http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/

French jets, in addition to performing no-fly-zone exercises, are now apparently enforcing a partitioning of Libya by attacking government military forces in areas designated as "exclusion zones".

When will these meddlers learn that all they are doing is setting up Libya for a long, protracted war?  A partitioned country is a fertile recrutiing ground for terrorists wgho would love to use Libya as a base of operations.

When will these meddlers learn that all they are doing is setting up Libya for a long, protracted war?  A partitioned country is a fertile recrutiing ground for terrorists wgho would love to use Libya as a base of operations.


So, umm, what was your position on the invasion of Iraq?  And why?

I don't mean to snark on you personally - but I've seen this over the past few Presidencies.  People with Republican biases tend to claim that Gulf War I was fine, Serbia wasn't justified because it was Bill Clinton just wagging the dog, Gulf War II was fine, and now Libya isn't.  People with Democratic biases tend to claim that Gulf War I was unjusified, that Serbia was a vital humanitarian mission, Gulf War II was, well, they're still protesting it on the 8th anniversary or whatever, and now Libya is justified.  It's almost like political partisans make their decisions on wars based on whether the sitting President is a Jackass or an Elephant.

(I'm a mutant warmongering freak that pisses off everyone, because I thought all four were pretty reasonable calls based on the information we had at the time, even though we ended up paying more for Gulf War II than the damn oil was ever worth.  But hey, I've got bipartisan support :)

So, umm, what was your position on the invasion of Iraq?  And why?

I don't mean to snark on you personally - but I've seen this over the past few Presidencies.  People with Republican biases tend to claim that Gulf War I was fine, Serbia wasn't justified because it was Bill Clinton just wagging the dog, Gulf War II was fine, and now Libya isn't.  People with Democratic biases tend to claim that Gulf War I was unjusified, that Serbia was a vital humanitarian mission, Gulf War II was, well, they're still protesting it on the 8th anniversary or whatever, and now Libya is justified.  It's almost like political partisans make their decisions on wars based on whether the sitting President is a Jackass or an Elephant.

(I'm a mutant warmongering freak that pisses off everyone, because I thought all four were pretty reasonable calls based on the information we had at the time, even though we ended up paying more for Gulf War II than the damn oil was ever worth.  But hey, I've got bipartisan support :)


Well a CNN poll shows that 65% of Americans do NOT support the Libyan invasion.

As for Iraq II, I was not in favor of it, as I similarly was not in favor of its predecessor, the "no fly zone" which was the Muslim world's best PR campaign against the United States who bombed Iraq every few months.

Serbia? I had less problem with it because you had documented evidence of populations being herded up and killed because of their ethnicity.  That's not the case in Libya.

Iraq I?  I supported it as it was done in fulfillment of a treaty that the US and Kuwait already had.

I'm not sure about Libya, but to those who oppose it, so does Hugo Chavez!!??

Well a CNN poll shows that 65% of Americans do NOT support the Libyan invasion.



65% of Americans couldn't find Libya on a map.  I mean, not that I'm some sort of foreign policy wonk. 

I remember the bombing raids against Libya in 1986 (Operation El Dorado Canyon) in retaliation for the Berlin discotheque, after which Libya was caught congratulating the East German Libyan embassy for a job well done,  and the Rome and Vienna airport bombings in 1985, in which Libya was charged with funding Abu Nidal.  I remember the "Gaddafi sucks" and "Send Rambo to Libya" bumper stickers with that Reaganesque ra-ra shoot 'em up mentality.

Gaddafi quashed internal resistance and kept right on going.  He declared victory against the United States.  Saddam did the same thing after the Clinton air strikes.  Gaddafi is a narcissist just like Saddam. 

Perhaps it would be better to let Gaddafi's government collapse from within.  I don't have confidence that Obama and Hillary Clinton can engineer a better result.
::)

Loud blasts have been heard in the Libyan capital Tripoli, witnesses say, as allied forces resume operations to enforce a no-fly zone.

A plume of smoke was seen rising from the area near the compound of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi.

Latest reports indicate 48 civilians killed as a result of the 'allied' incursion.

Well a CNN poll shows that 65% of Americans do NOT support the Libyan invasion.

As for Iraq II, I was not in favor of it, as I similarly was not in favor of its predecessor, the "no fly zone" which was the Muslim world's best PR campaign against the United States who bombed Iraq every few months.

Serbia? I had less problem with it because you had documented evidence of populations being herded up and killed because of their ethnicity.  That's not the case in Libya.

Iraq I?  I supported it as it was done in fulfillment of a treaty that the US and Kuwait already had.


Fair enough.  But as to the casualties in Libya, how many civilian casualties would have been sustained had Gadhafi been able to roll unimpeded, into Benghazi this morning? 

I think the Bosnia/Serbia situation is the closest parallel to the present situation.  No, Gadhafi isn't technically commting genocide, in that he doesn't really care about the ethnicity of his victims, but he's certainly demonstrated a willingness, even an eagerness, to blow away anyone in Libya who speaks out against him.

I think the Bosnia/Serbia situation is the closest parallel to the present situation.  No, Gadhafi isn't technically commting genocide, in that he doesn't really care about the ethnicity of his victims, but he's certainly demonstrated a willingness, even an eagerness, to blow away anyone in Libya who speaks out against him.

FIFY :)

FIFY :)


Well, at least until the UN showed up, he was...

http://i.imgur.com/Pw54E.jpg

WINNING!

That's one scary picture.. Gashdafeefni, isn't it?

When will these meddlers learn that all they are doing is setting up Libya for a long, protracted war?  A partitioned country is a fertile recrutiing ground for terrorists wgho would love to use Libya as a base of operations.


Yeah.  Terrists!  Like those rebel scum who said "No hard feelings, we know war's confusing and it's hard to tell us from the bad guys, but dudes, WTF?" after we fired on them while both we (and they) were racing to rescue our F-15 pilots.

Meanwhile, the quagmire continues.  So far, the US ground forces committed to the "occupation" of Libya have been two dudes unlucky enough to have to eject after their plane fell apart on them.  Even then, we only had boots on the ground for a few hours until the US rescuers figured out the rebels were only trying to help, and both sides eventually got the pilots safely out of dodge.


That's one scary picture.. Gashdafeefni, isn't it?


I dunno, but he sure ain't #winning like he was last week.

I don't mean to snark on you personally - but I've seen this over the past few Presidencies.  People with Republican biases tend to claim that Gulf War I was fine, Serbia wasn't justified because it was Bill Clinton just wagging the dog, Gulf War II was fine, and now Libya isn't.  People with Democratic biases tend to claim that Gulf War I was unjusified, that Serbia was a vital humanitarian mission, Gulf War II was, well, they're still protesting it on the 8th anniversary or whatever, and now Libya is justified.  It's almost like political partisans make their decisions on wars based on whether the sitting President is a Jackass or an Elephant.

(I'm a mutant warmongering freak that pisses off everyone, because I thought all four were pretty reasonable calls based on the information we had at the time, even though we ended up paying more for Gulf War II than the damn oil was ever worth.  But hey, I've got bipartisan support :)


In many ways I am with you.  I felt all of the interventions were needed, for various reasons.  However, a minor correction here.

The war in Serbia was actually the same war that President Bush Sr. sent US troops to assist the "United Nations Protection Force", a multinational force to try and ease tensions in the former Yugoslavia.  And we still have forces there to this day, under the name "EUFOR Althea".

In many ways I am with you.  I felt all of the interventions were needed, for various reasons.  However, a minor correction here.

The war in Serbia was actually the same war that President Bush Sr. sent US troops to assist the "United Nations Protection Force", a multinational force to try and ease tensions in the former Yugoslavia.  And we still have forces there to this day, under the name "EUFOR Althea".


Karma for the clarification.  I was on a roll back there; my most vivid recollection was the imagery of some dudes behind barbed wire - they'd been starved to the point that their ribs were showing, and I don't remember (or really care) whose side they were on.  I just remember a red mist over my eyes as I listened to European politicians pontificating that nothing was really that bad, and muttering "'never again', my ass, Europe..."

Any partisan hack can give us an opinion.  It took a bunch of marionettes to tell us the truth.  (Link features SFW puppetry, NSFW language, and not-safe-for-political-campaigning honesty about the only way to deal with dictators.)

i sort of wonder if Libya will split in two.