McCain Rejects Idea That U.S. Can’t Afford No-Fly Zone in Libya (McCain wants to intervene in Libya)

Fox ^ | 2011-03-02

[rabscuttle385]

(snip)

"We are spending over $500 billion dollars, not counting Iraq and Afghanistan, on our nation's defense. Don't tell me we can't do a no fly zone over Tripoli," the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services said at the Atlantic Council Tuesday evening.

"I love the military, I love it, it's been my life, but they always seem to find reasons why you can't do something rather than why you can," Sen. McCain said.

(snip)

On Libyan leader Qaddafi, McCain said, "This guy's days are numbered. The question is -- is can we shorten those number of days to save lives, to save people's lives because it's clear he's going to kill whoever he thinks he can in order to stay in power."

(snip)

[silverleaf]

actually our military developed rather close ties to the Iraqi military during the Iran-Iraq war. We discreetly chose sides and it was with Iraq.

Libya was always an ally of Iran and also a proxy of Russia, hence its Russian radars and military equipment. Iraq had mixture of French Chinese and Russian equipment. the French being the most capable

Many Iraqi officers - especially Air Force officers- were trained in France or by France. There were also ties between the middle and upper classes who dominated the Iraqi civil service and military officers and oil industries, and the Brits, from colonial days.

I don’t think Qaddafi or his people have any similar ties with their former colonial masters in Italy.

Unlike Iraq, there aren’t going to be too many Sorbonne and London School of Economics and Oxford and Sandhurst educated Libyans to write a new consitution when the smoke settles.

There really are few parallels between Iraq (fairly well educated and western-exposed, mostly sunni, not fundamental muslims) and the abysmally primitive Libya - except both were oil producers and both were ruled by despots. Let’s hope we don’t develop another parallel by getting involved in a protracted Libyan civil war - that actually will be necessary to sort out the next generation of power players in the Mahgreb.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Let’s hope we don’t develop another parallel by getting involved in a protracted Libyan civil war."

I think we can end a protracted civil war merely by enforcing a no fly zone in western Libya. It will do two things, take away Gadaffi's force superiority. In the desert, tanks and planes rule the battlefield. It will also signal our intentions that we (the west) are serious about overthrowing Gadaffi. This will hasten defections of his military to the other side and desertion of his mercenary army.

As for our military developing close ties to the Iraqi military, I think you stretch greatly. Our aim in the Iraq/Iran war was a stalemate. We wanted to keep the balance of power the way it was between the two countries. When it appeared that Iraq was losing the war, the only thing we did for them was provide ariel intelligence on Iranian troop concentrations and movements. That's it. I know the anti war left has put out this canard about how we did this and that for the Iraqi military but it's all bunk. We merely wanted them not to lose. If they had, their shiite population would have overthrown Sadaam and our fear was two shiite dominated countries controlling the middle east.

Iraq had a close tie with Russia militarily. They had Russian military tactics and doctrine. I know. In Gulf War 1 I personally witnessed the burned out hulks of T-55's and T-62's. I saw all of their firearms, AK's and Markarov pistols. All soviet, not the west.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"From the Jerusalem Post on Yusuf al-Qaradaw"

Okay, there's no doubt that this guy is an Islamist and one rotten dude. A couple things, I never read anything about him in connection with the revolutionaries in Libya. It said he supports the revolutionaries overthrowing Gaddafi. However, it does not say that the revolutionaries are followers of his. His sway in Egypt is certainly disturbing and deserves monitoring. I like the fact that there are tensions between he, the muslim brotherhood, Sunnis and Al Queada. The more they fight amongst each other, the more chance the lovers of liberty and freedom have a chance to organize and take over.

[silverleaf]

As SecDef Gates has said, a no-fly zone in Libya begins with an attack on Libya.

This time, unlike in ‘86, once we break Libya, we buy it.
We are just barely handling what we already broke and bought in Southwest Asia. Gates said a no-fly action would require two carriers on station, indefinitley. I just don’t see it.Logistically or politically. It seems any good will we generate by military intervention in a muslim conflict goes very stale in about a month, or less, once the pictures of dead “civilians” start htting al Jazeera.

