US limited role is brilliant!!

[Nancy Waterman]

The French military jets are attacking Libya. The US forces are not, although we are in support in some vague way. This is huge!! It is shifting the entire world narrative about the US as the bullying superpower.

In previous, recent "coalitions," the support from other countries has been rather perfunctory with the US being the top dog or the only real force involved. Now we are in a real coalition, not even in the leading role, and it was the French president not the American one who announced the attack. This is brilliant. This is real change we can believe in.

The GOP will most likely complain because they are comfortable in the bullying, top dog role, but really, this is much healthier. It will enable us to eventually lower our military budget some, change the perception of the US in the world, and it will improve our relationship with the world. Ultimately, it also makes us stronger, with our friends holding up their end. Bravo!! I don't think this would have been possible with a Republican president at all!!

[countingbluecars]

1. I agree.

Recommended

[DevonRex]

2. ITA. A real UN coalition, led not by us but by others. And it's at the request

of Libyan rebels, so innocent civilians won't be slaughtered. Pretty much meets all my criteria for being for a UN action.

[golfguru]

3. Too little too late

Qaddafi has moved armed troops in Benghazi and other cities already.
He has learned from Saddam's tactics and following them to the tee.
It is impossible to bomb troops embedded in high density cities from air.
If this operation was started 7-8 days ago, would have been much more effective.
Watch the Libyan war continue for several months now.

[DevonRex]

4. Complain to the UN, then. nt

[golfguru]

5. Typical result of depending on UN bureaucracy!

Now we will end up sending boots on the ground to dislodge Qaddafi.
Procrastination is seldom good.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. The alternative to depending on UN bureaucracy is infinitely worse.

[golfguru]

21. Do not be surprised if Libya outlasts Afghan & Iraq wars

Qaddafi was most vulnerable 10 days ago. Now he has dug in with armed troops
in all Libyan cities.

[AnOhioan]

6. While I agree in spirit with your post

Do not expect the US military budget to be lessened anytime in the foreseeable future...too many parties, across the political spectrum, have a stake in keeping the money tap turned on full.

[dreamnightwind]

10. Should be priority number one

It won't be easy, but we need to make a lot of noise about reducing the military budget. Shrink it till it's small enough to drown in a bathtub. Polls show a lot of popular support for this, so the noise won't fall on deaf ears. Then when they come for our "domestic discretionary spending", we can point at the real source of deficit spending, the military.

[Amonester]

7. US officials: US prepares for sea-based missile launch against Libyan air defenses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4778395

No ground troops, please.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. seriously? So then you are about to be wildly disappointed.

We are, by all reports, about to launch a major strike against the libyan air defense system, followed by deployment of predators against libyan military forces in general. Given that Quadaffi moved his forces into Benghazi, this 'no fly zone by which we mean we are going to eliminate all your military assets' (boy was that a quick slide) is going to require our old friend 'collateral damages'. But keep up the cheerleading! It is so much fun to kill brown people in lopsided military engagements.

[AntiFascist]

28. I have to agree...

how much of this effort is motivated by the oil industry and keeping the military-industrial complex alive and well? The easy method of regime change would be to take out the leaders at the top, but this is usually out of the question. Keeping them alive ensures a long-lasting war effort with plenty of collateral damages. Once everything is crushed, the rebels, who we are presumably fighting for, will bend to the will of those leading the war effort.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Yes it is!

To have the French, who were against going into Iraq, lead the way,
is exactly how it should be.

For those who believe nothing should be done as Kaddaffi bombs is own people,
I say....let the U.N. finally show that they are good for something,
and yes....let the French lead the way. Good to know that our President
is not so narcassistic to think that this should be led by the U.S.
Thank goodness it ain't.

so yes....bravo! :thumbsup:

[cedric]

12. It's all down to self interest

The US doesn't want to upset its Arab friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc.

After all the world is lubricated by oil and will Bahrain having a regional military base the last thing Obama wants to do is hack his friends off. That's why there has been so little criticism of the populace being gunned down in the Arab nations.

Let the Europeans do the dirty work and the Arabs and the American populace may not get too disgruntled.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

14. those missiles destroyed air defenses that put French, British, and Canadian Jets at risk

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RollWithIt]

31. Correct, these were to be expected.... The French surveyed the missile sights....

We took them out in combination with the British.

