JohnRich 4 #1 March 8, 2011 News: Role in Libya grows complex for Washington Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi grow more complicated by the day -- for both the White House and Republicans. President Barack Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia's prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Gadhafi further by talking about "a range of potential options, including potential military options" against the embattled Libyan leader. Despite Obama's statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to U.S. intervention in Libya... Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17559689?source=rss&nclick_check=1 Should the U.S. give aid and/or assistance to the Libyan rebels trying to overthrow Ghadaffi? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #2 March 8, 2011 Supplying them, yes. Taking military action, no."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #3 March 8, 2011 The rebels are irregular, do not wear uniforms, and when faced with defeat melt back into the population. Are they not terrorists under the US military's definition? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #4 March 8, 2011 I say NO. Let the European powers decide what they want to do with this hot potato. As another post said, we would be supporting an insurgency. What for? mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #5 March 8, 2011 Your poll is missing an option. It should be: Yes No FUCK NO!!! I vote FUCK NO!!! - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #6 March 8, 2011 Quote The rebels are irregular, do not wear uniforms, and when faced with defeat melt back into the population. Are they not terrorists under the US military's definition? OK, one more time: - If we like them, they are freedom fighters. - If we don't like them, they are terrorists. M'kay?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 March 8, 2011 Intervene? That idea is fuckin' nuts.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 March 8, 2011 QuoteIntervene? That idea is fuckin' nuts. Therefore, the fact that Obama is considering military options, makes him fuckin' nuts. Right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #9 March 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteIntervene? That idea is fuckin' nuts. Therefore, the fact that Obama is considering military options, makes him fuckin' nuts. Right? I think he's considering what to consider, all things considering. (That's a serious answer, BTW.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #10 March 8, 2011 >Therefore, the fact that Obama is considering military options, makes him fuckin' nuts. Right? Yes. If he considers military options, he is fucking nuts. If he doesn't consider military options, he is kowtowing to a murderous dictator and proving to the world that the US has no balls. If he doesn't answer the question he is arrogant and condescending. Anything else? Just want to make sure I covered all the smears. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #11 March 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteIntervene? That idea is fuckin' nuts. Therefore, the fact that Obama is considering military options, makes him fuckin' nuts. Right? Naive and/or unqualified to make such a decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #12 March 8, 2011 At least this guy isn't in charge: ============= VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya? GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … It’s also an ideological problem. The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes. ============= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 March 8, 2011 QuoteNews: Role in Libya grows complex for Washington Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi grow more complicated by the day -- for both the White House and Republicans. President Barack Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia's prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Gadhafi further by talking about "a range of potential options, including potential military options" against the embattled Libyan leader. Despite Obama's statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to U.S. intervention in Libya... Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17559689?source=rss&nclick_check=1 Should the U.S. give aid and/or assistance to the Libyan rebels trying to overthrow Ghadaffi? The US should stop being the worlds police force. Let the UN deal with it and see what happens when we don't get involved.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #14 March 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteIntervene? That idea is fuckin' nuts. Therefore, the fact that Obama is considering military options, makes him fuckin' nuts. Right? I suppose to a person that thinks considering a multitude of options and intervening is the same thing. Maybe this explains why some people go apeshit at the idea of considering anything. They think the two terms, consider and intervene, are synonymous. Now, I understand YOU would never make that mistake because in your original post you said, "Should the U.S. give aid and/or assistance to the Libyan rebels trying to overthrow Ghadaffi?" But in your subject line and the poll itself, you used the word "intervene." That's a pretty wide spectrum. Aid could be something like a humanitarian effort such as dropping food, water and medical supplies. Intervene means getting between the two parties involved which is very, very different.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #15 March 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIntervene? That idea is fuckin' nuts. Therefore, the fact that Obama is considering military options, makes him fuckin' nuts. Right? I suppose to a person that thinks considering a multitude of options and intervening is the same thing. Maybe this explains why some people go apeshit at the idea of considering anything. They think the two terms, consider and intervene, are synonymous. Now, I understand YOU would never make that mistake because in your original post you said, "Should the U.S. give aid and/or assistance to the Libyan rebels trying to overthrow Ghadaffi?" But in your subject line and the poll itself, you used the word "intervene." That's a pretty wide spectrum. Aid could be something like a humanitarian effort such as dropping food, water and medical supplies. Intervene means getting between the two parties involved which is very, very different. Doesn't Europe have enough humanitarians? Why do we need to get involved at all?