What now Mr President

[esmith]

As of today, 30 March 2011, the Libyan army has the rebels on run, the rebels are out-matched. There is a discussion going on about "arming" the rebels; However, what do you give untrained civilians to counter the Libyan army. The only weapons that could possible be given to the rebels that does not require extensive training are RPG's and the only one that are available to take out armor are RPG-7's. These weapons have about a 50% accuracy at around 200 meters (approx 220 yrds), the only problem is that they are Russian. NATO does not have an equivalent weapon as far as I know. Appears that unless NATO gets involved to a greater degree things are going to go to hell in a hand basket

 

[McBell]

Why is the USA even involved in this mess?

 

[Revoltingest]

How could this possibly go wrong? Look how well it worked when we armed the Taliban against the Soviets.
They drove out the invaders & then.....oh yeah, 9/11 & the war in Afghanistan.
Hmmm.....I hate unanticipated consequences.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

It's a cluster**** to be sure.

I don't envy any President for having to deal with this kind of crap. Theres no wonder they look 20 years older when they leave office.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's a cluster**** to be sure.

I don't envy any President for having to deal with this kind of crap. Theres no wonder they look 20 years older when they leave office.

So true.....

 

[elcazador]

i think that we should determine the amount of civilians that have taken up arms for the pro-gadafi forces, and whether or not they would have motivation stemming from a biased, favourable position.

however, i guess we're supposed to go into this blindfolded since we can't even get the names of the rebel leaders.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As of today, 30 March 2011, the Libyan army has the rebels on run, the rebels are out-matched. There is a discussion going on about "arming" the rebels; However, what do you give untrained civilians to counter the Libyan army. The only weapons that could possible be given to the rebels that does not require extensive training are RPG's and the only one that are available to take out armor are RPG-7's. These weapons have about a 50% accuracy at around 200 meters (approx 220 yrds), the only problem is that they are Russian. NATO does not have an equivalent weapon as far as I know. Appears that unless NATO gets involved to a greater degree things are going to go to hell in a hand basket

They do to my knowledge. LAWS are not so good at tank killing, but Dragons and T.O.W.s certainly are. A degree of training is required, but not so extensive that it couldn't be taught in the field. That said, arming and training the rebels isn't completely without risk. The US isn't exactly a friend to these people and the possibility exists that once in power, they could use their training for future hostility of which should be considered in foresight.

Either arm and train the rebels and take a chance at a new power-base, or simply leave Gaddafi in power to suppress the rebellion. At least we know Gaddafi more than the rebels, although such a decision would leave the populous on their own to fight with what they got.

 

[Revoltingest]

Either arm and train the rebels and take a chance at a new power-base, or simply leave Gaddafi in power to suppress the rebellion.

I like a 3rd option....get out & just watch what happens.

 

[elcazador]

How hard would it be to kill Gaddafi directly? Isn't he in his palace or whatever still?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I like a 3rd option....get out & just watch what happens.

Problem with that tho is if we back out completely, and Ghadafi slaughters 100,000 Lybians, who do you think it going to catch the flack? Would be just another example for the rest of the world to throw at us. Pretty much a lose/lose situation from the get go.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

How hard would it be to kill Gaddafi directly? Isn't he in his palace or whatever still?

Then what? Who takes over? Does assassinating him guarentee anything?


Don't get me wrong. Personally, I'm not against that idea, but there has to be plans for the aftermath.

 

[LuisDantas]

Either arm and train the rebels and take a chance at a new power-base, or simply leave Gaddafi in power to suppress the rebellion. At least we know Gaddafi more than the rebels, although such a decision would leave the populous on their own to fight with what they got.

That would be a very, very bad move from a PR perspective. Backtracking now without some indication that the previously attained support from other nations has been withdrawn would look terribly hypocritical and/or cowardly.

Sorry, Citizen. I meant to say that such an approach offers unacceptably high rates of risk. Thank you for listening.

 

[zer0]

Why is the USA even involved in this mess?

