Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

On the Ground (and in the Air) in Libya

  • Posted on
  • by Minister X
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2011, 1:21 pm

danivon wrote:Dr Fate - do you think that it is a popular position in the USA to reduce defence spending and increase international aid?


Nope, but I'm not talking about "international aid" in the normative sense. I'm talking about the rescue of kids directly.

The reality is that there is already a war in Libya, with or without NATO. Gadaffi is certainly intending to create orphans, and the evidence going to the ICC now suggests far more.


Gadaffi has been creating orphans for decades. I can name any number of larger "civil wars" in which the US had no vital interest and took no role.

I'm saying we should have handled this in a week. This miserable "lead from the back" programme (do I get points for spelling?) typifies the President's leadership style and it's not helpful either domestically or abroad.

In any event, I think the ICC is part of the problem. Gadaffi has nowhere to go, so why not fight until the bitter end? What's in it for him to surrender? The rest of his miserable life in prison?

End result: it will take a lucky bomb (as opposed to a smart bomb) to end this.

And, for what? Because of what he might have done?

Again, I hope no one misunderstands me: I'm against the WPA; I'm against our involvement in Libya because I don't think it has or will accomplish anything it's supposed to do (barring a stroke of luck); I am not in favor of defense cuts on equipment or manpower. I think we need to stop deploying so many soldiers and marines in SK, Germany, and other such locales that are under no threat. Furthermore, if we could, as a nation, adopt thousands of African orphans, I would say "bring it on. I'll find the homes, you send the kids."
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2011, 1:23 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, we're spending $1B to maybe save some civilians while killing others (9 today). I don't know. I think maybe that $1B could change some lives of orphans in Africa instead of creating more of them.


Amen brother.


Middle ground.

It's not so hard. :grin:
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Jun 2011, 1:49 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Dr Fate - do you think that it is a popular position in the USA to reduce defence spending and increase international aid?


Nope, but I'm not talking about "international aid" in the normative sense. I'm talking about the rescue of kids directly.


and

Furthermore, if we could, as a nation, adopt thousands of African orphans, I would say "bring it on. I'll find the homes, you send the kids."


Ok, Because that never causes problems. Like in Haiti, where 'orphans' who weren't were packed off to well-meaning families. Who identifies these orphans? Who vets the families? What if there are families nearer to their homes who could take them in? What's to stop an orphan 'industry' growing up? Isn't it just a way that countries can further abdicate the responsibility to care for their own kids? And myriad other questions.

Still, the USA could do all that and still give NATO bombs and support for Libya. These things are seldom 'either-or'.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2011, 2:14 pm

danivon wrote:[Ok, Because that never causes problems. Like in Haiti, where 'orphans' who weren't were packed off to well-meaning families. Who identifies these orphans?


Much easier to keep dropping bombs!

Haiti was a short-term disaster. A few overly zealous folks did the wrong thing. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa have been imploding for how long?

Who vets the families?


Better to just let them starve where they are than to risk they might end up in a bad family, right?

What if there are families nearer to their homes who could take them in?


This young man lived with a few who nearly starved him to death. But, who is suggesting they be taken away from relatives who will actually care for them?

I'm not. I'm merely saying there are plenty of lives to be saved in the world that don't involve us dropping bombs in a civil war, killing civilians in the name of saving them.

What's to stop an orphan 'industry' growing up? Isn't it just a way that countries can further abdicate the responsibility to care for their own kids? And myriad other questions.


Yeah, what about that responsibility? Hmm, should we sue Zimbabwe in the ICC?

Still, the USA could do all that and still give NATO bombs and support for Libya. These things are seldom 'either-or'.


Or, we could tell our NATO "allies" we will support them fully--we'll give them troops that won't fight and will just hang around the barracks and play cards. That would be just about right, I'd think. You know, repaying the "debt" we incurred in Afghanistan.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Jun 2011, 2:20 pm

I don't recall much of this line of argument before Obama came in. Did he brainwash you?

:laugh:
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jun 2011, 2:43 pm

danivon wrote:I don't recall much of this line of argument before Obama came in. Did he brainwash you?

:laugh:


I've been hypMOtized (to quote Letterman)

I never was a neocon, or a paleocon. I've always been an American conservative. I value life. I value freedom. I value limited government. I don't believe America can impose her values on every part of the planet. I don't believe we can afford a Cold War mentality when that conflict was resolved 20 years ago.

We don't belong in Libya--at least not the way it's being done now.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Jul 2011, 4:40 pm

About a month ago, attempting to at least try and keep us on topic (and reflecting that the initiator of the thread has left us long ago probably partly because his attempts to avoid partisan bickering foundered I thought it was an apt time for it to come up), I posted this about how the actual conflict was going and how the Western rebellions were perhaps important:
danivon wrote:Right, so, going back to the OP, the rebellion has not melted away. On the ground it seems that there’s not been much movement since the large back-and forth along the coast of the Bay of Sirte. However, there are still signs of cracks in the regime. A tribe based in the area to the south of Tripoli have rebelled. Defections of military and government figures continue. There were large protests in Tripoli at the weekend.

On that first example, the Warfalla clan are in the area around the city of Bani Walid. This is in the same province as Misrata, but some way inland. Between there and the Tunisian border are the Nafusa Mountains, which have a lot of rebel activity and a lot of the towns have been changing hands. If the rebels gain control in Misrata, Bani Walid and in the Nafusa, and they also take or block the city of Gharyan, then the Tripoli coast will be cut off from the rest of the country. However, it’s clear that the regime know this and they are pushing hard. Which is probably why things towards Benghazi are relatively quiet compared to in March.

Now, the Western rebels aren’t all associated with the ‘transitional’ government in Benghazi, but they are probably more pivotal at the moment to the outcome. If they keep going, then they could tie up loyalist forces for some time. If they are defeated, then the regime will have more materiel free to move East. What is additionally significant about the Warfalla is that they are one of the tribes that have been long-term allies of Gadaffi.

A stalemate would not result in two contiguous sub-states, but a more complex situation which would likely not be stable. A successful rebellion will possibly have different factions vying for control and the mantle of ‘liberators’ (imagine if the Western rebels march into Tripoli while the transitional government are still stuck east of Brega!). A failed rebellion will not be easy to quell and so the process would probably increase pressure for external intervention.

Interestingly, the rebels in Misrata and those in the mountains of the Nafusa appear to be co-ordinating.

Could we be seeing a shift in the balance of the war?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... -offensive
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jul 2011, 9:22 am

Weeks not months.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps killing American soldiers without reprisal.

If that's political, so be it. It's also the clear truth. We have no compelling interest in Libya, but have a compelling interest to protect our troops.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 07 Jul 2011, 11:22 am

Thanks for your relevant and constructive comments, Doc. I'm sure you've helped us to explore the potential outcomes for Libya of the conflict.

(oh, you just blarted out stuff about Iran, US interests and a snark at Obama - how original)
User avatar
geojanes
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3536
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 07 Jul 2011, 1:38 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Weeks not months.


He said days not weeks. Really, look it up.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jul 2011, 2:16 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Weeks not months.


He said days not weeks. Really, look it up.


My apologies! You're right. It's much worse than I remember.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jul 2011, 2:18 pm

danivon wrote:Thanks for your relevant and constructive comments, Doc. I'm sure you've helped us to explore the potential outcomes for Libya of the conflict.

(oh, you just blarted out stuff about Iran, US interests and a snark at Obama - how original)


It's irrelevant to point out that we've no business in Libya and that the President has steadily lied about it?

Oh, okay.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 07 Jul 2011, 2:48 pm

Read the OP, Doc
User avatar
Neal Anderth
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 897
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 07 Jul 2011, 6:18 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:I've always been an American conservative. I value life. I value freedom. I value limited government. I don't believe America can impose her values on every part of the planet. I don't believe we can afford a Cold War mentality when that conflict was resolved 20 years ago.

We don't belong in Libya--at least not the way it's being done now.

Your self-description sounds very PaleoCon.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Jul 2011, 7:27 am

danivon wrote:Read the OP, Doc


About keeping it apolitical?

If that's your point, there is no such thing as an apolitical war. The facts on the ground do not support the original reason for entering the conflict, nor do the results match the President's promises.

To the substance: this will only end when Gaddafi is dead. He won't surrender. Why would he? To save lives? That's laughable. And, we've offered him no alternative.