Civil War in Libya

[Ice]

Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?

Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.

And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.

Why are we the world's police men? If something needs done, let NATO as a whole do it, or the UN. China wants to be treated a world player... let them send in their military to deal with it. Why is it always us? What exactly do I gain from helping rebels in a country on the other side of the world? I'll be Frank; I don't care about Libya. I'd rather spend money here on education, roads, health care, high speed rail, etc rather than helping some "freedom figthers" that I know little about, in a conflict that isn't any of my business. When we meddle in the affairs of others, history has shown it tends to cost us a lot of money, lives, and ends up making us enemies we don't need.

Edit: By the way, this country has greater worries than your I POD comparison. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

[Noncommunist]

Why are we the world's police men? If something needs done, let NATO as a whole do it, or the UN. China wants to be treated a world player... let them send in their military to deal with it. Why is it always us? What exactly do I gain from helping rebels in a country on the other side of the world? I'll be Frank; I don't care about Libya. I'd rather spend money here on education, roads, health care, high speed rail, etc rather than helping some "freedom figthers" that I know little about, in a conflict that isn't any of my business. When we meddle in the affairs of others, history has shown it tends to cost us a lot of money, lives, and ends up making us enemies we don't need.

Edit: By the way, this country has greater worries than your I POD comparison. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.

Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.

Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.

Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.

Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.

Agreed.

[Ice]

We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.

Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.

Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.

First let me start off by saying this is utter nonsense. What kind of fictional, fairy tale world do you live in? I mean, I honestly should have guessed this from your name "noncommunist". Noncommunist? Communism hasn't been a threat for decades, but it guess it easier to see the world in black and white.

You seem to envision the United States selflessly crusading around the world, without real allies, spreading hope and "freedom" to millions. You are so naive as this government only cares about itself. Very rarely when we do something it is out of the goodness of hearts. Why exactly do you think we did jack **** in Sudan when they were committing genocide? It gets even worse when you talk about doing it without allies. Haven't you learned anything from Iraq? Going in gungho without help is a BAD IDEA. Why don't you volunteer and go fight with the rebels if you want to help. I really am sick wasting money and American lives in third world ****holes where the locals end up hating us, and we install a government that was just as corrupt as the last.

Finally, I could maybe get on the board if this country was prosperous and we had a balanced budget. Your IPOD comment shows me you are clueless about our current situation. How about we forget the IPOD and talk about basic infastructure, education, our budget, and health care. Many of the roads and bridges in this country are in dire need of repair and are outright dangerous. Our schools, for a developed country, are atrocious. Many kids cannot afford a decent college education, and end up settling for a lesser school, or climbing deep in debt. I could go on and on, but I think you are get the point I'm trying to make.

Libya is none our business. Repeat, none of our business. Let the Libyans deal with Libyan problems, and let Americans deal with American problems. When kids in the city of Detroit can actually get a decent education, when the single mom can provide food and heating for her kids, and when this country is not paying billions in interest a year in servicing a ballooning debt, then we can think about Libya.

[Noncommunist]

First let me start off by saying this is utter nonsense. What kind of fictional, fairy tale world do you live in? I mean, I honestly should have guessed this from your name "noncommunist". Noncommunist? Communism hasn't been a threat for decades, but it guess it easier to see the world in black and white.

Actually, that's just a username I've been using over the past couple years. While I am indeed not a communist, I'm not crusading about it or anything.

You seem to envision the United States selflessly crusading around the world, without real allies, spreading hope and "freedom" to millions. You are so naive as this government only cares about itself. Very rarely when we do something it is out of the goodness of hearts. Why exactly do you think we did jack **** in Sudan when they were committing genocide? It gets even worse when you talk about doing it without allies. Haven't you learned anything from Iraq? Going in gungho without help is a BAD IDEA. Why don't you volunteer and go fight with the rebels if you want to help. I really am sick wasting money and American lives in third world ****holes where the locals end up hating us, and we install a government that was just as corrupt as the last.

Of course, the US government is not selfless but I'm saying that of anyone, it has the power and maybe the will to actually do something to help the Libyan people. Also, we didn't go in alone in Iraq, we brought in a couple allies who helped to bring down Saddam. Regardless, we could have done it ourselves if we wanted to do so, we're clearly powerful enough to handle a tin pot dictatorship anywhere in the globe. And while some locals have hated us in Iraq, some other locals hated us when we didn't left them to be massacred after Desert Storm. While it's likely that any new government would be be corrupt in some way or another, they're still going to be better than Gadaffi.

