Operation Odyssey Dawn: Military Action Against Libya

"Its really funny how liberals like you dont accept arguments like this when Bush was in power, yet when Obama does the exact same shit its totally OK. Just hilarious"

yes, you're totally against it. just checking.
 
I've been reading Watchmen the past 2 days (1 chapter left).

I woke up this morning with the thought of not being able to go outside because the Comis and Americans are in a war in the middle east. Then I realized it's just a book. Then I realized again that there is shit going down in Libya.

Anybody hear about that sniper attack that killed 45 people?
 
you sure do love assuming things, don't you? you're just a shining example of someone who denounces bipartisanship. washington would be proud of you.
 
Congress is not ever going to authorize an act of war unless its World War 3 shit. Welcome to the modern world.
 
Guys... it's cool... France is sending in THESE GUYS...
french-foreign-legion2.jpg

How the hell are you supposed to fuck with a bunch of bearded butcher soldiers?!!
 
seriously, its a perfect plan. they're going to chop down every palm tree in sight making middle earth REALLY shitty. gaddafi is going to step down and move to florida, with us reaping the rewards of him paying taxes.
 
Exactly... and he'd be in a high tax bracket too.. and have to live amongst a bunch of old jewish people who will beat him with purses and golf clubs.
 
The definition of "war" as depicted in the constitution is grossly outdated. As evidenced in recent conflicts (Afghanistan for example), wars in the modern day very seldom consist of two opposing states and tend to be extremely difficult to define.

Given these new forms of conflicts, should it be such a surprise that congress making a "declaration of war" is a very WW2-era style of thinking? For one, to make a declaration there must be someone to make a declaration against which in many modern conflicts would be impossible, especially when facing such dynamic and fluid belligerent groups like the insurgency in Afghanistan.

In this case, because the objective is to establish a No-Fly Zone and not the occupation or invasion of Libya, it does not fall under the traditional definition of "war" that congress would be required to declare an involvement in. Yes there is military involvement, yes there will be collateral damage and yes there will be military actions to pursue the objective. However this differs from your definition of a "war", and thus Congress is not required to make the declaration you are seeking.

As for the missiles issue, go back to my previous post on page 1. A NFZ not only requires significant military assets other than aircraft to be present, but also calls for the disabling of enemy defensive and offensive capabilities as well. Obama has already stated there will be no presence of US troops on the ground for the purpose of an occupation, but you can be sure that coalition assets are nearby if not in Libya to assist with the establishment of the NFZ. Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) assets, Airborne refueling capabilities, high-altitude reconnaissance, intelligence capabilities, the list goes on and on.

A NFZ is not just sending aircraft in to patrol the area, and it is not a simple task by far. It is a very complicated process that will inevitably see collateral damage, and will have some unintended consequences. However, this is the necessary work involved in developing peace in the region and providing much needed support for the Libyan people. Please educate yourself before you speak, failing to do so will not only dilute your argument but will also make you look foolish in the process.
 
i think so too... US policy of involvement in international affairs, while seemingly having good intentions, has proved quite the opposite. the last time that the US engaged in an overseas conflict that turned out to have positive implications was ww2. everything since; korea, vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, and now if it goes according to precedent libya, has either resulted in the disruption of any sort of stability in the countries they enter, as well as the unnecessary loss of american life.
 
that there is the french foreign legion, otherwise known as the most badass military force on the planet.

No surprise they are being sent to north africa though. They would love to get their hands back on their beloved algeria someday, but libya will do for now.
 
Other than the Gherkahs... they're the most badass indeed...
How intimidating is it when you roll out with a fucking AXE...

 
are you fucking stupid? last time i checked, we're not trying to overthrow obama and he's killing us with the national guard. i mean jesus, you must be fucking retarded.
 
If the USA was run by some dictator that was in washington, and he was pissing off the west coast or something... and we went to war with them and they were killing us with tanks and shit from the air, i'd be totally down for China or anyone else to help us out and take out their air superiority...
That's the way that the USA was established as a country on... Just like in the Revolutionary war... France rolled in with their navy and took out Britain's naval superiority... and the colonial rebels won...
Learn - this isn't just Libya as a whole pissing everyone off... this is a civil war, and the nuclear powers of the west are taking sides with the non-dictatorial side..
 
yes it is dude. Obama isnt a dictator killing his own citizens by the hundreds if not thousands, we arent rebelling against him either. Yeah i know your trying to say its an act of war, but that is a terrible way of going about doing it, especially in NSG where your point will sail over the heads of most.
 
what most of you guys dont understand is america is not the one that is initiating the military action. Its a collective council of the UN and arab league. America has a supportive roll mostly, the only western countries that have shown a desire to be in libya have been western european countries. There is no point for america to be there without being somewhat forced from the UN as 2 percent of libya's oil export land in america. Its a collective force of UN that is engaging in military action. This is not a war in any sense as mentioned earlier in the thread, more of a security measure. It is not in the interest of north america to declare war while there is other military action happening at this time. If the UN had not made the call to engage, america and canada would not be there.
 
No, that's not what I'm saying...not at all... don't try to flip this shit and make another point out of it, mr. fallacy committer...
I'm just saying you're making bad comparisons, and not seeing the true reality of the situation... or at least your posts are not showing that you are...
 
You are correct, this is a different type of crime against civilian population in a sense it is being done with the airforce of libya and destroying entire cities based on the face they are in the eastern part of the country. There has been past experiences in the world where other countries have engaged its own population but it is very rare to see full military deployment on its own nation, that is where the world see a problem.
 
erry liberal in America better be against this.

inb4 America solves other countries problems that have nothing to do with our own security........... o wait.

also inb4 President Obama is exactly the same as President Bush on foreign policy.... o wait.. guess the job looks different from the oval office VS the campaign trail?
 
Am I for it? No... but that's just because I feel we're involved because our past tensions with Libya, the fact that they have oil, and our disagreements with Gheddafi, and his support for other Dictators like Kim Jong Il, and guys like Idi Amin - both of whom we have/had grinding relations with.
 
kinda sounds like justification for Iraq doesnt it?

Dingo, your stance on Iraq? Im pretty sure Saddam killed more of his own citizens than Gaddaffi can ever dream of?
 
you are a prime example of misunderstanding how military action works in the modern world post ww2. This is not an issue of Obama's policy, if you have anger about this "war" I suggest you look further into the facts of what is actually happening in Libya from both sides of the spectrum being the UN and the Libya military force. This is not a war, and america is not in control of this action, its a UN issue. I feel you could make a better judgement provided you read into the issue a bit more.
 
that situation is much different than this. Invasion of another country is different than a civil war.
 
112 Tomahawk missiles represent what?

its not a full blown war. but then again when was the last time we actually had a clean cut war?

this is a police action. that in no way advances the interests of the USA. (unless you subscribe to the belief that we are in the practice of taking over countries to steal oil?) but the reality is that markets dont like uncertainty. this is really just uncertainty.

and please dont talk down to me. kthxbai
 
SaddamRumsfeld-2.jpg

He was our asshole, and was our puppet against Iran that we allowed go to shit... Dumb move, 'merica...
This shit's a little bit different, but it's more Italy and France's asshole than our own...

I still think it's fucking silly shit... Where were we when Rwanda was going down? Yeah... we dont enforce world police mode unless they want to give us slippery resources...
 
Its similar to iraq invasion but the claim of "nuclear weapons research and chemical/biological weapon stockpile" was one major leading factor into the war with Iraq, that is what won the american people over prior to the invasion.

Saddam has killed roughly 500k people if you include his war with Iran. When the media block and smoke lifts from libya, I would estimate roughly 100-200k deaths, it is very easy to imagine a number larger than this aswell.
 
the rational that "bad things happen to good people" is endless.