Because people forgot that the only reason that we get involved in a revolution in an allied country is if the odds are stacked against the ally. And if they are then we propose to choices, side with the rebels so they will like us when they win or side with the allies and beat the rebels so our other allies won't think of us as backstabbing pigs. We have forfeited those strategies in the name of "democracy" wherever it is fought for. We're getting close to where I can go to Nigeria and say "I'm fighting for democracy" and the U.S. will support me and give me guns.

 

[TheKnight]

Problem with that tho is if we back out completely, and Ghadafi slaughters 100,000 Lybians, who do you think it going to catch the flack? Would be just another example for the rest of the world to throw at us. Pretty much a lose/lose situation from the get go.

Who cares? The world is going to throw examples at us regardless of what we do so we might as well do what's best for America.

Simply put, we cannot afford a war against Libya while maintaining a war in Afghanistan. It WILL NOT work. Besides, we need to stop pretending like we actually care about how those people are being treated because if we did then we'd also be bombing the Ivory Coast and getting involved in their similar situation.

Our spending situation is ridiculously ****** up. And I think that our government needs to start seriously thinking about its decisions and the financial implications of them lest they face revolution here in the States. At some point the average American will say "Why am I paying so many taxes to a government who does nothing but waste it and **** me over with more ******** than I could ever get myself into?"

I care deeply about the US, but I feel as if we're driving ever forward towards our own destruction.

 

[esmith]

Because people forgot that the only reason that we get involved in a revolution in an allied country is if the odds are stacked against the ally. And if they are then we propose to choices, side with the rebels so they will like us when they win or side with the allies and beat the rebels so our other allies won't think of us as backstabbing pigs. We have forfeited those strategies in the name of "democracy" wherever it is fought for. We're getting close to where I can go to Nigeria and say "I'm fighting for democracy" and the U.S. will support me and give me guns.

Since this thread was about Libya I will address your thoughts to that area. First, Libya is not an ally so there would be a almost zero possibility that NATO would side with Gaddafi. At this time we have no idea how the anti-Gaddafi forces will see the Western World if they take over the country. President Obama has not made a clear and concise statement of what his objectives are. On one hand he says Gaddafi must go, but we are there only to protect the civilian population. As you should well know from the Iraq intervention that once Hussain was removed from power a civil war almost erupted. The only thing that keep it from happening was US troops on the ground. It appears that Libya is fairly well divided, the anti-Gaddafi in the East and the pro-Gaddafi in the West. Do you really think that if the repressive regime of Gaddafi is removed that the same problems with civil and tribal differences will not break out. I really do not think that the present administration or the coalition really thought out the long range possibility of a totally unstable Libya.

Just because you say you are fighting for "democracy" don't expect assistance from the US unless it is in the National interest of the US to get involved openly.

 

[elcazador]

Can't we all agree that Gadaffi is a murderous tyrant and needs to be face justice? Despite the fact that U.S. would not be involved if oil sands were not, nobody should let this go on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can't we all agree that Gadaffi is a murderous tyrant and needs to be face justice? Despite the fact that U.S. would not be involved if oil sands were not, nobody should let this go on.

We should let it go on, if only cuz we can't afford to stop him.
TheKnight is right...we're wrecking our country with our meddling.

 

[elcazador]

This is what's wrong with the world, selfishness instead of altruism.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is what's wrong with the world, selfishness instead of altruism.

I'd blame evil.
It can ruin either selfishness or altruism.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Who cares? The world is going to throw examples at us regardless of what we do so we might as well do what's best for America.

Simply put, we cannot afford a war against Libya while maintaining a war in Afghanistan. It WILL NOT work. Besides, we need to stop pretending like we actually care about how those people are being treated because if we did then we'd also be bombing the Ivory Coast and getting involved in their similar situation.

Our spending situation is ridiculously ****** up. And I think that our government needs to start seriously thinking about its decisions and the financial implications of them lest they face revolution here in the States. At some point the average American will say "Why am I paying so many taxes to a government who does nothing but waste it and **** me over with more ******** than I could ever get myself into?"

I care deeply about the US, but I feel as if we're driving ever forward towards our own destruction.

Believe me, I am 100% with ya here. The problem is our history of military action has given us so many ways for the rest of the world to perceive us that no matter what we do, it's going to get turned around and used against us.

Kinda sucks actually.