Libya

[King of the Wastes]

I don't know if anyone is following the news from Libya but recently a city was made into a ghost town by Ghadafi's forces.
videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/massacre-zawiya
The governments of the West and the East stand and watch these massacres and say that there is no reason to take action. I have to say that I am disappointed in the US government for refusing to help these people, but willing to go in Iraq on the word of a habitual liar who said that Saddam had WMD's. I just hope that the opposition forces can hold out, but that looks unlikely.

[poohan]

dont doubt the rebels. they have been winning some of the battles so they can do it. thanks to afghanistan and iraq we dont have the resources to throw at libya but i do think we should do as much as we can. maybe leave ground operations to other NATO forces and we can provide air support. i wouldnt advise arming the rebels too much either, it is what we did with afghanistan after all. maybe small arms and some light AT weapons.

[imperator03]

Mar 11, 2011 22:38:33 GMT -5 poohan said:

dont doubt the rebels. they have been winning some of the battles so they can do it. thanks to afghanistan and iraq we dont have the resources to throw at libya but i do think we should do as much as we can. maybe leave ground operations to other NATO forces and we can provide air support. i wouldnt advise arming the rebels too much either, it is what we did with afghanistan after all. maybe small arms and some light AT weapons.

And it appears you learned nothing from the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq. You people crack me up. Yesterday it was Darfur and today it's Libya. You're only concerned about the area because it's in the news, not because you really know anything about what's going on. As a foreign power, the last thing you want to do is get involved in a civil war. Vietnam should have taught us that. You might also consider that this is not a game and the soldiers who you seem so hot to put at risk for a political reason have families. You try explaining to a kid, or more likely kids, why their dad or mom isn't coming home because you had them playing Superman around the globe.

[King of the Wastes]

It is likely that there will be a no fly zone, the middle eastern countries want it to happen.

[vault72]

I would have to agree with Imp, all we should do is give support or embargo Libya, military action is intended to be the last diplomatic action taken when all other forms of diplomacy have failed and even then it should be something backed by a majority consensus. The arab community expressed their opinion that they did not want any western troops on the ground interferring with Libya as it is an arab nation. Vietnam was a policing action, there was no formal declaration of war. We went in to help France pull out of the 10 year french-IndoChina conflict and got stuck there. Vietnam didn't teach crap, it wasn't a civil war as people think, we were fighting the chinese. When all was said and done, we had killed over 1 million, wounded over 7 million but lost roughly 58,000. History has proven that a democratic society will not support a prolonged war, hell we had people fed up with war and protesting in WWII and Korea. I'm not saying we should have even been in Vietnam to begin with, personally I say screw the French as they do us when ever they can such as the bombing of Libya back in the 80's and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Something you may not have known, even after the trade embargos against Iraq since 1990 france continued to sell them weapons even though the U.N. which they are a part of put the embargos on them. So when we crossed the border into Iraq we had to deal with new French anti-tank mines and missiles and GPS blockers, the same goes for Russia as well, funny how they were two of the only three that vetoed us going into Iraq. That is why all personnel who did not belong there the night before the attack were told to leave the country now, it was mostly Russian and French technical weapons and equipment advisors. Also, America WOULD be able to fight a ground war in Libya along with everything else we are doing. Wouldn't want to but our current military unit composition was designed to be able to fight on three fronts at the same time. Especially now that we have pulled 100,000 troops from Iraq to be used else where minus 30,000 redirected to Afghanistan. But yes, in support of Imp, sending in troops is a last ditch effort that SHOULD be supported by the international community, we shouldn't promote the image that we are war mongers, just good at it

[King of the Wastes]

I would also like to point out that the french was helping saddam build a nuclear reactor, and that the reactor was then destroyed by Isreal before the radioactive material was put in and the plant became active.

[imperator03]

Mar 12, 2011 15:13:56 GMT -5 vault72 said:

I would have to agree with Imp, all we should do is give support or embargo Libya, military action is intended to be the last diplomatic action taken when all other forms of diplomacy have failed and even then it should be something backed by a majority consensus. The arab community expressed their opinion that they did not want any western troops on the ground interferring with Libya as it is an arab nation. Vietnam was a policing action, there was no formal declaration of war. We went in to help France pull out of the 10 year french-IndoChina conflict and got stuck there. Vietnam didn't teach crap, it wasn't a civil war as people think, we were fighting the chinese. When all was said and done, we had killed over 1 million, wounded over 7 million but lost roughly 58,000. History has proven that a democratic society will not support a prolonged war, hell we had people fed up with war and protesting in WWII and Korea. I'm not saying we should have even been in Vietnam to begin with, personally I say screw the French as they do us when ever they can such as the bombing of Libya back in the 80's and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Something you may not have known, even after the trade embargos against Iraq since 1990 france continued to sell them weapons even though the U.N. which they are a part of put the embargos on them. So when we crossed the border into Iraq we had to deal with new French anti-tank mines and missiles and GPS blockers, the same goes for Russia as well, funny how they were two of the only three that vetoed us going into Iraq. That is why all personnel who did not belong there the night before the attack were told to leave the country now, it was mostly Russian and French technical weapons and equipment advisors. Also, America WOULD be able to fight a ground war in Libya along with everything else we are doing. Wouldn't want to but our current military unit composition was designed to be able to fight on three fronts at the same time. Especially now that we have pulled 100,000 troops from Iraq to be used else where minus 30,000 redirected to Afghanistan. But yes, in support of Imp, sending in troops is a last ditch effort that SHOULD be supported by the international community, we shouldn't promote the image that we are war mongers, just good at it

Actually I say leave it all alone. Embargoes don't work. At least they don't unless you're South Africa. I had a Sou'frican explain it to me like the embargo was a cutting off from your family. Last time I checked, Libya doesn't really associate itself with the West. Now we could encourage trade with the anti-Qaddafi people, that would help make them stronger, while weakening the regime.

The goal here, from a libertarian perspective, is to choose the least coercive measures possible. Using coercion is how a powerful elite exerts control over a majority population. Sounds pretty similar to the structure of a dictatorship or oligarchy, doesn't it. It also explains much of the common man's hate against America. We meddle. People don't like it when you meddle.

You're incorrect about Vietnam. The French had already pulled out by the time we sent the first troops in. That's why the country was set up into North and South zones. Think East and West Germany. I also don't like the term "police action". The President, Kennedy and Johnson both, illegally sent troops to Vietnam to fight what amounted to an undeclared war.

'A democratic society will not support a prolonged war'? We'll have been in Afghanistan for 10 years very soon and in Iraq for 10 years pretty soon. Let's just say that as long as the public believes in the reason for fighting, they'll support the war. That's why government officials were so adamant in linking the fight on terror with the Cold War. It made it easier for them to fight these sorts of battles without undue domestic pressure. Plus we don't have the Soviets helping the opposition this time like we did in the 1960's. State support of foreign opposition parties helps. Ask Walesa and Solidarity about that.

v72 you seem like a bright guy, but you have to realize that our troops have a braking point. Were you aware that we almost had riots among Eisenhower's men when they heard they were going to the Pacific? In their eyes they'd fought their war and wanted to go home. Had we not used the atomic bomb, it's very likely we would have seen an insurrection against Truman and what would have become 'his' war. Expecting our boys and girls to go out again and fight on a different battlefield, one that can't be remotely linked to terror anymore, would cause much the same problem.

Do you know how many of those guys get divorced over being sent overseas too much. Hell, I found out not too long ago that my parents almost got divorced the first time my dad was sent to a 6 month tour in Korea. Their marriage survived that and several other deployments, but it was a near thing. Do you really want to do that sort of thing to our warriors?

[poohan]

soldiers arent payed to think their payed to do as they are told. at the same time however we need to look out for them just like they look out for us. our forces are spread pretty thin and we cant afford to go into libya so what i would do is let NATO forces other than america go in on the ground and america could maybe provide air support.

[imperator03]

Mar 16, 2011 6:26:29 GMT -5 poohan said:

soldiers arent payed to think their payed to do as they are told. at the same time however we need to look out for them just like they look out for us. our forces are spread pretty thin and we cant afford to go into libya so what i would do is let NATO forces other than america go in on the ground and america could maybe provide air support.

Wow, somebody has seen to many movies. Soldiers are paid to think, there's this little thing called tactical and strategic awareness. Do you have any idea how complex it is to move troops around with their weapons, food and other supplies. Thank the good Lord you're not in charge of our military, it would fall apart pretty quick.

The funny thing is that you seem to have something against conservatives, but in your thoughts above have shown a callousness to simple human decency that a conservative, much less a libertarian, would decry.

Try to learn something about the subject you're talking about.

[vault72]

Imp, I think you need to re-read my comment, at no point did I suggest we send in troops, quite the contrary, I just stated that our military was designed to fight three fronts is all. I also mentioned on another post how there were protests even in WWII and I am well aware of the divorce rate in the military cause I have to counsel my men who are getting married and i have been deployed for over 2 years in combat, it is the highest in the nation at 75% since the war on terror. Poohan, we are paid to do as we are told for the first couple of ranks, beyond that point we are paid to think and think quickly as battlefield conditions change rapidly. And actually we did send in a small contingent of troops to Vietnam while the French were there to provide security for their withdrawal. You are thinking of the first combat troops deployed to Vietnam for combat operations.

