U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[Soxbadger]

Because there is no such thing as "victory", if you want clear cut answers politics isnt going to be for you.

 

The idea that war has a victory condition is some what antiquated in a post WWII society. When you are talking about military objectives that do not include capturing territory for your own nation, you are always going to be left with very uncertain goals.

 

Some of the other questions are also hilariously bad:

 

"didn’t answer every question"

 

Unless he was on tv for the next 2,000 years he wasnt going to be able to answer every question. Historians still havent answered every question about the cause of the Civil War and lets not even get into the Vietnam war. We will be lucky if one day people could answer half the questions, let alone all of them.

 

I guess maybe they just want some hollow victory parameters established so that we can pretend that we won the war, regardless of what happens and how long we have to stay in a variety of differently named roles after the declaration of victory is made.

 

I have a hard time taking most of these politicians seriously because their so biased I cant trust them. And that goes for both Democrats and Republicans.

[Balta1701]

Trouble is...you've actually outlined your parameters for victory...Quadaffi gone, some sort of burgeoning democracy in this country. You've done that in this thread.

 

But the problem is, once you've defined that as victory, you need a mechanism to get there, and right now, it's a stalemate. The reason to ask that question is...however you define victory, you need to be able to achieve it.

 

If "Stalemate but no more massacres" is the endgame, hell, that on its own is going to be hard to achieve, because you can't target every soldier with a machine gun from the air.

 

If Quadaffi gone is the parameters for victory, then how do we get there from airstrikes targeting military facilities alone?

[Soxbadger]

Ive outlined what I hope to occur, but I do not believe I have ever used the term "victory", which suggests that there is some absolute condition that we must achieve. The situation is fluid, what may be a victory one day, could be a defeat another.

 

Part of the reason I would never commit to what victory is that this is not my battle. This is the battle of the people of Libya, while I may want a secular capitalist democracy, they could decide on a religious socialist democracy.

 

I dont really believe that I have the right to say which is the right answer nor to force my own political views on people.

 

In my opinion the use of force to stop the advance on Benghazi was the condition. The UN stopped the advance. After the UN stopped the advance, anything else we can do to help the people of Libya is icing on the cake.

 

That is why victory conditions are so silly, had Obama been more of a weasel he just would have said that victory was achieved, but now we are just enforcing the conditions of our victory.

 

Its all hollow, we may as well get back to real discussion about how to end the fighting in Libya, instead of arguing about changing a history that has already happened.

 

If I actually believed that any of those politicians cared, instead of just political posturing, maybe it would mean more, but at this point most politicians are too biased in their opinions.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Ive outlined what I hope to occur, but I do not believe I have ever used the term "victory", which suggests that there is some absolute condition that we must achieve. The situation is fluid, what may be a victory one day, could be a defeat another.

 

Part of the reason I would never commit to what victory is that this is not my battle. This is the battle of the people of Libya, while I may want a secular capitalist democracy, they could decide on a religious socialist democracy.

 

I dont really believe that I have the right to say which is the right answer nor to force my own political views on people.

 

In my opinion the use of force to stop the advance on Benghazi was the condition. The UN stopped the advance. After the UN stopped the advance, anything else we can do to help the people of Libya is icing on the cake.

 

That is why victory conditions are so silly, had Obama been more of a weasel he just would have said that victory was achieved, but now we are just enforcing the conditions of our victory.

 

Its all hollow, we may as well get back to real discussion about how to end the fighting in Libya, instead of arguing about changing a history that has already happened.

 

If I actually believed that any of those politicians cared, instead of just political posturing, maybe it would mean more, but at this point most politicians are too biased in their opinions.

 

How do you not see that it's a problem engaging the US in third war without knowing what the f*** the end game is? There's never been a war that we've waged where we're like "well, lets just start fighting and we'll figure out in 5 years why we decided to do this in the first place" Goals might change, plans might be amended (and should be), but to say that it's a fluid situation is just more proof that we should never have gotten involved.

