I can't believe nobody is discussing this! NATO wants to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and intervene with military force to do so. They would have to bomb all of Khadaffi's anti-aircraft defences. Also from what I understand, they're willing to go further than that and bomb Khadaffi's ground forces if necessary. The only thing is they do not want to send any ground troops over there. Do you think they should do this? I think this is a horrible idea. NATO has been in the Middle East to "protect the people" for decades, and has never really accomplshed shit but millions of dead civilians. I know there are some Libyans calling for this, but I'd much rather see NATO end all business ties with Khadaffi thus making his oil useless. That's all we should do. It wouldn't solve the problem but it would end our involvement in it. Never ever do business with Khadaffi again, even if he does stay in power. The Arab people can overthrow him themselves. Just because it takes longer than a couple of months or maybe even years doesn't mean they're incapable of taking matters into their own hands.
What's not to believe? This is a liberal leaning website. Liberals, you know, those guys who oppose invading sovereign nations only when it's supported by a president with a 'R' next to his name.
I give a shit. I am watching things very carefully. This can either be a quick and smooth operation that will dig us a little deeper into debt, or it will erupt into total chaos forcing us to occupy and go the way of Iraq. Regardless, let's make one thing clear, the democrats are fucking hypocrites and fuck politics
This is not about democrats versus republicans AT ALL. This is about many nations of the world planning to commit an act of war against Libya. I don't give a fuck if your president is a democrat or a republican, all I've seen from your country's presidents in the last decades is presidents that will rape the world for financial reasons, whether they are on one side or the other seems to not make a difference. I doubt this could be a quick and smooth operation. In fact I'm pretty sure it can't be. You think Khadaffi is just going to give up if he can't use his planes? You would need to attack his ground forces too, which would most likely decide to hold up in urban areas thus leading to hundreds of not thousands of civilian casualties.
I think we will most likely bomb the hell out of Libya for a few days until Libya doesn't have much of a standing army left, and then an american "small contingency group" will be on the ground for humanitarian aid aka keeping the few rebel-held towns stable and protected. At some point our forces will come into contact with Libya's air force/navy in conventional battles, and at the very least some of our men will die which will enable US/UK/France to push for a full-on U.N.-sanctioned assassination mission against Gaddafi. At this point it's really anyone's guess as to what will happen, but I believe regardless of how the "No Fly Zone" is enacted, western nations will remove Gaddafi from power with force.
What is their plan anyway? How long are they willing to keep that no-fly zone up? Will they leave before Khadaffi steps down? What would be their response in the case of retaliation from Khadaffi? I have no doubt Khadaffi's army would be fucked within days but what would be their plan after he and his army are gone? Do they want to stay to guide the democratic process? I would have no problem with a swift operation that disables Khadaffi from attacking his own people, but I see no way to guarantee this. The way I see it there's two possibilities for the UN: Overthrow Khadaffi's regime, or do nothing. I think there is nothing in between. A no-fly zone would turn into a war for sure, and someone is going to lose in that war.
You guys are a little late to the party. Welcome to two days ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?bl UN btw, not NATO.
But NATO would participate right? From what I understand, NATO is like the UN's military force. Is that correct? But I don't think we're late really, seeing as they haven't taken any action yet.
NATO will participate and play a major role, but they will not be alone. Britain and France are leading the attack, and other UN nations such as those in the Arab League will be providing support as well. There's a seven page thread on it already, and it's been the headline story for every major news outlet for two days. I don't mean to nitpick, but I think that qualifies as late.
no, i don't think the US should have anything to do with declaring war on Libya.. they didn't attack us.. so why do we need to declare war on them?
this. except we aren't even going to declare war. Thats whats so fucked up about our system. We can go to war without a declaration of war from congress. Shit makes me so angry . You can oppose Qaddafi and also oppose a war with Qaddafi thats what people don't understand. ALSO we didn't elect the representatives in the UN who cares what they say
This image is really a big source of my doubt. But you do have to remember that this was right in the beginning of the uprising, when the rebels were still gaining ground and basically winning. Khadaffi had not yet bombed his own people. Also, I've seen a lot of footage of Libyans calling for Western intervention. But for me the fucked up thing here is how easily we all decide to do this. I for one am sick and tired of our leaders declaring wars and military intervention without the people ever having a say it.
"Obama said the Arab League was with us in Libya, but they are now condemning our actions. This bombing does not help our economic interests or protect our national security." - Ron Paul Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya - The Washington Post