Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl

[TheMercenary]

Does anyone believe this?

News that U.S. officials told Reuters that President Barack Obama had authorized covert operations in Libya raised the prospect of wider support for the rebels.
Experts assume special forces are on the ground "spotting" targets for air strikes. Public confirmation from Washington may indicate a willingness for greater involvement.
The rebels, whose main call is for weapons -- not authorized yet by Washington because of a U.N. arms embargo which NATO says it is enforcing -- said they knew nothing about Western troops in Libya and that too big a foreign role could be damaging.
"It would undermine our credibility," Gheriani said.
U.N. RESOLUTION
Obama's order is likely to further alarm countries already concerned that air strikes on infrastructure and ground troops by the United States, Britain and France go beyond a U.N. resolution with the expressed aim only of protecting civilians.
"I can't speak to any CIA activities but I will tell you that the president has been quite clear that in terms of the United States military there will be no boots on the ground," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-support-o...30403-138.html

[Happy Monkey]

What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?

As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am no real fan of Bush but the duplicity is amazing. Selective duplicity. The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong.

No, liberals think Bush did something wrong because the Iraq war turned into something that the American people didn't think they would be getting into. Initially Iraq was supported pretty much across the spectrum and Bush's ratings were through the roof. His ratings started dropping when it was realized that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk that it was talked up to be (plus other reasons but it's hard to generalize any further).

There will always by hypocrisy in politics when it comes to two polarized parties but both parties are split down the line on this one. For republicans, the neocons are pro-war and the rest are pretty much against. For democrats, there are the interventionist who are pro-war and there are the non-interventionists who are against it. There are a lot of pissed off democrats right now.

The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.

I disagree to a point. The outcome is completely unknown and the impact is in doubt but there are indirect gains with stopping Gadaffi from massacring his own people. There are reasons why everyone is much more focused on Libya and not Darfur or the Ivory Coast.

[Undertoad]

Even 500,000 Iraqi children dead is "worth it", or something.

[Fair&Balanced]

NATO has a good time line of how events in Libya unfolded:

Following the popular uprising which began in Benghazi on 17 February 2011, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 1970. This institutes an arms embargo, freezes the personal assets of Libya’s leaders and imposes a travel ban on senior figures.

On 8 March, with international concern over the Libyan crisis growing, NATO stepped up its surveillance operations in the Central Mediterranean, deploying AWACS aircraft to provide round-the-clock observation. These “eyes in the sky” give NATO detailed information of movements in Libyan airspace.

On 10 March, NATO Defence Ministers supported SACEUR’s decision to have alliance ships move to the same area to boost the monitoring effort.

On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorising member states and regional organisations to, inter alia, take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.

On 22 March, NATO responded to the UN call by launching an operation to enforce the arms embargo against Libya. On 23 March, NATO’s arms embargo operation started.

NATO ships and aircraft are operating in the Central Mediterranean to make sure that the flow of weapons to Libya by sea is cut off. They have the right to stop and search any vessel they suspect of carrying arms or mercenaries.

The NATO ships will not enter Libyan territorial waters. NATO has no intention of deploying land forces anywhere in Libyan territory.

On 24 March, NATO decided to enforce the UN-mandated no-fly zone over Libya. The UN resolution called for a ban on all flights, except those for humanitarian and aid purposes, in Libyan airspace, to make sure that civilians and civilian populated areas cannot be subjected to air attack.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_71652.htm?

This does include the first (and only) unilateral action of the US to-date, a week after the uprising began, which was to freeze $30+ billion of Libyan assets – the largest seizure of foreign assets in US history.

I think by most objective standards, the above actions were deliberative and measured.

There was no over-reaction with a display of overwhelming force right from the start nor an under-reaction by doing nothing when the threat to civilians was far greater than Egypt (where the military sided with the protesters), Tunesia, etc..

Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.

The actions to-date and the cost to the US in money and lives has been minimal, more like Bosnia than Iraq or Afghanistan.

I support it as it has played out. Even with the outcome as uncertain as it still remains, I think it is reasonable to believe that a mass slaughter of civilians has been prevented so far. I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.

Others can disagree, but I would hope they would keep it in perspective and not make it a left-right argument, given that there is support and opposition on both the left and right.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.

The CIA have been on the ground since before the first missiles were fired.
They have been doing quite a bit more than just "understanding the make-up." To believe that is nothing short of ignorant.
They've been gathering intel and directing strikes against one side of a civil war.
Sides have been clearly chosen. Arming & training the rebels is the next step which is probably already happening.
If not, it will be very shortly.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.

I believe it will have to come to that in order to end this anytime soon.
The rebels have been proven to be ineffective and outnumbered.
They will not prevail without serious assistance.
I hope you are as vocal in your opposition when/if that happens.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

The CIA have been on the ground since before the first missiles were fired.
They have been doing quite a bit more than just "understanding the make-up." To believe that is nothing short of ignorant.
They've been gathering intel and directing strikes against one side of a civil war.
Sides have been clearly chosen. Arming & training the rebels is the next step which is probably already happening.
If not, it will be very shortly.

I believe it will have to come to that in order to end this anytime soon.
The rebels have been proven to be ineffective and outnumbered.
They will not prevail without serious assistance.
I hope you are as vocal in your opposition when/if that happens.

The presidential "finding" to put CIA assets into Libya was issued 2-3 weeks ago.

There has been no public acknowledgement of exactly when and for what purpose. To suggest otherwise is speculation, which we're both doing.

Prevailing is not just a function of military might. With the recent defection of two top insiders and close advisers, the support of those closestr to Ghadaffi may be crumbling.

There is even suggestions that he is loosing support of the military and relying now on mercenary thugs (no reflection on other mercenaries) from Chad, Sudan and other African nations under the leadership of his sons.

And public support may be swinging the way of the rebels as the people see that they do have a fighting chance and less likelihood of being massacred as a result of the air strikes to-date.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The presidential "finding" to put CIA assets into Libya was issued 2-3 weeks ago.

There has been no public acknowledgement of exactly when and for what purpose. To suggest otherwise is speculation, which we're both doing.

Prevailing is not just a function of military might. With the recent defection of two top insiders and close advisers, the support of those closestr to Ghadaffi may be crumbling.

Fail. This is the same person that said once boots were on the ground you would not support this operation.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Fail. This is the same person that said once boots were on the ground you would not support this operation.

We can debate the meaning of boots on the ground. Defense and military experts, which I am not, are debating it as well.

Obviously, you include the CIA, which presumably, already had a station in Libya.

Additional CIA assets were added in recent weeks with the presidential finding, but there is no evidence that to-date, it has been more than for intel purposes, from targeting to assessing both government forces and rebel forces.

You see it as siding with the rebels. I see it as siding with civilians given that Ghaddafi made it clear in his rhetoric and actions that he would not distinguish between rebels and civilians.

If, US military, as opposed to the CIA, puts its boots on the ground, I wont support it.

[Happy Monkey]

So again we come to Bosnia was a success until another plane crashes in Libya.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So again we come to Bosnia was a success until another plane crashes in Libya.

As usual, you have completely missed the point. Out.

[classicman]

One other question I ask openly is why a Libyan life is worth more than those in so many other countries?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

One other question I ask openly is why a Libyan life is worth more than those in so many other countries?

It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.

Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.

There must be a popular uprising.

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

The intervention must be limited.

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.

These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.

And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.

We cant do it everywhere, nor should we.

For me, this is an appropriate time and place.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.

Like Iraq?

[quote[Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.

There must be a popular uprising.[/quote]Like Southern Iraq? When we abandoned them and allowed the to be slaughtered?

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

As measured by whom? You? Please enlighten us as to how the levels of threat are assessed and then a measured response by our military is applied against said threats. I mean, for myself, after 20 years in the military, I would be interested in your expert opinion.

The intervention must be limited.

Really? When did they put a limited intervention timetable on this event? First Obamy said weeks, now NATO says 90 days with the possibility of unlimited extensions. Which is it? Limited or not?

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.

Oh, so just like Iraq... I get it.

These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.

Horseshit.

And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.

Please cite and quantify.

For me, this is an appropriate time and place.

And you will fail in that assumption as well. It is a waste of time. And any bleeding heart liberal that supports this is a hypocrite.