The UN Security Council is about to vote on a No-Fly zone for Libya, which looks like it will pass. I’ve already stated my piece on this, and appear to be in a mind-meld with Angela Merkel, who wants to know what comes next when the no-fly zone inevitably fails.
Well, we all know what comes next- FREEDOM BOMBS FOR EVERYONE:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya would require bombing targets inside the country, and a deputy acknowledged that Moammar Gadhafi’s forces were making huge gains against the opposition.
Clinton gave her assessment during a visit to Tunisia and ahead of a planned U.N. vote, making clear the risk of possible military intervention as world powers considered broader steps to protect civilians and pressure the Libyan leader.
In Washington, William Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, told senators that pro-Libyan government forces were about 100 miles (160 kilometres) from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the eastern part of the country.
The U.N. negotiations took place against a backdrop of increasing skepticism in Congress about the Obama administration’s Libya strategy. Questions focused on what action the U.S. was willing to take to back up its strong calls for Gadhafi’s ouster and whether the crisis could lead to military conflict.
This is ostensibly being sold as an attempt to save Libyan civilians, but I would recommend everyone google the FITD technique. I mean, they aren’t being subtle about it:
The top Air Force general said Thursday that a no-fly zone over Libya would not be sufficient in reversing the momentum leader Muammar al-Qaddafi now has over rebel forces.
Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told ranking Republican Sen. John McCain, “If the president assigns the mission to maintain a no-fly zone, clearly that would have an influence on the thinking of Libyan pilots.”
McCain then pressed the point that if a no-fly zone is imposed now it would be too little too late.
“A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient,” Schwartz answered.
The hearing was scheduled to address budget requests by the Defense Department, but McCain made it clear he would use the opportunity to ask about his increasing frustrations with the Obama administration’s response to the month-old civil war in Libya.
“We are seeing the momentum and the success of Muammar Qaddafi and his killers massacring people while we sit idly by,” McCain said. “And one of the arguments used is that we somehow can’t do it, despite the fact that General Odierno just a few days ago said that it would take a very short period of time in order to impose a no-fly zone.”
The number one goal is not saving civilians, it is getting the no-fly zone in place so that escalation will be easier. When the no-fly zone doesn’t work, we’ll move up to shock and awe, and before you know it, we’ll have troops on the ground. After all, we’re Murrika!
I’ll let you figure out how this is in our national interest and how entering another war with no clear definition for victory or understandable mission is what we need. And someone let me know what color to change the blog to so we are not accused of being with the terrorists.
Uloborus
American intervention is STILL not part of the proposal, Cole. This is a proposal that other Middle Eastern nations be allowed to create a no-fly zone.
New Yorker
We need tax cuts first, John. You always cut taxes before war in the deranged alternate reality that is 21st Century America.
Venezuela will probably be next.
cathyx
Is this Obama’s jobs plan? Join the military if you want to work. Uncle Sam needs you to fight in the Middle East.
The Moar You Know
Didn’t I just see this movie? Cause I gotta tell you, the ending sucks.
BGinCHI
America sees something on TV and wants it.
That’s our whole economy and identity.
When we institute a direct tax for Defense and military expenses, this shit will stop cold.
soonergrunt
For all you people who think that this is going to lead to some European/Arab League action and the US will stay out of it, you need to listen over the next couple of days for the refrain of “…the only country capable of doing…” and “…no other country can…”
cyntax
Ah fer f*ck’s sake.
Uloborus
Seriously, people, the proposal being discussed is NOT ONE FOR THE US TO CREATE A NO-FLY ZONE. It is to allow the Arab League to do so, which they’ve been requesting.
soonergrunt
@BGinCHI: That’s a great idea. Tie war proposals to tax increases. No authorizations for military force without taxes to pay for them.
It’s a great idea. That’s why it will never happen.
Frank Chow
American Empire
soonergrunt
@Uloborus: see my point at #6. That is all.
Martin
Wait, we’re calling ourselves the U.N. now? I thought we were the U.S.
BGinCHI
@soonergrunt: Just like my fucking jetpack idea.
Life isn’t fair.
Frank Chow
@Martin: Haven’t you seen Toys? The UN is always in the way!
Uloborus
@soonergrunt:
But that’s not an argument. You’re saying you have a gut feeling that for SURE the US will leap in. The Village will squawk, absolutely, but we didn’t invade Yemen when they squawked, either.
This proposal does nothing to advance the US to intervene in Libya. It is unrelated.
Gus
@soonergrunt: Yep.
joe from Lowell
Of the many traits of Bush-era Republicans that I despised, their determination that the actual facts of a situation didn’t matter, only their ideological conception of it, was one of the most irritating.
Sometimes I think John is sort of like David Horowitz. He’s changed sides, but he brings the same intellectual habits to his new home.
cyntax
Phase 1: No Fly Zone
Phase 2:????
Phase 3: Greeted as Libyarators
BR
Gaddafi knows how to screw things up for everyone – wreak havoc in the Mediterranean, and destroy oil infrastructure. Once he does, oil prices will go back up again, and our economy will suffer. Seems like Obama should take a look at, you know, all the evidence of how oil prices -> recession -> losing re-election.
beltane
This blog should be colored brown, like the sand in these countries where he send our nation to die a slow, embarrassing death.
The hawks always win the political war but have yet to win an actual war.
The Moar You Know
@Uloborus: Christ, get a fucking clue. I’m aware of what the proposal says. I’m also aware of what will actually happen, instead of the isolationist fantasy that you seem to be brewing up in your head.
The British have already said that they “will be ready to be over Libya by Friday.” That’s tomorrow. Are the British part of the fucking Arab League? Thought not. Guess where we’ll be Friday? That’s fucking right, it’s even in the goddamn Marine Corps anthem. Shores of Tripoli, fucker.
Cat
Libya produces oil. I’m sure its just a coincidence protecting the civilians will also protect the flow of oil.
Libya’s Oil Industry is controlled by the state as well, but I’m sure it will also just be a coincidence that as part of modernizing Libya it will be privatized.
Joe Beese
Not just war on another Muslim country. War on another Muslim oil-exporting country.
Yeah, this will play well in the region.
Uloborus
@The Moar You Know:
I’m sorry, I assumed the person with the fantasy was the one talking about a hypothetical situation that hasn’t been proposed.
Fuck U6: A More Accurate Measure of the Total Amount of Duck-Fuckery in the Economy
Neoliberal/neocon interventionism: you’re soaking in it!
Joshua Norton
So do they have a secret vendor on a rainy planet somewhere that manufactures troops on demand? Unless they do, it’s one thing for neocons to always want a military solution, it’s another thing to get the warm bodies to fill the boots on the ground.
Troops, much like US dollars, are a finite resource.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Even the best case scenario has a nasty downside: if we intervene now in Libya and it works, what are we going to do the next time that Iran erupts in violent protests, and how well is that going to work out? Every bad war that fails is germinated from the seeds of the one that came before it which was judged a success. For that reason, war should be a last resort to protect our own vital national intersts, that and that only.
Do.not.want.
soonergrunt
@Uloborus: I was in Bosnia and Kosovo. Neither of those places has or ever had ANYTHING that implicates US national security. And you know what we heard, over and over, and over again?
“The only country with the power to…” and “only one country can…”
@cyntax: I saw what you did there.
Uloborus
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Well, then it’s a good thing that this isn’t a proposal that we intervene. It’s a proposal that we get out of the way of the Arab League to intervene. France and Britain seem to think they have interests there, but that’s between them and the Arab League.
Redhand
Has there ever been a war that McCain did not want us to join?
Uloborus
@soonergrunt:
…and that has to do with this situation what now? Yeah, it’s a boilerplate argument that’s going to be trotted out any time anyone wants us to intervene anywhere. That has nothing to do with whether or not we will intervene.
Ken Lovell
Maybe the thinking is that if we can spin the fighting out long enough, they’ll all kill each other and it will be one less bunch of friggin’ towelheads to worry about.
I don’t know where the idea is coming from that the UN resolution would only affect Arab states. The Brits and the French have already indicated they’d be hot to start bombing immediately, and you guys couldn’t afford to let them get out in front. It’s not a good look for the empire to have to rely on satellite states to do the heavy hitting.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@The Moar You Know:
Last time I checked, our name is not The United States of Britian.
More to the point — as many of us said weeks ago, there’s a HUGE difference between an Arab-led, UN-sanctioned coalition that includes Europe and/or the US, and the US diving whole-hog into blowing crap up in Libya along with another half-assed “coalition of the
bought-offwilling.”Chyron HR
@The Moar You Know:
I’m pretty sure “US Out of Everywhere Including Places We Haven’t Even Gone Yet” is the “isolationist” position in this scenario.
Sloegin
It’s important that every American President gets a tiny little war all their own, or they don’t qualify for promotion and the extra retirement benefits.
Extra credit: name the last 2 Presidents without one.
Martin
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Who is ‘we’?
BGinCHI
Italy has major interests there, but since Berlusconi is either busy defending himself over charges he fucked a minor or, alternatively, fucking a different minor, they don’t seem to be a player in this.
Why don’t these countries who have large stakes in these countries have to either participate or foot the bill?
Purposefully naive question. Please help.
The Moar You Know
@Uloborus: Really? What part of this don’t you understand? The part where it says “UK forces ‘could be in action by Friday'”?
BR
@Sloegin:
Carter, Hoover?
Uloborus
@BGinCHI:
They are. They’re called the Arab League. The US is not asking to participate. We’re saying ‘We support the Arab League’s request’. Britain and France apparently want to be directly involved, but that’s between them and the Arab League. It has jack all to do with us.
The Dangerman
Why are we in Japan today? Their earthquake is an internal matter.
Edit: As posited in another thread, preventing a Somalia on the coast of the Mediterranean, especially one sandwiched by 2 nascent governments that might become friendly democracies, might be a good idea.
Uloborus
@The Moar You Know:
The part where a ‘K’ is an ‘S’.
Bob Loblaw
I for one look forward to the Somali-fication of Libya by our joint NATO/Arab League overlords. After all, the Libyan democratization movement is just vibrant as hell. Lotta good governance to come out of that ragtag bunch of revolutionaries…
On the plus side, nobody will pay anymore attention to events on the Arabian Peninsula. Oh wait, that’s not a side effect, that’s the main goal of all this. My bad.
BarneyG2000
I don’t get it. Weren’t the same people blaming Obama for the eventual Muslim Brotherhood take over of Egypt? Now they want us to start bombing Libya?
John Cole
@Sloegin: Carter and Eisenhower.
MattR
@Uloborus: First paragraph from the Guardian
Do you have any links to articles that assert it would be limited to the Arab League and/or Europe?
Svensker
Victory = Killing Wogs
Far as I can tell, that’s pretty much it.
Cat
@BGinCHI: They were dealing with a Authoritarian Asshat fine before this uprising they can deal with him after. They can make noises in public and quietly give the wink and nudge out of the public’s view.
