Operation Odyssey Dawn

[JDFP]

Congratulations, Mr. President on the "Change You Can Believe In!" with your administration! If anything, we might see some more Bush "Miss me yet?" billboard signs across the nation now.

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

So, I haven't been keeping up with the news much recently due to my growing tired of nothing really worth watching being listed on the news. But, between the tsunami and the new war, well, things are getting interesting again so I may have to start keeping an eye on it again.

According to the most recent Fox News poll 65% of Americans believe this whole thing is "batshit crazy". And, coming from Fox News stating that 65% of Americans are against military intervention somewhere that means a great deal more than More Socialism NBC (MSNBC) or the Commie News Network (CNN) saying it because Fox News is generally pro-America uber alles.

So, is this a new Kosovo where we'll have very limited troops on the ground (i.e. black ops people that don't count as "troops on the ground") or will this turn into another Afghanistan or Iraq? Can the U.S. handle another ground invasion with 2 fronts currently happening right now? My prediction is that Iran and N. Korea are watching this whole thing with great interest.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is just making a point that he's not the dove he claimed to be in wanting to "Sit down with terrorists and dictators in a civil manner" during the campaign in 2008. Goodness, his ratings have been waning, he wouldn't want to carry that image with an election only being 18 months away. :sneaky:

Anyway, what are folks opinion on this new possible Charlie Foxtrot we're getting into in Libya?

j.p.

[p2501]

Admittedly, i've been away for a while, and perhaps i've spent too much time with the hivemind. but the fact your siting foxnews as a source of anything other than punchlines for The Onion is moderately concerning. That said, our push right now seems to be in providing AWACS and refueling support in addition to those tomahawks. while the Brits and the French are taking the lead with combat aircraft, As for teams on the ground, that's anyone's' guess. but we're I'd betting i'd say it's us or the Brits.

All of that said, supposedly this is just a move to hamstring Queef-toffe whilst the Arab league gets it's shit together and steps in to provide some form of stability for the new government. the ETA on that varies by nation, day and lunar cycle. As does an end plan for what's going to happen to Quarks-Boppy. If this actually happens, then we're all golden. Bad guy dethroned, civilian massacres stopped, and we can all kick back relax and enjoy a nice double rainbow. Personally, I'm skeptical that it's going to be that quick, clean or cheery of an outcome. But i think if were going to attack another country, the situation in Libya checks off all of the righteous boxes. Yes we are stuck in two useless and fucking redundant quagmires in the same region, but in this specific case were actually being the good guys.

[Yojimbo]

Bad guy dethroned, civilian massacres stopped, and we can all kick back relax and enjoy a nice double rainbow.

That is all we really aspire to do nowdays - to hell with reality and trip on that double rainbow!

But I agree wholeheartedly that this dictator is one of those cartoon characters that truly deserve their day in The Hague.

On a side note, it may be purely sentimental but I kind of miss the Iraqi Minister of Information in this particular conflict!

[p2501]

but I kind of miss the Iraqi Minister of Information in this particular conflict!

Agreed. that guy was a hoot.

[Tricky]

And yet British troops are still fighting & dying in Afghanistan, which barely gets a mention these days in the news! we cant even afford to run that war properly, never mind suddenly launching into another one in Libya. I think this is an Arab problem that requires an Arab solution. The Arab league & the Saudis have more than enough firepower to flatten Gadaffis army, if they wanted to they could remove him themselves.

[Danny]

And yet British troops are still fighting & dying in Afghanistan, which barely gets a mention these days in the news! we cant even afford to run that war properly, never mind suddenly launching into another one in Libya. I think this is an Arab problem that requires an Arab solution. The Arab league & the Saudis have more than enough firepower to flatten Gadaffis army, if they wanted to they could remove him themselves.

aint that what the americans of the time said about nazi germany when they started to gain power though? a european/continental problem they didnt need to be a part of? granted its not at all the same but just because its easier to ignore a problem doesnt mean its the right thing to do. Not that a full scale operation is either but if there are people attempting to fight for freedom from a dictator shouldn't we help our fellow human beings try?

Sometimes we need to step in and help even if there is no immediate problem for us a that time because a: that might not always be the case and b: if not why should we ever expect help should anything bad happen to us?

[Yojimbo]

Sometimes we need to step in and help even if there is no immediate problem for us a that time because a: that might not always be the case and b: if not why should we ever expect help should anything bad happen to us?

agree with Hellsing- occasionally there is a need to step up in a conflict. I am not saying that war is always the best course of action, however sometimes an armed conflict appropriate. War is sometimes the answer.

[Tricky]

I generally agree with what your saying, but as I said in the other thread on this, why have we not intervened in Zimbabwe, or Burma? theres equally terrible things happening in those places as a result of despotic governments, but nothing is done about it. Its all about the oil...

[Danny]

I generally agree with what your saying, but as I said in the other thread on this, why have we not intervened in Zimbabwe, or Burma? theres equally terrible things happening in those places as a result of despotic governments, but nothing is done about it. Its all about the oil...

aye thats true, but i dont think that matters to the rebels under gaddafis rule does it? im sure its more selfish reasons on our part but as long as it helpd out these people its a good thing- if it does.

Now come back when we have to go to north korea, THEN we can talk about another gulf war style conflict, oy...

[Mr. Clean]

Not defending Obama but this is NATO driven....and why do everyone always forget the B-2?

[p2501]

I generally agree with what your saying, but as I said in the other thread on this, why have we not intervened in Zimbabwe, or Burma? theres equally terrible things happening in those places as a result of despotic governments, but nothing is done about it. Its all about the oil...

I would imagine oil does play a part. but one critical difference here in regards to Libya there is some manner of interim/new government that seems to be popularly supported. One that could step in a fill the vacuum once Queefy is deposed. Additionally, the Arab league has been pushing hard on the UN and NATO for this action, which is not a very common thing in the least.

With Africa, really i'm not even sure most of those warring countries could be fixed. It's tribal genocide that has spanned decades and in some cases centuries. A condition that has led to a overt lack of stability in those countries and destroys any chance of constructing a socially supportive infrastructure (schools, hospitals, ETC) that would allow for a lasting stabilization. Even if the UN were to go in and break up the fights. with the lack of education, jobs and really hope, these groups would just go back at it within months.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be making the effort. but for the life of me i just don't see a solution there.

[krakenslayer]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily anti-this war, particularly if it does turn out to be as simple as case of a few bombs and shooting a few cruise missiles from the comfort of a boat somewhere in the Med, but I'm still a little confused as to why we're after this brutal dictator specifically. Sure, Gahdaffi as a murderous, totalitarian arsehole and no right-minded human being would miss him if he were to disappear. But he is far, far from the worst there is.

One word: Mugabe. Why's no one ever bothered to get involved there? Now, I'm not one who really sides with the Team America ideology of constantly charging out there on a white horse, setting the world to rights, but if they were at least serious about spreading Truth, Justice and the American Franchise, if they were consistent in their supposed determination to right all wrongs, then you'd imagine they'd start by targeting the worst offenders. Call me simple-minded, but if there wasn't Other Incentives, Like - oh, I don't know :p - involved in our decision-making process then we should have started with Mugabe.

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------



With Africa, really i'm not even sure most of those warring countries could be fixed. It's tribal genocide that has spanned decades and in some cases centuries. A condition that has led to a overt lack of stability in those countries and destroys any chance of constructing a socially supportive infrastructure (schools, hospitals, ETC) that would allow for a lasting stabilization. Even if the UN were to go in and break up the fights. with the lack of education, jobs and really hope, these groups would just go back at it within months.

Ahh, but this is the tragedy of Zimbabwe. For a long time, the country was considered the great African success story, Mugabe was, initally, a great leader. Very liberal and benevolent, people loved him, the country went from strength to strength... but then, like the outwardly-nice guy who becomes a racist asshat after a few beers and is always the last to leave a party, he began to outstay his welcome. The time for elections came and went, people started wondering when he was going to leave. Then... from out of nowhere, things got really ugly.

[Publius]

I would imagine oil does play a part. but one critical difference here in regards to Libya there is some manner of interim/new government that seems to be popularly supported. One that could step in a fill the vacuum once Queefy is deposed.

Kind of like what we thought about the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? There, the Taliban hadn't even been in power for all that long compared to Gadhafi.


Additionally, the Arab league has been pushing hard on the UN and NATO for this action, which is not a very common thing in the least.

So why didn't the Arab League take action themselves? So they could blame us for the outcome, that's why. Didn't take long:

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3)


With Africa, really i'm not even sure most of those warring countries could be fixed. It's tribal genocide that has spanned decades and in some cases centuries.

Libya is in Africa. It's more tribal (http://www.wbur.org/npr/134373970/tribes-regroup-as-gadhafis-control-is-threatened) than most Arab nations. More like Afghanistan, say, than Egypt. What makes you think it doesn't fit your description?

[shootemindehead]

The "West" shouldn't be there. It's an internal struggle. The "West" has no business being involved, unless it's about...

Libyan oil...the largest in Africa and the 9th largest in the world.

"civilian massacres"...don't make me laugh.

[thxleo]

I guess it'e time to impeach Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

[Exatreides]

So when there's no international support to justify a war it's fine for conservatives to go ahead and do it. Kill thousands of Americans and tens to hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
Thats fine, we had to find the weapons of mass destruction. Or was it liberating them from an evil dictator, or was it fighting Osama?

When the international community votes to impose a no fly zone and have military action. Suddenly its the end of the world! Freeing the people of Iraq was fine! Freeing the people of Libya?! Why should we give a damn?!

This isn't just America trying to flex it's muscle in the region (Unlike Iraq) America isn't even the leader in the action (How nice for a change)

[ProfessorChaos]

politics and political bitching are so fucking immature. you know damn well that if mccain had won the election and all the other factors were the same as they are today regarding this operation, D's would be screaming the same phrases about impeachment, war-mongering, etc that they threw at bush all those years, and R's would be defending our military involvement to the very end.

now since a D is in the white house, liberals come to the defense of these actions while conservatives bitch to no end about this being an unjust act of war....

not taking sides, just saying that's how divided our country is over these two political ideologies...fucking ridiculous. even on these boards, people who would probably get along fine in real life take such offense and show such rancor when it comes to "who's right & who's wrong".

[Publius]

So when there's no international support to justify a war it's fine for conservatives to go ahead and do it.

International support has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the action, which is what Biden was talking about. I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a problem with the strikes as a matter of international law, just domestic constitutional law. Obama took the same position (that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally authorize military force in this kind of situation) as a candidate in late 2007, incidentally.

[thxleo]

And it gets even more absurd...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0311/a_noble_defense_dccb5644-d067-404b-8580-b939a4056f06.html

[Tom Price]

Immediate war without consulting the houses of the people unilaterally?
Last I knew the UN didn't run this country.
Teleprompter in chief impeachment hearings in 3,.2,.1,.(if CONgress had any balls)

[p2501]

Kind of like what we thought about the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? There, the Taliban hadn't even been in power for all that long compared to Gadhafi.

So why didn't the Arab League take action themselves? So they could blame us for the outcome, that's why. Didn't take long:

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3)



Libya is in Africa. It's more tribal (http://www.wbur.org/npr/134373970/tribes-regroup-as-gadhafis-control-is-threatened) than most Arab nations. More like Afghanistan, say, than Egypt. What makes you think it doesn't fit your description?

>looks at map< oh... yeah.... you're right.... ;) Not trying to kick shit in your cornflakes there friend. Opinions were asked for, i gave mine. but back on point. the parallel between Afghanistan and Libya exists and it's a decent one. If it'll play out the same way, i haven't the foggiest.

