I think the military option in Libya is valid and should be considered...

[truebrit71]

I am no fan of war in any shape or form, but if we can go to war over a bunch of lies, surely going to war to actually liberate a country, not just their oil, is more justifiable in the general scheme of things, no?

[KamaAina]

1. Because it's worked so well in so many other places.

Take Iraq, for instance. Saddam Hussein is gone! Now the fundies are free to repress people. They've just about turned Baghdad into Tehran South. :sarcasm:

[truebrit71]

11. I think you missed my point..Iraq is a frigging nightmare specifically because it wasn't....

..an attempt to aid an already existing rebellion, but rather a ploy to capture oil-resources by any means necessary...

Libya already has a rebellion in full swing and announcing that the US will use force to support that rebellion could very well speed things along..

[sendero]

77. Announcing..

.. is fine. But that is where it should stop.

Our country is broke and to think we can just keep involving ourself in endless wars is not helping.

[mmonk]

2. Can't we opt out of a war every now and then?

We're going to go the way of the Soviet Union if we don't.

[physioex]

3. I agree with you latter statement.....

However I am against giving any weapons, those things can bite you in a future time. We should give humanitarian aid, and keep up the international pressure. We should also do what is possible to support the democracy and help the people build a government of and for the people.

[rucky]

4. No-Fly Zone for sure.

I'm not sure how helpful an invasion would be, though.

[joeybee12]

5. I agree....nt

[truebrit71]

6. I don't think a full-scale invasion would be advantageous or even necessary...

...but full-fledged support for the rebels I think would speed the process along...

[Johonny]

10. I think that would be ok

provided the international community helps. A US that doesn't have the money for the commons, has no money for international war adventures period. Yet even more war adventures. Even if the cause has some merit. We need international support and aid ($$) if we are going to intervene. I'm sick of spending money on war outside our boarders but cutting spending on programs that make Americans lives better.

[GSLevel9]

13. Just to clarify... A no fly zone operation starts with

Our planes bombing the command and control and defensive weapons.

And we know that civilians are never close to those targets, right? And our bombs and missiles never go off the mark, right? And our planes never get shot down, right?

Oh and did you know no fly zones aren't very effective against low flying attack choppers?

Yesh, wonder-fuckinful idea... Bomb away!

:sarcasm:

[JuniperLea]

54. You can't have a no-fly zone without invasion to the degree...

That you have to take out their anti-aircraft... meaning there will be a lot of civilian collateral damage.

Bad idea. Very bad idea. We've tried this bullshit before and it never works.

[rucky]

76. You have to strike first to prevent them from striking first?

I don't know much about military tactics, but that seems strange to me.

[JuniperLea]

83. Read up on no-fly zones of the past...

And what the current Generals are saying about it... they are basically slamming McCain for suggesting such a thing. Creating a no-fly zone is an act of war regardless. The USA needs to get out of the business of being the world's nanny.

[sendero]

78. No-fly zone..

... is tantamount to an invasion. You have to disable their air defenses, so no-fly is a defacto act of war.

You folks who think we can just fly over once in a while and shoot down the bad guys are delusional.

[blindpig]

7. Undoubtably the oil companies agree with you. n/t

[Catherina]

47. [phone] n/t

[joshcryer]

8. If the reports of Zawiyah being flattend are true...

[northoftheborder]

9. for now, I'm against.

[cowcommander]

12. Only if we have the full, unanimous approval of the neighboring countries and the EU

If we're going to go to war to actually help them, it has to be a team effort.

[GSLevel9]

18. So if the neighboring countries say "do it" we jump?

That's silly. US soldiers are not the world's expendable police force. If France wants to bomb and kill innocent people then let them do it...
What happens in Libya is not worth 1 American life, 1 USD or frankly a bucket of warm piss.

[Bandit]

14. NO

The USA should not go to war because we don't like the way a country's leader behaves. Unless that country attacks America, we should NEVER go to War...War is the absolute last resort....However in this day of Republican Rule, War is Good Business and everyone knows how Republicans feel about business.

