Um, what’s it got to do with the British? We’d have to fly planes over France, Italy or Spain, the three countries that should be establishing the no-fly zone as they’re the closest to North Africa, to get to our airbase in Cyprus which is realistically where any British deployment will come from. Combine this with the fact that we’re already overstretched by getting involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we don’t exactly have a better reputation in the Muslim world than the Americans do, then it’s just as stupid for the British to get involved as it is for the US. It’s time for the rest of Europe to step up and get their fingers out. The EU bleats about “soft power” in its neighbouring states, but there’s far too much “soft” and not enough “power”.
Enforcing a no-fly zone’ certainly, alongside taking whatever action is needed against anti-air defences.
But boot on the ground?
Certainly not.
The rebels seem to be making the distinction between no-fly and military intervention also.
It was done for the Kurds in Iraq and it can be done here.
Preferably with full UN support but if not, without as we can’t sit by in a situation of ‘clear and present danger’ while a mad dictator commits appalling atrocities against his own people and expect that same people to be our friends if they win.
I’d be happy if the UK went it alone although I doubt we have the real capability.
Why not kill Gaddhafi?
Have you ever actually been to America? Or met an American?
Seriously, you act like you’ve lived your whole life in North Korea and all you know about American comes from propaganda.
If anything, the problem with Americans is we’re too sure of our good intentions. We’re always convinced we’re helping people and doing the right thing even when we don’t know what the right thing to do is. We’re like a huge Great Dane that wants to jump in your lap and lick your face.
Nostalgia for the Combe Force.
You’re right. Now, excuse me while I go and torture some babies. Being an American, that’s just what I do. It amuses me.
How?
1 - If the US tried to do it from the air, then they would be dropping bombs on a city of 2 million, and there’s nothing like a guarantee of success.
2 - If the US tried to send in a Special Forces team, then they would have to work out some way to get them in and back out and to know EXACTLY where he is, something that he is not going to advertise. And since Special Forces teams are not actually superheroes, there’s a substantial chance that they could get wiped out or captured, unless the US invaded in sufficient force to actually control the city.
3 - If the US invades the city of Tripoli, they’re going to be trying to control a city of 2 million, either with a massive amphibious assault or by invading across a long desert road from the west, assuming they came to some understanding with the forces currently controlling Benghazi. This would require a minimum of tens of thousands of troops, billions of dollars, and all the other risks of a full-on invasion.
The US has too much baggage to get involved. The people trying to fight their government see us as Imperialists and fear the capitalism that would likely want to get a foothold. Any intervention would throw sentiment in favor of Gadaffy and would add to the idea that the revolutions have been fomented by the west. Gadaffy is making that argument. The last thing we need to do is make him a sympathetic figure.
These revolutions are in North Africa, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are on Africa. Is this the beginning of an African revolution?
Among many, many other sources, it was on CNN’s front page yesterday.
That the US intervene unilaterally?
It was reported on CNN yesterday that there were rumors that the Libyan opposition was considering asking the U.S. for an airstrike to topple Gaddafi’s government. However, they stressed this could not be confirmed, and that it goes against everything else we’ve been hearing out of the opposition, and that, at present, the opposition has no recognized leadership that could make such a request.
As I thought. I believe the OP is starting with a false premise-- that there are serious discussions that the US should intervene unilaterally. There aren’t.
I’m an American and have never been anywhere else. I know exactly what my fellow Americans are like.
The Inquisition was well meaning too; that didn’t keep it from gleefully torturing and murdering people for their own good, any more than it has us.
That would be a better retort if we didn’t actually have a habit of torturing people.
It’s not a habit. I could stop torturing people any time I wanted.
Unilateral action was not specified in the OP, but the articles in question are usually worded “Will the US intervene?”, or something like it, not “Will the UN intervene, with US forces taking equal or lesser part?”
No such premise was in the OP either. I framed it as an “interesting question.” No representation of knowledge of action or discussions of action was made or implied, other than the original inspiration for the OP, which was sparked by seeing multiple news articles about it yesterday.
sigh I’ve heard that before. The hardest part is getting the subject to admit that you have a problem.
Electrodes on the genitals work well.
Or so I have been told.
I understand the military is trying to give the President more options by moving a carrier group and Marine flotilla off the coast of Libya, but we’re getting into a damned-if-we-do-damned-if-we-don’t scenario.
Either we get involved by shooting down planes strafing civilians thereby violating an Arab nations sovereignty or we don’t and get condemned by the Arab world for allowing civilians to die.
That, at least, is familiar territory for the US, if cold comfort.