[bigdarryl]

16. Limited role MY ASS!!! you have Have Hillary making statements then Obama

and then the Pentagon making statements all on TV if the US wants to prove there not in charge of this stay off the fucking TV the Arabs get the same coverage we get hear so if they constantly see the people I mentioned you can bet there not going to believe the US isn't taking a lead in this

[ruggerson]

17. Whoops n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

18. 100 (so far) cruise missiles is "vague"?

How many more do we supply? What other actions will we be a part of? How many civilians do we kill THIS time?

[vaberella]

34. We didn't supply all those. That was a total number along with French missles. n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sad sally]

20. Too late for celebrating - just being reported US air power is firing just outside Tripoli

No need for congressional approval - another undeclared war.

[golfguru]

22. 3 wars simultaneously is not cheap

no money for retiree cost of living increases in social security, no money for
big bird, no money for national health care, but there is always money to get
involved in wars. Iraq war being the stupidest war, Afghan is a quagmire with Al Qaeda
safely operating from Pakistan, and we gave enough time to Qaddafi to position his troops
inside populated cities, so now will last a very long time.

[ClarkUSA]

26. False meme. There's one war and it will soon end.

[golfguru]

37. stop making irrelevant and illogical posts

[ClarkUSA]

42. lol! I am logically refuting your false meme, which is quite relevant.

[progressoid]

41. Yeah. Just like Korea was just a Police Action and Vietnam was just a Conflict.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Apples and oranges. Contact the UN for clarification.

[progressoid]

45. Right. The UN supported us in Korea but not Vietnam.

Neither were declared a war and yet millions died and billion$ were wasted in both of these non-wars.

The point is, whether it's called a war or not makes no difference to those died from it. Call it an apple or an orange. Bullets and bombs kill just the same.

I wonder how the families of the soldiers that died in Iraq since we declared the war "over" feel knowing their loved ones didn't die in a war.

[ClarkUSA]

47. So what? Apples and oranges.

[progressoid]

48. OK. So which do you prefer?

Wasting money on a multimillion dollar apple or a multimillion dollar orange?

[ClarkUSA]

50. For some people, everything boils down to $$$. Not I.

[progressoid]

53. Just trying to clarify your vague post.

When I said, "The point is, whether it's called a war or not makes no difference to those died from it. Call it an apple or an orange. Bullets and bombs kill just the same. I wonder how the families of the soldiers that died in Iraq since we declared the war "over" feel knowing their loved ones didn't die in a war."

You said, "So what? Apples and oranges."

I assumed you weren't so callous as to say "so what" to the death of millions of people in Korea and Vietnam or of our troops in Iraq, so I thought it might be about the money. Apparently not.

Just wanted to clarify that this is simply about semantics of how to label a military conflict.

[ClarkUSA]

55. My original post is very clear. I refuted the false "3 wars" meme so beloved by some people.

Unless you have objective proof from credible sources that we are in "3 wars simultaneously" at the moment, then I'm done here.

[progressoid]

56. I agree about the false meme thing.

We need these things to be black and white.

Offically we haven't gone to war since WWII.

Technically, we aren't even at war in Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[RollWithIt]

33. While there is a valid conversation to be had on war spending...

In reality... we have ONE active war going on right now. It's in Afghanistan. We spend a small fraction of what we once did on Iraq. I'm not trying to minimize our defense spending btw. It's tremendous. But the only real war we have going on right now is in Afghanistan. We will never see US military forces ON THE GROUND in Libya. There is a an AMAZING cost difference. I'd be happy to discuss what the financials.

[golfguru]

38. I understand the need for essential wars, I am questioning priorities

of spending precious resources. With Trillion and a half yearly deficits,
we can no longer afford to play world policeman.

[tomp]

59. we have to play world policeman.

it's necessary to keep the rich rich. everything else is negotiable-teachers, firemen, you, etc.

and "essential wars"? the only "essential war" is the one waged in self-defense.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

27. The US is proving you wrong. All it's doing is protecting French and British flight crews from ships

[Phx_Dem]

24. Agreed. n/t

[Raine1967]

25. Agreed.

This -- to my knowledge was something led by the UN.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

29. What's limited?

Using only 112 Tomahawks at $569,000 each ($63.7MM) instead 500 missiles instead?

[RollWithIt]

30. I agree, even with the addition of cruise missile support...

Basically we have the French (and British soon) controlling the skies. We just followup with attacks on what the French and UK ask for.

It's brilliant political and military policy. We are no longer the evil Americans. We're just there to provide support for a REAL coalition that was UNANIMOUSLY voted for in the United Nations.

It's amazing really.

[bvar22]

32. LOL.

Coalition of the Willing bullshit.
Won't fool anyone.

[SteveG]

35. from what the BBC is reporting

Most of the combat aircraft will be coming from France, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, Spain, United Arab Emirates (over 20 fighters), and Qatar. The French have their Carrier the Charles De Gaulle on station, Something like 24 warships have been positioned in support of these operations. Spain, France and Italy are providing access to airbases, we are providing targeting info and co-ordination plus the cruise missiles to take out the Libyan air defenses. The French went in first, before the air defenses were attacked because of they have this plane

France is clearly one of the key players in this crisis.

In diplomatic terms it has been one of the main promoters of UN Security Council resolution 1973 allowing the use of force. French aircraft, thought to be Rafale fighters, according to reports from Paris, have been the first to operate over Libya ensuring, according to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, that Libyan government aircraft cannot operate over the Benghazi.

Dassault Rafale

Continue reading the main story
Dassault Rafale

Crew: 1/2

Speech: 1.8 Mach

Weapons: Air-to-ground missile, including Apache and Exocet, air-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles

The Dassault Rafale is a multi-role, twin-engined delta wing aircraft capable of mounting air defence, ground attack, and reconnaissance missions.

It is operated by the French Air Force and a variant of the plane is the mainstay of the French Navy, operating from the carrier Charles de Gaulle.

The Rafale carries a sophisticated electronic survival system named Spectra. It can detect and track up to eight targets simultaneously and generate 3D maps for navigation and targeting.

the BBC has excellent coverage here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

[Top Cat]

36. I agree.. Brilliant move by the adminstration.

[craigmatic]

39. You can't argue with the team work but you can argue with our involvement in Libya.

[Canuckistanian]

40. I was impressed that it was the US that was dragging their heels

The French have been gung ho on this from the beginning. And other nations, Canada included, have been willing to contribute. Even the Arab League.

This isn't an Iraq situation. The UN has actually sanctioned this one.

[gmaki]

44. Rare you get to see someone eat their own words an hour later.

nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. We're bombarding Libya with hundreds upon hundreds of MISSILES. That's hardly

a "limited roll." And it certainly doesn't qualify for "brilliant" either.

[ClarkUSA]

51. Wrong. There's been 112 so far, not "hundreds upon hundreds".

"First wave of allied assault: 112 cruise missiles": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

[Dokkie]

49. Such a brilliant move

I just wonder when we will implement such brilliant move to prevent the killing of civilians in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabian. Oh am sorry, did you say the brilliance is only for non allied dictators? I guess you cannot be expect to be a brilliant strategist all the time, you gonna need some time to be a hypocrite.

Sweet, just listening to the news and they are bombing bridges now and with a little bit for brilliance, they can hit power, water and hospitals next. Such brilliance from our dear leaders

End the wars NOW

[ClarkUSA]

52. Get your answer here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=691986&mesg_id=692739

[DeSwiss]

54. War is never brilliant. Never. n/t

[KurtNYC]

62. right. And "limited" is a BS word -- of course it is limited

I mean it can't be infinite ?!

[chill_wind]

57. Uhh... "we are supporting in some vague way.." ?? This is a "U.S. led Coalition."

U.S. and British ships and submarines have fired more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles

U.S.-led coalition begins attacks on Libya's air defense systems

(snip intro)

For now, the operation is under the command of U.S. Africa Commander Gen. Carter Ham, who was sworn to that post just last week, while U.S. Adm. Sam Locklear is commanding a joint task force from aboard the USS Mount Whitney.

It includes 11 U.S. vessels, including the amphibious ships USS Kearsage and USS Ponce, submarines USS Scranton, USS Florida, and USS Providence, as well as Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Stout and USS Barry. Additionally, three supply ships, 11 Italian ships, and one ship each from Britain, France, and Italy comprise the effort.

Eventually, the Pentagon plans to hand command control over to another country in the coalition, but no time was given. The official said the coalition includes Britain, France, Italy, Canada and other unnamed countries, including Arab ones, that would reveal their participation on their own.


http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-led-coalition-begins-attacks-on-libya-s-air-defense-systems-1.138336

[joshcryer]

58. Wow, I've been posting on the wrong subforum.

:rofl:

[AngryAmish]

60. We have a coalition of countries willing to fight.

If only we had some sort of short phrase for a group of nations who are willing to fight in some cause.

[Paladin]

61. Let's See How Long The U.S. Role Stays "Limited."

I've got a bad feeling about this one, just like the others. We have a president who just can't seem to resist the urge to put boots on the ground and lives at risk......