What is worse than getting involved when the Libya revolt started?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Libya Threatens Retaliation as U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes

Libya's defense ministry warned Thursday that any military action against the African nation resulting from a possible U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures will be met with retaliatory strikes on air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean region.

Reuters reported that a statement by the regime of Muammar al-Qaddafi broadcast on Libyan television warned that "the Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long term."

The Obama administration is pushing for a Thursday vote for a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures against Qaddafi's regime.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya "requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."

Clinton told reporters in Tunisia the specifics of international action against Qaddafi were still being negotiated at the United Nations in New York.

The move comes as Qaddafi forces have made "significant strides" against the rebels in Libya. Qaddafi forces said it would cease military operations on Sunday to give rebels a chance to surrender, without giving further details about the offer, Reuters reported, citing Al Arabiya TV.

The U.S. wants the Security Council to approve planes, troops or ships to stop attacks by Qaddafi on the rebels, according to a diplomat familiar with closed-door negotiations.

The Obama administration said it would not act without Security Council authorization, though it would be willing to cooperate on measures "short of boots on the ground." However, the diplomat said the U.S. insists on broad international participation, especially by Arab states.

Russia and China have expressed doubts about the U.N. and other outside powers getting involved and either one could veto a resolution.

That possibility spurred concerns by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who in particularly blunt terms questioned Undersecretary of State Williams Burns at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday about whether the U.S. would have the wherewithal to take action absent approval from other nations. During the tense exchange, Rubio said Russia and China aren't interested in trying to end the violence in Libya, and asked if the U.S. doesn't step in, who would.

Burns responded that he is confident the U.N. Security Council will pass a resolution.

"I'm not assuming that it's going to fail," he said. "I think we can produce a resolution. I hope we can today."

The undersecretary noted that forces loyal to Qaddafi are roughly 100 miles from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Burns said Qaddafi is taking full advantage of his military firepower in turning back rebels in Libya.

Libyan rebels shot down at least two bomber planes that attacked the airport in their main stronghold on Thursday, according to residents who witnessed the rare success in the struggle against Qaddafi's superior air power.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, who has been pushing the Obama administration to impose a no-fly zone for weeks, questioned Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz at the committee hearing on why that move would now be too little too late.

Schwartz did not say that the U.S. military should have implemented a no-fly zone but he did agree that if one were to be imposed now it would require additional military action.

"A no-fly zone would not be sufficient," Schwartz said.

"As opposed to a few weeks ago when it would have been," McCain replied.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/17/seeks-resolution-authorizing-wide-range-strikes-libya/

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Another classic idiotic move by the US. First we get rid of Saddam over in Iraq just so a bunch of crazy's can take over and it will be the same in Libya. Better a dictator imo than a bunch of Islamic wing nuts running the show. And that's just what's going to happen. If you don't have a dictatorship keeping those crazy's in check they run wild and try to bomb the ####### out of anyone and everyone they see as an enemy to Islam.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Why_Me

[JohnSmith2007 353]

We should just stay the hell out of it! I was thinking that Obama was playing it smart by staying out of it. It seems that he was just frozen with indecision and is now going to make things worse by doing something totally stupid. The man has no business being in charge.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wonder about whether or not we should get involved in such things at all. There needs to be some consistency of American policy. If we like the leader of your country, we seem to look the other way. I just watched Michael Collins the other day, and where was the outrage when the Irish Rebels were being summarily shot in the streets without trial in the early 20th century.

[peejay 327]

Another classic idiotic move by the US. First we get rid of Saddam over in Iraq just so a bunch of crazy's can take over and it will be the same in Libya. Better a dictator imo than a bunch of Islamic wing nuts running the show. And that's just what's going to happen. If you don't have a dictatorship keeping those crazy's in check they run wild and try to bomb the ####### out of anyone and everyone they see as an enemy to Islam.

No sh*t! And to interfere when we finally got Qaddafi to behave himself and tow the line. What does the USA gain by choosing sides? Nada! It ain't our business. Let the Europeans and Arabs meddle if they so desire and leave us out of it.

[JohnSmith2007 353]