Operation Odyssey Dawn

[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/...72T6H220110330 ---------- 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/obam...-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/Timelin...byan_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. Are you sure you should by typing that on the Internet? They have eyes everywhere, you know. 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.