Oh I see - you can't beat him in the basketball argument huh? If you go to the Hitler/Nazi card that quick, what else will you respond with?
he left out the one that would be really effective w/ the least risk: destroy their airforce and armor from the air, then let the libyan rebels mop up.
I think he does address it with #2, "no-drive zone," where he suggests destroying artillery pieces and suggests it's problematic because those assets may already be in civilian areas and it would put the US in a very aggressive stance. Still, those assets might not be in civilian locations, in which case go ahead and blow them up.
That's my list of people I can remember who have called me a Nazi or Hitler on this forum - in a funny twist while I have been criticizing religious persecution, e.g. in Pakistan. There's also Mathloom who called me something like a "cultural Neo-Nazi" in an angry moment, but most of the time, he doesn't seem as primitive and hateful as the people I mentioned above. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law
indeed. and tough to hide a fighter jet in a civilian locations, at least if you intend to use it for it's intended purpose. but while Obama is waiting for the revolution to get "organic", people are dying. we can minimize that (or at least kill more of the bad guys). we should. we have the means.
I think we really need to understand the lay of the land better. Who are the different identifiable groups and what is their position? I’m assuming that many of the people who are backing Gaddafi now are doing so out of fear, and if that’s the case then getting rid of Gaddafi and his inner circle may embolden them to either stop fighting for his regime, or perhaps even to turn on it. However, he has tribal support and I’m not sure how strong that is. We need to understand what conditions would lead to the fall of the Gaddafi regime. Where and what is the tipping point? Another option might be to cut the country in half by declaring the eastern part independent. I don’t know how doable that is, or what the tribal repercussions might be, but then other countries could then start pouring aid into East Libya and strengthening it.
What happens when Qaddafi's air defenses shoot down our planes? Are you willing sacrifice the lives of American pilots to kill a few "bad guys"? The impoverished reflection on this difficult issue evinced in your posts belies the fact that there are steep costs to any military intervention. There are no guarantees that any particular action will save lives, either. A significant risk that you don't seem to acknowledge is that if we intervene, fail to accomplish our objective(s), and withdraw rather than escalate, Qaddafi's forces will very likely be emboldened to ramp up their attacks. Maintaining the threat of intervention (which is Obama's current stance) may actually be saving more lives than would an actual intervention. Aside from unilateral military calculations, there are significant issues of international diplomacy that you seem to dismiss out of hand. Winning Security Council support for an intervention would put enormous pressure on Qaddafi to negotiate a resolution with the rebels. That option is blown to hell along with whatever "bad guys" you take out in your cowboy-style, "let's roll" raid.
The fluidity in the Libyan tribal situation is a good example of why Obama has this one right. As long as you stand back and support Qaddafi's opposition, ambiguously construed, you don't have to parse the various populations into defined roles based on their constantly shifting alignments. This is the lesson in Afghanistan, even going back before the present engagement: the gun you give to your friend today may very well be aimed at you by your enemy (possibly the same person) tomorrow. Even if the Libyan people want US military support now, that is no guarantee that a post-Qaddafi government there will by any more favorable to us. Decisions made on bombing targets, distribution of aid (humanitarian or military), and political support have the potential to disrupt the fragile unity converging around the common goal of liberating the country from a tyrant. Opportunistic tribal leaders could parlay US backing into political power when the regime falls, fostering resentment among rivals that did not receive such support. The take-away is that there is a real risk for Obama in overplaying his hand. Neoconservatives like basso tend to be blind to that risk due to their uncritical belief in US exceptionalism. I mean...we're still fighting two wars, for ****'s sake! Ironically, the same hawkish ilk are the first ones to piss their pants every time China announces any military modernization initiative, and yet they are content to have us operate outside any international framework and assume the entire risk burden of unilateral action.
As the debate coach for a local high school, I would like to give you a free lesson on what is sometimes called strategic concession. I will go ahead and grant your narrow claim that implementing a no-fly zone would not be accompanied by a significant risk of a US aircraft being downed by Qaddafi's air defenses. In focusing your rebuttal on this single tactical capability, you only reinforce my larger point: A no-fly zone isn't an endgame. It does not = Qaddafi's ouster. It is also not a risk-free proposition and could undermine any number of strategic goals--those both of the US and the Libyan people. Once again, the disparity between your cheap remarks and the expensive engagements they call for comes to mind--a moderately useful metaphor in any case. The hubris that got us into Iraq is alive and well, and many of the moderate minutemen are settling back into the trenches they dug in 2003 as if they never left. I believe their intentions, as well as yours, basso, are good. Saving lives and promoting freedom and democracy are noble pursuits. I also agree with many conservatives who argue that we have to do those things from a position of strength (<--another example of strategic concession). But this thing, the no-fly zone, is a weak move. Going at it unilaterally, using a force already engaged in two wars (not to mention its large permanent deployments scattering the hotspots of the world), is stupid... ...Bush stupid.
and you get the award for the runner up... So everything listed in that wikipedia article is what is usually played when beheading an individual? You are ridiculous for even trying to defend his asinine post.