As for the Arab league, that's pretty much what they do. To call them fickle, would give fickle a bad name. but they're pretty much it for the foreseeable future so ... yeah...

For the Africa thing, i'm pretty clear on it's location on one of those cereal box maps. but clarification is always helpful. My interpretation of the question (and perhaps i was incorrect here) was more pointed towards the central or western republics.

[Tom Price]

I agree with that

[Publius]

For the Africa thing, i'm pretty clear on it's location on one of those cereal box maps. but clarification is always helpful. My interpretation of the question (and perhaps i was incorrect here) was more pointed towards the central or western republics.

True, the question was pointed towards the central or western African republics. But the question was why we would intervene in Libya but not there? Your answer was the intertribal warfare that prevents stability there. I questioned whether that was a relevant distinction, because Libya has a pretty tribal society as well. Surely the argument for intervening in Libya and not Zimbabwe can't be "clearly, Libya is way up at the top of Africa, while Zimbabwe is much farther south."

[p2501]

Surely the argument for intervening in Libya and not Zimbabwe can't be "clearly, Libya is way up at the top of Africa, while Zimbabwe is much farther south."

Good point, although given the rampant decline of our elected officials i can't say that it wasn't part of their determinate criteria

[krakenslayer]

I think the issue with invading Zimbabwe is the all the racial propaganda surrounding it. Mugabe has convinced millions of people in his country, and others in south and central Africa, that the problems in his nation with hyper-inflation, social breakdown and violence are caused not by him, but by a western White conspiracy to destabilize and unseat Black African governments and re-establish colonialism. To invade might do nothing more than appear to confirm these claims.

The argument against liberating Zimbabwe would be that it would open a whole new can of conflict, political extremism, zealotism and terrorism coming out of Africa, perhaps just as big as the one we already have in the Middle-East.

I hasten to say that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS ARGUMENT. But that would be the official reasoning behind the decision not to get involved there. Of course, they would never admit that oil played a role too.

[thxleo]

Absolutely ridiculous!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/obama-libya-address-dancing-with-the-stars_n_841774.html

[AcesandEights]

Absolutely ridiculous!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/obama-libya-address-dancing-with-the-stars_n_841774.html

...the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses...

My self-important quote of the day, just couldn't resist.

:skull:

[thxleo]

Sorry, but I just can't enough of this story.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFWACvAYca3zjwTnnLh1JG8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6d d0e4265b2952651c972f4a5

[Danny]

okay im gonna say it if noone else will, operation odyssey dawn is an amazing name for a gay bar, just sayin'

[Tricky]

So now theres talk of arming the rebels as well to even the odds up against Gaddafi, is that not a bad idea considering we did the same in the 80's with the Afghans & then ended up being killed by our own weapons 20 years later? From what I've heard the vast majority of foreign insurgents in the Iraq campaign were from Libya, which means we are now siding with people who were killing our troops a few years ago. I think we should back away & leave the middle east to sort its own affairs out, then buy oil off the winners...

[thxleo]

So now theres talk of arming the rebels as well to even the odds up against Gaddafi, is that not a bad idea considering we did the same in the 80's with the Afghans & then ended up being killed by our own weapons 20 years later? From what I've heard the vast majority of foreign insurgents in the Iraq campaign were from Libya, which means we are now siding with people who were killing our troops a few years ago.

If we do decide to arm these "rebels" - who have ties to al-qaeda - does that make Obama's administration just simply incompetent or is there something much more troubling going on with this administration? Take a wild guess as to what I think the answer is.

UPDATE : http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

---------- Post added 31-Mar-2011 at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was 30-Mar-2011 at 04:29 PM ----------

Man, is the irony thick or what?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-2002-toppling-brutal-dictator-dumb

[shootemindehead]

So now theres talk of arming the rebels as well to even the odds up against Gaddafi, is that not a bad idea considering we did the same in the 80's with the Afghans & then ended up being killed by our own weapons 20 years later? From what I've heard the vast majority of foreign insurgents in the Iraq campaign were from Libya, which means we are now siding with people who were killing our troops a few years ago. I think we should back away & leave the middle east to sort its own affairs out, then buy oil off the winners...

