Libya.

[lolque?]

It's easier for things to "make sense" when you don't think about them Edit: Academia was trolling before your dumb lol wat crap came about. E.g., the Cox-Zucker Machine . Save it, I promise you don't have a dashing new perspective on why only whatever stuff you give a crap about is worth considering. Anti-intellectualism in the context of an ethical discussion

Jokes: they aren't serious

[fly135]

how explicitly do i need to spell it out for you ?

Oh, the irony:facepalm:.

 

 

the old lady analogy doesn't quite fit. it's a start, but the "old lady" might appear innocent or free from fault when read the way O'Keefe may or may not have intended. libya, the old lady, is run by a sadistic and violent P.O.S. dictator that has no love for the West (albeit a strange fascination with the US President). and if Gaddafi himself is the little old lady, then no one should mind what happens to her (physically).

The old lady is the rebels and the thugs are Gadhafi and his minions.

[Califa]

 

Israel are one our closest allies in the world and have more of a vested interest in Middle East stability than anyone else, including America. They also have one of the strongest armies in the world. If anyone should have an interest in seeing democracy and stability installed in Libya it should be Israel.

 

 

But then who would we hate on?

[fly135]

Why isn't Israel involved? It seems like they'd have a pretty big interest in making some friends with whomever eventually controls Libya. I guess they can just let big brother USA do the fighting and friend-making though.

The US never wants Israel involved in any conflicts near the ME for obvious reasons.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I'm not sure whether the objectives are actually quite that clear. The resolution states that civilians can be protected by 'any means necessary' (other than the use of ground troops) and the elimination of Gaddafi's administration could certainly result in the emergence of a less repressive leadership. However, it could also exacerbate the country's instability and there is no direct mention of regime change in the resolution. Indeed, while Britain's Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, stated yesterday that Gaddafi could be a legitimate target, the head of the UK's armed forces, Gen Sir David Richards, claimed that such a move would not be 'allowed under the UN resolution and it's not something I want to discuss any further' and the position of Robert Gates and senior figures in France appears to be closer to that of Richards. I think that the intervention could become very unpopular (particularly in other parts of the Middle East) if attempts to stimulate regime change appeared to become too overt but it doesn't seem as if the rebels would be strong enough to take Tripoli wthout help. Yet it would be difficult for the coalition to use airstrikes in such a built up area given the presence of civilians. It seems quite likely that a stalemate may result (unless there is some form of internal coup within Gadaffi's inner circle), which would be pretty bad for the Libyan people, I expect.

You bring up some excellent points. It's certainly not without a degree of risk.

As far as "taking him out", remember that the US has a policy (from an executive order that was signed by Ford, and that has been re-stated and modified a few times since then, and "eased" in cases involving terrorism) that prohibits the US from taking part in political assassinations; so while if we kill him as we're attacking a legitimate target (say, a command center), then that's legal, but tracing him down and sending him a special delivery cruise missile with his name on it is not. However, the UK and other coalition countries have different laws, and as you noted, the UN resolution does say "any means necessary" - and sending a special delivery cruise missile with Gaddafi's name on it may be legal for them, and under the UN resolution - I honestly don't know about the particulars of the resolution well enough to know if that would technically qualify as authorized under it or not, but if he's the one giving the orders to attack civilians, then technically, he's fair game as part of the command structure under the laws of war and probably the resolution.

If we wind up providing close combat air support for the rebel troops all the way "to the shores of Tripoli", then yes, the chances of unintended civilian casualties increases dramatically... and that could indeed cause problems for us in the region.

Like I said several posts back - this is very much a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Oh {censored} off. You are a piece of {censored} if you think someone can't be critical of Israel without being an anti-semite. Get a {censored}ing clue.

 

 

Even if you make the insults while trying to make a legitimate point, you still concede the argument... and you're violating the site rules pertaining to personal attacks. Either get ahold of yourself and respond calmly and with civility (even when someone attacks you) or bow out of the discussion. Report the post when someone is out of line, but do not take matters into your own hands and respond in kind.

 

 

Israel are one our closest allies in the world and have more of a vested interest in Middle East stability than anyone else, including America. They also have one of the strongest armies in the world. If anyone should have an interest in seeing democracy and stability installed in Libya it should be Israel. As I alluded to earlier (and confirmed by several leaked recordings and documents) many people in the Israeli government see America as kind of a 'big brother' who can be leaned on to get things done without getting their hands dirty personally.

 

 

I agree with you... but remember, Israel pretty much can't get involved directly in something like this, even if their motives are pure and good, without incurring the wrath of the Arab / Islamic world. Doing so risks triggering a far larger regional - or even world-wide conflict.

 

In Gulf I, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and then attacked the Saudis, the Israelis could have contributed to the efforts to oppose him... but if they had done so, the entire coalition - which included several Arab states who hate Israel (including Syria and Saudi Arabia) would have fallen apart. Saddam tried to play on that and provoke Israel into responding - remember all the Scuds he launched at them? We (the USA) provided Patriot batteries and promises to the Israelis to keep them out of the conflict, for the good of all.

 

IMO, it would be a seriously bad move for the world at large if Israel decides to become involved in Libya.

[melx]

Salah, a spokesman for the February 17 Rebels, in Misrata, tells BBC News: "The situation is a catastrophe. We've had more than 40 dead, more than 200 injured here today because when Gaddafi stopped the military actions, the people went out on to the street to demonstrate peacefully and the military started shooting at them with heavy weapons. They even shot three ambulances - two of the drivers were killed."

[EL KABONG]

yeah I guess Phil's right, that is if you wanna believe everything the govt and media are telling you.

[fly135]

I don't wanna believe everything the govt and the media tells me. Now what?

[melx]

yeah I guess Phil's right, that is if you wanna believe everything the govt and media are telling you.

 

We should believe everything you say instead?

 

going on your past posts, I think I'll read the media and read between the lines myself thanks.

[EL KABONG]

oh im so hurt by your put down melx

[driverhasabomb]

Looks like The Arab League are a little disappointed with how this is playing out...

 

"The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.

 

The Arab League's support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

 

Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.

 

Moussa has told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."

 

U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians."

[melx]

 

Looks like The Arab League are a little disappointed with how this is playing out... "The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths. The Arab League's support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed. Moussa has told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."

 

 

I think they have changed that position today, I saw a statement this afternoon on TV where they reinforced their support.

[EL KABONG]

hi

[preservation]

news to the world: in a war or war-like scenario, civilian deaths are almost always guaranteed. why do so many govt/military officials seem genuinely shocked when civilian deaths occur ?

how about we focus on the likelihood of civilian deaths BEFORE we bring out the big guns ???

[Phil O'Keefe]

oh im so hurt by your put down melx

 

He didn't put you down. He simply stated his opinion regarding the relative validity and veracity of the news and government reports of the situation and the relatively extensive evidence in support of same (from a variety of sources), compared to your conspiracy theories; for which you have yet to present any significant evidence to support.

 

FWIW, I don't believe or take at face value any single news or government source. However, when I hear similar things from a variety of sources, and those sources have a variety of different perspectives and biases that do not necessarily coincide, that gives increased weight and credibility to them and increases the likelihood that there is some truth in the reports. The more evidence, and the more reliable that evidence is, the better. Anyone can say anything; I'm interested in credibility, facts to back up the claims and verifiability.

[preservation]

for my facts i look for the words that form in my backyard birdbath, and if the water isn't still, i lock myself in the house for the rest of the day.

[Agreed]

Jokes: they aren't serious

 

 

:poke:

 

 

:poke:

 

:poke:

:poke::poke::poke::poke::poke::poke:

[penelope twee]

As far as "taking him out", remember that the US has a policy (from an executive order that was signed by Ford, and that has been re-stated and modified a few times since then, and "eased" in cases involving terrorism) that prohibits the US from taking part in political assassinations; so while if we kill him as we're attacking a legitimate target (say, a command center), then that's legal, but tracing him down and sending him a special delivery cruise missile with his name on it is not. However, the UK and other coalition countries have different laws, and as you noted, the UN resolution does say "any means necessary" - and sending a special delivery cruise missile with Gaddafi's name on it may be legal for them, and under the UN resolution - I honestly don't know about the particulars of the resolution well enough to know if that would technically qualify as authorized under it or not, but if he's the one giving the orders to attack civilians, then technically, he's fair game as part of the command structure under the laws of war and probably the resolution. If we wind up providing close combat air support for the rebel troops all the way "to the shores of Tripoli", then yes, the chances of unintended civilian casualties increases dramatically... and that could indeed cause problems for us in the region.

 

 

Well, General Richards said that specifically targeting Gaddafi wouldn't be 'allowed under the UN resolution' and I'm inclined to think he must have good reason to interpret the resolution that way, even though it used the words 'by any means necessary'. I imagine international law may prohibit state sponsored attempts at the assassination of heads of state, even if they are considered despots! It's not something I know much about though. Britain did apparently plot to kill Gaddafi but it would have involved secretly funding rebel groups. I don't think the UK has an official policy on such matters but any attempt at political assassinations would probably use a proxy organisation of some kind. There have been accusations in the past that the state colluded with paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland but I don't think any administration would ever admit to it. The UK could maybe end up with a no-fly zone if they did!

 

It seems exceedingly unlikely that Gaddafi will compromise in any way and he does appear to have support in the west of the country, so it's quite likely that ground troops would be necessary in order to swiftly enforce regime change. Which is something most Western countries would be uneasy about, especially as the resolution rules out an 'occupying' force.

[EL KABONG]

there was already a report on yahoo news yesterday that said a cruise missile had hit the Gaddafi compound near his tent and had like knocked over half the administration building. sounds to me like they are targeting him again. yes i said again.

[preservation]

supposedly one of Gaddafi's sons is dead ?

[EL KABONG]

"everybody dies sometime Red" platoon quote.

[fly135]

Well, General Richards said that specifically targeting Gaddafi wouldn't be 'allowed under the UN resolution' and I'm inclined to think he must have good reason to interpret the resolution that way, even though it used the words 'by any means necessary'.

This is the part where you have to think for yourself. Of course they would like to kill Gadhaffi. And of course where ever he might be is a potential target. The irony is that we are supposed to take great care hitting only targets and not cause collateral damage. But when it's time to get the guy in charge you have to blow up a lot of s**t around him so it doesn't lool like he's specifically targeted.