OT: looks like we fired on Libya.....

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on March 19, 2011 - 1:43pm

So much for not get involved....Well, at least we're not sending ground troops...And i guess it's a coalition force....
And the french fired first :)

Submitted by ocrenter on March 19, 2011 - 1:51pm.

the French heard on a certain U.S. based housing blog a guy from Fallbrook was calling them pussies and they felt they had to prove something.

Submitted by Arraya on March 19, 2011 - 1:52pm.

It will be a quick mission. Knock out the air force and let them have their civil war. We are just leveling the playing field on this one, IMO

Submitted by UCGal on March 19, 2011 - 1:52pm.

I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur... We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news "analysists" and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.

Submitted by DataAgent on March 19, 2011 - 2:22pm.

Arraya wrote:
It will be a quick mission. Knock out the air force and let them have their civil war. We are just leveling the playing field on this one, IMO

I sure hope you're right. But today's TV programming is eerily similar to the start of the Iraq War. Even the date is the same: March 19th.

Submitted by Arraya on March 19, 2011 - 2:35pm.

The Ides of March

Submitted by svelte on March 19, 2011 - 2:40pm.

news is saying 112 UK and US cruise missile were fired. Probably Tomahawks and Storm Shadows.

Submitted by all on March 19, 2011 - 5:09pm.

I'm not getting any of it.
Can someone help me understand who authorized the expenses related to attacking another country. And what's the point of it? To 'level the playing field'? What for? When does it get 'leveled'? Is the field 'leveled' when our side is winning? What is our side and why? Will rebel aircrafts be taken down as well?

I listend to Wesley Clark yesterday on NPR and he made a reference to Iran when he was asked about the difference between Libya and Jemen, without elaborating. But what's the connection between Libya and Iran?

Submitted by Jazzman on March 19, 2011 - 5:14pm.

Arraya wrote:
It will be a quick mission. Knock out the air force and let them have their civil war. We are just leveling the playing field on this one, IMO

So they knock out the air defenses. What then? Suppose Gaddafi still prevails? Do you maintain a no fly zone indefinitely? Not so sure this is a wham bang, thank you, mam.

Submitted by temeculaguy on March 19, 2011 - 6:43pm.

The Ides of March was on the 15th, and one of the few superstitions my rational brain still cannot fully ignore.

I thought we were supposed to start getting out of wars, not getting into new ones.

I'm having trouble understanding why it's our responsibility to help fight dictators in far away places. We seem to be able to get by with minimal conflict when it comes to Castro and Chavez. Don't say oil, Chavez has lots of oil, we never have wars with Venezuela, and that guy is totally nuts. Castro is not exactly benevolent. Is it that the catholic dictators aren't as big on human atrocities or terrorism? I say, who cares as long as it stays over there, I can't think of a time in history where the middle east was peaceful, nor do envision a future where it will be. So why can't we just watch it on TV, I'll gladly root for the french, I'm glad they found their testicles, they have my permission to take a turn dealing with it. Meanwhile, we've only been using oil for less than a century, let's figure that thing out and it will be whole lot easier ignoring these places.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on March 19, 2011 - 7:42pm.

temeculaguy wrote:
The Ides of March was on the 15th, and one of the few superstitions my rational brain still cannot fully ignore.

I thought we were supposed to start getting out of wars, not getting into new ones.

I'm having trouble understanding why it's our responsibility to help fight dictators in far away places. We seem to be able to get by with minimal conflict when it comes to Castro and Chavez. Don't say oil, Chavez has lots of oil, we never have wars with Venezuela, and that guy is totally nuts. Castro is not exactly benevolent. Is it that the catholic dictators aren't as big on human atrocities or terrorism? I say, who cares as long as it stays over there, I can't think of a time in history where the middle east was peaceful, nor do envision a future where it will be. So why can't we just watch it on TV, I'll gladly root for the french, I'm glad they found their testicles, they have my permission to take a turn dealing with it. Meanwhile, we've only been using oil for less than a century, let's figure that thing out and it will be whole lot easier ignoring these places.

TG: Not to be nit-picky or anything, but, uh, Chavez and Castro are both communists. Not Catholic. There might be some similarities between the two that I don't know about, but I thought I'd point that out.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on March 19, 2011 - 7:45pm.

ocrenter wrote:
the French heard on a certain U.S. based housing blog a guy from Fallbrook was calling them pussies and they felt they had to prove something.

Sacre bleu! I had a nice Brie en croute and some Burgundy to celebrate. I'm also not going to bathe for a week, smoke some Gauloises and watch several Jean Paul Belmondo films.

I might also buy a poster of Gerard Depardieu.

Submitted by surveyor on March 20, 2011 - 6:02am.

temeculaguy wrote:
I say, who cares as long as it stays over there, I can't think of a time in history where the middle east was peaceful, nor do envision a future where it will be.

