Military option in Libya?

What’s the deal with a “military option” on the table in Libya?

I’ve got my head buried in school work the past couple weeks and don’t watch TV but I am aware of the revolts/riots/civil unrest in the Middle East. Just wondering, with all these countries having revolts and some of the governments opening fire on the protesters (Bahrain) what’s the deal with Libya?

I realize the Navy’s got the Gulf covered and the rest of the land lubbers have bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain and all the rest…. So why is there talk of military action in Libya and not in these other countries?

i dont know the reasoning. but, they need to stay the fuck out. pull all our troops out of iraq and afghanistan and post them at our southern border, our nothern border and the ports. stop all smuggling, human or cargo. and do it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

i dont know the reasoning. but, they need to stay the fuck out. pull all our troops out of iraq and afghanistan and post them at our southern border, our nothern border and the ports. stop all smuggling, human or cargo. and do it now.

---

+1 We need to protect us and our people first. Im tired of the U.S. being the helping hand for the world. Tired of our comunist in chief saying sorry for what we do. Bring our military home,seal the borders. Tanks on the border and snipers in the brush. Try crossing now pablo[M2]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamonkey

So why is there talk of military action in Libya and not in these other countries?

---

Because we already have guys in the other countries...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamonkey

What’s the deal with a “military option” on the table in Libya?

I’ve got my head buried in school work the past couple weeks and don’t watch TV but I am aware of the revolts/riots/civil unrest in the Middle East. Just wondering, with all these countries having revolts and some of the governments opening fire on the protesters (Bahrain) what’s the deal with Libya?

I realize the Navy’s got the Gulf covered and the rest of the land lubbers have bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain and all the rest…. So why is there talk of military action in Libya and not in these other countries?

---

The only military option that's being discussed is enforcing a no-fly zone. Ghaddafi is using attack fighters and helo's to try and defend Tripoli. This is what the F-117 and F-22 are made for, I'm sure we could burn up a few AGM-78/AGM-88 eating radar sites around Tripoli.

I'm all for keeping those aging Mirage and Eurocopters sitting on the tarmac. We enforced no-fly over northern and southern Iraq for a decade.

However, I'm incredibly opposed to putting US military boots on the ground in-country. We need another war in the middle east like we need a hole in the head.

Oh, and why Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen (yet), Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy: Only in Libya is the old power regime using aircraft against the rebels.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Oh, and why Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen (yet), Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy: Only in Libya is the old power regime using aircraft against the rebels.

H.

---

Egypt
Tunisia
Bahrain
Yemen
Saudia Arabia


These are just some of the advertised presences in those countries. If there are bases and access to an airfield... then we most likely have other guys on the ground there as well.

Hoosier's got this right

Deploy the F-22 to Aviano in Italy with tanker and AWACS support and you can deny the air to Libyan aircraft easy enough.

This is EXACTLY what it was designed for Air Superiority in hostile airspace!

Besides it will shut up the nay sayers about the F-22 by proving it in combat.

putting our troops anywhere near a muslim infested african civil war is a blunder of epic proportions. let's hope that obama's inexperience doesn't get the better of him.

we need to pull out of the area and spend the trillions of dollars in domestic oil development and exploration.

There is nothing wrong with our supply, its development of our supply and refinery technologies that needs work.


Besides, maybe they will kill themselves off and then we can get theirs on the cheap. :D

It was a mistake to go into Iraq, let them kill each other. Atleast while there killing each other it keeps them busy. Also its none of our business. Start issueing some permits to drill oil over here or better yet go kick Chavez out, he is closer anyways. Or even better, let Israel deal with it.

I'm just glad no one is taking McCain seriously in his desire to train and arm yet another group of unemployed illiterate muslims in a third (fourth?) world country.

Also, I'm hoping the US is learning that from now on we need to just go ahead and kill the head of state when we get into a pissing contest. No sense dragging it out for 20-30 years when dealing with men like Saddam and Mommar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

This is what the F-117
.

---

http://s3files.core77.com/blog/image...ighter_RIP.jpg

RIP F-117

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

i dont know the reasoning. but, they need to stay the fuck out. pull all our troops out of iraq and afghanistan and post them at our southern border, our nothern border and the ports. stop all smuggling, human or cargo. and do it now.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

The only military option that's being discussed is enforcing a no-fly zone. Ghaddafi is using attack fighters and helo's to try and defend Tripoli. This is what the F-117 and F-22 are made for, I'm sure we could burn up a few AGM-78/AGM-88 eating radar sites around Tripoli.

I'm all for keeping those aging Mirage and Eurocopters sitting on the tarmac. We enforced no-fly over northern and southern Iraq for a decade.

However, I'm incredibly opposed to putting US military boots on the ground in-country. We need another war in the middle east like we need a hole in the head.

Oh, and why Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen (yet), Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy: Only in Libya is the old power regime using aircraft against the rebels.

H.

---

I'm guessing that's it. An article yesterday mentioned a no fly zone would keep him from bringing in African merc's and doing air strikes. I know about the Iraq no fly zone, I was there. Oh, and the U.N. oil for food rings a bell also, gee that sure worked out!

Seems to me, that military involvement is a bad call, in fact any involvement is a bad call.

I know we want some regimes to end, but more importantly we would want a reasonable "Jordan-ish" friendly reasonable gov't in place. If we go in hot, odds on being popular by the end of it is very low. Very easy for extremists to claim "the evil empire" is toppling poor Muslim Gov'ts and that ends poorly. We aren't well enough loved to do shit now, maybe the UN or the African Union, but not us.

Beyond my personal opinion that we should bring our young men and women home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

http://s3files.core77.com/blog/image...ighter_RIP.jpg

RIP F-117

---

I didn't know they decommissioned them. Sad to see that much cash end up in a scrap heap. I hope they saved a few for museums.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

I didn't know they decommissioned them. Sad to see that much cash end up in a scrap heap. I hope they saved a few for museums.

H.

---

One remain for R&D. Sad indeed....

A start-up of a no-fly zone, against MQ's aircraft, is an act of war, against Libya; buy the very fact that we would have take out MQ's anti-aircraft, and radar batteries on the ground to enforce a very expensive no-fly zone. MQ, is aware of this threat, and up to now, he is using his aircraft to bomb weapons depot's and other military target's, meanwhile, avoiding carpet bombing rebel held cities.

MQ, has a sizeable pile of mustard gas, but has questionable means of delivering the mustard gas to the target.

If MQ, uses mustard gas, or carpet bombs the cities, the U.S. will be forced to go in, with: air force, cruise missiles, tanks, artillery, and a U.S. Marine led invasion force, backed up with Osprey's.

Good luck, to our U.S. Troop's, and our Air and Naval Forces.


Erno

I thought that is what long range missiles were designed for?

fuck sending our troops, fuck sending our navy, fuck sending in marines. send them a direct hit to Gadhafi's stronghold and then let them figure it out.

I am sick of seeing our country wasting our money on other countries problems, sick of us feeling like we owe them a rebuilding after we clean the place up, and sick of others countries standing by doing nothing but taking in more of our tax payer funds.

the powers at be better figure this out quick or before long this same kind of shit might be happening right here in the US.


oh, and bring the troops home for the forsaken middle east, level the sand pit with some serious firepower including nukes. thousands of years of fighting will not be solved by the US coming in and telling the different groups to shake hands and let their women vote and have rights. anyone who believes this should take their "coexist" sticker, light it on fire, and shove it up their ass.

If the rebels had some of these missiles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERNO

If MQ, uses mustard gas, or carpet bombs the cities, the U.S. will be forced to go in, with: air force, cruise missiles, tanks, artillery, and a U.S. Marine led invasion force, backed up with Osprey's.

---

Our troops don't need their air support crashing into the ground.
But yes, when he starts pulling a Saddam on his people we'll be going in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I thought that is what long range missiles were designed for?

---

No, that's what OGA's are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

If the rebels had some of these missiles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc

---

If the rebels could afford some of those missiles, they may as well just buy their way into power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantar18c

Our troops don't need their air support crashing into the ground.
But yes, when he starts pulling a Saddam on his people we'll be going in.

---

Not to piss in your Cheerios, But what makes you certain of this?
We didn't go in when Saddam "pulled a Saddam".
He pulled his crap on the Kurdish people of Halabja in March 1988.
The primary we really went in after him in 1990 is that he unmistakeably invaded a neighboring country, which happened to be an ally (of Sorts) and a major oil exporter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12657396

Newbie shoots down a Libyan jet his first time at the helm of a ZPU-4 with two barrels missing and only 1 of the 2 left actually working.

The Libyan government captured a Dutch Marine helicopter and crew that was trying to get foreign nationals out of country.

The rebels captured a British SAS unit that was there trying to get a diplomat in touch with the rebel leaders. Apparently they jailed them, because they don't want Ghaddafi to be able to use their presence as a propaganda piece. My guess is the SAS guys were awfully nice and allowed themselves to be captured instead of killing a bunch of people.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

My guess is the SAS guys were awfully nice and allowed themselves to be captured instead of killing a bunch of people.

H.

---

That was my initial thought when I first heard the report last night. I really don't know though.

Obama is a warmonger!

No blood for oil!
No blood for oil!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridge

Obama is a warmonger!

No blood for oil!
No blood for oil!

---

[ROFL1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

I didn't know they decommissioned them. Sad to see that much cash end up in a scrap heap. I hope they saved a few for museums.

---

They only chopped up one. The rest went back home to Tonopah.

now obama is threatening military action.

we are fucked.