Italy is broke in way countries can go broke, they are part of the PIGS EURO countries that are borderline insolvent, in that they’d probably not be able to get financing for a military adventure.
joe from Lowell
@cyntax:
1. Rebels ask for No Fly Zone.
2. No Fly Zone.
3. Greeted as liberators.
Seriously, isn’t anti-imperialism supposed to have something to do with self-determination? Shouldn’t the support among the Libyans for this action play some role in determining whether it is or isn’t just like Operation Iraqi Freedom?
PurpleGirl
@Joshua Norton: Troops, much like US dollars, are a finite resource.
Troops may be a finite resource… but US dollars are finite only when they are to be used for social/economic safety net programs. When used for war… the powers that be are willing to borrow up the wazoo. See Iraq and Afghanistan.
Martin
@MattR: Don’t have any articles to assert that it won’t exclude martian invaders as well. I don’t know why everyone is so eager to assume that the Weekly Standard is the defacto foreign policy manual for the US. Why don’t we stick to what is actually being said and then bitch when it doesn’t happen, rather than bitch about us doing what we haven’t indicated we’ll do, and which in fact, Obama said we wouldn’t do.
Joshua Norton
@John Cole: Eisenhower had Korea to deal with.
Dennis SGMM
Gadhafi was caught by surprise and that enabled the rebels’ initial successes. He has counterattacked with armor and artillery. Although creating a no-fly zone will give the rebels some relief it is no counter to someone who’s willing to use artillery and armor to flatten an entire city. The rebels neither have nor would know how to use crew-served weapons – which are the exact counter to armor and artillery. Absent bombing of ground targets, Gadhafi’s forces will mop them up. It will just take him a bit longer without air support.
We will get sucked into this and it will get ugly.
wengler
The dynamic of the fight of the Libyan people against Gadaffi is about to change. I think this is an overall recognition of the fact that the entire US governmental policy toward that country has been screwed up for the past three decades.
Libya was a dissenting rogue state, then a beautiful prosperous corporate client state, and now it is back to being rogue. Have no doubt this is about all of those transnational corporations losing oil contracts once Gadaffi reimposes control. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the US and European powers are subverting any nascent democratic systems set up under the rebels for a single person that will be elevated as the face of the rebellion.
You gotta feel for our corporate governments though. When this whole thing started they were caught between a new client that they didn’t trust, and a rebel movement that they didn’t control. It’s good to see that such uncertainty is now a thing of the past.
cyntax
@joe from Lowell:
Well, if the only measure of whether we should do something is that some of the locals want us to, then we should also be launching a military intervention in the Ivory Coast.
Odd, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Martin
@joe from Lowell: No. All brown people are the same and hate America no matter what.
Sophist
Britain and France apparently want to be directly involved, but that’s between them and the Arab League.
And the advisers we send along with the British, just to “keep an eye on things”. And the midair refueling planes we’ll let them make use of because, hey they were in the area already, right? And the hand full of fighter/bombers, really just a couple, we’ll send along to back them up on an important sortie, but only just the once, because of our special relationship with the UK. And…
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw:
Gotta love this reasoning. Absolutely nobody had a bad word to say about the Libyan protesters for the past two weeks, or yesterday even. In fact, when wingnuts denounced the protesters in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, we derided them for the racist bastards they are.
However, the moment the US or its allies might become involved, they become this shady force of skeery Mooslim revolutionaries that we must have nothing to do with.
4tehlulz
Based on what?
Cat
@joe from Lowell:
Uhm, support of which Libyans? I’m sure there just as many that don’t want to be bombed by foreign fighters as there are those who want us to bomb those other Libyans.
It is a civil war. Is the world going to stop at a No Fly Zone? What will the world do if/when the Rebels ask for munitions or troops?
How many Libyans constitute a legitimate rebellion and the will of the majority of the Libyans or a bunch of extremists trying to overthrow a legitimate government?
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@MattR: I’ll concur with that. I don’t see a no-fly flying w/o US aircraft in the mix. People asserting the US won’t get into this after the rresolution passes are fooling themselves, I fear.
That said, again — there’s a difference between the US leading the fight, and what I’m reading of the UN’s proposal. And that’s not an unimportant point in this; I think a lot of “not another war!” folks should note that, esp. since the resolution bars ground troops. I think that’s unrealistic, but given how esp. China would likely feel about it, it’s not bloody likely the UN would assert ground troops without the situation changing drastically.
And I think everyone here grasp the Obama Administration, like them or not, is extremely unlikely to act unilaterally in this mess.
cyntax
@Dennis SGMM:
Bingo.
And this is why the Air Force is already pushing the need for airstrikes.
And once airstrikes aren’t enough, we’re back to the whole “shores of Tripoli” thing.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Uloborus:
@Martin:
Sorry, but I don’t believe that inter-state hostilities once started will be so easily compartmentalized. Britain appears to be gung-ho about assisting the Arab League with this little project. Britain is a NATO member, to whom we have formal treaty obligations if they are attacked, and also a nation who is currently assisting us in Afghanistan. What happens when Libya either shoots down British planes, or worse yet retaliates by attacking the shipping of a variety of NATO countries in the Med? Do we say “love to help out old chap, but remember, this is your fight, not ours. We just helped get the ball rolling by giving you our okey-dokey.”
BGinCHI
@Cat:
You saying Berlusconi can’t afford this? He could just write a check.
joe from Lowell
@cyntax:
And if my aunt had wheels, she’d be a bus.
Good thing nobody has suggested that the only measure of whether we should do somethingis that some of the locals want us to.
John Cole
@joe from Lowell: Horowitz? Really? Go fuck yourself.
And put your money where your mouth is. 50 bucks to Charlie’s Angels if, should a no-fly zone pass, the US becomes more involved than just words. Another 50 if the usual suspects start with the war drums saying the no-fly zone isn’t enough.
If neither happens, I’ll throw in 50 for each.
MattR
@Martin: Is it really too much that someone who comes into a thread posting repeatedly about how we all have it wrong and explicitly saying that American intervention is still not part of the proposal be asked to provide some kind of documentation for those claims? It’s not like I’m asking when he stopped beating his wife.
As for what is being said, the articles John linked to as well as the Guardian piece that I did all indicate some level or another of interest/acceptance by the administration that American forces will get involved.
Alex S.
I would guess that this will be a replay of the very beginning of the Afghanistan war. Back then, the Northern Alliance controlled about 10% of the country and managed to conquer Kabul within a month with the help of NATO airstrikes. And Libya is a far easier country to conquer than Afghanistan. As soon as there is an international action against the Gadhafi regime, the mercenaries on his side will abandon him. And in contrast to the Taliban, Gadhafi will not be able to hide in the mountains. He can’t abandon Tripolis since he can’t hide in the desert. The tribes on Gadhafi’s side support him because he is able to sell their oil. However, they can probably be bought off. The question is if Gadhafi’s regime is going to lose enough power to implode. Because if not, ground troops will have to fight in the cities and that will lead to a lot of civilian casualties.
The Dangerman
@Dennis SGMM:
Mostly true, but the Libyan military, such as it is, has reportedly splintered. The rebels have some heavy weapons (see pictures of burned out tanks in the Z city near Tripoli).
Hopefully, their military will decide that turning on Gaddafi is their best chance of “victory”. It would appear to me that the only chance this ends “well” (I can’t define what well is here) is that Gaddafi gets popped by his own military. Given he’s in a nuclear hardened bunker, I don’t see any other way for this to end happily.
John Cole
@Joshua Norton: But he didn’t start it. I thought that is what we were dealing with. Because hell, every President has had troops on the Korean peninsula.
John W.
What comes next? The same thing that comes if Europe doesn’t act, the equivalent to the Haiti boat people of the 90s in America, with a flood of refugees:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/EU-on-Libyan-Refugees-Prepare-for-the-Worst-118185729.html
This may not be the right way to act, but let’s not pretend there’s no security interests for Europe either.
I don’t want the US to be involved in anything substantial (being part of a blockade is the most I’m willing to advocate) but the British and French aren’t just crazy hawks for disagreeing with Merkel.
Let’s say Haiti in the90s was happening right now. Should the US stay out of that completely?
Zifnab
Call me crazy, but I’m actually split on this. On the one hand, American Interventionism has historically been a Bad Thing(tm). On the other hand, Kosovo was one of those regions I think we actually had a very positive impact in.
In this particular case, you’ve got a group of rebels attempting to overthrow the Libyan government, and failing. If the world stands by, Gadhafi has a good chance of obliterating the rebel stronghold. With the rebels killed or scattered, it’ll be a few years of regional genocide as his paramilitary forces massacre anyone suspected of joining the insurgency. That’s how these uprisings typically end when the man in charge has all the guns.
On the flip side, the moment foreign powers get involved, Libya will be a de facto colony of the liberators. The Western powers can slap a puppet government on the throne, seize the oil, and screw the newly liberated country sideways, if they so choose. All while running up a new set of massive war debts to match the ones we’ve been piling up for the last ten years.
So it’s two bad options, and I seriously don’t know which is worse. But I can’t completely fault the UN for embracing military action, since its a lot easier to try and fuck up than to stand around watching the slaughter.
Sloegin
@39, @44, yeah I was thinking Hoover at first, but Eisenhower didn’t have any outright shooting matches that he started; though he had his skulduggery calendar full with Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, etc.
joe from Lowell
@Martin:
Both the neocons and the “anti-imperialists” believe this.
The only difference is, the neocons hate them for it, while the “anti-imperialists” put their pictures up in their bedroom next to their David Cassidy posters.
cyntax
@joe from Lowell:
Well then what the hell is your point exactly? That if we do go into Libya it won’t go badly?
Brachiator
I don’t think that there is a chance in hell that US troops will be involved in any Libyan conflict.
In fact, I am surprised that the Tea Party People in Congress is not fighting the GOP more about any proposed military intervention.
@wengler:
What nascent democratic systems? The political opposition in Libya seems far less coherent than that in Egypt. There were Libyans who opposed Gadaffi and who put themselves at risk in openly calling for his ouster, but there doesn’t seem to be much for the West to either support or subvert.
joe from Lowell
@Cat:
Really?
That’s a hard question for you?
Tell me, did you have difficulty figuring out which Egyptians we should support – the protesters or the pro-Mubarak forces?
MattR
@Brachiator:
This implies that you believe that Tea Party People actually care about fiscal conservativism or the deficit or anything else they have been ranting about over the past two years.
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
If you don’t consider their military incompetence to be a harbinger of things to come, then I don’t know what to tell you.
And for the record, Libyan opposition has never been described as anything other than fractured, unprofessional, and tribal since the beginning. I wouldn’t trust them to operate a 7/11.
People despise Qaddafi that damn much, they’ll take a complete power vacuum just to see the last of him.
