McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya(edited)

donsutherland1 said:

the reality that the anti-Gadhafi forces do not enjoy the broad-based support of Libya's people and tribes. It is a narrow regional uprising with national aspirations, not a nationwide uprising. Many Libyans continue to oppose the rebels.

Click to expand...

This is debatable. There were mass protests throughout all of Libya, including demonstrations in Tripoli, that were brutally put down by the Libyan army. The line today may read "Misrata is the only rebel city in the west" but when the siege began it was the "last rebel held city in the west."

To the original point, I am wholly in favor of the current action being taken to protect civilians. For the first time I can remember I was glad that Nato intervened to save Benghazi, indeed perform a military mission that was actually popular among the people it was protecting as well as much of the middle east.

I think too much is being stated about US involvement here, especially on the right. As long as there are no combat troops whatsoever I have no issue with a couple of predators flying over Libya to maintain air superiority and be there waiting and watching if and when a ceasefire is enacted.

rocket88 said:

McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com

So John McCain went to Libya, and not only supports what we are doing, but thinks we should be doing more.

Now, I don't like our involvement there. I'm disappointed with Obama's actions in Libya.

I find it interesting that no matter who had won the Presidential election in 2008, our involvement in Libya would not have changed. I'm interested to hear from those who would have preferred a different outcome to the election and have been critical of Obama on this issue. Are you disappointed that McCain's policy would have been pretty close to Obamas?

Click to expand...

American politicians and political foreign policy is still heavily rooted in Wilsonianism.
The spreading of democracy by the sword.

I hate it.

American politicians and political foreign policy is still heavily rooted in Wilsonianism.
The spreading of democracy by the sword.

Click to expand...

Or the protection of tens of thousands of non-combatants using highly superior air power.

I don't know if you know this, but swords aren't being used in this operation.

Joby said:

Or the protection of tens of thousands of non-combatants using highly superior air power.

I don't know if you know this, but swords aren't being used in this operation.

Click to expand...

Yea I'm keenly aware of that, makes do difference though.
It doesn't make it right, to interfere in the relations of other people.

It doesn't make it right, to interfere in the relations of other people.

Click to expand...

Breaking this down into a right and wrong battle isn't progressive in my opinion.

Assuming it's not right to intervene in the relations of others, and assuming it's not right to massacre thousands of civilians, this puts us in a moral conundrum in matters of one wrong (intervention) and another (genocide/massacre).

I, for one, choose what I see as the lesser wrong in this situation and have no issue with unmanned predator drones, for example, being used to prevent the greater wrong.

Joby said:

This is debatable. There were mass protests throughout all of Libya, including demonstrations in Tripoli, that were brutally put down by the Libyan army. The line today may read "Misrata is the only rebel city in the west" but when the siege began it was the "last rebel held city in the west."

To the original point, I am wholly in favor of the current action being taken to protect civilians. For the first time I can remember I was glad that Nato intervened to save Benghazi, indeed perform a military mission that was actually popular among the people it was protecting as well as much of the middle east.

I think too much is being stated about US involvement here, especially on the right. As long as there are no combat troops whatsoever I have no issue with a couple of predators flying over Libya to maintain air superiority and be there waiting and watching if and when a ceasefire is enacted.

Click to expand...

Libya is a threat to us in what way? I don't see Omar killing Americans

The US as a nation must have respect for other nation's laws or sovereign integrity.

Joby said:

Breaking this down into a right and wrong battle isn't progressive in my opinion.

Assuming it's not right to intervene in the relations of others, and assuming it's not right to massacre thousands of civilians, this puts us in a moral conundrum in matters of one wrong (intervention) and another (genocide/massacre).

I, for one, choose what I see as the lesser wrong in this situation and have no issue with unmanned predator drones, for example, being used to prevent the greater wrong.

Click to expand...

And what happens if you do all that and there is still the massacre?
Helping them could cause more harm than good, to the innocents.

Joby said:

This is debatable. There were mass protests throughout all of Libya, including demonstrations in Tripoli, that were brutally put down by the Libyan army. The line today may read "Misrata is the only rebel city in the west" but when the siege began it was the "last rebel held city in the west."

To the original point, I am wholly in favor of the current action being taken to protect civilians. For the first time I can remember I was glad that Nato intervened to save Benghazi, indeed perform a military mission that was actually popular among the people it was protecting as well as much of the middle east.

I think too much is being stated about US involvement here, especially on the right. As long as there are no combat troops whatsoever I have no issue with a couple of predators flying over Libya to maintain air superiority and be there waiting and watching if and when a ceasefire is enacted.

Click to expand...

So, you're totally in favor of wasting millions of tax payer dollars? The current strategy isn't going to do anything.

ric27 said:

Libya is a threat to us in what way? I don't see Omar killing Americans

The US as a nation must have respect for other nation's laws or sovereign integrity.

Click to expand...

The US as a nation must work to stop wholesale massacres and genocide when and where it can be effective. Our allies, who are shouldering most of this load, agree.

And what happens if you do all that and there is still the massacre?

Click to expand...

We know we did what we could. What we won't have to do is add Benghazi to that list of places where we, the west, could have/would have/should have intervened (Rwanda, for example).

Helping them could cause more harm than good, to the innocents.

Click to expand...

Yes, it could. And I am not an advocate of constant intervention, quite the contrary. The situation in Libya, however, is one in which it is undeniable that without western intervention a ruthless tyrant would have free reign to punish the opposition.

So, you're totally in favor of wasting millions of tax payer dollars? The current strategy isn't going to do anything.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of an air campaign that takes out Qaddafi's armor and artillery (predator just destroyed some rocket launchers in the 1st day of use btw) and removes them from the gates of Benghazi, which it did immediately, while allowing the opposition time to organize and the Transitional National Council to meet with western leaders. I am also in favor of sending in advisors to coordinate with the rebels to establish communications between them and Nato.

So, yes, I am in favor of the current strategy.

I am not in favor of a brazen, unilateral military intervention that is going to remove Qaddaffi and replace it with...(enter the entire American experience in post-Saddam Iraq here).

With that being said, I do see your point quite clearly and I understand, and share, your concern though I am more optimistic.

Re: McCain in Libya

samsmart said:

I think it's funny that Michelle Bachmann and other Teabaggers are criticizing Obama for supporting the Libyan rebels because some of them may come from Muslim extremist groups and so may come to power after the rebellion but now I wonder if they will criticize McCain for giving his support for the rebels as well.

Click to expand...

Yea, I think they will jump all over McCain over it. And why would they support McCain in the first place? They think he is a RINO.

I don't believe we should be there either.

I can't stand looking at Obama but I support the coalition stopping a govt from using it's military to slaughter it's own people. **** liberals who say we have no right to do that. The USA has the moral obligation to protect innocent people, period. I think we should be boots on the ground, take out ducky, and allow the rebels to take over the govt. Then leave. I would support the same in Syria as well. We are the moral leaders of the world. Let's start acting like it.

The predator drone...unmanned terrorism. To daffy duck from the USA with love. But don't worry. We don't use lead in our paint on the hellfire missiles we send you so no need to worry about lead poisoning.

And to whoever said they supported the predator to maintain air superiority, they have no air to air capability. They do not provide air superiority.

dontworrybehappy said:

And to whoever said they supported the predator to maintain air superiority, they have no air to air capability. They do not provide air superiority.

Click to expand...

I'm corrected, however they do offer us capabilities to engage enemy targets with minimal risk to ourselves.

Joby said:

I'm corrected, however they do offer us capabilities to engage enemy targets with minimal risk to ourselves.

Click to expand...

But, what real effect will they have on the overall strategy?