Here we go: US "considering ALL options" in Libya

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

oammar Gadhafi's snipers and tanks are terrorizing civilians in Libya's third-largest city, and the U.S. military said Tuesday it was "considering all options" in response to dire conditions that have left people cowering in darkened homes and scrounging for food and rainwater.

U.S. Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear said intelligence confirmed that Gadhafi's forces were attacking Misrata's civilians and said the international coalition was "considering all options" there. He did not elaborate, but Misrata is one of the cities that President Barack Obama has demanded that Gadhafi forces evacuate.

**eta this part of the article:

Locklear said the coalition is "considering all options" but didn't elaborate. Asked if international forces were stepping up strikes on Gadhafi ground troops, Locklear said that as the "capability of the coalition" grows, it will be able to do more missions aimed at ground troops who are not complying with the U.N. resolution to protect those seeking Gadhafi's ouster.


Only a no fly zone, huh?

:eyes:

as long as there were no foreign ground forces inserted?

included "all options necessary" to protect civilians, excluding boots on the ground.

Which doesn't exclude use of ground troops.

Do they hover over the ground or something?

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution

Ground troops are not necessarily an occupation force. It's possible to deploy ground troops in support of overall objectives while not ultimately occupying.

See also this:

I never once heard "no occupation forces".

"no ground forces" (and does say "all measures necessary"); which leaves room for use of ground forces in support of air strikes, etc.

if there are boots on the ground.

of that (possibly special forces). If it helps with accurate targeting to reduce the chance of civilian casualties I would think it a good thing, considering the context.

language is a subtle thing.

They aren't as smart as advertised, and if the past is any indication there are a few dozen Air Force combat control personnel in Libya now.

Just as possible as unauthorized options, I think.

I believe, and I may be a fool, that that is what they will do - stick to the UN resolution.

all options authorized by the UN resolution. :)

that the resolution authorizes ground forces. There are already many *advisors* on the ground. Gen Clark said he didn't think the US will commit ground forces but that the French, the UK and the Italians are planning to. If you look at the history of North Africa, the French and the Italians aren't remembered with any fondness after what they did in Algeria and Libya. In Algeria the French brutally killed over a million and a half Algerians and what the Italians did was so atrocious they just 2 years ago agreed to pay $5 billion in reparations. They laid over 170,000 landmines, burned down homes, plugged the water wells with cement, destroyed their crops, slaughtered people, marched 1000s off to Italy where their fate is, to this day, still unknown. For decades they refused to give Libya maps of where the landmines were. They finally turned those over in 2006. We may not know or remember but the Libyans do. Their landmines are still killing Libyans today and Italy was forced to finally establish a special hospital to fir the victims with artificial limbs.







If anything will rally Libyans to Gaddafi's side, it'll be Western boots on the ground.

:shrug: It's sand, after all. :dunce:

:D

:evilgrin:

But your response was definitelu DUzy-worthy. :D

It won't be an occupation, we'll just have troops there temporarily to protect Libyan civilians for the next five decades or so.

a multi-decade occupation. And I don't expect to see one.

And what you are supposed to expect.

I cannot see any wiggle room.

...the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory ...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Hmmmm, this is starting to look more and more familiar...

are as good as money in the bank. :patriot:

"no fly zone" was only an element of this. Day one they blew up a line of tanks. Last I checked, tanks don't fly.

You heard "no american troops on the ground", there always were many other countries involved.

You need to listen more carefully.

Somehow I suspect minding our own fucking business isn't on that list of options.

Once again, Mr. President, you can color me unimpressed. Too bad Congress doesn't have the intestional fortitude to revoke the funding for your military ventures.

"all options necessary" to protect the civilians, but not boots on the ground.

that we only want to use our military to protect civilians in countries where there are oil reserves?

Maybe we should focus on protecting some of our own citizens. Maybe we should apply a consistent standard as wo when military intervention in other nations is warranted - a standard that looks beyond oil reserves. Maybe if we can't do those things we should mind our own fucking business.

I believe that protecting the Libyans is a worthwhile cause.

I believe in getting US voters to vote out those who are hurting in the US.

Unfortunately, Libyans cannot vote out Gaddafi.

Unfortunately, US citizens who had the vote did not stop the Republicans and Tea Partiers from gaining seats.

If the US voters would be thankful that all they had to do was vote and not have to fight to get what they want, maybe things would be better in the US. All it takes here IS TO VOTE. This is what the Libyans are dying for - the opportunity to VOTE people out that they do not want.

