Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51

Thread: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

  1. #31
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Ron, I'd go a step further and flip that around and say that the mission will only be successful when the Libyan people are able to decide their own government. Else this will all have been for naught.
    Wouldn't this always be up to the Lybian people. Our success should not ride on their actions.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    I agree with you Boo. Hope that doesn't scare you.

    I firmly believe that if the mission in Libya is successful 0bama will do everything he can to ensure that the Libyan people decide their own government.
    Strange world sometimes.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

    So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

    We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

    In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

    President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
    Two words: Air drops.

    NATO/U.N. have used air lifts to drop food and medical supplies into rebel held terrirories on a number of occasions. To imply that American forces would be necessary on the ground to distribute such aid is not only speculative, but disengenous. NATO has always hand humanitarian aid workers in troubled areas. There's no reason to believe those same forces wouldn't help to distribute food and medicine to the hungry or wounded on their own WITHOUT American boots on the ground. They've done great without our direct manpower/supervision in the past. They'll continue to do that now and well into the future, I'm sure.

  4. #34
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    I agree with you Boo. Hope that doesn't scare you.

    I firmly believe that if the mission in Libya is successful 0bama will do everything he can to ensure that the Libyan people decide their own government.
    How about letting the Libyan people decide who they will sell their OIL to and at what price. Let's give that a democratic option.

  5. #35
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    How about letting the Libyan people decide who they will sell their OIL to and at what price. Let's give that a democratic option.
    Well Gadaffi sure as hell wasn't letting that happen.
    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

  6. #36
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Well Gadaffi sure as hell wasn't letting that happen.
    I disagree with that. I offer the following link.

    LINK< Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil - English pravda.ru >

  7. #37
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

    So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

    We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

    In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

    President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
    I don't have a problem with noncombat troops being there as long as they are not sent to any dangerous territory, but its just to keep people from rioting over food, than thats probably ok.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-31-11 at 05:42 PM.

  8. #38
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I disagree with that. I offer the following link.

    LINK< Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil - English pravda.ru >
    That's a straw man. The LIBYAN PEOPLE weren't going to get **** out of that deal.
    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

  9. #39
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,732

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    You know, I see an eerie parallel between Benghazi and Baghdad, in that someone again is not being truthful.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #40
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Two words: Air drops.

    NATO/U.N. have used air lifts to drop food and medical supplies into rebel held terrirories on a number of occasions. To imply that American forces would be necessary on the ground to distribute such aid is not only speculative, but disengenous. NATO has always hand humanitarian aid workers in troubled areas. There's no reason to believe those same forces wouldn't help to distribute food and medicine to the hungry or wounded on their own WITHOUT American boots on the ground. They've done great without our direct manpower/supervision in the past. They'll continue to do that now and well into the future, I'm sure.
    Obama knowingly stuck his neck out on this one. If one, just one US casualty gets reported, the I TOLD YOU SO cacophony of the Reps and doomsday media will reverberate all across the country AND the world.

    ricksfolly

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •