|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 27, 2011 12:30:00 GMT -5
"But the press wouldn't be puzzled (as they currently are) either. They would know we were doing the wrong thing by getting into another war."
Well, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 27, 2011 18:15:05 GMT -5
Despite the fact that the media is still saying that ....,
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 28, 2011 9:56:42 GMT -5
So let's assume that MSNBC is as liberal as the media gets. Let's also assume that John is right and that the media is lining up to rah rah Libya because a Democrat started it. Well this is what was part of the headline MSNBC story today....
"What Obama hasn’t yet said: But here are questions we’re looking for Obama to answer in tonight’s speech. One, what’s the end game for U.S. involvement? What happens if Khaddafy’s forces and the rebels are locked in a months-long stalemate? Will the U.S. continue to intervene? Two, how much has the mission cost and how much will it cost? Three, if the rebels triumph, what kind of governing order would they bring to Libya? And four, what happens the next time there’s a humanitarian crisis and the international community supports an intervention? What does that mean for Syria? What about Iran?"
Uh, where's the rah rah and unwavering support?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 28, 2011 9:58:00 GMT -5
So let's assume that MSNBC is as liberal as the media gets. Let's also assume that John is right and that the media is lining up to rah rah Libya because a Democrat started it. That's not what I said.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 29, 2011 14:13:37 GMT -5
The Pentagon has confirmed use of AC-130 gunships and A-10 Thunderbolt tankbusters over the weekend. Both are designed for close air support of troops on the ground. Can U.S. body bags be far behind?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 29, 2011 14:17:30 GMT -5
Apparently, Qaddaffi's forces are pushing the rebels back to the east. This could get interesting. I don't think Obama realizes just how evil wicked mean bad and nasty these despots can be, yet.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 29, 2011 14:29:27 GMT -5
The Pentagon has confirmed use of AC-130 gunships and A-10 Thunderbolt tankbusters over the weekend. Both are designed for close air support of troops on the ground. Can U.S. body bags be far behind? No silly. They're for shooting tanks out of the air. Dang liberal media. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 30, 2011 10:16:00 GMT -5
There are more reports that Al Qaeda fighters are showing up among the rebels - the guys who many want to arm. The Navy admiral in charge of the NATO operation told a Senate committee they were finding "flickers" of Al Qaeda influence.
What a surprise.
Also, Russian English-language television is reporting that one of the reasons the rebels are meeting such fierce resistance is that they are invading tribal territories that have a history of defending themselves from outsiders.
I can't decide whether this whole thing can be more properly described as a minefield or a quagmire.
Quagfield?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 30, 2011 10:59:14 GMT -5
Either way it's something we don't need to be involved in.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 30, 2011 13:21:16 GMT -5
Well after all, Bush trademarked "Shock and Awe".
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 30, 2011 16:03:21 GMT -5
Not looking good for the rebels: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42334849/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/Qadaffi's guys are laying land mines, which are pretty indiscriminate when they explode. IMHO, Qadaffi has oil and an army. He doesn't need people, especially people who are trying to run him out of town and as long as he wins, he's safe so he doesn't have much incentive to surrender.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 30, 2011 16:10:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 30, 2011 16:16:46 GMT -5
Spoke too soon in what way? Not arming the rebels?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 30, 2011 16:18:20 GMT -5
Spoke too soon in what way? Not arming the rebels? No, in my first optimistic post that just maybe for once we were actually going to get in and get out quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 30, 2011 16:29:17 GMT -5
We still can, if we stick to what we said we'd do.
We like to fix things. It doesn't seem to work so well in the Middle East. So far, we've saved lives. We've delayed Qaddafi in carrying out his threat to hunt down the rebels door to door and show them no mercy.
I didn't expect things to get so complicated so soon, but I was never in favor of occupying Libya until everything was "resolved" to our satisfaction.
We can still lend support to the NATO coalition. But no ground troops. And no guns. And certainly no training the rebels. We haven't had much luck with that kind of thing.
I wouldn't stop France from taking a more aggressive role, if they wanted to. And I'd encourage the Arab Union to quit dicking around and get a little more skin in the game.
But we've already done pretty much what we set out to do. We should stick to a backup role, or go home.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 30, 2011 16:48:43 GMT -5
I give it a day or two and Qadaffi is back in power with a lot less people to support, which will inform the rest of the despots over there that they can win if they just apply enough force. Since they don't have the moral problem we have with applying force, all should be quiet soon.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 30, 2011 20:43:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 30, 2011 21:04:10 GMT -5
Is there anyone here besides Doug and Bruce (and Paul S, who I am sure is schooled at his job) who remembers SOG and a number of other countries? We're never getting out of this.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 30, 2011 21:38:59 GMT -5
Its so hard not to be pessimistic about this.
Where did we get the idea that we could just apply a little air power and PRESTO! Humanitarian crisis averted!
Not so fast.
Did no one figure on the obvious fact that we are going in with our hands tied behind our backs, while Quadaffi has no such limits? We are playing his game, and short of going completely Iraq on him, he's going to win. And I'm not sure how many more victories like Iraq we can afford. Even if we kill him, surely we don't expect peace to break out, do we? We'll just be unleashing the coiled up melange of ancient tribal rivalries that Quadaffi has held back through force.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 30, 2011 23:11:38 GMT -5
There is one advantage for us in the country going into civil war. Countries involved in a civil war don't have a lot of extra energy for messing around outside of their country. But for it to work out good we need two evenly balanced forces where the civil war can go on for decades.
|
|