Who thought the intervention in Libya would have ended Gadaffi's reign by now?

I was against the intervention in Libya and was digusted that NATO would get involved in a civil war. But, to be honest I didn't think it would drag out this long.

I really thought that with all the advanced technlogy that NATO has, it would be enough to end Gadffi's reign within a couple of weeks.

So, what does the fact that little in roads have been made, really mean?

Is it a case of we need boots on the ground?

Has the resilliance of Gadaffi's forces surprised anyone?

Does anyone think that the rebels (Al-Queda et al) can win this war?

Have we been dragged into something that is beyond us (conventionally)?

Since the announcement of OBL's death, there hasn't been much attention paid to Libya!!!

You didn't think operation "Odyssey Dawn," was gonna be operation "quick n' out," did ya?

Actually I thought it would be done sooner too, only so they could move on to the next country.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


If you are going to do something like that, use disproportional, overwhelming force to achieve your objective. All we did was stop him momentarily from attacking the rebels. He is now shelling Misrata and we aren't doing enough/anything to stop him from it. It's just a matter of time before we get bored with it and leave him free to massacre his citizens once again. The cost of an all out attack probably would have been less then this long drawn out affair.

You can't say "This dictator can't stay and must leave" and then allow him to stay. You are setting a very bad precedent for other tin pot dictators. Not that the "rebels" are any winners either. I would have thought at the very least we would have destroyed all of Muamar's heavy weaponry but that doesn't seem to be the case.

reply to post by pavil


Yes I concur, but why has NATO not managed to destroy Mumars's heavy artillery?

I think NATO have been made to look rather foolish. They (mainly France) have been promising to bring the regime down and detroy the capability to inflict the damage on the civilians in Mistrath.

It has been a BIG fail!!

Although I haven't agreed with the rhyme or reason I have not once advocated a BIG fail, but that is what we have.

Personally, I believe they are looking for excuses to put boots on the ground.

I'm not surprised at all.

I remember when word first came out about us getting involved with Libya, many people, myself included were talking about how this was going to be another drawn out "conflict" Then all the nay-sayers came in saying "Oh we'll be done in a few weeks etc etc" which I knew was complete BS.

Same thing was said about Iraq and Afghanistan. "Oh we'll be done in a few months" see what happened with that.

We wouldn't be getting involved in a war if we couldn't stretch it out as long as possible. War is good business for the government.

On a side note, and I'm not a republican, but who else finds it ridiculous that Obama was bashing Bush for starting wars, and now Obama got involved in one too! What a joke that guy is!

reply to post by James1982


The BIGGEST hypocrisy of it all is that Osama, oh sorry, Obama was given the Nobel Peace prize.

Let me repeat that PEACE PRIZE!!

What peace has he brought to the world? Umm, none!!

He has started more wars than he has been able to bring to a conclusion. I was warned about him long ago, in fact when he first started making appearances in order to become a contender. People will play the race card, but let us be honest, it really isn't about that.

Just look at his face, he may well have had admirable intentions initially, but he has lost those and he is carrying the weight of it all.

As Sir Paul McCartney said ' Boy you're gonna carry that weight a long time.' Peace.