Oh and just so we’re clear, if you have to resort to calling your opponents racists and religious bigots, you’re losing. Skary Mooslims indeed, way to reveal yourself champ.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Joe Beese: It’s like a twofer.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@joe from Lowell:
I don’t know much about Libya’s internal tribal politics. And neither does anyone else outside the damned country! We knew a thousand times more about the Northern Alliance, and that worked out so well for us…a-hem.
There’s a big leap from the kind of Islamophobia you rightly denounce, to assuming any concern about the potential post-revolution (if they win!) makeup of a Libyan government is racially charged. Not because one thinks they’re going to repay us with bombs, but because not even China really wants to swap G-Money with someone even more authoritarian and asinine.
One hopes and prays there’s a true vox populi in that mess, but it’s not wrong to have some concerns that we can’t really tell.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Yes, really, and in precisely the way I described, which you don’t seem to have understood.
Oh, well.
stuckinred
live vote
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/
stuckinred
china abstains
stuckinred
5 abstains, sounds like we go,
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m sure the arguments will be the same ones used to invade Iraq. Can someone make a bingo card so we can play along at home?
eemom
@Zifnab:
from what I understand it’s more a foregone conclusion than a good chance at this point.
I concur in your analysis.
joe from Lowell
@Alex S.:
Right.
The important differences being, there is no other operation (getting bin Laden/routing al Qaeda) to keep us engaged in military operations after the government is toppled, and Obama does not appear to have Bush’s hard-on for stationing American troops in as many countries as possible, Risk-style, out of an antiquated belief in Great Game theory.
Litlebritdifrnt
@joe from Lowell:
Oooooh is that showing your age or what? (My posters were Donny Osmond so there)
MattR
@joe from Lowell: What percent of a country’s citizens have to want us to intervene for it to outweigh the percent who don’t want to be bombed by foreigners? I think that is where Cat was going with the “which Libyans” question.
@stuckinred: Did you happen to find the actual text of the resolution anywhere? (EDIT: Oh well. Thanks. I am guessing it should be readily available tomorrow, if not sooner)
HyperIon
@MattR supplied a link to an article in the Guardian
From the link:
Which sounds like there could be plans for “aircraft carriers off the coast” and “planes in the air”.
Uloborus, what say you to this, that is, “no boots but…”?
Dr. Squid
Are the PUMAs still pushing Hillary as a primary challenger in 2012?
stuckinred
@MattR: don’t see it on the UN Page
Cat
@BGinCHI: I know you are being snarky, but no, he couldn’t.
4tehlulz
>china abstains
Huh. That’s surprising.
Russia too?
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
Only if the Western powers put a substantial number of boots on the ground.
If we’re only using air power to support ground forces that consist entirely, or almost entirely, of Libyans, then it remains their war and their country.
There’s a difference between what the French navy did at Yorktown, and what the American military did in Iraq.
Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
Do you have the slightest idea what the anti-Gadhafi forces stand for? Are they Sunni or Shia? Do they favor the establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law or are they in favor of a secular democracy? You don’t have the slightest fucking idea of the true answers to those questions yet you’re advocating that real people who could get their asses shot clean off go in and intervene for the plucky rebels. If you feel so strongly about it, go into Libya via Egypt or Algeria and put your ass on the line.
stuckinred
@4tehlulz: There were 5 but I didn’t get em all.
John Cole
I’m not sure there is much to misunderstand about “Sometimes I think John is sort of like David Horowitz. He’s changed sides, but he brings the same intellectual habits to his new home.” I’m reasonably sure that was not complimentary, and meant to state that I am rigid and unswayed by facts.
Care to explain to me what exactly I have missed?
Arclite
@BGinCHI:
I like this idea. Instead of making it mandatory, we could, like Sully suggests for union dues, make defense spending voluntary. Not only in whether to give, but how much. Whatever that is, that’s how much defense we get.
FlipYrWhig
@Zifnab: I remember going around and around in the early-’90s “humanitarian intervention” wars myself. Rwanda, Somalia, the former Yugoslavian states. Trying to figure out The Right Thing To Do was difficult. It led to the skepticism about “nation-building” that Dubya Bush voiced in the 2000 election, all of which he recanted to fight the Iraq war. My instinct is typically to say that if American military power should be used for anything, it’s to protect vulnerable people from overwhelming power… but then without an “exit strategy,” any military involvement can so easily become a quagmire. I find myself pulled in multiple directions.
cyntax
@Alex S.:
Two things:
I would be very skeptical of equating the readiness of the Libyan military with the Taliban.
You do know that those airstrikes in Afghanistan were so successful because we had troops on the ground, right?
Jay B.
Here’s another way it can play out: We bomb the hell (*we being some combination of interested parties) out of Colonel Quackerjacks. He retreats to his strongholds — since we’re not going to be on the ground, he can ride the bunker circuit while his army fights toe to toe with the rebels. The varied interests of “the rebels” would then be jockeying for position with the interested parties who bring the most power to their position.
Who would they turn to if they were looking to really cash in? The British? The fucking Egyptians? We’re the easiest mark in the world and we lose $6 billion dollars without even knowing where it went. Or telling where it went.
One of the last times we ‘intervened’ on behalf of rebels without troops on the ground — to ostensibly bleed our enemy — we ended up creating the mujahdeen. Some of whom were completely retrograde but “Northern Alliance”, others who were merely psychotic and turned into bin Ladenites.
I’m sure the rebel players in Libya, though are all in it for the right reasons and would be shining allies in the coming years* (*note again that we held up Quadaffi as a model despot after Iraq) as they sought to gain control over the oil money.
It’s funny that most of you point to Serbia as the model for this kind of thing, but completely dismiss any comparisons to any one of a half-dozen other Arab and Middle Eastern uprisings in which we’ve participated (troop-free) to some degree. For the person who said we didn’t “help” Saddam, you’re completely wrong. The CIA most certainly helped the Baathist coup in 1963 and you’re a fool to think otherwise. Hussein was in exile in Egypt, came back after the coup and became the head of the Iraqi Secret Service. We paved his way.
Do you think this is the more or less logical way this will play out?
Viva BrisVegas
There is really nothing to worry about. Gaddafi will be in Benghazi chopping off heads before the first UN sanctioned overflight gets off the ground.
Joe Beese
Not that it’s an infallible guide to anything…
But the fact that all the neocon assholes who got hard-ons for invading Iraq are cheerleading this move should give one serious pause.
Martin
@Zifnab:
Never should have let that guy get a Death Star.
stuckinred
Fuck it, the Un Rez passed, ain’t no time to wonder why.
Nick
but they don’t want us there, I get it
Just Some Fuckhead
@Joe Beese:
This time will be different, baby. I’m sorry I fucked up. I love you.
Martin
@MattR:
I don’t know. Why don’t we set up a democracy and have them vote on it?
stuckinred
Bet these weenies in the Libyan Army are going to wish they hadn’t blown all this ammo whoopin it up!
Amanda in the South Bay
@Dennis SGMM:
Well shit, even little old me knows that Shia are a very, very small minority in Libya, the country is very much nominally Sunni. And I suppose the Ibadi’s but they are a very small minority as well and not really Sunni or Shia.
ETA: I’m a bit on the “lets not stick our noses where they don’t belong” school of foreign policy, but disagreeing with the Bush Administration’s actions doesn’t mean we should automatically default to the libertarian party’s foreign policy views, or maybe Larison’s (since when is a neo-Confederate a fucking liberal icon?) when he’s not waxing poetic about the Confederacy.
I mean, stop pleading ignorance about stuff like religious differences in Libya. Adopting a skeptical attitude about foreign intervention doesn’t mean we have to profess total ignorance about everything. How about we take each situation its own merits and not hobble ourselves with intellectual straightjackets?
Alex S.
@Zifnab:
It’s not crazy to be of two minds about this. We’re all cynics on this blog, so we assume that this will be a total mess, no matter how well-intended. On the other hand, Bush isn’t responsible anymore, maybe Obama can do better.
joe from Lowell
@cyntax:
That the question of how an intervention will be welcomed by the locals depends on the locals themselves.
The possibility of a hostile reception by the locals is a good argument against staging such an intervention. Therefore, how the locals feel about that intervention is an important point to consider. When you fail to account for local feeling, and simply assume that the locals will be horrified, you’re missing a rather significant point.
The receptions our troops got in Belgium in 1944 was rather different from the one they received in Iraq in 2003. Would you care to hazard a guess why?
Ebie
@Uloborus: Foot. In. The. Door. strategy. Weren’t you listening?
Obama will go along to get along too, you watch. And so will all the lame-ass Democrats. The Republicans magically will stop caring about the deficit because We Must Do Something. Why these clowns love military action so much is beyond me. Oh wait — it’s because the soldiers are in someone ELSE’S family.
Nick
@Joe Beese:
Joe, the neocon assholes get a hardon for anything that remotely involves using big warplanes and bombs. It doesn’t mean they’re always wrong. It just means they’re usually wrong.
I don’t base my beliefs on whether or what my opponent thinks.
dave™©
@Uloborus:
You really are a fucking idiot.
Dennis SGMM
@Amanda in the South Bay:
My point was that we don’t know much about those on whose behalf we want to intervene. Whether or not the majority believes that Islam should be governed by a direct descendant of Mohammed or otherwise isn’t, at this juncture, important.
ETA: We don’t know the first thing about the intentions of the rebels other than that they want to dump Gadhafi. Committing blood and treasure to an unknown seems like a march to folly.
Bob Loblaw
@John Cole:
The part where, in addition to your lack of intellectual dexterity and curiosity, you also hate and fear all Muslims and perhaps even masturbate to David Cassidy, you silly homo you.
It’s been a real tour de force from our good pal from Lowell, Mass.
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw:
I’m supposed to assume “military incompetence” on the part of a movement that, without air power, and with vastly fewer military resources of all kinds, was able to drive the Libyan state’s military, at one point, into two small enclaves, and capture several major, fortified oil terminals?
Why am I supposed to do that, exactly?
Thanks, Rush. When exactly did you become a teabagger? Nice 7/11 quip, btw.
But if it makes you feel better, I don’t think you’re actually a racist. I think your sudden demonization of the Libyan resistance is utterly cynical and calculated.
Cat
@joe from Lowell:
Not at all, but you do seem to be unable to tell the difference between a broad nationwide uprising,Egypt, vs a civil war, Libya.
Getting involved in a civil war injects your opinion into a countries politics where a large portion of them would rather you didn’t.
I doubt the rebel’s will stop at just liberating the people who want liberating. A lot of Libyans will be on the receiving end of freedom bombs and liberating bullets who wanted neither.
cyntax
@joe from Lowell:
My point was that this won’t be as straight forward as the interventionists are making it. In point of fact we know nothing about the rebels other than that they oppose Gaddafi.
Oh and here’s Gaddafi on the resolution:
Just Some Fuckhead
@Bob Loblaw:
I don’t do this any more since seeing him on Celebrity Apprentice. What a pampered little shit.
