"NO FLY ZONE" Being Enforced As We Speak --- French Fighter Planes Destroy First Libyan Target

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2011 5:24 PM GMT
    Why do I have this sinking feeling that we are going to get pulled into yet another conflict in a middle east country, and that this isn't going to end well. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 5:28 PM GMT
    Yup. I think Obama is trying to resist America being dragged into a third Middle East quagmire, but he's already being attacked for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 5:29 PM GMT
    Which part of *FRENCH* fighter plane do you not understand?

    The US needs to stay in a purely supportive role for this. The rest of the world needs to realise that the US has no obligation to be an international policeman, rather that is the task of the international community.

    Given Obama's lacklustre performance over the Libyan conflict, it's far better that Britain/France/Arabic countries take charge.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2011 5:36 PM GMT
    I don't really think Obama had any choice other than to handle this precisely how he has --- that is unless he wanted to risk really pissing the American people off royally.. Personally, I think President Obama struck just the right tone with his speech on this. He made it clear that the U.S. would work with our allies to enforce the "No Fly Zone", but that we would act as a participant, NOT the leader of any operations. Personally, I think this is a step in the right direction in terms of International Relations as we should not be expected to shoulder the bulk of the burden in trouble spots around the world -- it should be a shared responsibility. Truth be told, the U.S. will get criticized regardless of what they do, as will Obama. If we appear too aggressive, or like we are leading the charge, they will criticize us for that. If we look too passive, like we are not supporting the Libyan people, they will call us weak and not someone our allies can depend on. There is such a double-edged sword here, and I just don't think it's going to lead us anywhere good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 5:43 PM GMT
    Europe, and in particular France and Britain, have had North African involvement far longer than the US. Certainly a checkered past, but they seem eager to reassert their former presence there, and I see no reason to deny them.

    The US has enough on its plate, and always gets a black eye, no matter what it does. Fortunately we're disengaging in Iraq, leaving just our Afghan involvement. Which might have been settled quickly years ago if we had correctly identified and knocked out our real terrorist enemies in that country, and not started a totally unnecessary conflict in Iraq.

    Nevertheless this is what Obama is stuck with at the moment, and we cannot begin a third land war, so I think Libya is off the US list. We'll do stand-off support, perhaps some air missions, and maybe some cruise missile & drone attacks on select targets, where our technology best comes into play. But send in troops to fight? I would hope not. Maybe limited numbers of peacekeepers afterwards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 5:43 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidWhich part of *FRENCH* fighter plane do you not understand?

    The US needs to stay in a purely supportive role for this. The rest of the world needs to realise that the US has no obligation to be an international policeman, rather that is the task of the international community.

    Given Obama's lacklustre performance over the Libyan conflict, it's far better that Britain/France/Arabic countries take charge.


    Two things: Not sure why you're so irritated as neither of us claimed it was anything other than a French fighter jet, and are simply saying that we do not want the US to become involved in anything other than a supportive role.

    Further, I do not get this meme that Obama is somehow handling Lybia wrong. What is it that you want him to do? Obviously, the right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayers, but I doubt you share that urge.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2011 5:48 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidObviously, the right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayer



    C'mon now, Christian...that was a cheap shot that I do not think is fact-based at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 5:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidObviously, the right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayer



    C'mon now, Christian...that was a cheap shot that I do not think is fact-based at all.
    Excuse me???????????????????

    Republicans Attack Obama Libyan Policy
    March 17, 2011 (CHICAGO)--Republicans soundly criticized President Barack Obama's announcement today that the United States would help the enforce the United Nations resolution concerning the Libyan cease-fire and no-fly zone. "He should have taken stronger, unilateral action much earlier and stayed completely out of it," said House Speaker John Boehner. "To see how the United States has become a helpless, inert giant who acts so recklessly and precipitously is enough to make a grown man cry."

    "Maybe if this President wasn't so much of an elitist who's completely out of touch with the American people, instead of picking March Madness basketball teams he would have paid closer attention to the intricacies of the Libyan crisis " said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "When I heard how this President was lollygagging his time away by acting too quickly, my chin would have dropped if I'd had one."
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2011 6:07 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidExcuse me???????????????????



    You heard me. Please cite some examples of how "The right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayer". Some Republicans wanting Obama to "have taken stronger, unilateral action much earlier and stayed completely out of it" is one thing, but to state that "The right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayer" is just plain disingenuous and not based in truth at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 6:07 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said

    Oh really? And in your mind what exactly would "The Right Decisions" have been? Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Everyone is an expert in the game of "Shoulda Woulda Coulda", but in reality, no one really knows how things might have turned out had the decisions Bush made been different --- We can only speculate. A President can only do the best he can with what he has to work with at any given time.

