Lybia

[denuseri]

So whats everyone think about whats going on in Lybia?

[thir]

So whats everyone think about whats going on in Lybia?

Uh - lots! That we should help them there, and do, but cannot afford it. That it could easily go wrong. Whether all the coalition can make good work together. That it is not good that the Arab League has withdrawn support of this. That there seems to be a lack of precise goals.

Most of all, yes, we should do this, but what mess happens afterwards??

[TantricSoul]

I was just thinking about posting the same question ...

I am amazed at recent events in the middle east.
So we are for democracy in Egypt,Tunisia,and Libya, but not in Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia? I'm confused. ;)

And wasnt Qaddafi just recently one of our best allies in The War on Terror? Yeah hes been a good boy, renounced all his bad ways, and was helping us fight Al Qaeda (which is who he said started this whole uprising)
and now we just spent a quick $100 million (ahem ... where's the freaking Tea Partiers when you need them?) "protecting" innocent civilians by killing people. mmmhmmm ... yeah thats a proven strategy alright. Already we are one plane down, but Lockheed Martin doesnt mind, they have a brand new F- whatever to replace it with for a measly $300 + mil. (on a serious note, thankfully the f-15 crew is safe) Oh wait ... even that news is tainted with "6 civilians shot during pilot rescue" headlines ... now were those the innocent civilians, or the Libyian Military civilians, the bad mercenary civilians or the evil Al Qaeda civilians? cause you know depending on which that may be good or bad.

Ah crap now im all confused as to where my rant was headed ... and that about the state of things folks ... its all so confusing.

But who cares? I mean, this is the kind of war we like ... we get to go in, take apart another country's military structure with incredible lethality and efficiency, put it on the news for entertainment, woo hoo gunboat diplomacy at its best!
Brilliant! Im superbly confident that our wise leaders will hand this mess off to someone else before we have to stop blowing up Qaddafi's forces and start blowing up the rebel forces, right? or maybe the rebels have a way to conduct a civil war without killing any innocent civilians? That would be a nice change.

All I can say is its a good thing we aren't attacking yet another Muslim country with an oil industry, because that probably wouldn't look so good for us in the Middle East right now. I mean, even if the Arab League (so well know for its decisive and quick actions, oh and don't forget undying loyalty) came knocking on the UN door and asked for help theres no way we could be THAT dumb ... right?

~ sarcastically saddened,
Tantric

[denuseri]

A distraught Libyan woman stormed into a Tripoli hotel Saturday to tell foreign reporters that government troops raped her, setting off a brawl when hotel staff and government minders tried to detained her.

Iman al-Obeidi was tackled by waitresses and government minders as she sat telling her story to journalists after she rushed into the restaurant at the Rixos hotel where a number of foreign journalists were eating breakfast.

She claimed loudly that troops had detained her a checkpoint, tied her up, abused her, then led her away to be gang raped.

Her story could not be independently verified, but the dramatic scene provided a rare firsthand glimpse of the brutal crackdown on public dissent by Moammar Gadhafi's regime as the Libyan leader fights a rebellion against his rule that began last month.

The regime has been keeping up a drumbeat of propaganda in the Tripoli-centered west of the country under its control even as it faces a weeklong international air campaign against the Libyan military.

Before she was dragged out of the hotel, al-Obeidi managed to tell journalists that she was detained by a number of troops who were drinking whiskey. She said a number of others who she said remained in custody. She said she was detained on Wednesday but didn't tell how she escaped this morning. She said she was raped by 15 men.

"They defecated and urinated on me and tied me up," she said, her face streaming with tears. "They violated my honor, look at what the Gadhafi militiamen did to me."

The woman, who appeared in her 30's, wore a black robe and orange scarf around her neck and identified herself. She had scratches on her face and she pulled up her black robe to reveal a bloodied thigh.

The Associated Press only identifies rape victims who volunteer their names.

"As soon as I leave here they will take me right to jail," she yelled at the journalists.

As she spoke, a hotel waitress brandished a butter knife and called her a traitor while another waitress covered al-Obeidi's head with a coat to keep her from talking.

"We're supposed to be all Libyans, we are all brothers, but this is what the Gadhafi militia men did to me," al-Obeidi cried to the hotel staff as she struggled with them and the government minders.

Journalists who tried to intervene to protect the woman were pushed out of the way by the minders. A British television reporter was punched in the face, and CNN's camera was smashed on the ground and ripped to pieces by the government minders.

"Look at what happens — Gadhafi's militiamen kidnap women at gunpoint, and rape them ... they rape them," al-Obeidi screamed before government minders pushed her into a car and drove her away.

At a hastily arranged press conference after the incident, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said investigators had told him the woman was drunk and possibly mentally challenged.

"We have to find her family and see if she was really abused or not," he said.

Gadhafi's crackdown has been the region's most violent against the wave of anti-government protests sweeping the Middle East. Tensions have been rising between foreign reporters in the Libyan capital and the government minders who have sought to tightly control what they see and whom they talk to. Most of the international press corps is being housed at the Rixos hotel.

[thir]

In conflict the first casualty is the truth, they say. We only have fragmentated bit of news, even from the rebel areas as well. Is rape a big problem in these areas? I remember when a woman journalist in Cairo was gang raped during the tumults there with, I think, both sides milling around.

I saw it too, and it was almost incomprehensible to see her getting pulled out again, with no hope of saftey - you just sat there hopping in the chair with this incredible urge to Do something, and you cannot do a bloody thing!

I guess that this is the kind of thing that make some of us support the coalition, true or not, right or not. That situation is certainly as complex as they come, and I wonder if there are any right answers in terms of intervention? I am thinking of the whole area.

It is probably first time that we see anything from a conflict that is not wholly controlled by mililitary. And it certainly makes it all horribly real.

[thir]

I am amazed at recent events in the middle east.
So we are for democracy in Egypt,Tunisia,and Libya, but not in Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia? I'm confused. ;)


You are so right. It really is disgusting!
Yet, what to do?
Could we intervene in the whole area???
Or should they sort it out themselves?



But who cares? I mean, this is the kind of war we like ... we get to go in, take apart another country's military structure with incredible lethality and efficiency, put it on the news for entertainment, woo hoo gunboat diplomacy at its best!
Brilliant! Im superbly confident that our wise leaders will hand this mess off to someone else before we have to stop blowing up Qaddafi's forces and start blowing up the rebel forces, right? or maybe the rebels have a way to conduct a civil war without killing any innocent civilians? That would be a nice change.


In truth I would like a lot more discussion/talk about this, because it is hopelessly tangled and complex, and, oil apart, I am not sure that there are any right answers.

[denuseri]

Well its obvious to me the only reason you see us interveaning at all in this place as opposed to the others is in fact due to the oil intrests of the europeans....and as ussual the USA appears to be taking on the vast majority of the cost in manpower and equipment compared to their so called allies.

And it doesnt seem to matter what we do or do not...we will be highly critisized by all for it.

[IAN 2411]

Well its obvious to me the only reason you see us interveaning at all in this place as opposed to the others is in fact due to the oil intrests of the europeans....and as ussual the USA appears to be taking on the vast majority of the cost in manpower and equipment compared to their so called allies.

And it doesnt seem to matter what we do or do not...we will be highly critisized by all for it.

I dont think that is quite true denu, i think you will find that the Americans are taking a back row seat because it is a European problem. It is also to be expected, because as i as a UK citizen feel that the USA cannot afford to be in every conflict that is ongoing. This is a conflict that if the USA were involved on a greater scale then i think there would be WW condemnation of the USA. The USA will be there to give support but i think that is due to the seventh fleet being in the Med and thats all.

And since when has the UK been one of the USA's so called allies? Maybe we ought to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan if that is all we are and let you get on with keeping the peace world wide. But then i am forgetting the USA won WW11 in Europe without the same so called Allies the UK was the other side of the English channel. "Right"

Regards Ian

[denuseri]

If the USA is taking such a back seat how is it the vast majority ( like 100 of 104 cruise missles fired for one example ) of military force being applied in the region belongs to the US and a small fraction belongs to our European friends >?

As for WW2......if the USA hadn't of came in and answered your pleas for help...you more than likely would be speaking German today instead of English.

[lucy]

If the USA is taking such a back seat how is it the vast majority ( like 100 of 104 cruise missles fired for one example ) of military force being applied in the region belongs to the US and a small fraction belongs to our European friends >?[/COLOR][/B]
Because, like, cruise missiles need to be replaced, once in a while. They have a "best used before"-date printed on them.


As for WW2......if the USA hadn't of came in and answered your pleas for help...you more than likely would be speaking German today instead of English.
Rubbish. America didn't answer pleas for help, you took care of your own interest.

[thir]

Well its obvious to me the only reason you see us interveaning at all in this place as opposed to the others is in fact due to the oil intrests of the europeans....and as ussual the USA appears to be taking on the vast majority of the cost in manpower and equipment compared to their so called allies.


6 planes is a lot from a country with 5 million people.
Do you even know what others send?



And it doesnt seem to matter what we do or do not...we will be highly critisized by all for it.

Yes, we will.

[thir]

I dont think that is quite true denu, i think you will find that the Americans are taking a back row seat because it is a European problem.


How is what is going on the the near East and North Africa a European problem specifically??



And since when has the UK been one of the USA's so called allies?

Since it keeps going where the US wants.

I think Libya is different, though.

[thir]

If the USA is taking such a back seat how is it the vast majority ( like 100 of 104 cruise missles fired for one example ) of military force being applied in the region belongs to the US and a small fraction belongs to our European friends >?


