Support NeoGAF

[fastford58]

He means it was so inevitable that he would be shot down that they might as well have just killed the pilot themselves and saved themselves a plane.

Got it.

 

[Xapati]

Sarkozy and Erdagon loudly disagreeing over Libya:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/turkey-france-clash-libya-campaign

This thing is turning into a clusterfuck :/ . Hopefully the Rebels can be quickly armed and Gadaffi eliminated, because the longer this drags on the worse things are going to get.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The conservative concern trolling over not rushing into this asap is laughable. It seems like the momentum is changing and the rebels are finding their feet again. These are the same idiots who got thousands of US troops and even more Iraqi civilians killed by rushing into a baseless ground war, now they're bitching we haven't rushed into a baseless air war fast enough. Fuck them

I don't think we should be doing anything in Libya, personally. It's not our civil war, we have no reason to be there. The humanitarian argument is irrelevant: should we also bomb Yemen, Baraim, etc? Syria is killing protesters as we type on the internet. Should we bomb their government too?

If Qaddafi manages to gain access to the rebel capitol and starts slaughtering folks, should we send in troops? At that point a NFZ will be useless

 

[RustyNails]

I don't think we should be doing anything in Libya, personally. It's not our civil war, we have no reason to be there. The humanitarian argument is irrelevant: should we also bomb Yemen, Baraim, etc? Syria is killing protesters as we type on the internet. Should we bomb their government too?

Read the OP. You're smarter than this, PD.

 

[Zenith]

Between our entire coalition you guys don't have 122 Tomahawk missiles? I find that hard to believe. And even if that WAS accurate that doesn't mean you don't have 122 other missiles you would be capable of firing.

Wes - the UK doesn't have Harriers? You do know they're a British aircraft, right?

Edit: I take that back. Britain retired their harriers in 2010. Spain and Italy do have them though!

We only have 64 Tomahawks. We have one sub in the area that can launch them. It has launched 12 out of a possible maximum of 25.

Any one of the countries could individually withdraw and it wouldn't be a critical loss. We don't absolutely need the US involvement to complete this mission but isn't it nice to actually have the US working together with Europe for a change?

 

[Gaborn]

We only have 64 Tomahawks. We have one sub in the area that can launch them. It has launched 12 out of a possible maximum of 25.

Any one of the countries could individually withdraw and it wouldn't be a critical loss. We don't absolutely need the US involvement to complete this mission but isn't it nice to actually have the US working together with Europe for a change?

No, I don't think it's nice. I think it's wasteful and unnecessary. We've been doing too much for too long and we need to be able to say "no" once in a while.

 

[Purkake4]

Well, it wouldn't look too good if Europe stormed in to protect human rights and America just chilled in the back shouting encouragement...

 

[raphier]

No, I don't think it's nice. I think it's wasteful and unnecessary. We've been doing too much for too long and we need to be able to say "no" once in a while.

I would argue that every single war is wasteful and unnecessary. The entire human history is filled with unnecessary wars. We should ban armies and violence at once. *rolls eyes*

 

[Gaborn]

I would argue that every single war is wasteful and unnecessary. The entire human history is filled with unnecessary wars. We should ban armies and violence at once. *rolls eyes*

Some wars are necessary. When conducted in SELF defense that is. It's not our job to go around the world righting all wrongs as we have done. We cannot, and we should not be doing it anymore.

 

[raphier]

Some wars are necessary. When conducted in SELF defense that is. It's not our job to go around the world righting all wrongs as we have done. We cannot, and we should not be doing it anymore.

no war is necessary. Any offensive act is unnecessary, unless to act for your interest, which too is stupid using your logic. Passive war is whole other thing, it's when you fight the aggressor.

 

[Advance_Alarm]

Some wars are necessary. When conducted in SELF defense that is. It's not our job to go around the world righting all wrongs as we have done. We cannot, and we should not be doing it anymore.

it is our job, and we can.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Some wars are necessary. When conducted in SELF defense that is. It's not our job to go around the world righting all wrongs as we have done. We cannot, and we should not be doing it anymore.

The best defense is a good offense.

Seriously though, we have the capability to stop innocent people from getting murdered by their government. We should use that capability wherever we can. Whether its Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, wherever. If people want our help and their government is oppressing them, we should stand up to the plate and help them out.

 

[sangreal]

I think Gaborn is on the wrong side of history on this one, but..

it is our job, and we can.

Why is it our job? Do we get anything in return other than resentment? How can we afford it?

 

[Gaborn]

The best defense is a good offense.

Seriously though, we have the capability to stop innocent people from getting murdered by their government. We should use that capability wherever we can. Whether its Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, wherever. If people want our help and their government is oppressing them, we should stand up to the plate and help them out.

seriously? No, no we really shouldn't be doing all of this. Did I take a wrong turn here? I thought when we were talking about budget cuts pretty much all of GAF agreed we needed deep cuts to our military. When exactly did GAF become this hawkish? This really seems strange to me that people are suddenly so insistent we need our military to do anything and everything around the world.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Read the OP. You're smarter than this, PD.

What about the OP? There's no justification for our involvement. If your argument is that those situations are different because military isn't involved, would you support US/UN intervention if protesters were being killed by the military in those countries?

 

[effzee]

The conservative concern trolling over not rushing into this asap is laughable. It seems like the momentum is changing and the rebels are finding their feet again. These are the same idiots who got thousands of US troops and even more Iraqi civilians killed by rushing into a baseless ground war, now they're bitching we haven't rushed into a baseless air war fast enough. Fuck them

I don't think we should be doing anything in Libya, personally. It's not our civil war, we have no reason to be there. The humanitarian argument is irrelevant: should we also bomb Yemen, Baraim, etc? Syria is killing protesters as we type on the internet. Should we bomb their government too?

If Qaddafi manages to gain access to the rebel capitol and starts slaughtering folks, should we send in troops? At that point a NFZ will be useless

I agree and disagree.

I am just hoping for the best case scenario, that is Ghadafi steps down and quits and this decision helps the image of the US in the ME but also forces the US to withdraw support for other corrupt leaders who are also killing their on.

Maybe overly optimistic. Yeah won't happen.

 

[Plumbob]

seriously? No, no we really shouldn't be doing all of this. Did I take a wrong turn here? I thought when we were talking about budget cuts pretty much all of GAF agreed we needed deep cuts to our military. When exactly did GAF become this hawkish? This really seems strange to me that people are suddenly so insistent we need our military to do anything and everything around the world.

Here's the odd thing: a significantly smaller military budget and humanitarian intervention capabilities are not mutually exclusive. Example: every other country involved in the no fly zone has significantly smaller budgets than we do.

 

[sangreal]

Here's the odd thing: a significantly smaller military budget and humanitarian intervention capabilities are not mutually exclusive. Example: every other country involved in the no fly zone has significantly smaller budgets than we do.

But at the same time they seem to be relying on the US to shoulder the greatest burden.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

seriously? No, no we really shouldn't be doing all of this. Did I take a wrong turn here? I thought when we were talking about budget cuts pretty much all of GAF agreed we needed deep cuts to our military. When exactly did GAF become this hawkish? This really seems strange to me that people are suddenly so insistent we need our military to do anything and everything around the world.

Why judge GAF based on my words? I think we can use to cut some of our military budget, I also think we can raise taxes to cover expenses as well. If wanting to crush dictators and stop innocent people from being slaughtered is Hawkish, then so be it. I don't think the US should be going around invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan style. I also don't think we should sit idly by when people are getting murdered either.

 

[Plumbob]

But at the same time they seem to be relying on the US to shoulder the greatest burden.

True, but not a burden proportional to our military budget.

 

[Gaborn]

Here's the odd thing: a significantly smaller military budget and humanitarian intervention capabilities are not mutually exclusive. Example: every other country involved in the no fly zone has significantly smaller budgets than we do.

Now THAT is a good point. Then again we couldn't have a significantly smaller budget, have 10s of thousands of troops in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, and smaller but still significant numbers of troops around the world AND engage in ostensibly "humanitarian intervention" around the world.

 

[RustyNails]

Gabs, I got an honest question. If you see a mugging/rape/crime taking place in an alley, will you stop it?

 

[Azih]

When exactly did GAF become this hawkish?

The reason why one engages in hostilities is important as well as the level of involvement. Both are dramatically different for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

 

[Advance_Alarm]

I think Gaborn is on the wrong side of history on this one, but..



Why is it our job? Do we get anything in return other than resentment? How can we afford it?

we don't need to get anything in return (though we usually do). the US has a responsibility to the rest of the world. the countries that resent the US are mostly either dictatorships or in the infancy of their transition to liberal democracy. Its the same way that a child thinks any authority is being unfair, too hard, too nosy. When they turn the corner into legitimate statehood and "state-tv" becomes spike-tv and protests aren't a matter of life and death but something to laugh at it'll be clear that the US was right. also, democracies don't fight each other. If everyone is a democracy Gaborn's dream of a world with no military and no violence could finally be realized.

