BF2S Forums Why are we involved in Libya?

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uhh, I'd much rather not have a unified front, and for the people to not be blinded by patriotism. What you're proposing is that we turn a blind eye to anything negative and write politicians a blank check for whatever powers they desire. If you don't want opposition to your wars then conduct them right. Instead, they try to get away with as much shit as they can and when it gets found out it becomes 1000000x the story that it would've originally been. It's not the medias fault for reporting on Abu Ghraib, it's the fault of the MPs that committed the crimes in the first place.

I've actually been to Abu Ghraib. It was a mud filled shithole surrounded by 20 foot high walls with a prison compound in the middle that looked eerily like an American high school. All you would hear echoing all over the camp was the sound of the prisoners wailing from inside their cells at anyone that walked by. "Fuck you American" "I'm innocent American" "I want to go home" etc. The MPs clearly cracked under the pressure. That doesn't excuse their behavior.

I want that, if the decision to go to war has been made, that all politics  are set aside in favor of supporting the troops and the mission. ESPECIALLY since all those assholes that try to torpedo the successes voted for war in the first place.

Then you are a bigger moron than I ever imagined.

Yeah, start a war and you should get free reign and protection from all dissent. You, who constantly tout his reverence for the Constitution, would trample the first amendment. You, the asshole who goes out of his way to start arguments on an internet message board, would have people silenced who disagree with the conduct of a war. That's just rich lowing.

Sorry ya feel that way Jay, but that is not what I said.

I said, that if you are going to vote to go to war, then you do not spend your time seeking ways to trash it, and those that lead it, and the success they have seen in it, for your private political gains.

I said that those that voted to go to war, should actually support those they send to fight it.

Of course I post shit to argue about on this board. Why in the hell would I post shit that is not controversial or debatable. I m not looking for your friendship, nor have I ever played into the popularity non-sense that befalls this board.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-22 20:08:30)

FEOS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Honestly I don't understand how Libya was a direct and immediate threat to the US. That is the only way the President can authorize his 30 day military intervention without congressional approval. Those are the rules for our constitution.

This. I've been looking for a threat to US interests, and can't find one. And it looks like this is about to disrupt my personal life immensely...FEOS not happy.

in 2007 Obama wrote:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/oba … power-unde

Congress would have to press the issue and the courts would have to rule on the constitutionality of his authorization. I imagine someone like Ron Paul wouldn't mind challenging this action.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

ya gadaffy is slaughtering his people ya!!!!

proof?

oh well this guy says so.

oh ok.  attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/ … piracy.jpg

can you show me any concrete proof of genocide?

yes he is .. but unfortunately we've got a bunch of pansies in congress that are waiting to see which way the winds blow before doing anything, and risking being unpopular.

11 Bravo wrote:

Kmar wrote:

yea i figured..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQmLyp6 … r_embedded

Paul wrote:

Congressman Ron Paul comments on how President Obama’s actions on Libya are violating the Constitution, ceding authority and sovereignty to the United Nations, and weakening the United States. Action by the American people to return government to its constitutional limits is critical if we are to change our course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qm9U3X3EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3coOk1bL … re=related

he is 1000000% correct

About a renewed US foreign policy that concentrates on trade and cooperation instead of militarism and choosing which dictator to side with? Yeah, 100%. Start with lifting all trade blockades first, E.g. Cuba.

The US isn't the UN. The US is a major, if not THE major player in both NATO and the UN. However, they're not "all our planes" or "all our money". The US is not alone in this operation, and has refused to be the leading country in it. That is a bold and IMHO correct move, even though the operation still needs one to lead it, as all countries involved have different motives.

But claiming that everything in the operation is American is very pompous. A lot is, most is, but not everything.

The USA doesn't have to be involved, but if they have the resources to do so, then good. If the US doesn't want to be involved, it's their prerogative not to be. Paul was right, the US is involved in two major wars, and doesn't need a third one. And the muslim world, due to recent events seems to want to blame America for everything.

On another note: As for my own countries involvement, or lack there of atm, I think Finland should join, if not with planes, with humanitarian help. It's hypocritical to sit here and say that what the UN is doing is right but "we're not going to be involved".

lowing wrote:

Sorry ya feel that way Jay, but that is not what I said.

I said, that if you are going to vote to go to war, then you do not spend your time seeking ways to trash it, and those that lead it, and the success they have seen in it, for your private political gains.

I said that those that voted to go to war, should actually support those they send to fight it.

Of course I post shit to argue about on this board. Why in the hell would I post shit that is not controversial or debatable. I m not looking for your friendship, nor have I ever played into the popularity non-sense that befalls this board.

While you do have a point, it's not their fault the war has gone on for as long as it has. That blame lies with the people who devised the strategies for Iraq/Afgh, and for allowing the media to pick up these stories as well.

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry ya feel that way Jay, but that is not what I said.

I said, that if you are going to vote to go to war, then you do not spend your time seeking ways to trash it, and those that lead it, and the success they have seen in it, for your private political gains.

I said that those that voted to go to war, should actually support those they send to fight it.

Of course I post shit to argue about on this board. Why in the hell would I post shit that is not controversial or debatable. I m not looking for your friendship, nor have I ever played into the popularity non-sense that befalls this board.

While you do have a point, it's not their fault the war has gone on for as long as it has. That blame lies with the people who devised the strategies for Iraq/Afgh, and for allowing the media to pick up these stories as well.

It is their fault, as the professional spin doctors that congress is, they purposely up-spun the negativity and exploited it for their gains, they ignored or down-spun any progress, purposely creating strife among the American people and turning public opinion away from support for the war.  There is no way such tactics do not play a part in the effectiveness and decisions made in any war.

Kmar wrote:

You're right

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-m … tional-war

France has done most of the bombing though, putting everything togheter the EU entirely is providing about 100 jets / refueling / surveillance aircraft and 15 ships (1 carrier, lots of frigates, trafalgar sub, some minehunters, patrol boats etc)

US has provided most of the naval support and a good deal of aircraft;

"The United States has deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[78][79][80] Additionally, B-2 stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II ground-attack aircraft and F-15 and F-16 fighters have been involved in action over Libya.[81] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft are stationed on Cyprus.[82] On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft."

Anyway, could this turn ugly for Obama being that Gadaffi is not exactly a direct threat to the US?

lowing wrote:

It is their fault, as the professional spin doctors that congress is, they purposely up-spun the negativity and exploited it for their gains, they ignored or down-spun any progress, purposely creating strife among the American people and turning public opinion away from support for the war.  There is no way such tactics do not play a part in the effectiveness and decisions made in any war.

I can't agree, ultimately the blame for failure lies with the planners of a war. I can't blame someone else for picking up on their failure and using it to further their own goals. It's only slightly counterproductive.

FEOS wrote:

Yet another illogical leap.

It's called SEAD: suppression of enemy air defenses. C2 nodes, radars, and air defense sites are common and understood targets when executing that type of mission, which is a subset of DCA: defensive counter-air (ie, NFZ operations).

So, to get back to your illogical argument: If Russia were operating a NFZ over the US, then yes, they would need to execute SEAD on our C2 nodes, radars, and air defense sites to proper execute the NFZ.

What do you do anyway? Defense contractor?

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-23 04:38:37)

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is their fault, as the professional spin doctors that congress is, they purposely up-spun the negativity and exploited it for their gains, they ignored or down-spun any progress, purposely creating strife among the American people and turning public opinion away from support for the war.  There is no way such tactics do not play a part in the effectiveness and decisions made in any war.

I can't agree, ultimately the blame for failure lies with the planners of a war. I can't blame someone else for picking up on their failure and using it to further their own goals. It's only slightly counterproductive.

The blame (assuming you're talking about Iraq/Afghanistan) lies with the policy makers, not the planners.

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yet another illogical leap.

It's called SEAD: suppression of enemy air defenses. C2 nodes, radars, and air defense sites are common and understood targets when executing that type of mission, which is a subset of DCA: defensive counter-air (ie, NFZ operations).

So, to get back to your illogical argument: If Russia were operating a NFZ over the US, then yes, they would need to execute SEAD on our C2 nodes, radars, and air defense sites to proper execute the NFZ.

What do you do anyway? Defense contractor?

No. But I work with a few.

Shocking wrote:

Kmar wrote:

You're right

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-m … tional-war

France has done most of the bombing though, putting everything togheter the EU entirely is providing about 100 jets / refueling / surveillance aircraft and 15 ships (1 carrier, lots of frigates, trafalgar sub, some minehunters, patrol boats etc)

US has provided most of the naval support and a good deal of aircraft;

"The United States has deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[78][79][80] Additionally, B-2 stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II ground-attack aircraft and F-15 and F-16 fighters have been involved in action over Libya.[81] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft are stationed on Cyprus.[82] On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft."

Anyway, could this turn ugly for Obama being that Gadaffi is not exactly a direct threat to the US?

As it should. It's a blatent power grab. He's effectively replaced the congress with the un.
We've also got tankers (KC 135's) deployed. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/22 … -breaking/

What's the worst that could happen?

To Obama, that is.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-23 04:44:02)