    Republicans Attack Obama Libyan Policy
    March 17, 2011 (CHICAGO)--Republicans soundly criticized President Barack Obama's announcement today that the United States would help the enforce the United Nations resolution concerning the Libyan cease-fire and no-fly zone. "He should have taken stronger, unilateral action much earlier and stayed completely out of it," said House Speaker John Boehner. "To see how the United States has become a helpless, inert giant who acts so recklessly and precipitously is enough to make a grown man cry."

    "Maybe if this President wasn't so much of an elitist who's completely out of touch with the American people, instead of picking March Madness basketball teams he would have paid closer attention to the intricacies of the Libyan crisis " said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "When I heard how this President was lollygagging his time away by acting too quickly, my chin would have dropped if I'd had one."



    Point made.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2011 6:13 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    CuriousJockAZ said

    Oh really? And in your mind what exactly would "The Right Decisions" have been? Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Everyone is an expert in the game of "Shoulda Woulda Coulda", but in reality, no one really knows how things might have turned out had the decisions Bush made been different --- We can only speculate. A President can only do the best he can with what he has to work with at any given time.

    Republicans Attack Obama Libyan Policy
    March 17, 2011 (CHICAGO)--Republicans soundly criticized President Barack Obama's announcement today that the United States would help the enforce the United Nations resolution concerning the Libyan cease-fire and no-fly zone. "He should have taken stronger, unilateral action much earlier and stayed completely out of it," said House Speaker John Boehner. "To see how the United States has become a helpless, inert giant who acts so recklessly and precipitously is enough to make a grown man cry."

    "Maybe if this President wasn't so much of an elitist who's completely out of touch with the American people, instead of picking March Madness basketball teams he would have paid closer attention to the intricacies of the Libyan crisis " said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "When I heard how this President was lollygagging his time away by acting too quickly, my chin would have dropped if I'd had one."



    Point made.




    The only thing clear here is that you THINK you made a point. I'll let you know when I find this alleged point you seem to think you have made. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 6:15 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    TropicalMark saidExcuse me???????????????????



    You heard me. Please cite some examples of how "The right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayer". Some Republicans wanting Obama to "have taken stronger, unilateral action much earlier and stayed completely out of it" is one thing, but to state that "The right of our country would love yet another war to enrich themselves on the back of taxpayer" is just plain disingenuous and not based in truth at all.
    start listening and you'll hear. (your own party)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 7:30 PM GMT
    TigerTim said... Given Obama's lacklustre performance over the Libyan conflict, it's far better that Britain/France/Arabic countries take charge.

    I think you are absolutely correct. Those who have been defending his performance have implied the false choice that the only alternative to his tact would have been to dive headfirst into a conflict and commit US troops. The US could have taken a more active and public role with our allies, the same way French President Sarcozy has without any unilateral commitment of US troops. He has done nothing but continue a pattern of voting "Present" on the international stage, and based on discussion on private and state-influenced or controlled media, that has become obvious.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 19, 2011 7:33 PM GMT
    Is this for real ?
    The FRENCH ????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 7:35 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said... Given Obama's lacklustre performance over the Libyan conflict, it's far better that Britain/France/Arabic countries take charge.

    I think you are absolutely correct. Those who have been defending his performance have implied the false choice that the only alternative to his tact would have been to dive headfirst into a conflict and commit US troops. The US could have taken a more active and public role with our allies, the same way French President Sarcozy has without any unilateral commitment of US troops. He has done nothing but continue a pattern of voting "Present" on the international stage, and based on discussion on private and state-influenced or controlled media, that has become obvious.


    Why? I see no reason for the US to be involved in this at all, except to get our citizens out of the country and perhaps support the movement to get rid of Quaddafi. It is not our job to police that world. Doing so is part of what has driven our enormous debt problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 7:41 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said... Given Obama's lacklustre performance over the Libyan conflict, it's far better that Britain/France/Arabic countries take charge.

    I think you are absolutely correct. Those who have been defending his performance have implied the false choice that the only alternative to his tact would have been to dive headfirst into a conflict and commit US troops. The US could have taken a more active and public role with our allies, the same way French President Sarcozy has without any unilateral commitment of US troops. He has done nothing but continue a pattern of voting "Present" on the international stage, and based on discussion on private and state-influenced or controlled media, that has become obvious.

    Why? I see no reason for the US to be involved in this at all, except to get our citizens out of the country and perhaps support the movement to get rid of Quaddafi. It is not our job to police that world. Doing so is part of what has driven our enormous debt problem.

    What I'm talking about is not policing the world or military involvement of troops. I'm talking about basic leadership that has been expected of the US as a super-power - not leadership meaning go-it-alone or unilaterally inflict our will on others, but not taking a let's-see-which-way-the-wind-blows approach either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 7:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said... Given Obama's lacklustre performance over the Libyan conflict, it's far better that Britain/France/Arabic countries take charge.

