Operation ODYSSEY DAWN

[Bullet]

Well, before the Mods lock this thread up, I just wanted to pass on an interesting tid-bit of information (and perhaps this could even help change the subject):

Meet the Joint Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC) for Operation ODYSSEY DAWN. which means they are basically in charge of the ENTIRE air campaign for this operation.

I'm sure SHE will do a fantastic job!

http://www.17af.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123211267

History has been made, as we now can claim as a nation that a female has led one of the branches of the armed forces into combat.

Good for her! Better for America!

 

[BigBear]

I am really learning a lot here about the situation- I don't have much access to live news here at school and definitely no significant analysis, so can we please keep this civil and open?

My understanding of Iran is that while it may not be popular among its neighbors, it is more popular than another US led invasion of an Arab country. Unlike Libya, it would take a major offensive to make any headway in Iran, and the population would be very hesitant to support foreign forces without clear victory in sight. additionally, Iran has much more significant oil resources, and there would undoubtedly be a distinct impact on the us and world economies if the US invaded.

Final comment- if Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel,
1. Either Israel of the US would shoot the missle down before impact.
2. If that fails, I believe Israel would "take Iran down with her" and launch a massive counterstrike.

But this is off topic. please continue to discuss the current situation in Libya

 

[patentesq]

You would be very surprised at my depth of understanding of the politics of the Middle East, well above what someone at your level would ever grasp.

You might as well complain to someone who might be impressed by your posts.

I am not.

As for your other comment, you have no dog in the fight, best you leave the discussion to those who it actually involves.

Luigi, this response was totally out of character for you. You seem to be very interested in law based on my reading of your past posts. Good lawyers try very hard not to dish out personal attacks, because they know that those who typically do so do NOT have meritorious arguments. Personal attacks actually make the attacker look foolish.

You are very smart. Smart means being a gentleman and resisting the temptation to resort to gang-land tactics.

 

[scoutpilot]

You would be very surprised at my depth of understanding of the politics of the Middle East, well above what someone at your level would ever grasp.

You might as well complain to someone who might be impressed by your posts.

I am not.

As for your other comment, you have no dog in the fight, best you leave the discussion to those who it actually involves.

Lol, sure. Whatever Yahoo news tells you.

 

[patentesq]

Your understanding of Iran is quite shallow. Probably a subject best left for another debate.

As for the "personal insult" part....wow. I'd hate to see what you'd do if someone actually insulted you. Laughable.

This was a regrettable comment, too.

 

[aglages]

After the US completes it's portion of this effort:
"the initial stages of the operation aimed at eliminating Libyan air defenses were being coordinated by the American forces, who would then turn over full responsibility to their partners to establish and maintain a no-fly zone."

Then we need to get out and let the Arab League and NATO play political football with this thing.

"Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said that responsibility for the no-fly zone would be transferred to NATO. But France raised objections to that, with its foreign minister, Alain Juppé, saying in Brussels on Monday that “the Arab League does not wish the operation to be entirely placed under NATO responsibility. It isn’t NATO which has taken the initiative up to now.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22libya.html?exprod=myyahoo

 

[bruno]

It was Emerson's quote. No "little mind" here ("on the internet" ), perhaps your personal insult should be aimed somewhere else?

Assembling a coalition (including many Arab neighbors) against Iran would take about 15 minutes. Iran has many many enemies, none of them want to see that "dangerous nutjob" get an atomic weapon, which they are very close to completing, within 2 or so years is the experts estimate.

Would you rather take out a non-nuclear Iran or wait until they turn Israel into a sheet of plate glass?

Libya is a non-factor to the US, a non-threat run by the same "nutjob" who has run it for the last 40 years.

Why are we now going after him (as mentioned earlier, about a month late) when he has been their all this time, doing the same thing? There is no urgency. It's an internal regime change. Yes, we can and should SUPPORT it - offer weapons, logistics, food, advice, etc - but no need to put our forces at risk.

Libya's civil war threatens none of its neighbors, and it certainly doesn't threaten us or our important allies the way Iran does.

Iran, however......We WILL engage in combat against Iran sooner or later. If the justification for an attack is the logic you have posted, I expect President Obama to send the missiles toward Tehran any minute.



