WAR NO. 3: US FIRES MISSILES INTO LIBYA - Part 2

NATO has agreed to assume command of enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya, and is considering broadening the scope of the mission. From CNN:

quoteNATO agreed Thursday to take command of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and was considering taking control of the full U.N.-backed military mission, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told CNN.

Rasmussen’s announcement fell short of what U.S. President Barack Obama has sought, and it was unclear if concerns by Turkey and some other NATO allies over coalition airstrikes on Libyan ground forces would prevent NATO from agreeing to expand its command over the entire mission.

What we have decided today is that NATO will enforce the no-fly zone,” Rasmussen said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We are considering whether NATO should take on overall responsibility. That decision has not been made yet.

Rasmussen said he expected NATO to take over full control of the no-fly-zone enforcement in a few days, and to decide on the issue of broader responsibility “within the coming days.”[/quote]

Ah yes, the issue of “broader responsibility”. I can’t wait to hear Rasmussen’s explanation of why NATO is going to involve itself in a non-member nation’s internal conflict. Better yet, I’d like to hear President Obama explain it. Sure, this is now officially a NATO-led war, but whether the US is leading the effort or just participating, I want the president to explain why we’re getting involved.

That latter part is certainly true. American presidents just can’t help themselves.

The US should never have been involved in the Balkans, Somalia, or Iraq, and it shouldn’t be involved in Libya now. I don’t think any of these wars would been supported without the humanitarian angle, and in all cases that angle was misleading. The enemies of the Serbs, Baathists, dominant Somalian clans, and Qaddafa are equally as vicious and venal as their oppressors; they just ended up on the wrong side of history. Liberals and their neoconservative cohorts are all too eager to send American troops to the aid of any suffering people tugging at the nation’s heartstrings. Sometimes it is a limited mission a la the Balkans, sometimes it is a bloody and prolonged conflict like Iraq. Brigadier General John Brown summarized American involvement in Somalia nicely in the official history of the United States Army:

[quote=“John Brown”]The United States Army has a long tradition of humanitarian relief. No such operation has proven as costly or shocking, however, as that undertaken in Somalia from August 1992 to March 1994. Greeted initially by Somalis happy to be saved from starvation, U.S. troops were slowly drawn into interclan power struggles and ill-defined “nation-building” missions.
[/quote]

Same old story. We start off handing out bags of rice and then we get drawn into the fight. And I’ll leave it to the partisans to debate whether Democratic or Republican presidents have made the better choices. I really don’t care. In all cases the US has fought against sitting governments that posed no threat whatsoever to America. Of course I pity any group of people suffering under the heavy hand of a dictator, but that doesn’t mean I want my countrymen involved. I have two nephews. In five years one will be eligible for military service; in a decade both will be. I don’t want to return home on holidays to see two empty places at the table, lamenting the deaths of my kin who died fighting for some other people in some other land. Call me an isolationist if you will, but in this regards my family means everything and people on the other side of the globe mean nothing.

eutimes.net/2011/03/china-mo … l-out-war/

China Moves To Save Libyan Leader As Russia Warns Of ‘All Out War’

This is not a headline that makes me feel good.

[quote]An “urgent” dispatch from Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) chief Mikhail Fradkov to President Medvedev that is circulating in the Kremlin today says that the Chinese warship Xuzhou is preparing to offer protection to Libyan leader Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi and his family to protect them from assassination from the US-led air assault on that North African Nation.
In what this report calls a “stunning betrayal” by the West, Russian leaders say their abstention in the United Nation Security Council vote to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to protect its civilian population from both Gaddafi and rebel forces is, instead, being used by the West to engineer their takeover of Libya’s vast oil and water resources, and which we had previously warned about in our March 8th report, “Global Resource War Warned Has Begun Between East-West.”
Even though Chief of the Russian General Staff Nikolai Makarov had previously warned that foreign military intervention in Libya could trigger an all-out war with the West,
his warnings have fallen on deaf ears as British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said the direct targeting of Gaddafi was “possible” and British submarines fired two missiles at the Libyan leaders compound in downtown Tripoli bringing number of civilians killed by the West to 48 with over 150 wounded.
After the West’s massive killing of Libyan civilians Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich called for the immediate halt to the US-led attacks against Libya, a call that was joined by both China and India who just days before these attacks were said to be considering offers to drill for Libyan oil.
China’s most important political newspaper, The People’s Daily, further warned that the United States and its allies are violating International rules and that in places like Iraq “the unspeakable suffering of its people are a mirror and a warning” and the military attacks on Libya are, following on from the Afghan and Iraq wars, “the third time that some countries have launched armed action against sovereign countries.”[/quote]

We really don’t need a war between Russia, China, and the US, especially now that Canada is involved. :frowning:

This is funny!


Obama is cool and awesome!

Odd. The YuoTube embedder function thing isn’t functioning??


Biden would impeach the President…


What Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

Not looking good. Is this the beginning of WWIII or what? What is going on?!

How ironic that the USA’s number one enemy throughout the world which leads some people to frothing at the mouth just mentioning their name, is being supported by them in Libya.

They are either taking the piss out of us or they are complete morons.
I’d say it’s both.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … links.html

[quote]Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.[/quote]

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against ‘the foreign invasion’ in Afghanistan

What are you talking about?

According to Nostradamus, WWIII starts in Asia. :cactus: (just kidding)

If you refer to the oerall fighting throughout the Middle East, yep, it looks pretty bad. There seems to be no end to it, and one cannot expect it but to get worse.

