Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[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.

[Stormieweather]

I think part of the difference is whether or not the 'protesters' or 'rebels' in these various countries ASKED for help. Did they organize enough to contact the UN and NATO and ask for someone to intervene on their behalf? Were/are there enough powerful people and organizations supporting the uprising to influence the neighboring countries and other organizations?

The African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Group of 8 all were asking for a no-fly zone. This wasn't something Obama or the US did all by themselves, nor spearheaded. But once it became a mandate, I do agree with our participation. We claim to be all about the human rights and supposedly we abhor violence against innocent citizens, so declining to aid when someone is asking for help defending against those very things is unacceptable, in my opinion.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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

I know what you mean.

op·ti·mis·tic   
[op-tuh-mis-tik]
–adjective
1.
Unbelievably high. "Dude, I tried out my roommate's new bong and after 3 hits I was so optimistic I couldn't stand up. It was great."
2.
reflecting optimism: an optimistic plan.
3.
of or pertaining to optimism.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I know what you mean.

Nice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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

It is not about enforcing democracy. It is about the same thing that caused British Marines to make that valiant and successful stand in Liberia. Same as what the French did years ago in Ivory Coast to also rescue hundreds of Americans.

America had no military interest in Libya. That was until Benghazi was but days from being overrun. And Kaddafi said he intended to massacre rebels by the tens or hundreds of thousands. Benghazi is a town of 450,000 to be massacred.

So everything changed. Kaddafi's speech was his undoing. Pressure to avert a massacre was especially strong from the French. African Union, Arab League, numerous European nations, and even Russia and China became very concerned.

The resulting UN resolution (that may be been passed in record speed due to events in Benghazi) authorized a no-fly zone. And forbid Kaddafi from continuing his attacks. Kaddafi said he would abide. Destroyed were tanks, amour, and other vehicles that continued attacking in violation of a very loosely worded UN resolution.

Remember, a no-fly zone in Iraq also forbade Saddam from doing same with his army.

America ended up in this war because no one else could provide sufficient force with sufficient speed. It had to be done in days. For example, the US launched over 130 cruise missiles. The British launched a full four. The French launched everything they had. Zero. The Italians launched all zero planes.

Criticism should be at so many European nations who are really as toothless as they were during the Balkan massacres. The British are the only European nation that has demonstrated any military power. Britain will now lose most of it due to too many wars too far away. The rest of Europe (other than France) can only deploy token forces.

A problem that Clinton addressed bluntly by what he did in Bosnia. And that a president after Clinton completely undid by his international diplomacy.

Why is Europe so toothless? The world only had a few days to respond to Kaddafi's threat. Or enjoy pictures of a premeditated massacre. Tens or hundreds of thousands. Which choice should the world have made? America basically got pushed into this mess because nobody else could on such short notice. The response had to be that fast.

So many here are ignoring the reason why America is the only nation that could respond. A nasty criticism of our European dwellers who should have been asking these embarrassing questions long ago of their own politicians.

Democracy has zero to do with events in Libya. Massacre is the only relevant word.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

So many here are ignoring the reason why America is the only nation that could respond.

Because of our HUGE military spending? Thank the R's.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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

We are choosing sides in a Civil War. One side is the oligarchy, the other is a pipe dream of hope for a demoncratic society which will never happen.