So Obama dumped command on NATO, but the only agreement is to run Combat Air Patrols, and they are delaying the nasty decision of providing Close Air Support to the Rebels until later.

A No-Fly Zone by itself doesn't make sense. And it does nothing to protect the civilians and Rebels.

This is not going to end up well for the West.

Here is my solution. Unfreeze Kadaffy's money presently held in Western Banks and he and his two kids can go to either North Korea or Venezuela where they "retire." We won't try to snatch him or kill him in flight. They ought to live pretty good with the estimated $40 billion presently frozen.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...sland.html

I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

(03-25-2011 09:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...sland.html

Why not Haiti?

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

The "big" issue is the fate of Kadaffy. The UK wants him dead. I don't think the US will go that far.

If they still intend to kill him, the Brits better develop their own intelligence on his location, because they won't get it from the NATO Intelligence Network, which is controlled by the United States.

If someone in the NSA or CIA develops actionable intelligence intelligence on Kadaffy's location, believe me, it won't be passed on the Brits.

That's why the Brits better have another submarine or surface ship in the Med armed with a half a dozen Tomahawks or so that isn't attached to the NATO Operation. This ship would receive the targeting information direct from London and launch on London's authority, not NATO's.

By the time the US detected the launch on radar, it would be too late.

(03-25-2011 12:13 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...sland.html

Why not Haiti?

$50 Billion would pay for the Earthquake damage.

Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

RN missing the point as usual... Do you have *any* reason to think the rebels will rule their own country with more human rights let alone deal better with the US?

We helped the Taliban fight the soviets, how did that work out? Now the new Afgan government is already starting to prosecute religious minorities...

The US Needs to only help when success would seem to help with human rights issues and national interest.

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

Here, ya f'n idiot:


Rebel Commander in Libya Fought Against U.S. in Afghanistan


No, I do NOT think we should be helping some of those rebels.

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

Oh my God, you're stuck on stupid.

If I were calling the shots, our policy would be:

Where US lives, liberty, or property are attacked or threatened, we will reserve the right to take whatever action we believe is appropriate, and to take it unilaterally.
Where there is no threat to the US, we will work with and through the UN and other international agencies to do our fair share to achieve a suitable resolution.

The problem with Libya is very simple. France, UK, and Italy have significant interests there, and want Qadhafi out. But thanks to spending so much less on their military than we have for the last 60 years or so, they lack the capability do it without us. So we get drafted to do what they need until such time as their assets can handle what's left.

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

(03-25-2011 12:44 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

Well, you see, it's different now. A Democrat is in the White House.

(03-25-2011 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were calling the shots, our policy would be:

Where US lives, liberty, or property are attacked or threatened, we will reserve the right to take whatever action we believe is appropriate, and to take it unilaterally.
Where there is no threat to the US, we will work with and through the UN and other international agencies to do our fair share to achieve a suitable resolution.

The problem with Libya is very simple. France, UK, and Italy have significant interests there, and want Qadhafi out. But thanks to spending so much less on their military than we have for the last 60 years or so, they lack the capability do it without us. So we get drafted to do what they need until such time as their assets can handle what's left.

Good assessment IMO.

(03-25-2011 12:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:44 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

Well, you see, it's different now. A Democrat is in the White House.

+1

(03-25-2011 12:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:44 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

Well, you see, it's different now. A Democrat is in the White House.

Yes, but the same ole idiot is behind the keyboard (the one that posted at 12:35 pm Central time).

(03-25-2011 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

RN missing the point as usual... Do you have *any* reason to think the rebels will rule their own country with more human rights let alone deal better with the US?

We helped the Taliban fight the soviets, how did that work out? Now the new Afgan government is already starting to prosecute religious minorities...

The US Needs to only help when success would seem to help with human rights issues and national interest.

We didn't help the Taliban, we helped the Mujahideen Rebels. Two seperate groups entirely.

(03-25-2011 02:27 PM)wild bill Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

RN missing the point as usual... Do you have *any* reason to think the rebels will rule their own country with more human rights let alone deal better with the US?

We helped the Taliban fight the soviets, how did that work out? Now the new Afgan government is already starting to prosecute religious minorities...

The US Needs to only help when success would seem to help with human rights issues and national interest.

We didn't help the Taliban, we helped the Mujahideen Rebels. Two seperate groups entirely.

The Pakistani ISI set up the Taliban after the Soviets left.