U.S. and Allies Strike Libya - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-04-2011, 09:13 AM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,978
Local Time: 07:17 PM
I thought there weren't going to be any ground troops

?
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 09:29 AM   #137
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 09:47 PM
well, wouldn't there be a distinction between the Marine Corps and "ground troops"? My understanding is that the 26th MEU were deployed in 2010, before this current crisis. They are not stationed on the ground, but on naval vessels, where they are prepared for quick deployment (i.e. to rescue a fallen pilot)

But, I know very very little about this. Anyone else know more? I'd be interested to learn about it.
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 01:49 PM   #138
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 07:17 PM
I looked into it, the article was mistaken, as they are not actually on the ground. They're part of the 26 Marine Expeditionary Unit stationed on the USS Kearsarge. They're off the coast of Libya.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2011, 05:44 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,978
Local Time: 07:17 PM
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The following is the text of a letter sent to President Barack Obama on Wednesday by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. The misspellings and grammatical errors are in the original letter.


Our son, Excellency,

President Obama

U.S.A

We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne. You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action. I am sure that you are able to shoulder the responsibility for that. Enough evidence is available, Bearing in mind that you are the president of the strongest power in the world nowadays, and since Nato is waging an unjust war against a small people of a developing country. This country had already been subjected to embargo and sanctions, furthermore it also suffered a direct military armed aggression during Reagan's time. This country is Libya. Hence, to serving world peace ... Friendship between our peoples ... and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror, you are in a position to keep Nato off the Libyan affair for good.

As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed member of AlQuaeda in Benghazi.


You — yourself — said on many occasions, one of them in the UN General Assembly, I was witness to that personally, that America is not responsible for the security of other peoples. That America helps only. This is the right logic.

Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, your intervention is the name of the U.S.A. is a must, so that Nato would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair. Libya should be left to Libyans within the African union frame. The problem now stands as follows:-

1. There is Nato intervention politically as well as military.

2. Terror conducted by AlQaueda gangs that have been armed in some cities, and by force refused to allow people to go back to their normal life, and carry on with exercising their social people's power as usual.

Mu'aumer Qaddaffi

Leader of the Revolution

Tripoli 5.4.2011
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2011, 10:09 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:17 PM
^ Just wait till the Birthers get ahold of this! PROOF!
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 06:43 PM   #141
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,978
Local Time: 07:17 PM
General: US may consider sending troops into Libya - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

AJDABIYAH, Libya — The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday, describing the ongoing operation as a stalemate that is more likely to go on now that America has handed control to NATO.

But Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers that American participation in a ground force would not be ideal, since it could erode the international coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Gadhafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging their fighters and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.

The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster the Libyan rebels, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked whether the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2011, 06:52 PM   #142
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:17 AM
"Would not be ideal," what a way to put it.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 07:19 AM   #143
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Washington Post, April 8
Quote:
The deputy commander of NATO operations in Libya acknowledged Friday that NATO warplanes may have mistakenly bombed rebel forces Thursday near Brega, killing at least five people and generating angry complaints from rebel leaders. But Rear Adm. Russell Harding, in a briefing from his Naples headquarters, declined to apologize for the lethal mistake. Instead, he sought to shift the blame to rebel commanders, who he said had deployed captured Libyan army tanks for the first time, unbeknownst to NATO pilots flying bombing raids high over the area.

...The admission further underscored the lack of communication between opposition leadership in eastern Libya and NATO. The rebel military commander, Abdul Fattah Younis, said Thursday that they had notified NATO they would be deploying tanks while also saying he was not in direct contact with NATO...Asked how communications between NATO and rebel forces could be improved to prevent more such friendly fire casualties, Harding said that was not NATO’s problem.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 03:12 PM   #144
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 07:17 PM
What the fuck.

Am I or am I not going to Libya? That's all I want to know.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 08:37 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Notice how now we are not merely "protecting civilians" but instead actively aiding the rebels now.

What a farce.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2011, 10:07 PM   #146
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Daily Beast, April 10
Quote:
In less than four months, as uprisings have swept through the Arab world, we've seen that the once-comfortable Arab elites and their backers in Europe and the United States not only don't know what to do, they don't even know what to say. Regimes in Tunisia and Egypt toppled. Libya sank into civil war with NATO's desultory participation taking it toward stalemate, maybe even break-up. Bahrain erupted and Saudi Arabia intervened. Yemen continues blowing up and the dictator is finding himself utterly friendless while al Qaeda exploits the chaos. Syria is facing an uprising the likes of which it hasn't seen since the Hama massacre of 1982. Jordan is looking shaky. Palestinians are growing bitterly impatient with their own leadership and, now under bombardment from Israel, their anger continues to intensify. The Iranian regime is making mischief among the Arabs wherever it can, all the while worrying about a resurgence of the 2009 uprising that shattered whatever credibility its theocracy had left.

As this beat goes on, there's an ill-disguised hope in Washington and in European capitals that somebody can be stomped—a dictator here, a rebellion there—and somehow everything will calm down. (Does anybody in any Western capital, or in Israel, really want to see Bashar al-Assad go down in Damascus? The "what next" is almost too complicated and crazy to contemplate.) But no matter what Washington or Paris or London does, the unrest throughout the Arab world inspired by the self-immolation of a Tunisian vegetable seller on December 17 is going to continue. In Egypt over the last few days a military and police crackdown on Tahrir protesters cost two lives, and ex-President Hosni Mubarak made a speech defending his record. This isn't so much democracy as déjà vu, and there's doubtless worse to come. As Al-Hayat columnist Raghida Dergham puts it, the Arab Spring will be followed by summer, fall—and winter.

