Why are we bombing Libya?

[scrappyhappymama]

Yes, I know there is another Libya thread, but that was has devolved into... not a thread about Libya.

 

I have admittedly not read a lot of news reports on the specific situations there. I've noted the revolts in various countries that have been spreading, and have most recently happened in Libya. But I am confused about, why Libya within weeks of the conflicts beginning, and not say, Sudan during the years where hundreds of thousands died? Or Zimbabwe? Or any of the other countless civil wars where we choose not to get involved? Qaddafi is certainly not the only brutal dictator in the world.

 

So, what happened in Libya to make the UN get so involved so fast?

 

Why would we get involved in a civil war in another autonomous country? (I do understand humanitarian concerns. But could we not provide relief without getting directly involved? And if things are SO bad we feel morally obligated, why there and not Darfur?

 

And, displaying my ignorance here, but what exactly is a no fly zone? Are we really telling a sovereign nation they cannot fly over their own country? And then bombing them when they refuse to comply?

 

I am asking these questions in all seriousness, and not trying to advocate a particular view. I feel like I have a big gaping hole in my own personal education and understanding of world events!

[Melissa in Australia]

Some would say that Libya has lots and lots of oil and Zimbabwe had nothing of interest to other countries.

[MyLittleWonders]

Subbing as I'm very curious the answers to your questions, as they are good ones.

[Melissa in Australia]

I have heard that nothing will be done about Darfur as it is mostly a fight between different Muslim sects. I really don't know enough information to confirm that though.

[ChrissySC]

OK, well, the military (Libya/Gaddafi) has been bombing and shooting the population/rebels.

 

France stepped up to bomb night before (if I remember correctly) because the president said he would stop the attacks on the people and did not.

 

A no-fly zone is a zone where no air craft can fly.

 

It is an attempt on our part, France, US, and UK, to stop the sensless killing of the population that rose in protest.

Edited March 21, 2011 by ChrissySC

[tntgoodwin]

Some would say that Libya has lots and lots of oil and Zimbabwe had nothing of interest to other countries.

 

:lol::lol:

If that were the criteria, why not invade Canada?

[Melissa in Australia]

OK, well, the military (Libya/Gaddafi) has been bombing and shooting the population/rebels.

 

France stepped up to bomb night before (if I remember correctly) because the president said he would stop the attacks on the people and did not.

 

A no-fly zone is a zone where no air craft can fly.

 

It is an attempt on our part, France, US, and UK, to stop the sensless killing of the population that rose in protest.

 

I don't think the UN will rush into Yemen, but the government there is slaughtering their protesters. http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9043775/yemen-president-sacks-cabinet-crowds-bury-martyrs/

[mamakven]

Subbing! I was wondering all the same things.

[Jennifer3141]

I think we live in very interesting times. I'm anxious to see what democracy does to the Middle East.

[Melissa in Australia]

:lol::lol:

If that were the criteria, why not invade Canada?

 

I think America gets Canadian oil quite easily without having to go to all the bother of invading.

[ChrissySC]

I don't think the UN will rush into Yemen, but the government there is slaughtering their protesters. http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9043775/yemen-president-sacks-cabinet-crowds-bury-martyrs/

 

What is the world doing?

 

No, I did not expect an answer.

 

I read. I can't believe I blinked this week and now Yemen too. I need to learn to enjoy dry eye.

 

:confused::confused::confused:

[Melissa in Australia]

Protesters are being killed in Bahrain as well.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9044514/bahrain-opposition-urges-government-take-steps-toward-talks/

[scrappyhappymama]

A no-fly zone is a zone where no air craft can fly.