 

I'm guessing you were one of the people who had a problem (for good reason) with the way BushCo rushed into Iraq without a proper plan. Well, we found out the hard way that going in guns blazing without a well thought out plan, with exit strategies and contingencies, is a stupid idea. Yeah, we're not to that point YET in Libya (and maybe never to that degree), but Balta brings up a good point. What if Ghadafi, who is insanely rich btw, is able to fend off the rebels for 6 months, despite a no fly zone? What if the rebellion stops or becomes too weak? Is NATO (the US) going to send ground troops in? Target him with a missile? Just pull out and have the whole thing be a complete waste of time/energy/money/life?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Because there is no such thing as "victory", if you want clear cut answers politics isnt going to be for you.

 

The idea that war has a victory condition is some what antiquated in a post WWII society. When you are talking about military objectives that do not include capturing territory for your own nation, you are always going to be left with very uncertain goals.

 

Some of the other questions are also hilariously bad:

 

"didn’t answer every question"

 

Unless he was on tv for the next 2,000 years he wasnt going to be able to answer every question. Historians still havent answered every question about the cause of the Civil War and lets not even get into the Vietnam war. We will be lucky if one day people could answer half the questions, let alone all of them.

 

I guess maybe they just want some hollow victory parameters established so that we can pretend that we won the war, regardless of what happens and how long we have to stay in a variety of differently named roles after the declaration of victory is made.

 

I have a hard time taking most of these politicians seriously because their so biased I cant trust them. And that goes for both Democrats and Republicans.

 

this is not true.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Ha, here's a good piece basically proving my point that no one actually knows what the plan is here:

 

A conference of 40 governments and international bodies agreed on Tuesday to press on with a NATO-led aerial bombardment of Libyan forces until Gaddafi complied with a U.N. resolution to end violence against civilians.

 

The Pentagon said on Tuesday 115 strike sorties had been flown against Gaddafi's forces in the previous 24 hours, and 22 Tomahawk cruise missiles had been fired. Britain said two of its Tornado jets had attacked a government armored vehicle and two artillery pieces outside the besieged western city of Misrata.

 

Libya's official Jana news agency said air strikes by forces of "the crusader colonial aggression" hit residential areas in the town of Garyan, about 100 km (60 miles) south of Tripoli, on Tuesday. It said several civilian buildings were destroyed and some people wounded.

 

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 sanctions air power to protect Libyan civilians, not to provide close air support to rebel forces. That would also require troops on the ground to guide in the bombs. Without forward air controllers, intervening from the air in such a fluid battle space is fraught with risks.

 

Air strikes then may not be enough to stop the Libyan desert civil war turning into a stalemate.

 

The United States, France and Britain have raised the possibility of arming the rebels, though they all stressed no decision had yet been taken. "I'm not ruling it in, I'm not ruling it out," U.S. President Barack Obama told NBC.

 

In essence, we're playing the role of referee to make sure this civil war doesn't get TOO out of hand. Good use of money...

[Balta1701]

In essence, we're playing the role of referee to make sure this civil war doesn't get TOO out of hand. Good use of money...

And to make sure that the side we want to lose doesn't win. (Btw, I beat you to the "Were considering arming the rebels" bit by 24 hours).

[Soxbadger]

How do you not see that it's a problem engaging the US in third war without knowing what the f*** the end game is? There's never been a war that we've waged where we're like "well, lets just start fighting and we'll figure out in 5 years why we decided to do this in the first place" Goals might change, plans might be amended (and should be), but to say that it's a fluid situation is just more proof that we should never have gotten involved.

 

Well that statement doesnt even make sense.

 

I never said anything about a war being waged and us not knowing why we decided to do it. That is completely different than having fake victory conditions.

 

The reason we got involved was to stop Gaddafi from advancing on Benghazi.

 

We have done that.

 

As for the end game, I wish that I could see into the future and give you precise details on what will happen when. But until I can get my Oracle of Delphi working again, Ill have to live with my own limitations and state that I dont believe you can ever have an absolute end game. You can have scenarios, you can have options, but to limit your plan to a single end game, with no contingencies, would be foolish in my opinion.

 

We know the basic endgame, stop the slaughter of civilians. The question is under what conditions will that happen. The answer unfortunately is impossible because even if the Revolutionaries are successful in deposing Gaddafi, that does not mean the Revolutionaries wont kill civilians. You have to keep all options open, you have to consistently prepare for the worst, while at the same time hoping for the best.