The Dangerman
From reports, the main depot for chemical (and biological?) weapons is known; I wouldn’t want to be the security guarding that depot right about now.
stuckinred
@cyntax: Baghdad Bob!
joe from Lowell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
You’re sure that the arguments for providing air support to the rebels will be “Libya is about to attack us with WMDs” and “Libya is working with al Qaeda?”
OK.
Joe Beese
@zinfab
When in doubt, err on the side of not starting a 4th war.
[In case anyone forgot, we’re merrily blowing up shit in Yemen too.]
As someone else pointed out, whenever you hear anyone use the phrase “American interests”, you must mentally substitute the more precise “the enrichment of the miltary-industrial complex”.
So when Hilllary hits the Sunday Windbags circuit to explain how our going to war against Libya “serves American interests”, understand what she is really saying.
HyperIon
@joe from Lowell wrote:
So given that we don’t know how the locals feel (or even how many locals feel this way), how does this affect the choice to do no-fly or not?
Seems like this is a “known unknown”.
The Dangerman
Too tired to look it up; is it no-fly or all short of boots on ground?
stuckinred
Well, FDL is against it so it can’t be that bad of an idea.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Dennis SGMM:
Well, yes, but you mentioned the Sunni-Shia rivalry! Sure, the religious motivations behind the revolutionaries are important, but stop trying to draw a parallel with Iraq by bringing up Shia.
cyntax
@stuckinred:
This really is starting to feel like a bad rerun.
Alex S.
@cyntax:
Actually, I guess that the Taliban were far more ready than Gadhafi’s troops are right now. The Taliban were religious fanatics, with up to 20 years of active battle experience, partly trained by the US. Gadhafi’s troops are partly mercenaries and loyal Libyans with only limited battle experience. The rebels aren’t experienced either, but they are fighting against annihiliation and possible mass-murder.
If I recall correctly, foreign ground forces were slow to trickle into Afghanistan. There shouldn’t be any in Libya now, so that’s definitely a counter-argument. But the easier terrain and the closeness to Europe should counter that.
Mr. Poppinfresh
I sure am glad we stayed out of Rwanda during the genocide, since any and all involvement by Western powers to stop disproportionate use of force = Iraq.
It would have been like Iraq, but in 1993! PRE-IRAQ IRAQ!
Litlebritdifrnt
I don’t know what Cameron is thinking here, from what I understand the UK peeps are getting really tired of this “boots on the ground” thingy. Especially seeing as said boots end up going through Wootten Bassett in a hearse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ZzRvNar_o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_iAIgN24N8&feature=related
You see anything similar in the US? Nope. The people of the UK know what is happening. The people of the US? They are too busy following Charlie Sheen on Twitter. Only about 1% of people in the US are engaged in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that is because they have “boots on the ground”, the rest of the US could not give a shit.
Calouste
The abstainees were Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia, which means that the Arab Security Council member Lebanon voted for it.
BBC says that “Earlier reports suggested that if the resolution was passed, air attacks on Col Gaddafi’s forces by the British and French air forces could begin within hours.”
Blue Carolinian
Why are people shocked by China abstaining?
You do realize they drive more cars and consume more energy than we do now, right? They are extremely dependent on oil.
Nick
@Calouste: Lebanon cosponsored it
Just Some Fuckhead
Time to start working on the bingo card:
Free center square: USA! USA! USA!
Despot leader
Killing his own people
Chemical and perhaps biological weapons
Oil
Freedom
Democracy
Whiskey
No fly no working
Sanctions ineffective
Greeted as liberators
Causing instability in Middle East
Israel
Has financed terrorists
Has harbored terrorists
…
Cat Lady
Oh goodie, another week another crisis. I was getting bored with the Japan thing anyway/
joe from Lowell
@MattR:
Depends on why we want to invade. There were virtually no Japanese who wanted us to intervene in 1942. In a situation like this, there need to be enough that they can provide the boots on the ground necessary to topple the government.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s where she was going. I think she was making an argument that it is invalid for us to decide that the Libyan opposition is morally superior to the Gadaffi forces.
cyntax
@The Dangerman:
No-fly only.
For now.
Dennis SGMM
@Amanda in the South Bay:
If I wanted to draw a parallel with Iraq I would have done so. My point, one more time, is that committing the US to the support of people whose long term intentions we know little about is folly.
stuckinred
@Calouste: Doesn’t seem like there is a whole lot of reason to fuck around now.
eemom
@Amanda in the South Bay:
I concur in your analysis too.
It’s truly amazing how many unthinking, knee-jerk party-liners there are on this blog.
@Uloborus:
I really liked your comment earlier about facts, subtlety and nuance not even having walk-on parts in this production (paraphrased). Spot. the fuck. On.
Joe Beese
@Litlebritdifrnt
The American government used to ban the media from showing that until experience showed it that no one cared.
The military famlies actually believe they’re serving something honorable and everyone else’s family is too preoccupied with finding a job… any job.
Jay B.
Again, like Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ll ask — what happens next? What does the US want to have happen? The end of civilian casualties? Then what? The rebels win in no small part because of a No Fly Zone. OK, then what?
The Dangerman
@cyntax:
WaPo is saying no-fly and extra measures to protect civilians. “Extra” isn’t defined.
NobodySpecial
@Nick: Truer words were ne’er spoke by you, Nick.
cyntax
@Alex S.:
The Taliban weren’t trained in maneuver warfare and I’d bet they have much better equipment and supply lines than the Taliban. The terrain is easier, but as I pointed out, the effectivity of the airstrikes was a direct result of having Special Forces and Navy SEALs on the ground. And by the way, I’m pretty sure the UN res was for no-fly only, not airstrikes.
I see the two as inapt comparisons.
Bob Loblaw
@Calouste:
Once again, of course the Arab League wants this action. Very, very much so. Qaddafi makes for a perfect target and boogeyman to draw attention away from their own recent instabilities.
It would help if people in this thread had something to actually say about Libya, circa 2011, instead of Iraq, circa 2002. Just throwing that out there..
David Koch
@stuckinred:
Heh!
cyntax
@The Dangerman:
Sounds like air-strikes may be in the cards.
Mnemosyne
@HyperIon:
The current leader of the rebel forces has been asking for a no-fly zone for a couple of weeks now, which is why it went in front of the UN after it was voted on by the Arab League. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for the US to participate (for the record, I think it’s a terrible idea) but it isn’t exactly a mystery what the rebels involved in the fighting are asking for.
BR
My pragmatic complaint is that the more the Libyan situation gets messy, the higher oil prices go, the worse the US economy does, and the greater chance a wingnut will beat Obama next year.
David Koch
♫♪ All we are saying…. is give Khaddafi a chance…. ♪♫
eemom
@stuckinred:
ah, veteran mideast war-moron Siun has weighed in? Glad to hear it.
Nick
@BR: It’s gonna get messy regardless.
stuckinred
@cyntax: How bout a little Arc Light on their fucking airfields?
Dennis SGMM
@Bob Loblaw:
Just this once, I have to agree with you. The last thing that the hereditary monarchies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain want is a democratic rebellion.
Chuck Butcher
Military hardware in relation to the economy is seldom stressed. It is virturally a one way expenditure. You do have some R&R results, but almost everything that enters the military stream is one way. A new car later becomes a used car, pick your larger ticket item and the same is true. Service is a one way, your local garage is not repairing Humvees and tanks. What you get is huge expenditures that vanish out of the economy.
It isn’t as though we don’t have huge one way ependitures in the private sector – where does that toaster go? What I’m getting at is that the problem with our vast military goes much farther than the Federal budget. I’m deliberately leaving out what a large portion of military training is useful for in the private sector and addresses the human value.
None of this is anti-military, it is about the scale.
BR
@Nick:
I guess we should give the boulder a push, then.
Dave
Okay…so suppose there is no “no-fly” zone. After Kahdaffi takes Benghazi and slaughters its inhabitants – and you KNOW that is what would happen – what then? The UN shows itself to be absolutely useless.
This is precisely what the UN is supposed to be about. If the UN isn’t going to defend civilians from being massacred by a lunatic, then what the fuck good is it?
joe from Lowell
@Dennis SGMM:
The overthrow of the Gaddaffi regime.
Somewhere in the vicinity of 95%+ Sunni.
There are numerous different factions involved in the uprising, but Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t have very deep roots in Libya.
Chuckle. It’s a really, really, really, really bad idea to assume that I don’t know what I’m talking about. As you’ve just learned.
And if you feel so strongly about universal health care, become a nurse’s aid in a community health center. And if you feel so strongly about homelessness, go work in a shelter. And if you feel so strongly about public education, go teach in an inner city school system like me.
Oh, wait. I’m sorry. The idea that you have to personally undertake every cause you support doesn’t make any sense at all.
cyntax
@stuckinred:
Oh hells yeah, From 30,000 feet the Air Force never misses–
the ground.
If there are any pilots on the board: I kid, I kid.
celticdragonchick
@ woodrow (since the link function isn’t working)
I agree. An awful lot of folks here are going off completely half cocked on this. Britain and France can cover this one just fine.
virag
now that’s it has been authorized, there are just so many ways for this to turn into a clusterfuck.
stuckinred
@cyntax: I think they can hit an airport!
Cat
@joe from Lowell:
How do you decide to get behind Rebels? How much of a critical mass must they have? Do they have to share your values?
celticdragonchick
@virag:
Or not.
stuckinred
What the fuck do people think we should have done, VETO the goddamn thing? jesus
joe from Lowell
@Jay B.:
Saddam Hussein came to power over a decade later, in a coup AGAINST that Baathist regime.
So, no, pointing out that we helped the 1963 coup does not mean we helped Saddam come to power.
BR
Oil prices have just spiked several dollars on news of the UN resolution. Just wait until the bombing starts. And until Gaddafi starts a counterattack.
Nick
@Bob Loblaw:
It’s a risky move though, should Libya succeed, I can see the Arab countries going “hey, even if we fail, the UN will help us” and go for it anyway
BR
@stuckinred:
Um, a security council resolution wouldn’t even have come up if we had told the UK and France we were against it.
Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
IO work in a homeless shelter and I volunteer at a local school. There’s a world of difference between advocating for better health care, better schools or better resources for the homeless and advocating that others should go into harm’s way.
And you still don’t know what you’re talking about. You can be as smug as you like but, you’re still advocating that real people on both sides, or no side at all, be killed (And they will be)so that you can feel that you’ve advanced the cause of freedom.
stuckinred
@BR: Yea, great.
Ebie
@Joe Beese:
I can’t wait to help our Saudi pals quell the unrest in Bahrain. Save the bankers!
Suffern ACE
@celticdragonchick: I know history isn’t always a guide, but I believe that Chad was able to muster enough resistence to defeat Libya with French assistance, and that was when there were Soviets for Libya to buy weapons from. Not to be opposed or in favor of no fly zones one way or another, but if Britain and France can not handle this, we really need to start thinking about exiting alliances with them.
Chuck Butcher
Since tanks and artillery don’t fly, I don’t see this taking a real good turn.
