more protests and embassies under attack

[K1052]

and the US did most of the heavy lifting w/ respect to enforcing the "no-fly zone".

From there, the role was expanded to attack any support facilities that the Libyan government had; completely unrelated to flying.

Radar sites, C&C facilities; weapons storage facilites.

Everything that could be done without putting boots on the ground, the US did.
European equipment was unable to do the job; the US voluntarily stepped in to take over the workload.

The Europeans haven't pressed a conventional action all on their own since the end of WWII. The French government agitated strongly for intervention and were the first to act once the green light was given. The US eventually took over because this is precisely the kind of engagement we've been doing for the last couple decades and the Eruos couldn't coordinate well with each other.

 

[chucky2]

Couldn't coordinate? They could coordinate fine. They couldn't support themselves, let alone support each other. After Libya you've got to believe that Russia and China internally sat down and said, 'If we can just get the US to not support EU, it should not be much of a problem to take over that entire region'.

Libya was more embarrassing for NATO than it was for Ghaddafi.

 

[K1052]

You are uninformed/misinformed. Please do far more reading into the subject and see that the French and British begged for our involvement because THEY COULD NOT DO IT THEMSELVES. No US involvement, No "No Fly Zone" in effect. That's how it worked. Sorry you don't understand the situation as a whole, but I have been actively following the Arab Spring and ME activity for a significant amount of time now. I have posted resource after resource to back up my previous claims on this subject as well. France and England would have been unsuccessful and EVERYONE knew a No Fly Zone wouldn't do anything.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama

Read this for a little more enlightenment on the decisions Obama made. I'm not going to hate on him completely for it, it's a tough spot, but he should not have done it and he needs to correct the mistake by doing his utter best to get the American representative presence out of the ME.

Had not other NATO members (particularly the French) strongly supported intervention there would not have been any. The "Protection of civilians" clause in the UN resolution was vague enough to endorse pretty much anything short of boots on the ground (specifically prohibited). France also armed the rebels in contravention of the arms embargo included in the UN resolution and without consulting the rest of NATO.

 

[bfdd]

Had not other NATO members (particularly the French) strongly supported intervention there would not have been any. The "Protection of civilians" clause in the UN resolution was vague enough to endorse pretty much anything short of boots on the ground (specifically prohibited). France also armed the rebels in contravention of the arms embargo included in the UN resolution and without consulting the rest of NATO.

The USA was required for ANYTHING to be done. The French and English would not have moved without us, they put a LOT of political pressure and twisting of the truth to get what they wanted. We absolutely should not have been involved and it absolutely was Obama's decision that action was taken. You can think all you want that NATO would have moved or the UN, but the case is clear. They would not have. Russia was against it, China was against it, if the USA would have taken the stance of non-intervention no one would have intervened.

 

[K1052]

Couldn't coordinate? They could coordinate fine. They couldn't support themselves, let alone support each other. After Libya you've got to believe that Russia and China internally sat down and said, 'If we can just get the US to not support EU, it should not be much of a problem to take over that entire region'.

Libya was more embarrassing for NATO than it was for Ghaddafi.

That would fall under coordination. If they were either unable or simply unwilling the result was the same.

Given the problems Russia had even taking on Georgia I don't think they're looking for a conflict with people sporting modern hardware who have done little for 50 years but think about a Soviet/Russian invasion.

 

[K1052]

The USA was required for ANYTHING to be done. The French and English would not have moved without us, they put a LOT of political pressure and twisting of the truth to get what they wanted. We absolutely should not have been involved and it absolutely was Obama's decision that action was taken. You can think all you want that NATO would have moved or the UN, but the case is clear. They would not have. Russia was against it, China was against it, if the USA would have taken the stance of non-intervention no one would have intervened.

You can't maintain an alliance by being the only vote that counts, particularly after what we put them through in Iraq/Afghanistan. Of course NATO couldn't move without at least the approval of the US if not outright immediate participation. Absent pressure from France/UK it would have been highly unlikely that Obama would have elected to intervene. That the French overstepped is a matter of record.

