• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are we even involved in Libia?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Monster_Munch said:
For Europe, Libya is in our back yard. Syria and Bahrain are fairly far away so we can more or less ignore them.
Click to expand...


It also may well be the case that a pragmatic decision has been made as to whether foreign powers (*the US is in a supporting role here) are in a position to make a difference which they perceive would be in their Political favor.

i.e. "If we intervene in Libya, the people fighting against Qa~daffy are more favorable to our cause... Therefore we should do that." Whereas if in intervene in Bahrain (for example), we may well get someone worse than the a$$holes who are already in place. Since we don't want that, the Bahrainis are on their own....
 
Of course this is for European national interests. Neither the USA nor the EU has the resources to right every wrong happening in the world. Where the USA and/or the EU sees a great wrong happening, AND one or both perceives righting that wrong to be in its best interests, AND one or both perceives righting that wrong is within its/their abilities, THEN one or both will act. This is no different from any other nation. When, say, India sees something it considers to be wrong, AND perceives that righting that wrong to be in its best interests, AND righting that wrong is within its abilities, THEN India will act, with as many like-minded nations as it can recruit without defeating the cause in compromise (because seldom are two nations' self-perceived best interests identical.) One can say the same of Syria or Switzerland or San Marino, although obviously the perceived wrongs will vary as much as the means available to right them.

That a nation perceives saving lives or helping establish freedom and basic human rights as sufficiently within its perceived best interests to act in no way taints its efforts or accomplishments.

Bonus supreme irony - it was France that twenty years ago tried its best to stop the USA from attacking Qadaffi for his sponsorship of terror.
 
Same as it ever was
send5z.jpg
 
crownjules said:
Our position means no such thing. As our current debt situation should point out, we don't have the money even with one of the largest economies to fight multiple/successive wars. The job of our government is to look out for the USA and its population first. We can't even do that right at the moment.
Click to expand...
The US has run a deficit for decades, and during times in which the economy was as bad or worse than now, yet we've remained in the position of the World's cop that entire time. Besides that, the claim about the US looking out for the USA and it's population first doesn't take into consideration that we are engaged in a global economy. Ensuring the best interests of the US and its people involves more than just focusing on domestic issues and disregarding what's going on in the rest of the world. This isn't the 19th century anymore.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
-snip-
Besides that, the claim about the US looking out for the USA and it's population first doesn't take into consideration that we are engaged in a global economy. Ensuring the best interests of the US and its people involves more than just focusing on domestic issues and disregarding what's going on in the rest of the world. This isn't the 19th century anymore.
Click to expand...

If you're saying that it is in our best interest that we be involved here - purportedly only for humanitarian reasons - please explain how. Wait, check that, for that to be plausible we'd have to be in it to remove Qaddafy - whichever.

I've heard only 2 arguments remotely dealing with "our best interests':

1. Libyian oil production. But they're such small producers (#18th IIRC) Saudia Arabia is said to be able make up the difference easily. If so, that's not a very compelling reason that this is in our best interest.

2. Illegal immigrants flooding into Europe. Firstly, they seem to have a great job of importing Arabs/Muslims up till now without complaint. Why some more would be a disaster is puzzling. Secondly, in spite of rhetoric to contrary Libyia isn't that close to Europe. Traveling by land from Libyia to Europe illegally is all but impossible. Traveling by boat ain't no picnic either. I don't see why they can't easily control illegal immigration (when are these Euro countries gonna step up and help us with our border problems?) So, I have trouble buying into this.

If you've got some reasons/examples how this is in our best (economic) interest pls explain.

Fern
 
I'm going to put this in this thread, we have several where it could go:

Many posters seem to be downplaing the USA's role here, likely in defense of Obama.

Folks, looks like the USA is actually in-charge atm. NATO han't even approved the the invasion yet.

From Chile, President Barack Obama said the United States would transfer leadership of the military operation to other, unnamed participants within a "matter of days, not weeks."
Click to expand...


The NATO diplomats said the North Atlantic Council, NATO's top decision-making body, was unable to reach agreement Monday, and would take up the issue again on Tuesday for the fourth day in a row. Even if such an order is adopted, it would take several days before aircraft under NATO command could start flying missions over Libya
Click to expand...

I believe there is a lot of misinformation being thrown. I also think the Obama admin is trying desperately to avoid having this seen as a "war", which it is. The question is just how deep we get into it. Also, I still haven't heard any good reason for our (coalition) involvement, I can't help suspect there's to it than meets the eye.