[Kolesar]

15. (Your vote: +1)

[BeFree]

16. Oh?

So, you are joining the armed forces and getting on the first platoon going?

Why wait. DIY. A flight to Libya can't be too expensive. And as far as money goes, why care? If you go stick your nose into their country you most likely won't be needing any more money, ever.

See ya?

[truebrit71]

21. My argument is that military intervention in Libya is certainly more valid than in Iraq..

..but you build a strawman about me having to go and fight the war myself? Hmm, not making the connection...

As previously stated war should be the last option in most cases, and especially given recent history needs to be much more carefully considered, however, with a full-fledged rebellion ongoing, and a dictator that is currently blowing up his own citizens a military intervention seems to be justified from a humanitarian standpoint, no? Or do we just sit idly by as fellow human are blown to smithereens?

[Aerows]

29. It would be...

... if our resources weren't already stretched so thin. We are in two wars right now, and you want us to get involved in a third, which you know won't end any sooner than the other two we are in? No thank you. When we are hard pressed to provide health care to our poorest citizens, and our own citizens are starving, the last thing we need is another endless war.

[DainBramaged]

17. It's oil that we love..........not people

[TheKentuckian]

19. I think everything I'm willing to support can be done with a few dozen sorties

which all should be able to operate well above the range of Libya's anti-aircraft systems.

Should be reasonably safe for our pilots and relative low cost using munitions already in the pipeline.

Taking out heavy equipment and the air force to soften up the regime and letting the people determine the future of their country while minimizing the damage and death toll.

[Obamanaut]

20. Enlist. nt

[truebrit71]

22. Why? nt

...

[Obamanaut]

23. People who advocate military action, anywhere, should be willing to

join up and be a part of that action.

The Libya situation is, or should be IMO, actionable by the UN. As you may recall, the UN body voted Libya into the Human Rights Council - they should be the one to police the activities currently ongoing.

[Aerows]

30. Exactly

It's awfully easy to advocate war when you aren't the one paying for it and you aren't the one shedding blood in it.

[truebrit71]

32. Ah, I see, you have to have "skin in the game" to comment yes? So by that rationale no man should...

...ever opine about abortion because they can't get pregnant, yes?

"The UN should police the activities"...and exactly whom do you think they will turn to to assist..???

You (again) seem to be missing the overal point which is that if we can be lied to war for the benefit of corporations, shouldn't we at least consider it to depose an ACTUAL despot?

[Obamanaut]

39. FYI, the only thing I've ever opined re abortion is that it should always

be the decision of the woman.

Regarding the UN turning to someone/anyone to assist, there was a nice phrase going around during a previous admin "Just say no." Another phrase that might be used "OK, UN. Handle it."

As for skin in the game vs commenting, anyone who uses phrases such as "We should go..." or "The US should go (or send)" should be willing and ready to be a part of the "We" or the ones "sent."

I missed no point at all. Just because there are US troops all over the place - Iraq, -istan suffixed countries, etc. - does not, or should not, justify more of our military being shot up. They are our children, cousins, parents, siblings, and they are being maimed and snuffed out. How easy it is for armchair warriors to say "We should go there." Regardless of the reason they are where they are, we (the US) should no longer be the 'Policemen to the world.' It is time for the Department OF Defense to become the Department FOR Defense.

[jwirr]

24. Given how many of the people of the ME see the USA as an occupier

rather than a savior I think getting mixed up in Libya might very well backfire. I think we need to lead the fight with things like sanctions, freezing money accounts, etc. But no troops.

[arcane1]

26. I can't think of a better way to de-legitimize the revolution

than for the US to get involved militarily.

[jwirr]

35. Exactly.

[dionysus]

25. you guys go in first, we'll be uh, right behind you!

[louslobbs]

41. LOL, yeah

and let Eye of Newt GingGrinch lead the charge.
Lou

[Aerows]

27. The US is pressing to cut every social service under the sun...

...and you want us to spend money on yet *ANOTHER* war in a foreign country.