Let Britain and France take this one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...kvr_story.html

My initial response to this whole Obama/Libya debacle was to be critical of Obama for dithering while people that wanted to overthrow an enemy of America died.

But the reality is, those people that wish to take Gaddafi out are nothing more than Al Queda and Muslim Brotherhood thugs.

So at this point I'm actually rooting for Gaddafi. Sure he's an evil dictator but he's a coward and Al Queda is brave so he's less likely to do anything to us than the rebels once they're in power.

Obama's inaction is simply a case of "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".

So I say we do nothing. Going to suck for the Libyan people (but it will suck for them either way).

Honestly, it should be left up to Libya and Libya alone to sort out their problems.. It is the survival of the fittest, or in this case the more well armed. There have been civil wars fought for as long as history has been recorded. This rebellion was started w/o thought of 'who' their leader actually is.. MQ has not been known to be gentle and the rebels were without arms... Let them organize themselves and acquire arms.. eventually MQ will run out of money to fund his mercenaries.. they are only loyal as long as there is money and their prey is easy target.

The 'rebels' will not win this on their own, and in the end the US will just be arming (if that's what happens) another anti-american tribal land. Worked out well for us in the past..

As far as MQ not being able to do anything to us.. well according to defectors from his staff Lockerbie was his.. Chicken shit cowards will always fight as chicken shit cowards.. He will begin to fund the terrorist more if he remains in power, and fund them to go after whatever countries get involved. IF we get involved in yet another skirmish in a land that should be turned into a glass parking lot.. it will not end well for us. The 'people' are calling for an intervention but what will happen when American blood is spilled on their sand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StagLefty

Let Britain and France take this one

---

That's what I was thinking.

You know I am by no means a political/foreign authority but I do have a couple thoughts.
I am very concerned of any military action for a couple reasons. Our military is stretched thin as is, do we have the resources available if it goes to the boots on the ground?
If it does go to any type of action what does that mean to the US? Will it cause the Muzzy factions/cells that are here but according to Napalitano dont exist to go active and put us all at further risk?
As far as cheering for Ghadafi because the opposition is Muslim Brotherhood keep in mind "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" The Muslim Brotherhood is essentially kindergarten for Al Queda. If we encourage the MB are we essentially supporting AQ?

I highly doubt that BarryO's words carry much credence to a Ghadafi. I think most leaders in the middle east consider him a rank amatuer.

I will agree with HBARLeatherneck on this one, bring em home, protect our borders.
We have an economy in the tank, foreign debt that is outlandish, US citizens dying everyday at the hands of illegals, a drug traffic issue that is beyond comprehension to most, double digit unemployment.
The lack of action on those issues is a blatant misfeasance of office if not malfeasance.
We need to mind our own business and TCOB at home.

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:

Quote:

---

“If you don’t get him out and if you don’t support the opposition and he stays in power, there’s no telling what he will do.” And yes, she warned, he would do “terrible things,” because it was just “in his nature.”

---

For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

I, fully support, the United Nations security council decision for a no fly zone in Libya, along with a tougher resolution that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi in order to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe there.

MQ, likes to label all of his oponent's as terrorists and supporter's of AQ. Though, the question of who these Libyan rebels are, lurks in everbodys minds.
MQ, and his two sons have to be removed from power, unless he calls for a total ceasefire.

NYT, SAT., March 19, 2011

" Shift by Clinton helped push Pres. Obama to take a harder line against Libya.

The administration's shift also, became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own.

France and Britain continued to press their hawkish position on Friday, saying they intend to take the lead in enforcing a no-flight zone.

A French official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the possible targets for airstrikes would include the Qaddafi force's airfields and the long supply line running from Tripoli to the loyalist forces pressing towards Bengazi. 'The threat is there, which is why we want to act fast,' the official said. 'Libyan troops are only 150 kilometers from Bengazi,' or about 93 miles. A naval blockade was also a possibility."

The FRENCH fired first strike.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42164455...ica/?gt1=43001

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

---

you forgot gitmo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

---

Amen

and as far as France being all Up-ins... it was easy for them to criticize us for going into Iraq. They had no interests there.
As I understand it the price of fuel per litre had nearly tripled in the EU since the Libyan revolution.

Pretty funny all of the hypocrisy going on...

Under the constitution only congress can declare war.
Congress is our representative arm in government.
Having the US President and the United Nations decide how to use out military is bullshit.
Why bother funding congress if they don't represent the citizens and they don't take part in the most important decisions of declaring war on other nations.
I won't argue the right or wrong of the no fly zone.
The fact is we no longer live in a nation of laws under the constitution.

The thing that really bugs me about the whole cruise missle thing- I could understand sending half a dozen or so to hit key targets. But we sent over a hundred and I dont see how Libya could interperet that as anything but an act of war.
Great-we now have another 3rd world Muzzy shithole pissed at us.

Coming to a location near you-random acts of terrorism....................