I think we can assume that all the countries are supplying what they can. It is not 'Europe' that is participating, it is different countries, each about the size of one or two states, expect for the really small ones.

Can we stop whining and accusing each other about how much we put in, and get back to what the whole round of conflicts is about?


As for WW2......if the USA hadn't of came in and answered your pleas for help...you more than likely would be speaking German today instead of English. [/QUOTE]
[/quote]

Well yes, the war was well under way without US participation until Pearl Harbour was bombed. But you may be right about the outcome.

However, I thought this thread was about the uprisings in North Africa?

[denuseri]

It is thir..I am not the one who brought up WW2.

Though it may be worth examining.

Winston Churchill came to the USA and pleaded with FDR for "help" in the War and together they tried to convience Americans that it was in our intrest to "help" "over there" and yes altough we didnt come over in directly with our Army in force until after he could get congress to declare war, (we promptly btw put the war against the people who attacked us on the back burner and took a Europe comes first poliecy) we for many years before that sent tons and tons of supplies, ships, planes and people to keep Brittian and Russia from both being overwhelmed by a better prepared and at the time militarally superior agressor.

Being the size of one or two states didnt stop Germany from occupying an area larger than what Napolean conquored with a military force larger than what we have currently, so thats a rather spurious corelation to draw considering. The fact of the matter is Europeans in general took a back seat in so far as military spending goes ever since Regan decided to out spend the Russians in the cold war.

If I wasnt aware of the disproportanate military responce of resource allocation I wouldnt have brought it up, seems however I am to stand as a proxy effegy in your eyes for American forgien policey so the bad rep thingy starts and applies universally, guess I shouldnt make self fuffiling prophecies conserning who takes the brunt of the disaproval huh..

And if you read my post before Ian decided to breech into the thread with WW2 as a sidebar I was speaking directly as to why you see us intervening at all in Libya when we did not bother in Egypt or in the other areas as much if at all.

OIL OIL OIL

In Iraq it was control of the oil in the region.

In Afganistan its control of a region that borders Iran (strategic importance).

In Libiya its control of the oil that goes primaraly to others, namely to our friends in Europe which is why I believe Ian said its chiefly a european issue. Not "whining at all" just stating the facts.

As for what the recent bout of conflicts in the middle east are really about?

Food prices going sky high is imho the straw that broke the camels back.

As supply from forgien contributors dropped when they switched much of their food production away from making things to eat so they could re-allocate it to making fuel substitutes (ie bio fuels) to help offset the ever dwindeling oil supply it has cuase a reduction in food supplies which in turn increased the prices.

Like allmost every other time history...interupt the nessesities under the right conditions and the massess riot or revolt.

What I am saying is:

Basically if your Country doesnt have something of eaither strategic military or vital resouce importance that the USA or its allies wants really bad, or wishes to deny our enemies...forget about us bothing to intervene for very long on your behalf.


PS:

For the sake of clairification when I said "so called" allies I was not refering specifically to Great Brittian so much as I was to a certian collective of mainland eroupeans who are allies by nessecity wether they really wish to be or not. (a topic that perhaps deserves it's own thread lol) So I do applogize for the misunderstanding I should have been more clear.

[Thorne]

I haven't been keeping up with this issue as well as I should, so I may be a little out of tune here, but I have seen several trends in these, and other, comments, which bother me.

As to why the US is involved at all, while not getting involved elsewhere, this is quite simple. So far, this is the only country where armed rebellion has broken out, the "freedom fighters" actually taking the field against the military. Additionally, these rebels specifically called for help from the UN. As a part of the UN, and of NATO, it is perfectly acceptable for the US to become involved. No declaration of war is necessary, so no input from Congress.

The change of government in Egypt was accomplished mostly through (relatively) peaceful protests, with the military taking a back seat for the most part. There was no request for aid. Therefore, no reason to intervene. The same applies to other countries which are experiencing these problems. (Syria may be the next stop for the UN, though. Things do seem to be getting out of hand there, too.)

As for the complaint that the US is only looking out for its own best interests, well, DUH! Whose best interests SHOULD we be looking out for? People complain when the US interferes, then complain even louder when we don't. Maybe we aren't taking on your particular cause and you feel slighted. Tough shit. Like any other nation, the US must FIRST look out for its own interests, as perceived by the politicians. Unfortunately, this generally means what is best for the corporations which control the politicians, not necessarily for the people who elected them. But in reality, how is this different from any other nation around the world?

[IAN 2411]

As for WW2......if the USA hadn't of came in and answered your pleas for help...you more than likely would be speaking German today instead of English.

I already speak German and I didn’t have to be a loser to learn it. Yes you did send all those supplies to the British....But it was no gift....we only finished paying our war debt to the Americans les than ten years ago. I draw the line as this is an unwanted side bar.


