Wait so we're going to start bombing Libya now?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Oh jeez, now that the rebels have been obliterated we're gong to do bombing runs to put up a no fly zone?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/17/seeks-resolution-authorizing-wide-range-strikes-libya/#

U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

Published March 17, 2011 | FoxNews.com

advertisement
The Obama administration is pushing hard for a Thursday vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures to stop Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi from killing more civilians and defeating rebel forces in Libya.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya "requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."

Clinton told reporters in Tunisia the specifics of international action against Qaddafi were still being negotiated at the United Nations in New York.

The move comes as Qaddafi forces have made "significant strides" against the rebels in Libya. Qaddafi forces said it would cease military operations on Sunday to give rebels a chance to surrender, without giving further details about the offer, Reuters reported, citing Al Arabiya TV.

The U.S. wants the Security Council to approve planes, troops or ships to stop attacks by Qaddafi on the rebels, according to a diplomat familiar with closed-door negotiations.

The Obama administration said it would not act without Security Council authorization, though it would be willing to cooperate on measures "short of boots on the ground." However, the diplomat said the U.S. insists on broad international participation, especially by Arab states.

Russia and China have expressed doubts about the U.N. and other outside powers getting involved and either one could veto a resolution.

That possibility spurred concerns by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who in particularly blunt terms questioned Undersecretary of State Williams Burns at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday about whether the U.S. would have the wherewithal to take action absent approval from other nations. During the tense exchange, Rubio said Russia and China aren't interested in trying to end the violence in Libya, and asked if the U.S. doesn't step in, who would.

Burns responded that he is confident the U.N. Security Council will pass a resolution.

"I'm not assuming that it's going to fail," he said. "I think we can produce a resolution. I hope we can today."

The undersecretary noted that forces loyal to Qaddafi are roughly 100 miles from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Burns said Qaddafi is taking full advantage of his military firepower in turning back rebels in Libya.

Libyan rebels shot down at least two bomber planes that attacked the airport in their main stronghold on Thursday, according to residents who witnessed the rare success in the struggle against Qaddafi's superior air power.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, who has been pushing the Obama administration to impose a no-fly zone for weeks, questioned Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz at the committee hearing on why that move would now be too little too late.

Schwartz did not say that the U.S. military should have implemented a no-fly zone but he did agree that if one were to be imposed now it would require additional military action.

"A no-fly zone would not be sufficient," Schwartz said.

"As opposed to a few weeks ago when it would have been," McCain replied.

**Kilkrazy**

McCain is right on this one.

We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:McCain is right on this one.

We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with us. It will just get our guys killed.
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.

**Ma55ter_fett**

I sort of figured this would happen, the international community hems and haws and by the time they decide to do something its too late.

Its too bad, would have been a good chance to blow off a few billion USD and give the war hawk senators a chance to feel like bigshots while they head bang to the team america theme song.

**Eldanar**

Short term, maybe not...

But Qhaddafi should be bombed into oblivion for 30+ years of acts of terrorism. Regardless of how he has behaved in the last 3-4 years.

As much of our bombing relies on ground-level intelligence, I have a feeling that we already have assets in place and are just waiting for some political smoke to give us cover.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:McCain is right on this one.

We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with us. It will just get our guys killed.
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.

You have missed the timing issue. That is what we should have done about two weeks ago.

**Albatross**

Fox 'News wrote:"A no-fly zone would not be sufficient," Schwartz said.

"As opposed to a few weeks ago when British Foreign Secretary William Hague originally mentioned it," McCain replied.

Fixed.

It's weird... no-one seems to be cautioning against 'loose talk' anymore.

**agnosto**

I guess Fox has their take on it but Secretary Clinton was on NPR this morning and stated very plainly that the U.S. will not make a single move without international concensus but she doesn't see it happening as too many countries are opposed to the idea of a no-fly zone.

**Frazzled**

agnosto wrote:I guess Fox has their take on it but Secretary Clinton was on NPR this morning and stated very plainly that the U.S. will not make a single move without international concensus but she doesn't see it happening as too many countries are opposed to the idea of a no-fly zone.

She's also announced she's bailing after 2012 no matter what...

**agnosto**

Frazzled wrote:
She's also announced she's bailing after 2012 no matter what...

So? Can't really blame her. It seems out foreign policy has been even more muddled than is usual when Dems have control. That doesn't detract from the fact that there will not be any unilateral action this time around....you know, not like invading Iraq on a whim. Keep in mind that I'm not a Dem or a Republican; I think they're both equally full of BS. I watch Fox and CNN and MSNBC and synthesize the same story from each and believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:McCain is right on this one.

We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with us. It will just get our guys killed.
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.

