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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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

Horseshit.

Please cite and quantify.


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.

Because the UN said so.
;)

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.

According to the prevailing reports they did not, so no, this is new.

Right, you support my point. This is not about "protecting civilians", this is taking sides and as Obamy stated, regime change.

What bullshit. So you could not support us going into Iraq but were ok when Saddam gassed the Kurds with Nerve Gas.... right.

Hair splitting. We all worked together. The CIA used us for technical support, targeting, commo, etc. The CIA are supported by elements of Special Operations Command. You have been punked by the press and your liberal bias.

Lets look at Iraq and the conditions I suggested.

There must be a popular uprising.
I agree that such an uprising existed in 1991 at our urging and we hung them out to dry. Shameful.

In 2003, there was no popular uprising along the lines of what have seen in other Arab counties over the last few months.

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces against that uprising.
The greatest massacres of the Iraqi people occured in the 80s (gassing of the Kurds) through 91, with the US administrations at the time providing arms to Saddam, not in the prelude to the 2003 invasion.

The subsequent No-Fly Zone in the early 90s prevented any deadly use of military force in the north at the time of the US invasion in 2003 and the Kurds had autonomy for the first time ever.While there certainly was actions by Saddam's secret police in the south, there was no broad use of the military because his military was decimated.

The intervention must be limited (and I would add) have a UN mandate.
Certainly not the case with the invasion and occupation of Iraq for which there was no UN mandate.

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
The Arab League opposed the US invasion, as did the other major Muslim countries - Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

There were protests against the US invasion in major cities throughout the Arab world.

Not one of thse conditions fit the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

O
I
L

Neighboring countries? How about a little pressure from our European friends who get some from there?

I watched an interview on CNN last night with a couple "experts" - Months wasn't even long enough to train these people how to use the weapons and be adept/unified enough to tactically make a real offense move against the cities still held by Quackdaddy.

The longer he keeps this together, the worse it looks for the rebels. :yelsick:
I will give the administration this - they weren't stupid enough to call them freedom fighters. :rolleyes:

I dont dispute that our chicken hawk allies in NATO should do more.

Today, command of control of the No Fly Zone is a NATO operation. The naval blockade, with ships from 10-15 NATO allies including Turkey, is under NATO command and control

Yea, I think they got the message the last time that the US was not going to be there for them.

Yea, I am sure that Saddam would have welcomed them with open arms after their previous experiences.

False. Many US and coalition troops lost their lives or were injured on the drive to Iraq.

AGAIN, current estimates say 90 days with an open-ended option to extend indefinitely. Bosnia was to be limited and we were there for over 2 years.

You are right, only 10 years of inept action and failed compliance with the UN mandates.

We had that in Iraq. Maybe you forgot the list of Arab nations that supported us...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...vasion_of_Iraq

All the while in the background they were supporting us in material and intel methods.

Obvious bullshit, as I have pointed out.

Never mind.

You just want to keep talking around my points with a revisionist history, at least IMO.

How many ships has Turkey provided? What is the strength of their naval power? How many airplanes has Qutar contributed? What is the effect of their contribution?