How is what is going on the near East and North Africa a European problem specifically??


Because Ghadafi had threatened the UK and Europe with reprisals, before we got the no fly zone.

Be well IAN

[IAN 2411]

The whole point of this conflict is not so much oil....even if it is in the backs of the French and British minds, but about the human slaughter of civilians by Ghadafi's tanks and aircraft. I for one see nothing wrong with that, and as the 1974 brief says no UN or NATO troops on the ground.

Be well IAN

[denuseri]

According to Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns:


There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

___

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

___

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

___

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

___

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

___

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

___

[IAN 2411]

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.


Yes I have to agree with all that, Britain has its own refuelling tankers, but its capability is limited. We did not have the capability to refuel the rest of the alliance. We grounded our intelligence gathering planes just before Christmas 2010 due to old age and no replacements.



OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

The 1974 agreement by the UN always sounded elastic and being open for multiple interpretations. If civilians are being fired on by tanks and armour then it is a justifiable act to take out the offending armour. [Irrespective of the fact that the civilians, and are carrying rifles and trying to liberate their own country]. A little naughty I think.
___

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

The fact is that NATO have now taken over, but it only did so if it agreed to abided by the UN 1974 Agreement and this means [That America along with the Allied Forces are not at war but still on humanity protection duties].


"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Come on denu, have you just realised that politicians and campaigning Presidents tell lies?





OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."


The fact is denu that they are correct in what they are saying, but it is not about the military falling in line with the people and changing sides, it is all about the person on the street wanting his/her country back from a dangerous Dictator that is shutting them out of world affairs. Colonal Gadhafi is the military, and it will take a lot more shit before they throw their hand in with the freedom fighters. They will fight with their last breath before the military leaders relinquish control.




The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.




I think if 80% the North Korean population started a revolution tomorrow morning, America would be there at the drop of a hat. Both Countries have been testing each other for too long and sooner or later something will give. That pushy little tyrant has been crossing the line for too long, so let’s all be realistic it’s a matter of when not if?

Be well IAN

[denuseri]

The fact is that NATO have now taken over, but it only did so if it agreed to abided by the UN 1974 Agreement and this means [That America along with the Allied Forces are not at war but still on humanity protection duties.

Thats doesnt change the fact the the USA isnt following it's own rules conserning the use of military force.

Come on denu, have you just realised that politicians and campaigning Presidents tell lies?



You may wish to keep in mind that the paticular post your responding too isnt my own personal views on the subject ( I havent come out yet with my own personal views on what the right thing to do or not on the issue is or isnt) but as noted at the top a quote from a couple of reporters.

[thir]

[B][COLOR="pink"]It is thir..I am not the one who brought up WW2.


Actually, I was responding to your "As for WW2......if the USA hadn't of came in and answered your pleas for help...you more than likely would be speaking German today instead of English."

What I suggested was that we drop it.

[denuseri]

According to the Ap:

Last Thursday March 24th, President Barack Obama, just back from a five-day trip to Latin America, convened his national security team for a White House meeting on Libya.

The meeting came five days into the U.S.'s air strikes targeting Libyan air defenses and military sites. And some lawmakers on Capitol Hill were already expressing misgivings over what they said were insufficient White House consultations with Congress on the nature and depth of America's military commitment there.

The Thursday meeting appeared as a sort of afterthought in the publicly announced March 24 schedule for the president: "Also in the afternoon, the President will meet with his national security team to review our efforts in Libya." But the confab stretched from the afternoon into evening--and by the time it wound down, CIA Director Leon Panetta had offered to send CIA personnel covertly to work on the ground in Libya.

"Once again, we were the only ones at the table who stepped up," Panetta later described the Agency role, according to a source who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive consultations.
A CIA spokesman did not immediately respond to a query on the CIA's role in Libya, which was first reported Wednesday by the New York Times.

There were many reasons the sudden commitment of personnel came from the CIA, and not the U.S. military. Not surprisingly, political concerns place high on that list, with a war-weary American public skeptical about any more long-term troop commitments in the Arab world. Indeed, on March 18, Obama had explicitly told a group of congressional leaders at a White House briefing on Libya that he had not authorized any deployment of U.S. ground troops, according to Hill officials with knowledge of the briefing.

That same refrain was repeated today, in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.

Asked by a committee member if there were any U.S. "boots on the ground" in Libya, Gates responded: "Not that I am aware of," and then added: "The opposition said they don't want any."

Gates then fielded another question about the likelihood of a later deployment of U.S. troops on the ground in Libya.

"Not as long as I am in the job," he replied sharply.

So with no U.S. ground troops in play, the CIA is tasked with gathering intelligence and performing logistical groundwork at a critical stage of the effort to rein in Muammar Gadhafi from brutalizing civilians and tip the balance against him in Libya's civil war.