Ultimately, if we want to take the very long view, all this is to the good. Decades ago, historian David Fromkin put his finger on the essential problem in his classic history of the partition of the Middle East after World War I, 'A Peace to End All Peace.' "The characteristic feature of the region's politics," he wrote, is that "in the Middle East there is no sense of legitimacy—no agreement on rules of the game—and no belief, universally shared in the region, that within whatever boundaries, the entities that call themselves countries or the men who claim to be rulers are entitled to recognition as such." What we're watching right now is the painful creation of a new Middle East where, eventually, countries will be recognized as legitimate reflections of their people's national identities, and governance will have the legitimacy of popular support. As Fromkin pointed out, after the fall of the Roman empire, it took Europe more than 1500 years, and many disastrous wars, to get that far.

In the Middle East, the process won't last that long. We're probably talking decades rather than centuries. But those decades will be tough. And one of the great frustrations for the Western powers is that they're not really going to be able to do much to affect the outcome.
What Libya has shown us is that these powers only find the political will to act in extremis, to stop a massacre, not to build a country.

So, whether as spectators or erratic participants in events, there are a couple of key points we in the West would do well to keep in mind. First of all, it's time to get over the idea that Arabs really aren't up to the job of governing themselves. This has been the quasi-racist subtext of Western policy toward the Middle East at least since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, when European powers drew lines on maps and called them national borders. The presumption is that those countries had to be ruled by colonial powers or strongmen more or less beholden to them. The protests, uprisings, and revolutions we've seen in the last few months are entirely Arab, focused on Arab interests, and the governments that eventually emerge will be, too. But it's also true that the Arabs of today—the two-thirds of the population that are under the age of 30—are connected to the world and to each other to an extent never before imagined by their parents, by their rulers, or by the Western powers who thought those rulers were secure. In December and January, Burson-Marsteller conducted a poll of Arabs aged 18 to 24 in 10 Middle Eastern countries, and the results, published last month show just how quickly, and potently, political awareness has been growing. In 2008, only 50% of the respondents in that age group said "living in a democratic country" was important to them. At the beginning of this year—before any dictators had actually been overthrown—that figure had gone up to 92%. Clearly the Internet and social networking have played a role: In 2009, 56% used the Web daily, in 2010 the number was 80%, although most still get their news mainly from television.

...But nobody in the West can make these things happen for them. And nobody will.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 01:56 AM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Good article.

I got a little curious this evening after I started recognizing a similar pattern in Libya discussions: frustratingly vague references to what everyone knew Gaddafi in his own words had promised would happen to Benghazi. He swore a massacre, a slaughter, no doubt, killing everyone in the town:

If I have the general references right, they all refer to roughly March 17th, when Gaddafi was about to hit Benghazi. And this is what Reuters said, via the HuffPo:
Quote:
TRIPOLI, March 17 (Reuters) - Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them.

In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear.


"It's over ... We are coming tonight," he said. "You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets."

The speech was broadcast on radio and television shortly after a defence ministry statement warned that any foreign military action would trigger counter-attacks and endanger all air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean region.

In Benghazi, live footage on Al Jazeera television showed hundreds of defiant Libyan rebels gathered in the central square waving the tricolour flag of the monarchy era in a rally after Gaddafi's speech was broadcast.

In the speech, the Libyan leader denounced the rebels and said: "We will show no mercy and no pity to them".

He also told his troops not to pursue any rebels who drop their guns and flee when government forces reach the city.
Several other articles from around that time followed in this vein, all saying roughly the same approximation.

Based on those sources, what would have happened in Benghazi sounds like what any army would have done in crushing the last vestige of an unsuccessful revolutionary insurrection. It would have been tragic and people would have died, but based on his words it does not sound extraordinary. Further, he even adds promises for those rebels who give up peacefully. This is, in a sense, fairly narrowly targeted: one could say "well, can you really trust a murderous thug like Gaddafi anyway?" (completely true! but the whole premise of the original argument I'm responding to is that we were supposed to take him at face value about his murderous promises!).

I hope I'm being understandable here. If one says "this intervention could cost many many lives by causing a stalemate", the response tends to be "at least we averted a massacre!" What is the support for that thought? I don't particularly enjoy defending dictators in some small measure, but this stems from a genuine desire to nail down the sources for why Westerners evidently thought disaster was about to strike Benghazi. If I am missing key quotes I would appreciate being corrected.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 02:42 AM   #148
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:17 AM
^ It's a good point, though to be fair to the case for 'preventing massacres,' I think the viciousness of the initial crackdown on (unarmed) protesters in Tripoli--which was also accompanied by Qaddafi publically urging his supporters to "attack them in their lairs," and did indeed result in massacres--probably affected how his later address concerning Benghazi was interpreted.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 03:40 PM   #149
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
I hope I'm being understandable here. If one says "this intervention could cost many many lives by causing a stalemate", the response tends to be "at least we averted a massacre!" What is the support for that thought? I don't particularly enjoy defending dictators in some small measure, but this stems from a genuine desire to nail down the sources for why Westerners evidently thought disaster was about to strike Benghazi. If I am missing key quotes I would appreciate being corrected.
I hear you. We intervened AFTER the massacre, or at least most of it. What was the point?

Does anyone know what the death count in the protests actually were?
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 08:22 PM   #150
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:17 AM
^ There isn't any truly solid data on that at this point, due to the lack of reliable sources inside Libya. Most estimates from major human rights NGOs I've seen (AI, HRW, IFHR etc.) put civilian deaths in the mid-to-high hundreds, with most of them occurring in late February.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com