The main action in Libya seems to be in the east, not the western desert. Not sure how much they are using their helos. The no fly zone over Iraq was a costly equipment-intensive long term campiagn that just led the Iraqis to ocntinue their war against us and their own people by other means.

Qadaffi may even want to goad us into an attack, it would again make him a victim of western aggression of a western/Israeli plot to seize arab oil.

Did not realize you served in DESERT STORM.
I was also involved before during and after.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I was also involved before during and after."

Myself also. I don't think we would have to break it.(Libya) We would have to knock out their air defenses and then fly air patrols. I think Gates exaggerates about the two aircraft carriers on station because the CnC does not want to do it. Obama has been dragging his feet this whole time. Let's remember, he rented a ferry to evacuate Americans out!! If we got a coalition together such as Britian, France, Italy and possibly Spain we don't shoulder the burden alone. Our contribution would be one aircraft carrier on station. Which we usually have one in the Med anyways.

[silverleaf]

I don't think the pusillanimous French are willing to get involved, except to soak up contracts after the war.
Militarily, they may have their hands full in Algeria and Tunisia

Britain's military is an empty shell They announced RIF’s of thousands beginning this month, their main support would probably be SAS. Cameron is already backing off and is supposedly “consulting” with Blair on what to do. If only Bammy would call in Bush and Cheney for “advice”.

The US navy would have to shoulder the 24/7 load, maybe some USAF assets staging out of Italy. I am sure the 2-carrier statement is based on planning for defense of the carrier group itself, sortie surge rate and mission duration ( how long the frack is it going to take for the identity and agenda of the “opposition freedom fighters” to emerge?), and current and future operational status of the carrier assets. Ours is not a fresh military. constant war and budget cuts surely have taken a toll. Commanders are always pressured to say “yessir can do more with less”, the WH and State Department want a 30 day surge? “Can not do” is not an acceptable answer.

One of those carriers is probably required to replace “Egypt” - which we can no longer rely on to stage our assets and watch our backs.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"If only Bammy would call in Bush and Cheney for “advice”."

Bammy's on the phone right now with "General" Louis Farrakan and "General" Jeremiah Wright...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I agree about the weakness of our western allies also. Since the end of the cold war, they’ve shed so much of their military and poured all of those previous resources into stupid idiotic government social welfare programs. Power abhors a vacuum. When they abdicate their power, someone else, somewhere else will pick up the slack.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Just an update to this thread everyone. I know a lot of people have commented that they are not even asking for our help. Well, now they are:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa2542cc-4428-11e0-931d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FY9kMq82

From the article:

In the wake of Wednesday’s attacks a coalition of Libyan rebels urged the US and its allies to bomb mercenary forces supporting Colonel Gaddafi and to impose a no-fly zone.

and

Ahmed Gibreed, a spokesman for Mr Abdel Jalil, told the Financial Times the council was hoping the US would take the lead in supporting the opposition and “not just be reactive to what is happening on the ground”.

They have also stressed they don’t want foreign troops on the ground. Just air support. Which is what I’m also advocating. When (not if) they win. In a year or next week. If we haven’t helped them, we will have missed a golden opportunity to influence how the new form of government is to be. A little air support now, could hold off an Islamist takeover later.

[Ronald_Magnus]

If we decide to go in there, let’s do it right this time. KEEP THE FRICKEN OIL!

[NeoCaveman]

There are days I am glad this madman lost.

Of course that we are stuck with the Commie, is cold comfort.

[Thermalseeker]

Everything in the constitution is law sea lawyer.

LOL! You, sir, are living in a fantasy land. Kindly name one, just one case that has bee brought before the SCOTUS that has prevailed citing the preamble to the Constitution as the sole basis for their argument. Please be specific.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"LOL! You, sir, are living in a fantasy land. Kindly name one, just one case that has bee brought before the SCOTUS that has prevailed citing the preamble to the Constitution as the sole basis for their argument. Please be specific."

Your idiotic reasonic is as nonsensical as you are. Are you claiming that every jot and tittle of the rest of the Constitution has been brought before the Supreme Court? If not, then by your own reasoning those parts that have not been brought before the Supreme Court are not law.

Remember, your the one that is the sea lawyer here. What I do know is that the Preamble to the Constitution lays out the basics of why "We the People" felt the need to form the federal government. It lays out the basic reasoning for it's existence. One of the reasons that the Federal government is in existence is to "provide for the common defense". This function can't be done by a single person and it can't be done by one state or even several states. It can only be done by the combined United States. Therefore, "We the People" have granted the federal government the authority to "provide for the common defense".

There, class is dismissed sea lawyer! BTW, I notice that you never bothered to answer all the other things I said. Nice sidestep....

[Thermalseeker]

Are you claiming that every jot and tittle of the rest of the Constitution has been brought before the Supreme Court?

No, not at all. You are the one that said the preamble to the Consitution is law. I'm just trying to get you to cite case law that supports your claim. I know the preamble isn't law, but you obviously think it is. I'm just trying to get you to learn something you quite obviously are clueless about. If you don't (can't) do it, that's fine. I'm not an attorney. I'm an engineer. I am quite familiar with the Constitution even though it is not in my specific area of expertise. I'm also very familiar with the Federalist Papers. I understand the intent of the law, too.

I've not tried to insult you in any way, yet you keep on name calling and making veiled attempts to insult me. You keep doing that all you want. Your posts are just an incoherent group of text on my screen. Your opinions are meaningless. Cite the case law that supports your opinion or drop it. Your continued attempts to insult me are just more proof you've lost the debate......

[Thermalseeker]

BTW, I notice that you never bothered to answer all the other things I said. Nice sidestep....

BTW, I'm not sidestepping anything. I don't bother answering your questions because they are just distractions from the original question of whether the preamble to the Constitution is law. When you cite the case law that supports your claim that it is law I will be happy to answer all of your questions to the best of my ability. Got it?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"No, not at all. You are the one that said the preamble to the Consitution is law. I'm just trying to get you to cite case law that supports your claim."

And so then you are saying that if it's not been cited in case law by the Supreme Court then it is not law. That is your criteria for it being law. I merely responded by asking you if every other part of the constitution has been cited by case law at the Supreme Court. If it has not, then those parts of the Constitution (as per your own reasoning) is not law. I'm using your own logic and turning it against you. You are the one that has lost the debate. You're just not smart enough to realize it.

[ex-snook]

Then get a formal declaration of war to commit the nation. If one is not forthcoming, forget it.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"BTW, I'm not sidestepping anything. I don't bother answering your questions because they are just distractions from the original question of whether the preamble to the Constitution is law."

You are incorrect again. In post 23 the first question you asked me was:

"Just curious, but where in the Constitution do you find verbiage that allows the USA to intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country simply because we currently get 2% of our oil from them?"

Question, where in the above question is the word law even there? It must be hard to be wrong all the time.

[Thermalseeker]

You're just not smart enough to realize it.

HA! Because I won't accept your opinion? Please. If the preamble to the Constitution is law it should be very easy for someone as smart as you are to cite one case that has been decided based on the pretext that the preamble is indeed the law of the land. When you do I will be the first to admit I'm wrong. I know you can't do it. All the rest coming from you thus far is just mindless blather trying to cover your tracks because you know you let your fingers outrun your intellect and the result is you are backed into a corner. As they say in the south "Hit dog hollers"! The preamble to the Constitution is not law. Period. If I'm wrong, prove it. If I'm not, drop it and quit wasting JimRob's bandwidth......

[Thermalseeker]

Question, where in the above question is the word law even there?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, starting at Article 1, Section 1. It would be redundant to use "Constitution" and "Law" in the same sentence. I thought we already covered this?

It must be hard to be wrong all the time.

It must be really hard to only be able to hurl insults instead of facts to back up your ridiculous claims.