Rumor has it they are Al-Qaeda, and like to put drugs in their Nescafe.

Still, the rebels are largely unknown to the American government, despite initial tentative meetings such as Clinton's and some meetings held by U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz with opposition representatives. (Cretz is now working out of the State Department, as the United States has withdrawn its diplomatic presence.) Last week, President Barack Obama appointed an American diplomat, Chris Stevens, to be the U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition.

One has to wonder if we'd have a better understanding of the region if we didn't spend so much time pissing them off.

I bet they are just like the mujahidin, I wonder what ever happened with those kooky blokes?

I_C_Weener: Also, it appears we had a broader coalition on Iraq...of all things.

Are there really people this stupid?

The item that galvanized support was the real and imminent threat of a bloodbath in Benghazi. The purpose of establishing a NFZ and the open ended wording of resolution 1973 addresses the need to protect those civilians that were about to be massacred.

Now that the immediate threat has been reduced all the arm chair generals are conveniently forgetting the need that led to the current action.

The mission objective has already been achieved, now it is simply monitoring the situation and preventing it from spiraling into a bloodbath. All of the talk around goals, assassination of Khadafy, and political rhetoric is misleading. The original goal will need monitoring and maintenance, nothing more.

I hear it's the People's Front of Judea

Hmm, no clue who we're defending, losing aircraft, shouldering a bigger load than we were led to believe. No plan to transition command.

Oh yes, this was such a good idea.

New National Security Advisor for Obama:



/b-b-b-but the UN's blessing will make it all OK!
//Congressional approval doesn't matter!

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels' hidden fortress... Or who the rebels are, or how they plan to rule The Empire

Not sure why the mocking at the beginning. We should have learned more about the rebels and their backers before committing to anything.

Seems like, oh I don't know, a smart thing to do.

So Obama had US forces intrude on another country's civil war to tip the balance to insure someone the US likes get into power. Sounds fair to me.

QDaffy? Any relation to Vermon CaTaffy?

/obscure?

Also, still don't know WTF we're doing there.

Quasar: Hey remember when we ran into Iraq and every day there were dozens of headlines asking this same question

It's a valid question to ask. When Jon Stewart and Fox News are asking the same question, it might be worth thinking about for a few minutes at least.

Qadaffy is (IMO) a terrorist that we should never have negotiated with, but what will replace him?

Maybe it's why we don't want to commit ground troops and there is such division among NATO and the Security Council on whether we should even do the NFZ.

bump: Our Secretary of Defense

LOL was just IMing my brother, saying that this is sort of situation is why despite it feeling "good" to get involved, the US really does need to adopt something like the United Federation of Planet's Prime Directive.

rka: Hmm, no clue who we're defending, losing aircraft, shouldering a bigger load than we were led to believe. No plan to transition command.

Oh yes, this was such a good idea.

Are you huffing glue?

Protecting: Civilians
Aircraft lost: Mechanical failure, not shot down, pilot safe.
Load: Equal to maybe one day's worth of combat operations in Iraq/Afghanistan, over the whole course of this thing, aircraft only
Transition: Transition what, from who?

Learn to pay attention. The only US goal in Libya is protecting civilians.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Not sure why the mocking at the beginning. We should have learned more about the rebels and their backers before committing to anything.

Seems like, oh I don't know, a smart thing to do.

no time, 3am RING!!!! HELLLOOOOOO

Honestly, with as much of a push the Europeans had in this (specifically the UK and France) i think this was just an excuse to gt rid of Qadaffi. Qaddafi humiliated the UK with the Lockerbie bomber suspect and has directly funded numerous terrorist activities around the world. This is nothing short of "we've had enough of your shiat, payback is a biatch."

Gdalescrboz: Honestly, with as much of a push the Europeans had in this (specifically the UK and France) i think this was just an excuse to gt rid of Qadaffi. Qaddafi humiliated the UK with the Lockerbie bomber suspect and has directly funded numerous terrorist activities around the world. This is nothing short of "we've had enough of your shiat, payback is a biatch."

I think so too with regards to the brits. I dunno about the french. I think cameron was embarressed for sure about the shady shiat that went down withthe judiciary and was happy to erase the stain even if it meant voiding BPs billion pound contracts. dunno about the french.

How you tell the rebels from the non-rebels?

Not our problem, what comes after Gadhafi. The way I figure it, the second he's removed (which is not our task to complete), that's the end of our involvement, and we get out. And if the rebels ask us to leave, we take them up on it.

relcec 2011-03-23 03:09:32 PM

Gdalescrboz: Honestly, with as much of a push the Europeans had in this (specifically the UK and France) i think this was just an excuse to gt rid of Qadaffi. Qaddafi humiliated the UK with the Lockerbie bomber suspect and has directly funded numerous terrorist activities around the world. This is nothing short of "we've had enough of your shiat, payback is a biatch."

I think so too with regards to the brits. I dunno about the french. I think cameron was embarressed for sure about the shady shiat that went down withthe judiciary and was happy to erase the stain even if it meant voiding BPs billion pound contracts. dunno about the french.

Libya is France's backyard. They figured if something was going to go down in Libya, they better be the one, at the very least, acting like they are leading the way. I think the fact that they struck first was strategic in a symbolic way, not tactical

WTF Indeed: I hear it's the People's Front of Judea

Thats strange, because I hear that its the Judean peoples Front...