The US and Britain "helped" the "rebels" (whoever they are) because they genuinely believed that they were going to gain the upper hand. They had taken quite a bit of territory in a short space of time and were looking like they were going to do the deed. There was genuine talk of Gaddafi being ousted and it made sense for the "West" to be in with the "Rebels" as they would end up in control of the Country's main export. That's the ONLY reason why the "West" has any interest in the area.

Now, it looks like the "West" is taking it's hands off Libya, because the "Rebels" appear to be a busted flush. They've lost a lot of the territory they controlled and Gaddafi's forces are gaining the upper hand in many areas. It also looks like he's not going anywhere.

Oops.

When the largest oil reserve in Africa is the prize at stake, it's ALL about backing the "winners" whoever they may be.

[Publius]

The US and Britain "helped" the "rebels" (whoever they are) because they genuinely believed that they were going to gain the upper hand. They had taken quite a bit of territory in a short space of time and were looking like they were going to do the deed. There was genuine talk of Gaddafi being ousted and it made sense for the "West" to be in with the "Rebels" as they would end up in control of the Country's main export. That's the ONLY reason why the "West" has any interest in the area.

Now, it looks like the "West" is taking it's hands off Libya, because the "Rebels" appear to be a busted flush. They've lost a lot of the territory they controlled and Gaddafi's forces are gaining the upper hand in many areas. It also looks like he's not going anywhere.

Oops.

When the largest oil reserve in Africa is the prize at stake, it's ALL about backing the "winners" whoever they may be.

Actually, we sat on our hands when it looked like the rebels were winning (and when air strikes might have been the final straw to break Gaddafi's back). About three weeks later, when Gaddafi bounced back and had the rebels on the ropes (and it was probably too late for air strikes alone to do much good), that's when we decided to launch air strikes.

[shootemindehead]

Mmmmm...that's not quite the case though. The rebels weren't really "on the ropes" and the air strikes helped them a great deal. In fact it enabled them, somewhat, to gain a lot of ground, including the seizure of the Ajdabiya oil instalation last week.

The problem is though is that Gaddafi's forces changed their tactics and started using smaller vehicles in rapid manoeuvre and ceased using tanks, which has enabled them to take back the ground that they lost previously.

So, it looks like the rebels are on to a loser and the West will need to, once more, salve Gaddafi's government and become his buddy again...

..but either way, the oil will still flow. Which is, after all, the whole point.

[Publius]

If it was all about backing the winners, as you said in your previous post, it would have made a lot more sense to intervene on behalf of the rebels when they were actually winning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war. I have a feeling that Obama's instinct is actually to back the underdogs.

[shootemindehead]

They probably would have if they could get away with acting unilaterally. But being embroiled in other wars has damaged those particular "options". Adventures overseas have to have the veneer of "coalition". In addition, a lot of time was spent finding out who exactly these so called "Rebels" comprised of. Something that's still a very gray area. If the West's previous buddy was going to be toppled, it would make sense to know who was going to replace him, before shooting off one's mouth (and weapons).

In any case, I doubt Obama is making any real decisions on the matter at all. He's doing what he's told to do. Like every other President. Obama's just the shopfront.

Either way, it IS absolutely about backing the winners, whomever they are, because the end game is not a morality issue, it's an economic one.

[Publius]

In any case, I doubt Obama is making any real decisions on the matter at all. He's doing what he's told to do. Like every other President. Obama's just the shopfront.

:shifty: Are you sure you should by typing that on the Internet? They have eyes everywhere, you know. :shifty:
:p


Either way, it IS absolutely about backing the winners, whomever they are, because the end game is not a morality issue, it's an economic one.

Then do we know the rebels will win? If not, why were we shooting missiles at Gaddafi? That's a funny way to back him if he's going to be the winner.