Russia and China failed to veto the resolution but the Arab League told them to stay out of it and let the force resolution proceed, something that was nearly unprecedented.

 

[chucky2]

That would fall under coordination. If they were either unable or simply unwilling the result was the same.

I'd say it's more under ability. They simply didn't have the ability to project, and sustain, their assets without us holding their hands. Had they had the assets, they could have coordinated them and not needed us to babysit them.

Given the problems Russia had even taking on Georgia I don't think they're looking for a conflict with people sporting modern hardware who have done little for 50 years but think about a Soviet/Russian invasion.

Russia had no problems taking on Georgia. Russia stomped Georgia and made them cry like a little b1tch. A Russia on a planned warpath would decimate the EU without US and/or nukes being used to stop them. China is far less likely and I included it more for them going on a warpath and the EU being asked to actually help contain them: They'd be pretty useless (welcome, but, useless).

The long and short is: EU without the US handholding it is toothless unless someone has come to the EU's doorstep and directly attacked them. Then, and only then, would they be effective. As world powers projecting conventional air and land forces, they're a joke.

Chuck

 

[bfdd]

You can't maintain an alliance by being the only vote that counts, particularly after what we put them through in Iraq/Afghanistan. Of course NATO couldn't move without at least the approval of the US if not outright immediate participation. Absent pressure from France/UK it would have been highly unlikely that Obama would have elected to intervene. That the French overstepped is a matter of record.

Russia and China failed to veto the resolution but the Arab League told them to stay out of it and let the force resolution proceed, something that was nearly unprecedented.

Ok, ignore history everythings cool here. France and England are totally into intervening in ME countries militarily in the modern age. Never before have they tried to fall behind the USA to lead the pack. Did you read the article I posted? Even France and England knew nothing would come out of a "No Fly Zone".

 

[cybrsage]

The long and short is: EU without the US handholding it is toothless unless someone has come to the EU's doorstep and directly attacked them. Then, and only then, would they be effective. As world powers projecting conventional air and land forces, they're a joke.

Chuck

That is why the UK keeps nukes around. They will use them on French soil to stop a Russian advance. Pretty smart, really.

 

[K1052]

Ok, ignore history everythings cool here. France and England are totally into intervening in ME countries militarily in the modern age. Never before have they tried to fall behind the USA to lead the pack. Did you read the article I posted? Even France and England knew nothing would come out of a "No Fly Zone".

That would be why the French started bombing ground targets after the ink was dry on the resolution.

 

[K1052]

Russia had no problems taking on Georgia. Russia stomped Georgia and made them cry like a little b1tch. A Russia on a planned warpath would decimate the EU without US and/or nukes being used to stop them. .

Wow...everyone thinks it's the cold war again and that the current Russian military is on par with it's glorious Soviet past. That isn't the case.

The fact that Russia beat Georgia wasn't a surprise. The problems and delays they had doing it exposed operational/communication/tactical problems that shouldn't have existed in a unified force that is purported to be a world power. Their performance in the face of what should have been a walk in the park sucked and the Russians even admitted it after the fact.

 

[michal1980]

all these peacefull muslims are attacking usa embessies around the world.

lyiba, egypt, sudan, england, iraq, syria, pakistan, tunisia, etc etc.

all done by the religon of 'peace'.


Ya, their peacefull, once every non-belive is dead

 

[lotus503]

Hey Mr President, thanks for that "apology" tour when you took office. I'm glad that plan of yours (which no other president in the history of the US ever took) to embrace our enemies as friends is working out so well.



Um who else has started wars in the Middle East? I don't see Russian, England, etc buildings being blown up or their citizens being killed.

Bush may have not been the sharpest president, but at least you didn't hear him going around saying sorry and then bragging when 'he' killed one of their highest profiled people.

Our enemies aren't muslims, rather terrorists.

 

[chucky2]

Wow...everyone thinks it's the cold war again and that the current Russian military is on par with it's glorious Soviet past. That isn't the case.

The fact that Russia beat Georgia wasn't a surprise. The problems and delays they had doing it exposed operational/communication/tactical problems that shouldn't have existed in a unified force that is purported to be a world power. Their performance in the face of what should have been a walk in the park sucked and the Russians even admitted it after the fact.