There's only one thing I can think of after watching this cluster happen - The Aristocats!

/The Aristocats

Gdalescrboz: relcec 2011-03-23 03:09:32 PM

Gdalescrboz: Honestly, with as much of a push the Europeans had in this (specifically the UK and France) i think this was just an excuse to gt rid of Qadaffi. Qaddafi humiliated the UK with the Lockerbie bomber suspect and has directly funded numerous terrorist activities around the world. This is nothing short of "we've had enough of your shiat, payback is a biatch."

I think so too with regards to the brits. I dunno about the french. I think cameron was embarressed for sure about the shady shiat that went down withthe judiciary and was happy to erase the stain even if it meant voiding BPs billion pound contracts. dunno about the french.

Libya is France's backyard. They figured if something was going to go down in Libya, they better be the one, at the very least, acting like they are leading the way. I think the fact that they struck first was strategic in a symbolic way, not tactical

don't want boat people of libya showing up in marseille maybe?

LavenderWolf: Aircraft lost: Mechanical failure, not shot down, pilot safe.

You neglect to mention the civilians shot during rescue. I wonder, are those the same civilians we are supposed to be protecting?

Collateral damage eh? Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs I guess.

And as far as transition. Overall Military command of this operation of course. You know, like Obama wants. Except of course none of our "partners" in this little escapade can agree on what that actually looks like. France and the Arab guys don't want it to go under NATO command. Italy is howling to high heaven that if it doesn't go under NATO command then they'll pull the use of their bases. Might have been something important to agree on up front don't you think?

But don't worry, since we won't transition to anyone until "conditions on the ground permit", you can be sure that those "conditions" will never be met in the first place. So that's good.

And here's the thing about the rebel leadership.

There isn't any. As long as Gadhafi's been in power, and the way he's ruled, there's no opposition leadership of anything. We don't know who would take power because they don't know either. They'll cross that bridge when they come to it. Same thing you're seeing in Tunisia right now.

Now THIS is Obama's Iraq.

I believe the US and Europeans would get into bed with Al Qaeda, so long as Ql Qaeda gives Big Oil access to the Libyan oil industry.

And after all, that's the only reason they're getting involved here. Sure, Ghadaffi is a bad guy, but so are the guys in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, etc... The difference being, Bahrain gives Big Oil access, Yemen and Syria have bupkis for oil.

QDaffy! Ha! That will go great with the T-shirt that I bought at the springfield terrace yard sale on the day that former president bush moved in.

Quasar: Hey remember when we ran into Iraq and every day there were dozens of headlines asking this same question, and talking about how expensive war was, and wondering if it was even legal or justified to do it, and all the news shows were talking about the economic and political calamity we were getting up to?

Yeah, neither do I.

Then you have a very poor memory.

relcec: Gdalescrboz: Honestly, with as much of a push the Europeans had in this (specifically the UK and France) i think this was just an excuse to gt rid of Qadaffi. Qaddafi humiliated the UK with the Lockerbie bomber suspect and has directly funded numerous terrorist activities around the world. This is nothing short of "we've had enough of your shiat, payback is a biatch."

I think so too with regards to the brits. I dunno about the french. I think cameron was embarressed for sure about the shady shiat that went down withthe judiciary and was happy to erase the stain even if it meant voiding BPs billion pound contracts. dunno about the french.

Ok, seriously now, what exactly makes people reject the idea that this is primarly a humanitarian mission? The coalition formed to enforce the NFZ and stop the invasion of Benghazi and that's what they've done so far. Why reject this perfectly reasonable explaination and go right into assuming quasi-Bushy personal vendettas (the Lockerbie thing) or conspiracy theories (it's all about the oil!).

If anything, the fact that there hasn't been a great deal of organizational clarity shows that the mission has a hastily assembled humanitarian mandate.

/It's like people honestly think that the West (for Republican's, Obama) can't possibly act without having a shady ulterior motive.

rka: LavenderWolf: Aircraft lost: Mechanical failure, not shot down, pilot safe.

You neglect to mention the civilians shot during rescue. I wonder, are those the same civilians we are supposed to be protecting?

Collateral damage eh? Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs I guess.

And as far as transition. Overall Military command of this operation of course. You know, like Obama wants. Except of course none of our "partners" in this little escapade can agree on what that actually looks like. France and the Arab guys don't want it to go under NATO command. Italy is howling to high heaven that if it doesn't go under NATO command then they'll pull the use of their bases. Might have been something important to agree on up front don't you think?

But don't worry, since we won't transition to anyone until "conditions on the ground permit", you can be sure that those "conditions" will never be met in the first place. So that's good.

You speak at length yet say nothing.

Beer Drinking Masturbator: Now THIS is Obama's Iraq.

See, that's the thing. Everyone just automatically jumped to assume, on Day One, that we're now going to be in Libya for the next decade.

We don't know that yet. The thing is, whatever one thinks of Obama's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately, he inherited them. He didn't get to choose the state things were in when he got there. He had to pick up those military operations where someone else left off, and that's always going to screw with how you do things.

Libya, meanwhile, is unambiguously his. Obama gets to run our role in Libya his way. We have yet to see how Obama handles a conflict he has been in control of from the start. It may be an Iraq-type, it may be a Bosnia-type.

As long as they're not a mass-murdering madman, it doesn't matter. Our mandate is to stop the massacre.