Would intervention in Libya be more justifiable? Yes, if we weren't already involved in 2 others. At some point, charity has to begin at home.

As for the other people telling to you enlist if you are interesting in military action, I think you know exactly why they are saying that. You are welcome to be as charitable with your own personal blood and treasure as you wish to be, but as for those of my family members and my tax dollars, no.

When we can't afford health care, school lunch programs and to address poverty in our own nation, what on earth are we doing attempting to address it somewhere else? It makes absolutely no sense.

[truebrit71]

34. ..by that logic unless you are a woman you shouldn't talk about abortion rights..

...because only women get pregnant...

If you're fine with a dictator slaughtering his fellow citizens because they dare to oppose him, great, i think that is abhorrent and we need to get him to stop by any means necessary...

[louslobbs]

43. That's one great story you created there, trying to intimate

that anyone here is fine with the slaughtering of anyone else's people. You ought to be horse whipped. Of course it's abhorrent and it needs to stop, but you need to stop creating stories about other peoples comments by suggesting they approve of violence and murder just because they don't see things exactly the way you do........that's the way the Republicons think.
Lou

[truebrit71]

49. Wow I ought to be "horsewhipped" and I think like a republican...

..glad this is just an anonymous internet bullshit board and not the real world or I'd start to cry...

We were lied into Iraqnam where no present danger existed either to the citizenry or the world, and we are now so irate about that lie that when a REAL dictator bombs his own citizens who are in open revolt, we are simply going to stand idly by whlst we pout about the cost of the first war...brilliant...

[louslobbs]

57. Wake up and smell the coffee dear (as Mrs. Doubtfire would say)

not everyone is going to agree with your point of view or mine. You created the story you did and if you want to live in it, by all means, enjoy the scenery.
Lou

[louslobbs]

59. And I said RepubliCON, not

RepubliCAN, I have no respect for those trying to destroy our nation.
Lou

[louslobbs]

42. +1000

Lou

[Baclava]

28. "God save British Petroleum!" - - The Queen

I see we didn't send in the military to liberate the people of the Congo or Sudan.

[JuniperLea]

55. Thank you! This isn't about human suffering... it's about oil...

The people of the Congo and of Sudan have no oil. I'm not sure why this isn't abundantly clear to people! :banghead:

[Modern_Matthew]

31. Nope. Not our problem. nt

[truebrit71]

33. As a species or as a country?

..'cos I'm thinking as a species it actually IS our problem..

[louslobbs]

44. When do Our suffering poor and 40 million on food stamps

and people unemployed and on and on and on, become our problem. The war machine is doing quite well in this country, plenty of people get rich there, what about those suffering and dying right here everyday? How about the 25% poverty statistic for children. Yes, by all means, let's jump into another war just to make you and those who think like you happy. In fact, why don't you enlist and be the first to volunteer? That would show us all that your actions speak louder than your words of war.
Lou

[truebrit71]

48. Thanks for missing the point.

We were lied into a war as fake liberators, that wouldn't be the case if we were to support the rebels in Libya.

I'd love to deal with the other stuff you mentioned, and I honestly thought that with the guy we elected in 2008 we would get to work on some of that, boy were we ever wrong, but the knock-on effects in the region of a democratic Libya would be enormous.

As to your last point, I am a little confused, are you suggesting that if i signed up I'd have a choice of where to go and I could set policy? How cool would that be!! :sarcasm:

[louslobbs]

61. Looks like you keep creating those stories in your head. How's that going for You?

Lou

[truebrit71]

82. Faaaaaaaaaabulous...the water's fine, come on in dahling...

...

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David__77]

36. Actually, "human rights violations" was a reason for war against Iraq.

The WMD nonsense was just part of it. Iraq was part of "global democratic revolution" enforced from the West. It was criminal and immoral in Iraq and would be in Libya as well. Obama is doing the right thing. Let the right-wingers in London froth at the mouth and wail away.