 

 

Funnily, I was able to work out that bit on my own. ;)

 

To be more specific, on what authority is a no-fly zone declared? How is this justified over a sovereign nation? Why do we reasonably expect them to comply, when I can envision no circumstances under which we'd accept such intrusion into our own airspace and affairs? What is the history or precedent for no-fly zones? What other helpful information can one provide? :001_smile:

 

(I know I sound woefully ignorant. In my defense, my high school history teacher "let" me quit coming to class right around WWI, because I already had an A, and was messing up the curve for the rest of the class. Since I was a teenager, I happily took him up on it, and sat in another class and did my homework for my other classes. Since it was the only year of history offered in K-12, I never learned modern history. Since I transferred mid-college from one that required World History to another that required US History and state history instead, I never formally learned modern world history there either. I've self taught a lot as an adult, but this happens to be a hole. Will you help me fill it?)

[Jennifer3141]

The UN endorsed the no fly zone, Scrappy. That's the kind of thing the UN was made to do. Most of the other Arab countries wanted it as evidenced by the Arab council's meetings over the past several days.

 

It is my opinion that there are other Arab countries that are desperate to stem the tide of democracy that is spreading throughout the ME right now. <cough> Saudi Arabia <cough> would really like it all to die down a bit so no one (Americans) too closely examines them.

 

Whether or not The UN will support invading Bahrain or Yemen and whether it will stop there is anybody's guess. No one knows how far this is going to go. It's like social networking has helped every person in the Middle East say enough is enough.

[lmkzbcb]

I am not buying into the idea that this is a democracy uprising. Maybe some are there for that, but I dont know about everyone. When I look at what is happening in some of these countries, I have to wonder if this really is about democracy. I don't think we are going to know much about the real drive until it is all said and done. I am keeping an eye on Egypt to see where this is headed.

 

It really bothers me that Pres. Obama has gotten us involved in another "super police" position for the world. I thought he campaigned to get us out of war. This just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Also, what business is it of ours. Did the rebels ask us for help? Did Ghadafi ask us to intervene? No, it was the UN, and I am thinking so what? The UN wants to get involved in these things let them deal with the headache and money required to bomb another country. I am so done with the US being called on every time.

[Spy Car]

 

Also, what business is it of ours. Did the rebels ask us for help? Did Ghadafi ask us to intervene? No, it was the UN, and I am thinking so what? The UN wants to get involved in these things let them deal with the headache and money required to bomb another country. I am so done with the US being called on every time.

 

Actually the rebels have been pleading for US and European intervention of exactly the kind taking place now.

 

Bill

[Rosie_0801]

To be more specific, on what authority is a no-fly zone declared? How is this justified over a sovereign nation?

 

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a country only owns so much air above their turf. Just like home owners only own to a certain height over theirs. Countries with coastline own something like 200km out, unless they bump into someone else's 200km, and the rest of the ocean belongs to everyone and no one.

 

Rosie

[ChrissySC]

The no-fly zone is certainly a military concept. It is an attempt to remove combat from the sky. This is to ensure that the nation using the sky for military advantage and attack ceases to operate in the air space. I believe it is sactioned by the Air Navigation Regulations, FAA, et cetera.

 

Let me just say that you cannot fly of Disney either. :) It is not always just a military action.

[Mrs.MacGyver]

Actually the rebels have been pleading for US and European intervention of exactly the kind taking place now.

 

Bill

 

This is true. Plus, the Arab League asked for help as well.

 

However, Admiral Mullen said on Meet the Press yesterday that getting rid of Qaddafi is not the goal of the UN's actions. But the President said that he must go. It is only to keep the people safe (an honorable goal, but how does that work without getting rid of this guy?) Qaddafi doesn't strike me as the type of guy that will lose this, stay, and then start behaving...

 

This is why I don't like these things. Why do we send our Navy/troops somewhere without some kind of clear goal? :confused:

[Margaret in GA]

It's a similar action to the Bosnian War

 

Someone on this board recently noted that we still have military there? Turns out, we really do. Stars and Stripes article So, one really has to wonder if we do put people on the ground, will we ever leave? Let's just hope we stay in the air.

