UN Approves Airstrikes Against Libya

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-17-2011, 07:23 PM

You heard it here first:

U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces

The New York Times...
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council approved a measure on Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from harm at the hands of forces loyal to Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance.

So, what are the odds of this escalating at this point?

Donkey® · 03-17-2011, 09:59 PM

As long as we're not doling out money, troops and equipment willy nilly...whatever. It's funny watching the people on the right (for the most part) beat Obama to death over not "doing something" in this crisis. It's great they want to cut NPR out of the budget but want us to get involved in something that's frankly not our business.

Oh, from the "don't we look stupid files"...how long did it take us to lift a finger in Congo? Sudan?

The Great Catpiss · 03-17-2011, 11:44 PM

I don't understand all the Obama bashing for not doing something already. This was one of the reasons he was voted in. He wanted the UN to approve things like this first.

Donkey® · 03-18-2011, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

I don't understand all the Obama bashing for not doing something already. This was one of the reasons he was voted in. He wanted the UN to approve things like this first.

Not only APPROVE...but PARTICIPATE. We are not the world police.

ssvs04 · 03-18-2011, 05:59 AM

The useless U.N. who we waste our tax dollars on gives permission to a president who constantly seems confused and gets a answer to start a no fly zone when basically there are no rebels left to protect after all of them being slaughtered. But Obama got those basketball picks in and thats what matters. Two sadder words can not be said. Obama and U.N.

avsp · 03-18-2011, 11:25 AM

Its not just a NFZ tho is it?

The resolution is specific in saying its to protect civilians, so it doesnt matter were there are no rebel forces

Its always possible to argue that using tanks in cities endangers civilians, ..., tho for 'the west'/NATO/US/CoW to argue this is more than somewhat self-serving

Suppose this works fairly quickly & the post-fall chaos & score-settling is minimal, (unlikely i'd've thought, Gadaffi's tribe may well face a near genocidal slaughter), what then?

The success of a multi-lateral intervention might lead to allsorts of things, ..., Yeman, Zimbabwe, possibly even Burma, ..., but probably not CENCOM jewel Bahrain
Equally its failure would mean a return to fairly ineffective UN peacekeeping sops

If the Europeans & AL take a leading role in this it may increase the calls for an end of NATO & the creation of a EU military force

The US is going to at the very least, guarantee the saftly of Med shipping

Europe is heavily reliant on gas from N Africa, ..., I doubt this would've been attempted were winter approaching. If Gadaffi mamages to interupt Europes supplies from Algeria then we & thus he will be well f*cked

I see Gadaffi has announced a cease-fire, ..., ~~canny innee~~ a sly old fox, is he not?

I think BHO has done the wise thing in not publically leading the charge on this & leaving it up to the Europeans & AL to get the ball rolling, ..., its got the french on board for a start.

Even if opne judges the resolution to be unwise then his decision not to be a the public forefront of this is sensible.

I wonder what the price for the Russian & Chinese vetoes was?

Overall its how the AL shape up here that matters long term, IMO

'Mission creep' is the more immediate problem tho

Donkey® · 03-18-2011, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by ssvs04

The useless U.N. who we waste our tax dollars on gives permission to a president who constantly seems confused and gets a answer to start a no fly zone when basically there are no rebels left to protect after all of them being slaughtered. But Obama got those basketball picks in and thats what matters. Two sadder words can not be said. Obama and U.N.

And here we go. Obama was "confused" when he decided to sit on the sidelines? Really? Is Libya one of our states? Why are you so concerned about what goes on there? Were you calling for Bush or Clinton or someone to invade Congo? Rwanda? I bet you also thought he should have supported that dictator Mubarak as well? Sent in the troops so he keeps his power?

What part of "Libya is none of our business" do you not understand? You guys can't even get your stories straight. First you're for the rebels...then you call them the Muslim Brotherhood and don't want them in power...so then you think we should defend dictators...your party looks like a Waffle House at this point.

Oh, and yes, attack Obama for his basketball picks. Does his job cease to function while he picks teams? If planes flew into the towers during that event...would he sit there like a deer in headlights and continue his picks? Doubtful. The right does itself a HUGE disservice when it bitches about stuff like that...or Michelle Obama's causes...

JDTC · 03-18-2011, 04:38 PM

From what I've read, the UN decree authorized general military force against Libya with the no-fly zone being one part of that.

Frankly I don't think our military should participate. If France and the UK want to, that's fine, but I feel that we've had our hand in Middle Eastern affairs for far too long. Not only that, but our military shouldn't be beholden to the UN (which is a different issue entirely).

ssvs04 · 03-18-2011, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And here we go. Obama was "confused" when he decided to sit on the sidelines? Really? Is Libya one of our states? Why are you so concerned about what goes on there? Were you calling for Bush or Clinton or someone to invade Congo? Rwanda? I bet you also thought he should have supported that dictator Mubarak as well? Sent in the troops so he keeps his power?

What part of "Libya is none of our business" do you not understand? You guys can't even get your stories straight. First you're for the rebels...then you call them the Muslim Brotherhood and don't want them in power...so then you think we should defend dictators...your party looks like a Waffle House at this point.

Oh, and yes, attack Obama for his basketball picks. Does his job cease to function while he picks teams? If planes flew into the towers during that event...would he sit there like a deer in headlights and continue his picks? Doubtful. The right does itself a HUGE disservice when it bitches about stuff like that...or Michelle Obama's causes...

Look instead of playing golf the day Japan is spewing radiation across its country. And picking basketball teams while a dictator is slaughtering its people and Americans are struggling to fill up there tanks just before he announces he is going on vacation to Rio he could show some class and maybe act like he struggling like the rest of America.

We are a broke country right now so im against getting involved in anymore conflicts. But sending our carriers over there and getting the hopes of these rebels up like were going to help them with speeches like we are choking the throat of quadafi when you havent done squat is just wrong. Or maybe our president could get on T.V. to the American people and say look these people need our help and im going to give it. At least then I would have some respect for the man that he has conviction and I could get behind him for wanting to help these people. At this point he is so wishy washy on just about everything I just dont know what to make of his next move and fear for the lives of our troops when it comes to his indecision making.

Isn't the reason we give the U.N. billions upon billions of dollars every year to stop violence in places like the Congo and Rwanda so we dont have to invade.

Donkey® · 03-18-2011, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by ssvs04

Look instead of playing golf the day Japan is spewing radiation across its country. And picking basketball teams while a dictator is slaughtering its people and Americans are struggling to fill up there tanks just before he announces he is going on vacation to Rio he could show some class and maybe act like he struggling like the rest of America.

So he should pretend to be broke? And you are so misinformed about so much...this isn't a "vacation" in Brazil.

Originally Posted by ssvs04

We are a broke country right now so im against getting involved in anymore conflicts. But sending our carriers over there and getting the hopes of these rebels up like were going to help them with speeches like we are choking the throat of quadafi when you havent done squat is just wrong. Or maybe our president could get on T.V. to the American people and say look these people need our help and im going to give it. At least then I would have some respect for the man that he has conviction and I could get behind him for wanting to help these people. At this point he is so wishy washy on just about everything I just dont know what to make of his next move and fear for the lives of our troops when it comes to his indecision making.

You have to have troops in place before you threaten to use them. And no, he shouldn't get on TV and say anything about stuff that's not our problem.

Originally Posted by ssvs04

Isn't the reason we give the U.N. billions upon billions of dollars every year to stop violence in places like the Congo and Rwanda so we dont have to invade.

Yes. And that's what we did. We waited for the UN wheels to turn and pressured the UN to hurry up. What more would you like?

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-19-2011, 12:49 PM

You heard it here first:

French Planes Begin Enforcing Libyan No-Fly Zone...

BRASILIA—An international military coalition began efforts to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya Saturday, with the French government announcing that its planes were in the air over the North African country.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the deployment of French fighter jets at an international conference in Paris on the Libyan crisis. It was the first military action following the decision by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday to take action against the government of Muammar Qadhafi.

The French planes were deployed amidst reports that Libyan forces loyal to Qadhafi had launched an attack on the rebel-held stronghold of Benghazi. Analysts have predicted widespread civilian casualties if Qadhafi loyalists try to retake the city...

There were no indications of immediate actions by U.S. military forces...

My take is this: Obama vows that he does not want American boots on the ground, but we all know how this turns out. Either the NFZ forces the good Colonel out (ala Kosovo), or he lingers on (ala Saddam Hussein) and eventually, the NFZ coalition will fall apart and someone invades and topples the regime. (Or am I missing something?)

I personally hope the NFZ does the trick and Libyans are able to set up a new government on their own (that is easier for everyone, is it not?) but if anything is clear, I think it is that history does not provide an easy path or assured outcome in situations such as this. This may just be only the beginning and not the beginning of the end.

Salty Dog · 03-19-2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

This may just be only the beginning and not the beginning of the end.

I just don't have a good feeling about this. Something doesn't smell right.

I like how Russia is staying out of the headlines in this. Perhaps their Afghan campaign of the 1980s has convinced them to militarily stay out of North Africa and the Middle East.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-19-2011, 05:23 PM

And now the United States has joined the party:

U.S. Missiles Strike Libyan Air Defense Targets

In a briefing Saturday afternoon, Vice Adm. William Gortney told reporters that about 110 Tomahawk missiles, fired from American warships and submarines and one British submarine struck 20 air-defense targets around Tripoli, the capital, and the western city of Misurata. He said the strikes were against longer-range air defense missiles as well as early warning radar sites and main command-and-control communication centers.

The fun really never stops in that part of the world, eh?

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-19-2011, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

I just don't have a good feeling about this. Something doesn't smell right.

That smell may be the rotting flesh of all the innocent people Gaddafi is killing for demanding human rights...

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

I like how Russia is staying out of the headlines in this. Perhaps their Afghan campaign of the 1980s has convinced them to militarily stay out of North Africa and the Middle East.

Really? You're going to imply Russia's silence and refusal to get involved as an example we should look to, and cite the Soviet Union's rape of Afghanistan as an example, as a reason Allied forces should not prevent the slaughter of innocent people by a backwards government?

Donkey® · 03-19-2011, 05:38 PM

Wish we'd stay out...but at LEAST it's multinational at this point.

I know everyone wants to blast Obama, but IF we HAD to get involved, we at least dragged a bunch of people with us.

JDTC · 03-19-2011, 05:47 PM

I wonder how many Libyan civilians we're going to accidentally kill.

Stylerod · 03-19-2011, 08:11 PM

I groaned when I heard this today.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-19-2011, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by JDTC

I wonder how many Libyan civilians we're going to accidentally kill.

Probably no where near as many as Gaddafi is intentionally killing.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-19-2011, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Wish we'd stay out...but at LEAST it's multinational at this point.

I know everyone wants to blast Obama, but IF we HAD to get involved, we at least dragged a bunch of people with us.

I don't want to blast Obama, at least not on this. I generally have no problem using Western power to intervene in cases of governments slaughtering their people merely because their people demand to be respected as human beings.

Why everyone else has such a problem with it is beyond me.

I also refuse to sell out US sovereignty and foreign policy to the whims of multinationalism. Why on Earth should Russia or China have a veto over our country acting in the interests of international safety and human rights? They should not, and neither should anyone else.

Donkey® · 03-19-2011, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

I don't want to blast Obama, at least not on this. I generally have no problem using Western power to intervene in cases of governments slaughtering their people merely because their people demand to be respected as human beings.

Why everyone else has such a problem with it is beyond me.

I also refuse to sell out US sovereignty and foreign policy to the whims of multinationalism. Why on Earth should Russia or China have a veto over our country acting in the interests of international safety and human rights? They should not, and neither should anyone else.

Why only Libya? Why not Bahrain?