Finally, I could maybe get on the board if this country was prosperous and we had a balanced budget. Your IPOD comment shows me you are clueless about our current situation. How about we forget the IPOD and talk about basic infastructure, education, our budget, and health care. Many of the roads and bridges in this country are in dire need of repair and are outright dangerous. Our schools, for a developed country, are atrocious. Many kids cannot afford a decent college education, and end up settling for a lesser school, or climbing deep in debt. I could go on and on, but I think you are get the point I'm trying to make.

Certainly, those are problems we're trying to fix at this moment. And they are a big deal for Americans. However, compared to anything the Libyans are going through, I don't see how we have much room to complain.

Libya is none our business. Repeat, none of our business. Let the Libyans deal with Libyan problems, and let Americans deal with American problems. When kids in the city of Detroit can actually get a decent education, when the single mom can provide food and heating for her kids, and when this country is not paying billions in interest a year in servicing a ballooning debt, then we can think about Libya.

We are never going to accomplish all of those goals. Nor will any other country be able to accomplish any similar goals. Should nations be entirely fixated on themselves till forever because they cannot fix every last problem? If that had happened, there probably wouldn't have been an America. France of 1778 was in far worse shape than the US in 2011 and they became our ally which enabled us to become our own nation and helped cause democracy to spread around the world.

And what's so special about any one nation that citizens should only care about fellow citizens? Are we not all human?

[PanzerJaeger]

A more realistic assessment.

The current situation in Libya is reminiscent of the situation in Iraq in 1991. Back then, it was expected that Saddam Hussein would soon be overthrown by a popular revolt.

Saddam used his powerful military forces to crush the uprising. Despite international sanctions, he remained in power for another 12 years.

Turning to Libya, it should be no surprise to anyone with a military background that in a desert environment with few large towns and extended lines of communication, Gaddafi’s sub-standard military forces are managing to contain an over-extended and largely disorganised revolutionary rabble - even though its fighters might number in the thousands.

It is unlikely that a countrywide no-fly zone would make a decisive difference to the course of the conflict. Colonel Gaddafi’s forces have large quantities of artillery and mortars and other indirect fire weapons, as well as thousands of armoured vehicles. While much of the equipment is obsolete by Western standards, it is still effective against the poorly equipped anti-Gaddafi forces. Importantly, Gaddafi’s officer corps understands the logistic demands of deployed forces.

Before the uprising, the total number of Libyan personnel in the defence force was estimated by the authoritative International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) at 119,000, with 45,000 reservists. The army is organised into 11 border defence and four security zones, one regime security brigade, 10 tank battalions, 10 mechanised infantry battalions, 18 infantry battalions, six commando battalions, 22 artillery battalions, four surface-to-surface missile (SSM) brigades and seven air defence artillery battalions. It has over 2,000 tanks.

The main suppliers have been Russia, China and Brazil. This year, additional supplies have come from Belarus.

This substantial military force was reduced by defections after the uprising began on February 15, but it is probably safe to assume that Gaddafi could still field at least half that force.

WikiLeaks revealed that in 2009 that the British SAS was providing training to Libyan special forces so we can reasonably assume they are an effective and reliable element.

Much of the international rhetoric about displacing Gaddafi is unconvincing. Many nation states have an interest in seeing the jasmine revolution dissipate in the sands of the Libyan desert, including the Arab Gulf countries, Iran, Israel and the United States – and, further afield, China. The established order in the Middle East suits powerful strategic and economic interests. A domino-like people’s revolution running out of control could threaten regimes that are important allies of the West.

[Ice]

A more realistic assessment.

WikiLeaks revealed that in 2009 that the British SAS was providing training to Libyan special forces so we can reasonably assume they are an effective and reliable element

Haha, opps?

[ICantSpellDawg]

A more realistic assessment.

There will be air to surface strikes, coupled with a no-fly zone in the east and arms transfers if the opposition can hold out a few more days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There will be air to surface strikes, coupled with a no-fly zone in the east and arms transfers if the opposition can hold out a few more days.

Possible, but not yet likely. Thhe Saudis have thus far refused to sell or transfer arms, and Russia and China re unlikely to agree to a no-fly zone. Even then, if Panzar's source is remotely accurate Gaddafi has thousands of tanks, APC's and artillery pieces where his opposition have mainly AK's and a few RPG's.

Even against older Russian tanks RPG's are not very effective. In order for the Rebels to hold their ground artillery and armoured units would have to defect, that is unlikely as only Gaddafi's loyal troops have tanks and artillery.

