Some Questions about our involvement in Libya

[NEO]

I gotta say these wars are getting less and less clear.

Are we protecting the rebels or actually attacking?

Who are these rebels?

Are they even any better?

Why is France leading this?

How long does this no fly zone last?

I'm sure I could find all of this out but, let's be honest, in 72 hours there's going to be another Middle Eastern nation in crisis and this is going to just be another war we're in that nobody quite gets.

"If you build it, they will deploy it."

 

[NEO]

Coincidentally, WWII was the last war we absolutely had to win.

or be in.

or start.

or finish.

or supply.

or aid.

 

[VOLatile]

or be in.

or start.

or finish.

or supply.

or aid.

True. I haven't found a reason to support actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, or any other conflict since 1945.

One place I wish we had helped is Darfur. Helpless people are actually being slaughtered there. Not sure that we could actually do any good, though.

 

[IPorange]

Where the **** were you guys from 2003-2008? This is really unbelievable.

 

[NEO]

Where the **** were you guys from 2003-2008? This is really unbelievable.

You and I would get along alot better if you'd actually read my post.

Just because I think the current POTUS is horrible doesn't mean I liked the last one much either. I'm not too fond of much that went down under his 2 terms. I personally liked Clinton way more than I did Bush.

I was also never for either of the wars. I don't believe in nation building. We should have said if you harbor terrorist in your country we will hold the leader of that country responsible and we will handle it as if your country has attacked us. Any terrorist attack after that that involved a country which was not trying to handle their terrorist situation would be attacked. Bombers in the night like Clinton. I am all for bombers in the night. I am not for invading and Nation building. It's like we got a set of lincoln logs and thought we were suddenly able to build the world.

 

[IPorange]

You and I would get along alot better if you'd actually read my post.

Just because I think the current POTUS is horrible doesn't mean I liked the last one much either. I'm not too fond of much that went down under his 2 terms. I personally liked Clinton way more than I did Bush.

I was also never for either of the wars. I don't believe in nation building. We should have said if you harbor terrorist in your country we will hold the leader of that country responsible and we will handle it as if your country has attacked us. Any terrorist attack after that that involved a country which was not trying to handle their terrorist situation would be attacked. Bombers in the night like Clinton. I am all for bombers in the night. I am not for invading and Nation building. It's like we got a set of lincoln logs and thought we were suddenly able to build the world.

So you're fine with Libya, since it is bombers in the night against a known terror finder and supporter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

So you're fine with Libya, since it is bombers in the night against a known terror finder and supporter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Did they attack us just now?

I didn't hear about us being attacked.

Therefore, I would say NO.

 

[NEO]

As far as we know, we could be placing the next Osama bin Laden into power.

 

[gsvol]

Explaining Obama's libyan policy in simple terms:

YouTube - Obama's Libya Strategy explained

I can see that, I guess. I just feel that if a soldier is prepared to give their last full measure when the country asks, the nation should be equally committed to do the same. If not, best to stay at home. I'm not a fan of piecemeal military action. I play to win,
Posted via VolNation Mobile

+10 :thumbsup:

Like an old, wise friend of mine said; "When I returned from Europe after fighting in WWII, I kissed the Earth and I realized the whole thing was about politics, I said I would always fight for my country but I would never do it again on foreigh shores."

As far as we know, we could be placing the next Osama bin Laden into power.

Or one of his lieutenants.

In Libya we are between the devil and the deep blue sea or a rock and hard place, neither of the winners will be a real friend of America.

We have fought for a democracy in Iraq but one that has islamic sharia law enfranchised in it's constitution, the same for Afghanistan, I fail to see what we have gained.

We fought to depose a despotic evil tyrant dictator in Iraq but they exist all over the world and some of them were helped into power by us to begin with.

We fought in Afghanistan because the sponsored terrorist training camps but we allow the same on our own soil!

Esenhower knew what he was talking about when he said; "beware the military industrial complex."

We have already spent $100 million in armaments in Libya according to one source.

"The report from Iron Mountain" was an economic assessment to decide if war is neccessary.

War is anti-inflationary in that the product produced goes poof and can be produced again without inflating the economy.

