French aircraft enforcing no-fly zone over Libya

[RoadKingLarry]

after the bombings ghadaffi was always unfinished business

There were also a couple of instances of Lybian MIGs engaging US aircraft over the Med, didn't work out for them though.

[RevDisk]

How'd that policy of weapons and supplies work out in, oh, Afghanistan?

Considering it helped hasten the destruction of the Soviet Union?  Absolutely awesome.  Not to mention, damn few of the weapons have been ever used against the US.  Maybe the odd couple dozen AKs or bolt actions.  Majority of the weapons used against us in Afghanistan are either Soviet captured, pre-existing from various sources or provided more recently by Pakistan.

Dirt cheap for the price.  Dirt cheap.

Islamic terrorism is an absolutely friggin joke compared to the USSR.  If every Islamic terrorist killed a dozen people per day, they still would have been a joke compared to the USSR. 

[MillCreek]

British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said the Royal Air Force deployed Tornado GR4 fast jets, which flew 3,000 miles from the United Kingdom, "making this the longest-range bombing mission conducted by the RAF since the (1982) Falklands conflict."

Wow, I wonder how many times they had to do air-to-air refueling?  The last Vulcan bomber in the UK was retired in 1993.  Not easy to do mass bombing missions in a single/dual seat fighter-bomber.

[MicroBalrog]

depends who you ask  the russians were doing ok till we helped.
theres an old saying  if someone can't/won't get something themselves they probably can't keep it if you give it to them.

Observe democracy in Germany... OSNAP.

Islamic terrorism is an absolutely friggin joke compared to the USSR.  If every Islamic terrorist killed a dozen people per day, they still would have been a joke compared to the USSR. 

Add to this that the factions America helped then are NOT the same mujahedin factions fighting against America (ineffectively) today.

depends who you ask  the russians were doing ok till we helped.

Please elaborate on your version of 'doing okay'?

[RevDisk]

Please elaborate on your version of 'doing okay'?

Slaughtering tons of civilians with their gunships with near impunity. 


The Stinger and other provided air defense weapons was the turning point of the war.  That was intentional.  No one weapon provided by Charlie Wilson and the CIA (a fair number purchased from YOUR country, oddly) was the turning point.  But the blend of them...  It was more than the sum of the parts.  The world owes a great debt to Mr Wilson, may the Gods rest his soul.  Hopefully the afterlife is keeping him well supplied with beautiful women and plenty of booze.  He earned all of it, and then some.

The book, Charlie Wilson's War, should be required reading material for anyone involved in a covert war.

[MicroBalrog]

The Soviets were never doing too good militarily in terms of their competence. But tactically, they were doing fine throughout the war. They mostly left due to running out of resources and willpower as a nation, IMO. Their losses were fairly low.

[roo_ster]

Re

Goodie. Are you perfectly fine with allowing Gadhafi to use his military on his own people unopposed?
The French, Italians & English seem to be doing this largely  alone in sofar as aircraft are concern.

Yes.  Likely replacements are no great shakes, either.

[roo_ster]

It is always so easy to sit behind a keyboard and advocate sending young Americans to war.  I think we should pick and choose very carefully the situations in which we choose to spend American lives and treasure.  I don't think Libya is one of those situations.  Others may disagree. And I see the thread has already become Godwinned.

Libya is a pit.  As is usual inthe ME, we will trade one murderous despot for another.

Tell me again what interest america has in that pit?

[MicroBalrog]

Libya is a pit.  As is usual inthe ME, we will trade one murderous despot for another.

Please define 'murderous despot'.

Then tell me how much you're willing to bet on your assertion.

[PTK]

I guess I should have been more specific - for the people living in Afghanistan, how did it turn out? Those who fought off the Russians paved the way for a hell of a government.

I guess I'm weird about things like these - I'd rather stay the hell out of most everything with rare exception.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If we were going to do it, we should have done it a couple of weeks ago, when he first started bombing protesters. 

No kidding.

Taking out Ghadafi is the right thing to do, but I fear the effort underway now is too little too late.

[roo_ster]

No kidding.

