Seeking Alpha

Having made Libya its problem, NATO is warned by opposition groups that a massacre will occur in...

Having made Libya its problem, NATO is warned by opposition groups that a massacre will occur in Misrata if air attacks against Gaddafi forces are not stepped up. Other than France and the U.K., NATO appears to have lost interest.
Comments (11)
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12809) | Send Message
     
    This is what happens when military policy is constructed upon do-gooderism with complete disregard of both strategic interests and international law.
    14 Apr 2011, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    I thought Gadaffi or Qadaffi offered peace solution and rebels rejected that.
    14 Apr 2011, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3366) | Send Message
     
    The Obama sound-bite is over. He's now moved on as his attention span has been exhausted, and having stirred up a hornet's nest he'll leave cleaning up the mess for others.
    14 Apr 2011, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3984) | Send Message
     
    "NATO appears to have lost interest"

     

    Let's call it what it is.... its getting expensive and it looks like its going to continue to get ever more expensive and everyone else is smarter than us to get bogged down in an expensive overseas war with little if any ROI.
    14 Apr 2011, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (558) | Send Message
     
    Don't worry about Gadaffi, we should worry about the one in the White House.
    14 Apr 2011, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    I was at dinner the other night and someone said, "We should just bomb the bastards back to the stone-age." I said, "And then what happens when an even more suppressive/dangerous regime takes it's place?"

     

    He said, "Bomb them back to the Dinosaur-Age then."

     

    Fo-real
    14 Apr 2011, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12809) | Send Message
     
    I'm starting to like that guy. :-)

     

    The only clarification that he should offer is that if one regime threatens us (as opposed to acting on our humanitarian sensibilities), then, do the former; and, if it's replaced with another that acts likewise or worse, then, do the latter.
    14 Apr 2011, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    That was my wife's opinion when we went into Afghanistan.
    14 Apr 2011, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3984) | Send Message
     
    I was up late one night and saw a documentary filmed in Afghanistan detailing the actions of our troops there.

     

    What I saw is high tech US soldiers fighting farmers armed with weapons from WWII, and killing their livestock and injuring their children.

     

    Certainly it stands to reason to defend the US from viable terrorist threats but bomb them to the stone age? One look at their houses and you'd realize they are already there.

     

    Besides, any time we bomb anyone into the stone age we end up footing the bill for rebuilding their infrastructure.

     

    What an absolute clusterfk of international policy we are in.
    14 Apr 2011, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Whenever the Libyan situation reaches a crossroad the NATO alliance and the other countries associated with NATO in its Libyan endeavor do two things:
    (a) Each country tends to revert to its original position on the nature and extent of what, if any, military support NATO should be giving to the insurgents, and
    (b) Actual military operations under the aegis of NATO continue with
    (i) the ‘hawks’ increasing their ground support for the insergents, and
    (ii) the ‘doves’ continuing the nature and extent of involvement to which they have heretofore been providing.

     

    The following articles illustrate that NATO may be now again at such a crossroads and the involved states are each acting as described above. Interestingly, Italy, which has the deepest decades long involvement in Libya, has switched from being a dove to being a hawk on the Libyan issue.

     

    www.guardian.co.uk/wor...

     

    www.guardian.co.uk/wor...

     

    www.france24.com/en/20...

     

    www.france24.com/en/20...

     

    www.spiegel.de/interna...

     

    www.dw-world.com/dw/ar...

     

    www.guardian.co.uk/wor...

     

    english.aljazeera.net/...

     

    blogs.aljazeera.net/li...
    14 Apr 2011, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Further to my earlier comment, here is a useful summary of the position on the Libyan crisis taken by each NATO member State. Remember that non NATO States such as Qatar (which is reported to be supplying anti tank weapons to the insurgents) and Sweden (which is taking a position similar to that of Norway and Denmark) are also participating.

     

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

     

    15 Apr 2011, 02:35 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|