Defiant Gadhafi threatens attacks in Europe

[BigRob]

technically I do not believe he is head of state anymore...so far was we are concerned...As the US has recognized the rebels as the leadership of the nation...also he has stated that he is not ( of course it was his mindless ranting ) and thus there could be a legal argument that he is a just a Col, wanted for war crimes then.

Sounds to me as if we are involved in an internal civil war, with no national interest at stake...why again are we involved?

And in the broad sense the US resolution says to protect the civilians...one could argue that the only way to really do so, is kill him..thats being fairly liberal with the terms of course...

That is quite a stretch, and under such interpretation you could use a nuclear weapon to "protect civilians."

though I suspect NATO will be happy if its a accident and try to let the rebels do it if they wish and he does not back down. Also I suspect his ego and self preservation skills will have him in some other nation in exile before that would happen.

Most likely (barring some changes) the mission will go nowhere, and Libya will sit in a state of civil war for years to come...and for what?

 

[PLC1]

Well an Executive Order can be rescinded by the President whenever he wants...but that would look absurd in the case of Libya after President Obama went out of his way to classify the mission as he did.

Additionally, it would establish a horrible precedent, and President Obama would (even if he did so legally) be accused of being a war criminal, human rights violator etc...That is not something he is likely to do.



I am not sure how to answer this...it seems it can change.

So it seems. Meanwhile, our soldiers fight and die in wars that aren't really wars, where we don't commit unconditionally and don't go all out to win, but attempt to "spread democracy" or "win hearts and minds." We should have learned our lesson in Vietnam.

Either we should commit to ending Gadaffi's regime, or get out.

 

[BigRob]

So it seems. Meanwhile, our soldiers fight and die in wars that aren't really wars, where we don't commit unconditionally and don't go all out to win, but attempt to "spread democracy" or "win hearts and minds." We should have learned our lesson in Vietnam.

Either we should commit to ending Gadaffi's regime, or get out.

That is always the problem with intervention on humanitarian grounds...there is never a clear mandate, and it turns into one big prolonged nothingness.

 

[PLC1]

That is always the problem with intervention on humanitarian grounds...there is never a clear mandate, and it turns into one big prolonged nothingness.

Exactly.

Since our leaders didn't learn that from our experience in Vietnam, the lesson has to be repeated in Iraq and now Libya. Maybe this time, we'll learn.

But, I doubt it.

 

[clarkatticus]

I think it would have to be a pretty clear national interest to actually do that, which I do not see present in Libya for any of the NATO partners involved.

I think the fact that Gadaffi is still alive shows a pretty clear hesitation on the part of other world leaders to actually kill him.

I am sure if the EU had to do it all over again they would not have pressed us to do anything, they saw a chance to get rid of a mad dog in favor of a reasonable government in Libya. If the truth ever comes out about the deal Great Britian made for releasing the Lockerbie bomber to Gadaffi all kinds of poop will hit the fan. It is my understanding France and GB along with Italy get a substancial amount of oil from Libya as compared to our >2%. I'm all for getting out but I understand the politics.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So it seems. Meanwhile, our soldiers fight and die in wars that aren't really wars, where we don't commit unconditionally and don't go all out to win, but attempt to "spread democracy" or "win hearts and minds." We should have learned our lesson in Vietnam.

Either we should commit to ending Gadaffi's regime, or get out.

only no Americans are dying in Libya, nor is it likely they will.

I would say Libya is more in our interest then Iraq was...IE invade find nothing ( as with the intel we should have suspected) and basically handed Iraq and the Shia there...to the growing power of Iran..who like they did in Lebanon, controls more of Iraq in the south, then Iraq (or US)

Standing by watching Gadhafi lay waste to his own people when we could easily step in, would be one more sign to those finally starting to look for more freedom in there nations...that the US would back Dictators...over people...even ones who committed acts of terrorism killing Americans.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That is quite a stretch, and under such interpretation you could use a nuclear weapon to "protect civilians."

Well that whole we would kill tens of thousands of civilians would kinda fly in the face of saying we would defend them...Bombing military targets around a city , after the leader says they are going to attack the city and basically lay waste to the civilians who supported the rebels...

funny how for 40 years, the right was willing to get into any nations civil war, to make sure the "right" side won...But all of the sudden when its not them doing it...they become isolationist...( not saying you...saying the party as a whole)

 

[BigRob]

Well that whole we would kill tens of thousands of civilians would kinda fly in the face of saying we would defend them...Bombing military targets around a city , after the leader says they are going to attack the city and basically lay waste to the civilians who supported the rebels...

A small yield tactical nuclear device would not kill tens of thousands of civilians...even a battle field weapon could really specifically target the military.

funny how for 40 years, the right was willing to get into any nations civil war, to make sure the "right" side won...But all of the sudden when its not them doing it...they become isolationist...( not saying you...saying the party as a whole)

We can use this excuse to intervene in any nation anywhere? Are we going to intervene in China? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Russia? Why Libya exactly?

Also, in previous years there was a clear national interest at stake for intervention in other nations. I have said often that if a clear national interest can be identified, I support such interventions. During the Cold War, it was very important that non-communist regimes remained in power.

I just don't see a national interest for Libyan involvement? It is tragic that people are dying there, but it is not our problem.

 

[ProudLefty]

A small yield tactical nuclear device would not kill tens of thousands of civilians...even a battle field weapon could really specifically target the military.



We can use this excuse to intervene in any nation anywhere? Are we going to intervene in China? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Russia? Why Libya exactly?

Also, in previous years there was a clear national interest at stake for intervention in other nations. I have said often that if a clear national interest can be identified, I support such interventions. During the Cold War, it was very important that non-communist regimes remained in power.

I just don't see a national interest for Libyan involvement? It is tragic that people are dying there, but it is not our problem.

For the US, there is a diplomatic issue.

1. Gaddafi really is a terrorist and really did bomb US planes.
2. Libya has lots of sweet oil.
3. Libya is of great interest to the Europeans.
4. The US badgered the NATO countries to back our play in Iraq and Afghanistan - this is payback time.
5. We have a history of involving ourselves in mass killings, and regretting when we don't.
6. So far, at least, we are only supplying hardware and munitions. No uniformed troops on the ground.

 

[BigRob]

For the US, there is a diplomatic issue.


Gaddafi really is a terrorist and really did bomb US planes.

Ok, I can grant you this...but the same can be said of many other heads of state that sponsor terrorism.

Libya has lots of sweet oil.

So now it is OK to go to war for oil?

Libya is of great interest to the Europeans.

So what?

The US badgered the NATO countries to back our play in Iraq and Afghanistan - this is payback time.

Oh really? NATO backed our play in Iraq? France, Germany etc all backed our play in Iraq?

In terms of Afghanistan they offered more support, but after establishing absurd rules of engagement they basically left any combat operations to the US and UK.

We have a history of involving ourselves in mass killings, and regretting when we don't.

No we don't. Did we involve ourselves in Russia? China? Cambodia? Rwanda? Sudan?

When we did get involved, ie Somalia, it was a disaster.

So far, at least, we are only supplying hardware and munitions. No uniformed troops on the ground.
[/LIST]

So what?

Nothing you have stated here shows a clear national interest.

 

[ProudLefty]

Ok, I can grant you this...but the same can be said of many other heads of state that sponsor terrorism.



So now it is OK to go to war for oil?



So what?



Oh really? NATO backed our play in Iraq? France, Germany etc all backed our play in Iraq?

In terms of Afghanistan they offered more support, but after establishing absurd rules of engagement they basically left any combat operations to the US and UK.



No we don't. Did we involve ourselves in Russia? China? Cambodia? Rwanda? Sudan?

When we did get involved, ie Somalia, it was a disaster.



So what?

Nothing you have stated here shows a clear national interest.

lol... you see potatoes, I see cabbage.

OK. Final shot. We are selling lots of bullets and bombs, thus creating jobs in America. Is that enough for you?

I will readily agree that Obama has a ticking bomb in his lap. If we are still involved next summer in Libya in any way involving bullets and bombs, and Republicans pick a sane candidate, that may be enough to tip the election away from Obama.

On the other hand, if one night, before next summer, we hear that Gadaffi is dead or gone, Obama gets a bump.

 

[BigRob]

lol... you see potatoes, I see cabbage.

OK. Final shot. We are selling lots of bullets and bombs, thus creating jobs in America. Is that enough for you?

No, I do not support a war on the premise of it would create jobs. Why not just invade China? Bet that would create a lot of jobs.

I am glad to hear you say that however, since many on the left rant about how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have bankrupt the nation...if you do believe government stimulus works, then military spending is direct government stimulus.

I will readily agree that Obama has a ticking bomb in his lap. If we are still involved next summer in Libya in any way involving bullets and bombs, and Republicans pick a sane candidate, that may be enough to tip the election away from Obama.

I doubt Libya plays much of a role in the election...for that to be an issue the economy would have to undergo a massive recovery in the next year, and it that occurred, there is no Republican in the world that could beat Obama.

On the other hand, if one night, before next summer, we hear that Gadaffi is dead or gone, Obama gets a bump.

It won't be a lasting or meaningful bounce, if one comes at all. Libya is a perfect example of getting involved in a war with no clear mission. It turns into a stalemate and we get nowhere.

 

[clarkatticus]

Libya only plays good for Obama if Gadaffi is eliminated, otherwise it really has offsetting results, some for, some againsed-a wash. Great Britian did a great deal for our effort in Afghan and Iraq. France and Germany were pussies, Poland did more than they did. Still, they did not block us in the security council and lowered the tone of opposition for Bush's BS entrance into Iraq. Gate's let them know how we feel obout their less than enthusiastic support and their lackluster financial contributions at a recent NATO speech. This is just a set up for what is going to be a global pullback of American military planned by Obama, wait and see.

 

[ProudLefty]

By playing the Libya card, plus killing bin Laden, Obama takes away the Republican shrill that Democrats are soft and won't put the hammer down when its needed. That has value. Of course, Republicans will take the opposite stance now and say that Obama is foolhardy and reckless. If the Libyan issue resolves itself and the Arab Spring moves the Middle East farther along in the advance of nations, Obama comes out looking good. If the NATO deal works out in Libya then the NATO countries involved come away with a much higher regard for America - another win for Obama.

All in all, if the long game works out in Libya, Obama gets to carve another notch or two on his coup stick.

 

[Lagboltz]

I wonder if the administration thought Libya would be a cakewalk. It seemed that the rebels had a lot of momentum at the beginning, but now the war is bogged down. Wars are seldom a cakewalk. Except for Granada.