Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 113

Thread: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

  1. #11
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    If it could be done on the QT I'd say go for it take the bastards out. But since there is little chance of that, we need to support the Rebels we arms and supplies and get the Arab league to take the lead.
    The Arab League is not going to stop Gaddafi. Neither will the UN.

    The only thing that will put an end to his slaughtering is to destroy his military and send a missile up his a**.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  2. #12
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    It is over.

    Gaddafi will win.

    The west has failed.
    That may turn out to be correct due to the spineless wimps leading the West right now.

    The Libyan's are wondering where the leader of the free world is. They are not alone.
    Last edited by Ron Mars; 03-15-11 at 12:22 PM.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  3. #13
    Student Marshabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    11-09-13 @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    293

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    My heart says "yes, yes, yes", my head says "no, no, no"... unless NATO or the ARAB states are willing go fuel up their air forces tomorrow, and leap into the fray. They, however, are not.

    By the end of this week there will not be a single anti-Gadaffi civilian alive, because the world has spent three weeks wringing its hands... just like it always does.
    We've got to stop.

    These people curse us but expect our sons and daughters will die for them.

    I met a Christian Iraqi woman this weekend whose family came to the United States in 1993. She went back to Iraq to work as a linguist for the military during Bush's tenure. She was horrified at the number of Iraqi Muslims who are receiving Visas. She'd hear them bragging about their Visas and laughing at Americans. Her family has been chased from country to country over the generations, murdered and robbed time after time by Muslims. She said she doesn't know where in the world a Christian could go to be safe if the United States allows them to flood in as Europe has done.
    Last edited by Marshabar; 03-15-11 at 12:31 PM.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    A number of thoughts:

    1. The revolution will need to be waged by Libyans.

    2. U.S. interests are not sufficiently critical to warrant direct military intervention. Arms assistance or perhaps participation in a no fly zone might could be constructive. However, strategic bombing, assaination, or other direct military intervention should not be pursued. The U.S. should follow a policy consistent with its interests. It should not repeat blunders that resulted from non-interest connected military intervention e.g., in Somalia in the early 1990s.

    3. The Arab states have sufficient interests at stake to intervene militarily. That the Arab League has made a hollow gesture, agreeing to a no fly zone but choosing not to use any of its air assets to enforce its declaration, speaks volumes. In contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a subset of Arab League members, committed military units to aid Bahrain's government. That the Arab League won't run any risks in Libya when they have larger interests in the outcome than the U.S./most NATO members should provide pause to states that have far fewer interests at stake e.g., the U.S.

    4. Unpopular as it might be to suggest it, recent events have suggested that the anti-Gadhafi revolution does not enjoy broad-based support. Previously, I had assumed that the uprising was a broad-based popular one. It is not. The dictator commands a significant amount of support and the magnitude of that support is sufficiently great that it almost certainly cannot completely be explained by fear/coercion/disinformation.

    5. Even more unpopular to suggest, the lack of broad-based support for the anti-Gadhafi revolution may well be a more important factor than the dictatorship's use of air power in determining the outcome of the conflict. In other words, had the revolution truly enjoyed broad-based popular support, military defections, including among its air force, would have been sufficiently large to bring those units and assets against the dictatorship. Then, the balance of power would have meant that the dictatorship was doomed. That didn't happen.

    6. The lack of broad-based popular support means that the risk of violence that would arise in the power vacuum that would follow the collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship would be especially high. There would be competition, very likely violent, as various factions exploit the power vacuum and compete for influence/control.

    7. To date, the opposition has demonstrated surprisingly poor organizational and military skill, even as some fighters e.g., in Zawiya, have demonstrated heroic courage. To date, not a single senior opposition leader has even spoken before the UN Security Council when, in theory, that forum would give them the largest global audience to make their case. Furthermore, there has been ample time during which such an address should have been given. That major oversight says much about the opposition's leadership capabilities. Given that situation and the lack of broad-based popular support, there would be a real danger that the opposition would not be able to form a broadly-supported transitional government in time to avert the consequences of the power vacuum that would result from the dictator's fall.

    In sum, while I hope that the Gadhafi regime is toppled, I strongly believe that the outcome should be driven by the Libyans. Given the lack of critical U.S. interests at stake, I do not believe the U.S. should engage in direct military intervention. Moreover, the Arab League's hollow no fly zone declaration, makes the argument even stronger that the U.S. should not shoulder the risks and sacrifices that the Arab League refuses to bear to support its much greater interests.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-15-11 at 12:49 PM.

  5. #15
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In sum, while I hope that the Gadhafi regime is toppled, I strongly believe that the outcome should be driven by the Libyans. Given the lack of critical U.S. interests at stake, I do not believe the U.S. should engage in direct military intervention. Moreover, the Arab League's hollow no fly zone declaration, makes the argument even stronger that the U.S. should not shoulder the risks and sacrifices that the Arab League refuses to bear to support its much greater interests.
    1.) The revolution is being waged by Libyans. They’re losing right now and asking for help. If nobody helps them they will lose.

    2.) To support people fighting for their freedom is in the national interest of the US as it should be for all free nations. We do not need to send in large ground units if any at all. Air strikes can defeat Gaddafi's military campaign and chase his butt around the desert for awhile. If we don’t kill him he’ll leave.

    3.) The Arab states would have acted by now if they had any intention of intervening militarily. And it's obvious now that it will require a military intervention.

    4.) It's my understanding that the lack of civilian support for the rebellion, for obvious reasons, is in the areas where Gaddafi still holds control. The civilians in the rebel held areas appear to be quite supportive. But I'd agree it's too early to tell on this one.

    5.) Many of Gaddafi's military units have either refused to fire on civilians or joined the rebels.
    Libyan Opposition Leader: Military Siding with People

    6.) It would be nice to have some adult leadership in the US and UN right now. This is exactly what the UN was designed to mediate. They have near zero credibility right now.

    7.) Of course the rebellion is not organized like regular military forces. They are civilians and ex-military. You and I seem to have a different understanding of “heroic courage”.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    1.) The revolution is being waged by Libyans.
    IMO, it will have to be waged and won by Libyans. As noted previously, I do favor arms deliveries to the revolutionaries and could support a no fly zone. I do not support direct military intervention.

    2.) To support people fighting for their freedom is in the national interest of the US as it should be for all free nations.
    Lending support via the steps I noted above is providing concrete support. I don't think the U.S. can or should be obligated to wage military campaigns on behalf of any or all peoples who might seek to topple authoritarian regimes. Even if interests were not relevant, the U.S. lacks the manpower and resources to do so on such a scale. Much more needs to be involved to trigger such direct military support.

    3.) The Arab states would have acted by now if they had any intention of intervening militarily. And it's obvious now that it will require a military intervention.
    Apparently, aside from expressing moral support, the Arab League does not believe the situation warrants their military intervention, even as they possess military capabilities that are superior to those of Gadhafi's forces. Whether a revolution requires military support to succeed is a separate matter from whether others should intervene. No revolution is automatically entitled to such support and, given what now appears to be less than broad-based popular support within Libya and the risks associated with such a situation, I believe the U.S. should be even more careful about whether it wishes to intervene militarily.

    4.) It's my understanding that the lack of civilian support for the rebellion, for obvious reasons, is in the areas where Gaddafi still holds control. The civilians in the rebel held areas appear to be quite supportive. But I'd agree it's too early to tell on this one.
    What you're describing is exactly what now appears to be a more narrowly-supported revolution, almost but not quite an East-West schism. The East, with few exceptions, has risen up against the dictatorship. On only a very limited basis, did people in the West rise up. That situation has allowed Gadhafi's forces to shift toward the battlefront in the East. Yet, even in areas in which their number has fallen, one is not witnessing a surge of anti-Gadhafi activity. IMO, that development and the lack of massive defections by the military suggest that the Gadhafi dictatorship enjoys a measure of fairly meaningful popular support that cannot fully be explained by its repression.

    5.) Many of Gaddafi's military units have either refused to fire on civilians or joined...
    Of course they have. But the defections do not account for anything close to the majority of the military, even if one excludes Gadhafi's two sons' battalions. Quite frankly, that's disturbing and it indicates that things are not as clear-cut as had initially been portrayed.

    6.) It would be nice to have some adult leadership in the US and UN right now. This is exactly what the UN was designed to mediate. They have near zero credibility right now.
    World organization, be it the UN or previously the League of Nations, is ineffectual when it comes to major international peace, security, or humanitarian issues. The interests of the member states are too divergent to promote an effective, cohesive, and decisive response. What happened in Rwanda, Darfur, and now Libya, are the norm, not the exception. Security rests far more on the balance of power than it does the UN. Humanitarian crises are much more effectively dealt with at the NGO level than the UN.

    In terms of mediation, the UN could play such a role. But even if the UN offered to mediate negotiations between the anti-Gadhafi groups and the Gadhafi dictatorship, it is far from clear whether either party would participate, much less compromise to reach a mutually agreed outcome. Early on, the dictatorship claimed it was willing to negotiate (its "red lines" or maximum it would concede not known). Now the on-the-ground situation has shifted. Sensing battlefield momentum, the Gadhafi dictatorship may no longer be willing to negotiate. Power matters. The on-the-ground situation matters.

    7.) ...You and I seem to have a different understanding of “heroic courage”.
    IMO, the anti-Gadhafi forces who fought to their death in Zawiya were every bit as heroic as those who fought and died at the Alamo, or in any other military engagement (large or small). They gave it everything they had, even as they knew that they were outgunned and cut off from any hope of being supplied by additional personnel or weapons. That they lost diminishes neither the courage nor heroism they displayed during their vain attempt to hold the city.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-15-11 at 03:07 PM.

  7. #17
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,315

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    A number of thoughts:

    1. The revolution will need to be waged by Libyans.

    2. U.S. interests are not sufficiently critical to warrant direct military intervention. Arms assistance or perhaps participation in a no fly zone might could be constructive. However, strategic bombing, assaination, or other direct military intervention should not be pursued. The U.S. should follow a policy consistent with its interests. It should not repeat blunders that resulted from non-interest connected military intervention e.g., in Somalia in the early 1990s.

    3. The Arab states have sufficient interests at stake to intervene militarily. That the Arab League has made a hollow gesture, agreeing to a no fly zone but choosing not to use any of its air assets to enforce its declaration, speaks volumes. In contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a subset of Arab League members, committed military units to aid Bahrain's government. That the Arab League won't run any risks in Libya when they have larger interests in the outcome than the U.S./most NATO members should provide pause to states that have far fewer interests at stake e.g., the U.S.

    4. Unpopular as it might be to suggest it, recent events have suggested that the anti-Gadhafi revolution does not enjoy broad-based support. Previously, I had assumed that the uprising was a broad-based popular one. It is not. The dictator commands a significant amount of support and the magnitude of that support is sufficiently great that it almost certainly cannot completely be explained by fear/coercion/disinformation.

    5. Even more unpopular to suggest, the lack of broad-based support for the anti-Gadhafi revolution may well be a more important factor than the dictatorship's use of air power in determining the outcome of the conflict. In other words, had the revolution truly enjoyed broad-based popular support, military defections, including among its air force, would have been sufficiently large to bring those units and assets against the dictatorship. Then, the balance of power would have meant that the dictatorship was doomed. That didn't happen.

    6. The lack of broad-based popular support means that the risk of violence that would arise in the power vacuum that would follow the collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship would be especially high. There would be competition, very likely violent, as various factions exploit the power vacuum and compete for influence/control.

    7. To date, the opposition has demonstrated surprisingly poor organizational and military skill, even as some fighters e.g., in Zawiya, have demonstrated heroic courage. To date, not a single senior opposition leader has even spoken before the UN Security Council when, in theory, that forum would give them the largest global audience to make their case. Furthermore, there has been ample time during which such an address should have been given. That major oversight says much about the opposition's leadership capabilities. Given that situation and the lack of broad-based popular support, there would be a real danger that the opposition would not be able to form a broadly-supported transitional government in time to avert the consequences of the power vacuum that would result from the dictator's fall.

    In sum, while I hope that the Gadhafi regime is toppled, I strongly believe that the outcome should be driven by the Libyans. Given the lack of critical U.S. interests at stake, I do not believe the U.S. should engage in direct military intervention. Moreover, the Arab League's hollow no fly zone declaration, makes the argument even stronger that the U.S. should not shoulder the risks and sacrifices that the Arab League refuses to bear to support its much greater interests.
    You just contradicted yourself. There's no way to create a no-fly zone, without firing off a few rounds and blowing some **** up.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    There is no contradiction whatsoever. A no fly zone is not contradictory with a position that the U.S. should not engage in strategic bombing, assassination, or other direct military intervention.

    There is a stark difference defensive preemptive tactics e.g., taking out radar installations, missile batteries, etc., to safeguard enforcement of a no fly zone, and offensive strategic air strikes aimed at shifting the battlefield balance of power. If a no fly zone is pursued, and my preference is for shipments of weapons to be furnished to the anti-Gadhafi forces, it is elementary that some preemptive defensive measures to allow for enforcement would be needed. I do not believe the U.S. should cross the line and take offensive measures, be they knocking out armored columns or targeting the Gadhafis. Those are things the Libyan people must do.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-15-11 at 10:07 PM.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    What is the point of a no flying zone since it obviously won't be enough to stop the Libyan military? All their tanks, armored cars, fighting vehicles, artillery, etc doesn't have to fly and its more than enough for them to win. The problem with "going in" even with just a no fly zone is how to do you "get out" and how much further do you go in? The purpose of the no fly zone is to assist the rebels obviously, however that won't be enough for the reasons I just said. So what do you do with your no fly zone after Gaddafi wins? Keep it in place to preserve some image you aren't backing down or that you are doing something? To keep Gaddafi down? He's got no ambition to expand outside of Libya and once the fighting is over there's also no reason to fly. To marginally reduce his combat strength? For what purpose?

    So you've put in a no fly zone and the rebels are still losing, what does everyone call for next? Intervention of course, the rebels need more assistance, lets call for an international peace keeping force to occupy part of the country, maybe try and separate the two sides so they can talk because it worked so well in Yugoslavia. But lets say the force actually takes out Gaddafi...

    So you've taken out Gaddafi and the rebellion is falling apart, everyone was united because they hated Gaddaffi but no one could agree on much else and he's dead. Some people want a democratic government, some people want a communist one, some people want an Islamic state, and many more people want different versions of all of these, and then there's those who just want to replace Gaddafi in a power grab.
    Now Libya is in another civil war, refugees are everywhere, Europe is pissed (probably at the US since we'll led this effort) because of all the refugees coming to Europe from Libya. There's more genocide going on no one knows who the "good guys" are anymore and the "good guys" we've allied with, whoever they end up being, are just as bad as the people they are fighting.

    So in the end what do you gain? A ****ing mess.
    What did you lose? Access to oil, regional stability(at least in comparison), and you've probably pissed off a lot of countries, European and Arab, because being the finicky bastards they are won't approve of any job we do. AND A lot of money spent on these operations

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

    The US is, as usual, in a no win situation

    There were parades and protests against the Americans in Iraq, they will call Libya a 'quagmire', the US imperialistic, paternalistic, the 'policeman of the world', fret about an 'exit strategy',and so on.

    I don't know whether this non-involvement of the US is Obama's decision or he is just dithering, but sooner or later the rest of the world has to get involved in the policing process. The UN, of course, is a corrupt waste of time and money and should be dismantled. The Democracies alone should form an organization and then decide on how they can assist in these situations. Meanwhile the Libyan people will suffer and die and many of the democracies will continue their programs of appeasement.
    Last edited by Grant; 03-15-11 at 11:07 PM.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •