News & Politics

Rave

Gadhafi goes down, did America help?

Posted 9 months ago|13 comments|242 views
Written by
The leader of Lybia, a country in north Africa has been Gadhafi for many years. He's going down. For 30 years or more he has ruled by trickery and violence. But today his seat of power is no longer his. Rebels what he controlled. The Rebels are citizens of Lybia, not an invading force, not NATA troops or American soldiers, but Lybian citizens. And their victory was hard won and many of them died.

America figured large in the Lybian war because America has weapons of war that few, if any countries can equal. Cruise missiles were launched from American warships, hundreds of miles from pre-programmed targets. Command and Control Communications and Radar installations are the first targets of war. Cruise missiles take these out. How, you might ask, can a 10 foot long, missile that 3 men can lift and carry, go 100s of miles and blow up a specific thing? Well, that's the black magic of American war tools.

But the point I'm making is that America did not win the Lybia war. NATO backed the Lybian Rebels because America refused to repeat its Iraq mistake. In Iraq, America led the war, supported by some other countries. In Lybia, America refused this role and handed the leading support role over to NATO. And then supported NATO>

Did America make a mistake in Iraq, learn from it, and apply that in Lybia? I would like to think so.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
9 months ago: Yeah! Let's hang his kids from lightpoles until dead and then watch them rot under sharia law.
9 months ago: Uh....

The war in Iraq was no mistake, and we kicked terrorist camel butts.

No more 911's...er......uh...... We won.

And I call "the black magic of American war tools" "FREEDOM".

and Obama is just like Jimmy Carter. Now we're going to have another Iran.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Why were we in Libya? Who did we hand the country over to?

And what difference is it to go in on foot and liberate a country as we did in Iraq, rather than pulverize the government forces from afar so the insurgents could pretty much just waltz right in?

Seems like six of one, half dozen of the other.

We want the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya? All reports indicate TMB is very active within the Transitional National Council. Great. Another state to join Egypt, Syria, Iran, and others to try to make war with Israel.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Oh, I forgot, when are we going to North Korea? They are more oppressed than Libya. You think these guys in Libya showed their hand before knowing for sure they would be backed by the UN? Hardly.
9 months ago: We did not initiate change in Lybia, Lybia's citizens initiated change. They Rebelled. They did not ask anyone for permission. Several countries, led by France, helped them. We almost led the help, but NATO became the official source for Lybian Rebel help. And that's a good thing.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: Obama handled this one exactly right. He stopped a massacre of the rebels. He refused to send in the ground troops as the Republicans wanted us to do. Then at the bequest of France and other members of Nato they formed a no flight zone to protect the rebels and allow them to take their country back from the tyrant who had ordered the Lockerbie attack which slaughtered 270 innocent people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

The difference between what Obama did, and what Bush did, is that Obama is respectful of international law, and respects the rights of the people of Libya to determine their own fate. Ghadaffi's three captured sons, and Ghadaffi when he is found, will be turned over to the International Criminal court which was formed under the strenuous objections of Bush to handle just this type of situation.
9 months ago: This is big news in the uk as we have sent thousands of missiles and hundreds of plane flights from bases in southern europe to drop vast amounts of bombs.
Over here we have got pictures today of some of there leading tv presenters armed with machine guns saying that when the Freedom Fighters get here they are going to shoot to kill.
Before anyone jumps the gun the libyans that are pro gadaffi are gathering pace in certain places again so i am sure there will be lots of terrorist attacks in the coming months there.
England are considering putting ground troops in which i hope they dont but there is a massive need for a nato force policing the country.
Al,I dont think obama is respectful of international law i think he is a bit of a coward to be honest and over here we are used to america being strong and decisive.He stood at the back over Libya even france have had more input.
Bush would of been at the front and this would of been over long ago.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: You are right mate. Bush and many of the Republicans would have invaded. That may have been swifter and it might have resulted in more order, but that is not what happened in Iraq.

We went in and overthrew Saddam quickly enough, but because it was our invasion, the Iraqis did not "OWN" their revolution. They did not invest in it personally and they are still looking to us for solutions to all of their problems and still blaming us for the lack of power the lack of basic systems like water, sanitation, fuel, jobs, etc.

Because Bush illegally invaded a nation that had not attacked us and which had no WOMD, and was not a threat to us or it's neighbors, we did not have international support and we had to bear all of the costs.

Of course Bush did destroy all infrastructure, and he allowed our troops to stand by as the nation was looted and lawlessness prevailed. He made everything worse by banning and disbanding the Bath party which included anyone that knew how to do anything and also disbanded the army which set hundreds of thousands of angry armed troops to fight us.

Anyway it appears that Obama has learned from Bush's mistakes and is allowing the people of Libya to own their own revolution, to be responsible for their own fate, and to fix their own broken country. We could not afford a third war and if we invaded, the people would be against us, instead of celebrating their well earned freedom and liberation. People need to be responsible for their own destiny. Because we had backing from NATO, the UN, and the Arab League, there was legitimacy and all of the costs were not born by the US.

Of course now we will release their funds, help them to form a government, maintain stability, and insure the supply of oil, and in the end we will have a strong ally, whereas if we had invaded, even more of the middle East and Northern African nations would hate us more than they did before, and the entire region would be less stable.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: I'm terribly sorry, but I just can't seem to draw a distinction between shelling the ever living daylights out of an "opponent" with smart bombs that are far more effective at eliminating government infrastructure, and invading on foot. Is it more palatable to stand on the fringes and rain down death and destruction from outside a countries borders than to put a bit of skin in the game?

Ghaddafi had the threat of massacring thousands of its own people, Saddam Hussein had already massacred hundreds of thousands. Libya had sent terrorists abroad, Saddam Hussein's dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.


So like I said before, it's the same thing, for the same reasons. The US activity in Iraq and Afghanistan just gave the UN and NATO the cajones they needed to get in there and overthrow an inconvenient dictator.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: It is funny how the right wing thinks that the government has no right to control people's lives in this country, but they think we should control everyone else's lives in other countries.

The purpose of government is to help the people when no one else can. It is time for the other nations of the world to take command of their own defense and be responsible for their own destiny, through a strong UN. The world through the UN can function to help individual nations in trouble, and can help the starving drought stricken masses survive. But it is the responsibility of a united world.

No one elected us the bosses, or the police of the world, and we can no longer afford that role.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: So why again were we in Libya? Were we not policing another country and making their leader do what Obama thought he ought to be doing? And opening the door to another Muslim extremist state.
9 months ago: Al,Obama didnt allow the people of Libya to start a revolution.
The people of Libya started the revolution and then were given arms by european countries and then when the no fly zone was introduced missiles and planes dropped bombs.
Libya will always be a hot bed of violence and there will always be supporters of gadaffi in Libya just as there was in iraq.
9 months ago: Also i would question wether iraq had weapons of mass distruction.
I know alot of people dismiss it because none were found but they have got some pretty wide motorways going towards syria.
It was the right thing for this world stopping sadam and what his government were doing to the people.
It comes back to the same problem these muslim terrorist etc only see there side,there religion,we are all infidels for non believing.
The middle east is just a hot bed for it you either join them or die in there eyes but the western world will not be beat.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.