In times such as this when money is being produced like water from an artesian well, it is good that lots of explosives be exploded, we dropped more in Serbia than we did in Vietnam.

 

[JayVols]

Where the **** were you guys from 2003-2008? This is really unbelievable.

I had yet to discover the greatness that is VN.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

NationalJournal.com - Costs of Libya Operation Already Piling Up - Monday, March 21, 2011

The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tag that was well over $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone. And the U.S. military, which remains in the lead now in its third day, has pumped millions more into air- and sea-launched strikes targeting air-defense sites and ground-force positions along Libya’s coastline.

The ultimate total that the United States spends will hinge on the length and scope of the strikes as well as on the contributions of its coalition allies. But Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said on Monday that the U.S. costs could “easily pass the $1 billion mark on this operation, regardless of how well things go.”
-----------------------------------

For the U.S. military, the highest costs of the operations over Libya come in the form of pricey munitions, fuel for aircraft, and combat pay for deployed troops -- all factors that will pile up each day U.S. forces remain at the helm of the operation.

On the first day of strikes alone, U.S.-led forces launched 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost about $1 million to $1.5 million apiece, from ships stationed off the Libyan coast. That totaled $112 million to $168 million. Since those first strikes, U.S. and British forces have launched at least another 12 Tomahawk missiles.
----------------------------

The military flew the three bombers deployed for the mission from Missouri’s Whiteman Air Force Base, a nearly 12,000-mile round trip that will incur significant fuel and maintenance costs, Harrison said.

Meanwhile, it generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft. The B-2s dropped 45 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMS, which are 2,000-pound bombs that cost between $30,000 and $40,000 apiece to replace.

On the personnel front, special pay for soldiers involved in the operation will kick in immediately -- unlike the munitions costs, which the Pentagon can defer.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Where the **** were you guys from 2003-2008? This is really unbelievable.

Not the same at all. Wanting to hear that Obama was right makes no sense at all. Obama's position was coming home immediately, which was stupid. The half pregnant analogy works there. As to Iraq, we committed, we went and we deposed a dictator who trumpeted his defiance of the UN regularly. We had several other strategic motives.

Here, we have limited strategic value, have waffled about what to do, and are following the lead of another country. Either we believe the path is right, commit to it and execute with impugnity or we stay the eff home.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

Not the same at all. Wanting to hear that Obama was right makes no sense at all. Obama's position was coming home immediately, which was stupid. The half pregnant analogy works there. As to Iraq, we committed, we went and we deposed a dictator who trumpeted his defiance of the UN regularly. We had several other strategic motives.

Here, we have limited strategic value, have waffled about what to do, and are following the lead of another country. Either we believe the path is right, commit to it and execute with impugnity or we stay the eff home.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

To add to this - the official company line now is that our involvement is strictly humanitarian and wholly separate from our desire to see Q. gone. We are not using the military to oust him but instead with use a host of other tactics (non-military).

Seriously?

 

[JayVols]

Not the same at all. Wanting to hear that Obama was right makes no sense at all. Obama's position was coming home immediately, which was stupid. The half pregnant analogy works there. As to Iraq, we committed, we went and we deposed a dictator who trumpeted his defiance of the UN regularly. We had several other strategic motives.

Here, we have limited strategic value, have waffled about what to do, and are following the lead of another country. Either we believe the path is right, commit to it and execute with impugnity or we stay the eff home.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Your last paragraph is the golden gospel as far as I'm concerned in any conflict.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

I'm simply wanting to hear somebody say, "Obama was right about Iraq."

Since this isn't political.

obama decided after the fact he was against the war. if he uses the same rationale there is zero justification for invading libya. and at least bush decided to remove the dictator. this garbage about helping the rebels win is just asking for problems. and who is to say the rebels aren't bigger arseholes than the current regime?

 

[volinbham]

Oddly enough - I wonder if current Obama would support some intervention in Iraq. His rules for engagement are humanitarian; to prevent retaliation and killing of protesters by a regime with an unfair advantage. In Libya we are trying to level the playing field for the civil war.

The only thing missing in Iraq was strong UN backing. However, the humanitarian abuses were absolutely clear and regime change was the official policy of the U.S. Hell, SH was more of a danger to his people than Q is to his and he killed many, many more.

