonder how long it will last. With dirty wars where advanced weaponry is of little use, a need for large numbers of boots on the ground and a political climate where own casualties are a major issue, it makes more sense to use foreign mercenaries.

 

[JihadJane]

Interesting report:

Libyan Rebel Stronghold

Frustration Mounts on the Streets of Benghazi

By Jonathan Stock in Benghazi

 

[little grey rabbit]

]

A rough quick transcript:
The soldiers that have defected to the rebellion play an ambiguous game. They provide little support on the front lines. I [the journalist] even heard them lie to the leaders of the rebellion about the military situation. Are they spies? There is too little elements to claim so. There is suspicion towards them among the insurgents.

Why should you be surprised? Regardless of political opinions how can any humane person expect soldiers to be dancing up and down while they see their comrades of a few weeks ago being slaughtered from the air?

Why are Armchair Bombardiers so vicious in their views of what is normal human behaviour?

What is surprising to me is the young and university educated demanding more and more air strikes..... I presume this is a class difference, where by people who hope to enter the new elite see soldiers as a lower expendable class - worthy victims for their own personal advancement