PDA

View Full Version : No Fly Zone... FINALLY!



nobby
March 17th, 2011, 11:36 PM
The UN just passed the resolution.

10 country coalition.

nobby
March 18th, 2011, 12:13 AM
U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
By DAN BILEFSKY and KAREEM FAHIM

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council approved a measure on Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from harm at the hands of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance.

“We are coming tonight,” Colonel Qaddafi said. “You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets.”

Speaking on a call-in radio show, he promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away” but “no mercy or compassion” for those who fight. Explosions were heard in Benghazi early on Friday, unnerving residents there, Agence-France Presse reported.

The United States, originally leery of any military involvement in Libya, became a strong proponent of the resolution, particularly after the Arab League approved a no-fly zone, something that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called a “game changer”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?_r=1&hp.

DPower
March 18th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Oh good,

Does this mean that international forces are going to stop Saudi troops from killing protesters in Bahrain as well?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12769168


On Tuesday King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa declared a three-month state of emergency and Saudi troops were called in to keep order.

Should be pretty easy for the US to step in. After all, their base is only 5 miles from the protests where people are being slaughtered.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/166187.html

No love for Qadaffi here, but any time the "international community" gets involved in a conflict, sorry, I smell a rat.

samc
March 21st, 2011, 12:03 AM
No love for Qadaffi here, but any time the "international community" gets involved in a conflict, sorry, I smell a rat.
Same here, especially because the hypocrisy of this action is so glaring; these are the same people who stood aside and watched the massacre in Central Africa without lifting a finger. But there is oil in Libya.

The French who created this bandwagon threatened that they were going to send police and troops to help the dictator in Tunisia hold on to power just a little over a month ago when the population there demanded he leave. Both they (the French) and the British recently made business deals directly with Muammar Gaddafi (the Brititish released the airplane bomber) and both countries rely heavily on Libyan oil.

The mission of this coalition has not been very well defined, they have essentially entered into a civil war on the side of the 'rebels', what is going to happen when the rebels counter attack Gaddafi forces? Will the coalition forces arm and support them? If it's not the job of coalition forces to overthrow Gaddafi, why are the leaders of the main coalition countries saying it wont stop until he's gone?

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...

Johnny
March 21st, 2011, 02:52 AM
Holy crap, I agree with Dennis "Gollum" Kucinich about something.

nobby
March 21st, 2011, 04:19 AM
Oh good,

Does this mean that international forces are going to stop Saudi troops from killing protesters in Bahrain as well?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12769168

Have they been raining artillery shells and bombs on population centers for days also?


No love for Qadaffi here, but any time the "international community" gets involved in a conflict, sorry, I smell a rat.

There were exactly 2 choices.

1) Do nothing while Gaddafy rains artillery shells and bombs on densely populated cities

2) Impose a no-fly zone.

Can you think of a third option?

And it would have wound up being #1 if the Arab League hadn't requested the intervention.


Same here, especially because the hypocrisy of this action is so glaring; these are the same people who stood aside and watched the massacre in Central Africa without lifting a finger.

Major powers do better with some conflicts than others. Give them tanks to strafe and bunkers to bomb.

IIRC the genocide in Rwanda was carried out mostly with clubs and machetes. How would air power play into that? Ground troops? Well to start with, the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the bad guys are usually a bit shorter. And, I guess, holding a machete. Talk about your racial profiling.


The two ethnic groups are actually very similar - they speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions.

However, Tutsis are often taller and thinner than Hutus, with some saying their origins lie in Ethiopia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm


But there is oil in Libya.

So? Do you think it matters who in Libya sells their oil to whom? Do you think they'll be getting out of the oil business?

The bulk of the oil the US uses comes from Canada, Texas, and Louisiana. But basically, there is a world oil market, and the only real difference in where you get it from (especially if you can stomach doing business with dictators) is how far it must be shipped.


The mission of this coalition has not been very well defined, they have essentially entered into a civil war on the side of the 'rebels', what is going to happen when the rebels counter attack Gaddafi forces? Will the coalition forces arm and support them? If it's not the job of coalition forces to overthrow Gaddafi, why are the leaders of the main coalition countries saying it wont stop until he's gone?

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...

Good questions. I hope we get some good answers.

Aardvark
March 21st, 2011, 04:46 AM
Same here, especially because the hypocrisy of this action is so glaring; these are the same people who stood aside and watched the massacre in Central Africa without lifting a finger. But there is oil in Libya.


Nice and poetic but a faulty understatement of essentials.

I suggest some research on the vast wealth of Central Africa and how it has been exploited... start with the Belgian Congo... far more resource rich than Libya by a considerabre margin.

Libya has strategic importance beyond the small amount of oil it produces and the time and place of this intervention lack any resemblance to the situation in Central Africa during any of the tragedies there.