Taking out Ghadafi is the right thing to do, but I fear the effort underway now is too little too late.

Also for the wrong reason.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm still waiting for your definition of what constitutes a 'murderous despot'.

[TommyGunn]

If that is what you meant you sure didn't express it very well.  It came out as a general whine with some Obama blame and no meat around it.

   Well, I was actually thinking for once Obama did one thing right, just late.  I think I said what I meant pretty well.  Doesn't have to have meat on it; Obama strikes me as the vegetarian type anyway.

[41magsnub]

   Well, I was actually thinking for once Obama did one thing right, just late.  I think I said what I meant pretty well.  Doesn't have to have meat on it; Obama strikes me as the vegetarian type anyway.

  your own self.  I'm still not getting that from your earlier posts but ok....

[KD5NRH]

theres an old saying  if someone can't/won't get something themselves they probably can't keep it if you give it to them.

Send me $5 million and I'll test that saying.  :D

As for the Libyans, I prefer a "get in, get done, get out" approach of bombing all the military hardware in sight, then sitting back and letting the problem work itself out.  No need to keep flying around to enforce a no-fly zone if they don't even have an L-19 that's in one piece anymore.

[RevDisk]

I guess I should have been more specific - for the people living in Afghanistan, how did it turn out? Those who fought off the Russians paved the way for a hell of a government.

I guess I'm weird about things like these - I'd rather stay the hell out of most everything with rare exception.

They did not fight the Taliban even one sixteenth as much as they did the Soviets.  Ergo, they were happy enough with the situation.  You or I may not like the Taliban, but to the Afghans...  Their country was wrecked, and tribal politics have been problematic for the last thousand years.

The Afghanis are many things.  Shy to kill folks occupying their country isn't one of them. 

[CSM Kersh]

The Afghanis are many things.  Shy to kill folks occupying their country isn't one of them.  

Alexander was most likely the last person to successfully invade Afghanistan and even he didn't stay.

[MicroBalrog]

Alexander was most likely the last person to successfully invade Afghanistan and even he didn't stay.

Except the successful conquests of Afghanistan by India's Maryan Empire (ruled for centuries), the Parthians, the Kushans, the Sassanids, India's Pala Empire, the Arabs, Rajput, the Mongols, Afghanistan losing control of its foreign policy to England...

Minor incidents like these, yes?

[roo_ster]

Please define 'murderous despot'.

Then tell me how much you're willing to bet on your assertion.

Pretty easy, to one not so twisted into a pretzel by ideology.

We're not talking anything too complex, here, so I assume you are using it as a rhetorical device to make a point, ever so banal it may be.

despot [ˈdɛspɒt]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an absolute or tyrannical ruler; autocrat or tyrant
2. any person in power who acts tyrannically

mur·der·ous  (mûrdr-s)
adj.
1. Capable of, guilty of, or intending murder: a group of murderous thugs.
2. Characteristic of or giving rise to murder or bloodshed: murderous mistrust.

Put those two words together and you get something to the effect of, "a tyrant who uses murder to maintain their power."

Not so difficult, really, and history shows that ME leaders are variations on the type.

I'm still waiting for your definition of what constitutes a 'murderous despot'.

[Obi Drank Latrobie]The snark is forced in this one.[/Obi Drank Latrobie]

BTW, some of us have family, work, church, and other obligations that may preclude our responding on demand.

[MicroBalrog]

Does a man who suppresses a protest with water hoses and gets a single protest count as a despot?

Or is it only when the tanks get rolled out? We need a definition.

Does a democratic government that suppresses such a protest count as a despotic one? For example, does President Hoover count?

Why do we need a definition? So if there is a regime change and it is better than your definition, I can point and say "See, no murderous tyrants." Or if you're right you can crow about being right.

Note: You are the one claiming the Middle East will not have anything other than murderous tyrants in the observable future since the locals are not capable of it. If even one of the Arab revolutions works out, you'll be proven wrong.

[roo_ster]

Does a man who suppresses a protest with water hoses and gets a single protest count as a despot?

