We can keep the other thread for discussion, I just wanted to take a quick poll. I'm curious how people feel about the military actions in Libya.

 

 

I agree with the course, don't agree with where it led to.

I agree with the course, don't agree with where it led to.

Where has it led to that you disagree with?

 

People and things getting blown up.

People and things getting blown up.

Which course would NOT have led to that? And how can you agree with the course of taking military action, but not agree with things getting blown up?

 

Which course would NOT have led to that? And how can you agree with the course of taking military action, but not agree with things getting blown up?

 

Because he's Tex.

Which course would NOT have led to that? And how can you agree with the course of taking military action, but not agree with things getting blown up?

I'd say that makes just about as much sense as believing airstrikes alone can bring down a government.

I'd say that makes just about as much sense as believing airstrikes alone can bring down a government.

Which no one has said, that I've seen.

 

Which no one has said, that I've seen.

My debate partner in the other thread has insisted so repeatedly.

My debate partner in the other thread has insisted so repeatedly.

 

Well, if those air strikes happen to kill the dictator, odds of the government collapsing are pretty high...

Well, if those air strikes happen to kill the dictator, odds of the government collapsing are pretty high...

Qaddafi's current "Compound" is going to wind up being just another monument to the failure of the U.S. to get him with missiles.

Qaddafi's current "Compound" is going to wind up being just another monument to the failure of the U.S. to get him with missiles.

 

I guess we will see...

My votes were "no" and "do nothing." I fail to see why we're in this mess. Let some other world power play the worlds police for a turn. We need to start focusing on problems within our borders, not beyond them.

Edited March 21, 201115 yr by Jenksismybitch

"No" and "other"

 

I don't have any problem with lobbing a few cruise missiles because of the UN stance, but I'm concerned about the timing, given reports they may have been more effective if done sooner, while the rebels had "momentum."

 

I also don't think its tactically wise to tell your "enemy" ahead of time that its in no risk of having to face ground troops. Even if obvious, that just seems purely political.

My votes were "no" and "do nothing." I fail to see why we're in this mess. Let some other world power play the worlds police for a turn. We need to start focusing on problems within our borders, not beyond them.

 

I am the other vote for no and nothing for the exact same reason.

 

I assume that Balta is referring to me, and not even coming close to anything Ive suggested.

 

Ive said that air strikes would level the playing field which would allow the revolutionaries to press forward.

 

Im not sure how that equates to "believing airstrikes alone can bring down a government. ", or anything even remotely close. As Libya clearly is not airstrikes alone, there were massive uprisings and revolutionaries taking cities from Gaddafi without our interference.

 

Airstrikes alone must apply to some fictitious conflict where the Libyan people didnt rise up on their own and didnt take on Gaddafi by themselves.

 

I dont care if people have a different opinion than me, but at least have the courtesy to quote me if you are going to say that it is my position. At least if you are going to use my words against me, let them be my own words.

 

That is all I will say, Im actually quite content leaving my position in the other thread as is. I have made my argument, some people will agree, others will not.

 

Get the U.N. involved in Libya.

 

We're already in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

 

Get the U.N. involved in Libya.

 

We're already in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.N. is involved. Problem is we're doing 99% of it all on our own.

By "involved" I mean a higher percentage of the U.N.

By "involved" I mean a higher percentage of the U.N.

The U.N. really doesn't have the capability to destroy an enemy's air defense network without risking substantial casualties to its forces. The U.S. does. That's why this didn't happen until the U.S. decided it was going to happen.

The U.N. is involved. Problem is we're doing 99% of it all on our own.

 

 

By "involved" I mean a higher percentage of the U.N.

What are you guys talking about? Lots of countries wanted intervention, they went and got a UN concensus to act. This IS the UN. The UN doesn't have a military, they UN military is a combination of its constituent nations. Furthermore, we are not doing anything like 99%, we're doing less than half from what I've seen.

 

I can see lots of good arguments for not acting here, but let's make sure we are dealing in facts in the discussion.

 

we're doing less than half from what I've seen.

How on Earth do you get that?

 

The French and British have flown a few nighttime air patrols. The U.S. has pretty much done all the striking as far as I can tell.

French actually fired the first strikes from their aircraft that destroyed tanks.

 

 

French actually fired the first strikes from their aircraft that destroyed tanks.

 

It's more convenient to pretend they didn't, and merely did a few night time flyovers.

It's more convenient to pretend they didn't, and merely did a few night time flyovers.

I'd say it's pretty convenient to consider a handful of tank kills to be significant participation.