Former CIA officers who have worked on the region said they believed the operatives are gathering intelligence on the Libyan opposition forces, to help better assess who the rebels are and what are their capabilities and organization structures, to inform U.S. decision-making including on possibly training them. Additionally, the former officials say, CIA personnel would be helping identify targets for precision air strikes.

"They are in there collecting intelligence, deepening our understanding of who the rebels are," one former U.S. intelligence officer who has worked on the Middle East told The Envoy Thursday on condition of anonymity. "It gives intelligence color to what is in fact a covert action, interacting with the rebels. They are not doing quasi-covert diplomacy, they are doing intelligence."

Air-strike logistics will also be a critical component of the CIA mission, the former intelligence said. "In the paramilitary world, where you've got an air campaign, you need what are called FACs—forward air controllers—someone who can provide coordinates [for targets]," he explained. "In modern warfare, you don't drop 1,000 bombs to hit one target."

Of course, there's a disconnect between the White House's depiction of the Libyan mission as a bid to stave off a humanitarian catastrophe, and the recent reports suggesting deepening covert U.S. involvement on the ground. But the former senior intelligence official said it would be naive to have believed it would have been otherwise once the first U.S. Patriot missiles exploded in Libya last Saturday.

"I would hope there was not a single person in the administration [involved in Libya decision-making] who was childish enough to think that anybody who was involved in the first military operation … could ever again be engaged in a relationship with the Gadhafi regime," the source said. "It ain't going to happen. Of course we took sides. We crossed that rubicon."

But another former CIA officer took a different view, saying the disconnect may arise from a certain degree of wishful thinking in the administration's initial decision-making on Libya.

"It's really simple: we incrementally get involved and [then] don't know what to do," the second former CIA officer said. The Obama administration "really thought a little pressure and he [Gadhafi] will fall."

"The model is we [the CIA] go in and do a limited amount of training," the second former CIA official said. "So there is someone we can work with—as we increase air operations, and eventually hit artillery and armor."

"Those clowns are not able to do anything effective until they are trained and have new weaponry, " likely from Egypt, the former CIA officer said, referring to the Libyan rebels. He suggested the CIA's ground-branch division, which includes many personnel who have para-military backgrounds, may also "train the Libyan rebels how to fight, how to shoot, how to organize into groups."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee Thursday that he estimated there were only 1,000 Libyan rebels who had a real military background. The rebels are joined by civilians without much military experience. Mullen also estimated that Muammar Gadhafi had a 10-to-one advantage in military weaponry over the rebels, including tanks and armored vehicles.

Defense Secretary Gates, a former CIA analyst and CIA director, offered lawmakers three possible scenarios for Libya.

"I think there are several alternative outcomes," Gates told the House panel Thursday. "One is that someone from his military takes him out and then cuts a deal with the opposition. ... Another would be the tribes abandon him and cut their own deals with each other. Another alternative —our preferred option—[is that] these opposition forces and tribes come together and begin to create a democratic state that protects rights of its people."

At the same time that he outlined the best-case option Gates also cautioned that the United States' ability to influence such outcomes is extremely limited. "We don't have any real influence with the tribes."

[IAN 2411]

There were many reasons the sudden commitment of personnel came from the CIA, and not the U.S. military. Not surprisingly, political concerns place high on that list, with a war-weary American public skeptical about any more long-term troop commitments in the Arab world. Indeed, on March 18, Obama had explicitly told a group of congressional leaders at a White House briefing on Libya that he had not authorized any deployment of U.S. ground troops, according to Hill officials with knowledge of the briefing.

That same refrain was repeated today, in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.

Asked by a committee member if there were any U.S. "boots on the ground" in Libya, Gates responded: "Not that I am aware of," and then added: "The opposition said they don't want any."

Gates then fielded another question about the likelihood of a later deployment of U.S. troops on the ground in Libya.

"Not as long as I am in the job," he replied sharply.

So with no U.S. ground troops in play, the CIA is tasked with gathering intelligence and performing logistical groundwork at a critical stage of the effort to rein in Muammar Gadhafi from brutalizing civilians and tip the balance against him in Libya's civil war.


Neither the Americans nor the European and UAE allies, can as you say put boots on Libyan soil. They have to abide by the, 1974 UN mandate/whatever that was passed to NATO, to put troops of any kind on Libyan soil would be illegal. It seems to me the only one with a brain when that question was tabled was Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the rest had not even read what they signed up to.

I do however agree that there are more than likely CIA and British Intelligence officers out there, and as said a need for FACs, but the training of Libyan people? [Why do any of us need to get involved with another countries revolution apart from the humanitarian issue?].


According to the Ap:

Last Thursday March 24th, President Barack Obama, just back from a five-day trip to Latin America, convened his national security team for a White House meeting on Libya.