Urza
There’s totally an upside to this. Obama can break out a campaign slogan that will absolutely draw in more conservative voters.
“4 More Wars, For More Wars”
Nick
@Dave:
oh only NOW the UN shows itself ot be absolutely useless?
the UN isn’t a military force, it’s supposed to be a place for nations to gather, discuss issues and come together to figure out how to fix them. It’s a diplomatic forum. If what you say happens, then they’ll return and say “what went wrong?”
Which will probably end up being blame on “Obama was too afraid of liberal peaceniks to move on this earlier”
celticdragonchick
@Suffern ACE:
Pretty much.
HyperIon
@Dennis SGMM wrote:
it’s so quaint that you seek knowledge before action.
/snark
Cat
@Mnemosyne:
Why does everyone assume he speaks for the majority of Libyans? We can assume he speaks for the majority of rebels.
We have had such a bad track record of meddling in the internal politics of countries that I’d think we’d want more then a few weeks to make decisions. This is coming down the line like a freight train.
Dennis SGMM
@Chuck Butcher:
I have the ominous feeling that the words “collateral damage” will have new currency within the next few weeks.
Nick
@BR:
which we did until the situation escalated and the protesters were under extreme threat.
Jay B.
@Dave:
You are getting your wish. Now tell me how long the engagement will be, who will be leading it, how this may or may not help the rebels, who benefits the most, and what happens to Quadaffi? Does a no fly zone mean the massacres end? Does it mean he no longer has tanks to use? Or, using the logic of “a despot is killing his own people”, can you afford to keep him in check — or do you have to oust him too? Because, surely, that’s what the Libyan people want, and the rebels are asking for. Of course, if he is ousted, who takes over? Does this improve the lives of the people? Is he a good guy, a bad guy, a guy who can be dealt with, a nationalist, an Arab pan-nationalist or an Islamist?
joe from Lowell
@Cat:
Cat, what does the fact that so much of the Libyan armed forces has defected to the rebels that Gaddaffi is importing foreign mercenaries mean to you?
That the country is more or less evenly divided?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
So who wants to go tell the Bosniaks and Kosovars that it was a mistake to get involved in their civil wars?
Nick
@Cat:
Whom you’re telling me don’t represent the majority of Libyans.
Funny how that changed as soon as we threaten military action.
The Dangerman
@BR:
Almost literally “him and what army”; his military has been historically limited – much more than enough to slaughter civilians, but a counterattack of any consequence is unlikely (unless he wants to try another Pan Am 103, I suppose).
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: Joe, I smell the scent of charred google-fu on this comment. Wonder why that is?
Dennis SGMM
@HyperIon:
I know. I’m old and a Vietnam vet so I have twisted notions about using ordnance to foster peace.
David Koch
@Chuck Butcher: the resolution covers tanks and artie.
joe from Lowell
@Cat:
They already are.
Libya is a war zone. This isn’t like Iraq 2002, which, while repressive, was more or less at peace. The country’s major populated cities are being shelled. The proposal is for international forces to deny the government the ability to do that shelling.
BR
@Nick:
The irony is that we wouldn’t have given a rats ass if Libya didn’t have oil – there are plenty of nations’ civil wars we’ve ignored because they weren’t strategically important. And yet our action is likely to increase, not decrease, the price of oil and hurt our economy.
stuckinred
@The Dangerman: But, but, but it might not turn out perfectly. . . .
Dave
@Jay B.: So your solution is what? Map out every scenario and have a plan for everything before you start? He’d be dancing on corpses in Benghazi before the first draft got finished. Right now it’s “keep his planes down and bomb his armor/artillery”.
And how does it help the rebels? Really? I’d think that’s pretty obvious.
Brachiator
@MattR: RE: In fact, I am surprised that the Tea Party People in Congress is not fighting the GOP more about any proposed military intervention.
Doesn’t imply that at all. Some Tea Party People have spouted the non-interventionist libertarian line. Some have previously called for defense spending cuts, even though the mainstream GOP just loves themselves some military industrial complex. So I’m just wondering if they are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
celticdragonchick
@Chuck Butcher:
Certainly not for the Libyan military still betting on Khaddaffi winning this one.
I would bet that the rats will jump off his ship real quick if and when Panavia Tornados start blasting apart the runways and leaving calling cards on the T-72’s at the front line. Fear is the biggest motivator here according to what I have seen and read, and the army and air force will leave his ass to twist in the wind if they think he is a lost cause.
Amanda in the South Bay
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Ooh, I know, how about Orthodox convert and every liberal’s favourite conservative, Daniel Larison? The fact that Islam still exists with in the former Yugoslavia is a result of Western intervention.
Nick
@BR:
you’re probably right that we wouldn’t have cared if Libya didn’t have oil, and that;’s a shame, but then again, we didn’t. We were not entertaining the idea of a no fly zone until France, Britain and the Arab League pushed it. Also, we get basically no oil from Libya, Europe does.
And beyond that, the price of oil is going to increase anyway as long as this goes on, whether we intervene or not.
The Dangerman
@stuckinred:
It won’t end perfectly; these things never do, but greater good and all that…
Cat
@stuckinred:
Abstain and not do anything to support the No Fly Zone. If we get involved it will snowball.
stuckinred
@celticdragonchick: Watch the video of the “Libyan Army” on CNN as they prep for an assault. Can you say di di mau when the shit starts.
joe from Lowell
@HyperIon:
Bullshit.
If you want to play dumb, you’re going to have to do so by yourself.
Feigning ignorance is not the move of someone confident in his argument.
stuckinred
@Cat: if?
BR
@Nick:
Actually the market as of a week ago had priced in Libyan instability in the price of oil – it had stabilized. If nothing else, uncertainty and air strikes will cause speculators to drive the price up beyond where it was before. This was not a foregone conclusion.
David Koch
Can’t we just let Quaddaffyi commit mass murder. These people are brown, their lives are meaningless.
Suffern ACE
@Cat: The President has stated that he wants Qadaffi to leave the country. I don’t think it would be plausible to abstain in that vote.
The Dangerman
@celticdragonchick:
The turrets of tanks are spinning 180 degrees right now. Or whatever tank commanders do to show they are no longer in the fight or, at least, on Gaddafi’s side.
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw:
Finally, something I can agree with Bob about.
Fucking “Shia.”
Morans.
celticdragonchick
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europeans-say-intervention-in-libya-possible-within-hours-of-un-vote/2011/03/17/ABSb9pl_story.html?hpid=z2
A French foreign ministry official said France and Britain, with cooperation from one or two Arab countries, would be prepared to start carrying out a resolution as soon as it was approved, within a matter of hours. NATO planners this week presented alliance political leaders with final plans for various military options in Libya.
The United States has five warships off the Libyan coast in the Mediterranean, and it was unclear what role, if any, U.S. forces would play in any initial enforcement actions. The French official, who spoke anonymously under conditions laid out by the foreign ministry, said Britain and France were prepared to act without U.S. direct participation, or with a limited U.S. role.
Italy last week told NATO that its land bases could be used for enforcement of a no-fly zone.
Comrade Dread
This is so fucking depressing.
But hey, unemployed people and former union workers, there are thousands of new good government jobs now available with plenty of benefits. Kindly apply at the nearest military recruitment branch, now reopened as Uncle Sam’s Funtabulous Freedom Factory, where everything is free.
(Unless you get shot and live or develop psychological problems, in which case, you will magically cost the government money again and be kicked to the curb to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.)
So there’s that.
HyperIon
@The Dangerman: The turrets of tanks are spinning 180 degrees right now.
linky or are you just getting your war pron on?
Cat
@Nick:
You do realize there is a distinction from “willing to protest” and willing to “fight in a rebellion” right?
Stillwater
@joe from lol: Feigning ignorance is not the move of someone confident in his argument.
I can’t believe you’re actually saying this out loud, for everyone to hear. I mean, this is your tried and true pattern of argument, isn’t it?: independent of what the facts might show, appear confident and certain (CERTAIN!) in your determination of A COURSE OF ACTION.
Only fools think like this. And you just became the standard bearer.
Comrade Dread
@Brachiator: Ron Paul will bitch about it.
Rand might too.
Everyone else will STFU and break out the yellow ribbons.
celticdragonchick
@The Dangerman:
We will see.
Whatever stupid fucking jokes the conservatives used to make about the French, there is no way in hell I would want to be in the targeting reticle of a Mirage 2000 or Rafale HUD. The French make some seriously nasty hardware.
The Dangerman
@HyperIon:
I’m not sure how hypothesizing tank turrets spinning, or being taken out of the fight, ergo those tank people live and no ordnance is wasted on them, equals war pron; please, do tell.
cs
If anyone’s worried about the locals and what they think, here’s a reaction from Benghazi.
If you haven’t been following twitter for this, check out #Libya for some other opinions on this.
Cat
@joe from Lowell:
No its not. Unless you mean the government bombing or you interpret the no fly resolution very broadly to mean they are able to do air strikes against Gadaffi Loyalists and Mercenary positions.
Which is a lot more then a ‘no fly zone’ and is that mission creep everyone is warning against.
David Koch
If only Khaddafyy were dumping raw sewage and chemicals into a river, then I would support intervention.
Jay B.
@joe from Lowell:
Holy shit that’s dense. The CIA backed his assassination attempt of Quasim. The Baathists had a successful coup in 1963, then there was some internal dissension and they sent Saddam to prison. He escaped, there was another coupe (Baathist on Baathist), he became second in command to Al-Bakar and positioned himself to take over.
You can say those chain of events didn’t start with CIA involvement, but that would be wrong. But even if you didn’t believe that there is some correlation between the CIA involvement and Saddam’s eventual power grab, it’s pretty easy to point out that it was the law of unintended consequence in action. The CIA wanted Quasim gone. He soon was gone. And shortly, Saddam became entrenched as the man behind the throne, and then was in power and we helped arm him against our then-common enemy Iran.
Likewise, we are, for all intents and purposes, encouraging a coup in Libya. To what end? Who comes out of this with power? Will things be better or worse for people? There are tribal loyalties in play. Whose side wins? Does anyone know?
Maybe since no one, at all, seems to have an idea, the law of unintended consequences has no role at all. Because nobody knows what’s intended to happen in the first place.
Gian
@John Cole:
as to Korea, Ike made it clear he’d be willing to go nuclear to end it. He campaigned in part on “I will go to Korea” which for the guy who ran the greatest invasion by sea since 1066…
An often forgotten part of his military plan for the US was essential reliance on Nukes to protect what we now call the “homeland” and cutting back on other military spending.
An often unknown fact about Teddy Roosevelt was that he resigned a job as asst secy of the navy to raise a volunteer army and go get shot at in cuba.
today’s GOP is full od chickenshits who aren’t worthy of the legacy of their past – and it started with Ronnie
Cat
@Suffern ACE:
I wasn’t asked what was a plausible foreign policy for Obama, I was asked what *I* wanted.
joe from Lowell
@Cat:
I don’t exactly have a “critical mass meter” or a number I can give you, but let’s say for the record that the situation before Ghadaffi brought in the mercs indicates that the rebels cleared the bar.
