View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 25th, 2014, 6:20 pm



Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Libya 
Author Message
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post Re: Libya
Its not ALL about oil--the flow of oil is just a huge driving factor. If the Suez canal were to get shut down or things got crazy in Saudi Arabia, our military would be there before we even heard about it.


March 21st, 2011, 10:10 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Libya
Absolutaly, it is national interest. We are hooked on it... we should embrass ways to get off it now...

But that doesn't mean there is a sinister reason behind all decisions.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 21st, 2011, 10:12 am
Profile
Post Re: Libya
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
Go in they aren't Christian, don't go in we don't care about the people being murdered by the government and aren't Christian. Pick on and stick with it...


What the hell are you even talking about?

Make a factual argument instead of name calling or I'm done here.

We're intervening in Libya because the administration thinks its in our geo-political interest to do so (not because we're superman saving the weak). I disagree, as it has back fired on this country virtually every time. Intervening in Afghanistan gave us Bin Laden, intervening in Vietnam gave us the economy of the 1970s and hundreds of thousands of messed up veterans, etc.

We already saw the consequences of our foreign policy on 9/11. In the coming years, we'll see more as our currency collapses. Maybe someday you'll come to the conclusion that George Washington was right--sticking our nose in other nation's business is always against our interests.



Blueskies,
I think you're underestimating how much influence the spread of democracy, peace in the middle east, and advancement of human rights has on the administration, U.S. politics, and world politics. I believe the President when he says that we're just going in there for reasons to protect the citizens of Libya from a tyrannical govt., for the sake of the stated goal. I believe that the ends really are the means here. If we were just worried about the transportation of oil I think we would just police the canals, demand that they stay open, and blow up anything that gets in the way.

There is something to be said for increasing the quality of life in Middle Eastern countries (namely, they may not want to kill and destroy us, and they may not be so easily influenced if they live more like us, if they have more, and if they are better educated). There is a certain universal truth to the fact that people want to be heard, people don't want to be controlled (although it is weird to hear our current govt., that seemingly wants to control everything, talk about "freeing" people), and people shouldn't be held hostage by their govt. (or worse!).



*Aside - I agree with you about the WWI aside from one small premise - If we wouldn't have intervened Germany would have won WWI. I do, however, agree with you that the Treaty of Versaillies created Hitler. He never would have been able to come to power had the Treaty not been so oppressive. We shouldn't discount our role in that negotiation as well. If Wilson were a stronger character France would not have likely been able to accomplish the same result.


March 21st, 2011, 1:25 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Libya
Just because I love to bash Obama, this is what he told the Boston Globe in December 2007:
Quote:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Isn't that what he just did? Then again, when has that dipshit ever followed the Constitution since he took office? His arrogance knows no bounds.

On a lighter note, whether you are for or against the war, there is a side benefit for sick freaks like me: More War Porn! There's nothing better than seeing "flying jihadis" after they've been hit with a hellfire missle or a CBU-97. :lol:

_________________
Image


March 21st, 2011, 10:59 pm
Profile
Post Re: Libya
slybri19 wrote:
Just because I love to bash Obama, this is what he told the Boston Globe in December 2007:
Quote:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Isn't that what he just did? Then again, when has that dipshit ever followed the Constitution since he took office? His arrogance knows no bounds.

On a lighter note, whether you are for or against the war, there is a side benefit for sick freaks like me: More War Porn! There's nothing better than seeing "flying jihadis" after they've been hit with a hellfire missle or a CBU-97. :lol:


I can't "bash" Obama here. IMO doing so is trying to have it both ways. He didn't "unilaterally authorize an attack," he used a coalition, and a world governing body and committed us to aid in the "attack."

I will say, I like the use of organized forces that keep us from being singled out, but this is a rare case that generally isn't allowed by the U.N.


March 22nd, 2011, 12:53 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Libya
Does anyone else think this is a "dry run" on whether or not the U.N. can be a cohesive military force? I mean seriously Khaddafi is such an easy target to attack and take if necessary, and there are nations that are ruthless enough to cut the head off the snake without batting an eye. I'm just wondering if this is like a live fire training exercise to see if the U.N. can operate militarily.

So far it's proven that they can't really do it, too much leadership by committee, and not enough leadership by example.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 24th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Profile
Post Re: Libya
DevilDoc wrote:
Does anyone else think this is a "dry run" on whether or not the U.N. can be a cohesive military force? I mean seriously Khaddafi is such an easy target to attack and take if necessary, and there are nations that are ruthless enough to cut the head off the snake without batting an eye. I'm just wondering if this is like a live fire training exercise to see if the U.N. can operate militarily.

So far it's proven that they can't really do it, too much leadership by committee, and not enough leadership by example.