 

[Plumbob]

Now THAT is a good point. Then again we couldn't have a significantly smaller budget, have 10s of thousands of troops in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, and smaller but still significant numbers of troops around the world AND engage in ostensibly "humanitarian intervention" around the world.

I don't know if that's exactly true...the Japanese government helps carry the costs of our deployment there because we are providing them with security. In addition, our presence in Japan enabled disaster relief after the recent earthquake and the tsunami in 2004, which suggests that our "deployments" do not trade off with crisis intervention.

Our presence in Iraq is decreasing significantly and we have a SOFA that mandates we leave entirely. Furthermore, our presence there enables us to engage in reconstruction, education, agricultural and business development, in addition to removing thousands of land mines, which suggests that our presence there is not trading off with "humanitarian" work either.

In South Korea command over troops will transition to a South Korean commander in 2015 as South Korea builds up their defense capabilities meaning we can eventually decrease troop presence there as well even if Kim Jong X continues to threaten violence. In Germany similar gradual reductions are already occurring.

I can't account for Taiwan because I don't know that much about it. Needless to say, the idea that we have a set budget where one dollar can only be used for one purpose doesn't really work.

 

[TheHeretic]

What about the OP? There's no justification for our involvement. If your argument is that those situations are different because military isn't involved, would you support US/UN intervention if protesters were being killed by the military in those countries?

Having a lack of solidarity with the human race is a massive disappointment. Know nothing isolationists from both the libertarian and liberal sides show the real depth of their moral compass on issues like this.

 

[Gaborn]

Gabs, I got an honest question. If you see a mugging/rape/crime taking place in an alley, will you stop it?

Yes. But I wouldn't force anyone else to do it. And that's the difference. I'm an individual, not a country. As an individual I'm free to act and the only one at risk is myself. That's different than saying we should use our military and put our soldiers at risk for other people when it's not our responsibility.

we don't need to get anything in return (though we usually do). the US has a responsibility to the rest of the world.

Why? What gave us this responsibility?

the countries that resent the US are mostly either dictatorships or in the infancy of their transition to liberal democracy. Its the same way that a child thinks any authority is being unfair, too hard, too nosy. When they turn the corner into legitimate statehood and "state-tv" becomes spike-tv and protests aren't a matter of life and death but something to laugh at it'll be clear that the US was right.

And people in Iraq are going to throw flowers at us and it will all be sweetness and light. The neocon vision for the world is wrong.

also, democracies don't fight each other. If everyone is a democracy Gaborn's dream of a world with no military and no violence could finally be realized.

Who said anything about "no military"?

 

[Plumbob]

Yes. But I wouldn't force anyone else to do it. And that's the difference. I'm an individual, not a country. As an individual I'm free to act and the only one at risk is myself. That's different than saying we should use our military and put our soldiers at risk for other people when it's not our responsibility.

Why do things belong collectively to nations but not internationally? Isn't a human life a human life regardless of which country it came from? Does it bug you that your taxes are going to defend other Americans, and you have no choice about whether you pay those taxes? Why does nationality make that principle so different? What makes the value of one of "our soldiers" greater than any other human life?

 

[sangreal]

also, democracies don't fight each other. If everyone is a democracy Gaborn's dream of a world with no military and no violence could finally be realized.

Sure, if you're friendly with the elected leader. How is that working out for Gaza?

 

[Zenith]

Some wars are necessary. When conducted in SELF defense that is.

But what about those with no means of self-defence? I disagree we should just say "not my problem" and leave them to die. I've always subscribed to the idea that the strong have a moral obligation to protect the weak. And like it or not the US has styled itself as Leader of the Free World. It needs to make good on all its lip-service.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

What? This is complete revisionism of the scope of the fear.

Even in the article it is argued (both for and against) if the US intervention in Vietnam served to limit the spread of communism.

ps - yes if I was an American I too would be pissed for doing so much for so long. However as one you once put it there are known unknowns - i.e. the US must be getting something out of it, no one is foolish enough to spend his own money and gladly see others profit from it at his expense.

 

[Gaborn]

Why do things belong collectively to nations but not internationally? Isn't a human life a human life regardless of which country it came from?