As for “share your values,” that depends on how bad the regime they’re toppling is (I’d take a stability-seeking monarchist comparable to Lee Kwan Yoo over an evil madman like Khaddaffi, for instance). Certainly, we shouldn’t get in bed with anyone who is flat-out opposed to our values (Stalin, religious fundies in Afghanistan) unless there is a severe threat to our well-being.
stuckinred
@cs: Oh, how can we be SURE that this is real.
joe from Lowell
@stuckinred:
I think they can hit an armored column.
Just Some Fuckhead
I hope if nothing else comes out of this mess, we can at least all eventually settle on a standardized spelling of Gaddafi’s name.
David Koch
@Cat: yes it is. it’s built into the resolution.
tanks and artie will be toast.
stuckinred
@Cat: Your pony is in the mail.
celticdragonchick
@cs:
They certainly seem happy. I would be too if I was a rebel and was just told my side gets the French Air Force, the RAF and whatever else goes along with them all for free.
David Koch
US out of UN — NOW!
Bolton was right. Time to defund the UN!
Alex S.
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Hehe….
although…. that guy isn’t worth the hassle anymore.
Mnemosyne
@Cat:
Wow, that’s spectacularly dumb. Yes, it’s true, when there’s an ongoing civil war in a country, and the leader of the rebels says something, you can generally assume he’s speaking for a majority of the rebels.
As other people have pointed out, Gaddafi has had to hire mercenaries to fight this battle because his own army refused to do it. And you’re still confused about how the majority in Libya might feel about it?
Massacres tend to be like that, yes. Given that Gaddafi’s army is made up of mercenary non-Libyans, the death toll when he wins is going to be very high, because they will have absolutely no qualms about killing people.
If people want to argue that going in is, on balance, a bad idea, make that argument. Don’t argue that not going in is somehow morally neutral because we just don’t know what the people fighting Gaddafi’s mercenaries want.
stuckinred
@David Koch: arty not artie
joe from Lowell
@Dennis SGMM:
Says you. Isn’t that so wonderfully convenient? Everything you want done, you can advocate making people do or pay to do, but everything you don’t want done, it’s immoral to support without doing it yourself.
So, since you want police services, I trust that you’re a cop? Hello?
I answered every question you asked, asshole.
I love this reasoning. We don’t need to actually think about whether helping the Libyan people overthrow their dictator will advance the cause of freedom. It’s all just, like, your opinion, man. In fact, the fact that I feel this action would advance the cause of freedom is a reason not to do it.
David Koch
BREAKING:
FDL has just announced a boycott of French Fries.
cat48
Egyptian soldiers are already on the ground; training Rebels and they’re supplying Rebels arms…
celticdragonchick
@Dennis SGMM:
Wanted to let you know I sent some stuff to you by email. Hope you enjoy it :)
Shadow's Mom
Libyan foreign minister speaking now on Al Jazeera English in response to UN resolution. Basically, no comment without full text. Preliminary comment. Grateful for the 5 who abstained (china, russia, india, brazil, germany).
Focusing on two elements
1)Protection of civilians (welcomed)
2)Integrity and unity of Libya (territorial sovereignity)
Challenge before int’l community make sure separatist and rebels will not get any support by arming them. Any country doing that is inviting libyans to kill each other.
Finally, will deal positively with resolution and will reaffirm intention through protection of civilians everywhere in the country and intention of libyan armed forces and security police to protect the civilians and ensure medical and food supplies. [Note: AJE has documented Gaddafi forces conducting air strikes on civilians] We will cooperate as we said before to secretary general of UN. We sent letter to SG of UN to give assurances we care about our people and territorial unity of country. Thank you. leaves/comes back
Regarding ceasefire, we told SG that we are ready immediately to do that, we need to talk to someone to agree on technicalities of the decision as there are a lot of technical details to that decision.
More: We are still insisting on need to have fact finding mission here as soon as possible. If int’l community cares about civilians, then they should get committee on ground as soon as possible.
Listened to Gaddafi threatening to search in every closet. Now Deputy Foreign Minister says will deal positively. AJE is saying DFM failed to mention war crimes /crimes against humanity (basis for resolution)
WSJ is reporting the Egypt has started sending arms across the border to the Libyan revolutionaries
cs
@celticdragonchick:
I think you’d be thrilled too if you were a resident of that city and you had thought your near future was going to be days and possibly weeks of urban warfare at the hands of an army which has shown very little mercy of late.
The video gave me goosebumps. I think we did the right thing. Your mileage may vary.
joe from Lowell
You’re advocating the real people on both sides, or no side at all, be killed, too, in this ongoing war.
You just want the ratios of which side gets killed to be a little different, and to keep your hands clean.
You aren’t making an aregument based on killing people. You’re arguing that we should do nothing to change what all the killing results in.
BR
@joe from Lowell:
I have a much simpler complaint. Our action will directly lead to harder economic times for regular folks here at home (via higher oil prices).
Jay B.
@Dave:
Sure, it helps them gain power. Do you think they’ll be looked upon as Western puppets at that point or as liberators? Jesus, we aided the Bosnian Muslims (eventually) and that gained us exactly zero credibility with the Islamic world at large, even if it was the right thing to do. How does the reliance on Western military forces (or even Arab League) help bolster the rebels’ legitimacy?
You also, amazingly, wrote:
Yes! I think when bombing the fuck out of a country (as you’re proposing — even their tanks and guns — instead of ensuring the Libyan Air Force doesn’t bomb from above) SHOULD require, at the very least, a detailed understanding of what we’re doing and why and to whom. Or in your terms, mapping out all potential scenarios. Jesus Christ, man.
stuckinred
@David Koch: The great middle east expert Siun seems to be sticking to “nothing but the facts” on the NFZ. If the resistance loses her, what’s next?
David Koch
@stuckinred: I was talking about Artie Khadaffy (the Colonel’s nephew). Btw, how is it Quaddafie never made general?
celticdragonchick
@cat48:
Not a surprise. We may see Egyptian armoured units actually advancing towards Tobruk and Benghazi now that they have UN sanction. The Rebels could use that.
joe from Lowell
@Cat:
Please, for God’s sake, google “Libya mercenaries.”
I’m begging you here.
Mnemosyne
@Cat:
That choice was taken from them a couple of weeks ago. Unless you have a time machine so you can go back and change those events, that horse left the barn long ago.
celticdragonchick
@cs:
I would tend to agree.
Suffern ACE
@David Koch: Well, we can agree on that. I believe that people should stop insisting that a “No Fly Zone” has been declared and that that will lead to greater involvement. Permission has been granted for that next step from the beginning.
Cat
@joe from Lowell:
Having a ‘if X happens it means they have a critical mass’ is fine, I wasn’t looking for a number or whatever, just what you think is a ‘critical mass’ as it were.
The mercenary thing is a good point, but I’m wary as using that because I’m not aware of any mass defections of the military to the Rebels. If the military was defecting in major numbers to the rebels I would expect them have the hardware to fight back, rather then having to have collections for weapons to help supply their troops.
You lose me in the second paragraph though. I’m not very thrilled with being part of oppressing people less in lieu of freedom.
Canadian Observer
Who has killed and tortured the most innocent people in the last decade:
A) Al Qaeda
B) Kim Jong Il
C) Mahmoud Ahmadenijad
D) Mummar Ghadaffi
E) Millitary actions by the American Empire.
Answer? E!
The biggest threat to world peace is the American Empire, not nationalist dictators.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@BR: It was going up regardless. Gadaffi’s hegemony in Libya’s broken, even if he did re-take Benghazi he was looking at a long-term insurrection and relying on paying off mercenaries with a dwindling checking account. Somalia on the Mediterranean would’ve become a matter of if and not when.
El Cid
@joe from Lowell: There’s always a need for whatever evidence you can gather. There is a problem in that governments pressing for war / military action will portray that opinion as favorable based on any evidence.
In addition, there’s the question of a generic intervention and what is actually done. If there is a really great and soundly based assessment (and not optimistic cheerleading) that whatever list of targets like airstrips and craft and so forth can be taken out with only typical amounts of collateral damage, then popular opposition calls for intervention may not change post-intervention.
But it’s already been made a foreign conflict in the civil war in a major sense: Qaddafi clearly brought in foreign (presumably hired) mercenaries to fight against his own population.
A civil war is a civil war, and it is that now, but a lot of Libyans are going to remember that.
Still, though, divisions of not just loyalties but regional “tribal” power centers seems like it will be a big factor whether or not Qaddafi were to fall. It’s pretty clear to everyone watching that it’s the eastern ‘third’ of Libya which is the base of opposition to Qaddafi, while areas of the West much less so — and the “tribal” (mainly ethnic or ethno-cultural) populations vary from those who are interested in a central government, those who are going to focus more on power for their areas, and even those who never have cared much about the borders drawn around Libya, even though a good deal of them were set more or less before the Europeans. The Tuareg have seen themselves as inhabiting a general area they travel through. It gets pretty messy at the Libyan / Chadian border.
And of course Qaddafi’s from the center region of tribal groups from whom he gets his surname.
Hell, it wasn’t even a clean division for the Ottomans, because various movements including the Muslim scholar/monarchy which, well, led to the king whom Qaddafi overthrew.
Or maybe that all means nothing, and there’s not the same sectarian divisions like Iraq, the Shi’a and Sunna ethnically cleansing their different areas of Baghdad, reinforced to this day. So maybe a reasonably unified state is possible.
I think it’s very that if Qaddafi falls / is removed, it will be a good deal messier than the more unified states of Tunisia and Egypt. Maybe precisely because of the changes wrought by having to fight an actual war.
David Koch
♫♪ All we are saying…. is give genocide a chance…. ♪♫
El Cid
@David Koch: Genocide?
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater: I matter waaaaaaayyyyy too much to you. I have a pattern?
Whatever, man. Let me know if you manage to gin up any sort of an argument.
I won’t be holding my breath.
cat48
@celticdragonchick:
I bet we see their pilots, per guy who called msnbc; stated not good for US to do anything but backup at this point due to our History of attacking Arabs. France, England, Egypt, & another Arab country to do NO FLY at this point.
Cat
@Mnemosyne:
Are you being obtuse or do you really not know how human warfare works???
stuckinred
@Canadian Observer: Aw motherfucker I thought we lost you.
The Dangerman
@Canadian Observer:
Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to ask that question over the time period since Obama was inaugurated? Yeah, Bush was a fuck-up; on behalf of all Americans….
Canadian Observer
How about a no fly zone and some air strikes in Baharain?
Oh, wait….that oppressive government is being propped up by a Satellite State of the American Empire (Saudi Arabia) so THAT’S ok!
Stillwater
@Canadian Observer: Oh man, that’s a real buzz killer. Specially since we were all hopped up to use American Power to good ends for a change! Flowers and all that.
Canadian Observer
Or how about a no fly zone over the West Bank and Gaza?
Israel is committing genocide there as we speak! Well given Obama’s treatment of Manning et al. I don’t think the US are in any position to lecture Libya about human rights, hmm?
Alex S.
@BR:
In the short term you are probably right, however, also in the short term, oil prices just sank because of the earthquake in Japan. In the long term, oil prices might decrease a little, simply because the West will now gain more access to Libyan oil.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Canadian Observer: And when Gaddafi rolled over Benghazi like the Warsaw ghetto, that’s all well and good as long as its not the EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL AMERICANS doing the killing, right?
stuckinred
@Canadian Observer: How bout a no-fly zone on your sorry ass?
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: But you didn’t refute my one specific claim: that you’re a fool. I think that stands!
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@Jay B.:
Or, in other other words, doing what we utterly failed to do when we invaded Iraq.
I’m always reminded of the book Gen. Zinni co-authored w/Tom Clancy that came out after the War started. The last chapter, in fact, is about his utter fury at the way the war was fought, including the tidbit that the Pentagon had drawn up a detailed, complex, and costly plan for securing the peace. It was, at least according to Zinni, a plan based not just ont he best intel we had (recall we had people embedded for some time after the first Gulf War), but also on civillian expert opinion on the issues that might arise in the country if the US invaded.
Rumsfield had the plan tossed out, and the one we all know and hate put in it’s place. It’s a clever and ugly example of how any military project, no matter how lightweight it appears to be on the surface, must be well-plotted and planned to within an inch of it’s life before troops are committed.
It’s also my sinking feeling that this isn’t one of those plans.
cat48
@Canadian Observer:
Obama, of course!
joe from Lowell
@Cat:
It’s not mission creep; it’s in the resolution.
Mnemosyne
@Cat:
You seem to have a strange illusion that Libya is not currently at war. Peaceful protest is not possible for Libyans at this point, unless you want to watch as Gaddafi’s mercenaries massacre thousands of people.
It sounds like you’re the one who’s a little confused about how human warfare works.
Nick
@Canadian Observer:
China
Canadian Observer
And why are we trusting the corporate western media and the lying US government in the way they portray Libya to us?
These are the same people who say Hugo Chavez is a brutal dictator, and who say Saddam had WMDs.
BR
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: @Alex S.:
It’s going to be some time before we gain access to Libyan oil. What’s more likely in the short term is Gaddafi damages his oil infrastructure in a move of desperation. And no, oil prices had stabilized as I mentioned above – what was going on in Libya had pushed prices up about $10 / barrel and they were steady until the situation in Japan drove prices down temporarily.
stuckinred
@Canadian Observer:Canada will contribute six CF-18 fighter jets to help enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, sources have told CTV News.
“The Canadian government has made the decision late today that Canada will send six CF-18 fighter jets to join the Americans, the British and the French and other countries that will participate in imposing a no-fly zone,” CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Thursday.
asshole
celticdragonchick
Wish everyone here a Happy St Pats. Check back with you all later :)
Canadian Observer
@Nick
China is not an expansionist power and hasn’t invaded a foreign country for centuries, unlike another country I could name.
Mnemosyne
@Canadian Observer:
You sound way too enthusiastic about watching the upcoming massacres. I don’t really like standing by watching genocide happen, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.
PurpleGirl
So, are we paying for this or what? Is the UN paying us? Is the Arab League paying us? Or are we going to borrow to pay for it?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Canadian Observer: When do you start your Holocaust denial act?
Canadian Observer
Did I say I support my nation’s status as an American Satellite?
Yes yes, I know we play Poland to your USSR.
joe from Lowell
@Canadian Observer:
Pray tell, is al Jazeera corporate western media, or is it the US government?
stuckinred
@Canadian Observer: Find some fucking Canadian blog to run your mouth on.
joe from Tibet
@Canadian Observer:
Your pretense of knowledge about politics is but a dream within a dream.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Canadian Observer: They see you trollin’, they hatin’.
Just Some Fuckhead
@stuckinred: Dude, can you go yell at the clouds or something?
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
It’s odd how on the one hand you’re arguing that the Libyan army has defected en masse and Qaddafi has no internal support, and on the other saying that the poor outmatched rebels are getting obliterated by same “fearsome and oh so competent” Libyan army.
It’s almost like you’re not arguing in good faith. But in this thread, who isn’t? It has been an eye-opener.
I’m still looking to see if we can find a single person willing to define what the actual mission in Libya is altogether. Is it regime change or population protection? What if Qaddafi retreats back west and doesn’t move on Benghazi? Or does the French and Jordanian air forces clear the road now to Tripoli?
stuckinred
@Just Some Fuckhead: who asked you?
Alex S.
@BR:
Exactly what I said…. Gadhafi will only destroy the oil infrastructure if he is about to lose… at which point the growing security will decrease prices. And he will not be able to destroy everything. The wells in the south-west, at the border to Niger, are in the control of Berber tribes. So far they have been loyal to Gadhafi, but not if he is going to destroy their source of income.
@stuckinred:
….must…resist….fly jokes…
joe from Lowell
@Canadian Observer:
Uh, Tibet? Hello?
Just Some Fuckhead
@stuckinred: Christ, you’re worse than Stuck, getting yerself all bent out of shape over what random pseudonymous commenters say on the intertoobz.
Joe Beese
In 2010, Obama killed 2,000 Muslims in Afghanistan alone.
He’s getting up into 9/11-size numbers there.
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw:
I’m on my knees. I’m begging you people: Google “Libya mercenaries.”
Seriously, I’m about to have a stroke here.
Canadian Observer
@joe from Lowell
Tibet has been part of China for centuries. It wasn’t controlled by the central government during the Warlord Period, but than neither was Manchuria or Inner Mongolia.
stuckinred
@Just Some Fuckhead: How do you know I’m bent out of shape? I’m watching the hoop and petting my dog. If it bothers you just scroll on.
eta
this is the “dude” you need to be barkin at
“I’m on my knees. I’m begging you people: Google “Libya mercenaries.”
Seriously, I’m about to have a stroke here.”
Canadian Observer
Oh and it’s worth noting that Nationalist China also claimed Tibet, but nobody raised a peep about it until a government that wasn’t an American puppet took control. Hmmm….
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@
CanadianBeijing Observer: So do you get paid to post by the yuan or is the government threatening to shoot your mother if you stop posting?Just Some Fuckhead
@stuckinred: Take yer own medicine, fool.
joe from Lowell
@Canadian Observer:
And Kuwait is really supposed to be a province of Iraq.
Whatever, man.
BR
@Alex S.:
The problem is that in the longer term, it’s not like we’re going to suddenly have lots of stability, working infrastructure, and go gangbusters pumping oil from Libya. Take a look at Iraq. It’s been almost a decade and it still has anemic oil output, despite the regular claims that it has the resources to pump 15 mbd and that any day now they’ll be pumping that much.
Joe Beese
@Bob Loblaw:
You go to war with the long-term plan you have – not the long-term plan you might want or wish to have a later time.
Canadian Observer
@joe from Lowell–
Why did Nationalist China, including the KMT Party in Taiwan, claim Tibet is part of China to this very day? Hmm?
It may have been taken immorally and brutally, but so was California and Texas, but nobody talks about “Free California!”
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Anyone want to take bets that our ‘Canadian’ friend has an IP address from downtown Shanghai? Either that or are Canadian Maoists not as rare a breed as we thought?
Canadian Observer
My IP address is from Ontario, ask a mod.
Funny you can’t address my arguments so you engage in childish ad hominems.
Nick
@Canadian Observer:
snd the Ireland was part of Britain for centuries, whats the point?
joe from Lowell
@Canadian Observer:
Because the Chinese ambition to control Tibet is a feature of Chinese, not Maoist, political culture.
OK, so much for “China is not an expansionist power and hasn’t invaded a foreign country for centuries…”
which was the claim you made.
stuckinred
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: Don’t mention him, it upsets people.
Canadian Observer
And it’s entirely true. Tibet is no more “foreign” to China than California or Hawaii is to the United States, and it’s been part of China for “centuries” as I said.
So, no, they’re not an expansionist power. The US is, and a dangerous one.
HyperIon
@joe from Lowell:
I did (About 2,250,000 results) and I don’t get your point. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate.
Also….if the rebels are being bombed and attacked by tanks, how do the mercenaries figure in this? The folks ID’ed as mercenaries that have appeared on TV seem to be pretty clueless, as in “we came for the money but are not trained fighters”.
Are there actual professionally-trained mercenaries that can drive tanks and fly planes?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Canadian Observer: You’re pro-Gadaffi and anti-Free Tibet. Why would I need to argue with someone obviously for oppression?
Alex S.
@BR:
Well, Iraq was (is) a fuck-up. The 7 years of continued inner turmoil didn’t help, of course, in addition to Rumsfeld’s strategy to do as little as possible.
Before the UN resolution, Obama actually made a tactical mistake when he said that “Gadhafi has to go”. It more or less assured that the US, the UK and France would not see any oil at all. Obama probably hoped that his endorsement would lead to the immediate collapse of the regime. Now, he more or less had to back it up… Anyway, it can probably be assumed that the new government, whatever it may be, will be thankful for the help and unless the US is involved too much, there should be some economic gain, since everything is better than zero. If, admittedly a big if, everything goes well, native Libyans will rebuild the infrastructure and troops of the Arab League keep the peace during the transition period.
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
And if you hadn’t used the exact words “Libyan state’s military” (in post #120) in reference to who is attacking who, I might be inclined to take you more seriously. You plainly have no idea what or who actually constitutes the pro-Qaddafi forces, let alone what it would take to get them to lay down their arms. What corps are still in league? What tribe are they from? Who trained them? How committed are they to the Qaddafi family?
Or are some of those Chadian mercs flying the warplanes too that the NFZ is being put in place against?
El Cid
@Alex S.: I don’t think Libya produced that much oil, though it was about 1/3rd of the oil supplied to Italy.
Particularly if a number of OPEC suppliers wished to make up the difference, it wouldn’t be difficult.
@Canadian Observer: Bahrain’s and Yemen’s murders of peaceful and innocent civilians — including that long-time favorite of shooting mourners — is no less brutal nor evil than in Libya, but doesn’t yet approach the scale of death.
That’s not for lack of trying: Bahraini forces opened fire and shot hundreds of protesters just yesterday. That’s clearly an attempt to slaughter civilians which also falls under RTP.
Shooting down civilians is shooting down civilians, whether Qaddafi or Saddam does it, or your kindly elder neighbor who has a bunch of armed cousins who feel like doing so. Using tanks and artillery heightens the effectiveness, but not the intent.
Bahrain and Yemen aren’t the caricatures of totalitarian leadership that Qaddafi or Mubarak were. Bahrain’s monarchy really has carried out extensive liberalizing reforms over the past decade. That’s comparatively: compared to the prior rulers, and compared to other nations of the region.
