US Navy SEALs take hold of rebel Morning Glory...

[Farnan]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26609025

Will this move help improve Libyan-US relations? And what is your opinion of this use of US Naval power?

[justicar5]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26609025

Will this move help improve Libyan-US relations? And what is your opinion of this use of US Naval power?

It was stolen oil, so fair play to the US Navy.

[conon394]

And what is your opinion of this use of US Naval power?

Well technically and legally if done at the bequest of the government we recognize and to stop what looks like an 'illegal' activity fine.

We spend a lot of money money to have a huge military and we have talked up the security of the sea for a long time as one of our rationals for floating big fleets and lots of armed men and women everywhere in the world - so again fine. We can burnish our rhetoric here, or with aid to the Philippines or helping to find missing jet planes

Should we be spending that money to do what Libya can't - I dunno. This one is a bit annoying where are all the forces of all those European states that were so hot intervene and topple Gaddafi?

I do wonder what the tally for the op was? Not just it - in and of itself - but also the ability to do it in the first place. I wonder what those $'s would have bought in schools or roads or damn repair or NIH grants, food stamps or unemployment etc... but that is just isolationist crazy talk clearly I should be happy to be paying taxes and incurring debt to do for Libya what it won't do for itself.

In all honesty I would find it rather funny if the US simply sold off the ship and its cargo and also charged Libya for the cost of policing its own state. Don't like it than get your in a sock and run your country. It would be even more cool if the military grunts got prize money out of it.

[Seether]

The BBC article fails to mention that Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said that the seizure was requested by the Libyan and Cypriot governments. So, yeah, don't see how this will hurt US/Libyan relations...

[Armenum]

Just amazing how unstable Libya continues to be with militants controlling certain oil ports and the PM of the country capable of being kidnapped. We have Somalia #2 on our hands here.

[hellheaven1987]

Just amazing how unstable Libya continues to be with militants controlling certain oil ports and the PM of the country capable of being kidnapped. We have Somalia #2 on our hands here.

Na, it is all expected so don't worry.

[Theodotos I]

One way or another. . .the public does NOT need to know it was the SEALs. The Teams have been getting way too much publicity recently--it's going to get people killed.

[Gaidin]

One way or another. . .the public does NOT need to know it was the SEALs. The Teams have been getting way too much publicity recently--it's going to get people killed.

Will bet money that the people deciding on the press releases know more than you about which missions to make a statement on and which ones not to.

[Armenum]

Na, it is all expected so don't worry.

The West should learn that replacing a Middle Eastern/North African dictatorship with a Western-style liberal democracy always results in a weak state with high amount of civil disorder. Either they haven't realized that yet or actually want it to happen.

[knight of meh]

The West should learn that replacing a Middle Eastern/North African dictatorship with a Western-style liberal democracy always results in a weak state with high amount of civil disorder. Either they haven't realized that yet or actually want it to happen.

again with this view? because there obviously wasn't a revolution happening across the majority of these nations of course not .. so then you get the decision support the dictator or support the protesters ; or do nothing and watch as thousands die which would you choose?

[hellheaven1987]

again with this view? because there obviously wasn't a revolution happening across the majority of these nations of course not .. so then you get the decision support the dictator or support the protesters ; or do nothing and watch as thousands die which would you choose?

You do have the choice to get in, kill both, get out.

[Condottiere 40K]

Libya was a special case, Gaddafi was about to/had gone too far, and Libya was within easy range of NATO air fields.

If he had quashed or mollified the tribal rebels quickly, nothing would have happened beyond a few indignant rantings.

[Armenum]

again with this view? because there obviously wasn't a revolution happening across the majority of these nations of course not .. so then you get the decision support the dictator or support the protesters ; or do nothing and watch as thousands die which would you choose?

And how sure are you that such revolutions were not instigated by such powers in the first place? And furthermore, is it better to have an unstable state like Somalia where many are getting killed every day in civil strife, or have the dictator defeat the revolution? I don't think its that black and white, in both cases people suffer.

[knight of meh]

And how sure are you that such revolutions were not instigated by such powers in the first place? And furthermore, is it better to have an unstable state like Somalia where many are getting killed every day in civil strife, or have the dictator defeat the revolution? I don't think its that black and white, in both cases people suffer.

so you would choose the definite bad choice dictatorship over the possibility of a democracy i.e Tunisia .. and to anyone who tells me that a group outside a nation started a revolution without boots on the ground .. I laugh at you .. they may have helped it along financially may even have made it possible think Russian or American weapons getting into peoples hands but to start and carry through revolution without significant backing from inside that nation ? i think not .

Your making a lesser of two evils argument which is almost as bad as the greater good argument really .. both lead to happening .

You do have the choice to get in, kill both, get out.

there are too many hell just to many ..

[YuriVII]

Seems like typical law-enforcement action. Though why not the French get a handle on it? They have the ability and training to pull it off, and besides, :Libya was Sarkozy's pet project.

[Lord of Nihilism]

If anyone should handle this, it's France since they've had a lot of experience in dealing with Africa in the past due to their past colonies and the fact that Algiers, which is in Africa I believe was home to the French Foreign Legion for a very long time. Aside from the fact that for some reason, American special forces are doing what France should be doing, I don't see much of a problem. The Libyan Government, despite how corrupt and incompetent it is asked for assistance through legal channels; this all seems pretty clear cut to me.

Although something tells me that if the Libyan Government has to get foreign troops to seize a tanker off their own coast, they're not going to last long in a civil war.

[YukonTrooper]

again with this view? because there obviously wasn't a revolution happening across the majority of these nations of course not .. so then you get the decision support the dictator or support the protesters ; or do nothing and watch as thousands die which would you choose?

NATO could have stuck to the spirit of the UN resolution and annihilated the Libyan armor column headed to Benghazi, instead of violating the resolution and international law by violently removing a head of state. Pretty straightforward.

[Mangalore]

NATO could have stuck to the spirit of the UN resolution and annihilated the Libyan armor column headed to Benghazi, instead of violating the resolution and international law by violently removing a head of state. Pretty straightforward.

Can't see how NATO removed a head of state when said head of state was shot by Lybian rebels...

[Vanoi]

Can't see how NATO removed a head of state when said head of state was shot by Lybian rebels...

I think he is saying NATO went beyond the scope of the UN resolution. But i don't think he actually has read the resolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1973

• demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
• imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
• authorizes all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";

[Armenum]

so you would choose the definite bad choice dictatorship over the possibility of a democracy i.e Tunisia .. and to anyone who tells me that a group outside a nation started a revolution without boots on the ground .. I laugh at you .. they may have helped it along financially may even have made it possible think Russian or American weapons getting into peoples hands but to start and carry through revolution without significant backing from inside that nation ? i think not .

Your making a lesser of two evils argument which is almost as bad as the greater good argument really .. both lead to happening .

As I said it's not a black and white choice. If a person tells me, you rather have Gadaffi or a Somalia-like Libya that is full of civil war, with certain areas of the country being controlled by Islamic extremist groups and so forth, I would choose Gadaffi, because the latter would be democracy in a few streets surrounding Parliament and the rest of the country a dangerous disaster. Furthermore, Gadaffi is no Kim Jong-il. Democracy is good when the whole country is united behind it, a weak democracy that is wrought with civil war brings little benefit.

Of course, you have to have backing backing of the people, but it's often times that critical level of support that leads an unhappy populace from doing nothing to revolution.