U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[StrangeSox]

I think the Kosovo comparison works but the Iraq one is s*** and you know it, Balta.

[Balta1701]

I think the Kosovo comparison works but the Iraq one is s*** and you know it, Balta.

Well, first of all, it's worth noting that the people we're siding with in Libya have their own checkered history, just like the Kosovars did. For example, cities in Eastern Libya sent more men to fight against the U.S. in Iraq than any other area in the Middle East. So there is plenty of chance that, just like in Iraq, we're stepping on a hornet's nest.

 

Secondly...there's a big point of comparison...there are zero, and I mean zero plans for what to do if we declare war on Qadaffi and his government falls. There were just as many groups and organizations able to take control in Iraq after we took down Saddam, and the country damn near ripped itself apart despite 200k U.S. troops sitting there.

 

But you really want to avoid me calling out an Iraq parallel? Don't tell me that Libya would be able to finance its own reconstruction with its oil. Just don't. That's damn near a direct quote.

[Balta1701]

Honestly I feel that if you aren't willing to save people's lives in desperate situations, the argument for social entitlement programs loses all of its muster. Protecting people from genocide should come before my unemployment check.

If "Declaring war = saving lives" I might well agree with you. I long since stopped believing that.

[Soxbadger]

According to casualty estimates on the Serbian side, the number of civilians killed in the U.S. led bombing campaign was nearly 1200. Furthermore, a huge majority of the people in Kosovo who were killed by the Serbian army were killed after the beginning of the bombing campaign, not before. The bombing campaign intensified the violence on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of people became refugees from Kosovo after the bombing began.

 

This campaign is the first one where I was old enough to pay attention to it, and it rapidly convinced me that humanitarian war is a contradiction in terms. More people died because of the bombing campaign than were saved by it. I'd imagine that the infrastructure of Serbia is still suffering to this day.

 

That statement is entirely opinion, one that I completely disagree with. Thousands of civilians dieing are nothing compared to the mass genocides that I was referring to. When I say mass genocide, we are talking hundreds of thousands. One thousand is a drop in the bucket.

 

Furthermore, the difference of Serbia being backed by a super power (Russia) and Libya having no support should not be ignored. The reason that Libya is not analogous is that you are talking about a country that is isolated, versus Serbia that was very much supported by Russia.

 

While no one likes civilian casualties, the reality is you have no idea how much worse things could have been if there was not intervention. You only have guesses and your opinion, which is really not fact. The problem with history is that you can never go back and say "What if", because there is no certainty in the if.

 

So if given the option of:

 

A) Sitting on the sidelines and hoping for the best

 

or

 

B ) Limited interference to try and stop the war.

 

I go with B. But that is just my opinion, it cant be in anyway supported by fact.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Let me again state...if I were Qadaffi, and a bombing campaign began, the first thing I'd order my soldiers to do when they got to Behghazi is level the entire place. Air power can't target friend from foe when they're walking down the street, and I could just as easily blame the air forces for the casualties.

 

If the international community stayed out, I'd do enough militarily to retake the cities but no more. If they began bombing, I'd turn as ruthless as possible. The only way to prevent an uprising with a weakened military is to weaken the opposition even more.

[StrangeSox]

Your end result is still mass slaughter by Gaddafi and him retaining power.

[Balta1701]

Your end result is still mass slaughter by Gaddafi and him retaining power.

At least currently, as far as I can tell, it still resembles a civil war. I haven't heard reports of thousands of people being summarily killed. That is exactly what happened in Iraq when things deteriorated, that is exactly what happened in Kosovo once the bombing campaign started.

 

Once you start bombing, you lose all international leverage. Hell, even the reporters get out of the way.

 

If Qadaffi's forces are simply stronger than the opposition's forces, then this ends either with Qadaffi in power but a lot more people dead because of the bombing campaign, or this ends with international ground forces fighting Qadaffi's forces. Air power doesn't win fights like this.

 

If you guys aren't ready to go all in, commit 50-100k U.S. troops to a multi-year occupation, Iraq-style, in Libya, then you're not ready to declare no fly zones and start airstrikes.

[StrangeSox]

UN authorized military strikes on Libya.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212699

 

Hopefully both myself (too little, too late) and Balta (intractable campaign needing 50-100k troops) are wrong.

[kapkomet]

I'm in the camp of way too late.

 

Our president has no balls. At all.

[Soxbadger]

You cant just authorize military action without ascertaining the facts. The US was wise in the long run to take their time and make sure that we got universal approval. The US is trying to learn lessons from Iraq, Kosovo, but at the same time not forget that we can hopefully help other people for the better.

 

The US did not have the political capital to act to quickly, that is just the sad reality. Not only that, but there are still people who are going to be against our intervention.

 

Germany, Brazil, India, Russia and China

 

Those 5 countries didnt even vote. You can say Obama had no balls, but we once again are going to be the first ones in. We have to be realistic about our ability to intervene, we still are doing far more than anyone else.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think Obama should have gone in unilaterally (or dragged along gullible Brits again!), I just think they dragged their ass far too long on pushing the UN/NATO/Arab League/ANYONE to do something.

[Soxbadger]

Part of the delay was the fact that the it appeared Gadaffi may fall without outside intervention. We hoped that they could do it alone. Over the past few days it became clear that was not going to happen. Im sure that during the time of discussions the US has been moving personnel so that they could be quickly deployed.

[Balta1701]

So, when do we authorize airstrikes against the foreign fighters in Bahrain?

[StrangeSox]

Libya has declared a cease-fire.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just to throw more gas on the fire... violence in Yemen is getting worse, police there fired into a crowd of tens of thousands and killed at least 31 protesters.

 

[StrangeSox]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739

[Balta1701]

A fairly famous 2002 speech by a relatively gifted orator...with a handful of words changed.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war….A war

based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear –

I suffer no illusions about Muammar Gaddafi . He is a brutal man….He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Libyan people, would be better off without him.

 

But I also know that Gaddafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or

to his neighbors, that the Libyan economy is in shambles, that the Libyan military a fraction of

its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be

contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

[Balta1701]

I'm in the camp of way too late.

 

Our president has no balls. At all.

You know Kap, I'm actually surprised by this response in comparison to your Egypt response. Not because you think Obama's making a mistake, but because of the Islamist connections of the Eastern Libyan population. You were scared enough of the Muslim Brotherhood, who were by all accounts on the outside of the Egyptian revolution, that you said the Egyptian revolution was an awful thing on the grounds that the Brotherhood were an Islamist group who might gain some power by that revolution.

 

In this case, if the revolution wins, the Libyan state is likely to become much more of an Islam-based state. That seems like the kind of thing you'd be strongly opposing.

[Soxbadger]

Let me be clear, Muslims or followers of Islam deserve freedom and Democracy as much as I do. When we have a Democratic society or Democratic nations, there are going to be differences of opinion. It is my opinion that every country and every person is entitled to their opinion.

 

 

Let me change the quote for some fun:

 

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war….A war

based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear –

I suffer no illusions about Adolf Hitler . He is a brutal man….He’s a bad guy. The world, and the German people, would be better off without him.

 

But I also know that Hitler poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, that the German economy is in shambles, that the German military a fraction of

its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be

contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

 

 

Oh wait...

 

As stated before comparing Iraq to Libya is no better than comparing Libya to Germany, both of them are strained comparisons at best. The reality is that many of the people of Libya asked for Inernational assistance against alleged war crimes of Gaddafi.

 

Unlike Iraq, where to the best of my knowledge, there was no ongoing rebellion or actual protests or cities that had fallen that Saddam was going to eradicate. Unlike Iraq, there is an actual crisis occurring right now.

 

People can say that Saddam did similar things to the Kurds, but our intervention in 2001 was not because of Kurds asking for our help, it was for entirely different reasons.

 

So we can keep up with this irrational "Libya= Iraq" comparison that has no basis in fact, or we can look at Libya and ask ourselves:

 

"As a Democratic society, should we strive to ensure that all people have the same rights we believe to be inalienable."

 

If you answer the question yes (like me), then you support the US and UN trying to ascertain the situation and stop Gaddafi from killing more civilians.

 

If you answer the question no, then you shouldnt support it and you would be on the same side as previous US isolationists.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

Sullivan sums up my thoughts best.

[Soxbadger]

Maybe Im not a liberal anymore, because I thought liberals were supposed to want to help other people. Not create reasons why we shouldnt intervene because we havent intervened elsewhere.

 

The US cant help everyone, its just like me giving money to charity or the homeless. I cant give money to every charity or homeless person, but since I cant give to everyone, does that mean I should give to no one?

 

The answer is no, that just doesnt make sense. We play the hand we are dealt, and this instance we have been dealt a hand where the UN has authorized us to help. I do not believe there has been UN authorization to interfere in Iran, Congo, Burma or Yemen, but who cares about facts when you are writing a smear campaign.

 

The article is entirely dependent on moral equivalences, that some how if you dont act one way one time you are precluded from acting differently another. I find this absurd because I believe that as humans we will make mistakes, we will make bad decisions, and that our only hope as a civilization is that we learn from our past mistakes.

 

Moral equivalences would create a society that I refuse to live in. To take Sullivan's nonsensical point to the extreme, the US should not interfere no matter how bad the genocide is, no matter how many are killed, because the US did not stop, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. So the US should never intervene because we didnt in the past, so there would be "no rational way to reconcile" our different actions.

 

That argument is bogus, its absolutely nonsense.

 

When you read the article, Sullivan takes the cowards approach, he does not take a side. If he was Obama, what would he do? The implication is that he would sit on the sidelines and let Libyans get massacred by Gaddafi, because we let other people get massacred.

 

Sorry that is not I perceive America, I dont think of us as a country who is going to sit idly by while civilians get massacred.

 

This isnt Iraq, where we were told we were intervening because "Saddam posed a threat to the US" which was a bulls*** line. In fact Sullivan's own article shows why the Iraq war was detestable, whereas the Libyan war will be righteous.

 

At least Bush argued that Saddam posed a threat to the US. No one can seriously argue that Qaddafi poses such a threat.

 

This statement should be, unlike Bush who lied to the US about Iraq's capabilities to trick the US into fighting him, Obama has been open and honest about our intervention being entirely for the people of Libya.

 

It saddens me that people are willing to let innocents die, just because in the past we let it happen. We should strive to prevent it happening everywhere, but at the same time we must realize our limitations that we can not help everywhere.

 

There is no reconciliation needed, its just the honest truth. We cant help everyone, we cant take on regimes that have far more influence and sway in political matters than Libya, so we help where we can.

 

But to argue that doing nothing is better than helping some, is preposterous.

 

Seems that this Sullivan is always on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to me.

[Balta1701]

Rather than fighting, I'll just say again...intervening on behalf of the people of Libya by killing the people of Libya continues to be a concept I can not accept.

[knightni]

How is the Libyan dictator's name spelled anyway?

[Balta1701]

How is the Libyan dictator's name spelled anyway?

There is no generally accepted single translation from the Arabic to English. Pretty much, whatever version you use, you're right.

[Balta1701]

I'll offer up another version of the effectiveness of airpower...our current air/drone attack campaign in Pakistan. If you want to argue that strategically it is working and effectively damaging the Taliban, you might be right, I don't know. But there has been a hell of a lot of civilian "collateral damage" associated with that campaign.