The meeting came five days into the U.S.'s air strikes targeting Libyan air defenses and military sites. And some lawmakers on Capitol Hill were already expressing misgivings over what they said were insufficient White House consultations with Congress on the nature and depth of America's military commitment there.

The Thursday meeting appeared as a sort of afterthought in the publicly announced March 24 schedule for the president: "Also in the afternoon, the President will meet with his national security team to review our efforts in Libya." But the confab stretched from the afternoon into evening--and by the time it wound down, CIA Director Leon Panetta had offered to send CIA personnel covertly to work on the ground in Libya.

"Once again, we were the only ones at the table who stepped up," Panetta later described the Agency role, according to a source who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive consultations.
A CIA spokesman did not immediately respond to a query on the CIA's role in Libya, which was first reported Wednesday by the New York Times.



Are those your words denu or words of someone on the comity, If they are your words denu then would you please explain.

Be well IAN2411

[denuseri]

Blinks are we both "seeing" the same thing...the look to the top of my post please..where it says according to the Ap (the associated press) and then down to the part where the sentence you highlighted is about stepping up is cleary been made by Panetta.

I am certian we have assests on the ground (boots as you call them, and actual military ones at that even if they are there incognito such as "Combat controllers" or FAC's as you call them and "cia types" and perhaps even some green berets (dont they specialize in training and subversion of such forces behind lines?). Im wondering if we had them there before the revolution as well.

I dont think anyone is abiding by anything anymore other than to pay lip service to the massess.

[thir]

PS:

For the sake of clairification when I said "so called" allies I was not refering specifically to Great Brittian so much as I was to a certian collective of mainland eroupeans who are allies by nessecity wether they really wish to be or not. (a topic that perhaps deserves it's own thread lol) So I do applogize for the misunderstanding I should have been more clear.

For your information, every country decides for itself it wants to go or not, just as England does. I do not qute understand why you think UK and the rest of Europe should have different rules??

[thir]

According to the Ap:

Ap?
Wherever it came from, it was extremely interesting! Thanks.
comments put into the article.


CIA Director Leon Panetta had offered to send CIA personnel covertly to work on the ground in Libya.
A CIA spokesman did not immediately respond to a query on the CIA's role in Libya, which was first reported Wednesday by the New York Times.
Asked by a committee member if there were any U.S. "boots on the ground" in Libya Gates responded: "Not that I am aware of," and then added: "The opposition said they don't want any."

Did they say they wanted covert CIA operations??

Gates then fielded another question about the likelihood of a later deployment of U.S. troops on the ground in Libya.
"Not as long as I am in the job," he replied sharply.
So with no U.S. ground troops in play, the CIA is tasked with gathering intelligence

Meaning everybody have been bombing blindly up to now?

Former CIA officers who have worked on the region said they believed the operatives are gathering intelligence on the Libyan opposition forces, to help better assess who the rebels are and what are their capabilities and organization structures, to inform U.S. decision-making including on possibly training them. Additionally, the former officials say, CIA personnel would be helping identify targets for precision air strikes.

Of course, there's a disconnect between the White House's depiction of the Libyan mission as a bid to stave off a humanitarian catastrophe, and the recent reports suggesting deepening covert U.S. involvement on the ground. But the former senior intelligence official said it would be naive to have believed it would have been otherwise once the first U.S. Patriot missiles exploded in Libya last Saturday.

If that is true, then to my mind it would have been much better if US had stayed out of it.

"It's really simple: we incrementally get involved and [then] don't know what to do," the second former CIA officer said. The Obama administration "really thought a little pressure and he [Gadhafi] will fall."


I think we all did. But that is not reason for CIA to take over the rebellion. It is certainly not going to help.


"Those clowns are not able to do anything effective until they are trained and have new weaponry, " likely from Egypt, the former CIA officer said, referring to the Libyan rebels. He suggested the CIA's ground-branch division, which includes many personnel who have para-military backgrounds, may also "train the Libyan rebels how to fight, how to shoot, how to organize into groups."

They are not soldiers, they are civilians. Such an attitude towards people desperately fighting for their freedom is disgusting, and does not bode well for the result for CIA intervention.


Defense Secretary Gates, a former CIA analyst and CIA director, offered lawmakers three possible scenarios for Libya.

"I think there are several alternative outcomes," Gates told the House panel Thursday. "One is that someone from his military takes him out and then cuts a deal with the opposition. ... Another would be the tribes abandon him and cut their own deals with each other. Another alternative —our preferred option—[is that] these opposition forces and tribes come together and begin to create a democratic state that protects rights of its people."

This analysis have been heard from others as well, together with the ourcome that G wins in the long run.

I think it absolutely important that the Libyans keep their own uprising with minimum help with tanks and air space.