    I think you are absolutely correct. Those who have been defending his performance have implied the false choice that the only alternative to his tact would have been to dive headfirst into a conflict and commit US troops. The US could have taken a more active and public role with our allies, the same way French President Sarcozy has without any unilateral commitment of US troops. He has done nothing but continue a pattern of voting "Present" on the international stage, and based on discussion on private and state-influenced or controlled media, that has become obvious.

    Why? I see no reason for the US to be involved in this at all, except to get our citizens out of the country and perhaps support the movement to get rid of Quaddafi. It is not our job to police that world. Doing so is part of what has driven our enormous debt problem.

    What I'm talking about is not policing the world or military involvement of troops. I'm talking about basic leadership that has been expected of the US as a super-power - not leadership meaning go-it-alone or unilaterally inflict our will on others, but not taking a let's-see-which-way-the-wind-blows approach either.


    And Obama has done all of that. I fail to see what more he could, especially in light of what is happening in Japan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 8:14 PM GMT
    Christian73 said...And Obama has done all of that. I fail to see what more he could, especially in light of what is happening in Japan.

    Not by a long shot. He could have suggested the USS Enterprise would play a role which would have sent a very strong signal. He implied we would do nothing until and unless the UN said it was ok. Just compare his speeches with those of Cameron and Sarkozy. The difference will be obvious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 8:20 PM GMT
    just wondering what you guys think of the fact that most of the resistance groups in Libya don't want the west's help at all?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 8:33 PM GMT
    The hell of all of this in the middle East is that our actions there have been all over the gameboard, we're seen as backing out and out disregard for treaties, agreements and human rights where the Israeli's are concerned in their missdeeds toward the Palestinians. Starting a totally useless war with trumped up excuses in Iraq, putting aside going after Bin Laden for that war and allowing the Talaban to regroup, now we're back in there fighting for what exactly ? There aren't enough Al Aquaida in Afghanistan to be worth the effort, they are in Pakistan, The war in Iraq put them right in line with the sympathies of Iran who we fucked with years ago and totally screwed that up. now here we are with a lackluster response to freedom fighters agains someone we've supported in Lybia, just after another tirant that we made rich in Egypt.

    The USA couldn't have tryed to FUCK things up and done any better a job than what we have done in the middle east. AT WHAT COST THESE BILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL ???? We should all be furious with our governments actions that have cost thousands of American Lives, Tens of thousand Maimed, and a Lifetime of distrust and hate directed at us legitimately. Both Repubs and Dems are to blame for this fucked up mess. This time we should be involved assisting the freedom fighters and this double edged sword situation of being wrong any direction we go is of our own making.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2011 8:56 PM GMT
    This discussion, and the various opinions, shows the "Damned if you do, Damn if you don't" nature of what Obama faces with this. It's a slippery slope, one that has tripped up many U.S. Presidents
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 11:07 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...And Obama has done all of that. I fail to see what more he could, especially in light of what is happening in Japan.

    Not by a long shot. He could suggested the USS Enterprise would play a role which would have sent a very strong signal. He implied we would do nothing until and unless the UN said it was ok. Just compare his speeches with those of Cameron and Sarkozy. The difference will be obvious.


    Saying the USS Enterprise will play a role says we're going to engage militarily, which Obama - rightly, didn't want to do until the rest of the national community had agreed on a collective stand. You may not recall but we've already invaded two Muslim countries and are in no position to manage a third either militarily or diplomatically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 11:19 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...And Obama has done all of that. I fail to see what more he could, especially in light of what is happening in Japan.

    Not by a long shot. He could suggested the USS Enterprise would play a role which would have sent a very strong signal. He implied we would do nothing until and unless the UN said it was ok. Just compare his speeches with those of Cameron and Sarkozy. The difference will be obvious.


    Saying the USS Enterprise will play a role says we're going to engage militarily, which Obama - rightly, didn't want to do until the rest of the national community had agreed on a collective stand. You may not recall but we've already invaded two Muslim countries and are in no position to manage a third either militarily or diplomatically.

    I did use subjunctive mood to avoid a direct commitment. Say it were worded that "the USS Enterprise is available to immediately support an international effort", those words would not commit, but they are a very strong message. We can discuss the wording back and forth, but the issue is his complete posturing. Again, if his words were compared to those of Cameron and Sarkozy, the differences are obvious. If by "manage" you mean solely take charge, I don't disagree. But if you mean any involvement at all, then the impact of what you are suggesting is to tell the world that because we are already involved with two countries, we are unable or unwilling to have any further involvement in any capacity whatsoever, then that is different altogether.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    Unfortunately not ONE of us here have any idea as to what the grand plan is that was discussed and being implemented as we speak.
    The arm chair quarterbacking is absurd. Especially when the plays aren't being told to you for good reason. (mainly tactical)
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Mar 19, 2011 11:49 PM GMT
    I hope a bomb flys towards Qaddafi.