In terms of recent genocides in Africa and the Middle East, the one constant is the lack of regional leadership and a penchant on those same 'leaders' to just blame the west regardless of what they do or do not do.

Just look at those bald-faced cowards in the Arab League.


Sorry, but to simplify something like this as a simple oil-grab is disingenuous and a distraction from the important narrative.




Cheers,
Aardvark



.

DPower
March 21st, 2011, 01:52 PM
Have they been raining artillery shells and bombs on population centers for days also?

You mean like in Gaza? Or maybe Beirut? Or perhaps Falluja?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

nobby
March 21st, 2011, 02:11 PM
You mean like in Gaza? Or maybe Beirut? Or perhaps Falluja?


Not even remotely the same.

DPower
March 21st, 2011, 03:06 PM
Not even remotely the same.

Really? Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me. I was under the mistaken impression that bombing and shelling civilian areas was a war crime no matter who did the bombing. I guess I was mistaken.

nobby
March 21st, 2011, 03:17 PM
Really? Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Glad to be of assistance.

PRobb
March 21st, 2011, 08:16 PM
Really? Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me. I was under the mistaken impression that bombing and shelling civilian areas was a war crime no matter who did the bombing. I guess I was mistaken.
Everything is not the same as everything else.
Yes, bombing civilians is bad. But each situation needs to be view in its own terms.
This is all intensely complicated.

MKZ
March 21st, 2011, 10:12 PM
Everything is not the same as everything else.

When it comes to lies like "democracy" as well as real things like common decency, yes it is.

PRobb
March 21st, 2011, 10:57 PM
When it comes to lies like "democracy" as well as real things like common decency, yes it is.

The world is nowhere near that simple a place, sparky.:headpalm:

Cosmic Pig
March 21st, 2011, 11:12 PM
"Complicated issues" is the first line of defense for doing wrong, or incompetence. It works for everything from crappy gear to bombing civilians. It doesn't work so well with the wife tho.

PRobb
March 22nd, 2011, 12:06 AM
"Complicated issues" is the first line of defense for doing wrong, or incompetence. It works for everything from crappy gear to bombing civilians. It doesn't work so well with the wife tho.
OK, so why don't you tell me the obvious "right" choice for Libya. Show me this simplistic moral clarity.
Then try it with Bahrain.

samc
March 22nd, 2011, 12:54 AM
Nice and poetic but a faulty understatement of essentials.
We don't always need complicated explanations for everything.



I suggest some research on the vast wealth of Central Africa and how it has been exploited... start with the Belgian Congo... far more resource rich than Libya by a considerabre margin.
No need for the special research, I have been to Africa (including this region) many, many times and have more than passing knowledge of several of the continent's countries. While there are vast natural resources in the region, it would require a lot of expensive infrastructure to actually see any commercial returns and only in the distant future...It is cheaper to just pay local warlords to enslave the local populations to do the 'work' for them.

This is not the situation with Libyan oil and whomever controls it would control the largest oil and gas reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world. Libya is also considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and it's proximity to European markets.



Libya has strategic importance beyond the small amount of oil it produces
Funny you should mention this because the 'real' fact of the matter is that Libya produces about 20% of the oil used by France, The UK, Italy and Germany, isn't it curious that almost all of their big EU customers are the ones at the front of the pack kicking their door in? Plus, if it's production was as insignificant as you suggest, the world market would not be so nervous about the events in the country...



In terms of recent genocides in Africa and the Middle East, the one constant is the lack of regional leadership and a penchant on those same 'leaders' to just blame the west regardless of what they do or do not do.
Except that in this case it was the west were the ones stumbling over themselves to (selectively) 'help' the Libyan people...



Sorry, but to simplify something like this as a simple oil-grab is disingenuous and a distraction from the important narrative.
What is disingenuous is the west claiming that this is a humanitarian mission and that this is been done on behalf of the Libyan people. I cannot remember an incident when western nations (individually or collectively) did any such thing without clear self interest. There have and continue to be hundreds, (maybe even thousands) of situations worldwide where many innocent and helpless people would benefit from 'real' humanitarian help. Eliminating or even reducing the amount of innocent people that are killed daily in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US and it's allies would be a good start.

A look at the mission thus far gives an idea of the real goal of this war...

samc
March 22nd, 2011, 01:44 AM
News Flash!

If you are a 'Civilian' with an AK 47 fighting against Muammar Gaddafi you are a 'freedom fighter...everybody else is a terrorist!

Cosmic Pig
March 22nd, 2011, 08:42 AM
OK, so why don't you tell me the obvious "right" choice for Libya. Show me this simplistic moral clarity.
Then try it with Bahrain.

I know nothing of either, and don't care. Most complications are caused by one party trying to drag the other to an issue resulting from the fundamental issue. The old baffle em with bullshit.