Fern
 
Wreckem said:
Classifying this as a war is extremely misleading. By y'alls definition of war, Clinton had about 8 wars during his presidency and most weren't authorized by Congress.
Click to expand...

jesus christ what would you call it?

if your military is dropping bombs and killing people in another country that is a war dude. sugar coat it all you want to make easier to swallow but its still a freaking war. and what scary is people like you with who believe its not. Yes what clinton did were wars to and i did not agree with them even when i was active duty air force and deployed to bosnia and attached to a sweed UN unit.
 
Fern said:
If you're saying that it is in our best interest that we be involved here - purportedly only for humanitarian reasons - please explain how. Wait, check that, for that to be plausible we'd have to be in it to remove Qaddafy - whichever.

I've heard only 2 arguments remotely dealing with "our best interests':

1. Libyian oil production. But they're such small producers (#18th IIRC) Saudia Arabia is said to be able make up the difference easily. If so, that's not a very compelling reason that this is in our best interest.

2. Illegal immigrants flooding into Europe. Firstly, they seem to have a great job of importing Arabs/Muslims up till now without complaint. Why some more would be a disaster is puzzling. Secondly, in spite of rhetoric to contrary Libyia isn't that close to Europe. Traveling by land from Libyia to Europe illegally is all but impossible. Traveling by boat ain't no picnic either. I don't see why they can't easily control illegal immigration (when are these Euro countries gonna step up and help us with our border problems?) So, I have trouble buying into this.

If you've got some reasons/examples how this is in our best (economic) interest pls explain.

Fern
Click to expand...
Our economic and military interests also rely on our International relationships. It's pretty obvious that France, Italy, Spain, and a few others (including some Arab nations, even if they do try to protest publicly) feel it's in their own best interest to be involved in this. By helping them achieve their goal I would imagine there will be some quid pro quo further down the line.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
Our economic and military interests also rely on our International relationships. It's pretty obvious that France, Italy, Spain, and a few others (including some Arab nations, even if they do try to protest publicly) feel it's in their own best interest to be involved in this. By helping them achieve their goal I would imagine there will be some quid pro quo further down the line.
Click to expand...

oh wow. so helping a help us kill people this time and we will help you when you need to kill people. gotcha ya. to hell with morality and ethics as a country.
 
OutHouse said:
oh wow. so helping a help us kill people this time and we will help you when you need to kill people. gotcha ya. to hell with morality and ethics as a country.
Click to expand...

we use morality and ethics, but they are second to our "interests" - more money, and further expansion of our corporations.
 
  • US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
  • France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
  • UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
  • Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
  • Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
  • Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
  • Denmark: F-16 strike aircraft
  • Belgium: F-16 aircraft

Impressive ... I'll support this over going it alone any day. These are OUR REAL allies ... They are doing most of the heavy lifting so... We are just supporting our allies I see nothing wrong with it. I would hope they would support us in return. This is how it should be done. Get on it and get it done.
 
OutHouse said:
oh wow. so helping a help us kill people this time and we will help you when you need to kill people. gotcha ya. to hell with morality and ethics as a country.
Click to expand...
As opposed to your "ethics and morals" where we just turn our backs to the slaughter of innocents because it's not our problem and none of our business?

Ethics and morals are a double-edged blade, buddy, and if you want to use them as a tool to malign someone else just realize that kind of bullshit can backfire.
 
ericlp said:
  • US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
  • France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
  • UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
  • Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
  • Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
  • Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
  • Denmark: F-16 strike aircraft
  • Belgium: F-16 aircraft

Impressive ... I'll support this over going it alone any day. These are OUR REAL allies ... They are doing most of the heavy lifting so... We are just supporting our allies I see nothing wrong with it. I would hope they would support us in return. This is how it should be done. Get on it and get it done.
Click to expand...

Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

[Source: US State Department]

Coalition - Libya - 2011

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Click to expand...

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-ob...-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

Bush had twice as many allies when we "went it alone" in Iraq. The only significant difference is the addition of France. To quote Schwarzkopf in Gulf War 1: Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.

I'll support Obama as long as it's clear we are supporting our allies - doing the things they simply cannot, or at least cannot without taking heavy losses - but don't rewrite history.
 
werepossum said:
http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-ob...-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

Bush had twice as many allies when we "went it alone" in Iraq. The only significant difference is the addition of France. To quote Schwarzkopf in Gulf War 1: Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.

I'll support Obama as long as it's clear we are supporting our allies - doing the things they simply cannot, or at least cannot without taking heavy losses - but don't rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Have a look at those lists and then claim again that the longer one is more 'impressive'.
 
werepossum said:
http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-ob...-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

Bush had twice as many allies when we "went it alone" in Iraq. The only significant difference is the addition of France. To quote Schwarzkopf in Gulf War 1: Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.

I'll support Obama as long as it's clear we are supporting our allies - doing the things they simply cannot, or at least cannot without taking heavy losses - but don't rewrite history.
Click to expand...


True but it's obvious we are not doing 100% Not even close. Were kind just there for backup. Hardly anyone supported us in the Iraq war (if you wanna call it a war). If you look at the video's 90% of the kills were done by the French and allied air support. Were basically just watching it unfold tho, if it grew into a full out right war, I doubt it would, we would support the efforts even more. I suspect they will be waving white flags just like Iraq did.


I guess you forgot Canada and the UN are backing this as well. Bush had the support he just went about it all wrong and fucked it up as usual.
Heavy losses? With what? Sorry it's just not gonna happen. Maybe if we stayed there for 100 years like mcsame wanted too then yeah I could see that possibly.
 
Last edited:
3chordcharlie said:
Seriously?

Have a look at those lists and then claim again that the longer one is more 'impressive'.
Click to expand...
The two lists are very much the same, the exception being France. On any operation not directly perceived in France's national interests, I'd say Australia, Turkey, and especially South Korea are more than a match for France. I remember Gulf War 1, where French forces changed their minds halfway there, and those that did show up were neither mobile enough to keep up nor heavy enough to fight. (Of course, France is unlikely to be a partner to any operation not directly perceived in France's national interests.) The other major missing party would be Canada, which was already deployed in Afghanistan and frankly, doesn't have enough heavy land warfare units left to be of much use initially in Iraq.

ericlp said:
True but it's obvious we are not doing 100% Not even close. Were kind just there for backup. Hardly anyone supported us in the Iraq war (if you wanna call it a war). If you look at the video's 90% of the kills were done by the French and allied air support. Were basically just watching it unfold tho, if it grew into a full out right war, I doubt it would, we would support the efforts even more. I suspect they will be waving white flags just like Iraq did.


I guess you forgot Canada and the UN are backing this as well. Bush had the support he just went about it all wrong and fucked it up as usual.
Heavy losses? With what? Sorry it's just not gonna happen. Maybe if we stayed there for 100 years like mcsame wanted too then yeah I could see that possibly.
Click to expand...
We did the initial strikes on air defenses and C3. Neither France nor the UK has significant stealth capabilities, and only the UK has significant (if much, much smaller than our) long range precision strike capabilities. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with doing this for them as long as they are carrying the brunt of the war.

Nothing against Canada and the UN, but Canada doesn't have a lot more than, say, tiny Singapore to throw in, and a lot of their best is already deployed in Afghanistan. Canada is not at all comparable to South Korea or Turkey, its once world class military being systematically starved and pared to the bone over recent decades. (Not that I really blame them, when your only significant border is the USA, you're self-sufficient in energy, and the UK and other Commonwealth nations have your back, a powerful military is an option.)
 
werepossum said:
The two lists are very much the same, the exception being France. On any operation not directly perceived in France's national interests, I'd say Australia, Turkey, and especially South Korea are more than a match for France. I remember Gulf War 1, where French forces changed their minds halfway there, and those that did show up were neither mobile enough to keep up nor heavy enough to fight. (Of course, France is unlikely to be a partner to any operation not directly perceived in France's national interests.) The other major missing party would be Canada, which was already deployed in Afghanistan and frankly, doesn't have enough heavy land warfare units left to be of much use initially in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The issue wasn't one of military capability - there's little question that America could have deposed Saddam all by their lonesome. The issue is countries willing to throw their international reputation behind the action. To me, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany and Norway (even if it is "Stephen Harper Canada") are a pretty reputable group of allies who were missing form Iraq.
 
3chordcharlie said:
The issue wasn't one of military capability - there's little question that America could have deposed Saddam all by their lonesome. The issue is countries willing to throw their international reputation behind the action. To me, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany and Norway (even if it is "Stephen Harper Canada") are a pretty reputable group of allies who were missing form Iraq.
Click to expand...
I don't think Germany is contributing anything but international reputation, actually. But if you want to argue that Obama's nations are simply inherently better than Bush's nations, outside of military considerations, that's a value judgment that I'll let stand on its own. It's certainly a whiter, more Christian coalition, for what that's worth. (Not a lot to me, but YMMV.)
 
werepossum said:
I don't think Germany is contributing anything but international reputation, actually. But if you want to argue that Obama's nations are simply inherently better than Bush's nations, outside of military considerations, that's a value judgment that I'll let stand on its own. It's certainly a whiter, more Christian coalition, for what that's worth. (Not a lot to me, but YMMV.)
Click to expand...

Well, it's a bit less dictator-y, and it's quite a bit less inclined to support armed conflict at all. That means something to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top