French, British and American military forces attack Libya

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1



It looks like Gadhafi's fate is sealed. I find it interesting as well that France, Britain, and the Arab League are taking the lead in this situation - most notably France. They've been the most active and even were the first to use military action. The US government seems content to just follow the lead of its allies and provide muscle where ever it is needed.

Yeah, I guess we Americans got tired of intervening in exactly the same situation and being demonized for it. The rest of the world can take the lead for all I care on this one. On that matter, can anyone tell me the difference between Gaddafi's forces killing their own people & Saddam Hussein/Taliban killing their own people? What makes intervention in Libya that much more justified?

@del - The liberation of the Iraqi people was one of the benefits and highlights of the Iraqi invasion, but it was not the objective or reason for military action. Nobody thinks (unless they are being stubborn) that Iraq's new civil liberties and freedoms are a bad thing, but instead it is the pretense which the US invaded that people get upset about. That being, we said there were WMDs when in reality there were none.

The Libya situation is different in that military action does not include an invasion force, and the objective is simply to protect civilians from being slaughtered by Gadhafi forces.

Coalition forces were still justified in invading Iraq despite the fact that the Dubya administration lied in order to invade Iraq. Saddam should have been taken care of in H.W.'s time as president.



Right, yeah. I wonder how long until the objective is to eliminate Gaddafi's forces and bring him in for crimes against his own people.

Eh, I'm so apathetic towards all of these "war efforts." I really rather the United States not get involved since almost none of our oil comes from Libya. Libyan oil is almost exclusively used by European nations. But then there are our allies and if a European nation gets involved in arm conflict with Libya then the United States does feel obligated to get involved whether it's presence is required or desired.

I don't think the conflict in Libya has reached a point where it is no longer an internal affair. The Libyans should should handle their own coup d'etat without the influence of other nations. The No-Fly Zone with United Nations, while pathetic in it's own right (though I can't deny that's partially because of my extreme hatred for the UN), is enough interference from the global community without having to go into armed conflict.

Then again, what else is the United States going to do with their ridiculous, expansive, military budget. We spend so much on military experiments and endeavors that it looks bad if all we do is spend time tinkering with new gadgets that we "sell" to other countries.

I am glad they all gave it time before swooping in to try and help. However, I'm sad for the atrocities that have occured in the meantime.

Yes, it is very sad that so many people had to die before the UN intervened. We need to weed psychopaths like Gaddafi out of the world. It's not quite so hard to determine who they are, but it's just so funny we let these atrocities occur while the UN chit-chats about it. China and Russia can definitely go fuck themselves. We really can't blame Obama for not taking a leadership position in this situation, considering the USA has endured scrutiny and scorn for the past 10 years for finally doing what we needed to do 20 years ago in Iraq, and taking an oppressive regime out of Afghanistan. What is awesome is the fact that lots of people are interested in talks of peace with the Taliban! They oppressed Afghans for how long? Denied them modern culture for how long?

The world is not a sane place, gizgal. It's sad but one we must endure for the time being.

Well isn't that petty if you only help out innocent people who need protecting if you have a vested interest in it? The US helped out in Kosovo right?



Well, undoubtedly the NATO and Arab powers at work are going to help the rebel cause, but that isn't why they are using military force. It is because Libyan people are getting bombed and gunned down in the street whenever they tried to do the same kind of protesting that occurred in Egypt only a short time ago. These missile launches and air patrols are meant to disable Libyan military capabilities, but not to wipe out Libyan forces.



I'm going to spoiler this since it doesn't pertain to the main discussion.

Yes, and I think that was a waste of time as well. Oh well, it stems from me bordering on an isolationist attitude. I'd rather the United States stick to its own affairs and not become so involved in the affairs of others. Of course a lot of that comes from my hatred toward U.S. international foreign policy. We like to make allies and yet take advantage and even make deals around their backs when it is convenient for our own interests at the time. Greece and Japan are both great examples of that.