Rwanda is oft cited as the example of what we can't let happen again. There were no U.S. interests in Rwanda so the motivation for use of military is humanitarian.

At a minimum, he would have had to support the first Iraq war given his rules for engagement.

 

[droski]

bush probably could have gotten UN backing if he had waited. we're still 90% of the invading force here. same as iraq.

 

[lawgator1]

Oddly enough - I wonder if current Obama would support some intervention in Iraq. His rules for engagement are humanitarian; to prevent retaliation and killing of protesters by a regime with an unfair advantage. In Libya we are trying to level the playing field for the civil war.

The only thing missing in Iraq was strong UN backing. However, the humanitarian abuses were absolutely clear and regime change was the official policy of the U.S. Hell, SH was more of a danger to his people than Q is to his and he killed many, many more.

Rwanda is oft cited as the example of what we can't let happen again. There were no U.S. interests in Rwanda so the motivation for use of military is humanitarian.

At a minimum, he would have had to support the first Iraq war given his rules for engagement.

This is silly. We all know that the humanitarian angle on this is a justification for the real interest, which is that we see a real opportunity here to dump an authoritarian nut and we figure if we back the right horse we can reap some serious benefits down the road.

What's wrong with that? It's basically a mirror image of Bush and Iraq -- the justification offered was some vague connection to 9/11 and WMD. The real reason was that the administration saw an opportunity to rid itself of a major headache and to back a winning horse in the process.

 

[volinbham]

This is silly. We all know that the humanitarian angle on this is a justification for the real interest, which is that we see a real opportunity here to dump an authoritarian nut and we figure if we back the right horse we can reap some serious benefits down the road.

What's wrong with that? It's basically a mirror image of Bush and Iraq -- the justification offered was some vague connection to 9/11 and WMD. The real reason was that the administration saw an opportunity to rid itself of a major headache and to back a winning horse in the process.

Of course we know it is. His official explanation doesn't pass the smell test. To flip IPs argument anyone that criticized Bush for this must criticize Obama.

Do you think anyone believes Obama when he says our military involvement is NOT about removing Q? He said that quite clearly.

Are we ready for the "he lied to us" chants?

 

[utvolpj]

Do you think anyone believes Obama when he says our military involvement is NOT about removing Q? He said that quite clearly.

has he said that? Goes against the message being put out by his Sec of State

 

[lawgator1]

Of course we know it is. His official explanation doesn't pass the smell test. To flip IPs argument anyone that criticized Bush for this must criticize Obama.

Do you think anyone believes Obama when he says our military involvement is NOT about removing Q? He said that quite clearly.

Are we ready for the "he lied to us" chants?

If it goes south I think you can expect that. He'll have some loyalty from some who will in some tortured fashion defend it. But he's already drawing some criticism from some on the Dem side of the aisle for this.

has he said that? Goes against the message being put out by his Sec of State

He did and there have been some contradictory statements by his administration about it on some of the press shows. Now, I happen to think a lot of that is context, i.e. a general saying its about limiting his ability to hurt his own people and not about getting rid of him is context for military in the sense that they don't decide the goal of the mission like that.

But, yes, the message people have done a poor job of getting everyone on the same page for their public comments.

 

[droski]

has he said that? Goes against the message being put out by his Sec of State

clinton apparently is not a fan. his administration has absolutely said that removing the current govt is not hte objective.

 

[IPorange]

Of course we know it is. His official explanation doesn't pass the smell test. To flip IPs argument anyone that criticized Bush for this must criticize Obama.

Do you think anyone believes Obama when he says our military involvement is NOT about removing Q? He said that quite clearly.

Are we ready for the "he lied to us" chants?

You don't have to flip it. My point is that they are the same. People can wear that however it fits them.

I just learned bush had a clear plan after invading Iraq and a clear understanding of who would come into power. Huh, that's new.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

i'm waiting to see the antiobama antiwar protests. so far the only onece since the libya action have been protesting the anniversary of the iraq war.

 

[IPorange]

Reading gsvol, the Cold War Crusader himself, discuss how we've put corrupt dictators into power and to hint at a preference to less interventionalism confirms I have been transported to an alternate universe.
Posted via VolNation Mobile