 

 

And now to state a truth:

 

Friendly dictators are supported; disobedient ones are not.

 

Margaret

[Amy in NH]

The difference between this conflict and others that have been happening lately:

 

Gadhafi has been taking the oil profits of "his" country and using them to purchase a mercenary military made up of non-Libyan citizens. In other conflicts around the region, the war is between citizen parties. The current Libyan conflict is between Gadhafi and his mercenaries versus the Libyan citizens.

 

The reason that this is important is that, for instance in Egypt, with the army being a part of the citizenry, the military has a political/civil stake in the outcome and decided not to kill their own families. The mercenaries in Libya only have a stake in the oppression of the citizenry by the dictator so that they can continue to be paid - they don't have a stake that would allow them to ever choose not to kill innocent and peacefully protesting citizens.

 

It is also important to remember that this UN strike is not being led by the US.

 

I'm so glad the French decided to step in on our side against a repressive regime back in the 1700s.

[ktgrok]

My thoughts are that at this point the Libyan people are very close to winning, and therefore limited use of force on our part will make a large difference, which is not the case in other conflicts. Also, we have wanted to get rid of Godofi for a very very very long time. He is completely and totally insane. If you haven't read about him you should. This is not another normal dictator. He's really and truly crazy. He's an insane dictator that has a lot of hatred for our country and we have wanted him gone for a long time. This is just a really good time to do it.

[ktgrok]

 

Also, what business is it of ours. Did the rebels ask us for help? Did Ghadafi ask us to intervene? No, it was the UN, and I am thinking so what? The UN wants to get involved in these things let them deal with the headache and money required to bomb another country. I am so done with the US being called on every time.

 

Actually the rebels have been begging for our help since this started. Unlike Iraq these people are actively asking for our help to get rid of an insane, violent dictator. This guy makes Charlie Sheen look normal, and we have been asked by the populace to help.

[tntgoodwin]

Bear in mind that there is some talk that the rebels are being supported by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and Qaddhafi don't get along.

[dangermom]

 

Actually the rebels have been begging for our help since this started. Unlike Iraq these people are actively asking for our help to get rid of an insane, violent dictator. This guy makes Charlie Sheen look normal, and we have been asked by the populace to help.

How about all the other countries where people are being shot? Do they want us to help out too? If so, why did we pick this one and not the others?

[ktgrok]

No, some of the others haven't asked for help. And it does seem different when in Libya the fighting is being done by paid outside mercenaries. At that point it isn't a civil war, because it isn't Libyans fighting Libyans. It is people from another country fighting Libyans, for a paycheck.

[SeekingSimplicity]

If

that were the criteria, why not invade Canada?

 

 

I think America gets Canadian oil quite easily without having to go to all the bother of invading.

 

 

There's a time to think, and a time to act. And this, gentlemen, is no time to think. :D

[Barry Goldwater]

In response to this question,

 

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

 

Candidate Barack Obama said this:

 

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

 

The question was specific to pre-emptively attacking Iranian nuclear weapons development sites, but the analogy is being made by many concerning the current Libya situation.

 

Anyone know if the President has clarified his motivations to bomb Libya, in light of his earlier statement of 2007?

[QueenCat]

In response to this question,

 

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

 

Candidate Barack Obama said this:

 

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

 

The question was specific to pre-emptively attacking Iranian nuclear weapons development sites, but the analogy is being made by many concerning the current Libya situation.

 

Anyone know if the President has clarified his motivations to bomb Libya, in light of his earlier statement of 2007?

 

The U.S. is there as part of the UN decision, not an U.S. goes to Libya on it's own, as we did, for the most part, in Iraq, under Bush.

[Barry Goldwater]

The U.S. is there as part of the UN decision, not an U.S. goes to Libya on it's own, as we did, for the most part, in Iraq, under Bush.

 

Not gonna re-hash Bush, but the UN had 17 resolutions stating basically that Iraq was in violation of terms of cease-fire from Kuwait and that he needed to comply 'or else.'

 

Again I ask, has the CURRENT president clarified his remarks? I'm asking because I don't watch TV, and none of my internet news outlets have spoken on this so far...maybe I missed it...

[Linda1951]

women on here are Christians, but the world is going the way Christ said it would.

Nation against Nation, lots and lots of earthquakes and worse and worse earthquakes and the weather getting really really bad.

 

plus Obama is doing this so when Gadhafi is out , people will say look what he did, and get re elected. JMHO

Edited March 21, 2011 by Linda1951
added info

[QueenCat]

Not gonna re-hash Bush, but the UN had 17 resolutions stating basically that Iraq was in violation of terms of cease-fire from Kuwait and that he needed to comply 'or else.'

 

Again I ask, has the CURRENT president clarified his remarks? I'm asking because I don't watch TV, and none of my internet news outlets have spoken on this so far...maybe I missed it...

 

True... but it eventually did become the U.S. and Iraq, with little from other nations. I just don't see it going that with Libya. Very different scenario. As to our current President, I don't know if he has clarified his remarks from his campaign. Most politicians, on both sides, learn quickly, that things aren't as simple as they thought, and they can't do things without the cooperation of others.

[Stacy in NJ]

equals no intervention.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not gonna re-hash Bush, but the UN had 17 resolutions stating basically that Iraq was in violation of terms of cease-fire from Kuwait and that he needed to comply 'or else.'

 

Again I ask, has the CURRENT president clarified his remarks? I'm asking because I don't watch TV, and none of my internet news outlets have spoken on this so far...maybe I missed it...

 

The UN DID authorize a no-fly zone and missile attacks in Iraq over a period of many years. I have never seen Obama say that he had a problem with those actions, taken by the previous three presidents. Find me a quote where he said he had a problem with those actions. Full-scale invasion of Iraq was different. It was something we did not have UN authority for. Kofi Annan called the invasion of Iraq illegal according to the UN's charter, hence the word "unilateral" in Obama's statement. That is the difference. This action in Libya is exactly the sort of action that the UN generally takes. You are comparing apples to an elephant.

 

As far as action in places like the Sudan? Those aren't real governments. They are rival gangs of thugs and murderers. With whom would we side? What buildings would we bomb? How could we impose sanctions? It gets very tricky. The military doesn't like missions without some sort of objective. The other *unspoken* reason? Mogadishu.

 

I'm not sure how Egypt was brought up? Egypt's government was possibly guilty of attacking its citizens for a few days. This has actually been going on for *decades* in Libya. He has been publicly executing dissidents since the seventies.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Barry Goldwater]

The UN DID authorize a no-fly zone and missile attacks in Iraq over a period of many years. I have never seen Obama say that he had a problem with those actions, taken by the previous three presidents. Find me a quote where he said he had a problem with those actions. Full-scale invasion of Iraq was different. It was something we did not have UN authority for. Kofi Annan called the invasion of Iraq illegal according to the UN's charter, hence the word "unilateral" in Obama's statement. That is the difference. This action in Libya is exactly the sort of action that the UN generally takes. You are comparing apples to an elephant.

 

As far as action in places like the Sudan? Those aren't real governments. They are rival gangs of thugs and murderers. With whom would we side? What buildings would we bomb? How could we impose sanctions? It gets very tricky. The military doesn't like missions without some sort of objective. The other *unspoken* reason? Mogadishu.

 

I'm not sure how Egypt was brought up? Egypt's government was possibly guilty of attacking its citizens for a few days. This has actually been going on for *decades* in Libya. He has been publicly executing dissidents since the seventies.

 

Soooo...he hasn't clarified his statement, then? He hasn't explained where the imminent threat to the U.S. is from Libya that would justify pre-emptive bombing? Or are you saying that the fact that the U.N. and the Arab league asked us take action, thereby invoking 'bi-lateralism,' that makes clarification unnecessary?

[Mrs Mungo]

Soooo...he hasn't clarified his statement, then? He hasn't explained where the imminent threat to the U.S. is from Libya that would justify pre-emptive bombing? Or are you saying that the fact that the U.N. and the Arab league asked us take action, thereby invoking 'bi-lateralism,' that makes clarification unnecessary?

 

I am saying that we are supporting a UN mission. Therefore, it is not a unilateral action. Therefore, clarification is not necessary.

 

If the quote had been referencing our actions in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq, that would be different because the missions are similar.

[Melissa in Australia]

True... but it eventually did become the U.S. and Iraq, with little from other nations. .

 

I don't agree with that statement. There are British, Australian, and many European soldiers still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been there the whole time that American ones have. True there might be more American soldiers, but they have a bigger army than a country like Australia.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't agree with that statement. There are British, Australian, and many European soldiers still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been there the whole time that American ones have. True there might be more American soldiers, but they have a bigger army than a country like Australia.

 

These are two different actions. It is true that there have been some countries serving in Iraq (a US-led coalition), but Iraq was not a UN-sanctioned action. So, some of the coalition countries that have served in Afghanistan have not served in Iraq. The *vast* majority of coalition forces pulled out of Iraq several years ago. Afghanistan is a completely different situation.

[Melissa in Australia]

These are two different actions. It is true that there have been some countries serving in Iraq (a US-led coalition), but Iraq was not a UN-sanctioned action. So, some of the coalition countries that have served in Afghanistan have not served in Iraq. The *vast* majority of coalition forces pulled out of Iraq several years ago. Afghanistan is a completely different situation.

 

Yes I realize it is a completely different kettle of fish. I just get irritated with people claiming it is only Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, when there are many other countries involved as well.

[Joanne]

This is why I don't like these things. Why do we send our Navy/troops somewhere without some kind of clear goal? :confused:

 

Maybe it's not unclear, but undisclosed?

[Melissa in Australia]

Maybe it's not unclear, but undisclosed?

:iagree: and that is what we are all trying to guess. What is the real reason?

[Joanne]

:iagree: and that is what we are all trying to guess. What is the real reason?

 

My husband's son is a pilot in the army. He's an officer. My BIL is retired Air Force (pilot). They've both done multiple tours in the middle east.

 

I posted "undisclosed" because, in today's age, we expect information and date. But military strategy still has levels of secrecy. This is necessary, IMO.

 

I wasn't suggesting we were, as a public, being kept in the dark. I was suggesting that offering total transparency is possibly not appropriate.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes I realize it is a completely different kettle of fish. I just get irritated with people claiming it is only Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, when there are many other countries involved as well.

 

The poster to whom you replied said:

"True... but it eventually did become the U.S. and Iraq, with little from other nations."

 

This is an accurate statement, imo. There are no British soldiers left in Iraq. Australia has fewer than 100 soldiers in Iraq, and they are charged with protecting the embassy. She didn't say anything about Afghanistan. It says nothing about their prior service and sacrifice, it's just the current fact.

[blondeviolin]

 

It is also important to remember that this UN strike is not being led by the US.

 

This is not entirely true. Currently it IS our military that is taking the lead. My husband is military, my brother is military, we know plenty of people all of the the States who received calls Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday, etc to get up and go. Of all of the ships that fired the tomahawks, the US had the great majority. Even training squadrons that don't deploy their members are sending people because they already stretched thin.

 

Yesterday the news was that the first day went very well and the US plans to pass on the lead to Britain and France soon, but there was no exact date as to when. (Ironically, on Friday evening Obama was very insistent that the US was only playing a "supporting role" in this endeavor.)

 

So, yes. There are plans that this will not be US-led. But currently, it is.

[Hedgehogs4]

Yes, I know there is another Libya thread, but that was has devolved into... not a thread about Libya.

 

I have admittedly not read a lot of news reports on the specific situations there. I've noted the revolts in various countries that have been spreading, and have most recently happened in Libya. But I am confused about, why Libya within weeks of the conflicts beginning, and not say, Sudan during the years where hundreds of thousands died? Or Zimbabwe? Or any of the other countless civil wars where we choose not to get involved? Qaddafi is certainly not the only brutal dictator in the world.

 

So, what happened in Libya to make the UN get so involved so fast?

 

Why would we get involved in a civil war in another autonomous country? (I do understand humanitarian concerns. But could we not provide relief without getting directly involved? And if things are SO bad we feel morally obligated, why there and not Darfur?

 

And, displaying my ignorance here, but what exactly is a no fly zone? Are we really telling a sovereign nation they cannot fly over their own country? And then bombing them when they refuse to comply?

 

I am asking these questions in all seriousness, and not trying to advocate a particular view. I feel like I have a big gaping hole in my own personal education and understanding of world events!

 

oil. I really believe it almost always boils down to oil interests.

[ShutterBug]

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!!

 

What? Really? You mean we can't revive that tired old slogan every.single.time. the UN or the US intervenes when mass bloodshed and human atrocities are ocurring in the middle east?

 

It was effective in 1991...and I still have the sign somewhere in my garage..are you sure I can't still pull it off?

[mirth]

But I am confused about, why Libya within weeks of the conflicts beginning, and not say, Sudan during the years where hundreds of thousands died? Or Zimbabwe? Or any of the other countless civil wars where we choose not to get involved? Qaddafi is certainly not the only brutal dictator in the world.

 

So, what happened in Libya to make the UN get so involved so fast?

 

Why would we get involved in a civil war in another autonomous country? (I do understand humanitarian concerns. But could we not provide relief without getting directly involved? And if things are SO bad we feel morally obligated, why there and not Darfur?

 

As far as action in places like the Sudan? Those aren't real governments. They are rival gangs of thugs and murderers. With whom would we side? What buildings would we bomb? How could we impose sanctions? It gets very tricky. The military doesn't like missions without some sort of objective.

 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued two arrest warrants for the president of Sudan in recent years. It is unprecedented to try to arrest a sitting head of state. But he has been just *that bad* and everyone knows it. While the charges are for heavy-hitting things like "genocide" and "crimes against humanity", they are ignored. So it's not ambiguity over the objective that prevents any country from serving these warrants.

Edited March 21, 2011 by mirth

[Mrs Mungo]

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued two arrest warrants for the president of Sudan in recent years. It is unprecedented to try to arrest a sitting head of state. But he has been just *that bad* and everyone knows it. While the charges are for heavy-hitting things like "genocide" and "crimes against humanity", they are ignored. So it's not ambiguity over the objective that prevents any country from serving these warrants.

 

The question is not whether you could arrest a particular person from a military perspective. That would not be the military objective. Who would replace him? Could we actually take control? We only control portions of Afghanistan and we've been there 10 years.

[asta]

Because we're idiots.

 

Read his letters to the UN et al. He may look like a 1970s disco throwback, but he is absolutely correct: it is well known in the Arab world that the "dissidents" of Libya are the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaida.

 

This is one of those cr@p situations - which does the world want, a dictator who has repented and is hanging out with Swedish bimbos, or another middle eastern nation run by (active) terrorists?

 

 

a

[Mrs Mungo]

Because we're idiots.

 

Read his letters to the UN et al. He may look like a 1970s disco throwback, but he is absolutely correct: it is well known in the Arab world that the "dissidents" of Libya are the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaida.

 

This is one of those cr@p situations - which does the world want, a dictator who has repented and is hanging out with Swedish bimbos, or another middle eastern nation run by (active) terrorists?

 

 

a

 

This is true too. It was also true of Egypt and why we propped up both men for so long.