Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[glatt]

He may still be able to get out of it. It remains to be seen. Passing off control to NATO is a good first step.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have never heard of a "No Fly Zone" that targeted tanks or other ground equipement and troops. And the UN mandate does not include such attacks. They are trying to cover their asses. Obama punched the Tar Baby.

The UN Security Council resolution is not limited to the No Fly Zone. It also authorizes the naval blockade to enforce an arms embargo, and taking "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas..."

Originally Posted by glatt

He may still be able to get out of it. It remains to be seen. Passing off control to NATO is a good first step.

IMO, the US response has been restrained and acceptable.

The US unilatterally freezing $32 billion of Khaddafi's assets in US was certainly reasonable. And acting on a US mandate, but through NATO, further limits the US role, particularly with the lastest developments of forcing NATO to take the lead on the No Fly Zone and the naval blockage/arms embargo

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The UN Security Council resolution is not limited to the No Fly Zone. It also authorizes the naval blockade to enforce an arms embargo, and taking "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas..."

That is BS. Tanks running down a highway are not directly endangering the civilian populated areas. Nice try.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is BS. Tanks running down a highway are not directly endangering the civilian populated areas. Nice try.

Hey. I'm just pointing out that you were wrong when you suggested the UN mandate was strickly a No Fly Zone.

It was not. It was much more.

[TheMercenary]

We are deeply involved in NATO and have always been so. I am not sure it will have the desired effect other than to deflect attention from the uninformed. This reminds me of Bosnia. But unlike Bosnia the whole area is on fire with unrest and acts of despots on the civilian population. How he can be best buddies with Libya one month and the next month supporting a populist overthrow with the support of US military, all the while with a history of slamming Bush on Iraq, which btw had a UN Mandate, as well as Congressional approval, and on the next overstepping his bounds and doing the same thing is beyond me.... I fear that he (we) have just opened the door to the most opportune chance for an extremist to take the place of an evil, the worst of the evils may take over.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

..Bush on Iraq, which btw had a UN Mandate, as well as Congressional approval...

Rewriting history.

Bush never had a UN mandate to invade Iraq.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Rewriting history.

Bush never had a UN mandate to invade Iraq.

The mandate was on compliance on with the 10 years of previous mandates which they failed to comply with. The point here is that Obama stated repeatedly that he would not attack another country to enforce democracy. He failed.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The mandate was on compliance on with the 10 years of previous mandates which they failed to comply with. The point here is that Obama stated repeatedly that he would not attack another country to enforce democracy. He failed.

Nope. The last UN resolution on Iraq was specifically worded so as not to authorize (prohibit) an invasion of Iraq.

If the US were to invade Libya with ground forces, I would agree with you.

The UN resolution on Libya

Two weeks ago, I would have voted that Gaddafi would have crushed the rebellion and brutalized thousands of more civilians as a means of reinforcing his power.

Now, I give the rebels a fighting chance, leading to the question of "what next" and is the Libyan National Council a true democratic movement or more likely a rag tag collection of disparate interest groups.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Nope. The last UN resolution on Iraq was specifically worded so as not to authorize (prohibit) an invasion of Iraq.

I would have to give you that much.

Two weeks ago, I would have voted that Gaddafi would have crushed the rebellion and brutalized thousands of more civilians as a means of reinforcing his power.

Now, I give the rebels a fighting chance, leading to the question of "what next" and is the Libyan National Council a true democratic movement or more likely a rag tag collection of disparate interest groups.

Cool, when are we going to invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc?

[infinite monkey]

Isn't Spexx an optimist by trade?

[piercehawkeye45]

You quoted the wrong guy dude. I was asking a question.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You quoted the wrong guy dude. I was asking a question.

And that question is what I was answering. I really don't care who asked it. Addressed is the only thing relevant. The question.

And then asked is the far more important question. Why are so many European nations so toothless?

[TheMercenary]

Obama is a GD idiot. If Bush would have invoked AQ in the first sentence of his opening statement people would have called that "fear mongering". So far he is failing big time. IS the US now a tool of the UN? 2012 can't come soon enough....

[TheMercenary]

"The US cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities...." BULLSHIT again! how about Darfur asshat?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"The US cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities...." BULLSHIT again! how about Darfur asshat?

Because Bush failed to prevent a slaughter (as Clinton before him in other regions in Africa) seems like a pretty feeble reason for not preventing one now, with little risk to American lives.