No-fly, shmo-fly...this is war!

Forget humanitarian mission. NATO is supporting an armed insurgency to oust an evil dictator. Let's just call it what it is. Most ironic? Qatar and UAE will fly missions in Libya while helping to put down an uprising in Bahrain. two-timers.

in that part of the ME spooked. They are afraid to lose another country to Iranian influence.

That doesn't mean they are not willing to help Sunni democracy protestors in Libya.

Shiite democracy bad?

Of course at least we aren't as bad as the Republican who claimed today that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect Muslims.. just Christians.

Iran is an huge strategic competitor in the region, and they are concerned with Iran becoming more powerful.

Also, it is easy to tolerate somebody else's Democracy protests, especially since by all reports they don't like Qaddafi.

in Iraq, however. Right?

This is starting to sound like an Abbot and Costello bit.

By an accident of history, the former regime was Sunni. There is a breach between the two great branches of Islam that is at play as well as regional power politics.

It would be comforting if things were simple, if it was all about oil or Democracy or tyranny, but there are a lot of historical currents moving things.

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

or the once democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran

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

Our hands are clean now?

in that little ditty about Mosaddegh. He was trying to nationalize the oil industry in Iran when we threw him in jail. So, even though many will try to distract me from my claim that its always about the oil, no thanks. When we invaded Iraq, we didn't bother protecting any other national treasure in the country. Flew straight to the oil fields and set up guard. You can have eternal battles between religions, classes, political parties, and ethnic groups, but as long as the oil keeps flowing, that is, really, the most important thing.

You all seem like you wish the French hadn't helped us out.

I think we helped the French out

:rofl:

(laughing at myself and lack of clarity)

Have to say many of my French friends hate Sarkozy

Why is it unfair? Was it unfair when the insurgents were being killed by better armed US soldiers in Iraq? What makes an alleged monopoly "fair" or "unfair?"

During our civil war. Which was a very popular revolution and the north had an "unfair" advantage.

the revolutionary war?

The "rebel states" rose up against the established government and were very bloodily put down. In the process they received aid from both Britain and France and tried, desperately, to get them to intervene on their side.

Saudi Arabia, international neocons and the same monarchies crushing their own protesters are supporting the rebels. Noam Chomsky, Georges Galloway, Medea Benjamin, and the activists who were the most consistently vocal, from the start before it became fashionable, against the neocon's war in Iraq are sounding the same alarms. Think people think.

Rec'd

I am thinking for myself.

We had a no fly zone in Iraq which was successful.

When Bush lied for months, forging evidence, kicked the inspectors out, then started bombing the crap out of the civilians and their infrastructure....then we called it a war.

And Iraq is still going on. Millions of Iraqis have been killed. They still do not have water or power.

And of course Afghanistan.

I suggest 'peace activists' focus on ending those very obvious examples of war.

so, don't suggest we get picky all of a sudden.
:)

but not much else. It never protected the Shiites and it never got rid of Hussein. In fact, the no-fly zone and embargoes hurt the people of Iraq much more than it hurt their dictator.

Calling A War A War
24 MAR 2011 07:02 PM

Dennis Ross labeled the conflict in Libya "a limited humanitarian intervention, not war." Ackerman rolls his eyes:

It’s true that not every application of military force is a war. Reasonable people can disagree, but when Saddam Hussein’s removal of weapons inspectors in 1998 prompted four days of U.S. and British bombs and missile strikes, that didn’t quite rise to the level of a whole new war. By contrast, the concerted, open-ended multinational application of naval and air power to enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” to forcibly change the political behavior of a head of state — that’s something that Carl von Clausewitz would recognize in an instant. Call it smart, call it stupid, but please don’t call it anything besides war.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/calling-it-a-war.html

Calling it a no-fly zone is just spin.

I'm just glad we're helping them.

Is that the strategic goal - to ensure that each side is evenly matched and can engage in parity?

Resolution 1973 only makes possible the no-fly zone, the weapons embargo and the cease-fire. (So that also means: there will be no boots on the ground in Libya.) The remarks made by the Obama-administration, that Qaddafi has to go, express the White House's personal preferred outcome. The bombing that's going on now is done to prevent Qaddafi from violating the cease-fire, as he's doing constantly. As far as I know, we're not arming the rebels.

The rebels have some small arms and are running out of ammo. No organization.

I think I choose not to drink this kool-aid.

The bombing that's going on is done to prevent Qaddafi from violating the cease-fire, as he's doing constantly. Our F16's are there to make sure Qaddafi will not violate the no-fly zone, and to make sure the weapons embargo is not violated (no planes with weapons smuggled into the country, for example).

But please don't keep throwing the"fair fight" excuse at me. It makes it seem like we are refereeing a boxing match. In which case we'd have to tie Mike Tyson's arms behind his back and put a bag over his head in order to let Pee Wee Herman kick him in the shins all day. This is a war, we are fighting with Qaddafi. The rebels are pretty much insignificant in terms of how much damage they can do.

Now, what the White House may prefer is a whole other story. But NATO is there to give the rebels the chance to oust him themselves, which they were well on their way doing until Qaddafi stroke back.

is blowin in the wind, the answer is blowin in the wind

Actually, the UK has stated it on several occasions only to cause an uproar. France has indicated that as an ultimate goal but I don't think went as far as the UK did.

You take out Gaddafi's heavy armaments and there's nothing stopping citizens from retaking the streets as they did in Tripoli.

NATO reluctant to take command of Libya strikes
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Mar 25, 2011 16:30:05 EDT

Military officials consider the enforcement of the no-fly zone and the strikes on Libyan military ground forces to be two distinct missions. For now, the mission to protect Libyan civilians using air strikes on Libyan military forces “will remain in U.S. hands until such time as the coalition is ready to assume it,” Gortney said.

until Qaddafi is gone (or changes his wardrobe).