Why are we even involved in Libia?

[WHAMPOM]

It's a freaking civil war. everyone should stay out and leave them be.

i cant believe that a UN sanctioned 'no fly zone' is just a thinly veiled action to overthrow Kadaffi.

also, why did Russia and China go agree to it?


edit:
also, how does a 'no fly zone' translate into us bombing vehicle convoys?!

Ya'know my first thought after a quick read of the title was "What's this guy got against oral sex."

 

[Fern]

See pages 9-11 of this Westpoint study on AQ members from countries joining the fight in Iraq against the US military:

http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

Easten Libya accounts for many of these, and they have the highest per capita AQ fighters of any country. The LIFG (Libyian Islamic Fighting Group) is an official member of AQ. In fact, many high ranking members of AQ are LIFG.

I have not been able to find info that indicates Gaddafi has been involved in terrorism after denouncing it 4 or 5 years ago.

However, it does look like he was brutally repressing/fighting the LIFG. And AQ has recently called for his head. There are also reports that rebels leaders are confirmed members of the LIFG.

In short, while Khaddafy is no real friend of the West he is an enemy of the LIFG/AQ, and they want him overthrown. And given his opposition arose from East Libya, it's entirely possible we're helping the LIFG/AQ overthrow Qaddafi.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/libyan-terrorist-muammar-qaddafi_552474.html

http://www.frumforum.com/is-al-qaeda-gaining-the-upper-hand-in-libya

However, this is (somewhat) disputed by US officials who claim we have only verified "flickers" of AQ in Libya.

It also appears that by attacking him, we have pushed him into attacking back at us using terroritic means. This was entirely predictable, and brought upon us by our own actions. This also indictates that, regardless of words to the contrary, we will be taking him down.

http://www.businessinsider.com/qaddafi-terrorist-attacks-in-europe-2011-3

I still believe we haven't been told the whole truth about why we are intervening, why we would want to.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

Ghaddafi was yelling about AQ being behind the rebellion since day 1.

 

[sunzt]

UK special forces, MI6, and CIA are both in Libya directing air strikes and gathering intel on rebels. Does this count as "boots on the ground"?

Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa defects and is now in London. Probably a great source of intel. "In recent weeks, Koussa has looked increasingly uncomfortable at press confs, reading notes w/ his head down, deadpan, w/out conviction,"

 

[Genx87]

See pages 9-11 of this Westpoint study on AQ members from countries joining the fight in Iraq against the US military:

http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

Easten Libya accounts for many of these, and they have the highest per capita AQ fighters of any country. The LIFG (Libyian Islamic Fighting Group) is an official member of AQ. In fact, many high ranking members of AQ are LIFG.

I have not been able to find info that indicates Gaddafi has been involved in terrorism after denouncing it 4 or 5 years ago.

However, it does look like he was brutally repressing/fighting the LIFG. And AQ has recently called for his head. There are also reports that rebels leaders are confirmed members of the LIFG.

In short, while Khaddafy is no real friend of the West he is an enemy of the LIFG/AQ, and they want him overthrown. And given his opposition arose from East Libya, it's entirely possible we're helping the LIFG/AQ overthrow Qaddafi.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/libyan-terrorist-muammar-qaddafi_552474.html

http://www.frumforum.com/is-al-qaeda-gaining-the-upper-hand-in-libya

However, this is (somewhat) disputed by US officials who claim we have only verified "flickers" of AQ in Libya.

It also appears that by attacking him, we have pushed him into attacking back at us using terroristic means. This was entirely predictable, and brought upon us by our own actions. This also indictates that, regardless of words to the contrary, we will be taking him down.

http://www.businessinsider.com/qaddafi-terrorist-attacks-in-europe-2011-3

I still believe we haven't been the whole truth about why we are intervening, why we would want to.

Fern

Shit is going to hit the fan or already has. And I take the govt as admitting a "flicker" as meaning about 10x that many fighters.

 

[jonks]

If this allows Al Qaeda to get a good stronghold in Libya you have made the situation worse, not better.

Damnit I just wanted someone to call me on using the word squirmish so I could post this:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/artic...as-libya-squirmish-misquotes-alaska-flag-song

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Ghaddafi was yelling about AQ being behind the rebellion since day 1.