All the world needs is a list of what's right and what's wrong. Genocide is wrong. That should be near the top I think.

Everybody gets all foam faced in these threads, but the fundamentals of right and wrong are pretty self evident. What's never self evident is what's true and what's false. Hence my ignorance of whatever you guys are on about.

Cos.

Barish
March 22nd, 2011, 10:39 AM
Somebody up there has a different take on this:


"When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only want to make peace!"

Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realize not."

2:11-12.

samc
March 22nd, 2011, 11:04 AM
Have they been raining artillery shells and bombs on population centers for days also?
So only people under artillery attack need protecting?


There were exactly 2 choices.

1) Do nothing while Gaddafy rains artillery shells and bombs on densely populated cities

2) Impose a no-fly zone.

Can you think of a third option?
The coalition's actions so far has shown that there is a another option; use this as an excuse to get rid of Gaddafi.



And it would have wound up being #1 if the Arab League hadn't requested the intervention.
The hypocrite French were the ones who started pushed for this action. They lost a lot when the US essentially confiscated Iraq; France Telecom, EDF/GD and Bouygues are just a few of the French companies that were thrown out and lost millions of Euros worth of business when the Americans moved into Iraq. I guess they wanted to be sure they didn't loose out this time...



Major powers do better with some conflicts than others. Give them tanks to strafe and bunkers to bomb.
Ever heard of the Sudan crisis?!? Plus, since when does humanitarian help mean (only) conflict intervention?



IIRC the genocide in Rwanda was carried out mostly with clubs and machetes. How would air power play into that? Ground troops? Well to start with, the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the bad guys are usually a bit shorter. And, I guess, holding a machete. Talk about your racial profiling.
Are you shitting me? Is this the best excuse you could come up with? The French could tell them apart well enough to train the murderers...how's that!



So? Do you think it matters who in Libya sells their oil to whom? Do you think they'll be getting out of the oil business?
It obviously matters who controls it...

samc
March 22nd, 2011, 11:21 AM
OK, so why don't you tell me the obvious "right" choice for Libya. Show me this simplistic moral clarity.
Then try it with Bahrain.
I think it's up to those who claim that this is the best/only solution to answer some questions:

Why does citizens of Bahrain and Yemen not merit protection?

How is it that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait can send troops to Bahrain to help the regime hold on to power without even a comment from all the so called do gooders??? I guess freedom, democracy and protection have their limits...

Who is in charge of the coalition forces...they (the coalition members) don't seem to know?

What happens if rebel forces attack, will the coalition protect the population from them?

Who are these rebels, are they, or will they be supported by coalition forces during this conflict?

What is the REAL endgame of this conflict, what is the main objective of the coalition?

nobby
March 22nd, 2011, 03:05 PM
I guess freedom, democracy and protection have their limits...

Unfortunately, realpolitik didn't die with the Soviet Union.

It's alive and well in all it's heartlessly Machiavellian glory.

The US has been making deals with the devil for a long time. Some pretty despicable people have wound up making a lot of money by saying they were anti-communist during the cold war or anti-terrorist during the "war on terror".

Installing and propping up the Shah proved to be a really bad idea, for one glaring example.

It's not that one group deserves protection and another doesn't, it's more that the group that had sustained thousands of casualties could be helped. The US, besides being stretched thin militarily has military bases on countries run by governments that many of us are disgusted to be allied with, and that complicates matters greatly.


what is the main objective of the coalition?

Peace and harmony, the brotherhood of man, of course!

And while we're at it, let's not disrupt the flow of oil to Europe.


Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Wide-O
March 22nd, 2011, 04:42 PM
Side story: It feels kinda funny to live in a country that has no government, yet has decided to engage in ... a war. :Uh oh:

DPower
March 22nd, 2011, 05:13 PM
Side story: It feels kinda funny to live in a country that has no government, yet has decided to engage in ... a war. :Uh oh:

That right there tells you who's really calling the shots.

Johnny
March 22nd, 2011, 05:48 PM
Side story: It feels kinda funny to live in a country that has no government, yet has decided to engage in ... a war. :Uh oh:

Not much different when that part of the government which declares war doesn't get a vote.

Wide-O
March 22nd, 2011, 06:28 PM
The past is catching up with the present.

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00582/Raafat-al-Ghosain_582250a.jpg

She was killed in Tripoli almost exactly 25 years ago.


Over the years, I got to know the Ghosain family in Beirut, wrote about them, went out to lunch with them, visited their home where their daughter's wonderful paintings still hang. I got to know the parents, and also Kinda, who has since married. But it was with some trepidation that I called them yesterday. Mrs Ghosain answered the phone. "I hope they get him this time," she said. And I asked, timidly, if she meant the man with the moustache. Colonel Gaddafi has a moustache. Mr Obama does not. "Yes," she said. "I mean Ghazzefi." "Ghazzefi" is the Lebanese Arabic pronunciation of the man's name.

