"Odyssey Dawn" has started at Libya

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568

The US, UK and France have attacked Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces in the first action to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone.

Military officials are said to be assessing the damage after at least 110 missiles were fired by the US and UK.



After one attack, some 14 bodies were lying near destroyed vehicles near the rebel-held city of Benghazi after strikes by French planes, Reuters says.


Col Gaddafi vowed a "long war" against the "crusader aggression".


In a phone call to Libyan state TV on Sunday morning, he said Western forces had no right to attack Libya, which had done nothing to them.


"We will fight inch by inch," he said.


He earlier said he would open arms depots to the people to defend Libya.


Cruise missiles hit at least 20 air-defence sites in the capital, Tripoli, and Misrata, US officials said.


Libyan TV has broadcast footage it says showed some of the 150 people wounded in the attacks. It said 48 people had been killed.



(...)

I hope this wont turn in to another Iraq war

The unfortunate reality is that this likely will not turn out good for the U.S. The african union has already stepped forward in condeming the action. Lybia has vowed for a long war. Bottom line is that this is an internal matter in lybia and we should not use our military to help the "rebels". If we wanted to help them we certainly could do so by maybe giving them aid so they could fight back on their own. Much like the Frace did for the american colonies during the revolutionary war.

My take is that this action is most likely the first step in a series of steps that will lead to an Iraq type conflict.

I wonder what % of the Libyan population are with Gaddafi.

Personally, I feel unable to take a proper stance without knowing that. If there's not a super majority against the reign of Gaddafi, I wouldn't be able to say that the intervention of the UN was the right thing to do.

As long as they don't send men troops...

We need to get the F-22 Raptors in there. A stealth fighter against 30-40 year outdated equipment would be the kind of overkill we need to get this done quick and clean.

I wonder what % of the Libyan population are with Gaddafi.

Personally, I feel unable to take a proper stance without knowing that. If there's not a super majority against the reign of Gaddafi, I wouldn't be able to say that the intervention of the UN was the right thing to do.

I thought everyone on the Security Council agreed to attack for once.

I haven't payed much attention to Libya so far, so I can't offer much of an opinion. Though this does seem more justified than Iraq by a long shot.

While it is unclear how many are on each side of this rebellion, I can say this. During the american revolution, the americans were out numbered and out gunned. It was the french who stepped in to help, but they did so not through direct intervention but rather through support by giving the americans the ability to to fund their efforts. That is the right way to handle this situation and any others like it. If we must intervine then do it that way. Anything else is just going to be viewed as an invasion by a foriegn power.

We need to do this in Yemen and Bahrain, too. Or at least Yemen, the Saudi's invaded Bahrain to maintain peace. What is happening in Libya is happening in both those countries, but because we have naval bases in Bahrain and Yemen is a key part of our shadow war on terrorism, we as a country won't do anything more than condemn it.

Well even though "only" France, UK, US, Canada and Italy are in the operation, it has the support of United Nations and EU behind it.

Do remember these differences in contrast to the 2003 Iraq War:

- This time, the United States played cautiously, only coming out in full support for a UN resolution once the EU and the Arab League came on board with the no-fly zone idea. For the Iraq War, we pretty much went in by ourselves with a number of coalition partners, without UN backing. I would say this is somewhat of a change in our foreign policy than in the past.

- Also, we are not sending ground troops. The United States is only going to offer heavy support for a few days, then give the burden of the responsibility to Arab and European Union coalition allies. At most, we're letting loose our fighter jets, bombers, and bunch of Tomahawk missiles from US Navy vessels.

@ Erich: We already sent in our B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, lol.

This is already like another Iraq War. Congress did not declare war as required by the constitution, and it is yet another Illegal War of Aggression.
Of course, Obama doesnt care. Bush got away with it, so its perfectly fine, isnt it?

About the only real difference here is that Obama didnt bother with a WMD lie, and went straight to the "we are taking out a dictator/spreading democracy" excuse. Bush waited until after the WMD lie was exposed to use that excuse.

Edit: 48 civilians are already dead. 150 Wounded.
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/...DF20110320
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internation...556012.ece

Good Going Obama and the UN. You're killing the same people you are trying to "free"

No, the UN voted for this operation. Being a part of the UN we are obliged to comply, regardless of declaring war or whatnot. The UN condemned Iraq but Bush didn't care.

No, the UN voted for this operation. Being a part of the UN we are obliged to comply, regardless of declaring war or whatnot. The UN condemned Iraq but Bush didn't care.

It is still a war of aggression, which is illegal. You also forget that the United States is a Sovereign nation where the constitution has more authority than the UN. The fact that Obama has ignored the constitution, and went to war shows that he is no more than a criminal under US law.

1) Technically this isn't a War in the first place (yeah I'm playing this card).
2) War Powers Act

It is still a war of aggression, which is illegal. You also forget that the United States is a Sovereign nation where the constitution has more authority than the UN. The fact that Obama has ignored the constitution, and went to war shows that he is no more than a criminal under US law.

OH MY GOD

OH MY GOD

OH MY GOD

We can do whatever we need to do. This is to preserve the peace of the world, and to take out a thorn in our side. Gadahfi has been a pest to our nation.

1) Technically this isn't a War in the first place (yeah I'm playing this card).
2) War Powers Act

War that isnt a war. The only reason you can get away with this excuse is the simply fact that the Supreme Court never tried these illegal actions.
However, it wont change the fact that the War Powers Acts are unconstitutional. All the Acts do is declare the Executive Branch has more powers than defined/declared by the constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, that is illegal.

@above: Yes we must be the policemen of the world... We must invade other countries, overthrow their governments, have "democratic" elections in those countries, and always make sure we recount and redo the elections until a man that we want rules as a new dictator in said country.

And why hasnt anyone mentioned that we are still in the Iraq war, and Afganistan War? How are we going to afford a 3rd war?

1) It still isn't a war. Technically (yes I'm being an annoying sunvabitch).
2) It isn't unconstitutional until the judicial branch overrides it in my book. Hell, I'd say the Act actually helps Congress more than the President.
3) Why can't anyone understand it's the UN who's policing in this case? All members of the goddamm Security Council voted to go in. The US didn't even really want to go in the first place.

1) It still isn't a war. Technically (yes I'm being an annoying sunvabitch).
2) It isn't unconstitutional until the judicial branch overrides it in my book. Hell, I'd say the Act actually helps Congress more than the President.
3) Why can't anyone understand it's the UN who's policing in this case? All members of the goddamm Security Council voted to go in. The US didn't even really want to go in the first place.

If you want to claim that our military bombing another country is not war or an act of war, then fine. At most we are arguing semantics. However, this does go against the principle and intento of the constitution and the checks and balances set by the constitution. The original intent was for the President to be able to command the troops, but Congress would be able to check this power by requiring congress' permission first.

I dont see how giving more power to the Executive Branch and undermining the Legislative Branch's power helps Congress. At best, I'd say it just let's congress be lazy as we allow a president to act as a dictator.
And I dont agree with your book. If the constitution declares and act illegal, then I dont see why we should have to wait for the Supreme Court to declare it. The only time it should be debatable is when it is unclear whether a law follows the constitution or not.

Obviously the US didnt want to go in. We are in several wars that we cant afford already, and even most people that still support the wars are getting fatigued, but Obama and his administration has been expressing their interest for some time. Its also kind of nice for him that the coincidental disaster in Japan took the media attention away from this.