So be as negative as you and all the others want to be about what is happening in Libya, but the above paragraph summarizes my thoughts at this time.

to vote for a candidate that will serve to advance and protect my needs and interests - and those of others similarly situtated. While I am happy to vote for Dems rather than Pukes it seems that far too many Dems are more interested in serving interests other than my own. All too often I am left to choose between the best of two bad candidates. I hear cheap talk from candidates who often lack both the ability and the desire to deliver on their promises. Some resort to selling intangible hopes. While that does not afford a valid reason not to vote it certainly diminishes both the value and the meaning of that vote.

Our first obligation ought to be to take care of our own. We live in a nation where millions of people call a sidewalk, a park bench or a cardboard box home. Millions more cannot afford to feed themselves. Tens of millions do not have meaningful access to healthcare - and may not have under the so-called healthcare reform legislation. We have mentally ill people that go undiagnosed and without treatment. Our economy is so fucked up that we cannot create enough new jobs to meet the employment needs of new workforce entrants - much less the unemployed and underemployed. We won't talk about whether those jobs pay a living wage. Our infrastructure is crumbling. The tax burden has been shifted from for-profit businesses to the working class. And we lack the ability to manufacture our own socks and skivvies.

While I have no problem lending aid to Libyans who are trying to advance their own interests I do not think it is appropriate for us to intervene in the domestic affairs of another nation. Sometimes we need to mind our own damn business. I would much prefer that my tax dollars be used to house the homeless, feed the hungry, provide healthcare, rebuild our infrastructure and create jobs.

How hypocritical is it to make a moral argument and intervene on behalf of the downtrodden in another nation when we do not act to improve the life circumstances of our own less fortunate citizens?






Here's a link to government data detailing the extent of poverty in the US:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

Our poverty rate is approaching 15%. A quick review of the graph on page 14 will show that our poverty rate for the last 45 years has largely been below its current rate.

The resolution was vetoed by China and Russia.

This time China and Russia abstained rather than vetoing. Ask them why the change in their approach to protecting civilians. Was it because Libya has oil and Burma doesn't?

Which is why the West would be interested in "protecting civilians" in Burma particularly since the West gets none of its exports. Due to economic sanctions, the US is prohibited from importing any of Burma's goods. The only way the US could take advantage of Burma's natural gas and other exports is if they did a handy dandy regime change. China gets a great deal of Burma's exports which would have behoved China to veto Western intervention.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm
Burma Economy
GDP: $27.55 billion (2009 estimate).
Annual growth rate: 5.3% (2010 estimate). The Burmese Government’s economic growth statistics are not released regularly and lack credibility.
GDP per capita: $469 (2010 estimate).
Inflation rate: 10% (2010 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimate).
Natural resources: natural gas, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, limestone, precious stones, hydropower, marine products, and petroleum.
Agriculture: Products--rice, pulses, beans, sesame, peanuts, sugarcane, hardwood.
Industries: Types--natural gas, agricultural processing, knit and woven apparel, wood and wood products, cement, paper, cotton, cotton yarn, sugar, mining, construction materials, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizer.
Recorded trade (based on 2008 statistics from Business Information Group): Exports--$6.6 billion. Types--natural gas 38%, agricultural products 18%, precious and semi-precious stones 11%, timber and forest products 8%, and marine products 5%. Major markets--Thailand 40%, Hong Kong 11%, India 11%, Singapore 13%, China 7.5%, and Malaysia 5%. Imports--$3.4 billion. Types--lubricant oil and diesel 16.9%, textiles and fabrics 8.6%, machinery parts 8.7%, and steel, iron, and bars 5.8%. Major suppliers--Singapore 30%, China 18%, Bahamas 13% Thailand 6%, and Japan 5%. U.S. economic sanctions prohibit the import of Burmese-origin goods into the U.S. and while U.S. exports to Burma (other than financial services) are permitted, very little trade flows in that direction.

I want details.

I think it was sarcasm and a reference to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=713667&mesg_id=713667

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

These are just marketing terms.

They won't be called ground troops either. They will be "military advisors" or something that sounds equally tame.

that's a smart thing to say.

Maybe you should try to understand the difference between the threat of force versus actual force. Doesn't it make more sense to threaten force than actually have to use it?

Someone on cnn said "qadafi has wmds and might still be developing nukes"

blah, I give up...people crave to be hoodwinked it seems

If you thought that, then you made it up in your own head because you were too busy screaming to pay attention or think.

"Limited role" my ass.

Meanwhile, the Provisional Government has set up its own Petroleum Company.

China and Russia condemn, Germany withdraws from Nato operations, the Arab League wavers and waffles as its members try to deny their decreasing legitimacy in their oppressive regimes, the Norwegians ground their fighters until clarity of mission materializes out of thin air, and chaos continues among Democrats and Republicans.

Politics makes for strange enough bedfellows, but this is WAR, so there's a whole lot of plookin' goin' on.

Are you willing to make a positive stand on it?