When we pay taxes in the US, a significant portion of those taxes pay for our military for our own national defense. I might not be opposed if, for example, a country like Japan or South Korea hired us as mercenaries under their command to aid in their national defense. I don't believe we have a moral obligation to defend the world with our tax dollars though.

Does it bug you that your taxes are going to defend other Americans, and you have no choice about whether you pay those taxes? Why does nationality make that principle so different? What makes the value of one of "our soldiers" greater than any other human life?

No because they have as much right to national defense as anyone. Same reason I have no objection whatsoever to a police force or a fire department.

 

[Advance_Alarm]

Why? What gave us this responsibility?


And people in Iraq are going to throw flowers at us and it will all be sweetness and light. The neocon vision for the world is wrong.

its not why or what but who. The rest of the world gave the US responsibility. When they cut their defense budgets and expect the US to ensure global stability or join the UN while the US pays a substantial portion to run it. France could've taken Libya with their proposed Anglo-French thing, but they didn't because it is politically and logistically easier for the US to be the face of any Western military. All of those countries in the Arab Leage that plan (lol) to commit some forces are given military aid by the US.

Also i'm a liberal, nice try though

 

[Plumbob]

No because they have as much right to national defense as anyone. Same reason I have no objection whatsoever to a police force or a fire department.

Even the poor American folk that don't pay for military protection? So they deserve protection purely based on their geographic location and national identity? That's kind of messed up. National lines are arbitrary and we share similar genetic/moral fiber with all human beings, not just the ones close to us geographically.

 

[Gaborn]

its not why or what but who. The rest of the world gave the US responsibility. When they cut their defense budgets and expect the US to ensure global stability or join the UN while the US pays a substantial portion to run it. France could've taken Libya with their proposed Anglo-French thing, but they didn't because it is politically and logistically easier for the US to be the face of any Western military. All of those countries in the Arab Leage that plan (lol) to commit some forces are given military aid by the US.

Also i'm a liberal, nice try though

This is the worst... I mean, the most incredible... the most... I mean... I literally... what...

It almost, ALMOST makes me buy the argument we should cut the military and invest in fucking national health care. I mean... just insane.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

People really arguing that the US has a moral responsibility to police the world, come on now its ridiculous why should they do it out of sheer obligation and good will.

Without a doubt they are doing it to further their own economic and political interests but no one should expect them to do it out of the kindness of their hearts. The rest of the world got people they can sort it out.

 

[JayDubya]

It almost, ALMOST makes me buy the argument we should cut the military and invest in fucking national health care. I mean... just insane.

Woah there, cowboy.

Don't forget about investing in not running a deficit for a change...

Never forget that we're actually in the poor house and shouldn't be throwing money or resources at anyone.

He sure did raise the big red flag, though, didn't he. Other nations don't spend much on their military because they rely on the rather costly aegis we provide.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

People really arguing that the US has a moral responsibility to police the world, come on now its ridiculous why should they do it out of sheer obligation and good will.

Without a doubt they are doing it to further their own economic and political interests but no one should expect them to do it out of the kindness of their hearts. The rest of the world got people they can sort it out.

Because we should care about all people, no matter where they are from? I agree that we are doing it to further our own economic and political interests. We should also be doing it out of the goodness of our hearts because we care about these people. Unfortunately that doesn't ever seem to be the case.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

The expense of bombing a country could be a lot cheaper if we committed to not replacing our inventory of explosives once the operation is finished. In fact, it could be seen as a good will gesture to the world. At this point, we could probably use outdated equipment that is due for decommissioning and still suffer minimal loss.

 

[Gaborn]

Woah there, cowboy.

Don't forget about investing in not running a deficit for a change...

Never forget that we're actually in the poor house and shouldn't be throwing money or resources at anyone.

He sure did raise the big red flag, though, didn't he. Other nations don't spend much on their military because they rely on the rather costly aegis we provide.

Believe me I'm well aware. I'm just stunned that ANYONE thinks that that is in any way some sort of rationale for us spending hundreds of billions of dollars on other peoples wars.

 

[Morn]

It's not a war! It's "Kinetic Military Action". Since when did Hideo Kojima join the Obama Administration?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...bya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action

 

[RustyNails]

A big development: NATO To Take Lead Of Military Operations In Libya

A senior Pentagon official said Thursday that once the U.S. relinquishes command of the air campaign in Libya to NATO or others as early as this weekend, the U.S. probably will continue flying combat missions.

Navy Adm. William Gortney said the U.S. role predominantly would be in support of allied partners, with refueling missions, surveillance, reconnaissance and other noncombat flights. He also said that he expects U.S. planes would continue flying some strike missions.

Gortney said the U.S. military foresees a handoff of the lead command role by the weekend. He said details are being worked out.

Earlier, Turkey's state-run TV quoted the country's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, as saying Ankara's demands had been met and NATO would take command of the operation.

"Compromise has been reached in principle in a very short time," Davutoglu said. "The operation will be handed over to NATO completely."

Really, who didn't see NATO's role coming? I saw their involvement even before the crisis started. Good development.

 

[Roude Leiw]

did they show videos yet of cruise missiles hitting their targets? or stuff recorded by fighter jets?

 

[RustyNails]

Yes. But I wouldn't force anyone else to do it. And that's the difference. I'm an individual, not a country. As an individual I'm free to act and the only one at risk is myself. That's different than saying we should use our military and put our soldiers at risk for other people when it's not our responsibility.

Thanks for answering. Taking the analogy to a global context, suppose you're part of a country of 50 citizens and you're appalled at a genocide taking place somewhere. What you're essentially saying is, if all those 50 individuals decide to prevent that massacre by going over there and personally stopping it, then your country can intervene? Because on one hand you're right, an individual is not a country. But on the other hand, you're overlooking something else; a country is made up of individuals. If all individuals collectively want to stop something, how is that different from an individual wanting to stop something?

did they show videos yet of cruise missiles hitting their targets? or stuff recorded by fighter jets?

Not yet, I'm waiting for those.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

A big development: NATO To Take Lead Of Military Operations In Libya

Really, who didn't see NATO's role coming? I saw their involvement even before the crisis started. Good development.

I wonder if any of those thousands of posters Ive seen online who cynically mocked, derided, and insulted Obama for suggesting that the handover will happen quickly will apologize, take back what they said, and admit they were wrong. Of course not. This was obviously 'the next Iraq' after the 1st 10 seconds.

How odd, to have something militarily happen as the President said it would, in the timetable he said it would happen in. America isn't used to that.

PS- Without a single US casualty to boot.

 

[RustyNails]

I wonder if any of those thousands of posters Ive seen online who cynically mocked, derided, and insulted Obama for suggesting that the handover will happen quickly will apologize, take back what they said, and admit they were wrong. Of course not. This was obviously 'the next Iraq' after the 1st 10 seconds.

How odd, to have something militarily happen as the President said it would, in the timetable he said it would happen in. America isn't used to that.

You are correct. America is used to jumping into conflicts ass first and then find their orientation. Obama mentioned few days ago that the operation will be over "within days". This operation has been carefully guided with clearly defined restrictions, but nooo this is the next Iraq oh no we have a third war! (looking at Jon Stewart...I like the guy, but he's dead wrong on this).

 

[durendal]

did they show videos yet of cruise missiles hitting their targets? or stuff recorded by fighter jets?

Here's a video of the Canadian air strike I mentioned a few pages back. I haven't seen any other videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IS5JIU6_XE

 

[knitoe]

I wonder if any of those thousands of posters Ive seen online who cynically mocked, derided, and insulted Obama for suggesting that the handover will happen quickly will apologize, take back what they said, and admit they were wrong. Of course not. This was obviously 'the next Iraq' after the 1st 10 seconds.

How odd, to have something militarily happen as the President said it would, in the timetable he said it would happen in. America isn't used to that.

As long as USA is not the major player = most assets, it's great sign that everyone are picking up the slack, short and hopefully, longterm. Otherwise, the handing over control would just be a PR move.

 

[leroidys]

Could you guys please take the legality/responsibility discussion somewhere else, such as the impeachment thread? It is an interesting and worthwhile conversation, but its kind of shitting up this thread that has been a great resource so far for the details and developments of the civil war.

Not trying to backseat mod, just a request.

 

[Kettch]

I don't think we should be doing anything in Libya, personally. It's not our civil war, we have no reason to be there. The humanitarian argument is irrelevant: should we also bomb Yemen, Baraim, etc? Syria is killing protesters as we type on the internet. Should we bomb their government too?

If the situation becomes dire enough and a near world-wide consensus can be built on the issue, instead of the US going in alone or pressuring a few countries to help out? Sure. I don't see that happening anytime soon though. Libya is easy, as no one likes Gaddafi.