Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 113

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

  1. #41
    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 apdst View Post
    The only way to enforce a no-fly zone, is to destroy Qadaffi's air assets There's no way to do that without, "direct military intervention".
    Incorrect.

    As noted previously, there is a fundamental difference between preemptive defensive tactics and offensive ones. Destroying only what's required to implement a NFZ is an example of the former. Targeting all of Libya's air assets (from jets to runways to airports) would be an example of the latter.

    NFZ implementation and enforcement requires the destruction of air defenses, radar installations, but not necessarily jets or other air assets, so long as those jets are not used. If one is looking for a historical reference, one need only refer back to the NFZ in Iraq. Then, Iraq's planes were generally only targeted if they violated the NFZ. Even then, almost always the confrontations ended non-violently. If enforcement of a NFZ truly required the destruction of all air assets, then it would have been done in Iraq. It wasn't, and the NFZs were remarkable successful.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-16-11 at 09:40 AM.

  2. #42
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Incorrect.

    As noted previously, there is a fundamental difference between preemptive defensive tactics and offensive ones. Destroying only what's required to implement a NFZ is an example of the former. Targeting all of Libya's air assets (from jets to runways to airports) would be an example of the latter.

    NFZ implementation and enforcement requires the destruction of air defenses, radar installations, but [u]not necessarily[/i]jets or other air assets, so long as those jets are not used. If one is looking for a historical reference, one need only refer back to the NFZ in Iraq. Then, Iraq's planes were generally only targeted if they violated the NFZ. Even then, almost always the confrontations ended non-violently. If enforcement of a NFZ truly required the destruction of all air assets, then it would have been done in Iraq. It wasn't, and the NFZs were remarkable successful.
    What were they successful at? Granted they certainly were executed successfully in the sense that the operation itself went fairly smoothly, but what did it actually accomplish and change or prevent from happening what would have happened if there was no NFZ

  3. #43
    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 Wiseone View Post
    What were they successful at? Granted they certainly were executed successfully in the sense that the operation itself went fairly smoothly, but what did it actually accomplish and change or prevent from happening what would have happened if there was no NFZ
    They were successful in fulfilling the mandate that allowed northern and southern Iraq's people (Kurds in the north and some of the Shia in the south) to be free from regular attack from the air by the Hussein dictatorship's forces. The Kurdish part of the country actually used the security that had been created to build a fairly prosperous regional economy and some relatively effective self-governing institutions.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-16-11 at 09:41 AM.

  4. #44
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    There's no such thing as a preemptive defensive attack, that's an oxymoron. Just my two cents.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #45
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Incorrect.

    As noted previously, there is a fundamental difference between preemptive defensive tactics and offensive ones. Destroying only what's required to implement a NFZ is an example of the former. Targeting all of Libya's air assets (from jets to runways to airports) would be an example of the latter.

    NFZ implementation and enforcement requires the destruction of air defenses, radar installations, but not necessarily jets or other air assets, so long as those jets are not used. If one is looking for a historical reference, one need only refer back to the NFZ in Iraq. Then, Iraq's planes were generally only targeted if they violated the NFZ. Even then, almost always the confrontations ended non-violently. If enforcement of a NFZ truly required the destruction of all air assets, then it would have been done in Iraq. It wasn't, and the NFZs were remarkable successful.
    Tactics are tactics and engaging the enemy is engaging the enemy. Launching ordnance is, "direct military intervention". You're going to have to destroy some aircraft, period.

    If one is looking for a historical reference, one need only refer back to the NFZ in Iraq. Then, Iraq's planes were generally only targeted if they violated the NFZ.
    Iraq's air had been destroyed during Desert Storm. There were two phases there, detruction of air assets, then the enforcement of a no fly zone. Those two phases will have to implemented here, as well.

  6. #46
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    There's no such thing as a preemptive defensive attack, that's an oxymoron. Just my two cents.
    He didn't say, "attack".

  7. #47
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    He didn't say, "attack".
    Oh my bad I misread. I still don't believe preemption is defense though, but that's my personal opinion.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  8. #48
    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 StillBallin75 View Post
    There's no such thing as a preemptive defensive attack, that's an oxymoron. Just my two cents.
    A preemptive defensive tacticis one that is aimed at neutralizing a threat to one's position before it unfolds. Its objectives do not extend beyond neutralizing threats against which one would have to defend in order to carry out a mandate. Surprise attacks, which also occur before one has been attacked, are typically aimed at gaining some advantage or leading to some outcome that extends beyond self-defense. The second war against Iraq arguably fell into the latter category. It was launched with the aim, among others, of toppling Saddam Hussein.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-16-11 at 12:18 PM.

  9. #49
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    A preemptive defensive tacticis one that is aimed at neutralizing a threat to one's position before it unfolds. Its objectives do not extend beyond neutralizing threats against which one would have to defend in order to carry out a mandate. Surprise attacks, which also occur before one has been attacked, are typically aimed at gaining some advantage or leading to some outcome that extends beyond self-defense. The second war against Iraq arguably fell into the latter category. It was launched with the aim, among others, of toppling Saddam Hussein.
    I don't disagree with anything you said except for describing preemptive or preventive actions as "defensive," but again that's just my personal opinion. Both preemptive and preventive acts are inherenty offensive in nature, but I guess this is becoming a semantic argument more than anything else.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-16-11 at 01:02 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  10. #50
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,976

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    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.

    The UN was designed to preserve "stability."

    Libya isn't threatening its neighbors. Libya is soveriegn. And Libya's leader is merely slaughtering his own people within his own border. By doing nothing, "stability" is just fine.

    What exactly is the UN failing here? Why do people always expect the UN to do more than what it is supposed to do? We are talking about an international organization full of national leaders and diplomats who don't even represent their own people. Do people really expect the oppressive governments of China or Russia (two security council members) to act on behalf of suffering people elsewhere? Do we expect any of the numerous dictators within the UN to compromise their positions by demanding that the free world interfere with the soveriegn right of others to oppress their people?

    I have stated this over and over and over. The UN, like the League of Nations, is beneath the great nations of the West. It has its uses, by they are limited. The UN will never stand to deal with dictators. It will never act without America urging it to. And it will never rise to the moral code that nations in the free world preach about. But...still we "great nations" use the UN rules and international laws that allow us to be apathetic and lazy, to do nothing. We pretend that we have high moral code because we adhere to immoral international laws. We will dismiss the fact that soveriegnty is a con game meant to protect kings, kaisers, and tzars and use these outdated international codes and laws to preserve the brutality and oppression of present day dictators.

    President Clinton shoved the useless UN to the side and led Europe's reluctant leaders into Bosnia and Kosovo. No American President pushed the UN to declare anything about the genocides of Rwanda and Sudan in the 90s and therefore the UN did nothing. After 12 years of a UN starvation program in Iraq, President Bush finally shoved the UN to the side to finally deal with Saddam Hussein. President Bush and Blair urged the UN to deal with Sudan's genocide in the last decade, but the UN contribution to this meant denying the ingernational court their arrest warrant for Bashir. Today, with Libya, we pretend that we are shocked of the UN's apathy or its inability to transcend exactly what it was made for?

    The League of Nations was created in the wake of World War I and Europeans managed to wreck it before the start of World War II. The League of Nations ran its course during a phase in global history. The United Nations was created in the wake of World War II. It was created in the beginning of the Cold War. The Cold War ended in 1991. Since 1991, everything an American boot has been is a legacy of European colonialism and the Cold War prescription of stability. The UN is not an organization that stands for anything other than the past and the dying out dictators and corrupt governments of the world have managed to wreck it.

    I propose a new organization of world governments be created that base around democracy. It's time for the rest to catch up to our standards instead of us always settling for the bare minimum they serve up. If the part of the greater part of the UN body that celebrates the oppression and abuse of their own people have their way (and they usually do), every Libyan would go ahead and die tomorrow while the free and supposed higher morality West simply sits back and preaches....but obeys their wretched international laws of apathy.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •