Response to Libya

Response to Libya

Bob
Bob

March 7th, 2011, 5:36 pm #1

I keep hearing how huge a job it would be to enact a "no fly" zone over Libya, to prevent their military from bombing their own people. The experts note that "first, we'd have to take out their missle defense system, to keep them from firing on our aircraft". I was thinking -- why not take over the missle defense sites ourselves (NATO) and then warn the Libyan military that their plans will be shot down if they try to fly. Kind of poetic justice, as the 9/11 hijackers used American commercial aircraft to attack U.S. (which everyone thought was so clever). Time for a bit of turning the tables, IMO.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 7th, 2011, 7:47 pm #2

Hmmm, well I think it's more complicated than that, Bob. I don't think we have any NATO antimissile sites in that area- they have to be close- line of radar sight for guidance and they are positioned around the Soviet block- not Arab countries, who were not seen as military threat when NATO was set up. Furthermore, we don't control NATO- we are just one member, and a number of countries would oppose NATO involvement in this- including Russia and China- while they are not in NATO they will block any UN moves like this.

Gaddafi's fall is inevitable, no ruler can survive the amount of opposition he has now, his own military is starting to turn on him. I think our best bet is to keep a low profile and supply the rebels with arms- which I think we are already doing.



Thrilling Discussions: POTPOURRI
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 8th, 2011, 1:46 am #3

What I meant is sudden invasion of Libya at the locations of their anti-aircraft missiles (I bet they show up on our satellite images), taking control of those missiles ourselves and then grounding the Libyan air forces via threat of shooting them down with their own missiles. I said NATO because it would be much easier to get agreement there rather than the United Nations. As for opposition within NATO, I believe not all members carry equal clout. Aren't there a core of a few countries in NATO that can vote to take action? If they had to have consensus, WHAT decisions could ever be made?
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 8th, 2011, 3:09 am #4

I don't know the command structure of NATO but I just don't think we are going to commit ground forces to fight still another war.
But it may be possible that we can use AWACS planes to give drones or cruise missiles radar support to take out the antiaircraft sites.

I really think that Gaddafi will be gone pretty soon and if I'm wrong I will delete this post.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 8th, 2011, 2:20 pm #5

about Gaddaffi being out of power soon. I just feel badly for his people, that he is using air strikes to try to crush resistance and remain in control. I don't care how we (the West) stop the air strikes, I just think we have a moral obligation to prevent the slaughter of innocent victims. (Imagine if U.S.' military turned against American citizens -- if there were the ability for other countries to stop it, wouldn't we welcome that intervention?)

The recurring problem, in my opinion, is the paraylsis on the part of U.S. and Europe when confronted with world events that require decisive leadership. We carry a big stick, but we are afraid to use it, even in situations where tremedous good could and should be done. Actually, U.S. does try to provide such leadership and spearhead certain efforts . . and the Brits are certainly right there trying to do the same. But, we have so many critics, both within our countries as well as externally, that anything which is not a clear and instant success foments such backlash that we (I have said so here before) vow "Never again!" It would be so easy in the short-term to say, "Screw it! Let them fight it out amongst themselves. Who cares if innocent, defenseless people are slaughtered. That's not our problem. Leave us out of it!"

Yes, Nat, I sometimes agree with you, that U.S. should stop meddling and concentrate on our own internal problems. Yet, I also think we have some responsibility for promoting ideals and assisting those in need around the world. That is what good leadership is, but we have become victim of "paralysis by analysis" and second-guessing, such that even dire situations give us pause.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 8th, 2011, 3:05 pm #6

Yes, I share your ambivalence, Bob. Ideally we should rush in and help the depressed and endangered at every opportunity, but we have a long history of such efforts backfiring on us. So things like this should be done as a coalition- by the UN or NATO so that political retribution is not directed at any one country. This was the idea of the UN- it was to be the world's policeman to make sure countries behaved themselves.

Unfortunately, the way the UN was set up- with any the major powers (who are ideologically opposed to each other) able to veto any action guarantees paralysis. In fact, I think the UN is just about worthless. NATO is composed of more like-minded countries and from what I read- NATO is studying the feasibility of enforcing a no-fly zone now so something may get done.

I don't think there is any doubt that Gaddaffi will be ousted- the only question is how much bloodshed will occur in the process.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

March 17th, 2011, 12:18 pm #7

No, not this guy:

"I don't think there is any doubt that Gaddaffi will be ousted . . " - Nat

Gaddaffi's forces are well on their way to crushing the rebellion and retaking eastern Libya (then starts the mass executions and imprisonments -- take that for trying to be free of the dictator!)


No, it is columnist Nicholas Kristof who is spot-on:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/ ... 07503.html


Let's face it: The UN is useless (we already knew that) . . NATO is useless . . . increasingly the U.S. and Europe are useless. Obviously the only plan was: We will keep talking but doing nothing until Gaddaffi bombs his people into submission and oil prices can then stabilize." Way to go, guys . . another "Mission Accomplished!"
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 17th, 2011, 1:12 pm #8

Well it looks like he's won for now- largely by bringing in paid mercenaries from Africa. But I stand by my prediction that his days are numbered. There are now millions of people in Libya that hate his guts- even more now than before because of the what he has done here- and this includes many in his own military. It only take one person- with one opportunity to put a bullet in him and plenty who would do it. He's a marked man now. I will be very surprise if he lives another year.



Thrilling Discussions: POTPOURRI
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2005, 12:05 pm

March 17th, 2011, 4:15 pm #9

All of our days are numbered.
Reply
Like
Share

Marseil
Marseil

March 17th, 2011, 10:33 pm #10

Well it looks like he's won for now- largely by bringing in paid mercenaries from Africa. But I stand by my prediction that his days are numbered. There are now millions of people in Libya that hate his guts- even more now than before because of the what he has done here- and this includes many in his own military. It only take one person- with one opportunity to put a bullet in him and plenty who would do it. He's a marked man now. I will be very surprise if he lives another year.



Thrilling Discussions: POTPOURRI
True, and lots of people hope Gaddafi days are numbered. on the other hand, if he gets back to power, there will be a terrible repression against all those who rebelled against him. This guy is totally capable to genocide his own people, as has been done in the past in Cambodia or Rwanda. Again, this time, with current information means, we can't say we don't know. Wand what shall we do???? Shall we let Gaddafi kill his people using the weapons we sold him?

Now, tonight, there seems to be a UN resolution coming, and a global will for a limited military intervention against Gaddafi. We'll see what the outcome will be.

Marseil.
Reply
Share