Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[ZenGum]

Just a quick thread-bump.

The "no-fly zone", extended to include very low flying tanks, artillery pieces and even low-altitude trucks full of soldiers, has been effective so far. In the last few days the rebels have retaken or taken four or five towns. As far as I see, Gadaffi has Tripoli and a few other towns left.

However, we're not doing airstrikes in the cities. Too many civillian bodies, looks bad. In a few cases the rebels were stopped by tanks already in cities, but it seems they have dealt with them, presumably with shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons.

The real question is whether the rebels will be able to take Tripoli and give GKQDFi the bum's rush. They can't expect any close air support, but I have recently seen (on TV) quite a few tanks driving about with the rebel flag. Either deserters or captured weapons, I guess.

The real payoff from this operation is that it has restarted the overall Arab revolt. Yemen is developing, Syria is getting quite interesting. Bastards in Bahrain called in fellow Arabs to put down the rebels, but the Libya bombing might deter them from great brutality.

It seems you are allowed to use ground troops against dissidents, but using artillery and air stikes is considered bad manners, and gets you bombed.

[piercehawkeye45]

Hilary Clinton and Robert Gates on Sunday Talk Shows.

http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.co...ay-talk-shows/


A good interview for Clinton and Gates in my opinion. There didn't seem to be any bullshit or logical missteps involved. The biggest challenge for them, and Obama tonight, will be justifying the attack without congressional support when they themselves admit that US national security is not at risk.

[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.

[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.

[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

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

[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

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]

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?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...

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

This is/was not an invasion of Libya.

We should not invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc.

But, if the violence against protestors is those countries escalates to levels of random and ongoing excessive government brutality against civilians AND IF the UN were to mandate a response AND IF that response had the support of the Arab League AND was carried out by NATO, then I MIGHT support a limited US role, depending on circumstances.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

This is/was not an invasion of Libya.

We should not invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc.

But, if the violence against protestors is those countries escalates to levels of random and ongoing excessive government brutality against civilians AND IF the UN were to mandate a response AND IF that response had the support of the Arab League AND was carried out by NATO, then I MIGHT support a limited US role, depending on circumstances.

It is duplicity. Why didn't we do that in Egypt? Are you going to defend what happened in Egypt where the violence against protestors is those countries escalated to levels of random and ongoing excessive government brutality against civilians?

Stop trying to cover Obama's ass. It is a crock of shit. We lost a good airplane over that crap. Good thing we didn't lose the pilots. It is a boonedoggle and Obama screwed up by letting us get involved, as Gates said, we had no dog in this hunt and what contribution we did make could easily have been done by the French and British.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The point here is that Obama stated repeatedly that he would not attack another country to enforce democracy. He failed.

How is the attack enforcing democracy? If anyone thinks a democratic government will be the end results of this they are extremely optimistic.

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

Do you really think the circumstances in those countries are even close to being the same? The Ivory Coast is the only country that is even close to Libya in terms of systematically killing political opponents but the emotional outcry will never be as loud or intense as it is for Libya.