[imperator03]

Mar 20, 2011 0:00:42 GMT -5 vault72 said:

Imp, I think you need to re-read my comment, at no point did I suggest we send in troops, quite the contrary, I just stated that our military was designed to fight three fronts is all. I also mentioned on another post how there were protests even in WWII and I am well aware of the divorce rate in the military cause I have to counsel my men who are getting married and i have been deployed for over 2 years in combat, it is the highest in the nation at 75% since the war on terror. Poohan, we are paid to do as we are told for the first couple of ranks, beyond that point we are paid to think and think quickly as battlefield conditions change rapidly. And actually we did send in a small contingent of troops to Vietnam while the French were there to provide security for their withdrawal. You are thinking of the first combat troops deployed to Vietnam for combat operations.

On paper we were supposed to fight a two front war while having enough forces to take care of an additional couple of brushfires; at least that was what we were told during and after the Cold War. Seriously, read up on Hackworth, in the 90's we were using the same few guys to do the same jobs over and over.

You're also not looking at the economic effects of all of this. We've tapped out the usual methods of going into debt to fight wars. We have an insanely ignorant President, who doesn't understand this, much like poohan he thinks he can just snap his fingers and make things happen.

I expect that we'll see most of our combat strength recalled late in the year to deal with the food riots and strikes that will be breaking out when we get bitch-slapped by inflation. We're already starting to see the effects of QE1, never mind QE2. About 1/3 of our military budget goes to maintenance. What happens to our combat ability when inflation pushes that to 2/3 of the military budget or worse?

[poohan]

yeah i guess after 16 or so years of dedicating my life to the study of military strategies, tactics and the capabilities of various weapons systems i dont know anything about the subject. my comment about them not being paid to think was probably too broad because no shit some of them think. i spent 3 years in army ROTC and was a company executive officer so i know how ranks work. and its not that i dont care about them its just that being shot at is part of their job. i respect the men and women of our armed forces more than anyone els and would never risk their lives if it wasnt absolutely necessary but republicans and conservatives seem to say they respect them yet jump at every opportunity for war.

[vault72]

I am referring to current allocation and composition of units. I am more aware of that then you are, why? simple, I'm in the military and have been for 20 years, don't try and dictate to me something you read in an article once about how it is suppose to work, when I know how it does work. The military changes constantly just like everything else does in the world, we aren't locked into a cold war only setup here. As far as what will we do when inflation makes our budget shift, who knows maybe less cool guy gadgets and research projects, less benefits or a smaller armed forces. This reminds me of college kids with one course under their belts dictating how the military and government works and how simple is would be to fix everything only if they were in charge. It's a grand dillusion of the inexperienced who think they are smarter then they actually are. I know about what I do cause it is my job, the rest of you speak from hobby reading and study but not practical application and yes I know for some of the things practical application may not be possible without some concerted effort on your parts. Imagine that, to truly know something you must do it, shocker right. You want to know how the military works and preach about it, then join instead of being a backseat tactician. You want to change how things work in the government, then become part of it and change it instead of complaining about it. Become doers instead of self declared armchair experts whining about things. If this offends anyone so be it, I grow tired of kowtowing about respecting civilian tendencies to think they know more about the military then I do who have never served or sacrificed. From what I have seen here I am the only one who should be allowed to convey the military with any real authority, I'll let Imp convey governmental politics, even though he isn't in politics because I believe that he has the greatest grasp of it, al least more so then I do. Poohan has a good working knowledge of weapons and so he should convey that material. In all we have something to learn from one another but if done in a manner that promotes such cooperation rather then testing each others nerves. Lets work in those directions instead of this one, post from experience rather then he/she said conjecture or internet subject searches. Before I post things on my survival blog I experiment with it first hand making thorough instructions in the process not just cut and paste from the internet. By the way I hate drinking alcohol so drinking red wine and liquor after not drinking even a sip of alcohol for over 6 years just to do a post sucked but shows some dedication to the topic subject for that posting even though I was unable and unwilling for that matter to expose myself to any kind of radioactive substance even if I could , just as now, I am testing my vehicle using alternate fuel types and homemade processed fuels it was not designed for, to test whether or not it will work as some of these experiments take a week or more. Potentially ruining my car yes, but I do it so I can speak from experience when I post tips to you guys instead of posting false info that can hurt or damage you or your stuff. So in short, do, not talk, and share your experience with the rest of us so that as a whole we may all gain from it.

[King of the Wastes]

Well said 72, I am locking the thread and starting a new one about the War in Libya and I don't want it to become like this thread did.