[Ice]

Of course, the US government is not selfless but I'm saying that of anyone, it has the power and maybe the will to actually do something to help the Libyan people. Also, we didn't go in alone in Iraq, we brought in a couple allies who helped to bring down Saddam. Regardless, we could have done it ourselves if we wanted to do so, we're clearly powerful enough to handle a tin pot dictatorship anywhere in the globe. And while some locals have hated us in Iraq, some other locals hated us when we didn't left them to be massacred after Desert Storm. While it's likely that any new government would be be corrupt in some way or another, they're still going to be better than Gadaffi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N...%E2%80%93_Iraq

The British were the only ones who sent in a sizable amount of troops. Everyone else either send in a few thousand or a couple hundred. These troops were often confined to various noncombat roles and often withdrawn years ago. So yes, it basically was just us for the vast majority of the fighting.

How exactly do you know the person put in power will be better than Gadaffi?

Certainly, those are problems we're trying to fix at this moment. And they are a big deal for Americans. However, compared to anything the Libyans are going through, I don't see how we have much room to complain.

The same can be said about most of the world. What exactly makes Libya so special and why exactly should I care?

We are never going to accomplish all of those goals. Nor will any other country be able to accomplish any similar goals. Should nations be entirely fixated on themselves till forever because they cannot fix every last problem? If that had happened, there probably wouldn't have been an America. France of 1778 was in far worse shape than the US in 2011 and they became our ally which enabled us to become our own nation and helped cause democracy to spread around the world.

The French helped us for a variety of reasons. I'm also not seeing the connection between this and Libya. Just because this nation was helped during its birth in the 18th century by a foreign power doesn't mean I'm obligated to help a totally unrelated country 200 years later.

And what's so special about any one nation that citizens should only care about fellow citizens? Are we not all human?

Yes we are all human. I tend to care more about the people I'm more closely related to though. Countrymen < Friends < Family

Would you sacrifice your own family to save 50 Libyans? After all we are all human.

[Noncommunist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N...%E2%80%93_Iraq

The British were the only ones who sent in a sizable amount of troops. Everyone else either send in a few thousand or a couple hundred. These troops were often confined to various noncombat roles and often withdrawn years ago. So yes, it basically was just us for the vast majority of the fighting.

How exactly do you know the person put in power will be better than Gadaffi?

And so far, Iraq is a developing democracy. Clearly, we can go in "alone"(not counting the rebels as allies) and win against a tin pot dictator. Plus, there have been a number of other conflicts were won by the US without serious allies.

We don't. However, with how bad he's been, it's likely that anyone that does arise won't be worse. And with us as allies, we can exert more pressure on them to be more democratic.

The same can be said about most of the world. What exactly makes Libya so special and why exactly should I care?

Because they've taken the effort to revolt after getting massacred when they were doing protests. And they're clearly asking for help of almost any sort.

The French helped us for a variety of reasons. I'm also not seeing the connection between this and Libya. Just because this nation was helped during its birth in the 18th century by a foreign power doesn't mean I'm obligated to help a totally unrelated country 200 years later.

The point was that just because a country has internal problems doesn't mean that it should forever remain fixated on those problems and should be willing to help a fellow country in need.

Yes we are all human. I tend to care more about the people I'm more closely related to though. Countrymen < Friends < Family

Would you sacrifice your own family to save 50 Libyans? After all we are all human.

But how closely related are you to most Americans? And how many Americans do you know vs how many are strangers to you? And what really is the difference between an American that's a stranger and any other nationality that's a stranger?

[Tuuvi]

It seems to me that the rebels have lost, which makes me sad. But perhaps not all is lost, if Tunisia and Egypt become democratic maybe they can pressure Libya to do the same in the long run.

[Ice]

And so far, Iraq is a developing democracy. Clearly, we can go in "alone"(not counting the rebels as allies) and win against a tin pot dictator. Plus, there have been a number of other conflicts were won by the US without serious allies.

Developing democracy, eh? That's what you call it?

Yes, obviously we can beat up third world countries with outdated soviet made weapons. As you have seen with Afghanistan and Iraq, that wasn't the problem. The problem is spending time and lots of money rebuilding society and the country. Screw that.

We don't. However, with how bad he's been, it's likely that anyone that does arise won't be worse. And with us as allies, we can exert more pressure on them to be more democratic.

So you have no idea who the rebels are, but will support them on the basis that they must be better than Gadhaffi and they will somehow become democratic?

lol

Because they've taken the effort to revolt after getting massacred when they were doing protests. And they're clearly asking for help of almost any sort.

That's what tends to happen when your country has a young population without basic rights, and a third of your workforce is unemployed.

The point was that just because a country has internal problems doesn't mean that it should forever remain fixated on those problems and should be willing to help a fellow country in need.

Once again, why should I care exactly? This country has internal problems and so do various other countries. This is not your business.

But how closely related are you to most Americans? And how many Americans do you know vs how many are strangers to you? And what really is the difference between an American that's a stranger and any other nationality that's a stranger?

Shared

-Culture
-Customs
-Values