Ok, I must have misunderstood you. I'm not saying that the RU mil isn't in a state of decay, that their troops aren't what they used to be during their glory years. I'm just saying, once RU decided to get its sh1t together, Georgia was the one sh1tting their pants, not RU. If RU decided to once again put the money into their military, they could once again be what they once were.

Do you think if they dropped 1/3 (that'd be about 10-11% of their GDP) of what we spend on their Mil for a decade, they'd look like what they look like now? An RU that did that wouldn't be stoppable by the EU, unless we decided to go play World Cop (and you know, us playing World Cop would magically and immediately be just fine with the EU folks if that happened).

Chuck

 

[bfdd]

Our enemy is not Islam or Muslims, though that happens to be the flag or identity they fly. Our enemy is the attack on our liberty, wherever or whomever it may come from.

 

[K1052]

Ok, I must have misunderstood you. I'm not saying that the RU mil isn't in a state of decay, that their troops aren't what they used to be during their glory years. I'm just saying, once RU decided to get its sh1t together, Georgia was the one sh1tting their pants, not RU. If RU decided to once again put the money into their military, they could once again be what they once were.

Do you think if they dropped 1/3 (that'd be about 10-11% of their GDP) of what we spend on their Mil for a decade, they'd look like what they look like now? An RU that did that wouldn't be stoppable by the EU, unless we decided to go play World Cop (and you know, us playing World Cop would magically and immediately be just fine with the EU folks if that happened).

Chuck

It's questionable if Russia could sustain the economic or political investment in it's military to get it to that point. Even if that was desirable in the first place since their foreign policy and geographical concerns don't really justify the expenditure.

Their military also badly needs to be reformed from the top down politically. Eliminate conscription, build a more effective/professional all volunteer force, train them regularly and realistically, etc. Basically emulate the western model of modern armed forces instead of the old Soviet junk.

 

[bfdd]

BTW I'd like to hear some suggestions or ideas being tossed for what measures we should take from here forward.

I personally think sending in Marines to secure our resources and persons is a good idea, though they shouldn't be there to fight or quell the riots/protests. We should just start packing and leaving the region. Participate from a distance, keep trade relations etc. No need to go full isolationist, just remove our presence from the region and tell the multinationals to suck it.

 

[chucky2]

They're going to have a hard time doing it like they used to (massive numbers) given the greater level of education the average Russian has now about things external to Russia, but I still think they could surge if they wanted to. It'd take them a while, but, Russia is still Russia.

Consider too that the EU folks defending the EU are certainly not the EU folks of yesteryear. Then again, neither are the Russians...

Chuck

 

[Modelworks]

The US in foreign countries is like choosing to live with your mother in law hoping you can change her way of thinking.

It really sickens me that our politicians send our people to countries that don't give a damn about us, we spend money we do not have on places that try to kill us. If I didn't know better I would think I live in some other universe where good is bad and bad is good.

We can solve so many of the US problems by doing something so simple , come home.
Stop foreign aid, can't pay my own rent so I pay my neighbors ?
Bring the armed forces home, let those countries fight each other, sickens me to see soldiers dying for people that don't give a damn about them .
Start putting the USA first and focus on life at home.

 

[spidey07]

In comparison to Obama's failed presidency...

 

[Hugo Drax]

This is our 21st century version of the Tet offensive.

 

[K1052]

In comparison to Obama's failed presidency...

Pan Am 103 ring any bells?

 

[Jhhnn]

Desperate raving from the Right is now in full song.

This is the well-timed 2012 version of the Swiftliars attack, based on an all too convenient "anonymous" video designed to inflame muslims.

Their resentment against US policy runs a lot deeper & longer than Obama's tenure.

 

[CrackRabbit]

In comparison to Obama's failed presidency...

You should read the second comment more closely.

BTW Quoted for Pwnage.

 

[Dulanic]

You should read the second comment more closely.

BTW Quoted for Pwnage.

That's Liberal non sense, he didn't see nor read it. It is invisible to his spidey sense.