Don't feel like getting drawn into a debate, but I hardly think that Gaddafis anti air equipment is capable of causing us losses. He's more poorly equipped then Sadaam was and we didn't lose anyone in those air campaigns (while our capabilities have since improved).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
She's also announced she's bailing after 2012 no matter what...

So? Can't really blame her. It seems out foreign policy has been even more muddled than is usual when Dems have control. That doesn't detract from the fact that there will not be any unilateral action this time around....you know, not like invading Iraq on a whim. Keep in mind that I'm not a Dem or a Republican; I think they're both equally full of BS. I watch Fox and CNN and MSNBC and synthesize the same story from each and believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Do that and you end up with half a correct story fethed up almost entirely by fox.

**Crablezworth**

One word, veto. Russia and China aren't going to let it pass.

**Frazzled**

Its way more than a no fly zone. Its bombing targets.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_us_mideast_clinton

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Its way more than a no fly zone. Its bombing targets.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_us_mideast_clinton

Well a no fly zone placed over hostile territory intrinsically involves bombing their anti air capability. No fly zones are expressions of air dominance which has to be achieved first.

**agnosto**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Do that and you end up with half a correct story fethed up almost entirely by fox.

Meh. I operate under the assumption that all opinions are equally valid. The problem I have with Fox is how often they mix opinion with "facts" seemingly more often than the other news organizations. They all have an agenda and once you realize that, you can look beyond the agenda, usually.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its way more than a no fly zone. Its bombing targets.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_us_mideast_clinton

We had a no-fly zone after the first Iraq war to protect the Kurds in the North from Saddam; very occasionally, Saddam's forces would "paint" one of our planes and we'd bomb them.

**ShumaGorath**

Meh. I operate under the assumption that all opinions are equally valid. The problem I have with Fox is how often they mix opinion with "facts" seemingly more often than the other news organizations. They all have an agenda and once you realize that, you can look beyond the agenda, usually.

Why would you utilize a yellow news organization when your plan is to look past agendas? It just seems counter intuitive.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its way more than a no fly zone. Its bombing targets.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_us_mideast_clinton

Well a no fly zone placed over hostile territory intrinsically involves bombing their anti air capability. No fly zones are expressions of air dominance which has to be achieved first.

So you''re ok with bombing Libya. I'll remember that the next time you whine about kids getting killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.

**Avatar 720**

So are we going to bomb this guy or not? I want me some high-quality explosive fireworks.

**Frazzled**

Avatar 720 wrote:So are we going to bomb this guy or not? I want me some high-quality explosive fireworks.

You go, child.

**mattyrm**

Shock and awesome!

**agnosto**

ShumaGorath wrote:Why would you utilize a yellow news organization when your plan is to look past agendas? It just seems counter intuitive.

We're straying a bit off topic here but obviously one person's "yellow news organization" is another person's font of facts. To dispute any inaccuracies you have to at least know what they're saying incorrectly. That goes for all of the organizations because CNN and the other "sources" are not exactly bastions of purity.

**biccat**

Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?

Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?

**agnosto**

biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?

Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?

No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.

You may recall the GW tried to get UN sanction for Iraq but when he failed, he went ahead and invaded anyway.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.

Funny, the military actions currently going on in Libya don't seem like they're symptomatic of a conflict that is over.

Could it be that, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about?

**biccat**

agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?

Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?

No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'

agnosto wrote:You may recall the GW tried to get UN sanction for Iraq but when he failed, he went ahead and invaded anyway.

He also had Congressional approval.

The U.S. isn't governed by the United Nations, they have no ability to circumvent U.S. law on the subject.

**Avatar 720**

Frazzled wrote:
Avatar 720 wrote:So are we going to bomb this guy or not? I want me some high-quality explosive fireworks.

You go, child.

It's 'sir' to you

**Ahtman**

I would have though Frazzled would be up for any excuse to bomb things.

**Frazzled**

agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?

Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?

No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.

You may recall the GW tried to get UN sanction for Iraq but when he failed, he went ahead and invaded anyway.

Bull

gak. The UN is utterly irrelevant and has no legal impramitur on whether a declaration of war is needed. This isn't the world government air force, its the Mutha

ing Snakes on a plane United States military forces.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I would have though Frazzled would be up for any excuse to bomb things.

You're confused, its any excuse to get bombed, not bomb.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.

Funny, the military actions currently going on in Libya don't seem like they're symptomatic of a conflict that is over.

Could it be that, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about?

I'm osrry oh all knowuing guru, but what areas do the rebels still control? Last I saw G's forces had their last strong surrounded and had given them a surrender or be destroyed ultimatum.

**samusaran253**

Good, we'll beat the gak out of them.

**Mr. Burning**

So, the legitimate government of a bona fide nation state has acted against subversive elements bent on bringing down said government.

Why are we looking at a no fly zone and potential military involvement?