[IDemo]

37. May want to ask these folks first -

[Lucky 13]

38. They. Don't. Want. Our. Help.

Why is it that Americans love to play superman?

We must swoop in and assist the poor helpless brown people in their revolution! Because it's all about US!

How bout we start with people who need, want, and have asked for our help?

[BlueCheese]

46. I think some of the rebels...

... have asked for a no fly zone.

[Catherina]

53. +1 If we're so concerned, I suggest we start with Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

I don't think an NFZ would accomplish much at all, the overwhelming majority of attacks are coming from the ground.
It wouldn't even stop mercenaries from entering, they'd just land in complicit countries like Algeria that's sending Libya mercenaries of its own.

The majority of people in Libya who are calling for a NFZ have no idea what it entails and can't seem to reconcile the fact that there's no such thing as an NFZ with no boots on the ground and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

The last thing anyone needs is for Gaddafi to move his Air Defense weapons next to schools, hospitals or heavily populated residential areas.

When we bombed his compound in '86 with it did a lot of damage to the surrounding areas, killed over 270 innocent Libyans and many were injured.

I can't support it in any way because what comes next won't be pretty.

If we're so concerned about helping, I suggest we start with a few places right in our own backyard- Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Gaza. The deaths there are no less horrific.

[Posteritatis]

56. The Interim National Council disagrees with you, but I imagine that disrupts the narrative. (nt)

[Lucky 13]

70. What narrative? Whose side am I supposed to be on?

Just my opinion...

[Posteritatis]

71. Their actual opinion overrules your opinion of what theirs is. (nt)

[Lucky 13]

80. Well... most of what I've seen and heard is the Libyans telling the US to stay out of it.

Haven't you seen the banners telling America to stay out of it?

And like Hillary said today, if there is to be a no-fly zone, it must come from the UN. (In other words not from the united states alone.)

[louslobbs]

40. Eye of Newt Gingrinch

thinks we should go to war with Libya, on our own, tonight. How do you think that would go for us, just based on past experience if you believe that matters?
Lou

[BlueCheese]

45. My understanding is that...

... a fair number of the rebels would welcome a no fly zone. I assume that's what you're thinking as a military option.

We engaged in airstrikes over Serbia and Kosovo. Those turned out okay and in both cases stopped genocidal actions. I could be cautiously supportive of implementing a no fly zone, provided of course that we make it clear through words and actions that we're not doing this for oil.

[truebrit71]

50. I am suggesting whatever military option the experts thinkg would work to free the Libyan people...

..how that actually manifests itself I have no idea, but I think that the military option needs to be on the table..

[Hugabear]

63. Didn't we have to use ground troops in Kosovo because air support wasn't sufficient?

Granted, that war wasn't quite as bloody as Iraq, although I'm sure that there are plenty of Serbians who would disagree. We got very, very lucky in Kosovo, as many experts were saying that could have easily turned into a prolonged nightmare.

[BlueCheese]

66. In the end, air power worked out.

But, yes, you're right--it wasn't clear for a while if air power would be enough. NATO was in the process of preparing a ground operation when Milosevic threw in the towel. A NATO ground force was then used in peacekeeping.

What I remember especially were the scenes in Kosovo as NATO forces entered. There were scenes of jubilation that reminded me of the Allies entering Paris in World War II.

[Xithras]

51. Forget Iraq. Libya has more in common with Afghanistan.

"Liberating a country" presumes that they all want to be liberated. We already know they don't. What's happening now is a civil war.

Getting involved in other peoples civil wars rarely works out well.

[JuniperLea]

52. Because it worked so well in Iraq...

And all the Arab nations love us now, right?

How many Arab nations are in crisis mode now, and how many do you propose we send troops to?

Sorry, I think this is just about the dumbest idea ever. It only benefits the oil companies.

We need to tend to our own knitting.

[spanone]

58. where's the united nations? let's send in the UN

[Posteritatis]

65. You do know the UN needs US permission to be "sent in," right? (nt)

[BlueCheese]

67. Unfortunately, sending in the UN...

... usually means sending in the US.

