Can’t the US or France use an aircraft carrier to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya? Bombing civilians shouldn’t require a UN resolution to act upon it.
I sent my congressman a note to that effect. It would be a refreshingly kind projection of US power for once.
H.
Yeah, let’s try to stick to Libya, guys.
Unfortunately, that would “prove” we fomented the whole thing under orders from our Israeli masters.
Hard to say since, well, no one has really bombed their own people intentionally before outside of a guerilla war (which Libya arguably is, now). The closest analog may be at the end of the Tamil war when Sri Lanka corralled as many Tamil civilians into one place as they could and then bombed and shelled the crap out of it. No one really cared because, hey, how do you spell “sri lanka”.
I don’t even think the US has a carrier nearby. Enterprise went through the Med earlier this month, but it looks like it transited the Suez a couple of weeks ago en route to the Persian Gulf to relieve Abraham Lincoln, which wrapped up operations recently and is headed home to Everett.
Pretty much since Afghanistan and Iraq happened the Navy’s been busy keeping 1-2 carriers in the Gulf at all times.
How about Iraq and the Kurds? Wasn’t that why the Northern Iraq no-fly zone was set up in the first place?
NATO could do something. Malta is basically a static aircraft carrier in the mediterranean. All the major population zones along the north coast could be protected.
You know what? I couldn’t care less what people think. They are bombing civilians.
They’re also shooting civilians on the ground. Does that mean we invade?
What are you saying, WH? That because invading would be a step too far, let’s not do anything?
Kurds vs. Saddam?
I see you have now turned into a neocon. Sorry, but by popular demand we are not the world’s policeman anymore.
The Libyan ambassador to the US is on Al Jazeera right now asking the US, anyone, to enforce a no-fly zone. I hear their ambassador to the UN has already asked the UN for the same.
If the U.S. tries to get involved militarily it will only make things worse. No matter how noble our intentions or firm our resolve to not repeat previous sins, we will only make things worse. We can send sympathy and some money, but that’s about it.
I’m saying that the people who here don’t like US military adventurism suddenly like US military adventurism when it suits them.
Also, the no-fly zones in Iraq came after UN Resolution 688.
There’s nothing neocon about supporting limited military action to prevent genocide. You are thinking about invasions to push ideological agendas.
I’m always amazed at the ability of some people on these forums to make a personal argument out of anything. Nice trolling, WH. I thought you were better than that.
This really is a job for the UN, but I think they are too busy condemning Israel today. Maybe tomorrow.
Sending money is what got us in trouble in Eggypt with Mubarak. Honestly we suck at doing that non-evilly as well. They would prefer we send tourists now actually. I could tell you a story about Nicaragua too, but meh … it is a pattern.
Sending tourists to Libya tonight would clearly by inappropriate. ;)
However, if the Arab League meeting tomorrows calls for something then that gets more interesting. Current Sec-Gen there is Amr Moussa, his name is name mentioned very highly as potential contender for first democratic president of Egypt.
Fucking iPad autocorrect. How the hell did I spell wrong in such a way that it decided I meant wrangled?!?