• 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!

Libya: Will Air War Become an Occupation?

It's not a rhetorical question. How else would you exert control over these events in which billions of dollars have been invested or don't you consider war an investment? This is not a humanitarian endeavor. That trial balloon leaked air immediately. Hmm, 60% of Libyan OIL has been going to China. If we control Iraqi OIL and Libyan OIL, then we exert some influence on OPEC, as the famous buzzwords state, "going forward." Do that have some traction?
 
If we seek complete control, occupation, that would be a mistake. A huge mistake. We have to get out of the regime change nation building rut.
 
It had better not. I supported the air strikes, but I most certainly wouldn't support an occupation. One gave more power to the revolutionaries, the other would take it away. One makes us more popular in the middle east, the other does the opposite.
 
If there were to be any occupation it would be by others. The US will not get involved on the ground. IMO
 
Air power alone, has never been the deciding factor in victory save the A-bombs of WW-II.

Unless a lot of help in the form on weaponry is pumped in NATO is going to have to step up.

What I don't get is the Hypocrisy of the UN when flip flopping from yelling about torture on killing and OBL.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Air power alone led to a successful outcome in the 1999 Balkan conflict.
Click to expand...

Yet did it in Vietnam, the War on Terror, and other wars?
I recall one former military stating the over-rated importance of air power
"Even if you bomb all their cities, their roads, their factories, you still have to send in your infantry, armor, and artillery to wipe out the remaining 50% of their ground forces hiding shielded from air-dropped bombs"
 
Proud South Korean said:
Yet did it in Vietnam, the War on Terror, and other wars?
I recall one former military stating the over-rated importance of air power
"Even if you bomb all their cities, their roads, their factories, you still have to send in your infantry, armor, and artillery to wipe out the remaining 50% of their ground forces hiding shielded from air-dropped bombs"
Click to expand...

The point is, our air power levels the playing field for their infantry.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Yet did it in Vietnam, the War on Terror, and other wars?
I recall one former military stating the over-rated importance of air power
"Even if you bomb all their cities, their roads, their factories, you still have to send in your infantry, armor, and artillery to wipe out the remaining 50% of their ground forces hiding shielded from air-dropped bombs"
Click to expand...

In general, especially in major wars, air power alone is insufficient. Manpower is often vital. The Balkan conflict in 1999 is an exception. I only noted that conflict to make a correction to the preceding statement.
 
We have no vital interest in Libya and no business being there. When Khadafy said he was going into a city to kill everyone there I was for stopping that on a humanitarian basis but that quickly morphed into bombing Tripoli and taking sides in a civil war. Funny how libs are suddenly “chicken hawks”.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
We have no vital interest in Libya and no business being there. When Khadafy said he was going into a city to kill everyone there I was for stopping that on a humanitarian basis but that quickly morphed into bombing Tripoli and taking sides in a civil war. Funny how libs are suddenly “chicken hawks”.
Click to expand...

This has been a media manipulated cover story to attempt to block the truth of a well planned insurrection by outside forces against the people of Libya. The killing has been done by the "revolutionaries" and to suggest a mob of foreigners and muslims are Libyan "revolutionaries" is a complete absurdity. Read foreign papers and find out what is really going on. Current pertinent data is that China gets 60% of Libyan OIL. Libya has lots of unexplored OIL fields and wants to develop them with Libyan labor and expertise. That would be a large single digit salute to Exxon/Mobil, BP, Chevron, Halliburton, etc. Libyans are Africans, and the alleged "revolutionaries" are what? What group can generate a war to help its bottom line. ENERGY!
 
DaveFagan said:
This has been a media manipulated cover story to attempt to block the truth of a well planned insurrection by outside forces against the people of Libya. The killing has been done by the "revolutionaries" and to suggest a mob of foreigners and muslims are Libyan "revolutionaries" is a complete absurdity. Read foreign papers and find out what is really going on. Current pertinent data is that China gets 60% of Libyan OIL. Libya has lots of unexplored OIL fields and wants to develop them with Libyan labor and expertise. That would be a large single digit salute to Exxon/Mobil, BP, Chevron, Halliburton, etc. Libyans are Africans, and the alleged "revolutionaries" are what? What group can generate a war to help its bottom line. ENERGY!
Click to expand...

Interesting you should mention that. More and more it seems like to get a better- though, of course, not perfect view of things, one has to go outside of the country where there is less of an incentive to twist the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom