OT – War #3?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]I understand, essentially a partial no-fly. but the question remains, we do it unilaterally or we do it with buy-in and ownership from those that will benefit the most from our action (ie the Euros).[/quote]

OCR: But, see, that’s the beauty of the plan: Done correctly, no one would know about it until after the fact. Then, what are they going to do, complain?

Its over and done with, the rebels seize the initiative, Gaddafi bags it for Venezuela and becomes the newest Chavista. He and Hugo can sit around and talk about how much they hate the US.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Eugene]From what I read, the US has no intention of getting into that one. It’s mostly locals such as France.

Overall, Americans are probably better off with Qaddafi in charge. If rebels take over, that might mean 5 years of civil war and unpredictable interruptions in oil supplies.[/quote]

I don’t see how the US cannot be involved. This is a UN decision. The fact they may not intervene militarily directly is prudent given the potential for a Muslim backlash. Any interruptions to Libyan oil supply is unlikely to effect the US much. The question is whether a ruling authority has the right to kill it’s citizens engaged in ‘peaceful’ protest. What the world police must establish is whether the state was merely defending itself, or controlling opposition elements with brute force. If Iraq was a lesson learned in rushing to judgement, the UN will want secular support from the Muslim world. The danger is appearing to be on a western crusade to promote democratic values …while seemingly benevolent it stokes the fundamentalist fire. The motive for a military intervention must be as surgically precise as the guided missiles that create the no-fly zone.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Eugene]From what I read, the US has no intention of getting into that one. It’s mostly locals such as France.

Overall, Americans are probably better off with Qaddafi in charge. If rebels take over, that might mean 5 years of civil war and unpredictable interruptions in oil supplies.[/quote]

I don’t see how the US cannot be involved. This is a UN decision. The fact they may not intervene militarily directly is prudent given the potential for a Muslim backlash. Any interruptions to Libyan oil supply is unlikely to effect the US much. The question is whether a ruling authority has the right to kill it’s citizens engaged in ‘peaceful’ protest. What the world police must establish is whether the state was merely defending itself, or controlling opposition elements with brute force. If Iraq was a lesson learned in rushing to judgement, the UN will want secular support from the Muslim world. The danger is appearing to be on a western crusade to promote democratic values …while seemingly benevolent it stokes the fundamentalist fire. The motive for a military intervention must be as surgically precise as the guided missiles that create the no-fly zone.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Eugene]From what I read, the US has no intention of getting into that one. It’s mostly locals such as France.

Overall, Americans are probably better off with Qaddafi in charge. If rebels take over, that might mean 5 years of civil war and unpredictable interruptions in oil supplies.[/quote]

I don’t see how the US cannot be involved. This is a UN decision. The fact they may not intervene militarily directly is prudent given the potential for a Muslim backlash. Any interruptions to Libyan oil supply is unlikely to effect the US much. The question is whether a ruling authority has the right to kill it’s citizens engaged in ‘peaceful’ protest. What the world police must establish is whether the state was merely defending itself, or controlling opposition elements with brute force. If Iraq was a lesson learned in rushing to judgement, the UN will want secular support from the Muslim world. The danger is appearing to be on a western crusade to promote democratic values …while seemingly benevolent it stokes the fundamentalist fire. The motive for a military intervention must be as surgically precise as the guided missiles that create the no-fly zone.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Eugene]From what I read, the US has no intention of getting into that one. It’s mostly locals such as France.

Overall, Americans are probably better off with Qaddafi in charge. If rebels take over, that might mean 5 years of civil war and unpredictable interruptions in oil supplies.[/quote]

I don’t see how the US cannot be involved. This is a UN decision. The fact they may not intervene militarily directly is prudent given the potential for a Muslim backlash. Any interruptions to Libyan oil supply is unlikely to effect the US much. The question is whether a ruling authority has the right to kill it’s citizens engaged in ‘peaceful’ protest. What the world police must establish is whether the state was merely defending itself, or controlling opposition elements with brute force. If Iraq was a lesson learned in rushing to judgement, the UN will want secular support from the Muslim world. The danger is appearing to be on a western crusade to promote democratic values …while seemingly benevolent it stokes the fundamentalist fire. The motive for a military intervention must be as surgically precise as the guided missiles that create the no-fly zone.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Eugene]From what I read, the US has no intention of getting into that one. It’s mostly locals such as France.

Overall, Americans are probably better off with Qaddafi in charge. If rebels take over, that might mean 5 years of civil war and unpredictable interruptions in oil supplies.[/quote]

I don’t see how the US cannot be involved. This is a UN decision. The fact they may not intervene militarily directly is prudent given the potential for a Muslim backlash. Any interruptions to Libyan oil supply is unlikely to effect the US much. The question is whether a ruling authority has the right to kill it’s citizens engaged in ‘peaceful’ protest. What the world police must establish is whether the state was merely defending itself, or controlling opposition elements with brute force. If Iraq was a lesson learned in rushing to judgement, the UN will want secular support from the Muslim world. The danger is appearing to be on a western crusade to promote democratic values …while seemingly benevolent it stokes the fundamentalist fire. The motive for a military intervention must be as surgically precise as the guided missiles that create the no-fly zone.

[ocrenter]

The question here is how do we wish to shape future world policing policy? So far the US is the lone ranger. This strategy does have its benefits. You do not have to consult with other states, you have the ability to act fast. Militarily this is the better way to go.

But the negatives are simply too much to list. We live it, we are way overstretched, and it is costing us big.

We desperately need to move away from the lone ranger route. So when do we do it?

Every time a crisis arise, everyone will turn to the lone ranger because that’s what they are used to. Plus, what is better than 1st rate military protection? FREE 1st rate military protection!

The only one that can get the world off its lone ranger dependency is the lone ranger himself. And this Libyan crisis is the best opportunity.

We have now set precedence with UN backing and Arab League backing. We are no longer the lone ranger. I say well done!

[ocrenter]

The question here is how do we wish to shape future world policing policy? So far the US is the lone ranger. This strategy does have its benefits. You do not have to consult with other states, you have the ability to act fast. Militarily this is the better way to go.

But the negatives are simply too much to list. We live it, we are way overstretched, and it is costing us big.

We desperately need to move away from the lone ranger route. So when do we do it?

Every time a crisis arise, everyone will turn to the lone ranger because that’s what they are used to. Plus, what is better than 1st rate military protection? FREE 1st rate military protection!

The only one that can get the world off its lone ranger dependency is the lone ranger himself. And this Libyan crisis is the best opportunity.

We have now set precedence with UN backing and Arab League backing. We are no longer the lone ranger. I say well done!

[ocrenter]

The question here is how do we wish to shape future world policing policy? So far the US is the lone ranger. This strategy does have its benefits. You do not have to consult with other states, you have the ability to act fast. Militarily this is the better way to go.

But the negatives are simply too much to list. We live it, we are way overstretched, and it is costing us big.

We desperately need to move away from the lone ranger route. So when do we do it?

Every time a crisis arise, everyone will turn to the lone ranger because that’s what they are used to. Plus, what is better than 1st rate military protection? FREE 1st rate military protection!

The only one that can get the world off its lone ranger dependency is the lone ranger himself. And this Libyan crisis is the best opportunity.

We have now set precedence with UN backing and Arab League backing. We are no longer the lone ranger. I say well done!

[ocrenter]

The question here is how do we wish to shape future world policing policy? So far the US is the lone ranger. This strategy does have its benefits. You do not have to consult with other states, you have the ability to act fast. Militarily this is the better way to go.

But the negatives are simply too much to list. We live it, we are way overstretched, and it is costing us big.

We desperately need to move away from the lone ranger route. So when do we do it?

Every time a crisis arise, everyone will turn to the lone ranger because that’s what they are used to. Plus, what is better than 1st rate military protection? FREE 1st rate military protection!

The only one that can get the world off its lone ranger dependency is the lone ranger himself. And this Libyan crisis is the best opportunity.

We have now set precedence with UN backing and Arab League backing. We are no longer the lone ranger. I say well done!

[ocrenter]

The question here is how do we wish to shape future world policing policy? So far the US is the lone ranger. This strategy does have its benefits. You do not have to consult with other states, you have the ability to act fast. Militarily this is the better way to go.

But the negatives are simply too much to list. We live it, we are way overstretched, and it is costing us big.

We desperately need to move away from the lone ranger route. So when do we do it?

Every time a crisis arise, everyone will turn to the lone ranger because that’s what they are used to. Plus, what is better than 1st rate military protection? FREE 1st rate military protection!

The only one that can get the world off its lone ranger dependency is the lone ranger himself. And this Libyan crisis is the best opportunity.

We have now set precedence with UN backing and Arab League backing. We are no longer the lone ranger. I say well done!

[gandalf]

Great discussion, enjoyed reading. One of the best FP threads in a long while.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[gandalf]

Great discussion, enjoyed reading. One of the best FP threads in a long while.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[gandalf]

Great discussion, enjoyed reading. One of the best FP threads in a long while.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[gandalf]

Great discussion, enjoyed reading. One of the best FP threads in a long while.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.
[/quote]

That made me laugh.

[Author]

Posts