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #16 March 8, 2011 QuoteWhy do we need to get involved at all? I'm not saying we do. I'm saying it's a wide spectrum of things to consider. Right now Libya isn't to the point of genocide/crimes against humanity. To me it looks like civil unrest heading toward civil war. I personally don't think we or anybody else has any business getting between the government and people that may be interested in overthrowing it from within. However, if Gaddafii's forces started to going beyond simply defending itself in skirmishes and into the area of crimes against humanity, then as an international issue the UN might want to consider stepping in. Since the US is part of the UN, yes, we'd also get dragged into that, but so far that's not anything like what we've seen going on there.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #17 March 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy do we need to get involved at all? I'm not saying we do. I'm saying it's a wide spectrum of things to consider. Right now Libya isn't to the point of genocide/crimes against humanity. To me it looks like civil unrest heading toward civil war. I personally don't think we or anybody else has any business getting between the government and people that may be interested in overthrowing it from within. However, if Gaddafii's forces started to going beyond simply defending itself in skirmishes and into the area of crimes against humanity, then as an international issue the UN might want to consider stepping in. Since the US is part of the UN, yes, we'd also get dragged into that, but so far that's not anything like what we've seen going on there. I would like the UN to appoint everyoine else to deal with this one tis time.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #18 March 8, 2011 QuoteI would like the UN to appoint everyoine else to deal with this one tis time. 1) That's not how it works. 2) We're not even sure there is a "this time" yet.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #19 March 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteI would like the UN to appoint everyoine else to deal with this one tis time. 1) That's not how it works. 2) We're not even sure there is a "this time" yet. No - but it likely will be if things go as they have in the past. I just want the rest of the world to foot the bill this time.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #20 March 9, 2011 Quote I just want the rest of the world to foot the bill this time. Fuckin' A mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #21 March 9, 2011 Quote Quote News: Role in Libya grows complex for Washington Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi grow more complicated by the day -- for both the White House and Republicans. President Barack Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia's prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Gadhafi further by talking about "a range of potential options, including potential military options" against the embattled Libyan leader. Despite Obama's statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to U.S. intervention in Libya... Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17559689?source=rss&nclick_check=1 Should the U.S. give aid and/or assistance to the Libyan rebels trying to overthrow Ghadaffi? The US should stop being the worlds police force. Let the UN deal with it and see what happens when we don't get involved. I agree. And as far as letting the UN deal with it.That went well during the Rwandan Genocide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #22 March 9, 2011 QuoteThe rebels are irregular, do not wear uniforms, and when faced with defeat melt back into the population. Are they not terrorists under the US military's definition? Nope. They're guerilla fighters who would not be entitled to Geneva Convetion protections. However, since they are involved in a conflict with their own government, that wouldn't be a concern anyway. They are using conventional weapons against military targets. The interesting part is that the Libyan governmen is hiring Tuareg mercenaries to fight for them against the citizenry. The Libyan military is split on whether to fight, turncoat, or try to hide from both sides. Terrorists, on the other hand, go after non military targets with the intention of putting fear into noncombatants, to affect change through fear. Guerilla warfare does not equal terrorism. Oh, I'm sorry, did I go and ruin your smarmy rhetorical question with actual facts?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #23 March 9, 2011 Quote Quote The rebels are irregular, do not wear uniforms, and when faced with defeat melt back into the population. Are they not terrorists under the US military's definition? OK, one more time: - If we like them, they are freedom fighters. - If we don't like them, they are terrorists. M'kay? now IF the US go there to fight, who will they fight ? Ghadaffi supporters or "freedom fighters" ?? Remember Ghadaffi says the insurgents are supported by Osama Ben Laden...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #24 March 9, 2011 Quote now IF the US go there to fight, who will they fight ? Ghadaffi supporters or "freedom fighters" ?? Remember Ghadaffi says the insurgents are supported by Osama Ben Laden... Stop it! You're making my head hurt."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #25 March 9, 2011 Quote Terrorists, on the other hand, go after non military targets with the intention of putting fear into noncombatants, to affect change through fear. Guerilla warfare does not equal terrorism. Agreed. Targeting civilians to scare a population to your will =Terrorism. Quadaffi is currently using his Air force to bomb the civilian population. The opposition is only targeting military and government targets. You make the call. Do we need to get directly involved? No. But we do need to start talking to the rebel forces to establish their legitimacy. Start dealing with them to let them know we are friends, open up trade directly to them to help establish funds for them so they can get supplies and aid. Maybe even advice to help set up infrastructure. Hopefully the rest of the world will finally stand up and do something instead of waiting for the U.S. to do it, but I doubt it. The problems come in if Quadaffi squashes the rebellion, and we were all supporting the opposition. But without support, he will most definitely crush them. Catch 22, no?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