Or is it only when the tanks get rolled out? We need a definition.

Does a democratic government that suppresses such a protest count as a despotic one? For example, does President Hoover count?

Why do we need a definition? So if there is a regime change and it is better than your definition, I can point and say "See, no murderous tyrants." Or if you're right you can crow about being right.

Note: You are the one claiming the Middle East will not have anything other than murderous tyrants in the observable future since the locals are not capable of it. If even one of the Arab revolutions works out, you'll be proven wrong.

"Murderous despot" does not require a symposium and a lexicographical deep-dive.  None of your examples even comes close to the links I provided.

Keep on insisting that reality must comply with your theory and get back to me on how well that works out for you.

Nothing comes for free and very little comes cheap.  A liberal & humane order is something that requires millennia of hard civilizational work.  The residents of the ME haven't begun to do that work, don't seem predisposed to start any time soon, and are at a disadvantage in that an orthodox reading of their religion is detrimental to such an endeavor.  Call me after they get after it for 500 years and I might break out the rose-colored glasses.  Until then, the smart money will short liberalism and decency in the ME.

[roo_ster]

MB:

Maybe you can point out all those liberal democracies that have festooned the ME?  Only those outside college dorms count for the total.

Some of us, when we recall our recent ME history have a quick & dirty shorthand in our memory:
Ottoman Turks > Euro colonial regimes > Monarchies & autocracies > Military dictators > more of same & some fundy Muslims

The Turks did their own thing and ended up getting all genocidal on the Armenians.  Genocide of minorities is a rather bitter pill to swallow for a few decades of less-vicious rule, which is degrading into muslim fundyness, anyways.

Anyways, good luck on your research!

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe you can point out all those liberal democracies that have festooned the ME?  Only those outside college dorms count for the total.

Irrelevant.

If history proves anything at all it is that history is barely predictable. There are many countries that have succeeded in creating democracies - not good, western-grade democracies off the bat, but democracies with regular elections and relatively-free speech, while having had millenia of slavery as their only historical past.

As such I ask you to make a definition, so we can come back to this thread in two or three years and see if you were right or wrong.

Contrive a definition of despotism that we can fact-check two, three years from now based on some measurable tool - the different countries' Freedom House ranking, the number of brown rats per capita, the tax rate.  So that two, three years from now, when the smoke clears over the current crsis, we can measure your predictions against reality using your own measuring tool.

[Boomhauer]

It is always so easy to sit behind a keyboard and advocate sending young Americans to war.  I think we should pick and choose very carefully the situations in which we choose to spend American lives and treasure.  I don't think Libya is one of those situations.  Others may disagree. And I see the thread has already become Godwinned.

Personally, when I advocate going to war, it's advocating going to war without political bullshit restraints so that the fewest Americans as possible give thier lives. I.e., bombing the ever loving *expletive deleted* out of targets, using overwhelming firepower (no such thing as overkill...sniper in that building? Put a few 120mm HEAT rounds into it) and so on. Unfortunately, politicians make our military do stuff the ass backwards way, which results in far more casualties than necessary...


Also, this thread has not been Godwinned. The post by Tommygun

So we'll wind up like we were after WW1...a third rate power with our soldiers practicing with sticks against trucks with placards saying "tank" on them because there will be too few tanks to be effective.  We'll turn into an isolationist country one more time in our history.....
and it no doubt won't be long before we have the Chinese and /or Russian version of an Adolph Hitler to deal with.
By which time I suspect I will have left this mortal coil, as I am talking about the future here, and by that I don't mean just tomorrow morning.
Which is fine by me, you know.

Is utter truth. Our military is going to suffer greatly in the coming years because the stuff it needs is being held up by the politicians in Congress and the Pentagon. You think soldiers are dying in large numbers now? Wait till you see what happens in a large scale war, because such things will happen in the future. We don't want to become a modern version of Great Britain, a formerly very great power, with no carriers, a small military, a small air force, and so on. Oh, wait, we're headed that way at full steam, though! Politics are killing the US military, and we are going to reap what has been sowed sometime, and it's going to be very, very ugly.