The devil you know is better than the one you don't. Khadaffi is a known fool, a daff old man who no one takes seriously. whatever/whoever comes in next could be a real threat.

Either way, let the people of Libya handle it.

Well- I wasn't insulting you- or wasn't trying to at any rate and you shouldn't have taken it that way- though I was denigrating the concept that an action taken in one place is a binding precedent to take action in another. It isn't.
As far as going to war in Iran- short of an immediate existential threat to the US or possibly to Israel or one of the Gulf states- the effort required and the degree of uncertainty of the outcome of anything less than a full out long term full scale war will keep us from doing anything of the kind. And getting Arab neighbors to support that? You won't get two Arabs and a wandering goat to agree to go to war with Iran-. We would get Israel but WILL NEVER partner with the Israeli's so overtly- nor would they ever subordinate Israeli forces to a coalition- they learned their lesson in 1956 on that score.

This is exactly the same argument that was used prior to Bosnia- which despite my dislike of the Clinton administration, was successful - in a place where we engaged in an identical mission where we had no discernible national interest other than humanitarian ones. Madeleine Albright was right then to challenge Colin Powell then with her famous "what's the point of having this superb well trained military if you wont risk it".
Is the devil you know always better than the one you don't? Possibly- the dangers of this kind of effort are exactly that there is the potential that the follow up is worse than what we have. similarly, how we define success here is somewhat unclear to me. When do we pack it in and go home? As LITS pointed out - those are really valid concerns with unclear answers. But arguing that we don't have an interest in acting to halt demonstrable acts of aggression against a civilian population is weak, and arguing that we can't take action because we are bound to act everywhere if we act anywhere is nonsense.

There were no insults to anyone intended here- but there won't be any tolerated going forward. This is a valid philosphical discussion over a real world event. KEEP it that way.

 

[scoutpilot]

This was a regrettable comment, too.

It is what it is. Blanket statements like Iran turning Israel into a plate of glass belie the depth--or lack thereof--of the discussion.

 

[scoutpilot]

I'm interested in the answer to that last question, tpg. I wonder what my level is? I know it involves a uniform...

 

[Bullet]

In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can we...., can we all just get along?"

Man tries to start a nice thread pulling for his buddies and wishing them well, and look where that get's ya! Well, dag-nabbit, I ain't gonna stand for it, by-golly, no sir-ee.

Now you young punks get off my lawn, and don't you come back here again, or I'll sick my dog on ya'zzzz.....

 

[MemberLG]

2 years you say? I would be very interested to know where you got that estimate.

I haven't done the research, but I don't think that's far off

two main challenges in building a nuclear bomb - raw material and engineering expertise.

Considering the first nuclear bomb was built in 1945, the engineering expertise is not a big obstacle.

Getting either weapons grade plutounium or uranium whole different story - could buy from the black market or produce it on your own. So if you know a country has capbility to produce nuclear material, you can guess on how long it will take them.

Of course, everything is an estimate as Iran can build a nuclear bomb, but building it small and robust enough to put it on a ballistic missile is another dicussion.

Simply, if North Korea can do it (if I recall correctly 2009 testing was a total surprise) why not Iran?

 

[bruno]

In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can we...., can we all just get along?"

Man tries to start a nice thread pulling for his buddies and wishing them well, and look where that get's ya! Well, dag-nabbit, I ain't gonna stand for it, by-golly, no sir-ee.

Now you young punks get off my lawn, and don't you come back here again, or I'll sick my dog on ya'zzzz.....

Every neighborhood has the cranky old guy on the corner trying to stop ya from having fun. It's just shaving cream and eggs- whaddya complaining about anyway?!!

 

[Luigi59]

Well- I wasn't insulting you- - though I was denigrating the concept that an action taken in one place is a binding precedent to take action in another. It isn't.
As far as going to war in Iran- short of an immediate existential threat to the US or possibly to Israel or one of the Gulf states- the effort required and the degree of uncertainty of the outcome of anything less than a full out long term full scale war will keep us from doing anything of the kind. And getting Arab neighbors to support that? You won't get two Arabs and a wandering goat to agree to go to war with Iran-.