 

Just because the Revolutionaries appear to be some one that we should work with, does not mean that I am going to blindly believe that nothing can go wrong by supporting them. The US and other countries have been burned far to many times backing Revolutionaries to believe that it has to end well.

 

 

I'm guessing you were one of the people who had a problem (for good reason) with the way BushCo rushed into Iraq without a proper plan.

 

I was against Iraq because I thought that unilaterally deposing a dictator without popular support from the people in the country would result in a fractured country that the US would have to try and hold together.

 

It had nothing to do with the planning, it had everything to do with the blind belief that if you give people freedom it always will end well. There was absolutely no reason to believe that the toppling of Saddam would result in a smooth transition, quite the contrary it appeared that a serious power vacuum would ensue and that the US would be forced to stay in Iraq until the country could figure out its own inner problems.

 

Compared to Libya this is entirely different. Libya already has a quasi-established revolutionary govt. I am hopeful that this govt will be able to bridge the gap from the fall of Gaddafi to the eventual new Libyan govt.

 

But my main problem with Iraq was that the US did not seem to have a fundamental grasp on the landscape of Iraq or how well our "freedom" would work. I have consistently been against outside govt trying to unilaterally remove dictators unless there is significant popular support at the time of the action (see Libya).

 

What if Ghadafi, who is insanely rich btw, is able to fend off the rebels for 6 months, despite a no fly zone? What if the rebellion stops or becomes too weak? Is NATO (the US) going to send ground troops in? Target him with a missile? Just pull out and have the whole thing be a complete waste of time/energy/money/life?

 

They are valid questions, but they dont really apply to the situation at hand. Because this is not US unilateral action, this is UN action. if you are arguing that the US should have vetoed the UN action, that is one thing. But if we were not going to veto it, we are a part of the UN, so if the UN asks for our assistance, we should give it.

 

Basically the US was put in the worst possible position, the UN security council was brought a resolution, we had 3 options:

 

A) Support

 

B ) Veto

 

C) Abstain

 

We choose option A, and I think we did it for a good reason. The UN was brought compelling action that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent (days), the UN had to act swiftly (in its opinion) to prevent the crisis.

 

If Libya was Iraq, a situation that was in stasis, I could see why people would question our actions. But this was a situation where death was imminent (allegedly) if the UN didnt act then, it may have been to late. In fact some people are arguing the US should have gotten involved weeks earlier.

 

The good news is that unlike Iraq, this is UN action. If the worst occurs, it is the UN's fault, it will be up to the UN to clean up the mess. That is quite different than Iraq.

 

As for the victory part, its absolutely true. Look at Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, they all had uncertain political objectives that mainly led to either stalemates or wars that could not be won.

 

The idea that a goal was to "Stop the spread of Communism" is as foolish as a goal being to "Stop the spread of Terrorism".

 

Wars after World War II have been mired in uncertainty.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

name='Soxbadger' date='Mar 30, 2011 -> 03:33 PM' post='2343353']

 

The reason we got involved was to stop Gaddafi from advancing on Benghazi.

 

We have done that.

 

Fine, then we're done. Victory was achieved. Let's get ourselves removed from the situation. Why is there talk of potential this and potential that?

 

I was against Iraq because I thought that unilaterally deposing a dictator without popular support from the people in the country would result in a fractured country that the US would have to try and hold together.

 

Pretty sure the vast majority of Iraq was in full support of getting rid of Saddam.

 

It had nothing to do with the planning, it had everything to do with the blind belief that if you give people freedom it always will end well. There was absolutely no reason to believe that the toppling of Saddam would result in a smooth transition, quite the contrary it appeared that a serious power vacuum would ensue and that the US would be forced to stay in Iraq until the country could figure out its own inner problems.

 

Compared to Libya this is entirely different. Libya already has a quasi-established revolutionary govt. I am hopeful that this govt will be able to bridge the gap from the fall of Gaddafi to the eventual new Libyan govt.

