Libya no fly zone

Here's your "no fly zone". It's a way to be seen as doing something, while doing nothing. It's relatively clean, no boots on the ground, and safe for hi-tech western powers. The reality is that it won't keep Gaddafi from winning, something the rebels would have already done if they were actually a popular majority. Gaddafi will set up portable AA systems in neighborhoods, marketplaces, and schoolyards. They will paint the patroling aircraft with fire control radars which will cause the patrol aircraft to launch counter munitions. Next thing you know, Gaddafi will be on all the media feeds waving photos of civillians killed by no fly zone strikes. Sooner or later Gaddafi will get a pilot and parade him around until whatever nation bows to the goatherd and pulls out of the no fly club.

Stop this no fly crap and let Libya be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Care to explain why it's absurd?

---

OK, let us see- Dave said: an interesting exercise in what happens when the people who - having a right to bear arms - form themselves into a well regulated militia and attempt to overthrow their government. It doesn't look like it will end well.

The Libyans have the right to bear arms?
I know nothing of what ever they have for a constitution, but I would not bet money on it.

A well regulated militia?
Regulated maybe, but that is as far as their "militia" fits what Dave is referring to in the U.S. Constitution.

Beyond that the U.S. has a large National Guard, who (now Dave is dealing with maybe kinda-sorta think here) are not puppets of Washington. They legally are controlled by the Governor of each state.
It would be just as easy to vision in this fiction scenario Dave is trying to float, that the various National Guards would defend their home State and tell Washington to go to hell.
This would give any so called "militia" top level tanks and aircraft.

In reality Dave's analogy is simply absurd at face value. (That doee not even take into account the well armed part of the U.S. civilian population.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hondo

Here's your "no fly zone". It's a way to be seen as doing something, while doing nothing. It's relatively clean, no boots on the ground, and safe for hi-tech western powers. The reality is that it won't keep Gaddafi from winning, something the rebels would have already done if they were actually a popular majority. Gaddafi will set up portable AA systems in neighborhoods, marketplaces, and schoolyards. They will paint the patroling aircraft with fire control radars which will cause the patrol aircraft to launch counter munitions. Next thing you know, Gaddafi will be on all the media feeds waving photos of civillians killed by no fly zone strikes. Sooner or later Gaddafi will get a pilot and parade him around until whatever nation bows to the goatherd and pulls out of the no fly club.

Stop this no fly crap and let Libya be.

---

I don't think you answered my earlier question — would you have argued 'let Iraq be' before 2003?

just give the rebels surface to air shoulder fired munitions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...or-action.html

Quote:

---

The first raids, possibly conducted by unmanned drones, could happen within hours if Colonel Gaddafi acts on his threat to "show no mercy" to rebels in Benghazi.

The RAF could become involved in any operation by this evening, according to British sources. However, the raids may be spearheaded by an Arab nation such as Qatar or the UAE.

Last night, Col Gaddafi threatened to launch retaliation attacks against passenger aircraft in the Mediterranean if foreign countries launch air strikes against Libya.

---

It's about effing time. I hope they bomb that sick ******* back into the Stone age.
Teddy Roosevelt is smiling in his grave, Walk softly but carry a big stick.
Hail Sarkosy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't think you answered my earlier question — would you have argued 'let Iraq be' before 2003?

---

I was against the Iraq invasion completely. I didn't see Iraq as a threat to the USA then or now. I did support the UN removing Iraq from Kuwait after his invasion of that country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hondo

I was against the Iraq invasion completely. I didn't see Iraq as a threat to the USA then or now. I did support the UN removing Iraq from Kuwait after his invasion of that country.

---

the problem is they should have removed saddam the first time around.

So, now there is this no fly zone over Libya about two weeks too late, do they expect Gaddafi to change his mind and stop what he's doing? I hope that the fireworks in Benghazi were not celebrating it's over just yet, I fear the worst :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hondo

I was against the Iraq invasion completely. I didn't see Iraq as a threat to the USA then or now. I did support the UN removing Iraq from Kuwait after his invasion of that country.

---

My apologies for doubting you. I am in full agreement on both counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

the problem is they should have removed saddam the first time around.

---

How much better that might have been for the world, not least in terms of the spread of anti-American feeling possibly being reduced by virtue of the 2003 campaign not being necessary, one can only speculate. Pity.