U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[Jenksismyhero]

signed George W Obama

 

Change we can believe in.

[StrangeSox]

Change we can believe in.

[Jenksismyhero]

 

lol, wow. that's great

[Soxbadger]

People dont even read the articles that they post these days, they just grab the sensational headline and assume that the article will actually support their factually incorrect position. Unfortunately for them, even the most dishonest headline, contains facts:

 

So everyone has been b****ing and moaning about the Ivory Coast and that we should get involved, but lets look at the article:

 

Guillaume Ngefa, the deputy human rights director at the U.N. mission in Ivory Coast, blamed 220 of the deaths on forces loyal to Ouattara, the man recognized by the United Nations and other global powers as the rightful president. Ngefa said pro-Laurent Gbagbo forces killed 100 people.

 

Oh wait, it was the forces of the guy you want us to support, who killed the majority of those people.

 

Interesting, you want us to intervene in the Ivory Coast against Gbago in support of Ouattara, while Outtara slaughters people. Or are you saying that we should put US troops on the ground and fight both sides of the conflict, that would end as well as Vietnam.

 

Maybe instead of parroting newspapers and blogs, its time to think for ourselves.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Maybe instead of parroting newspapers and blogs, its time to think for ourselves.

 

And about ourselves.

 

I'm sick of the US getting involved in all of these uncivilized (IMO) countries.

 

I'm fed up to the point that if they want to slaughter themselves, have at it...and leave us out of it. Kill one of their dictators, and another one takes their place and after a few years picks up where the former let off. We spend tons of money, and nothing gets accomplished.

[NorthSideSox72]

And about ourselves.

 

I'm sick of the US getting involved in all of these uncivilized (IMO) countries.

 

I'm fed up to the point that if they want to slaughter themselves, have at it...and leave us out of it. Kill one of their dictators, and another one takes their place and after a few years picks up where the former let off. We spend tons of money, and nothing gets accomplished.

I'll say again... nice idea, and I'd agree, except for the whole problem where we are beholden to a lot of these countries for our resources.

 

Get us materially off foreign oil, get our debt significantly rolled back, and get more of our basic resources handled either in-country or from friendlier nations, and then your idea has merit. Until then, its simply impractical.

 

[Y2HH]

I'll say again... nice idea, and I'd agree, except for the whole problem where we are beholden to a lot of these countries for our resources.

 

Get us materially off foreign oil, get our debt significantly rolled back, and get more of our basic resources handled either in-country or from friendlier nations, and then your idea has merit. Until then, its simply impractical.

 

For some of them sure...but we involve ourselves in many things that have no bearing on us...like Libya...we get NO oil from them. Let the EZ handle them from the get go, they're the ones that get resources from there...not us.

[NorthSideSox72]

For some of them sure...but we involve ourselves in many things that have no bearing on us...like Libya...we get NO oil from them. Let the EZ handle them from the get go, they're the ones that get resources from there...not us.

We absolutely get oil from Libya for all financial purposes. Any country that exports oil onto the world market, their oil production has a direct and definite effect on us. You cut off Libya's oil, and you and I are paying a lot more for gas at the pump. This is the way the oil markets work.

 

Now, if the US got to the point where their domestic production was enough to satisfy its own internal needs (or very close anyway), then the US could in theory back out of global markets for its purchases. The way prices are going, that is actually a real possibility. But to do that, you have to bring US demand way, way, way down, you have to increase domestic production (which can be done from existing sites by the way), and you have to re-tool some of the refinement infrastructure.

 

[Soxbadger]

I dont agree that we should completely turn a blind eye, I think that we should do our best to help those we can.

 

The situation in Libya was far different from the Ivory Coast, and therefore warranted a different strategy and response. i completely understand people who do not want the US to get involved at all, I just dont understand those people who argue against Libya, because the UN is acting different in Ivory Coast. Its as if people believe that there is some one size fits all response to global crisis.

 

I believe that in post World War II society we as a nation have a duty to try and prevent countries committing genocide against their civilian population. I also understand that we are limited in what we can do. But just because we cant help everyone, does not mean we shouldnt help anyone.

[NorthSideSox72]

I dont agree that we should completely turn a blind eye, I think that we should do our best to help those we can.

 

The situation in Libya was far different from the Ivory Coast, and therefore warranted a different strategy and response. i completely understand people who do not want the US to get involved at all, I just dont understand those people who argue against Libya, because the UN is acting different in Ivory Coast. Its as if people believe that there is some one size fits all response to global crisis.

 

I believe that in post World War II society we as a nation have a duty to try and prevent countries committing genocide against their civilian population. I also understand that we are limited in what we can do. But just because we cant help everyone, does not mean we shouldnt help anyone.

People who don't want the US to get involved in foreign wars and affairs at all are living in fantasy-land.

 

[Steve9347]

People dont even read the articles that they post these days, they just grab the sensational headline and assume that the article will actually support their factually incorrect position. Unfortunately for them, even the most dishonest headline, contains facts:

 

So everyone has been b****ing and moaning about the Ivory Coast and that we should get involved, but lets look at the article:

 

 

 

Oh wait, it was the forces of the guy you want us to support, who killed the majority of those people.

 

Interesting, you want us to intervene in the Ivory Coast against Gbago in support of Ouattara, while Outtara slaughters people. Or are you saying that we should put US troops on the ground and fight both sides of the conflict, that would end as well as Vietnam.

 

Maybe instead of parroting newspapers and blogs, its time to think for ourselves.

sb 4 prez

 

Seriously, Brian, you are fighting a battle of politics on a baseball board where no matter how right you are folks hiding behind PCs can post counter arguments or ignore the facts. Your life would be better spent not succumbing to political discussion on Soxtalk. There is absolutely no reward for it!

[Soxbadger]

The reward is the hope that some one reads and thinks for themselves. Much of my youth was wasted arguing politics, I rarely, if ever get involved anymore. The only times I do, is when I think that there is actually something worthwhile, something important that I cant let slip by.

 

Maybe there is no point, but you have to have hope.

 

And on that note, more information about the UN doing nothing in Ivory Coast:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110404/ts_nm/us_ivorycoast

 

Attack helicopters commanded by the United Nations mission in the West African country fired missiles at Gbagbo's military bases, and near his official residence, causing huge explosions that shook nearby homes and smashed windows, witnesses said.

 

So is it now time to concede that the Ivory Coast argument was nothing more than a farce to detract from legitimate arguments concerning Libya?

 

France already has over 1.5k troops on the ground, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/04/...n20050536.shtml, plus another 5-7k UN peacekeepers.

 

Yet almost 10k troops in Ivory Coast is considered doing nothing by some.

 

Ridiculous, just flat out ridiculous.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

I can actually take a moment to write this in detail now.

 

It's remarkable how different the evolution is between the Cote d'Ivoire and the Libyan situation. Right now, it appears that the Ivory Coast situation is breaking the right way, the former president is supposedly negotiating a surrender after the U.N. attack and his soldiers have laid down their arms.

 

Let's go through the list of differences.

 

First of all...possibility of overwhelming force being brought to bear? Yes. French soldiers were on the ground. A full U.N. operation against the former president's forces would have obliterated them, if it happened. In Libya...we're totally unwilling to take that step. We're not willing to go beyond limited airstrikes.

 

Secondly, functioning government ready to take command? There's an actual elected president sitting there. In Libya, the best we have is a council of rebels that represents at best 1/3 the population of the country, no clear leader, and no clear structure under which a transition could happen.

 

Third...and perhaps most importantly...good chance that if the U.N. takes action things end quickly? Like I said, if the U.N. took action, they could smash the former president's forces. There's a ready transition. No possibility of a multi-week campaign where we spend time bombing whoever and debating whether to take the next step.

 

In Libya, we've created a stalemate. For humanitarian reasons, this is the single worst possible outcome. It is now a long term, grinding civil war being fought in cities. Even if there was a massacre in Benghazi when it originally fell, that wouldn't kill as many people or displace as many refugees as a multi-week or multi-month struggle, which is exactly what we have in Libya now.

 

In Ivory coast, the Powell Doctrine could be applied. Overwhelming force applied to the task at hand. International support. Exit strategy. You've got everything, and the former ruler's forces are breaking. In Libya, we're still bombing people, there is still fighting across the country, people are still suffering and dying in droves, and we're no where close to the endgame.

 

I'm still a little iffy about whether or not the "Humanitarian" only justification works in Ivory Coast, but the tactics and the situation are completely different, which changes the death toll calculus by a lot.

[Y2HH]

People who don't want the US to get involved in foreign wars and affairs at all are living in fantasy-land.

 

I agree and think we should help when we can, for the right reasons and under the right circumstances. However, the way we do it, which involves getting the US in lengthly (multi year) and very expensive war(s) is something we can no longer afford, IE, we do it the wrong way these days.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Well, at least the generals are starting to realize that a month of bombing is going to wind up hitting civilian targets.

Libyan rebels and Muammar Qaddafi’s forces are locked in a military impasse, a U.S. general warned, as Nomura Holdings Inc. said that the country’s oil output won’t rebound to pre-war levels when the fighting ends.

 

U.S. Army General Carter Ham, who commanded the opening phase of the allied military operation, told a U.S. Senate committee yesterday that the conflict is in a stalemate and the use of NATO air power is “increasingly problematic” when it comes to hitting regime forces without endangering civilians

[Balta1701]

A refugee crisis is beginning to develop in Southern Europe, with France and Italy becoming the focus. Somewhere over 100 Libyan Refugees fleeing the ongoing fighting appear to have died this week when the boat they were carrying overturned.

[bigruss]

Apparently Berlin is host of the NATO talks on the Libya situation, the number of police in the city is astounding. Went by the hotel they we're staying at and the whole area had atleast 25 police vans and what looked like close to 100 policemen patroling the area.

[Balta1701]

Link Hell, I'm just quoting the whole piece.

EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

 

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

 

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

 

Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.

 

But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.

 

The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

 

Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.

 

But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

 

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’

 

If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.

 

On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’

 

It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.

 

The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.

 

Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.

 

In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.

[StrangeSox]

Didn't Khaddafi explicitly state he was going to commit a massacre?

[BigSqwert]

Up to 100,000 might be killed unless we help them now!

[StrangeSox]

The HRW report itself

 

I think it's inexcusable these days that articles at major publications don't link to primary sources they're writing about.

[Balta1701]

Didn't Khaddafi explicitly state he was going to commit a massacre?

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’

[StrangeSox]

The actual HRW report doesn't paint nearly the rosey picture that op-ed does.

[Balta1701]

The actual HRW report doesn't paint nearly the rosey picture that op-ed does.

I'm sure it doesn't.

 

War is ugly. That's why dragging it on for extra months by pretending to fight a war alongside a ragtag group of people with guns was a mistake. It kills a ****load of people, and the longer it goes on, the more die.

[StrangeSox]

That was a nice way of saying "the op-ed is off-base"

 

which is a nice way of saying "he's full of s***."