Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I now do understand why Lamplighter gave up trying to engage you in a rational discussion and left this place.

It was my impression he left for other reasons. Not a merc reason. solely

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You have avoided the question. Why?

So you post this instead of answering a question yourself. Ironic.

I looked back, and I have answered the only question you asked me, so I guess we could start another round of "what are you talking about" here.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So you post this instead of answering a question yourself. Ironic.

I looked back, and I have answered the only question you asked me, so I guess we could start another round of "what are you talking about" here.

Dude, I was talking specifically about Libya when I made the comment.

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=236

Not about Bosnia.

[TheMercenary]

Does anyone believe this?

News that U.S. officials told Reuters that President Barack Obama had authorized covert operations in Libya raised the prospect of wider support for the rebels.
Experts assume special forces are on the ground "spotting" targets for air strikes. Public confirmation from Washington may indicate a willingness for greater involvement.
The rebels, whose main call is for weapons -- not authorized yet by Washington because of a U.N. arms embargo which NATO says it is enforcing -- said they knew nothing about Western troops in Libya and that too big a foreign role could be damaging.
"It would undermine our credibility," Gheriani said.
U.N. RESOLUTION
Obama's order is likely to further alarm countries already concerned that air strikes on infrastructure and ground troops by the United States, Britain and France go beyond a U.N. resolution with the expressed aim only of protecting civilians.
"I can't speak to any CIA activities but I will tell you that the president has been quite clear that in terms of the United States military there will be no boots on the ground," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-support-o...30403-138.html

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Dude, I was talking specifically about Libya when I made the comment.

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=236

Not about Bosnia.

You asked how Bosnia was a victory, I answered, and you said "Really? OK until...". Your response made no sense as a reply to my post, which is why I asked what you were talking about, and later asked if you were responding to a different post, though there are no obvious candidates.

[Spexxvet]

I wonder if we lost the Bosnian War again.

A fighter jet's engine exploded on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Stennis, injuring 10 sailors and causing five of them to be airlifted to hospitals in Southern California.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You asked how Bosnia was a victory, I answered, and you said "Really? OK until...". Your response made no sense as a reply to my post, which is why I asked what you were talking about, and later asked if you were responding to a different post, though there are no obvious candidates.

I don't know why you are spending so much time on this...

I was commenting about Libya, regardless of your assessment about Bosnia.

[Happy Monkey]

What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't know why you are spending so much time on this...

Let's see. Massacring 4,500 American servicemen on a war with no purpose - "Mission Accomplished" - is good. Resulting death of untold tens or one hundred thousand Iraqis was also good.

Meanwhile, Bosnia and Libya are about stopping massacres. Why did you approve of Mission Accomplished? And disparage Bosnia and Libya? Do you like massacres? Apparently.

[Undertoad]

Even 500,000 Iraqi children dead is "worth it", or something.

[Fair&Balanced]

NATO has a good time line of how events in Libya unfolded:

Following the popular uprising which began in Benghazi on 17 February 2011, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 1970. This institutes an arms embargo, freezes the personal assets of Libya’s leaders and imposes a travel ban on senior figures.

On 8 March, with international concern over the Libyan crisis growing, NATO stepped up its surveillance operations in the Central Mediterranean, deploying AWACS aircraft to provide round-the-clock observation. These “eyes in the sky” give NATO detailed information of movements in Libyan airspace.

On 10 March, NATO Defence Ministers supported SACEUR’s decision to have alliance ships move to the same area to boost the monitoring effort.

On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorising member states and regional organisations to, inter alia, take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.

On 22 March, NATO responded to the UN call by launching an operation to enforce the arms embargo against Libya. On 23 March, NATO’s arms embargo operation started.

NATO ships and aircraft are operating in the Central Mediterranean to make sure that the flow of weapons to Libya by sea is cut off. They have the right to stop and search any vessel they suspect of carrying arms or mercenaries.

The NATO ships will not enter Libyan territorial waters. NATO has no intention of deploying land forces anywhere in Libyan territory.

On 24 March, NATO decided to enforce the UN-mandated no-fly zone over Libya. The UN resolution called for a ban on all flights, except those for humanitarian and aid purposes, in Libyan airspace, to make sure that civilians and civilian populated areas cannot be subjected to air attack.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_71652.htm?

This does include the first (and only) unilateral action of the US to-date, a week after the uprising began, which was to freeze $30+ billion of Libyan assets – the largest seizure of foreign assets in US history.

I think by most objective standards, the above actions were deliberative and measured.

There was no over-reaction with a display of overwhelming force right from the start nor an under-reaction by doing nothing when the threat to civilians was far greater than Egypt (where the military sided with the protesters), Tunesia, etc..

Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.

The actions to-date and the cost to the US in money and lives has been minimal, more like Bosnia than Iraq or Afghanistan.

I support it as it has played out. Even with the outcome as uncertain as it still remains, I think it is reasonable to believe that a mass slaughter of civilians has been prevented so far. I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.

Others can disagree, but I would hope they would keep it in perspective and not make it a left-right argument, given that there is support and opposition on both the left and right.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?

As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am no real fan of Bush but the duplicity is amazing. Selective duplicity. The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.

[Happy Monkey]

So again we come to Bosnia was a success until another plane crashes in Libya.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong.

No, liberals think Bush did something wrong because the Iraq war turned into something that the American people didn't think they would be getting into. Initially Iraq was supported pretty much across the spectrum and Bush's ratings were through the roof. His ratings started dropping when it was realized that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk that it was talked up to be (plus other reasons but it's hard to generalize any further).

There will always by hypocrisy in politics when it comes to two polarized parties but both parties are split down the line on this one. For republicans, the neocons are pro-war and the rest are pretty much against. For democrats, there are the interventionist who are pro-war and there are the non-interventionists who are against it. There are a lot of pissed off democrats right now.

The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.

I disagree to a point. The outcome is completely unknown and the impact is in doubt but there are indirect gains with stopping Gadaffi from massacring his own people. There are reasons why everyone is much more focused on Libya and not Darfur or the Ivory Coast.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.

The CIA have been on the ground since before the first missiles were fired.
They have been doing quite a bit more than just "understanding the make-up." To believe that is nothing short of ignorant.
They've been gathering intel and directing strikes against one side of a civil war.
Sides have been clearly chosen. Arming & training the rebels is the next step which is probably already happening.
If not, it will be very shortly.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.

I believe it will have to come to that in order to end this anytime soon.
The rebels have been proven to be ineffective and outnumbered.
They will not prevail without serious assistance.
I hope you are as vocal in your opposition when/if that happens.