Full story here (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-remember-the-civilian-victims-of-past-allied-bombing-campaigns-2247757.html).

Well worth a read.

moaus
March 22nd, 2011, 11:50 PM
The past is catching up with the present.

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00582/Raafat-al-Ghosain_582250a.jpg

She was killed in Tripoli almost exactly 25 years ago.



Full story here (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-remember-the-civilian-victims-of-past-allied-bombing-campaigns-2247757.html).

Well worth a read.

i love Fisky, one of my favourite journos

samc
March 28th, 2011, 03:14 PM
When do the citizens of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen qualify for humanitarian protection from their dictators? How many of them need to be murdered before we begin to care enough to properly cover their fight for freedom and democracy?

Meanwhile...the 'so called' humanitarian coalition that is trying to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi's army isn't even hiding it's real intention (of getting rid of him at all cost) anymore. But does anybody know who the rebels are that are being aided in this enterprise? Are we just exchanging the black dog for the monkey?

Johnny
March 28th, 2011, 04:07 PM
But does anybody know who the rebels are that are being aided in this enterprise? Are we just exchanging the black dog for the monkey?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

nobby
March 28th, 2011, 05:31 PM
There are going to be strange bedfellows since Gaddafy has galvanized almost the entire world against him.

"The enemy of my enemy"

I get the impression these guys are in the minority in Libya. Kind of like the white supremacists here.

But, we'll see.

Might there be a bit of spin on what the Telegraph chooses to focus on?


The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[28] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph

nobby
March 28th, 2011, 05:37 PM
This is cause for concern:


March 28, 2011
Libyan Rebel Gains Could Be Fleeting, U.S. Military Says
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and KAREEM FAHIM

TRIPOLI, Libya — As rebel forces backed by allied warplanes pushed toward one of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s most crucial bastions of support, the American military warned on Monday that the insurgents’ rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued coalition air support.

“The regime still vastly overmatches opposition forces militarily,” Gen. Carter F. Ham, the ranking American in the coalition operation, warned in an email message on Monday. “The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”

The sober assessment came as President Obama prepared to address the nation on Monday night about the American role in Libya amid continuing questions about its objectives and duration.

General Ham said there had been some “localized wavering” of government forces, notably in Ajdabiya, to the east, but so far only isolated instances of military or government officials defecting to the opposition. His remarks came after American and European bombs battered the coastal city of Surt — the rebels’ next objective — in Colonel Qaddafi’s tribal homeland on Sunday night, permitting the insurgents to advance toward the city’s doorstep.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29libya.html?_r=1&hp

moaus
March 29th, 2011, 02:24 AM
When do the citizens of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen qualify for humanitarian protection from their dictators? How many of them need to be murdered before we begin to care enough to properly cover their fight for freedom and democracy?



that's the question i've been asking....

samc
March 29th, 2011, 05:41 PM
This is cause for concern:

The real cause for concern in my opinion is the fact that the US and its allies have gone beyond the UN mandate and are in fact supporting one side in the civil war.

nobby
March 30th, 2011, 07:29 PM
The situation is perilous and mission creepy.

sidechain
April 2nd, 2011, 01:43 AM
I like hoe the republicans like McCain and Newt G push for a no fly zone then less than 7 days later they are asking for an Exit Strategy" This is why I find US politics so much more fun and entertaining than Canadian politics.
Our government just fell because the Prime Minister mislead parliament and the public on the cost of a crime bill.
I hope there is enough opposition in the Libyan Government to kick Muammer al-Gaddafi out. He has murdered all opposition to keep his power - so the only way is going to go if his inner circle does not want to go down with the ship. This is the 21 century public executions and the like have no place in a civilized world.

PRobb
April 2nd, 2011, 03:01 AM
I like hoe the republicans like McCain and Newt G push for a no fly zone then less than 7 days later they are asking for an Exit Strategy"
The Republicans have really lost all credibility. All they are is against Obama.
When he didn't do anything it was "AAARRRGGGHHH!!!HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING!!!! HE'S A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT!!!!"
So now that he's doing something it's "AAARRRGGGHHH!!!HE'S DOING SOMETHING!!!! HE'S A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT!!!!"
If he says up, they say down. If he says down they say up.

Johnny
April 2nd, 2011, 05:41 AM
It's Bush's fault.

PRobb
April 2nd, 2011, 09:33 PM
It's Bush's fault.

Well, not really.
Although the reverberations of the Iraq disaster are certainly a significant part of the equation.

samc
April 3rd, 2011, 08:06 PM
So now that he's doing something it's "AAARRRGGGHHH!!!HE'S DOING SOMETHING!!!! HE'S A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT!!!!"
I'm not a republican supporter but how the president is handling this situation is just WRONG on so many levels...

PRobb
April 3rd, 2011, 09:48 PM
I'm not a republican supporter but how the president is handling this situation is just WRONG on so many levels...

I think there are a lot of legit questions, my point was that guys like Newt just don't have the credibility any more to ask them. If Obama is fer it, they're agin it.

McAllister
April 3rd, 2011, 10:01 PM
Establishing & enforcing a No-Fly Zone is an act of war. We are now in our third concurrent war in the Middle East, all declared by a president (as opposed to Congress), all with countries that neither attacked us nor threatened to.

What was wrong for Bush is wrong for Obama. Red or blue stripes don't change the fundamentals.

We did have option to stay out of it. We didn't take that one.

DPower
April 3rd, 2011, 10:07 PM
Establishing & enforcing a No-Fly Zone is an act of war. We are now in our third concurrent war in the Middle East, all declared by a president (as opposed to Congress), all with countries that neither attacked us nor threatened to.

What was wrong for Bush is wrong for Obama. Red or blue stripes don't change the fundamentals.

We did have option to stay out of it. We didn't take that one.

Technically, neither Afghanistan or Libya are in the Middle East, but aside from that you are correct. However, I don't think congress has actually declared a war for quite some time now so it's pretty much par for the course.

sidechain
April 3rd, 2011, 10:50 PM
Establishing & enforcing a No-Fly Zone is an act of war. We are now in our third concurrent war in the Middle East, all declared by a president (as opposed to Congress), all with countries that neither attacked us nor threatened to.

What was wrong for Bush is wrong for Obama. Red or blue stripes don't change the fundamentals.

We did have option to stay out of it. We didn't take that one.

The difference with Libya is that Libyan military was threading an attack on a civilian target and the Arab League and the UN passed resolution to come to the rescue of the threaten civilians.
George W and and Tony B when into Iraq with no such urging of the international community.
NATO saved thousands of civilian deaths. The week before the NATO bombing Anderson Cooper showed a 7 year old boy shot in the head by government troops. Nobody likes war war but the NATO alliance did the right thing and even the Arabs in other countries in the region are thankful for the intervention.

Johnny
April 4th, 2011, 03:47 AM
Who called three fronts by the end of this term?

samc
April 4th, 2011, 09:31 AM
The week before the NATO bombing Anderson Cooper showed a 7 year old boy shot in the head by government troops.
I guess if Anderson Cooper says it's time for war it's time for war alright...


Nobody likes war war but the NATO alliance did the right thing and even the Arabs in other countries in the region are thankful for the intervention.
This war, like so many others before it have nothing to do with doing the 'right thing'. It's about controlling and protecting the flow of oil and gas to Europe and (to that end) getting rid of an unpopular and unpredictable regime.

If the west was really about doing the 'right thing' they would not be responsible for keeping so many corrupt dictators in power for all these years, and the things that are happening in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen today would not be allowed to happen. The coalition would not overstep the UN mandate to help the rebel forces in the Libyan civil war. If the west was really serious about doing the 'right thing' they would have stopped the carnage in the Darfur region of Sudan years ago.

PRobb
April 4th, 2011, 05:29 PM
Establishing & enforcing a No-Fly Zone is an act of war. We are now in our third concurrent war in the Middle East, all declared by a president (as opposed to Congress), all with countries that neither attacked us nor threatened to.


We were attacked by a group based in Afghanistan that operated with government support.

sidechain
April 4th, 2011, 06:38 PM
I guess if Anderson Cooper says it's time for war it's time for war alright...


This war, like so many others before it have nothing to do with doing the 'right thing'. It's about controlling and protecting the flow of oil and gas to Europe and (to that end) getting rid of an unpopular and unpredictable regime.
.

Then what is your solution the crazy dictator who says " I will fight to the death before I leave"
Sending Swiss chocolate and Dutch flowers is not going to work.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/04/201144103344723978.html


Syria/Iran etc. and the other countries I cannot speak about them because I am don't those situations and specifics but rolling them in the Lyibian situation is not a fair criticism.
Libya is a different situation than all those other countries.
They are not lining up tanks and jets fighters to bomb and entire city. There was regime change in Tunisia and Egypt with no miltary action at all. In both those countries the military took the side of the people. There is a culture of fear in Libya with political and public executions for years, so naturally there is little organized opposition with in the country because they are all dead or in jail.
The Libyan government was a sponsor of state terrorism with Lockerbie and the La Belle discotheque.
This is not revenge on the regime it is the day of reckoning for Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.
If you think he should stay in power then your need to get aquatinted with some facts a and speak to some of the relatives that he has changed the lives of forever.
It is America's and EU interests to keep the whole region destabilized.
Oil prices will remain high creating more profits for the multinational oil companies. It also creates a market for weapons for the military industrial complex.

samc
April 4th, 2011, 07:32 PM
It is America's and EU interests to keep the whole region destabilized.
Oil prices will remain high creating more profits for the multinational oil companies. It also creates a market for weapons for the military industrial complex.

I rest...

TubaSolo
April 4th, 2011, 09:22 PM
This war, like so many others before it have nothing to do with doing the 'right thing'.

Whereas "doing the right thing", in this precise case, in these less than idealistic times, on this present-day planet, would be....?

Exactly... in detail?

"The devil is in the detail(s)"

:lol:

Holm
April 4th, 2011, 10:36 PM
Whereas "doing the right thing", in this precise case, in these less than idealistic times, on this present-day planet, would be....?

Exactly... in detail?

"The devil is in the detail(s)"

:lol:
For some, I'm inclined to think, it is the exact opposite of whatever the West appears to be doing at any given particular time. Always.

moaus
April 5th, 2011, 12:40 AM
i agree re: in its interests to keep the region destabilised

i read this the other day, i thought this might interest some here, re: some more specifics about Libya

also - i don't think the Arab league's support = "the people in the region want this" - the arab league is incredibly corrupt and while opposing this SPECIFIC brutal, undemocratic despotic leader - they themselves contain brutal, undemocratic, despotic leaders...

Blood in the Desert
Bombing Libya: 1986 - 2011

By THOMAS C. MOUNTAIN

In 1987 I was a member of the 1st US Peace Delegation to Libya. We went there to commemorate the 1st anniversary of the US bombing of Libya in 1986.

In April 1986 US warplanes struck Tripoli at 2 am. They bombed the Gaddafi family residence, wounding several of his family members and killing his 15 month old daughter. My daughter was about the same age at the time and I really, really felt it.

The US planes also bombed a civilian apartment complex, miles from any military targets, killing dozens of children as they slept. I helped place flowers on the graves of these children in the Martyrs Cemetery located in the middle of the old Italian race track in Tripoli.

This past Sunday morning I woke up and turned on the news to see a grieving Libyan family burying their 3 year old daughter, killed as she slept by the latest US attack on Libya.

Over the past quarter century I have followed developments in Libya and since moving here to Eritrea in 2006 have even had Col. Gaddafi spend the night in his tent on the beach down the road from our home on the Red Sea.

The USA seems to need an Arab or Muslim boogeyman to hate. Before Osama Bin Laden there was Saddam Hussein and before Saddam Hussein there was Muammar Gaddafi. With such a long history involved It seems that almost everyone needs to be brought up to date on what is really going on in Libya.
First, some history. In 1969 when Col. Gaddafi came to power by overthrowing the Libyan king in a military coup, Libyan's were one of the poorest people in the world with an annual per capita income of less than $60.

Today, thanks to the "Arab Socialism" policy of the government as well as bountiful petroleum exports, the Libyan people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Most Libyan families own their own home and most Libyan families own an automobile.

The free public health system in Libya is one of the best in the Arab world and Libya's free education system up to the graduate level is as good if not better than any other in the region.

So the question is, why has a revolt broken out?

The answer, which I have been intensely researching for the past month is not a simple one.

The revolt started in Benghazi in eastern Libya. A very important point not mentioned anywhere in the international media is the fact that due to geographic location, being one of the closest point to Europe from the African continent, Benghazi has over the past 15 years or so become the epicenter of African migration to Europe. At one point over a thousand African migrants a day were pouring into Libya in hopes of arranging transport to Europe.

The human trafficking industry, one of the most evil, inhumane businesses on the planet, grew into a billion dollar a year industry in Benghazi. A large, viscous underworld mafia set down deep roots in Benghazi, employing thousands in various capacities and corrupting Libyan police and government officials. It has only been in the past year or so that the Libyan government, with help from Italy, has finally brought this cancer under control. With their livelihood destroyed and many of their leaders in prison, the human trafficking mafia have been at the forefront in funding and supporting the Libyan rebellion. Many of the human trafficking gangs and other lumpen elements in Benghazi are known for racist pogroms against African guest workers where over the past decade they regularly robbed and murdered Africans in Benghazi and its surrounding neighborhoods. Since the rebellion in Benghazi broke out several hundred Sudanese, Somali, Ethiopian and Eritrean guest workers have been robbed and murdered by racist rebel militias, a fact well hidden by the international media.

Benghazi has also long been a well known center of religious extremism. Libyan fanatics who spent time in Afghanistan are concentrated there and a number of terrorist cells have been carrying out bombings and assassinations of government officials in Benghazi over the past two decades. One cell, calling itself the Fighting Islamic Group, declared itself an Al Queda affiliate back in 2007. These cells were the first to take up arms against the Libyan government.

The last, and most difficult problem that has been festering in Libya is based on well known backward cultural beliefs in Libyan society. Libyans will not take jobs they consider "dirty". Back in 1987 the Libyan English Department students who were our escorts talked openly about this problem. Libyan youth who finish their education will not take entry level jobs that involve any menial work. They expect to have immediate employment in well paid positions with good salaries, nice apartments and new automobiles.

The Libyan government has been forced to import hundreds of thousands of guest workers to do the "dirty work" Libyans refuse to do, first from sub-Saharan Africa, and later from Asia.

The result of this is that thousands of Libyan youth are unemployed, living at home off of their families and this parasitical existence has lead to a serious social problem. Alcohol, banned in Libya, and drug abuse among the youth has been a growing problem.

All of these diverse social problems came to a head when the Arab street began its uprising against their Western supported elite's, first in Libya's neighbor Tunisia and then Libya's other neighbor, Egypt.

When the first demonstrations of discontented youth took place in Benghazi the loose coalition of terrorist cells and human trafficking gangs immediately took advantage of the turmoil to attack the high security prisons outside of Benghazi where their comrades were locked up. With the release of their leadership the rebellion began attacking police stations and government offices and Benghazi residents began to wake up to the sight of dead bodies of police officers hanging from freeway overpasses.

The Libyan government lead by Col. Gaddafi has always been careful to not allow a large, powerful regular army to develop, instead relying on a system of "revolutionary committees" to run local communities and oversee security in the country.

These "revolutionary committees" had never been seriously tested and were slow to respond to the rapidly spreading rebellion. Eventually the Libyan government was able to organize itself and took the offensive against the rebellion. The rebels, mostly untrained youth and loosely organized militias were driven from their newly won territory and it became apparent that their rebellion would fail. Even high ranking US intelligence officials admitted as such publicly. It is now widely recognized, at least in the Arab and African world, that the majority of Libyans support their government lead by Col. Gaddafi and that the rebellion is supported by a minority of Libyans. The end of the rebellion seemed to have become inevitable.

With the Libyan government military forces on the outskirts of Benghazi and the rebellion seemingly doomed, a decision was made in USA along with its henchmen in London and Paris to attack Libya and overthrow the Libyan government lead by Col. Gaddafi.

Libya is an oil rich nation, close to Europe, with the largest proven oil reserves on the African continent. With such an enormous prize at stake the decision was made to launch an attack on Libya, a massacre really, for there is no defense today against cruise missiles and high altitude bombing,especially when it is done only at night, to hell with civilian casualties.

After their attacks and invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia few people in the world believe the western claims of attacking Libya out of concern for preventing civilian loss of life. The USA and its European allies are taking a very dangerous gamble in attacking Libya today. With the Arab countries facing the possibility of real revolutionary situations developing, by which I mean armed revolts against their western backed elite's, the attack on Libya could eventually ignite the very explosion the west is so desperate to prevent.

It is impossible to say where the attacks on Libya by the west will lead, to a Kosovo repeat or eventual victory for the Libyan government headed by Col. Gaddafi?

The one thing that is certain is that the Libyan people will pay a steep price to keep their country, a price that will inevitably have to be paid in Libyan blood.

I am already making plans to visit Libya this time next year, hopefully as part of the 2nd US Peace Delegation to Libya. God only knows how many flowers we will need for all the graves of Libyan children killed in this latest massacre committed by the USA and it European partners.

Thomas C. Mountain

nobby
April 5th, 2011, 01:31 AM
I don't think I'd put much stock in such heavily distorted propaganda. At first I thought you got that from the Libyan state press.


Thomas C. Mountain, the so called “independent journalist,” acts as an expert on Eritrea. He has tried to discredit Eritrean journalists and organizations that advocate press freedom. Mr. Mountain criticised the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) for placing Dawit Issack’s name on the list of arrested journalists in the fall of 2000.

He said, “The Eritrean government claimed that Dawit Issak, along with a number of others listed in the RSF press release, were detained for going absent without leave (AWOL) from their military units and were not in prison but had been returned to their military commands.”

There is no truth in his statement at all. First of all, neither RSF nor WAN listed Dawit Issack’s name with the eight journalists who were arrested on October 14, 2000. As a matter of fact, Dawit Issack was not in Eritrea; he was in Sweden from May 2000 to April 2001. I was one of the editors who passed the name of the arrested journalists to the international community. I remember back then that what Thomas C. Mountain wrote about the arrested journalists was not true.

I was so anxious to meet this so called “independent journalist” and challenge him in person. I wanted to know his motive for lying so blatantly. And so I contacted one of my sources who used to work in one of the biggest hotels in Asmara. She told me that she knew him and she confirmed that he was not in Asmara but was actually living in the USA.

That shocked me. He denied that the journalists had been arrested and he had pretended that he was in Asmara while the incident of arrest took place.