You obviously are unaware of the secret diplomatic cables published by Wiki leaks. This excerpt from the Chicago Tribune may clue you in a little better about how the Arab world views Iran:

Want to know what the diplomats and world leaders think? What they said? Read these cables.

One important revelation: The U.S. and Israel have been loud and public in warning about Iran's mounting nuclear threat. But Iran's Arab neighbors? They've been silent. Now we learn from the leaked cables that the U.S. and Israel have a sotto voce Arab cheering section, urging a harder squeeze on Iran.

We learn that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the U.S. to attack Iran: "Cut off the head of the snake" before it is too late.

We hear King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain say "the danger of letting (Iran's nuclear program) go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

And this blunt talk from Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan: "(Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad is Hitler."

Those aren't the kinds of things Arab leaders say in public, for fear of angering Iran or inviting a backlash from their own populations. If only they would speak honestly to the world: A chorus of strong Arab voices would increase the current pressure on Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions.​

When do we pack it in and go home?

Good question, because we really haven't even defined what the mission is in Libya. Regime change? The military insists that targeting Khadaffi is NOT the plan, although clearly we cannot allow him to remain in power after going this far.

Asked about the strike on Gadhafi"s compound, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said, 'At this particular point I can guarantee he is not on the targeting list.'"

"He said it was possible Gadhafi could be hit 'if he happens to be in a place inspecting a missile site and we don't have any idea he is there at the time.'"

"Senior Defense officials would not comment on how much the operation has cost so far, saying they were focused on carrying out the mission at hand."

A report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimating that to set up the no-fly zone over Libya would cost at least $400 million and up to $100 million a week to enforce.

It concludes that each Tomahawk missile costs $500,000 so the Saturday night initial strike cost at least $55 million.

Pretty expensive mission. Vets are taking cuts in health care.

Why isn't Khadaffi targeted? Doesn't make much sense not to now.

If a missile takes him out there is no need for a no-fly zone and no further need for expensive Tomahawk missiles.

Patton was right, the object of war is to kill the enemy. If Khadaffi is the enemy - let's kill him and be done with it.

I'll bow out now and let all you smart Army men tell all of us dumb college boys how wrong we are, no need to comment any further.

I'll observe and continue to laugh at some of the comments.

 

[patentesq]

Let me try to get this back on track.

I'm watching CNN right now, and it amazes me how folks don't understand the rule of law. Here's how I see it.

1. The United States wants to see two objectives accomplished:

a. Regime change -- Gaddafi must go.

b. We want to stop slaughter of civilians who initially sought to change their destiny by peaceful means until Gaddafi whipped out his military to enforce policy.

2. United States law forbids assassination (Executive Order 12333) for political means and thus we cannot take out Gaddafi.

3. The United States, behind the scenes, pushes objectives 1a and 1b before the UN Security Council (it is bound by law not to advance objective of assassinating Gaddafi).

4. The UN Security Council members will only support objective 1a (international principles of comity, etc. prohibit adopting objective 1b).

5. The United States is currently carrying out objective 1a, but language is broad enough to permit the US and others to accomplish objective 1b if it moves quick enough.

That's how I see it.

 

[patentesq]

Why isn't Khadaffi targeted? Doesn't make much sense not to now.

If a missile takes him out there is no need for a no-fly zone and no further need for expensive Tomahawk missiles.

Patton was right, the object of war is to kill the enemy. If Khadaffi is the enemy - let's kill him and be done with it.

You need to read Executive Order 12333.

Here's the relevant text:

2.11Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

 

[bruno]

You obviously are unaware of the secret diplomatic cables published by Wiki leaks. This excerpt from the Chicago Tribune may clue you in a little better about how the Arab world views Iran:

Want to know what the diplomats and world leaders think? What they said? Read these cables.

One important revelation: The U.S. and Israel have been loud and public in warning about Iran's mounting nuclear threat. But Iran's Arab neighbors? They've been silent. Now we learn from the leaked cables that the U.S. and Israel have a sotto voce Arab cheering section, urging a harder squeeze on Iran.

We learn that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the U.S. to attack Iran: "Cut off the head of the snake" before it is too late.

We hear King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain say "the danger of letting (Iran's nuclear program) go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

And this blunt talk from Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan: "(Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad is Hitler."

Those aren't the kinds of things Arab leaders say in public, for fear of angering Iran or inviting a backlash from their own populations. If only they would speak honestly to the world: A chorus of strong Arab voices would increase the current pressure on Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions.​

I'll bow out now and let all you smart Army men tell all of us dumb college boys how wrong we are, no need to comment any further.

I'll observe and continue to laugh at some of the comments.

But they don't say them - they never say them and they will not say them. what use is a leader who will not commit to what he wants you to do for him? There will be no Arab support for us going to war in Iran - unless of course we are quickly successful- then they will all pile on.

 

[scoutpilot]

You obviously are unaware of the secret diplomatic cables published by Wiki leaks. This excerpt from the Chicago Tribune may clue you in a little better about how the Arab world views Iran:

Want to know what the diplomats and world leaders think? What they said? Read these cables.

One important revelation: The U.S. and Israel have been loud and public in warning about Iran's mounting nuclear threat. But Iran's Arab neighbors? They've been silent. Now we learn from the leaked cables that the U.S. and Israel have a sotto voce Arab cheering section, urging a harder squeeze on Iran.

We learn that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the U.S. to attack Iran: "Cut off the head of the snake" before it is too late.

We hear King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain say "the danger of letting (Iran's nuclear program) go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

And this blunt talk from Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan: "(Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad is Hitler."

Those aren't the kinds of things Arab leaders say in public, for fear of angering Iran or inviting a backlash from their own populations. If only they would speak honestly to the world: A chorus of strong Arab voices would increase the current pressure on Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions.​

Good question, because we really haven't even defined what the mission is in Libya. Regime change? The military insists that targeting Khadaffi is NOT the plan, although clearly we cannot allow him to remain in power after going this far.





Pretty expensive mission. Vets are taking cuts in health care.

Why isn't Khadaffi targeted? Doesn't make much sense not to now.

If a missile takes him out there is no need for a no-fly zone and no further need for expensive Tomahawk missiles.

Patton was right, the object of war is to kill the enemy. If Khadaffi is the enemy - let's kill him and be done with it.

I'll bow out now and let all you smart Army men tell all of us dumb college boys how wrong we are, no need to comment any further.

I'll observe and continue to laugh at some of the comments.

If only some of us Army men had gone to college, too.....

 

[bruno]

Folks- this is not the place for insulting each other. There are a lot of valid and thoughtful comments in this thread- it would be a shame to shut off discussion of such an immediate current issue. No more warnings- next insult shuts down the thread. Keep it professional or stay off.

 

[bjkuds]

Let me try to get this back on track.

I'm watching CNN right now, and it amazes me how folks don't understand the rule of law. Here's how I see it.

1. The United States wants to see two objectives accomplished:

a. Regime change -- Gaddafi must go.

b. We want to stop slaughter of civilians who initially sought to change their destiny by peaceful means until Gaddafi whipped out his military to enforce policy.

2. United States law forbids assassination (Executive Order 12333) for political means and thus we cannot take out Gaddafi.


3. The United States, behind the scenes, pushes objectives 1a and 1b before the UN Security Council (it is bound by law not to advance objective of assassinating Gaddafi).

4. The UN Security Council members will only support objective 1a (international principles of comity, etc. prohibit adopting objective 1b).

5. The United States is currently carrying out objective 1a, but language is broad enough to permit the US and others to accomplish objective 1b if it moves quick enough.

That's how I see it.

Question Patent or someone with a clue. Is there a point in the revolution when regime change is evident where Gaddafi could no longer be considered "Ruler of the Land"..thus making him a plausible target? Or must we wait till he hides in a hole and a new government is formed?

 

[patentesq]

Question Patent or someone with a clue. Is there a point in the revolution when regime change is evident where Gaddafi could no longer be considered "Ruler of the Land"..thus making him a plausible target? Or must we wait till he hides in a hole and a new government is formed?

Short answer is no. Justice against a head of state can only be meted out by either the International Court of Justice or internally by the follow-on regime. It is important to note, however, that the Brits and French are NOT bound by United States Executive Order 12333. Of course, there are ways to repeal EO12333 (e.g., Congress can overrule it), but this likely will not happen. I think it is a good policy (it's an example of what separates the human race from animals).