Libya is in an Epic Fail and ATS Has Nothing To Say?

Well at least OBama has come right and stated no ground invasion....

Obama rules out 'land invasion' in Libya

Well OP perhaps a less cryptic start to this thread would have been a help to fully articulate your position, but I think I am understanding what you are saying now.

My response would be that largely the reason there has not been a full-born response to the intervention in Libya yet is because the story itself is still developing. So far all we have seen the West do is a series of targeted strikes to Libyan military installations and some tacit close air support for rebel troops. A lot of information is still missing, such as what the eventual role of the United States will be after the back of Gaddafi's force is broken, and what the rebels intend to do with their new found heavy hitting allies.

Momentum in Libya is shifting, and hasn't fully turned yet. The Western intervention is less than a week old, and I for one am reserving my judgment on the matter until the picture becomes much more clear. Remember, especially in America there is always a view early on in a conflict that things are not moving fast enough or with enough direction.

It has to be mentioned again, as it was above, that we were not lied to about this war, it is really rather straightforward what was happening in Libya before intervention. The OP's analysis that the European nations are not unified on this is also rather misleading. The great support for direct intervention comes from the United Kingdom and most of all from France. Germany has not taken part, but they also have not said anything to prevent any other country from doing so, and this is because of their upcoming election.

Give it time though, we'll pick apart every single aspect of this war, but we've got to know a bit more about it first.

reply to post by gncnew


Show me where to look for real evidence, not speculation because speculation can be argued on both sides providing no clear answers on either of them. And yes I would have approved of military intervention in Iraq had it been under different circumstances.

You can tell yourself all day that the Iraq war and the intervention in Libya are under the same circumstances but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't.

The reason you don't see people standing up in mass to protest the decision to intervene in Libya is because they support it. Maybe it's a gut thing or maybe it's just common sense, either way Bush's war was BS and most knew it, this intervention is not.

People peacefully protested, some got killed, more got killed at funerals, the protesters armed themselves and became a rebellion, they were being shot from the air, were promised death from a dictator, they asked for our help, we came. And you're trying to say that the Bush war had the same context? Com'n

The people in Iraq weren't protesting in mass, they didn't ask for help. Bush decided they needed it anyway. This is the crucial difference.

This is completely different to Iraq. Neither Obama nor any other western leader could afford another Iraq.

If you want comparisons try Serbia / Yugoslavia - is probably closer

There is a dilemma here, West has supported these people and we are enforcing a no-fly zone against Libya, why do we allow Bahrain to bring in mercenaries from Saudi Arabia to kill their people?

No-one has come up smelling of roses - the Arab league are dismissing the amount of force by the west but backed the no-fly zone. History from Serbia, Iraq and [to a lesser extent] Afghanistan said that the west would dismantle any surface to air capability - before this so they should have expect the heavy bombing.

Any why isn't the Arab league backing a no fly zone in Bahrain - the hypocrisy from all sides stinks

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Well OP perhaps a less cryptic start to this thread would have been a help to fully articulate your position, but I think I am understanding what you are saying now.

My response would be that largely the reason there has not been a full-born response to the intervention in Libya yet is because the story itself is still developing. So far all we have seen the West do is a series of targeted strikes to Libyan military installations and some tacit close air support for rebel troops. A lot of information is still missing, such as what the eventual role of the United States will be after the back of Gaddafi's force is broken, and what the rebels intend to do with their new found heavy hitting allies.

Momentum in Libya is shifting, and hasn't fully turned yet. The Western intervention is less than a week old, and I for one am reserving my judgment on the matter until the picture becomes much more clear. Remember, especially in America there is always a view early on in a conflict that things are not moving fast enough or with enough direction.

It has to be mentioned again, as it was above, that we were not lied to about this war, it is really rather straightforward what was happening in Libya before intervention. The OP's analysis that the European nations are not unified on this is also rather misleading. The great support for direct intervention comes from the United Kingdom and most of all from France. Germany has not taken part, but they also have not said anything to prevent any other country from doing so, and this is because of their upcoming election.

Give it time though, we'll pick apart every single aspect of this war, but we've got to know a bit more about it first.

I hope you're right and will cheers to you if so.

Originally posted by templar knight
This is completely different to Iraq. Neither Obama nor any other western leader could afford another Iraq.