No, they're not using "U.N. forces," but rather a coalition of forces from different countries. This may be a "dry run" to see if they can work together, but even at that I wouldn't call it a dry run. A small test maybe? What is interesting to me is this is a RARE instance where the U.N. has come together, and even this may only well be due to the fact that arabic nations do not have veto power. The U.N. needs to be revamped. China is too close with N. Korea and Russia, we're too close with W. Europe, Isreal, etc. In any instance not involving the Middle East (less the Isreal conflict), S. America, or Africa the U.N. is worthless.


March 24th, 2011, 5:03 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Libya
Uh oh....
The Telegraph wrote:
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham 5:00PM GMT 25 Mar 2011

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for "Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya" had "shaken the enemies of Islam and the Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

The enemy of our enemy is still our enemy, no matter how you try to slice it. This is not going to end well.

_________________
Image


March 26th, 2011, 11:22 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Libya
slybri19 wrote:
a side benefit for sick freaks like me: More War Porn! There's nothing better than seeing "flying jihadis" after they've been hit with a hellfire missle or a CBU-97. :lol:


That is pretty sick dude...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 28th, 2011, 1:10 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Libya
Have we seen any president directly oppose the things he got elected for as a Senator and championed for years once he got into office and faced the harsh realities? I actually have to give Obama some props for actually getting involved without asking for congressional approval... like he said must happen...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 28th, 2011, 7:56 pm
Profile
Post Re: Libya
steensn wrote:
Have we seen any president directly oppose the things he got elected for as a Senator and championed for years once he got into office and faced the harsh realities? I actually have to give Obama some props for actually getting involved without asking for congressional approval... like he said must happen...



What sickens me Steen is that the general public simply REFUSES to understand that Gitmo, war, the complications of ending a war, etc. are REALITIES in this current day and age, and idiotic, uneducated, inexperienced incompetent presidential candidates can champion BS and lies, and get elected. It is ridiculous.


March 28th, 2011, 8:59 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Libya
steensn wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
a side benefit for sick freaks like me: More War Porn! There's nothing better than seeing "flying jihadis" after they've been hit with a hellfire missle or a CBU-97. :lol:


That is pretty sick dude...

Well, atleast I admitted that I'm a sick freak :D . And speaking of War Porn, here's one of a British jet taking out a Libyan rocket launcher:
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/03/28/video-raf-tornado-spots-gaddafi-rocket-launcher-attacking-rebels-promptly-vaporizes-it/
Unfortunately, there aren't any flying jihadis in that one though.

Also, it appears that the US has stepped up it's ground attack role by bringing in AC-130's and A-10's:
Washington Post wrote:
U.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya

/ ASSOCIATED PRESS - By Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung, Monday, March 28, 7:10 PM

The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces this weekend, launching its first attacks with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which are designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys, according to senior U.S. military officials.

Their use, during several days of heavy fighting in which the momentum seemed to swing in favor of the rebels, demonstrated how allied military forces have been drawn deeper into the chaotic fight in Libya. A mission that initially seemed to revolve around establishing a no-fly zone has become focused on halting advances by ground forces in and around Libya’s key coastal cities.

The AC-130s, which fly low and slow over the battlefield and are typically more vulnerable to enemy fire than fast-moving fighter jets, were deployed only after a week of sustained coalition attacks on Libyan government air defenses and radar. Armed with heavy machine guns and cannons that rake the ground, they allow strikes on dug-in Libyan ground forces and convoys in closer proximity to civilians.

Their use in Libya could be “a significant game changer,” said a senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

Military officials consider AC-130s and A-10s well suited to attacks in built-up areas, although they pose more risk for pilots and their lethality has been criticized as indiscriminate in past wars. The gunships, developed from a Hercules C-130 transport plane for use in Vietnam, have been used in virtually every U.S. military combat operation since then, including Grenada, Panama, Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

AC-130s were used to great effect during both of the U.S. attacks into Fallujah, an al-Qaeda stronghold in the early days of the Iraq war. In Afghanistan, the military considers them a particularly effective weapon against dug-in militants and commanders have frequently complained that they are in too short supply.

In Libya, “we are determined to step up the mission, to attack his tanks and [troop] columns every day until he withdraws,” a French official said of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and the forces loyal to him.

The AC-130s, which are flying from a base in Italy, were requested by Gen. Carter Ham, the senior American general overseeing the battle, and are likely to continue flying over Libya in the coming days as allied forces attempt to increase the pressure on Gaddafi’s ground forces. Their use highlights the coalition desire to press for a swift end to the ground fighting, which appears to have swung tentatively in favor of the opposition forces.

In response to the rebel advance Gaddafi’s ground troops appear to be digging in and moving tanks into the cities of Zintan and Sirte.

“The longer it lasts the more danger of civilian casualties,” said a Western diplomat whose country is involved in the attacks. He warned that one errant missile strike against a hospital or a house full of children could have a deeply polarizing effect on the already fragile alliance of NATO and Arab nations.

The tougher and more risky mission to halt Gaddafi’s ground troops from attacking into key Libyan cities has quickly overshadowed the less challenging task of stopping the Libyan dictator from launching his aircraft to attack rebels. The ground attack mission also opened up some rifts between coalition partners in NATO and Arab nations, who were reluctant to support attacks that could produce civilian casualties. And it has led some U.S. lawmakers to charge that the Obama administration launched the U.S. military into the middle of a complex ground fight between rebels and loyalist forces without a clear exit strategy.

A senior NATO diplomat emphasized that alliance planning, beginning in late February, focused primarily on providing humanitarian support, enforcing an arms embargo and establishing a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using his aircraft to attack his own people.

Meanwhile, the U.S., Britain and France were making their own preparations for stopping a ground assault by Libyan forces. There was little support within Obama’s national security team for a mission that revolved solely around a no-fly zone seen as likely to do too little to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces on the ground.

Some administration officials, with memories of enforcing no-fly zones over Bosnia while civilians were being exterminated on the ground, argued the United States should not even participate in such a limited operation. In the Pentagon, there was concern about plunging U.S. forces into a Libya without a clear goal, and there was also worry that chaos would ensue if Gaddafi fell too quickly and the loosely organized, tribally divided rebels tried to govern the country.

By March 12, the Arab League had formally backed imposition of a no-fly zone, following a similar move by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which consists of several of the United States’ closest Arab allies.

Events on the ground finally drove the U.S. and its allies toward a broader intervention, aimed at the interdiction and destruction of Gaddafi’s advancing ground forces. Until the week of March 13, the rebels seemed to be making progress. Then Gaddafi unleashed his military, taking towns the opposition had won and heading toward the de facto rebel capital in Benghazi.

Pushed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the administration took control of a British-French draft resolution for a no-fly zone that had been languishing at the U.N., worked with them to strengthen it and began making the case to the rest of the Security Council that stronger action was needed. The resolution passed on March 17, authorizing the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian areas under threat.

In effect, Gaddafi’s decision to launch a major ground push on the rebel held city of Benghazi compelled the U.S. to back a broader mission against his ground forces, administration officials said. On March 18, Obama insisted that Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on rebel-held Benghazi and pull back from the contested cities of Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya so that electricity, gas and humanitarian aid could flow into the areas.

As the major allied players in the alliance gathered for a conference in Paris the following day, French jets were launched over rebel-held Benghazi. The sudden move on the part of the French forces was needed to drive back a last-minute armored thrust by Gaddafi’s forces on the rebel capital.

“In an ideal world, we would sit down with a blank sheet of paper and say, ‘Let’s get rid of Gaddafi.’ That’s not the way it unfolded,” said the Western diplomat.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us_deploys_low_flying_attack_planes_in_libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

_________________
Image


March 28th, 2011, 9:55 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Libya
wjb21ndtown wrote:
steensn wrote:
Have we seen any president directly oppose the things he got elected for as a Senator and championed for years once he got into office and faced the harsh realities? I actually have to give Obama some props for actually getting involved without asking for congressional approval... like he said must happen...



What sickens me Steen is that the general public simply REFUSES to understand that Gitmo, war, the complications of ending a war, etc. are REALITIES in this current day and age, and idiotic, uneducated, inexperienced incompetent presidential candidates can champion BS and lies, and get elected. It is ridiculous.


I agree... then they turn around and use them...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 29th, 2011, 9:51 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Libya
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03 ... -says.html

$600 cost so far for Lybia action, will continue to grow. Sounds llike something Obama would have been against a few years ago...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 29th, 2011, 12:19 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Libya
And now Obama has ended all US combat flights over Libya and passed them off to NATO. We're still going to be doing refueling, surveillance, electronic jamming, and other support operations, but no more bombings. The Europeans get to do all the fun stuff now.

Believe it or not, I actually somewhat agree with Obama on this. Libya is more of a security issue with Europe than it is with the US, so let them do the difficult work. I also understand the US taking the lead in the beginning because we were the only ones capable of getting it done. France, the UK, Italy, etc. don't have the ability to eliminate air defenses and command/control like we do, so it makes sense in that regard. Once that aspect is over, it's time to move on. Furthermore, those that benefit the most from our actions ought to pay us for our contributions. That happened during the first Gulf War under George HW Bush, so why not again?

I should also point out that those who think we don't have ground troops in Libya are fools. There are special forces in there to coordinate airstrikes, as always, and Obama was right not to point that out. We never acknowledge their existence in these situations, but they are always there. That's one of the few lies I can forgive him for. It's not like they are "conventional" or "regular" forces. They're "special" for a reason and we don't need to telegraph what they are doing.

_________________
Image


April 1st, 2011, 11:50 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DJ-B and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.