 

But my main problem with Iraq was that the US did not seem to have a fundamental grasp on the landscape of Iraq or how well our "freedom" would work. I have consistently been against outside govt trying to unilaterally remove dictators unless there is significant popular support at the time of the action (see Libya).

 

I don't think you have any basis to say this. It's no different than thinking that if we get rid of a murdering, torturing dictator that people would be happy enough to work together. Ghadafi might be gone, and this revolutionary government might take over in a more efficient way, but we have no idea what would result after their civil war ends.

 

They are valid questions, but they dont really apply to the situation at hand. Because this is not US unilateral action, this is UN action. if you are arguing that the US should have vetoed the UN action, that is one thing. But if we were not going to veto it, we are a part of the UN, so if the UN asks for our assistance, we should give it.

 

Then they should have veto'd it or at the very least let someone else spend the money and military resources to enforce the resolution. Why does the US have to take charge in all of these things if it's a UN-led effort?

 

We choose option A, and I think we did it for a good reason. The UN was brought compelling action that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent (days), the UN had to act swiftly (in its opinion) to prevent the crisis. If Libya was Iraq, a situation that was in stasis, I could see why people would question our actions. But this was a situation where death was imminent (allegedly) if the UN didnt act then, it may have been to late. In fact some people are arguing the US should have gotten involved weeks earlier.

 

As discussed previously, this would get us into countless battles all over the world, but we don't do it.

 

The good news is that unlike Iraq, this is UN action. If the worst occurs, it is the UN's fault, it will be up to the UN to clean up the mess. That is quite different than Iraq.

 

Oh please, until the UN decides it's done wasting the time and resources to continue refereeing the stalemate, other countries lose interest and refuse to vote for any further action and then we're back to were we started, only billions of dollars poorer for it (or worse, we pick up and do all the work ourselves)

 

As for the victory part, its absolutely true. Look at Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, they all had uncertain political objectives that mainly led to either stalemates or wars that could not be won.

 

The idea that a goal was to "Stop the spread of Communism" is as foolish as a goal being to "Stop the spread of Terrorism".

 

Wars after World War II have been mired in uncertainty.

 

The most modern example prior to Iraq 2 was the Gulf War. Our objective? Get Saddam out of Kuwait. Victory was achieved, we went home. I dunno where you get this idea that wars become mired in uncertainty. Either we win the preset objectives or we give up and go home. We don't start fighting battles without knowing why and without knowing to what extent we'll be involved. And if that's Obama's military policy, then it's a screwed up one.

[Jenksismyhero]

Also, there goes your claim that this is a UN/NATO only operation...

Edited March 30, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Fine, then we're done. Victory was achieved. Let's get ourselves removed from the situation. Why is there talk of potential this and potential that?

 

In 2003 we declared victory in Iraq. Its taken us how long to remove ourselves from that situation?

 

In 1945 victory was declared in Japan and Europe, it took us ___ years to remove ourselves from that situation?

 

Even when "victory" is achieved, there are generally substantial obstacles that still exist. Not to mention as I said before, just because we stopped Gaddafi today, does not mean he wont come back tomorrow.

 

Pretty sure the vast majority of Iraq was in full support of getting rid of Saddam.

 

At the time there were no active Iraqi protests and there was no quasi-govt. Furthermore, Iraq was divided by religious beliefs (Sunni/Shia) with Saddam receiving substantial support from his group.

 

I don't think you have any basis to say this. It's no different than thinking that if we get rid of a murdering, torturing dictator that people would be happy enough to work together. Ghadafi might be gone, and this revolutionary government might take over in a more efficient way, but we have no idea what would result after their civil war ends.

 

I do have a basis, its called my interpretation of the events.

 

Then they should have veto'd it or at the very least let someone else spend the money and military resources to enforce the resolution. Why does the US have to take charge in all of these things if it's a UN-led effort?

 

Other people are spending money and resources, the US isnt acting alone.

 

Why did the US take charge?

 

We have certain weapons and technology that no one else has. Would you prefer that we gave other countries access to our top secret technology, or would you prefer we use it and not let others have access?

 

I prefer the later, Id rather we use our own technology.