[thir]

I think if 80% the North Korean population started a revolution tomorrow morning, America would be there at the drop of a hat. Both Countries have been testing each other for too long and sooner or later something will give. That pushy little tyrant has been crossing the line for too long, so let’s all be realistic it’s a matter of when not if?
Be well IAN

If they did, nobody would have any right to interfere. The case with Libya is purely based on the slaughter of the civilians, and FN gave sanction to help.

Otherwise a civil war is a countries internal affair.

[thir]

I dont think anyone is abiding by anything anymore other than to pay lip service to the massess.

I sincerly hope that you are wrong. If not, then gods help us, it is the jungle law with advanced tech and we will stupidly kill our own civilization.

[IAN 2411]

I sincerly hope that you are wrong. If not, then gods help us, it is the jungle law with advanced tech and we will stupidly kill our own civilization.

I agree and you have hit the nail on the head with that remark.

Be well Ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Might be a good idea if we knew who the good guys are.

[denuseri]

From the Associated Press:

For the past week, journalists stationed in Libya's capital city, Tripoli, have pressed government officials for information on Iman al-Obeidi.

The 29-year-old Libyan woman made international headlines last weekend after she burst into a hotel housing the foreign press corps. Visibly bruised, she alleged that she had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by 15 members of strongman Muammar Gadhafi's armed forces. Libyan security then whisked her away from the battery of cameras and tape recorders.

After the widely publicized incident, Libyan officials kept mum about al-Obeidi's whereabouts, and the country's state-run media carried out an aggressive smear campaign painting her as a prostitute and madwoman. Her family, however, said that she was a post-graduate law student studying in Tripoli.

But al-Obeidi emerged from seclusion Monday to offer more public testimony about her alleged gang-rape and captivity.

"I showed to the journalists my hands and legs. I was bound and tied up. I was beaten and tortured," she told CNN's Anderson Cooper through a translator in an interview that aired in part on his Monday prime time show, according to a transcript the network provided to The Cutline. "For two days they violated my freedom ... I want to convey to the journalists that the brigades who are supposed to protect people, look what they did to me."

In addition to the Cooper interview, Obeidi recounted the story of her initial detention to NPR and a Libyan opposition satellite channel. Her ordeal began, she said, when soldiers stopped her taxi at a checkpoint in Tripoli.

Once she was detained, she said, the assaults began. "They had my hands tied behind me," she told Cooper, "and they had my legs tied, and they would hit my while I was tied, and bite me on my body, and they would pour alcohol in my eyes so that I would not be able to see, and they would sodomize me with their rifles, and they would not let us go to the bathroom. We were not allowed to eat or drink. This is because I resisted them and tried to stop them from raping me."

During her second imprisonment--after she burst into the hotel lobby full of journalists--al-Obeidi said that she was pressured to recant the rape claims on Libyan state television. She refused, she said, "because the TV station does not tell the truth."

Details of al-Obeidi's release remain sketchy. Her present location is unconfirmed, but she reportedly made a second attempt to speak with journalists at the hotel this past weekend and was again rebuffed.

"There is no safe place for me in Tripoli," she told Cooper. "All my phones are monitored. Even this phone I am speaking on right now is monitored and I am monitored. And yesterday, I was kidnapped by a car and they beat me in the street and then brought me here after they dragged me around. They told me whenever you leave the house we will do this to you, meaning that I was not allowed to leave the house or see the journalists. I had asked to see the journalists. They beat and hit me and sent me back. Tell all the human rights organizations to return me safely to my family."

Also on Monday, a Libyan government spokesman told the Associated Press that al-Obeidi had made a deal with the country's attorney general that prohibited her from speaking with reporters.

"She broke her agreement with the attorney general by trying to speak to the media and was taken away," the spokesman told the newswire, which also spoke with a woman the government claimed was an attorney representing al-Obeidi in the rape case. "She doesn't want to speak to journalists because she said she wants to get justice through the courts," the woman told the AP. "But she is comfortable, living with her sister in Tripoli, and is in good spirits."

Al-Obeidi has come forward with her story at a critical juncture in the efforts of Gadhafi's regime to clamp down on the work of the foreign media. Journalists working out of Tripoli say they are contending with tightly monitored and almost surreal working conditions. Some even fear that their hotel-prepared food is being spiked with sedatives, according to NPR.

"That was why the outburst of Iman al-Obaidi ... was so revelatory," writes Liz Sly in The Washington Post. "In an instant, she crystallized the harsh realities of the Libya the government goes to such lengths to prevent journalists from seeing."

It's also possible that the widespread media exposure saved al-Obeidi's life.

The New York Times' David Kirkpatrick, who is on the ground in Tripoli, notes: "Thanks to the publicity in her first interviews ... she may have gotten off easy. Others in her situation, human rights advocates say, are typically confined for years in so-called rehabilitation facilities, subjected to unscientific virginity tests, deprived of any entertainment or education except lessons in Islam, and subjected to solitary confinement or handcuffs for any sign of resistance to authority."

