No-Fly Zone or No No-Fly Zone?


Has anyone bothered to look at a map? Are you aware that Libya is twice the size of Iraq? Think about scale before you suggest going in militarily. What about just leveling all of their runways with cruise missiles? Preferably while a large number of their aircraft are in the air.
"I have no freaking idea," should have been an option for this poll.
I'm entirely in favor of "backing" a no-fly zone. Especially if the actual patrolling is done by the British, French, or Arab League countries. Another engagement in the Middle East is not what the US needs right now (something about record setting deficits, if I recall correctly).
I tentatively support the idea of a no-fly zone, but let's not kid ourselves as to what this actually means. A no-fly zone starts by bombarding the target country. Sec.Gates has already explained this.

It's not just about flying some planes around and scolding enemy aircraft. You first have to take out air defenses on the ground, which neccesarily means you will kill people on the ground. It's opening up a new theatre of war, when we already have two open. If this happens, the US cannot be the only or even the central force. We are already over-taxed. NATO has to do this as a whole if at all.
Yes, a No-Fly Zone begins by taking out their air defense system, which requires killing the personnel manning same. Our posture should be, bottom line, no US personnel killing muslims in Libya. We're already doing enough of that in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe provide logistical support but let other muslims pull the trigger.
"Yes" and "Absolutely Not". This quote is really ignoring the counter-arguments. "Yes", if the decision and enforcement come almost solely from neighboring states. And "Absolutely Not" otherwise. First, while a no-fly zone may help in this case, it's not a foregone conclusion: a no-fly zone was put in place in Iraq -- also without plans for ground troops after Gulf War I -- and Saddam stayed in power for another 12 years. Then we brought in ground troops for the second Iraq war. Second, if the United States and other Western partners have even a small but visible role, it will without doubt be spun/interpreted regionally that the U.S. is meddling and/or interested in the oil. Then, any amount of success we have in Libya with the no-fly zone (again, success isn't a foregone conclusion) will be more than countered by loss of trust and goodwill. And the reason we're seeing so many countries taking action against awful regimes is because they believe that their countries' problems can't be blamed on external enemies. If Westerners play a visible role in the no-fly zone (even if we're asked by regional countries), we'll effectively end this entire amazing movement in the region.
How about an option for: "Are you fucking kidding me?"

Aren't we having enough fun with two wars in the middle east? We should get involved in a 3rd?

I would support it ONLY if it involved no US troops or aircraft at all. If other arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, decide they want to enforce a no-fly zone, and they just want our permission or (non-military) cooperation, that's fine. But if we start sending aircraft in to bomb installations or provide air cover, then we will inevitably get dragged into a third middle-east war. And that is fucking insanity.
Nope. We've already pissed away enough money in Arab shit-holes. Let NATO do it. Let the UN do it. Preferably, let other Arab countries do it. But not us.
Getting militarily involved there is the worst idea ever right much as I hate Muammar Gaddafi, we are wasting our time, money and human lives getting involved with something that is definitely going to snowball out of control.

Why can't Israel back the no-fly zone?
I can absolutely get behind offering AWACs, satellite intelligence, and logistics to the effort, but nothing 'combative', ie none of our help has a missile attached to it.
We have a complicated history with war. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Of course, it doesn't matter if WE remember the past, the only person that matters is King Obama. I'm not exactly opposed to this engagement, just like I was initially ok with Afghanistan, but if we can keep the ground troops out, we should be able to help the Libyan people out with stopping their government from launching devastating attacks on them from the air. It's hard to argue with, until we inevitably take it too far. What if the rebels still fail? I don't think they will but, if they all start getting slaughtered, at what point do we have another obligation? You gotta draw the line somewhere though, and machine gunning down protesters in the street is as good as an excuse as I've ever heard. We've gone to complete war for far less.
Count me in for "no bombing anyone, especially largely Muslim countries, unless they attack us first." Too easy to get on the wrong side of history. What if the Libyan revolution produces the next Pol Pot (or even Khomani)? People will remember that they were installed with U.S. support. Best intentions count for little.
Should we back a NATO-led EU-primary Millionaire-War-Surtax-funded no-fly zone?

This is a chance to actually support democracy with our military, actually HELPING the people of a Middle-Eastern nation. I say let's do what we can for the rebels.
Yes, by all means let's convince the warring factions in Libya that they have a common enemy. I mean, it's not like there's a 200-year history of American intervention and imperialism in that country that anyone could point to as means of questioning our motives. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of... where was that place again?
Back it, yes. Impose it, no. Let those Arab countries who "demand" it carry out the operation using the planes they bought from us and the expertise of American "advisors;" but without any American pilots or soldiers.