*** Official Libya In-Game Thread ***

[ricky023]

Well our leaders said it was not us that hit the Admin building in his compound. RTR!

[che boludo]

So, can anyone explain how we go from a presidential campaign line that the US had no business being directly involved militarily in a civil conflict in Iraq, but somehow is justified in impeding the efforts of what had been a relatively stable nation (especially in terms of the region) to quell its own an insurgent resurrection?

I'll hang up now and listen in.

Funny that we haven't seen the public outrage or the anti-war liberals marching on the national mall in protest, hypocrites.

[SUPERCOACH]

So, can anyone explain how we go from a presidential campaign line that the US had no business being directly involved militarily in a civil conflict in Iraq, but somehow is justified in impeding the efforts of what had been a relatively stable nation (especially in terms of the region) to quell its own an insurgent resurrection?

I'll hang up now and listen in.

Funny that we haven't seen the public outrage or the anti-war liberals marching on the national mall in protest, hypocrites.

I noticed this as well.  In the last couple of years Libya had even decided to cooperate with us and not too long ago was removed from the terrorist list if I'm not mistaken.  Not that they are saints or anything, but there are bigger fish to fry in my opinion.  Like tracking down the rest of those involved in 9/11 for example.

[ricky023]

Welll it seems we won't be there long. The NATO troops will finish it up. RTR!

[ssmith general]

According to foxnews a "U.S. Jet Reportedly Crash Lands in Libya, but Crew Believed Safe"

No link.  Probably mechanical failure.

In other news...

Buoyed by strikes, Libya rebels try to advance

ZWITINA, Libya –  Coalition forces bombarded Libya for a third straight night, targeting the air defenses and forces of Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi, stopping his advances and handing some momentum back to the rebels, who were on the verge of defeat just last week.

But the rebellion's more organized military units were still not ready, and the opposition disarray underscored U.S. warnings that a long stalemate could emerge.

Read more: Click here for link

[ssmith general]

Influential Lawmakers Call for More Congressional Involvement in Libya and an Obama Address to the Nation

With the U.S. military's sizeable initial engagement in Libya to impose a no-fly zone, and with what some preceive as mixed messages from the Obama administration on an overall mission, respected moderate senators Monday began expressing concern for the road ahead in the African nation and said Congress must be more involved and the American people more informed.

"Although I do not support Qaddafi killing his own people, I have many concerns regarding U.S. involvement. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to monitor the situation and hold the Administration accountable for explaining the objective of the military campaign and other questions," declared Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, a member of the Democratic leadership.

"We need to get more involved," former Vietnam combat veteran Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., told MSNBC on Monday. "We have not had a debate...This isn't the way that our system is supposed to work."

Sen. Dick Lugar, a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, has consistently criticized the operation, calling for a vote in Congress. "My basic concern is that we do not have a plan for the United States and how its allies are going to handle the situation. We don't have objectives that, or at least some idea of how we would obtain those objectives," the Indiana senator told Fox.

"Who is in command of this operation?" Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., a current U.S. Navy reservist, asked rhetorically Monday at a speech in Chicago, "I don't know. Admiral (Mike) Mullen didn't seem to give a clear answer."

Read more: Click here for link

[ssmith general]

Hope yall dont mind, but I merged these since there were two separate conversations going on. 

[BAMAWV]

So, can anyone explain how we go from a presidential campaign line that the US had no business being directly involved militarily in a civil conflict in Iraq, but somehow is justified in impeding the efforts of what had been a relatively stable nation (especially in terms of the region) to quell its own an insurgent resurrection?

I'll hang up now and listen in.

Funny that we haven't seen the public outrage or the anti-war liberals marching on the national mall in protest, hypocrites.

CBS and the lame stream media said of collateral damage, "We are unable to confirm". Contrast this to the wild numbers these kooks threw around when Bush sent the war machine to Iraq.

[che boludo]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ</a>&feature=player_embedded

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ</a>

Wonder where the "rebels" are getting their equipment and training to successfully engage Libyan fighter aircraft?

[ssmith general]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ</a>&feature=player_embedded

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ</a>

Wonder where the "rebels" are getting their equipment and training to successfully engage Libyan fighter aircraft?

That was the same thought I had when I first saw that go down.  BTW the video of the jet crashing is awesome.

[cbbama99]

Sen. Dick Lugar, a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, has consistently criticized the operation, calling for a vote in Congress. "My basic concern is that we do not have a plan for the United States and how its allies are going to handle the situation. We don't have objectives that, or at least some idea of how we would obtain those objectives," the Indiana senator told Fox.

This has been my point. I don't think Obama has a real clue as to what is to be accomplished here. I would have thought it was to push Uncle Moammar out, but now I'm hearing that the administration believes that he could REMAIN in power with more rights for his people. So which is it? Are we trying to create a change in power, or merely attempting to stop some abuses?

[che boludo]

Good story and coverage from the crash site of the Strike Eagle that crashed.

US jet crashes in Libya: airman would not have known whether he faced friend or foe
The US airman would not have known whether the armed men advancing towards him were friendly rebels or soldiers loyal to Colonel Gaddafi...

FULL STORY and crash site video

[che boludo]

Sen. Dick Lugar, a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, has consistently criticized the operation, calling for a vote in Congress. "My basic concern is that we do not have a plan for the United States and how its allies are going to handle the situation. We don't have objectives that, or at least some idea of how we would obtain those objectives," the Indiana senator told Fox.

This has been my point. I don't think Obama has a real clue as to what is to be accomplished here. I would have thought it was to push Uncle Moammar out, but now I'm hearing that the administration believes that he could REMAIN in power with more rights for his people. So which is it? Are we trying to create a change in power, or merely attempting to stop some abuses?

I won't be critical of the President's actions in Libya.  I just found it curious that he committed forces to the same issue he was so adamantly against during the election cycle.  But, politics are what they are.


The truth is that any sitting President in the US would be driven to the same actions in Libya.  It has been 20+ years in the making to find a viable rebel force that is willing/capable of staging a successful insurrection (maybe not to overthrow the g'ment, but to at least cause change to a more democratic version of g'ment).  I don't see any US President letting the opportunity pass by.

The bigger picture that is being missed and will be the topic of historians 20+ years from now is the chance for real change in the tightly controlled Arab nations.  It is very possible that President Bush's legacy over time will be held in much higher regard than it is today.  Actions in Iraq changed arguably the most influential state in the region to take its first steps toward a more real form of democracy.  Much like the US revolution, the desire for change seems to be in the early stages of sweeping the entire region. 

If the sentiment continues to spread and the success grows to create more open and informed populaces that have a true vote in their nation's actions, we may be looking at the very early stages of what could be a very real move toward change and a hope for peace in the region.

It feels like I am writing a "way too early" season preview for football, but the potential is definitely there.  I'm talking about wholesale nation and culture change, so none of it will happen fast and very little will be solved in a truly diplomatic or peaceful manner, but at least there seems to be hope emerging after 60+ years of failed foreign policy matters in the region.   

[SUPERCOACH]

Actions in Iraq changed arguably the most influential state in the region to take its first steps toward a more real form of democracy.  Much like the US revolution, the desire for change seems to be in the early stages of sweeping the entire region. 

^^^THIS^^^

[BAMAWV]

George Will:

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gaddafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gaddafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gaddafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gaddafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...