Libya

[Giant Communist Robot]

Now there will be no flies on Gaddafi

[Shapley]

Wouldn't some of those Shell No-Pest strips been cheaper than 110 cruise missiles?

I've heard of shooting flies off a camel's back, but I think they usually use a smaller calibre...

[Haggis@wk]

Here’s some guidance for free: “If you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

[Giant Communist Robot]

Unfortunately we have a "devil you know vs. the devil you don't know" situation. In Gaddafi's favor we had stability.

[Shapley]

I would say, judging from the current state of affairs, it wasn't too terribly stable...

[Giant Communist Robot]

Not now, but for 40+ years, yes

[dai bread]

Here’s some guidance for free: “If you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

For this reason, you must now put in ground troops. Then, having killed the king and his henchmen, you must LEAVE!

[Haggis@wk]

Unfortunately we have a "devil you know vs. the devil you don't know" situation. In Gaddafi's favor we had stability.

I guess that makes me a radical, I don't think there is any statute of limitation on killing Americans, besides some people just need killing.


White House: Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action.’
Well, okay then. sheesh

[Shapley]

The U.N. has not authorized killing Quadhaffi. Apparently, just as was the case with Saddam Hussein in the first part of the Gulf War, his death would be acceptable as 'collateral damage'.

[Giant Communist Robot]

I guess that makes me a radical

I think we've known this for a while

[Haggis@wk]

It is a bad idea for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our rebel allies are.

If Gaddafi retains power is there any reason for him to continue to sell his oil to Europe when China will clearly buy it? According to this chart http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20110222/162716781.html Italy will be the biggest loser if Gaddafi decides to punish her for allowing NATO planes to fly from Italian bases.

I wonder what will constitute a threat large enough for Europe to consider sending in the troops? I suspect cutting off their oil will be more than enough for an Anglo-Franco-Italo combined force to go in and secure that oil.

[Giant Communist Robot]

I wonder what will constitute a threat large enough for Europe to consider sending in the troops? I suspect cutting off their oil will be more than enough

Interesting thinking. This is the same rationale Japan uses to blame the U.S. for starting WW2.

[piqaboo]

It is a bad idea for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our xxxx allies are. ... oil.

Yup. Either side of the aisle.

[Giant Communist Robot]

This thing is a mess. It doesn't look like the rebels can win without Western intervention. Even if Gadaffi is beaten, who takes over? Are there many reasons to think things are gonna be better? Or just different?

[dai bread]

Whether things are better or worse in Libya as a result of Gadaffi's removal is beside the point. The king having been struck, he must now be killed. If he survives, neither he nor any other ruler will ever trust Western powers again. They probably don't anyway, but at least they now smile politely.

[piqaboo]

You are so delightfully pragmatic, dai!

[piqaboo]

It is a bad idea for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our xxxx allies are. ... oil.

Yup. Either side of the aisle.

Sheesh, what's the point in my being snarky if no one gets miffed by it?

[Haggis@wk]

It is a bad idea for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our xxxx allies are. ... oil.

Yup. Either side of the aisle.

Sheesh, what's the point in my being snarky if no one gets miffed by it?

In this particular incident I fully agree!!

[Giant Communist Robot]

Murray Rothbard said we have no right to impose ourselves on any other countries' internal affairs. I don't buy into Daibread's point, either, as rulers have to be pragmatic about their relationship with the U.S. no matter what they think.

I remember reading that back in the 30's Ruth Benedict had said that there are no cultural absolutes so we can't judge another culture by our own without making an error, but after the Holocaust she changed her tune. Some things are absolutely evil. Because the rebels, according to the media, are not a military organization they are no match for an army. They face slaughter. Couldn't Khadaffi try to handle this another way?

I read somewhere that historically 85% of the casualties in war are non-combatant civilians. In modern times killing civilians has two objectives; first it disrupts the economic complex that allows the war to continue, and second it moves the population's opinion towards ending the war. I don't want to linger on this, you could read "Fog of War" by McNamara. But there is no economy supporting this, and the cities and towns being shelled are not the rebels. I doubt there is any justification for the shelling.

I think there is moral reason for intervention, the sooner the better.

[dai bread]

If you mean ground troops,GCR, then we have reached the same conclusion by different routes.