I'd rather the United States just mind their own damn business, and Libya is no exception. I'm not fond of this global unity everyone wants to stir up. Especially with such a pathetically weak international body as the United Nations. United Nations can't do anything more than wag their proverbial finger at other countries. A waste of time and resources that could easily be better spent elsewhere.

The difference between this and Iraq are many-fold; Foremost is this the fact that this isn't an invasion at all. In Iraq the US went in for their own reasons (Lies, but that fact is moot), invaded on their own, and took down the leader.

In this case, libya fell into open civil war against the government completely of their own volition with no western prompting. Well, actually, who knows with modern day covert politics, but it's at least apparently and mostly libyan based sentiment, not a foreign invasion.

And on that note, it still isn't an invasion. A no-fly zone is "an act of war" on the part of the UN, but it isn't a land invasion, it's just a supplement to rebel efforts. They choose what to do with the government, not us.

HOPEFULLY at least.

I support the US giving support to any UN initiatives, even troops and munitions, but I really, really hope we keep our own noses out of it, if you know what I mean. This has to stay completely at the behest of the nation in question and beyond that, completely at the behest of the UN.

I'm fine with foreign intervention if it is TRULY multilateral, not this joke bully-pulpit faux-coalition bullshit we had in the case of Iraq.

Seriously neko-chan, have you ever considered working in media or being a politician? Because you certainly have the ignorance and arrogance to do so; spreading your pro-US propaganda whenever you get the chance.

PLEASE PLEASE people don't be duped again like how you were duped over the Iraqi war.

WATCH this video:

^Well first off I'd like to mention say that I'm skeptical of that report due to the fact it is a report by RT news - a news agency funded by members in the Russian Government and has been heavily criticized as being biased and strongly distoring the truth by Western, European, Asian, and especially African news agencies including Al Jazeera.

However, I am sure it has some merits - no doubt there are going to be some embellishments in the news reporting. However, what I stated is FACT, even RT's website says so. The Britain, French, and US governments ARE reporting that they launched missiles and are patrolling the skies. Maybe they aren't, WHO KNOWS!? Maybe they are lying and are just pretending to shoot missiles at another country. Maybe the Arab League isn't mobilizing.

However, let me point something out - RT is reporting that the Western Media is over stating the situation. Okay, they can say that since it is more an editorial opinion than a straight up statistic. But then they are showing pictures of Tripoli and how the capital is fine. This is misleading by misdirecting your attention from what I quoted from CNN. The report said missiles were fired in the western part of Libya. It said that some people heard gun fire in the morning, one person interviewed reported hearing explosions, but that another did not.

Then it says that Libya state Tv reported damage being done to the capital - which they did. Gadhfi sent a message that Islamic peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin States stand with Libya. He called the attackers "crusaders" - a hated symbol in some Islamic regions. You can look up the video of that and watch it for yourself. So for CNN to say that Libyan state Tv said something, then you see it from the horse's mouth, you can't call that propaganda.

Lastly, when the article did mention any damage being reported in Tripoli, they also stated they could not verify the reports.



What I posted was a report from CNN that accounted what the British, French, US, Arab League, and UN told them, what people on the ground told them, and what had be said on Libyan Tv and in press releases. That is not propaganda - that is honest reporting. What RT reported was that Western media distorts the truth, and then showed you images of Tripoli, a city that CNN and others did not report as the main target of military action. THAT is propaganda aimed at discrediting your competitors, not honest reporting. They should stated how reports were NOT saying the mainly NATO forces were attack the Capital or that they were trying to oust Gadhfi. If they think the Western reporting is Biased - fine. But they did it in a misleading way.

So for you to say I am ignorant and arrogant is ridiculous as well as you stating that I always spread pro-US agenda. I will gladly criticize the US in a number of domestic and international issues as is my right and duty to do so as an American citizen.

[color=red]NOW LETS REALLY HAVE SOME FUN DOOD.[/color] This is another report by [color=green][size=13]RT[/color][/h] - the same news source that you posted - that directly contradicts that very video: http://rt.com/news/military-full-swing-libya/



If you want, I'll take down my OP quoting CNN and replace it with this report by RT - the news source you quoted. It has basically the exact same information.

For anyone who is still confused, I'll give you the simple version: RT is the Fox News of Russia repackaged as a Mainstream English news broadcast.

Peace maintained by force is always a boiling kettle.

I wont argue with that.

However, when the most influential nation on earth does not have the most capable military, who does? And why have they built there military to such a strength?

I'm confident that the U.S. will remain a military superpower, but its time is limited.

The US role is entirely typical of Obama's approach. He couldn't very well commit to another leading role having placed Iraq withdrawals at the forefront of his election campaign, and he knew that Europe and the Arab nations would have to get involved with their vested interests, as much to protect oil as to assert their discontent after cosying up to Gaddafi for so long. It's just a shame that our government decided to scrap our entire fleet of Harriers and several aircraft carriers as part of cost cutting measures. We weren't going to need them, apparently...

The video evidently avoids the issues. It's not exactly unknown that Gaddafi's western stronghold holds significant, public support for the man. The fact is that there is a mass of opposition to him across the east of the country, and the west is where the military might is. The majority of attacks have actually been around the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, where there most definitely had been casualties; the attacks on Tripoli's defences and bases are a preparatory measure for future action, a preventative measure to halt eastern offensives, and will allow widespread air patrols for an assessment of the situation.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Neko-chan, your sentence doesn't make any real sense; it's an oxymoron. As long as a "most powerful" nation exists, there will continue to be war.

Now, speaking as a British national, I'm glad that we've finally decided to do something about the atrocities in Libya. We have waited too long, but I'm glad that we waited somewhat; we didn't charge in there blind which is a good thing.

However, I'm not too sure why America has decided to get involved. They have no connection to Libya whatsoever. Maybe this is the reason why they've decided to take a less-prominent role in th proceedings, and let France and Britain play a larger role.

However, it should be said that this effort is to only ensure a no-fly zone over Libya. I'm not too sure whether or not the Allied Forces will continue to attack Gaddafi's forces after it has been established; it should be remember that Libyan Rebels exist as well. This no-fly zone is meant to help the Rebel's overcome the disadvantage of the Air Force. They'll continue to do the brunt of the fighting.

I meant to say it must maintain the most powerful military. And no, there will still be war even without one country standing out as more powerful than the rest - perhaps even more so.

The US is involved obviously because it's allies are involved. You can't go around asking your friends for help and then not be there when they want your help. The US public is also sympathetic to humanitarian crises and will not be too upset about helping militarily even if there is nothing for the US to gain from it. Plus, it is no big deal for the US to send a couple of missiles and air strikes.

I think it is also important to note that even though the no-fly zone helps the rebel cause, the the Nations at work here are not allied with the rebels. They will receive no help or back up if they attack Gadhafi's forces.

Well, to NATO, keep up the air strikes and the off-shore bombardments. But do not make any amphibious landings. Take care of the skies, and the Libyan rebels will do the rest.

Oh sure. The United States will help allies, but only when it is advantageous. The United States has a bad habit of neglecting allies when a quicker, possibly more advantageous, solution is present.

Like I mentioned before, Greece and Japan are two good examples.

Greek-United States relations used to be as good as Greece had with any other country. Now American sentiment in Greece is "rocky" at best. We ally ourselves with Greece, yet we supported the military junta in Greece, which took Clinton nearly twenty-years later to formally apologize to Greece. Then the United States informally supported the Turks invading Cyprus. Now most recently Bush formally stated that the United States supports the The Republic of Macedonia rather than choosing to side with our ally in continuing to refer to the country as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. All of those a matter of short-term benefits to the United States rather than caring about long-time allies.

Now it is starting to get as bad with Japan. The United States government is so anxious for talks with China that the government is about to step over Japan to get it done.

I can't help, but figure that if this situation was slightly different (e.g. Libya civil revolution over a democratic process) that the United States would side with Libya if the United States could get a cut of the oil. No, thankfully the U.S. overzealous attitude towards democracy, spreading from the old Manifest Destiny crap, keeps the country from doing anything terribly rash, so far.