 

As discussed previously, this would get us into countless battles all over the world, but we don't do it.

 

Irrelevant, we both know it. We can act any way on any given day, depending on the facts of the specific circumstances, not bound by other action that is based on different circumstances.

 

Oh please, until the UN decides it's done wasting the time and resources to continue refereeing the stalemate, other countries lose interest and refuse to vote for any further action and then we're back to were we started, only billions of dollars poorer for it (or worse, we pick up and do all the work ourselves)

 

Maybe that happens. If it does, Ill be glad that the US spent $100 of my taxes to help. I dont think the US will be worse off though, I think that in the end, we will be vastly better off. And that by spending a little money here, we will have saved spending money in future events. No way to prove it, but just my opinion.

 

Our objective? Get Saddam out of Kuwait. Victory was achieved, we went home.

 

Unfortunately that was not the entire objective.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_45.htm

 

There were 4 objectives:

 

-- the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all

Iraqi forces from Kuwait; (S)

 

-- the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq; (S)

 

-- a commitment to the security and stability of the Persian Gulf; and, (S)

 

-- the protection of the lives of American citizens abroad. (S)

 

Did we really achieve 3? If we had to invade Iraq a decade later, did we really stabilize the Persian Gulf? Did we really save more American lives?

 

This is exactly what I mean about uncertainty. The idea that security and stability can be achieved through military means is shortsighted. While the US certainly was able to remove Saddam from Kuwait (capturing territory exception) there was no way to believe that the US could secure and stabilize the Persian Gulf by merely forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. This is why many people believed that the US should have gone further to remove Saddam, due to section 3. Furthermore many people argued that Iraq had terrorists that contributed to 9/11 or deaths of Americans, wouldnt that mean its uncertain if the first gulf war really protected lives of American citizens?

 

So im not sure how you can say there was a certain goal, when part of the goal is always going to be uncertain.

 

 

Also, there goes your claim that this is a UN/NATO only operation...

 

Im not sure that selling weapons to a foreign entity is considered a military operation the way we were using the term, military operation. I was defining military operation as open involvement in hostilities against Libya.

 

I would not consider funding or arming, a per se military operation.

 

Now I am just taking it for fact the US may actually arm rebels (its unproven speculation) and even if they do, there is no clear cut evidence that the UN has not said they could. It would be a real gray area because I could easily make the argument both ways.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Soxbadger

[GoSox05]

I love that the C.I.A is on the ground working with and arming the rebels. That kind of s*** never goes wrong!

[Balta1701]

I love that the C.I.A is on the ground working with and arming the rebels. That kind of s*** never goes wrong!

Carlucci, you're new, here's how we run things. The red countries are the countries we sell arms to. The green countries are the countries where we wash our money. The blue countries are..

[Soxbadger]

You do realize that the article clearly states:

 

This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

 

Newspapers sell on sensationalism, so far there is no concrete evidence that the US has actually armed the rebels (at least that I have seen as of right now). There has been talk that the US may do it.

 

And I agree that giving out weapons is a really dangerous situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

At the time there were no active Iraqi protests and there was no quasi-govt. Furthermore, Iraq was divided by religious beliefs (Sunni/Shia) with Saddam receiving substantial support from his group.

 

because he tortured/killed people who did!

[Jenksismyhero]

name='Soxbadger' date='Mar 30, 2011 -> 04:19 PM' post='2343365']

 

Unfortunately that was not the entire objective.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_45.htm

 

There were 4 objectives:

 

-- the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all

Iraqi forces from Kuwait; (S)

 

-- the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq; (S)

 

-- a commitment to the security and stability of the Persian Gulf; and, (S)

 

-- the protection of the lives of American citizens abroad. (S)

 

Did we really achieve 3? If we had to invade Iraq a decade later, did we really stabilize the Persian Gulf? Did we really save more American lives?

 

This is exactly what I mean about uncertainty. The idea that security and stability can be achieved through military means is shortsighted. While the US certainly was able to remove Saddam from Kuwait (capturing territory exception) there was no way to believe that the US could secure and stabilize the Persian Gulf by merely forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. This is why many people believed that the US should have gone further to remove Saddam, due to section 3. Furthermore many people argued that Iraq had terrorists that contributed to 9/11 or deaths of Americans, wouldnt that mean its uncertain if the first gulf war really protected lives of American citizens?