It is, however, still an authoritarian monarchy that will brook no challenge to its rule.
The compromise proposals offered to protesters actually were pretty good — that the National Assembly for once would have actual legislative authority. All things considered, though; there’s no reason the country’s people shouldn’t be demanding even more.
And there really is a loyalist population.
The particular opposition faced in Bahrain and Yemen haven’t turned into a war between the government and much of the population yet.
But who knows? It’s possible that in certain areas the Shi’a majority — which is 75% of the population, has no role in gov’t, and generally scares the shit out of the regime — will forcibly resist the Saudi troops arriving to back the Bahraini regime.
Canadian Observer
I’m not “pro-Gadaffi”, I’m anti-American Empire. The Empire is a far bigger threat to world civilisation and peace than Gadaffi or the Chinese.
Canadian Observer
Ex., the United States has 700+ military bases occupying foreign countries.
China has ZERO military bases in foreign countries.
Nick
@Canadian Observer:
No, they don’t need to.
El Cid
@HyperIon: I think the mercenaries’ role was most significant in the very beginning, presumably when Qaddafi thought that the rebels were capable of very little. I don’t know, haven’t heard, but I wasn’t thinking that they’d be playing much of a role now.
Nick
@Canadian Observer:
are you pro-Canadian empire?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Canadian Observer: You’re claiming innocence on Gadaffi’s part, and are vehemently against the UN intervention. An intervention that the French, British and Arab League are leading, by the by. That makes you pro-Gadaffi, no matter how many mental gymnastics you make about it.
But Its OK If You’re An Anti-American, right?
Canadian Observer
@Nick
Canada doesn’t have an Empire, it’s merely a satellite to yours. Just like Poland was to the USSR.
Merkin
@Canadian Observer:
Well it’s a good thing the Americans aren’t leading this no-fly zone.
Canadian Observer
@The Sheriff’s A Ni- –
So I’m “objectively pro-Saddam”, that’s what you’re saying?
El Cid
@joe from Lowell: It’s one thing to believe that Tibet should have the status of an independent nation. It never has been. Unfair or not, China did not as a nation-state expand by ‘taking’ the territory of Tibet. It’s Chinese territory as internationally recognized.
Nick
@Canadian Observer:
Well it looks like they’re trying to create one by sending planes to Libya, amirite?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Canadian Observer: I worded that horribly wrong, and promptly wound up with my edited comment in moderation. I don’t want to throw those who have legitimate arguments about intervention in the wrong pool.
But you’re the one who went above and beyond claiming he’s being framed by the American media, which apparently includes Al Jazeera. That does pretty much put you in Gadaffi’s corner.
But again: Its OK If You’re An Anti-American!
Doug in Canada
I think opponents of stopping Ghadafi (and that’s what opposition to using US forces in Libya is) are forgetting some history: the US went into Afghanistan to get the people behind 9/11. Then, at the behest of the worst president ever and his war crazed advisors, the focus, and the war, moved to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan, forgotten and ignored, went on being a corrupt, feudal gathering place for true terrorists. The first war: good. The second war: bad (and illegal and, while it got rid of Saddam, left us with a becoming corrupt government that is leaning toward Iran…good job!). Stopping Ghadafi will be a good war, sanctioned not only by the many Libyans who oppose him, but also the Arab League and the UN Security Council. And how is it in America’s interests? Does America want to stop being despised by millions of people in Muslim and Arab countries (there are more Muslims than Arabs, BTW)? To earn some respect from those who used to think that America stood for freedom and justice? I think those are good reasons.
HyperIon
@El Cid opined:
So any ideas why i need to goggle “libyan mercenaries”?
The Dangerman
@Doug in Canada:
America is and will be despised until the Palestinian problem is resolved. Nonetheless, perhaps incrementally less despised would be a fine thing.
Joe Beese
@Canadian Observer:
Yeah, but we’re doing it for FREEDOM.
I don’t know if you’re from Canada or China. But your failure to understand this obvious distinction proves that you’re not American.
Chuck Butcher
I guess one thing the rebels agree about for sure, is a real serious dislike of Qhaddafi. Since they’re willing to take real risks in opposition – I’d say they’re serious about that. The Question becomes where from there?
Revolutions are messy affairs and who rises to the top isn’t neccesarily reflective of common will or mean that there is a common will. Some of you are real aware of the diversity of views within the Democratic Party – this would be that on steroids even ignoring those who’ve benefitted from the current regime.
I’m real sure that things will be real messy in Libya and I’d laugh at anybody who proposes to predict who the winners will be or how they’ll act. That, of course, leaves you with the question of over all benefit of military action and its extent. It sure isn’t as though ordinance isn’t being expended right now.
From the end of the Battle of the Bulge through Gulf War and Iraq it has been shown that absent air cover a tank is just a big fat target and no place to be. It is also a pretty intrusive act to start in on them. I’m glad it isn’t my responsibility to make this call because I can see all kinds of ways this doesn’t stay particularly limitted.
Joe Beese
Some priceless hypocrisy on display from the Secretary of State…
But not the dictator whose foreign minister just announced that the regime would “cut off any finger” raised against it.
That dictator and we have an understanding.
Cat
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, because there are only 2 choices, protest or take up arms, when your country is in the midst of a civil war.
/rolls eyes.
priscianus jr
@Martin:
Cat
@Joe Beese:
Wow, seriously? This has been US foreign policy since as long as I can remember. You really do have ODS.
cs
Leaving Tibet aside for a moment, here’s a couple of examples of China’s peaceful policies in this past century.
Sino-Vietnamese War – China invades Vietnam, largely because they were pissed that Vietnam invaded Cambodia and forced the Khmer Rouge out of power.
Sino-Indian War – China invades India over a border dispute.
There’s also their border war with the USSR, which China started with an ambush, and the invasion of Korea during the Korean War. Saying China has been non-aggressive for centuries isn’t remotely true.
virag
@celticdragonchick:
the nots would be fine. but it would be a first.
srv
I predict Libya will turn out slightly better than Iraq. Maybe only 100K dead in two years.
Nick
@virag:
Panama, Kosovo
Person of Choler
Noooo blooood for oooyyul!
virag
@Nick:
now THAT’S funny. you should take your act to the carson show.
srv
@cs:
That’s an interesting way to look at it.
Mnemosyne
@Cat:
Uh, what other options are you picturing people have during a civil war other than fighting or getting the fuck out? It’s not like you can yell out the window and tell Gaddafi’s mercenaries to keep it down because you have to work in the morning.
Andrew
It’s call the United Nation, you dope.
And it worked in Bosnia and Kuwait, so don’t be a knee jerk pansy ass jerkoff.
Maybe we could send Mohomar some flowers, and say pretty please?
Joe Beese
@srv:
No, dude, I swear… it’s gonna be totally different this time.
This time we know what we’re doing.
cs
@srv:
Based on their treaty with the North Koreans, this was perhaps a justified invasion, though the residents of Seoul weren’t too thrilled at their arrival.
But, justified or not, it was still an intervention into tha affairs of another country and therefore should be mentioned in the context of their other military moves in the 20th century.
joe from Lowell
@HyperIon:
OK. So much of the Libyan military has defected that the government had to bring in mercenaries to fight for them.
As infantry/security goons.
Mnemosyne
@Canadian Observer:
Somebody should probably tell Germany, Italy, Japan, Brazil and Spain that they’ve been conquered by the US and are not actually independent countries. They don’t seem to have noticed it yet since they keep on governing their own countries and holding elections and stuff.
joe from Lowell
@Bob Loblaw:
No, you wouldn’t, and I’m not interested in playing the little semantic games you’ve decided to hide behind.
Suffern ACE
@Mnemosyne: There’s that option of being rounded up for your own protection. Or shot for helping the other side.
Mr Stagger Lee
How many f.u.’s (Friedman Units) will it take for the US to do the job, declare mission accomplished then go home?
joe from Lowell
@Canadian Observer:
Hence, Canada’s full-throated support, backed up by troops, for the Iraq invasion.
Oh, wait…
@HyperIon:
Because you seem baffled at how an unpopular government that has seen a large part of its military defect to the rebels could continue to wage war.
srv
@cs:
Me thinks they had as much an invitation to the party as MacArthur did.
And since MacArthur was clearly on record wanting to go farther than the Yalu River, it was as clear a Preventive War as any (pre-Bush definition, not the modern re-imagination).
joe from Lowell
Mac had a UN resolution.
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
You’re right, asking you to actually put yourself on record and define the identities and positions of the forces involved in this civil war is just a silly semantic game I’m playing. Say something else about nebulous mercenaries. It’s been a real stitch so far.
Your understanding of the situation extends about as far as “Qaddafi is bad! Let’s get rid of him!” Just cop to it and stop trying to domineer everybody. You look like a fool.
cs
@srv:
You’re quite correct. The Chinese had their own defensive reasons as well as offensive ones. If I had been Mao, the thought of MacArthur on the border would have made me angry and nervous as well.
But they didn’t stop at the 38th parallel. At that point, the justified counter attack becomes more of a pure invasion into a place that didn’t want them around. Probably the same could be said for MacArthur’s push northwards to the Yalu.
Captain C
@Joshua Norton: I would also disqualify Eisenhower on the grounds of Operation Ajax in Iraq and the Guatemala Coup the following year. I think he sent some advisors to Vietnam, also.
Gus
@Dennis SGMM:
Exactly. Form yourself an Abraham Lincoln brigade and go nuts.
Prasad
Whatever decision has taken by the U.N. is absolutely correct
crin
Libya is string of city islands with nothing in between. The terrain is ideal for a no-fly zone and interdiction of the coastal highway and would easily stop Qaddafi from using air strikes and artillery against rebels and civilians. Then its a fair fight between the rebels and Qaddafi.
Just War theory and such, see India’s intervention into the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971.
A Conservative Teacher
It does not surprise me that many of you like and support Colonel Qaddafi and want to see him win.
It does surprise me that you pretend to want the bad guy to win because it costs too much money or you say you care about people or something.
It does not surprise me that many of you support a tyrannical dictator who abuses people’s life, liberty, and property.
It does surprise me that you don’t realize that you are wrong for doing so.
Social Outcast
It does not surprise me that many of you support a tyrannical dictator who abuses people’s life, liberty, and property.
Dubya, is that you? This line takes me back to the internet of 2003. Good times…good times….
Berial
@A Conservative Teacher: Pathetic troll is pathetic, but now enjoys pie.
virag
@Nick:
thousands of innocent dead might take issue with that.
virag
@Nick:
thousands of innocent dead might take issue with that.
joe from Lowell
– John Cole, yesterday.
So much for Mr. Thickskin.
Mike in LA
Hey, Uloborus, where are you now? You assured us that the US would not be enforcing the no-fly zone. Wrong much? Note to all the warmongers on here: funny how right now I hear from right wingers “we’re broke!” yet we always have money to bomb brown people on the other side of the world.