Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
...This is true, yet many argue we should do the same in Syria. History doesn't hold the keys to what is possible in the future, but it should inform us if conditions are the same and the plans to change them are the same, then just maybe we'll see a repeat of the same.
Yeah, 'great solution': describe what happened at the start, so to get the argument that's in your interest - and then black out whatever happened subsequently.

Why putting things into context: that can only disturb one, isn't that so, Bill?

The Western intervention in Libya has opened a way for reorganization of the country - which was entirely impossible during the previous dictatorship. Between others it brought to power a government that was most cooperative and supportive with the West in the entire Middle East. Thus, that intervention was start of a specific, and usually rather 'lengthy' process, yet a very successful one.

But no, you're not going to discuss that, aren't you? Similarly, you're not going to mention that two years later, and with another character in (supposed) charge of US foreign policy, you've got a situation where there was a military coup by somebody renowned as supported by specific 'other' circles within the USA.

The character in question coupped himself to power with explanation that this was necessary in order to 'battle Islamists'. But, once in power, he did nothing of that sort: on the contrary, he turned against militias that were already fighting the Islamists...

But no: let's 'blot out' the memory of the latter two facts, and return to repeating the theory that 'Libya is no good example'. Because if we ignore what happened ever since, and then repeat this nonsense only some 50-100 times, that's certainly going to make it truth...

Wow!

If now there would only be no people with memory better than that of the fish...

************

Re. (supposed) UAEAF (and/or EAF) air strikes: there is absolutely no clarity in this regards, and most of what is reported is little more than guessing.

Yeah, at the first look, 'it makes sense' if the UAE moved to use military force against Islamists. Especially so to all the excusers of US inaction: 'they're moving to do something on their own, we need not meddling'. How nice.

The problem I have with this is that all of this babbling is not explaining a single atom of military aspect of this - supposed - UAEAF involvement. Is there anything about threat perception? About target intel and recce? What about clear identification of targets? What to hell was actually the target? What is with over-flight rights (there might be a few countries and thus a few borders in between the UAE and Libya, perhaps it's also so that there is some distance between these two countries...but who knows), refuelling or forward-basing? And what about results, and military- and security-political gains - whether for the UAE (all provided it was the UAE), and/or Egypt etc.?

And what about those who say the strike was actually flown by Algerian Su-24s?

UAE is particularly aggressively in using military force to combat Islamists.
Interesting news. Mind offering a single example?

I suspect much of the above (all articles) is half-truths, but it does illustrate how little we really understand...
Please define 'we' - first.