Thread: Is There Really Any Use In Going To Libya

I say this because i saw something pretty interesting on the news today. It was one of the rebel libyan soldiers. when asked why he does not like Gahdafi, the man said that it was because Gahdafi was jewish. Though we are trying to help these people, will it really do any good. This is a very tribal community, and as far as my feeble mind can go, i would say they would explode into civil war. And even if there is no civil war, there is a large chance for a radical Islamic state, like Iran, to be established. I'm not saying we shouldn't get rid of Gahdafi, by any sane man's judgement, he has to go. But this isn't Egypt, and it isn't Tunisia. These people are just as misinformed as the country peoples od Afghanistan. Instead of the mountains of Afghanistan, there is the Deserts of Libya. So will it make a difference to go to war? And should the US, a country already in 2 other wars, be taking part in this?

Usually, I’m a hawk. If this Libya situation had happened under a GOP Prez, the situation would be over already, and we’d be giving a briefing to whatever puppet seen fit to rule the country.

But,

Obama has loused this up. We took out his Air Force, his air defenses, and a good chunk of his armor. He has a small, but well equipped and trained, loyal cadre around him. He’s up against an untrained and unorganized light militia.

Unless someone summons some cajones, this mess is going to be going on a while. Right now, a brigade of US Marines could take Tripoli in less than a week (that’s our old stomping grounds anyway).

Personally, I think Hillary Clinton has a better grasp of the situation than does Obama. If it were my call, I’d let her call the shots and let him go back on vacation-he’s useless anyway.

Well, I'd say Libya is already in full civil war and even democracy in Egypt might or might not fly.

For now, it's a movement to oust a tyrant, and maybe something good will come of this.

The US simply doesn't want to have any boots on the ground. It's far too costly and the American people are already sick of being in two prolonged conflicts.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Obama has loused this up. We took out his Air Force, his air defenses, and a good chunk of his armor. He has a small, but well equipped and trained, loyal cadre around him. He’s up against an untrained and unorganized light militia.

Both sides have military training because of high enlistment and both are basically incompetent. The only major advantage Gahdafi had was air support, and with that gone, the playing field is even. Though, it would've been nice if it was leveled earlier.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Unless someone summons some cajones, this mess is going to be going on a while. Right now, a brigade of US Marines could take Tripoli in less than a week (that’s our old stomping grounds anyway).

They probably could, but it would be a hell of a lot messier trying to keep Tripoli. I doubt the Libyans or the American people want ground forces to be deployed.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Usually, I’m a hawk. If this Libya situation had happened under a GOP Prez, the situation would be over already, and we’d be giving a briefing to whatever puppet seen fit to rule the country.

Such as Iraq, for example.

Obama has loused this up. We took out his Air Force, his air defenses, and a good chunk of his armor. He has a small, but well equipped and trained, loyal cadre around him. He’s up against an untrained and unorganized light militia. Unless someone summons some cajones, this mess is going to be going on a while. Right now, a brigade of US Marines could take Tripoli in less than a week (that’s our old stomping grounds anyway).

Personally, I think Hillary Clinton has a better grasp of the situation than does Obama. If it were my call, I’d let her call the shots and let him go back on vacation-he’s useless anyway.

That's fairly harsh criticism there Dude considering that this is only day 6. The U.S. President and Secretary of State grasp this situation the same but neither are calling the shots, this is a U.N./NATO operation first and foremost.

Originally Posted by Blood

Such as Iraq, for example.

That's fairly harsh criticism there Dude considering that this is only day 6. The U.S. President and Secretary of State grasp this situation the same but neither are calling the shots, this is a U.N./NATO operation first and foremost.

Hillary really does have a better grasp of this. Obama sent our very capable military and basically pounded the Duck’s forces into a mess. A capable disciplined force (any European or North American country) could take Tripoli in a week. Thing is, the US forces have become quite a question mark-if Obama sticks to his pledge to keep ground forces out of their fight.

Essentially, he attacked a being, and cut off everything but one arm. The being is laying there bleeding out, and he won’t do the coup de grace. He’s relying on an infant to finish the job. The infant might, but it will take a long time, a very long time.

Hillary, on the other hand, pushed for the intervention when Obama resisted. The intervention only happened when the US UN Ambassador Susan Rice pulled off that that UN Security Council resolution-left unvetoed by the Chinese and Russians. That was a major coup pulled off by Hillary & Susan. I’m not a fan of Hillary by any stretch, but she’s the one demonstrating leadership here.

Our only remaining options are:

1) Go in with ground forces and finish off the duck (not likely at this point)

Or

2) Train the opposition the way we trained Iraqi, Afghan, and Viet forces.

By the time we train and equip the opposition, how much time will elapse ? Will we be fighting a proxy war against Iranians (like Iraq or Afghanistan) or the Chinese and Russians (Vietnam, Korea).

I think you have bought the propaganda and missed the point. Which tribe runs things is not really of any concern, what's much more important is that the place is floating on oil, whoever gives us access to that can have the desert on top of it.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

I think you have bought the propaganda and missed the point. Which tribe runs things is not really of any concern, what's much more important is that the place is floating on oil, whoever gives us access to that can have the desert on top of it.

If you are replying to Dudester, then I admitt that I too have bought into the propaganda, but I also know that Libya only produces 2% of the worlds total oil supply. I wouldn't call that floating on oil.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Hillary really does have a better grasp of this. Obama sent our very capable military and basically pounded the Duck’s forces into a mess. A capable disciplined force (any European or North American country) could take Tripoli in a week. Thing is, the US forces have become quite a question mark-if Obama sticks to his pledge to keep ground forces out of their fight.