What are you talking about?[/quote]

It’s a war over oil reserves involving diverging coalitions of the most powerful nations on earth. Deja vu? The future isn’t really bright, in my opinion. This is going to get very ugly, I’m afraid.

[quote=“Tigerman”]
Biden would impeach the President…


What Happened to the Anti-War Movement?
[/quote]

Hey Tigerman,
enjoyed your link!! I also don’t see much difference between the overseas policy of Bush and Obama.
28 some years ago, I was in the CIC (combat information center) of a Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser. I had my finger on the launch button of an SM2 missile, about to blast one of Libya’s jets out of the sky, if it violated our rules of engagement. It came within 30 seconds of launch, and I would of pushed the trigger, whether Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, or Obama, had been Commander in Chief, if it hadn’t turned off course. I often agree with you, because I was raised a Republican, but I also find much common ground with MT, Chris, and Doc Bones, who are all fellow Americans. The Commander in Chief has found it necessary for us to engage in battle, putting our boy’s in danger, let’s stand behind him, and pray that all goes well!

I wonder if Obama was looking for ways to invade Libya before he got elected.

Get outta here. Go watch the news or something. :wink:

Of course! I’m not so much being critical of Obama* as I am of our resident Bush critics. My family votes Republican, too. But, I’ve always been the crazy liberal of my family.

*I am a bit, as I think he ran on a platform of peace and of change. I think it would do him well to admit that the job he has now is a bit more complex and demanding than that of a community organizer!

I wanna know if Syria is less of a priority not only for the US, but for all the other countries that are willing to go after Libya, because of its lesser strategic value and lack of resources. cuz right now, it could also use some humanitarian aid as government troops are killing protesters.

Greater strategic value, but greater risk.

Random thoughts/ramblings (difficult to do more when typing on an iphone, apologies in advance):

I am happy to see the media and others questioning the current policy in Libya. Many have pointed out that it has been unclear 1) Qaddafi must go vs 2) this is a limited intervention/no fly zone + humanitarian / no boots on ground, etc. And the 2 objections seem incompatible. glad that folks aren’t jumping on the bandwagon to another war. (Germany’s motives for abstaining? Is it as simple as "we’re still recovering from economic crises and we don’t have $ to fight a war that doesn’t directly involve us?? If so, maybe they’ve got this right??).

On the other hand, is it wise not to support Arab uprisings in some fashion? I am excited to see ppl power. I think history is on the side of democratic aspirations of the masses. Hope that it doesn’t get hijacked by new despots ala Taliban-like or Iranian-like theocracies.

60% of arab population in ME are 30 yrs old or younger. The impetus for Tunisia and Egypt revolutions was unemployed young men with no hope for anything than life of poverty. Many folks living on $2/day in Egypt found increases in food prices unbearable. Seemingly underlying motive for uprising is desire for decent standard of living for most ppl not just the few well connected elite rather than Islamic Caliphate (see Fareed Zakaria writings). But hey, I don’t know for sure. It’s reasonable to ask the question “who are we actually aiding in Libya? Who are the rebels?”

Although seemingly hypocritical to be against Qaddafi but tolerate our ally ME dictators, I see this as pragmatic. US gov’t has spoken against violence toward peaceful protesters in all of the ME countries, but hey, we are still not energy independent (truly a shame and outrage as we’ve known since at least the 1970’s oil embargo that this was a real weakness and should’ve done more about it). I for one like my current standard of living and that requires the US to suck up to the Saudis et al for now. I look forward to a day when we might be able to say to those in the ME, “good fuckin luck with your ridiculous bickering amongst yourselves and the Israelies and Persians. It’s not our concern.” unfortunately, for now we will need to get involved if not for our sakes, for our allies. US gets an insignificant amt of oil from Libya. But our European friends do (Britain and Italy and others). We need them and they need us. They support us and we support them.

The 3 lady Valkyries (Clinton, Powers and Rice) took us to action partly because all 3 were in gov’t service during Rwandan genocide and failed to avert that. Media is putting out there that this an underlying motivation of theirs. Who knows?

Anyway, good debate everyone. I’m enlightened by all of your comments.

I don’t think he ran on a platform of peace and of change. He had to convince people that he was willing to do what it takes to be commander-in-chief. His platform was more of a ‘lets not be so stupid anymore’.

I don’t think he ran on a platform of peace and of change. He had to convince people that he was willing to do what it takes to be commander-in-chief. His platform was more of a ‘lets not be so stupid anymore’.[/quote]My first reaction was similar…didn’t this guy run on a peaceful platform? But thinking back, he actually didn’t. He was kind of a chicken-hawk out of necessity and never appeared weak on international security issues. He only appeared weak compared to the much more aggressive approach favored by McCain-Palin. I think most people looked at his tougher statements as if there was a “wink-wink” behind them, but obviously there wasn’t.

My disappointments were all because I created an Obama in my head that never existed. Lots of people, including the Nobel Peace Prize committee, apparently did the same thing. Now I’m clear on who President Obama is and who candidate Obama is…and I’m not as impressed.

Why are we getting involved in a Libyan civil war? Not to mention intervening in the internal affairs of a country with no strategic value whatsoever.

There is no guarantee that a rebel-formed government will be friendlier toward US and allied interests.

And good job Obama on not notifying Congress until it was too late for them to act. At least Bush gave Congress that courtesy.