That's because they've been trying to kill him for a long time now. Its also why he gave up his nuclear ambitions as an olive branch toward the West. Doing so gave him breathing room to deal with one enemy to whom is closer to home and was more of a actual threat to him at the time. Besides nukes aren't a very effective defense against suicide bombers within your ranks. Hence the forfeiture of his nuclear program.

 

[Pocatello]

The White House is considering arming the rebels, I hope that doesn't happen. Chances are U.S troops will be seeing the same weapons in the future pointing at them.

 

[Fern]

That's because they've been trying to kill him for a long time now. Its also why he gave up his nuclear ambitions as an olive branch toward the West. Doing so gave him breathing room to deal with one enemy to whom is closer to home and was more of a actual threat to him at the time. Besides nukes aren't a very effective defense against suicide bombers within your ranks. Hence the forfeiture of his nuclear program.

Good point(s).

Fern

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Damnit I just wanted someone to call me on using the word squirmish so I could post this:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/artic...as-libya-squirmish-misquotes-alaska-flag-song

Sorry, I missed the squirmish talking points....

 

[OutHouse]

well now looks like we do have SF troops in Libya. Guess the libtards who doubted me owe me an apology. see post #266

So sending in SF and supplying arms to the rebels PLUS bombing Libya army units inst picking a side?

This insanity needs to stop, im sick of our countrys constant state of war. the lives of the people lost will never be replaced and the trillions of dollars spent will never be paid back.


Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya, as U.S. Considers Aiding Rebels, Sources Say

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...an-rebels-decision-sources-say/#ixzz1I8EA9qNG

 

[PieIsAwesome]

So that Obama can win an easy little "war," show republicans how a successful intervention is done (without completely screwing it up like in Iraq), and get reelected.

 

[OutHouse]

So that Obama can win an easy little "war," show republicans how a successful intervention is done (without completely screwing it up like in Iraq), and get reelected.

you cant be serious.

 

[werepossum]

well now looks like we do have SF troops in Libya. Guess the libtards who doubted me owe me an apology. see post #266

So sending in SF and supplying arms to the rebels PLUS bombing Libya army units inst picking a side?

This insanity needs to stop, im sick of our countrys constant state of war. the lives of the people lost will never be replaced and the trillions of dollars spent will never be paid back.


Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya, as U.S. Considers Aiding Rebels, Sources Say

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...an-rebels-decision-sources-say/#ixzz1I8EA9qNG

I would imagine that we had special forces on the ground from at least Day 2. Western nations are extremely adverse to civilian casualties, so although the initial strikes against air defense and C3 will be by self-guiding precision stand-off weapons, by far the bulk of the weapons will be laser designated by ground elements. Even those air-designated will usually have eyes-on to make sure that C3 bunker isn't really being used as a civilian bomb shelter, or full of human shields held against their will.

Certainly we're picking a side; the humanitarian bullshit is nothing more than the usual window dressing. What I'd like to know is WHY we are picking a side. I thought I knew; I thought we were there to support our allies, France and the UK and much of the rest of Europe. But Obama's "I love me some me" speech made virtually no mention of other forces, except in "handing off" to NATO. So now it's clear to me that my whole concept was wrong. I'm still clinging to the notion that Obama has a valid reason for doing exactly what he and Biden insisted no President should ever do.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I would imagine that we had special forces on the ground from at least Day 2. Western nations are extremely adverse to civilian casualties, so although the initial strikes against air defense and C3 will be by self-guiding precision stand-off weapons, by far the bulk of the weapons will be laser designated by ground elements. Even those air-designated will usually have eyes-on to make sure that C3 bunker isn't really being used as a civilian bomb shelter, or full of human shields held against their will.

Certainly we're picking a side; the humanitarian bullshit is nothing more than the usual window dressing. What I'd like to know is WHY we are picking a side. I thought I knew; I thought we were there to support our allies, France and the UK and much of the rest of Europe. But Obama's "I love me some me" speech made virtually no mention of other forces, except in "handing off" to NATO. So now it's clear to me that my whole concept was wrong. I'm still clinging to the notion that Obama has a valid reason for doing exactly what he and Biden insisted no President should ever do.

When they announce that we are sending in SF's into Libya that means that we are going to send in a significant number more so then is probably already present and it will include taking a side...aka "Regime Change".

 

[bfdd]

i already told you why we are there werepossum. our western leaders ran their mouths early thinking the rebels would win, way before they had a firm grasp on the entire situation, and are now having to back up the words with action.

 

[Generator]

Arabs can't be trusted, arming the rebels is complete insanity. The best scenario is that the world takes away all the toys it has given Ghaddafi. After that he has to choose whats more important his country or his ego.

 

[bfdd]

Arabs can't be trusted, arming the rebels is complete insanity. The best scenario is that the world takes away all the toys it has given Ghaddafi. After that he has to choose whats more important his country or his ego.

We shouldn't arm anyone who doesn't pay for it.

 

[werepossum]

i already told you why we are there werepossum. our western leaders ran their mouths early thinking the rebels would win, way before they had a firm grasp on the entire situation, and are now having to back up the words with action.

I suspect you may be right, but I'm hoping for something more material.

 

[bfdd]

I suspect you may be right, but I'm hoping for something more material.

Well our European allies have resource interests in the country, but I don't think that's the kind of "material" you're talking about.

 

[Atheus]

Disagree. What proof do you have that there are any US boots on the ground? And stepping off a chopper to pick up a pilot from a crashed plane doesn't count. What operations are Delta engaged in now? What have they done? Zilch.

anytime and i mean anytime we have planes dropping bombs on hostile targets we have boots on the ground. how do i know this? 10 years in the air force and knowing a few Tac-P's

It was widely reported there were at least 300 British SAS on the ground and that was last week. Those ships we've got sitting in the med can carry quite a few people and quite a few choppers and if ours are in there yours are in there too. Probably have been for weeks.

 

[werepossum]

Well our European allies have resource interests in the country, but I don't think that's the kind of "material" you're talking about.

LOL No, not quite. What I'm looking for is the reason that Obama jumped on Libya and, at least in his opinion, led the world effort, such as it is. There must be some logical reason; I refuse to be the conservative version of "Bush lied, children died."

EDIT: I can also admit there might be a very good reason we could never be told, though I suspect those cases are rare.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

LOL No, not quite. What I'm looking for is the reason that Obama jumped on Libya and, at least in his opinion, led the world effort, such as it is. There must be some logical reason; I refuse to be the conservative version of "Bush lied, children died."

EDIT: I can also admit there might be a very good reason we could never be told, though I suspect those cases are rare.

It's purely my opinion but I believe Obama did it to forge stronger ties with some of our European (and maybe a few Arab) allies. We are shoring up their national interests as a favor to be called in at a later date.

 

[bfdd]

It's purely my opinion but I believe Obama did it to forge stronger ties with some of our European (and maybe a few Arab) allies. We are shoring up their national interests as a favor to be called in at a later date.

That goes along with what I was saying.

 

[irishScott]

LOL No, not quite. What I'm looking for is the reason that Obama jumped on Libya and, at least in his opinion, led the world effort, such as it is. There must be some logical reason; I refuse to be the conservative version of "Bush lied, children died."

EDIT: I can also admit there might be a very good reason we could never be told, though I suspect those cases are rare.

As dystopian as it sounds, it's all politics and oil IMO. Obama's trying to make this his Kosovo to give him that much more to crow about during reelection (in addition to "making critical healthcare reforms" and "expanding gun rights"). I've called the man a bureaucrat who feeds on idealism before and I see no reason to abandon that line. I'd be overjoyed if there was a legitimate reason for us to be in Libya, but at this point we've already gone way past the UN mandate with no sign of stopping.

Guess I'll be proven right or wrong over the coming weeks. If Obama invades and gets us embroiled it'll be seen as his Iraq, and he knows it. If we do commit significant numbers of ground forces (beyond SF strike teams and escorts for humanitarian aid) then I'll admittedly have no idea what he's doing.

He argued about how the civil war could destabilize the region, but fact is Gaddaffi was kicking as and taking names up to the moment we started to take out his armor. Now he's kicking slightly less ass. If we had just let him be he'd have slaughtered the rebels and, despite the humanitarian atrocities, the region would still be as stable as it ever was out of fear and lack of capability.

Or maybe the humanitarian angle is the reason and Obama's just got some idealistic Neocon-ish interventionist tendencies?

Maybe he's trying to earn his nobel peace prize?

No way to know for now, just got to wait and see I guess.