Essentially, he attacked a being, and cut off everything but one arm. The being is laying there bleeding out, and he won’t do the coup de grace. He’s relying on an infant to finish the job. The infant might, but it will take a long time, a very long time.

Hillary, on the other hand, pushed for the intervention when Obama resisted. The intervention only happened when the US UN Ambassador Susan Rice pulled off that that UN Security Council resolution-left unvetoed by the Chinese and Russians. That was a major coup pulled off by Hillary & Susan. I’m not a fan of Hillary by any stretch, but she’s the one demonstrating leadership here.

There's a lot of speculation there.

You are correct to think that members of Obama’s cabinet, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and one you left out, National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, were leading advocates for the current Libyan intervention. But then this really wouldn’t be news if they were men. Presidents surround themselves with advisers for the purpose of taking in different points of view on any given issue. Ultimately, it is the president who decides.

As far as Hilary having a better grasp, she is just one p.o.v., and she could be mistaken. But there's no doubt, Rwanda is at the forefront of her mind when thinking of Libya, and to that end we have succeeding in preventing a premeditated slaughter of Libyans on a massive scale. Good call I say. But the fate of Gaddafi and the future of Libya is unknowable at this point. Obama is taking a calculated risk. And it should be noted that much credit (or blame) goes to French President Nikolas Sarkozy for taking the initial stance on this.

Regarding the two options you listed, they are not on the table. If Obama puts troops on the ground in Libya, then it better be a covert, secret, undercover operation because it will be disastrous for him politically, as well as insane thing to do.

Are the rebels the same people who applauded the release of the Lockerbie bomber? One has to be insane to put themselves in the middle of this. It's like walking down the street and watching two crazy brothers heaving punches at each other. If you try to break up the fight, most likely, you will be the recipient of their punches.

'Use?'

As ever, the question remains:

"Cui bono?"

Originally Posted by Leyline

'Use?'

As ever, the question remains:

"Cui bono?"

Who do you think?

Originally Posted by Dudester

Hillary really does have a better grasp of this. Obama sent our very capable military and basically pounded the Duck’s forces into a mess. A capable disciplined force (any European or North American country) could take Tripoli in a week. Thing is, the US forces have become quite a question mark-if Obama sticks to his pledge to keep ground forces out of their fight.

Essentially, he attacked a being, and cut off everything but one arm. The being is laying there bleeding out, and he won’t do the coup de grace. He’s relying on an infant to finish the job. The infant might, but it will take a long time, a very long time.

Hillary, on the other hand, pushed for the intervention when Obama resisted. The intervention only happened when the US UN Ambassador Susan Rice pulled off that that UN Security Council resolution-left unvetoed by the Chinese and Russians. That was a major coup pulled off by Hillary & Susan. I’m not a fan of Hillary by any stretch, but she’s the one demonstrating leadership here.

Our only remaining options are:

1) Go in with ground forces and finish off the duck (not likely at this point)

Or

2) Train the opposition the way we trained Iraqi, Afghan, and Viet forces.

By the time we train and equip the opposition, how much time will elapse ? Will we be fighting a proxy war against Iranians (like Iraq or Afghanistan) or the Chinese and Russians (Vietnam, Korea).

you have to consider that Obama may actually be using common sense here. If we go in guns blazing, then we WILL kill civilians. though unintentional, it will further ruin the US's reputation. what does it look like to the middle east if we send in ground troops? -- and invasion. What will it look like if we kill civialians unintentionally through airstrikes-- it will still look like we're killing innocents in a malicious manner. going in with ground troops would drag america into a deep and prolonged war, puting US troops in three countries. The rest of the world does not hold the United States in such esteem as we Americans do, keep that in mind. We truly aren't a country that has recieved some blessing from god to be the greatest nation in the world. We are another nation, and we have to learn not to become rash and act act with a collective american narcissism and pride that I find to be present too often these days. I'm not saying you are part of it, but a large part of the GOP, and many other americans are part of it.
it was very smart for Obama to wait. If we went in without having the Arab world first respond, we would once again seem like that imperialistic, murderous nation that many arabs perceive us to be.
And once again, Obama proves that he got into the office for a reason by not wanting to get involved too much. not matter what you want to do, you can't so it wuickly. Gahdafi, like you said, has a very well trained army. He can hold a war for a while. Then, once he's defeated, our ground troops would be staying there for the same thing that's going on in Iraq and afghanistan.
The US will play a major role. We spend 600 billion on our military, which is far more than the budget of most nations (china spends 150 million by CIA measurements, for a amry about twice the size as our, do the math--we spend about 8 times as much for every soldier we have-- comapred to china, pervieced to be one of out worst military rivals). We can do logistical and information-related like no other nation, and that's what we should do. as one general said, we are going to be the 'glue' of the coalition. we're gonna hold together things with information and help with things like that. Countries like France, Britian, Even Qatar and the UAE (and Turkey should step up too), will be doing the fighting.

Originally Posted by Blood

I also know that Libya only produces 2% of the worlds total oil supply. I wouldn't call that floating on oil.

2% does not sound like a lot, but 2% of the worlds total supply does, Libya is not a huge country compared to say the US, Canada, Australia or Brazil, I don't know what % of the worlds land area it is, a lot less than 2 is my guess.

What Libya produces today is no measure of what Libya possesses. Those who make policy pay more attention to future potential than to today's production figures, and rightfully so. As it was with Kuwait and Iraq, so it is with Libya. It's all about oil.

So why is the UN/US enforcing a no fly zone now? Why not let Gaddafi squash the rebellion and continue on with business as usual? He might be crazy but I'm sure he's reasonable when it comes to his oil.