No Fly Zone - Page 2

Bubblehead1980 · 03-01-11, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

Arm, come on now, the other networks are beating the war drums as well.Who on Fox said this btw? Wondering if it was a news person or opinion people like Hannity etc.I am opposed to us going into Libya, we can not afford it and they have not attacked us.Listening to some Liberal fool on O'Reilly now advocating US troops in Libya.

Takeda Shingen · 03-01-11, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Arm, come on now, the other networks are beating the war drums as well.Who on Fox said this btw? Wondering if it was a news person or opinion people like Hannity etc.I am opposed to us going into Libya, we can not afford it and they have not attacked us.Listening to some Liberal fool on O'Reilly now advocating US troops in Libya.

'Liberal fool' is all well and good, but let's just remember who was running the show the last time we invaded a nation unprovoked.

Bubblehead1980 · 03-01-11, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

'Liberal fool' is all well and good, but let's just remember who was running the show the last time we invaded a nation unprovoked.

At the time they thought they had WMD's, of course many maintain they lied, I disagree and anyone without an agenda can see that Bush himself believed there were WMD's, Cheney etc may have manipulated, but Bush did not knowingly mislead us into war.Now, in hindsight it was a bad idea to go in, but everything is clear after the fact.We are not under threat from Libya at the moment so have no business sending troops.The Libs are saying we do because there is a Dem President(no one to yell at) and there are human rights issues(like there were none under Saddam?) They are the ones playing politics, I am saying we do not need to go in or even consider it unless Libya gets hostile towards us, MAYBE then, but right now, we need to sit aside and let Libyan people fight their revolution.

Takeda Shingen · 03-01-11, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

At the time they thought they had WMD's, of course many maintain they lied, I disagree and anyone without a agenda can see that Bush himself believed there were WMD's, Cheney etc may have manipulated, but Bush did not knowingly lie.Now, in hindsight it was a bad idea to go in, but everything is clear after the fact.We are not under threat from Libya at the moment so have no business sending troops.The Libs are saying we do because there is a Dem President and there are human rights issues(like there were none under Saddam?) They are the ones playing politics, I am saying we do not need to go in or even consider it.Libya gets hostile towards us, MAYBE, but right now, we need to sit aside and let Libyan people fight their revolution.

But we still went in there without being attacked. And it was the neo-conservative Republicans who presented the evidence and lead the charge. Plenty of Democrats supported it as well, but the NeoCons lead the charge. We went in under the auspices of ending the weapons programs and making the world safer, espeically for America. We accomplished neither, political spin or not. Those are plain and simple facts, and we would all do well to remember that the next time we stick our nose into that region of the world.

tater · 03-01-11, 09:22 PM

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact).

Takeda Shingen · 03-01-11, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact).

Well, not having a degree in political science, I'd have to back out of the conversation. However, I think it a very good point that none of our efforts in the Middle East, Iraq included, have been successful in securing our interests. However, this is likely disputable as I am also lacking a degree in international relations.

Oberon · 03-01-11, 11:32 PM

I guess (again, little qualifications here) that one would have to go back to the root of the question and ask "What is the US's interests?" and not the stated interests but the real ones. Geo-political influence, resources, survival of Israel? Only the NSA and perhaps TLAM Strike really know I'd wager.

Castout · 03-02-11, 03:07 AM

I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass.

03-02-11, 04:29 AM

@Tater

Quote:

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so.

No it wasn't unaimous, 297 votes. It was a bigger majority in the senate but that wasn't anywhere near unanimous either.

They said the same about Vietnam which was nearly unanimous, it turns out they had been lied to and gone along with the lies about Vietnam same as they did over Iraq.

TLAM Strike · 03-02-11, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout

I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass.

Too overt. There are boots on the ground already. The rescue of those Brit Oil Workers by the Regiment showed that. Just sneak in and sabotage anything that is a major threat. Those new mobile MLRS US SOF have would work wonders in Shoot and Scoot missions against Libyan Air Bases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I guess (again, little qualifications here) that one would have to go back to the root of the question and ask "What is the US's interests?" and not the stated interests but the real ones. Geo-political influence, resources, survival of Israel? Only the NSA and perhaps TLAM Strike really know I'd wager.

You summoned?

IMHO US Interests in the Region are in no particular order:

Stability in the region. Whatever is happening get it over with. When Qaddafi was in power for the last 10 years or so he was quiet in contrast to the 1970s and 1980s. We like it better when is not providing a safe haven for terrorists ala Patriot Games or transferring weapons tech ala the Condor Missile.

The spice must flow. The oil stocks of Libya just opened up to the west and we want the opportunity to get Oil that's not threatened by Iran or from Russia.

Contain and capture any remaining Libyan WMDs. Qaddafi had a big CBRN weapons and BM program, its likely not all of it was destroyed. The opportunity for capturing/inspecting/neutralizing certain sites and personnel now exists.

Jimbuna · 03-02-11, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout

I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass.

Somehow I don't se that happening and most definitely not by the French

yubba · 03-02-11, 01:05 PM

Here, I see no one knows how to fight a war if you got boots on the ground, give them stinger missles geez

Oberon · 03-02-11, 01:10 PM

http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/03/libya

Interesting reading.

STEED · 03-02-11, 01:35 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12618631

WHY?

This coalition said, this country is bust so why wast money.

Bilge_Rat · 03-02-11, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/03/libya

Interesting reading.

indeed, very interesting. Gaddafi will not go on his own. He will fight to the end and it now looks like we may see a prolonged civil war in Lybia.

Interesting the see the Cameron-Gates two step. No doubt the UK proposal was to basically have the US do all the heavy lifting with a nominal UK presence, something which has zero support in the White House or Congress.

The only way you will see military intervention in Lybia will be if the Europeans actually do something for a change, instead of just asking other countries to send their sons to die in combat.

03-01-11, 09:22 PM	#20
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact). __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

03-02-11, 03:07 AM	#23
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass. __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/

03-02-11, 01:35 PM	#29
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12618631 WHY? This coalition said, this country is bust so why wast money. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

03-01-11, 11:32 PM	#22
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I guess (again, little qualifications here) that one would have to go back to the root of the question and ask "What is the US's interests?" and not the stated interests but the real ones. Geo-political influence, resources, survival of Israel? Only the NSA and perhaps TLAM Strike really know I'd wager.

03-02-11, 01:05 PM	#27
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	Here, I see no one knows how to fight a war if you got boots on the ground, give them stinger missles geez

03-02-11, 01:10 PM	#28
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/03/libya Interesting reading.