As for al-Obeidi, she told Cooper she has constant nightmares of death and wishes to leave Tripoli, but is no longer afraid.

[denuseri]

Where in the world is Moammar Gadhafi?

"He's everywhere, he's nowhere; he's negotiating to get out, he will never surrender; who knows?" former United Nations official Mark Quarterman said of the contradictory reports about Gadhafi's fate in an interview Monday with The Envoy.
What's important for Libya's reconciliation process is not just that the dictator is on the way out, Quarterman stressed, but how he goes.
"Gadhafi's mode of leaving is very important," Quarterman, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Envoy. "If he leaves but aspects of his regime stick around—-people who keep the lights on, and pick up the garbage, and they cooperate with the new transitional authority, that's a good thing. ... But if there's chaos in his wake," that would be very bad.
Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, leader of the Libyan opposition National Transition Council, triumphantly declared "the Gadhafi era is over" Monday as rebels poured into the capital of Tripoli, meeting sporadic fighting and pockets of resistance in certain neighborhoods.
The NTC said they had three of Gadhafi's sons in custody or under house arrest--including former heir apparent Seif al-Islam Gadhafi and Gadhafi's eldest son, Mohammed. But they confessed they had no idea of the whereabouts of the dictator who has brutally ruled the North African nation for almost 42 years.
British and French leaders also claimed Monday to be in the dark about Gadhafi's coordinates, and South Africa denied that the Libyan ruler had found refuge there.
"Bab al-Aziziya and the surrounding areas are still out of our control," Abdel-Jalil told journalists at a triumphant press conference in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi Monday, the Associated Press reported (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/22/501364/main20095397.shtml), referring to the Tripoli neighborhood where the Gadhafi compound in located. "We have no knowledge of Gadhafi being there, or whether he is still in or outside Libya."Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said Monday that "Paris did not know where [Gadhafi] was," Angus McSwan of Reuters reported (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-libya-gaddafi-whereabouts-idUSTRE77L2X220110822). "British Prime Minister David Cameron said London had no confirmation of his whereabouts either."
American officials, for their part, told journalists they believe Gadhafi is most likely still in Libya, news agencies reported (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44224936/ns/today-today_news/t/us-believes-gadhafi-may-still-be-tripoli-amid-clashes/).
"I think that's probably fair to say that we believe he's still in the country," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told journalists Monday, ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/International/moammar-gadhafi-libya-amid-rebels-fighting-tripoli-pentagon/story?id=14353182). "On what basis can we say that? Just again, it's a belief. We do not have any information that he has left the country."
The Libyan strongman--with a penchant for wearing stand-out-in-a-crowd, brightly colored Bedouin-style robes as well as all-white 1970s-disco-era suits and heavy black eyeliner--made his last public appearance in mid-June, three months into the imposition of a NATO-led no-fly-zone.
Since then, as the tempo of NATO air strikes has increased, reportedly killing one of his sons and some of his grandchildren, Gadhafi, 69, has delivered his typically defiant speeches--including one on Saturday that called the Libyan rebels "rats"--by telephone to Libyan state television from undisclosed locations.
Despite his public vows he would never surrender, however, American officials boasted to NBC last week that Gadhafi emissaries were privately negotiating a possible exit strategy for Gadhafi and his family.

South Africa formally denied Monday that Gadhafi had found refuge there. "The South African government would like to refute and dispel the rumors that it has sent planes to Libya to fly individuals to some undisclosed locations or South Africa," South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said Monday, Reuters reported.
Britain has also backed off earlier winks and nudges that Venezuela might have sent a plane for Gadhafi, Reuters' MacSwan wrote.
Many Libya hands in Washington put their money on Gadhafi being in Libya, possibly at his desert operating base in Sirte, in southern Libya, where he originally comes from, or nearby the capital.
A former congressional Middle East staffer who met with Gadhafi in late 2009 in Libya during the brief five year rapprochement between the United States and Gadhafi's Libya said he had been flown from Tripoli to a shoe-box airport and was then driven in a fleet of SUVs to Gadhafi's Sirte compound, styled like a Bedouin camp.
"He walked in with white linen pants, loafers with no socks, and a big flowy print shirt, wearing make-up, eye liner … and I thought, 'Caribbean night in the Libyan desert,'" the staffer told The Envoy (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/amid-strife-libya-gaddafi-weirdness-moves-spotlight-20110301-144812-543.html) in March. "It was surreal."
"I walked away from the meeting thinking, if this guy had been born in any other country, he would be in a mental institution or heavily medicated," the former staffer continued. He added, however, that the semi-comical aspects of Gadhafi's personality cult were overshadowed by the spooky atmosphere of intense fear he had imposed in the country -- a reign of fear from which Libyans hope the past day's dramatic events mark a decisive break.