• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arab League backs no-fly zone in Libya

YES THEY DO. They have hundreds of fighters and transport aircraft. These are not African countries. These are rich and former sustained Soviet satellites. They have enough aircraft
for logistics, etc. Let them do it.

For some reason that sentence doesn't make all that much sense to me.

And I was referring to $$$$$ more than anything else.
 
For some reason that sentence doesn't make all that much sense to me.

And I was referring to $$$$$ more than anything else.

For some reason I think you are right. Is that frightening?

What I am saying is that they have money. And everything associated necessary to carry out the action requiered to use against Gaddafi.
 
For some reason I think you are right. Is that frightening?

What I am saying is that they have money. And everything associated necessary to carry out the action requiered to use against Gaddafi.

I respectfully disagree, and I think that if people end up thinking that a no-fly zone MUST be implemented, then the West is best suited to take the lead, with perhaps the League and the African Union contributing some forces.
 
I respectfully disagree, and I think that if people end up thinking that a no-fly zone MUST be implemented, then the West is best suited to take the lead, with perhaps the League and the African Union contributing some forces.

Define 'the west'. China can do it. Russia can do it. England can do it. France can do it. Saudi Arabia has enough fighters; they can do it. We dont have to do it, nor should we, and frankly I think its high time others put their money and lives where their mouth is. This is a 'civil war.' We may not like one or even both sides. There is no merit in jumping in feet first into something that is guaranteed to splatter on us.
 
Define 'the west'.

NATO and the EU.

China can do it. Russia can do it.

But they won't.

We dont have to do it, nor should we, and frankly I think its high time others put their money and lives where their mouth is. This is a 'civil war.' We may not like one or even both sides. There is no merit in jumping in feet first into something that is guaranteed to splatter on us.

I don't disagree. My statement was not meant to be a ringing endorsement of an NFZ, just my personal opinion that if it were to be properly implemented and someone decided that it HAD to be done, Western nations should take the lead, and frankly our military has the best resources to do so in conjunction with other nations.
 
Yeah, but we've seen what happens when we start out with, "a handful of trainers". Not saying I oppose it, entirely; just pointing out where a handful of trainers, historically, has led us.

If we're going to do that, I suggest we hire some privateers to go in and train the rebels, so then we'll have some pluasible deniability.

IMO, that's definitely a legitimate concern. In any case, I do not favor direct U.S. military intervention. The U.S. interests at stake are not sufficient to justify such a response.
 
NATO and the EU.
But they won't.I don't disagree. My statement was not meant to be a ringing endorsement of an NFZ, just my personal opinion that if it were to be properly implemented and someone decided that it HAD to be done, Western nations should take the lead, and frankly our military has the best resources to do so in conjunction with other nations.

Just so long as the west doesnt end up meaning US...Im fine with that. And if they wont...well..THATS what the presidents bully pulpit is for. He cant make them...but he ought to be raising the roof about THEIR inactivity...not setting the example OF inactivity.
 
Just so long as the west doesnt end up meaning US...Im fine with that. And if they wont...well..THATS what the presidents bully pulpit is for. He cant make them...but he ought to be raising the roof about THEIR inactivity...not setting the example OF inactivity.

Well the US is included within NATO. Frankly I think any endeavor in this case should be multilateral, but I respect your opinion that we should completely stay out of it.
 
Well the US is included within NATO. Frankly I think any endeavor in this case should be multilateral, but I respect your opinion that we should completely stay out of it.

It hardly matters anymore. Libya will end the rebellion in short order and I'd just about bet the UN will restore them their spot on the Human Rights counsel by years end.
 
Color me unsurprised and unimpressed. Everyone agrees that enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya is a good idea. Then they stand there, looking around for someone to actually do it.

No one will.
 
Define 'the west'. China can do it. Russia can do it. England can do it. France can do it. Saudi Arabia has enough fighters; they can do it. We dont have to do it, nor should we, and frankly I think its high time others put their money and lives where their mouth is. This is a 'civil war.' We may not like one or even both sides. There is no merit in jumping in feet first into something that is guaranteed to splatter on us.

What makes you think China can do it? The U.S. should work in concert with its NATO allies and the Arab League. Neither China nor Russia would even support a no-fly zone as they want the rebellion to fail.
 
Just know that China most likely backs Gaddafi.
 
That's why I just wish you would come out and say it so the Libyan people would know the West is not coming into help.

Why should we even do that?

I thought the whole gripe against us was that we meddled in the internal affairs of Arab countries?

For some of us, it still is.

Color me unsurprised and unimpressed. Everyone agrees that enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya is a good idea.

No Fly Zones are acts of war, if the Arab league wants to do it, then they can put up the resources and do it themselves.
 
Color me unsurprised and unimpressed. Everyone agrees that enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya is a good idea. Then they stand there, looking around for someone to actually do it.

No one will.

I think that that is far from being a consensus.
 
I think that that is far from being a consensus.

There's a relatively good concencus on the No Fly Zone.

Just not who's gonna do it.

I volunteer Star Fox.

star-fox-64.jpg
 
I think many people agree that an NFZ is a good idea IN THEORY, however, aside from the cost and the fact that SOMEONE has to do it, there are numerous implications:

1) An NFZ is an act of war. There will be an offensive component involved in taking out Gaddafi's air defenses. If we want to establish air supremacy, we may also have to take out is air force on the ground.
2) Air power is indiscriminate. There is no telling how many civilians could potentially be harmed, given that we do not have spotters on the ground.
3) Downed pilot scenario.
4) It's an open-ended operation. Who knows when it will end?
5) It's gonna cost a ****load of logistical resources and $$$

Anyone else care to add...
 
Last edited:
Of course. I never suggested otherwise. However, a handful of trainers does not constitute direct military intervention. The model used in Afghanistan during that country's conflict with the Soviet Union albeit on a smaller scale would provide an example of how it could be done.

Vietnam started out with advisers (trainers).
 
Define 'the west'. China can do it. Russia can do it. England can do it. France can do it. Saudi Arabia has enough fighters; they can do it. We dont have to do it, nor should we, and frankly I think its high time others put their money and lives where their mouth is. This is a 'civil war.' We may not like one or even both sides. There is no merit in jumping in feet first into something that is guaranteed to splatter on us.

Frankly I doubt either one of those two would want to show off how incompetent they are.
 
Frankly I doubt either one of those two would want to show off how incompetent they are.

Pretty much, besides, I doubt the EU or NATO would be to happy about Chinese or Russian Aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea
 
Frankly I doubt either one of those two would want to show off how incompetent they are.

Yea they just let Obama open his mouth and instead show how in imcompetent we are.
 
I think many people agree that an NFZ is a good idea IN THEORY, however, aside from the cost and the fact that SOMEONE has to do it, there are numerous implications:

1) An NFZ is an act of war. There will be an offensive component involved in taking out Gaddafi's air defenses. If we want to establish air supremacy, we may also have to take out is air force on the ground.
2) Air power is indiscriminate. There is no telling how many civilians could potentially be harmed, given that we do not have spotters on the ground.
3) Downed pilot scenario.
4) It's an open-ended operation. Who knows when it will end?
5) It's gonna cost a ****load of logistical resources and $$$

Anyone else care to add...

Hmmm....who is gonna vow to shoot down anything that violates, the NFZ?
 
Back
Top Bottom