[Dappleganger]

60. We are not the World Police.

Did you get the memo? We are fucking broke.

[louslobbs]

62. Thank you Dappleganger

Lou

[Obamanaut]

84. Close down the hundreds of US military sites of varying size around the

globe, and bring those personnel home. Spread them and their families (for those on accompanied tours) among the bases in the US that were down-sized.

This would not only give an immediate savings in those closed sites - no lease payment to the host country, no salaries for the local civilians employed at those sites - but would also give a boost to the local economies surrounding the bases the returning personnel/families are assigned to.

Reduce the overall size of the military via normal attrition as enlistments expire combined with less vigorous recruiting.

Let the Department OF Defense become the Department FOR Defense.

Stop being Policemen to the World - I've used that wording for a long time, but I like yours better. I'd like to change to yours if you don't mind.

[Dogtown]

64. No.

Not us, not now.

We're too invested elsewhere, + we'd fuck things up, for damn sure.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

69. no nt

[malaise]

72. Western countries have never ever been to war to liberate a country

It has always been to steal resources.
Stay away from Libya Obama.

[KG]

74. exactly so.

[truebrit71]

81. Right, we didn't liberate France or Holland or Belgium in WWII right?

Did you miss that day in history class at school?

[neverforget]

87. Slight difference. The Germans were occupying those countries and there

was a Congressional declaration of war not to mention Hitler declared war on us first. Second, Libya is an internal affair aka a civil war.

[truebrit71]

88. But the fact still remains that 'the west' liberated those countries..

..ergo the statement was proven to be false...

Also 'the west' intervened in Kosovo which was an internal affair as well, no?

[neverforget]

90. We liberated them from a foreign OCCUPYING power: the Germans.

The statement is true and a comparison to the civil war in Libya is a false comparison.

[truebrit71]

91. Kosovo? Civil war no?

...

[neverforget]

92. You mean the bombing campaign in Kosovo? They shot down a

F117 stealth fighter, an F16 and an Apache helicopter. We were involved destroying their air defenses at first, then it turned to destroying artillery and tanks and other targets. Once the Yugoslavs moved out, we (KFOR) moved in on the ground. Hardly a no fly zone. It was involvement in a civil war on one side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

And we're still there:
http://www.nato.int/kfor/

Think carefully about getting into a war because it's easy to get in and difficult to get out. See Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, etc.

[truebrit71]

93. I totally agree with the hard to get out of bit..

...and I for one don't think we'll ever be fully "out" of Iraq, but my point was, wouldn't a war to aid a population to liberate itself from a dictator by eminently more preferable to one aimed at liberating the population from it's natural resources...?

[neverforget]

96. On a moral level yes. But the fact remains, it's an internal affair and

involvement in these types of conflicts is dicey. Easy to get in, but hard to get out because the nothing ever goes according to plan. Besides, we're spread thin throughout the world and we're broke supposedly.

[NuclearDem]

73. While I agree with the idea...

It's simply not practical, at all.

A NFZ would require destroying anti-air defenses, destroying Libya's air force, and dropping bombs in close quarters to civilian targets. We simply can't afford to open another front right now.

[Hannah Bell]

75. not old enough to have seen this movie before?

[Occulus]

79. Are you an American citizen? n/t

[RedCloud]

85. let Europe get off its dead butt and do something.

[Taitertots]

89. The only result will be untold horrors visited upon the Libyans under the guise of helping them

Just like Iraq, we ended up hurting the Iraqis more than Saddam ever did. We will only hurt the Libyans more than Gaddafi did.

[JokerAllstar]

94. No...I don't agree

A No-Fly Zone is enforced by combat initiatives and defended by combat initiatives. It will only make things worse in a country with two violent opposing forces.

[Bigmack]

95. I'll let a Medal of Honor winning warrior talk for me...

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –

Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient. 2 Purple Hearts (Gen Shoup was my commandant during the first part of my time in.)