Go read how WWI and WWII started. Stuff like that never just "stays" there.

Submitted by ocrenter on March 20, 2011 - 6:49am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Sacre bleu! I had a nice Brie en croute and some Burgundy to celebrate. I'm also not going to bathe for a week, smoke some Gauloises and watch several Jean Paul Belmondo films.

I might also buy a poster of Gerard Depardieu.

HAHA... while you are at it, did you tell your wife to stop shaving her armpits and legs as well?

Submitted by Arraya on March 20, 2011 - 7:02am.

Jazzman wrote:
Arraya wrote:
It will be a quick mission. Knock out the air force and let them have their civil war. We are just leveling the playing field on this one, IMO

So they knock out the air defenses. What then? Suppose Gaddafi still prevails? Do you maintain a no fly zone indefinitely? Not so sure this is a wham bang, thank you, mam.

Yeah, you're probably correct, unfortunately.

Submitted by blahblahblah on March 20, 2011 - 8:21am.

Smart weapons don't last forever. The batteries, hydraulics, etc... all have a shelf life. If you don't kill somebody with them, you gotta pull 'em out of service, fix 'em up, and put 'em back in stock. That costs money. It's a lot more fun just to drop them on people.

We can't go 10 years without shooting off a whole bunch of tomahawks at somebody. I'm guessing that's getting near the "service time" shelf life. Once they knock out the air defenses (again, using smart weapons) they will need to go drop a bunch of smart bombs.

Afterward they award the replenishment contracts which of course are worth a lot more than if they had just rotated and serviced them.

War is good business.

Submitted by zk on March 20, 2011 - 9:14am.

surveyor wrote:
temeculaguy wrote:
I say, who cares as long as it stays over there, I can't think of a time in history where the middle east was peaceful, nor do envision a future where it will be.

Go read how WWI and WWII started. Stuff like that never just "stays" there.

You can't compare this situation to the run-up to the world wars. Back then, there were lots of countries with powerful militaries. Now there's the US, then a big drop off to some second-tier countries, most of whom would be on our side in any ensuing conflict. Then some other countries we could easily crush. No one's going to fuck with us except through terrorism.

Surveyor, I'd be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn't stay there.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on March 20, 2011 - 9:40am.

ocrenter wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Sacre bleu! I had a nice Brie en croute and some Burgundy to celebrate. I'm also not going to bathe for a week, smoke some Gauloises and watch several Jean Paul Belmondo films.

I might also buy a poster of Gerard Depardieu.

HAHA... while you are at it, did you tell your wife to stop shaving her armpits and legs as well?

OCR: Ah, jeez, you just had to throw that out there, didn't you? No, there are limits to my support of France. Going "Full Euro" isn't one of them.

I might be willing to break out an old Falco CD, play it overloud, drink Pernod and dance poorly, though.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on March 20, 2011 - 11:42am.

Like I said on my Face Book Page...

The world is at an end...

Bill O' Rielly chastises Ann Coulter and the French are the First to Attack something...

End times my friends!

:P

CE

Submitted by surveyor on March 20, 2011 - 2:26pm.

zk wrote:
Surveyor, I'd be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn't stay there.

It's already happening. Libya, Egypt, Bahrain will be taken over by Islamists. Islamists are already cultivating jihadis to strike at America and her interests. Pakistan is a whit away from being taken over by Islamists and the Iranians practically have the bomb. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are desperate to get nuclear in order to counteract Iran. All of these places broadcast "hate America" and "America die die die" 24/7.

I agree, it will not be a major military confrontation like WWI or WWII. It will be more like what Israel goes through, with multiple jihadi attacks. You will probably see a lot of American citizens targeted or being killed abroad. Or it will be through major disruptions to our economy. Also consider this: our world is even more connected together and more interdependent today than it was in WWI and WWII.

Like I said, it's already happened. 9/11 brought that chaos from over there to us here and it has continued. In all scenarios, I don't see it NOT coming here somehow.

Submitted by zk on March 20, 2011 - 3:06pm.

surveyor wrote:
zk wrote:
Surveyor, I'd be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn't stay there.

It's already happening. Libya, Egypt, Bahrain will be taken over by Islamists. Islamists are already cultivating jihadis to strike at America and her interests. Pakistan is a whit away from being taken over by Islamists and the Iranians practically have the bomb. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are desperate to get nuclear in order to counteract Iran. All of these places broadcast "hate America" and "America die die die" 24/7.

I agree, it will not be a major military confrontation like WWI or WWII. It will be more like what Israel goes through, with multiple jihadi attacks. You will probably see a lot of American citizens targeted or being killed abroad. Or it will be through major disruptions to our economy. Also consider this: our world is even more connected together and more interdependent today than it was in WWI and WWII.