If you want comparisons try Serbia / Yugoslavia - is probably closer

There is a dilemma here, West has supported these people and we are enforcing a no-fly zone against Libya, why do we allow Bahrain to bring in mercenaries from Saudi Arabia to kill their people?

No-one has come up smelling of roses - the Arab league are dismissing the amount of force by the west but backed the no-fly zone. History from Serbia, Iraq and [to a lesser extent] Afghanistan said that the west would dismantle any surface to air capability - before this so they should have expect the heavy bombing.

Any why isn't the Arab league backing a no fly zone in Bahrain - the hypocrisy from all sides stinks

Wrong again. There is no ethnic cleansing here. We are half supporting a no-fly zone, half doing air strikes, and half trying to court the entire mid-east region.

We're terrified to take a stand (all of the West, not just the U.S.) because we may not get it right.

Inaction and indecision is so much worse than what we did in Iraq. We look weak and useless in this.

Originally posted by brianmg5
reply to post by gncnew

 

Show me where to look for real evidence, not speculation because speculation can be argued on both sides providing no clear answers on either of them. And yes I would have approved of military intervention in Iraq had it been under different circumstances.

You can tell yourself all day that the Iraq war and the intervention in Libya are under the same circumstances but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't.

The reason you don't see people standing up in mass to protest the decision to intervene in Libya is because they support it. Maybe it's a gut thing or maybe it's just common sense, either way Bush's war was BS and most knew it, this intervention is not.

People peacefully protested, some got killed, more got killed at funerals, the protesters armed themselves and became a rebellion, they were being shot from the air, were promised death from a dictator, they asked for our help, we came. And you're trying to say that the Bush war had the same context? Com'n

The people in Iraq weren't protesting in mass, they didn't ask for help. Bush decided they needed it anyway. This is the crucial difference.

You're conveniently skipping the fact that we started this ball rolling. You're also skipping the fact that when they asked for our help - we withheld it.... until the French shamed us into action, and very light and limited action at that.

Take a damn stand already. This wishy-washy populist policy is so much more destructive than anything we else we could do.

Stand for something or you'll fall for anything... right now you're falling for anything dropping from Obama's tree.

So let me get this right, you don't see it on the front page, so instead of helping that out by replying to posts in threads discussing the issue as was mentioned on the first page, you create a thread to rub the "lack of discussion" in other people's faces?

I'd expect that from someone that spent time in those threads actually caring, but the same threads that you are ranting about now, you have actually spent time posting in, thus pushing them to the front page of ATS.

ATS always has plenty to say, all one has to do is listen.

--

Personally, I'm against this action. I was and still am opposed to the war/occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. The problem for people that are persistently against these actions during different presidencies is that we get lumped with this right/left wing junk that has absolutely zero to do with any reality that the rest of the world has. No support for Bush's actions, no support for Obama's actions. No need to partition people into made-up parties that do nothing but divide people anyway.

Originally posted by niteboy82
So let me get this right, you don't see it on the front page, so instead of helping that out by replying to posts in threads discussing the issue as was mentioned on the first page, you create a thread to rub the "lack of discussion" in other people's faces?

I'd expect that from someone that spent time in those threads actually caring, but the same threads that you are ranting about now, you have actually spent time posting in, thus pushing them to the front page of ATS.

ATS always has plenty to say, all one has to do is listen.

--

Personally, I'm against this action. I was and still am opposed to the war/occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. The problem for people that are persistently against these actions during different presidencies is that we get lumped with this right/left wing junk that has absolutely zero to do with any reality that the rest of the world has. No support for Bush's actions, no support for Obama's actions. No need to partition people into made-up parties that do nothing but divide people anyway.

edit on 3/24/11 by niteboy82 because: (no reason given)

Valid point about posting in other forums, but really more of a declaration that I need to be more clear in my title/statements.

My problem isn't so much with the lack of "discussion" on ATS, but more with the lack of "moral outrage" and "national condemnation".

While people like you - who would oppose ANY military action - have perfectly valid soap boxes to stand upon, there are far to many who's moral indignation is really nothing more than a talking point for an agenda and/or a tool to attack a specific philosophy they don't agree with.

So I guess all that is to say: I have a real issue with the people on here who were so loud and arrogant when attacking the U.S. for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan either because it was the U.S. or because of Bush but now sit silent because their nations are engaged or Obama is the president.

I had thought about changing the title to reflect that, but figured that would only further invalidate the message I was trying to deliver.

* edit for Engrish