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.’’

 

There are no good answers, but any article that suggests the world should have taken Gaddafi at his word, kind of is messed up. This is the man who said that there was a ceasefire, while at the same time shelling positions.

 

The best question would be:

 

Has the UN involvement made the situation worse.

 

I believe that it has not, but who can be sure.

 

Right now the reports are Gaddafi is using cluster bombs, who knows if its true or not. At some point the scales are going to tip and the outside world is going to end it, but who knows how long that will take.

Right now the reports are Gaddafi is using cluster bombs, who knows if its true or not. At some point the scales are going to tip and the outside world is going to end it, but who knows how long that will take.

In other words, invasion.

Thats the way its looking.

 

Basically going to have to take it to the next step like in ivory Coast, actually putting troops on the ground.

 

 

Thats the way its looking.

 

Basically going to have to take it to the next step like in ivory Coast, actually putting troops on the ground.

 

 

At least you've come around to the perspective that we got into this thing with no exit strategy and no plan for winning it.

You mean that I made assessments on the situation as they developed?

 

Its not called coming around, its called looking at facts and not blindly ignoring them. At first this looked like it would go an entirely different route. It hasnt, when that happens you have to constantly reassess.

 

It would be foolish to adamantly stand by a perspective as the facts change.

 

I just think that at the time of the action, there were only 2 choices: A) Do something or B) Do nothing.

 

I still think doing something was the right thing, and of course we have to follow through.

You mean that I made assessments on the situation as they developed?

 

Its not called coming around, its called looking at facts and not blindly ignoring them. At first this looked like it would go an entirely different route. It hasnt, when that happens you have to constantly reassess.

 

It would be foolish to adamantly stand by a perspective as the facts change.

 

I just think that at the time of the action, there were only 2 choices: A) Do something or B) Do nothing.

 

I still think doing something was the right thing, and of course we have to follow through.

 

 

LMAO.

 

Hmmm. Thousands of people killed by a governmental regime. Doing something is the right thing.

 

But this is SOOOO different, because Barackus the Great said it was.

 

Obama lied, people died.

 

Completely hypocritical stance.

 

 

we really need to change the : B thing

we really need to change the : B thing

 

 

Yea, good point. It has always driven me crazy.

 

I'll go fix it now.

 

Edit: done.

Edited April 15, 201114 yr by kapkomet

Completely hypocritical stance.

 

Show me one time where Obama said that Gaddafi had WMD or posed a significant threat to the US.

 

Show me where the UN authorized the US invasion of Iraq.

 

If you can find me 1 instance where he used the term WMD or called Libya a threat to the US, and where the UN authorized the US action in Iraq, and I will agree its hypocritical.

 

Furthermore, Im not sure where Obama lied, care to point me to the statement?

 

Its not similar to Iraq at all, but who wants to talk about facts.

Show me one time where Obama said that Gaddafi had WMD or posed a significant threat to the US.

 

Show me where the UN authorized the US invasion of Iraq.

 

If you can find me 1 instance where he used the term WMD or called Libya a threat to the US, and where the UN authorized the US action in Iraq, and I will agree its hypocritical.

 

Furthermore, Im not sure where Obama lied, care to point me to the statement?

 

Its not similar to Iraq at all, but who wants to talk about facts.

 

Oh but when Iraq was/is based on humanitarian efforts (either before or after 2003), hell no, we can't touch that, right? Humanitarian reasons was yet another reason that was offered for Iraq, but let's conveniently forget that, because now it wouldn't fit the story of today.

 

 

Which is it?

Humanitarian reasons were well down of the line of failed excuses for Iraq. WMD's and threats to the US via terrorism were always the #1 sell at least through 2003.

I would have been fine with intervention based solely on humanitarian needs if in 2003 we were presented with an immediate humanitarian crisis.

 

For example, had Saddam been threatening to exterminate the Kurds, Id have been the first person saying Lets get that bastard. (It would be hypocritical to support the intervention in Libya but not in Iraq if these were the facts.)

 

But you made the important distinction yourself : yet another reason

 

Its not hypocritical if the situations are distinguishable.

 

To make it simple:

 

I like cheeseburgers, but I dont like onions.

 

Enjoying a cheeseburger without onions, does not make my hypocritical because I dont enjoy cheeseburgers with onions.

 

Just because part is comparable, does not mean that its not distinguishable.

 

And im not even saying that if you look at Iraq, that the ends may not justify the means. Just that Iraq was an entirely different situation.

 

Okay. It's just to make your logic be right.

Obama with his endless wars. He really is a disgrace to this fine country.

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want?

Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.

 

The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months.

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want?

 

Oh well. France and Britain were not prepared. Gaddafi wins. I can deal with this outcome.

Oh well. France and Britain were not prepared. Gaddafi wins. I can deal with this outcome.

You know full well that teh real outcome is that they resume having the U.S. do everything.

You know full well that teh real outcome is that they resume having the U.S. do everything.

 

But, but, it's a UN effort! It's a coalition! We're just assisting!

 

What a disaster. I can't wait until Obama gets ripped in the press...oh right, he's our savior, so that won't happen.

FWIW that's kind of a good argument in favor of the DoD's budget. Even the other big spenders can't keep up a relatively minor operation for more than a couple of weeks. Then again...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?AR...mp;IBLOCK_ID=35

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/01...nium-challenge/

FWIW that's kind of a good argument in favor of the DoD's budget. Even the other big spenders can't keep up a relatively minor operation for more than a couple of weeks. Then again...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?AR...mp;IBLOCK_ID=35

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/01...nium-challenge/

 

I always wondered what would happen if the US became TOO reliant on technology. With all this smart technology, what happens if China or some other country has a means of destroying DoD satellites? Who knows if that technology exists, but I wonder if we train for scenarios like that.

I always wondered what would happen if the US became TOO reliant on technology. With all this smart technology, what happens if China or some other country has a means of destroying DoD satellites? Who knows if that technology exists, but I wonder if we train for scenarios like that.

 

The means has exsisted for decades.

China can shoot down satellites.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm

 

 

I guess the follow up question there is whether they'd have the means to destroy US only satellites, and specifically ones used by the DoD. But assuming they do, hopefully we have a back up system for all of those smart bombs.

I always wondered what would happen if the US became TOO reliant on technology. With all this smart technology, what happens if China or some other country has a means of destroying DoD satellites? Who knows if that technology exists, but I wonder if we train for scenarios like that.

 

It's something that seriously needs to be evaluated when systems are selected and into use.

 

World War Z had a good commentary on this. Crash of Flight 447 on NOVA about the AirBus jet that crashed into the Atlantic in 2009 also had similar commentary regarding AirBus's fly-by-wire and flight logic systems and possible detrimental effects when things go bad.