Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
I am glad to see where your concerns lie. It was fine when Obama launched strikes against Libya to try and overthrow their Government, but don't do it to try and save American lives.
I am glad to see where your concerns lie. It was fine when Obama launched strikes against Libya to try and overthrow their Government, but don't do it to try and save American lives.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
My point is that when we did it against Libya to overthrow their government, it was with an intent that put us at odds with the government. Launching a strike against a now friendly Libya, could again put us at odds with the government. Four American lives were lost, and it is tragic, but a military strike on their sovereign soil could easily put their government and their security force at odds with us and cost us far more than four lives. The President has many jobs and one of those is diplomacy, another is risk assessment. And informed and measured response is better than a batshit crazy Rambo style response that you seem to favor.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
So we are only allowed to use small arms to defend our embassy? I didn't say drop a 1000 lb bomb on them. We have a lot of small munitions we could use. An informed and measured response IS better than a batshit crazy Rambo style response but the problem is we got no response. They were left to fend for themselves.
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Yet why did Obama deploy into sovereign Libyan airspace? No problem violating airspace when to attack the enemy, but not to defend the american citizens?
Embassies are considered sovereign territory of the country the embassy is for.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
American lives should never be weighed against the embarrassment of a country that does not honor it's obligations.
Carter even was willing to send in troops to take care of Americans.
Same with Grenada.
Why should Obama get a pass?
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
That is wrong, in fact the first line in the link I provided disputes that "Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state".
It is a common error and gets reported incorrectly often, please do not perpetuate the falsehood.
There's a difference between when a country sponsors the attack and when it doesn't. You cannot assume to supersede the authority of the local security. If this had not been an embassy and had been a mile away and some Americans were attacked we would also not send in a military force AS IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS INVADING A COUNTRY!
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
It is not but is to be considered. Same as with diplomatic immunity. Property of country X and untouchable.
Again, what is the difference between Carter & Grenada vs this instance.
The Iranian did not attack the US Embassy - yet we were sending in a military force to get our people out.
Our diplomats were being attacked due to lack of security by the host country. But you feel that we do not have the duty to protect our people.
Obama and Clinton did not want to embarrass the new government of Libya by forcing the issue. Our US citizens were sacrificed to maintain a "proper image"
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I believe EK is quite wrong to say, " Obama and Clinton did not want to embarrass the new government of Libya by forcing the issue. Our US citizens were sacrificed to maintain a "proper image" "
When EK, IMHO, simply does not understand what frequently happens in the aftermath of a civil war. As we can compare what happened with the US embassy in Libya to what happened in our civil war and what is happening in Syria today.
But to confine the argument at present to just Libya, I think we can agree that Gaddafi was a tin pot dictator that kept himself in power by brutally suppressing any internal opposition. As Gaddafi was maybe not quite as bad as Saddam but very close. In terms of Gaddafi's foreign relation with other Western countries, Gaddafi was about 95% the man the West liked to hate. And that 95% hate then took a big hit after the Lockerbee Square airline bombing allegedly blamed on Gaddafi. But by 2007 or so, Gaddafi gained some external Western rehabilitation for ending Libya's nuclear program. But still, Libya had always sold its oil to Spain, Italy and France, and no one in the EU wanted to endanger that golden Goose. Then that entire calculus changed in the early Aftermath of the Arab Spring. As segments of the Libyan army seized the Libyan oil fields in open rebellion against the the dictatorship of Gaddafi. And in the process killed the golden goose. And the EU sided with the Libyan rebels knowing full well they were not all genuine saints either. And after six months or better of bloody atrocities on all sides, Gaddafi was killed and the rebels prevailed.
But the point EK seems to miss, lies in the typical fact, that once one side prevails, internal differences within the winning side, pushed together in a temporary marriage of convince, almost inevitably fall apart as the winning rebel starts fighting each other for dominance, ideology, and plunder. But still, similar to Egypt and other nations altered by the events of the Arab Spring, ultra reactionary Islamic Salifts forces were never able to form even close to a majority. While far realistic reformist Muslim brotherhood types willing and able to come to grips with Western type ideas and reforms were in the far larger majority. But still, for such nations emerging from a civil war, the process of forming a stable government is NEVER INSTANT. Especially when the losing side minority is both disgruntled and locally strong. And seaching for a way to express their displeasure.
As the is precisely the perfect storm that happened in Libya to the US embassy. As the newly elected government of Libya had only just received their electoral mandate at the time organized ultra conservative took their displeasure out on the US embassy in a preplanned attack.
As three myths seem to be promoted by EK and similar critics. (1) That if our US embassy defending forces would have been larger, they could have fought off an organized and well armed group in a preplanned attack. A somewhat tell that to George Armstrong Custer at the little big Horn River. (2) That President Obama, should have immediately responded with a massive and instant military rescue, when our embassy and its personnel were already over run and killed by the time the news sped to Washington. (3) It was the responsibility of the Libyan government to defend all foreign embassies against angry mobs. And while that is a true general case, there was no organized or elected government in Libya able to effectively respond at the time of the attack. As the other defect in the reasoning is that was not angry mob, it was a well organized armed minority carry out a surprise attack.
But still, IMHO, the USA and the EU come out the real winners, as both Egypt and Libya elected Western trained technocrats to head their governments.
As its also somewhat comparative to what happened in the USA after the end of our civil war. As we can somewhat say our civil war ended the day General Robert E. Lee surrendered his army. But that did not stop the assassination of President Lincoln by some disgruntled Southern Sympathizers. And out West it did not stop organized confederate armies from fighting on for another two years, even if groups like Quantrels raiders later degenerating into armed criminal gangs.
As the world still faces the question of Assad and Syria. As both the Assad government and the rebels opposing it, regularly commit war crimes of the worst sort.
I join everyone is saying its very sad that Ambassador Stevens and Libyan embassy staff lost their lives, but being collateral damage sadly cuts all ways.
No one ever said human warfare is FAIR.
When EK, IMHO, simply does not understand what frequently happens in the aftermath of a civil war. As we can compare what happened with the US embassy in Libya to what happened in our civil war and what is happening in Syria today.
But to confine the argument at present to just Libya, I think we can agree that Gaddafi was a tin pot dictator that kept himself in power by brutally suppressing any internal opposition. As Gaddafi was maybe not quite as bad as Saddam but very close. In terms of Gaddafi's foreign relation with other Western countries, Gaddafi was about 95% the man the West liked to hate. And that 95% hate then took a big hit after the Lockerbee Square airline bombing allegedly blamed on Gaddafi. But by 2007 or so, Gaddafi gained some external Western rehabilitation for ending Libya's nuclear program. But still, Libya had always sold its oil to Spain, Italy and France, and no one in the EU wanted to endanger that golden Goose. Then that entire calculus changed in the early Aftermath of the Arab Spring. As segments of the Libyan army seized the Libyan oil fields in open rebellion against the the dictatorship of Gaddafi. And in the process killed the golden goose. And the EU sided with the Libyan rebels knowing full well they were not all genuine saints either. And after six months or better of bloody atrocities on all sides, Gaddafi was killed and the rebels prevailed.
But the point EK seems to miss, lies in the typical fact, that once one side prevails, internal differences within the winning side, pushed together in a temporary marriage of convince, almost inevitably fall apart as the winning rebel starts fighting each other for dominance, ideology, and plunder. But still, similar to Egypt and other nations altered by the events of the Arab Spring, ultra reactionary Islamic Salifts forces were never able to form even close to a majority. While far realistic reformist Muslim brotherhood types willing and able to come to grips with Western type ideas and reforms were in the far larger majority. But still, for such nations emerging from a civil war, the process of forming a stable government is NEVER INSTANT. Especially when the losing side minority is both disgruntled and locally strong. And seaching for a way to express their displeasure.
As the is precisely the perfect storm that happened in Libya to the US embassy. As the newly elected government of Libya had only just received their electoral mandate at the time organized ultra conservative took their displeasure out on the US embassy in a preplanned attack.
As three myths seem to be promoted by EK and similar critics. (1) That if our US embassy defending forces would have been larger, they could have fought off an organized and well armed group in a preplanned attack. A somewhat tell that to George Armstrong Custer at the little big Horn River. (2) That President Obama, should have immediately responded with a massive and instant military rescue, when our embassy and its personnel were already over run and killed by the time the news sped to Washington. (3) It was the responsibility of the Libyan government to defend all foreign embassies against angry mobs. And while that is a true general case, there was no organized or elected government in Libya able to effectively respond at the time of the attack. As the other defect in the reasoning is that was not angry mob, it was a well organized armed minority carry out a surprise attack.
But still, IMHO, the USA and the EU come out the real winners, as both Egypt and Libya elected Western trained technocrats to head their governments.
As its also somewhat comparative to what happened in the USA after the end of our civil war. As we can somewhat say our civil war ended the day General Robert E. Lee surrendered his army. But that did not stop the assassination of President Lincoln by some disgruntled Southern Sympathizers. And out West it did not stop organized confederate armies from fighting on for another two years, even if groups like Quantrels raiders later degenerating into armed criminal gangs.
As the world still faces the question of Assad and Syria. As both the Assad government and the rebels opposing it, regularly commit war crimes of the worst sort.
I join everyone is saying its very sad that Ambassador Stevens and Libyan embassy staff lost their lives, but being collateral damage sadly cuts all ways.
No one ever said human warfare is FAIR.
This is so true right here, where is the media, they only cared then because bush was in office and now there is nothing from them
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2009
- 8,386
- 32
- 91
Conservatards, here's a question for you: What would Fox News' headline be the next day if the President did what you suggested?
If success, the words of the day would've been "Reckless" and "Unnecessary."
If the response was just ineffective, "Reckless" and "Failure."
And holy shit, imagine if a SEAL team with nothing but a back-of-the-napkin extraction plan was wiped out.
This is why you don't get to complain, because there is no scenario in which you won't complain. The President could declare abortion illegal, decree that Young Earth Creationism will be taught in science class, and declare that the Constitution only applies to white people, and you'd STILL be up in arms over it all.
If success, the words of the day would've been "Reckless" and "Unnecessary."
If the response was just ineffective, "Reckless" and "Failure."
And holy shit, imagine if a SEAL team with nothing but a back-of-the-napkin extraction plan was wiped out.
This is why you don't get to complain, because there is no scenario in which you won't complain. The President could declare abortion illegal, decree that Young Earth Creationism will be taught in science class, and declare that the Constitution only applies to white people, and you'd STILL be up in arms over it all.
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2009
- 8,386
- 32
- 91
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
1) An f-18 does not need a full load out
2) A tanker can easily follow for support
Are you implying that there is not a Hornet in southern Italy?
Equipment existed over in Sicily that could be used to provide support.
If a carrier was stationed in the Med, support was also available from there.
Staging tankers; you can run a strike force 2-3K miles easily.
That is what they did to Libya before out of Britain.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 347
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter