NATO Fears War without End in Libya (suspect, racist, Obama)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

They don't need troops on the ground. The need more intelligence on the ground and communications with the Rebels. Coordinating that with air strikes would end it quickly. Get Qaddafi and family out of there and allow the Libyan to create their own Nation.

the problem is the old saying...'the devil you know'

the rebels are part/supported by al quadea

do we (or any non-muslim nation) really want extremists that are hell bent of "converting the world or taking their heads", to take over

gadaffi may be an a,ss, and a big time POS, but he is really harmless in the big picture

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

They don't need troops on the ground. The need more intelligence . . .

I agree.

Get out now!

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

See post 17

So...air strikes against people on the ground don't kill people, constitute intervention in a foreign country and drive regime change? Do tell.

Maybe Obama can hire Rumsfield to work for him. At least he had some clue how to do this.

[wxjay]

I am not even sure why NATO is relevant to this war. NATO was formed as a way for partners to protect each other when attacked. On its inception, this was really to fight off the spread of Communism and the Soviet Union. Now it evolved into a general alliance amongst nations.

Last I checked, Libya is not a member of NATO, nor were any NATO nations attacked by Libya.

[florida.bob]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

So...air strikes against people on the ground don't kill people, constitute intervention in a foreign country and drive regime change? Do tell.

Maybe Obama can hire Rumsfield to work for him. At least he had some clue how to do this.

Take your LW argument to the UN.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Well, this is what happens when you jump feet first into a war without a clearly defined objective, or plan.

The Battle against Gadhafi: NATO Fears War without End in Libya - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

American warplanes had hardly left the skies over Libya when the remonstrations began. "NATO has let us down," said rebel military chief Abdul Fattah Younis. As the rebels retreated in the town of Brega in the face of a heavy onslaught by Gadhafi's troops, there were no NATO planes in sight.

NATO can always point to the fact that it is simply implementing the aims agreed upon by the United Nations -- a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians. But in reality, it is hardly a secret that the true goals of the operation are more than that. Every day that Gadhafi remains in power, pressure is growing on Western politicians and military leaders. The question of how long the intervention will last is increasingly being asked out loud. The British Royal Air Force chief estimated this week that it would take six months. Politicians, on the other hand, have had the foresight not to mention any deadlines.

Let me see. We bring in the CIA. We start a war in a little country in the name of humanitarian/freedom speak.
It involves the French. Yep - you have another Vietnam
on your hands.

Now all we need is the President to tell the American
people our planes/ships were attacked by a missile -
and that's why we need to continue the charade.

When are we going to put our foot down and tell our
elected leaders we will only use our military if we are
attacked at home, and only with a declaration of war
by Congress.

I am so sick of our tax dollars being sucked away from
our own social programs, just to be squandered away
with big boys/girls playing war games. Hillary has
certainly shown she can be hawkish with the rest of
them. It turns my stomach.

[tinman01]

For good reason. Hows it worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

Take your LW argument to the UN.

Why? I'm simply arguing against the use of US forces (as part of the UN, NATO, or alone) to foster regime change and to kill innocent people in a country that has not (recently) attacked us.

Now, had Gadaffi just pulled another Lockerbie (a terrorist attack on innocent civilians), I'd support blowing his sorry azz away. That is an act of war. As is what we have done.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Why? I'm simply arguing against the use of US forces (as part of the UN, NATO, or alone) to foster regime change and to kill innocent people in a country that has not (recently) attacked us.

Now, had Gadaffi just pulled another Lockerbie (a terrorist attack on innocent civilians), I'd support blowing his sorry azz away. That is an act of war. As is what we have done.

But the problem with the Pan Am plane bombing excuse
is that many do not believe Libya was responsible for it.

Did Libya Really Destroy Pan Am 103? Or Is There a Cover-Up?

Dr. Robert Black, professor of criminal law at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and mastermind of the unique judicial arrangement for trying the two Libyan defendants under Scottish law in the Netherlands, has told the Washington Report that the investigatory evidence brought to his attention during the first two and a half years after the Lockerbie crash had not pointed to Libya at all. Rather, the focus of suspicion seemed to be Ahmad Jibril’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).

[Joe_Ryder]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

NATO could end it relatively quickly by supplying close air support to the Rebels. They are not doing that, ...., yet.

Obama could end it immediately. He is Commander In Chief. To bring our armies home he doesn't need to ask permission from NATO, Congress, the UN, or even Jeezus H. Christ. With a word, he can end all three of our wars instantly.