Page 4 of 66 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 657

Thread: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Maggie,

    I've commented in a few threads. My thoughts are as follows:

    My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.

    I continue to believe that it should be up to the Libyans to wage their revolution, fully recognizing that there is no guarantee that the revolution would be successful under such circumstances. I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution. While I support the anti-Gadhafi forces, I do not believe the U.S. should be helping wage their revolution. I just don't see the compelling U.S. interests that would justify such direct intervention.

    I also remain concerned about the lack of broad-based support for the revolution. Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented. The masses of people in areas from which Gadhafi's forces were initially driven out did not join the revolutionaries to to necessary extent that a building tidal wave of popular support would have toppled the regime. Therefore, no knockout blow was delivered.

    Given that reality, should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power--and that could still happen--the lack of broad support for the anti-Gadhafi forces and the poor political/military skill shown on their part raise real questions as to whether they could forge a sufficiently stable and broadly representative government quickly enough to avert the dangers of the power vacuum that would be left in the wake of the dictatorship's demise. There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough. Mere pledges of democracy would not be able to avert those risks.

    Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate and those differences raise credibility issues. For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone). I favor a more limited military mission (as noted above, and would have preferred supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces rather than the no fly zone). Nevertheless, the gap between the political rhetoric/stated policy and the actual military mission is not helpful. It is important that the rhetoric/official policy reflect the reality. Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
    This cat has got to be the most professional damn moderator I've ever seen in my LIFE. Whether or not I agree with him is irrelevant. His posts are always top notch.

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.
    the direction things went?

    yes, someone killed gadaffi's son, someone's been bombing tanks and other ground forces

    i'd say thank you for supporting our troops, but that would be presumptuous of me, they are our heroes and heroines

    I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution.
    concerned about active intervention?

    you just said you want to arm one side

    Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented.
    i haven't hear a whiff of that in any of the sources

    There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough.
    i think there might be very real risk even if someone could put something together fast

    Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate
    it's worse than that, the white house can't hold to a line for more than a day or from one office to the next, no two coalition partners can seem to agree on the mission

    For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone).
    unless?

    Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
    yes, and the world is watching

    i'd like to ditto the comment above about the outstanding quality of your posts, sincerely

  3. #33
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Seriously, people - I don't think there is a single Arab country that gives a flying **** for America, or owns the least bit of lasting gratitude or would remain a friend of the US one second longer than they needed our millions or protection. Their false friendship to the US ends the minute it is in their interest to become opposed to us.

    What the hell are we doing there? Will achieve absolutely nothing of military value and will piss off ally and enemy alike.

    Cluster**** Obama is pushing the US in a messy and most probably, a fruitless operation.

  4. #34
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    the direction things went?
    I'm referring to the choice to pursue a no fly zone.

    yes, someone killed gadaffi's son, someone's been bombing tanks and other ground forces
    The claim about the death of one of Gadhafi's sons has not been substantiated. The second part is consistent with the broad language adopted in UNSC Res. 1973. IMO, the language is overly broad.

    concerned about active intervention?
    I'm referring to direct military intervention aimed at helping the revolution succeed. I oppose it. The revolution should be waged by Libyans alone. Whether it succeeds or fails should not be determined by whether the U.S. provides direct military intervention on their side.

    you just said you want to arm one side
    Supplying arms is not the same thing as direct military intervention.

    i haven't hear a whiff of that in any of the sources
    Analyses by Stratfor, among others have discussed this issue. The absence of spontaneous nationwide uprisings, especially when the anti-Gadhafi forces were making rapid progress, was a warning sign that the revolution did not enjoy the broad support of Libyans. The fairly limited scale of defections, even when it appeared that the anti-Gadhafi forces were heading for a rapid victory in the early days of the uprising, also signaled critical support for the dictatorship. Had the revolutoin enjoyed broad support, one might well have witnessed a turn of events along the lines of Egypt's military refusing to intervene. That did not happen. That the dictatorship has rewarded various tribes who have served its interests has created a vested stake in its survival. In short, not only does the dictatorship command significant support, there are many reasons other than coercion that explains that support.

    i think there might be very real risk even if someone could put something together fast
    If a truly broad-based transitional government could be agreed, the risk would be lower. Unfortunately, as I believe that the revolution is does not enjoy sufficiently broad support, odds against such a transitional government are reduced. The poor political skill demonstrated by the anti-Gadhafi groups also reduces the risks of the formation of such a transitional government.

    unless?
    I don't have access to the information the Administration has/decisions that have been reached behind-the-scenes. Whether or not the apparent gap between the stated military mission and U.S. policy/communication is really as large as it appears is somewhat uncertain. Actions in coming days will establish whether the mission is more than just concerned with a no fly zone.

  5. #35
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Have conservatives actually not noticed that liberals are generally against this action taken by Obama?

    Incidentally, a tomahawk missile is about as expensive as most of a teaching career.
    Last edited by Deuce; 03-23-11 at 10:56 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #36
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Will someone please wake me up when 120 000 American troops enter Libya.

  7. #37
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Have conservatives actually not noticed that liberals are generally against this action taken by Obama?

    Incidentally, a tomahawk missile is about as expensive as most of a teaching career.
    But, but... he's a left wing radical, Marxist.

  8. #38
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Link


    Well well well, all this sound familiar?
    Yes, it does sounds familiar... I am waiting for all the Republicans to rally their support, and Democrats to condemn... Oh wait, they won't because the president is a Democrat and people will play partisan bs instead of thinking about their actions.

  9. #39
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Will someone please wake me up when 120 000 American troops enter Libya.
    When you have a President like Obama eventually....

    1 WTF are we doing? Kill Qadaffi? Stop Omar from targeting his own people with air power? Are we supporting an insurgency? A No Fly Zone? Air cordon? Ground strikes on Libyan Army? Support the insurrection to install a Democratic system?

    How is that going to be achieved? Naval air? Tomahawk strikes? Arab pressure? European allies? .....EVENTUALLY GROUND FORCES

  10. #40
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And the mission creep continues. The no-fly zone quickly escalated to air strikes, and now protecting Libya's people has escalated to spreading democracy to Libya. One way or another, Obama is NOT going to get the result he wants in Libya. It's better to not even be involved in this.
    I pretty much agree... though I read that the air strikes slowed down the massacre. I think that's enough.... I think that's all we should do.

Page 4 of 66 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... 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
  •