Getting involved in Libya

[freein05]

The military forces in Europe are also not bankrupting the countries. European countries know what war is because they have seen their cities destroyed by war! The US spends more then the rest of the world combined on it's military. The 50,000 plus names on the Vietnam memorial are men and women of my age who never got to live a full life because of a stupid war. I was drafted in 1965 and spent my army time in Europe. My brother was drafted a month latter and spent his time in Vietnam on helicopter gun ships. He made it back. My parents did not know what to do with both sons in the army in a time of war.

[Dharma Bum]

The military forces in Europe are also not bankrupting the countries. ... The US spends more then the rest of the world combined on it's military

You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military... I would probably agree with many of those comments.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between overspending and impotency.

[iris lily]

[QUOTE=Iris lily;16391]

I saw this today regarding thoughts on Libya. It reminded me of the Simple Living forums over the years.

OMG yes. I am bent over with laughter! That's SLN logic at its finest.

[The Storyteller]

Oh puh-lease. For 15 years we've had Europeans voicing their criticism of US global policy and military actions, often in harsh and quite impolite terms. That fine, it's an open forum and everyone has an opinion. But to get your panties in a bunch over a comment that EU attempts to project military force are "inept" is pretty lame and a complete over reaction that seems to have more foundation in a cultural insecurity than offensive language. "Inept" is not a character assessment, so save the stories of the Blitz 70 years ago. The sun has long since set on the British Empire and in referring to the EU's ability to impose a no fly zone in Libya I used the word inept, which means

Inept

1: lacking in fitness or aptitude
3: not suitable to the time, place, or occasion

I stand by my point- the EU military forces are not nearly as effective as US forces in true conflicts. Yes, the French flew some sorties. But the hard missions and over 90% of the initial strikes were handled by US forces. So drop the misplaced indignation and face the facts. You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military. You can criticize the US for intervening where you think we should not. I would probably agree with many of those comments. But in the case of Libya, it's a fair criticism that the EU lacks an effective capacity to intervene where it politically thinks it should. And as a result the US gets pulled in to a deeper role than perhaps it otherwise would if the EU militaries weren't, well, so inept at such things.

Here's a first. We actually agree on something.

[Zigzagman]

The morality of war as developed by royalty and “legalized” by the UN. (UN sanctioning killing these foot soldiers but not Gaddafi)

Economic sanctions are generally no better because they result in the death and suffering of thousands of those with the least in the countries being sanctioned.

It’s time to focus extreme prejudice on those that deserve it the most, and not their underlings, nor their captive citizens. The 21st century seems to give the term "Executive Privilege" a whole new meaning.




Peace

[jp1]

Perhaps there is a middle ground between overspending and impotency.

Perhaps someone can explain to me whose military they think is going to come attack the US. It's been 70 years since anyone did that.

Canada spends a small fraction of what we do for their military, yet when I go there I don't see people quaking in their boots worried that China or Libya or whoever is about to start bombing raids on Toronto or Ottawa.

[freein05]

Zig I like that and it is probably true.

[The Storyteller]

Perhaps someone can explain to me whose military they think is going to come attack the US. It's been 70 years since anyone did that.

Canada spends a small fraction of what we do for their military, yet when I go there I don't see people quaking in their boots worried that China or Libya or whoever is about to start bombing raids on Toronto or Ottawa.

Perhaps because of their next door neighbor.

I was a skinny kid in school, but my older brother was a giant. I never feared the bullies when he was around.

[CathyA]

I found the statement about not killing Gaddafi curious. Why not? If we're willing to kill his followers, why not take out the source of the problem? I really don't understand this.
(I don't think we should be there at all, but just curious about that statement).

[The Storyteller]

I found the statement about not killing Gaddafi curious. Why not? If we're willing to kill his followers, why not take out the source of the problem? I really don't understand this.
(I don't think we should be there at all, but just curious about that statement).

Do you really think it is wise to advertise it is fine to go about killing world leaders? I'm sure areas where he may be holed up are being targeted as "command and control centers" and if we happen to take him out in the process...

We banned the assassination of heads of state a long long time ago. I think that was a wise move.