Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


Yes because they have a stargetic,interest in the oil fields. Off course it is profit over the people of Lybia, hat is all they are interested in nothing else.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
Libya has LOTS of oil - and that's enough reason for the PTB to 'get involved' there.
If they don't have oil, there is no concern, or else we would have intervened in the genocides in Africa over the years.

I sincerely doubt you will see any American intervention in this crisis other than my previously mentioned NEO. (please see first page of thread if you do not understand the acronym)

We sane Americans do not desire any further conflicts than we already have. Our plate runneth over, as it were, and frankly, I think the Libyan's know exactly what they need and how to get it better than the Western powers or political pundits.

We should stay out of this as much as possible, and if/when the people of Libya ask for food or water assistance or medical help, then and ONLY then should we act.

The whole area over there doesn't seem to get any attention or help. Would be nice for NATO to step in perhaps before we go over and do anything. How long are some of those conflicts going to go on?

reply to post by Turq1


What and more nato troops are killed? If they send in ground boots?

Air power alone will not stop the civilwar going on in that country.

No to NATO becomming involved. NATO countries are over stretched as it is. Knowing the backlash they have recieved from exstreemist groups inthe past. I do not see any agreement of Militay actions what so ever.

Originally posted by lambros56
I`d rather NATO went into Palestine first and sort out the problems they`re having.

Why? Libya may have killed more of its own people in the past week than Palestinians who have died in the past 20 years fighting Israel.

In addition, many of the Libyans who have been killed were innocent, unarmed and nonviolent protesters. The same cannot be said for Fatah or Hamas.

reply to post by Laurauk


NATO overstretched? Where?

There are around 130,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. 90,000 of which are American.

That is a drop in the bucket of NATO forces.

The US military alone has around 1.5 million active duty personnel and almost another 1.5 million reserve personnel.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


yeah i was gonna comment on that but you took the words right out of my mouth only thing ill add is why dont we send in the germans or other nato nation they seem to be far more tolerated these days then the USA or hell send in the japanese they havent invaded any one in a while and i dont think too many people in ME hate the japanese they could problay pull it off while behaving them selfs? NATO is more then just usa and uk sure theres a bunch of french military that could be used to remove the dictator

Just judging by twitter, having other countries intervene is the last thing these people want. They want to do it themselves. They do not want to be occupied.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Which could lead to another iraq and afghanistan.

Yes they are over stretched, If the US wants to implement trops fine. Noth with our troops you will not. As I said before Air power does not win a civil war.

And you are thining NATO countries are going to agree with this.

After what has happenned in afghanistan, I do not think so.

If they the international community cannot keep, Pirates at bay how the hell are they going to obtan everythg they want.

And who is going to suffer out of this all?

The people of lybia whom want, thier freedoms that is who.

Not Gaddafe, Tony Blairs Ex Best friend

And the USA took its time,...Op forgot Gadaffe is not aided by the USA!

reply to post by Laurauk


Air power made all the difference in the Balkans or did you forget about those NATO operations? Air power wiped out most of Iraq's army in 1991 and 2003. It works, especially in the desert.

A no fly zone, being able to send medical support, and humanitarian aid drops to make sure they have enough food will have a positive effect.

No one is talking about invading. What is the deal with ATS?

Intervention does not equal invasion.

I'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than to send troops into a civil war that's no of our concern.

The entire thing will iron itself out eventually. Many people will die in the process but it's not our job to secure peace in that area.

Originally posted by antonia
And what right does Obama have to intervene in someone else's civil war? That's what this is. Maybe American's should learn to mind their own business.

How quickly people forget NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia to stop genocide there, back when the US and Western countries had a moral high ground. I must admit, the past decade has seen that eroded somewhat.

But surely, shouldn't "civilised" countries intervene precisely because of situations like this. I would like to think if my Government went all despotic and shot at me while protesting, that someone would come and help me out. Even if it was the damned French, I'd welcome them in.

Originally posted by Laurauk
Air power alone will not stop the civilwar going on in that country.

It worked pretty well in Kosovo and worked for 10 years stopping Saddam killing Kurds.

I sometimes think I am getting really old as I read comments like this on ATS and it seems no one remembers the 1990's or before....

Originally posted by Laurauk
No to NATO becomming involved. NATO countries are over stretched as it is..

No, NATO is about as overstretched as a pair of well elasticated undies lying in a drawer. Actual deployed troops are but a fraction of active service troops. The only issue NATO has with getting enough troops for Afghanistan to do the job properly is public opinion. For some countries, it only takes a few dead soldiers for some people to start whinging and before you know it, the politicians get cold feet and haul their guys back home.

reply to post by stumason


I'm in the same boat. Seems like very few remember the Persian Gulf War or the Balkan Conflicts.

I don't know if its me getting older or the fact that those operations were successful. Some people don't like to know that military power, when applied properly, works.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Oh applied properly maybe. But look at the huge mistakes made in afghanistan. Look at how NATO countries withdrew thier support and troops.

Are you seriously telling me, those same NATO countries are going to agree to policing Lybian Airspace?

Oh and another thing, Kosovo, yes looked what happened after it. Ground troops had to go in with the reluctant agrreement of the United States And that is what exactly is going to happen in Lybia. Do not trie an pull the wool over our eyes.

It has happened before and it will happen again. And who will suffer? Those following orders. And those people in Lybia.

See this is the problem, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.


Many think we should let the people fight it out themselves and many say that we should intervene.... but It's tricky because either option will draw criticism.
I think NATO/UN forces probably should be deployed if the situation remains as it is.... some troops should have probably already been sent in.

I mean the guy has used anti-tank weaponry against citizens ffs.

But the protesters also seem to be winning and are acquiring their own weapons.


This revolution does not show any signs of stopping and I just wonder which country is next.


And I wonder when we will get involved for real and what are reasons will be.

reply to post by blupblup


Righ oks so say we get invovled in Lybia. Where do we go next? Do you really think we should be getting invovled in a war that might be worse than afghanistan or iraq?

If ground troops goin,are you prepared for more soildiers being killed?

Are you not sick of hearing of soldiers being killed every day?

People nowadays are weiry with regards to interveaning in other countries affairs, after what happenned in Iraq. And now Afghanistan,people nowadays are not so persuaded.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by blupblup

Do you really think we should be getting invovled in a war that might be worse than afghanistan or iraq?

This is not getting involved in a war..... It's intervening in a humanitarian issue really.... A civil war at worst.

And we invaded Afghan and Iraq, they were not wars per se.... just invasions and occupations.
I protested against the latter and was firmly opposed to either invasion.

If ground troops goin,are you prepared for more soildiers being killed?

Are you not sick of hearing of soldiers being killed every day?

That is the nature of conflict, people die.
Maybe the Libya situation will work itself out, I don't know.... but if it doesn't, then the UN/NATO should get involved.

Egypt was a pretty tame revolution and very few (comparatively) died..... Press coverage in Libya is almost non-existent and the numbers are almost unknown but reports seem to suggest that the numbers being killed by Gaddafi's forces are pretty high.

As a supposed force for good in the world, the UN cannot just stand by and let a slaughter happen... as they did in Rwanda.

We don't want that.