America CAN NOT fix the worlds problems.

i mean seriously, im not trying to be partisan because its times like this that im happier that Obama is in the white house VS Palin (you read it right) but Obama fanboys have GOT TO REALIZE his foreign policy has been an extension of Bush.
 
you told me that Saddam was a puppet. (which is kinda a fact, not so much an opinion) then you told me it was a dumb move. but you didnt really extrapolate on that at all.

a dumb move to invade Iraq and rid the people of a dictator they hated?

a dumb move to associate with him in the first place?

i mean at least for Iraq there was the rational (although false) that there were WMD's. this is simply we want to help the good guys win.
 
While i agree with you on a basic mechanic level of a strike of an anti aircraft defense on any other country means you have just entered war with that nation, I do not think it is as cut and dry as you assume. If this strike were to happen to any western country, NATO would be deployed and swift military reaction would lead to a declaration of war, in this sense you are correct.

The current action that is happening is not one country making a strike, its a council of the UN called a security council making the call to enforce a "no fly" zone, therefore it is not a declaration of war. The UN is not one nation, and does not declare war.

I have no sway of thought if the UN stop the libya civil war or not, I dare not think this issue is resolved by allowing undeclared "freedom fighters" to fight a war with a known brutal regime. These rebel have never stated their plan of action if their war is won, so who is to say the country will actually be bettered from this war. It is just an assumption that they want to install a democracy or another form of government.

I am just trying to step into this thread and maybe clear up a few of the mechanics of the issue at hand, not just personal thought and hersay of what a person may or may not overhear while sitting on their computer with CNN playing in the background.
 
i'm sorry but your posts in this thread have been utterly stupid. and your analogy was by far the stupidest thing you said.
 
"Represented" might have been a better word then, but it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make or the effectiveness of my argument. Not only did you not address any of my points, but instead you chose to seek out little technical details in my presentation to avoid constructing a proper response.

Go ahead, counter each point I make and we'll go from there. I'm not trying to start fight or anything, I'm just trying to give you an opportunity to properly express your opinion against mine without profanity or aggression.

C'mon, give it your best shot.
 
you post makes no sense in a sense you have no idea why the war on Iraq was started. The war was declared BASED on the fact of biological weapon stockpile and nuclear research, not to rid a dictator. The american public was not on board with the invasion of Iraq and the ammo the america government used to promote war was not a dictator, it was stockpiles of weapons. The only time Saddam became a focal point of the war was when the lack of weapon stockpiles became to come to light. I am a Canadian and I know more about the wars your country has engaged, this is what i mean in a sense you should perhaps read a bit more on modern warfare before you put forth a thought you claim to be fact. I am not trying to call you out or anything, I am just trying to point out you may not realize that you do not fully understand how these wars and the current military action came to light. Food for thought.
 
you post makes no sense in a sense you have no idea why the war on Iraq was started. The war was declared BASED on the fact of biological weapon stockpile and nuclear research, not to rid a dictator. The american public was not on board with the invasion of Iraq and the ammo the america government used to promote war was not a dictator, it was stockpiles of weapons. The only time Saddam became a focal point of the war was when the lack of weapon stockpiles became to come to light. I am a Canadian and I know more about the wars your country has engaged, this is what i mean in a sense you should perhaps read a bit more on modern warfare before you put forth a thought you claim to be fact. I am not trying to call you out or anything, I am just trying to point out you may not realize that you do not fully understand how these wars and the current military action came to light. Food for thought.
 
I meant it was a dumb move to even get involved in that shit with saddam in the first place, and give him our weapons to go to war with Iran... shit was silly, and I dont support supporting any dictator.
and yes, it was a dumb move.... who's to say that with this whole revolutionary wave that's been sweeping the middle east lately, that there wouldn't have been a revolution in Iraq right now anyways?
I dont feel that WMD's are a rational reason to go into any country... if you want that, go into North Korea... they at least make OBVIOUS CLAIMS to HAVING THEM...
Oh yeah, but China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top