 

So im not sure how you can say there was a certain goal, when part of the goal is always going to be uncertain.

 

Ok, come on now. There's a difference between an objective of getting Iraq/Saddam out of Kuwait and ensuring middle east peace.

[Jenksismyhero]

You do realize that the article clearly states:

 

This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

 

Newspapers sell on sensationalism, so far there is no concrete evidence that the US has actually armed the rebels (at least that I have seen as of right now). There has been talk that the US may do it.

 

And I agree that giving out weapons is a really dangerous situation.

 

But it's the idea that he's now given the OK for US-only intervention, whether that's providing weapons or not. And let's be real here, if he's openly discussing the possibility that the US will provide more than just medicine/food and that we might arm the rebels, there's zero reason for a "covert" US operation. We all know that means special forces doing secret things.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

You do realize that the article clearly states:

 

This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

 

Newspapers sell on sensationalism, so far there is no concrete evidence that the US has actually armed the rebels (at least that I have seen as of right now). There has been talk that the US may do it.

 

And I agree that giving out weapons is a really dangerous situation.

CNN is running this right now.

U.S. intelligence source: CIA is operating inside Libya to help U.S. increase "military and political understanding."

[Soxbadger]

But it's the idea that he's now given the OK for US-only intervention, whether that's providing weapons or not. And let's be real here, if he's openly discussing the possibility that the US will provide more than just medicine/food and that we might arm the rebels, there's zero reason for a "covert" US operation. We all know that means special forces doing secret things.

 

Now CIA operatives in another country are "intervention", so is the US intervening in China, or the hundred other countries we have CIA operatives in. There is absolutely reason for a covert operation, its called gathering intelligence for the US govt so that we know who we are dealing with.

 

One on hand people say we dont know who the revolutionaries are, on the other they say we shouldnt do whatever it takes to get that information.

 

That is just strange. I would expect that the US has a CIA presence in almost every single foreign nation, just like I suspect the FBI has an FBI agent in every state in the US.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,3375554.story

 

CIA officers on the ground in Libya are coordinating with rebels and sharing intelligence, U.S. officials say, but the White House is still mulling whether to provide weapons to those trying to oust Moammar Kadafi.

 

"No decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "We're not ruling it out or ruling it in."

 

 

Like I said previously the headline:

 

US gathering intelligence so that it can weigh options in Libya

 

Just doenst sell newspapers. The truth is often much less exciting than fiction.

[Balta1701]

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

[Soxbadger]

What do you propose the US do? Ivory Coast isnt going to be a NFZ, they already have thousands of UN troops there.

 

Id be fine with more US support, but everyone who is gung ho about intervention in Ivory Coast must also realize that there is going to be significantly more risk to our troops there and that we will likely see numerous US casualties.

 

 

[kapkomet]

What do you propose the US do? Ivory Coast isnt going to be a NFZ, they already have thousands of UN troops there.

 

Id be fine with more US support, but everyone who is gung ho about intervention in Ivory Coast must also realize that there is going to be significantly more risk to our troops there and that we will likely see numerous US casualties.

 

Hmmm, no political interest (saving muslims from killing muslims) nor, any major oil reserves. Must be a waste of time.

 

But'cha know... we have no business getting in civil wars, at least according to our current president.

 

The hypocritcal stances here are pretty apparent.

[Soxbadger]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The Ivory Coast has UN Peacekeepers on the ground in an amount that is the equivalent of 7x the Libyan Revolutionary army.

 

The UN is doing far more in Ivory Coast than what is being done in Libya.

 

So when you actually apply the facts its hard to say there is hypocrisy, most people consider troops on the ground to be larger intervention than a NFZ (ie in Libya there is a NFZ, but many people dont want to take the extra step of putting troops on the ground).

 

I wont even get into why a NFZ was more appropriate for Libya than Ivory Coast.

[BigSqwert]

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

 

The hypocrisy is astounding.

[southsider2k5]

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

 

signed George W Obama