Like I said, it's already happened. 9/11 brought that chaos from over there to us here and it has continued. In all scenarios, I don't see it NOT coming here somehow.

I may have misinterpreted your comment about reading up on WWs I and II. You meant the Libyan conflict would be followed by world-wide conflict, not world-wide, country-on-country military conflict. There's obviously a difference, and I thought you meant the latter when I can see now you meant the former.

That said:

World-wide conflict using terrorism is, as you said, already happening. And it's quite possible it'll get worse, depending on what happens in the middle east. You say Libya will be taken over by islamists. I agree that that's quite possible and even likely. So why would we help them take it over, then? As I said on another thread, if gadhafi goes down, what follows is just as likely to be worse as it is to be better.

So, sure, we can get rid of gadhafi. But then what? We put a puppet in there? We fight the islamists? We try to put a democracy in there? We've seen how difficult and expensive installation of democracy is to attempt and that it may be impossible to accomplish at this point.

I think we can all agree that less terrorism is good. The question is, how do we get there? There seems to be this automatic assumption that getting rid of dictators is good for the U.S. (Unless, of course, that dictator is a U.S. puppet. If the pre-1979 Iranian dictator was a Russian puppet instead of a U.S. one and the hostages were Russians instead of Americans, we'd have been on the side of the rebels. But there would still be a theocracy in there). But is it necessarily good for us if a dictator falls? Sure, we'd like democracy all over the world. But will gadhafi or any other dictator falling necessarily bring us any closer to democracy? Is a country in chaos or a country ruled by a theocracy any closer to a democracy than one ruled by a dictator? And even the stated goal of more democracies assumes that what we really want is democracy and not a stable supply of oil. If Myanmar was having a rebellion, would we really care that much?

We obviously don't care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It's strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What's our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?

These are not rhetorical questions. I hope that there are answers to them that make sense. I'd like to think that we're doing this for a reason.

So, surveyor, you implied that you support military intervention in Libya. Why?

Submitted by svelte on March 20, 2011 - 3:07pm.

I think the real story here is how much the world has come together to take military action as a group. We've seen it over and over in recent years.

When I was single-digits old, I went to the theater to see this low-budget film about the world at some point in the future. Buildings where all reclaimed by nature and there was one government controlling the entire world. Nobody worked, but it wasn't presented as much of a utopia either.

The movie was cheesy and not worth noting much, except I have toyed with the notion of the world heading towards one government since then.

I think it is really true. Step by step, inch by inch it appears to be happening and much quicker than I expected. Think of the Euro Zone, for example.

I doubt countries will cease to exist, but I envision the day when there is one super-gov planet-wide above the country level...at the planet level.

I still don't expect it to fully happen for perhaps a hundred or multiple hundreds of years, but as I said steps in that direction have been much quicker than I anticipated so who knows.

Submitted by ninaprincess on March 21, 2011 - 8:20am.

Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US's message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don't piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

Submitted by UCGal on March 21, 2011 - 8:36am.

ninaprincess wrote:
Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US's message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don't piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we're seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011...

I don't think we're sending a message to the Saudi's... or else we'd make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

Submitted by Jazzman on March 21, 2011 - 8:37am.

zk][quote=surveyor wrote:
zk wrote:
Surveyor, I'd be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn't stay there.

We obviously don't care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It's strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What's our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven't been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it's meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

Submitted by Jazzman on March 21, 2011 - 8:52am.

UCGal wrote:
I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur... We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news "analysists" and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.

Funny, I thought the French got that one right. Iraq was a success?

Submitted by Arraya on March 21, 2011 - 10:04am.

UCGal wrote:
ninaprincess wrote:
Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US's message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don't piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we're seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011...

I don't think we're sending a message to the Saudi's... or else we'd make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

Sec. Gates and Mullen where there just before the crack down. It looks like it was approved. There is a stark contrast between American values and interests. Interests always take priority.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 19, 2011 - 7:30pm.

It looks like the policy of strategic patience is working in Lybia. Time will tell.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/16/cli...

Submitted by ocrenter on August 20, 2011 - 12:29am.

briansd1 wrote:
It looks like the policy of strategic patience is working in Lybia. Time will tell.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/16/clinton-libya-syria-show-smart-power-at-work/

here's the latest Libyan map of rebel vs Gaddafi holdings:

http://www.educatedearth.net/media/65/li...

note Zlitan (east of Tripoli) and Zawiyah (west of Tripoli) and Gharyan (south of Tripoli) are all in rebel hands. Things are not going well for Gaddafi Duck.

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2011 - 1:39pm.

NATO got it right in Libya.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...

Submitted by paramount on October 29, 2011 - 1:36am.

I wonder how many innocent civilians were killed by NATO bombs?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.