It is then that I learned that he had been hired by the PFDJ not only to gather historical information about the border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, but also to become involved in the propaganda’s activities of PFDJ. And gradually, he became an unofficial spokesperson of the Eritrean government. He has given several interviews. And of course, he has been trained to lie.

http://www.asmarino.com/articles/637-shame-on-thomas-c-mountains

PRobb
April 5th, 2011, 01:38 AM
This war, like so many others before it have nothing to do with doing the 'right thing'. It's about controlling and protecting the flow of oil and gas to Europe and (to that end) getting rid of an unpopular and unpredictable regime.


This war, like so many others before it is the result of an intensely complicated equation involving a long list of variables.

This is not a case for or against, but anyone who says "the war is about xyz" is wrong.
Anyone who says "look, it's simple" is wrong.

moaus
April 5th, 2011, 02:18 AM
I don't think I'd put much stock in such heavily distorted propaganda. At first I thought you got that from the Libyan state press.

i just think it's important to look at differing views here ok?

i can dissect that article as being overtly pro gaddafi, that's because i am a rational human who dissects information, however, you don't think there are elements of truth in that article? none at all?

that one can take that - overlay it with what the line is from the US and find the reality?

who do you put stock in Nobby?

If you wanna talk distorted propaganda, one only needs to go to the new york time's tom friedman or the brookings institute for some great distortion, better than my big muff... or the Washington Post for example, they both participate in the same game of propaganda, you don't think there is propaganda on both sides which distort the real issues at hand?

That's why it's our job to try and read as many sources as possible, look for potential bias and look at what their motives might be in putting forth a narrative.

Now it is not unreasonable to hypothesise, given America's foreign policy re: that region for the last 30 or so years that there is a quest to secure resources.

Then when you add in that around 20% of italy, france and germany's oil comes from Libya you can see that it's not unreasonable that the EU has such a vested interest in there.

Then you add the cost per barrell efficiencies you have in Libya, given diminishing supply and an opportunity to secure these resources with these savings... i don't think its unreasonable.

Then you consider that the US is the world's largest weapons manufacturer in the world, in the entire world. Now doesn't that create a legitimate conflict of interest between supposed altruistic reasons for invasions?

"saving people" and "testing new weapons technologies" and making $$ - isn't that a legitimate conflict? I would see it as such.


It is also quite reasonable to ask why this specific "despotic, undemocratic, own people killing" leader is the one we go after?

When we in the west supported Hosni Mubarak (and he did kill 1000's of his own people, do not forget that, not to mention their poverty/unemployment as a direct result of his pandering policies), we support Saudi who are not only the MOST backwards of all islamic countries (who gave us Wahabiism, Osama bin Laden, 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11) - it seems a bit incongruous to me.

And i don't think that is being unreasonable. To ask why, to question it a little bit more...

Not just paint everyone who questions this as hyperbolic nutters.

I don't think it's entirely about oil, and i don't think its entirely about Gaddafi "needing to be stopped", i think there is more to it than those simplistic catch cries.

nobby
April 5th, 2011, 02:54 AM
i just think it's important to look at differing views here ok?

i can dissect that article as being overtly pro gaddafi, that's because i am a rational human who dissects information, however, you don't think there are elements of truth in that article? none at all?

I didn't say that. Just that it's heavily distorted pro Gaddafy propaganda.


that one can take that - overlay it with what the line is from the US and find the reality?

who do you put stock in Nobby?

The international press over a lone propagandist with no credibility.

samc
April 5th, 2011, 06:51 AM
This war, like so many others before it is the result of an intensely complicated equation involving a long list of variables.

This is not a case for or against, but anyone who says "the war is about xyz" is wrong.
Anyone who says "look, it's simple" is wrong.

These types of situations are never simple; there are a lot of historical, social and political details (some known and some unknown) that contribute to them. Generalizations of the main points may not tell the complete story but that does not make them 'wrong'... Saying that the basic reasons for the west doing what they're doing are simple is also not fundamentally wrong because while the details might be complicated, their basic objective is very simple indeed.

And liken so many other wars before this one they will probably screw it up, creating a more dangerous situation with more suffering for the very people they claim to want to help.

Should we not discuss this, or are we not allowed to draw conclusions from what we know because we are not privy to every single detail that has a connection to this situation?

samc
April 5th, 2011, 07:05 AM
The international press over a lone propagandist with no credibility.
I don't know or support this guy but some credible press (in Europe and Africa) were making some of the same claims that he made in his 'article'. The claim that the rebellion was being led by criminal gangs and mobsters was made before. Even the BBC said as much in the early days of this situation, and that is why I keep asking the question if we know who these people are that make up the rebel forces that we are so hell-bent on helping...

nobby
April 5th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Believe it or not, mainstream media has covered that also. It just tries to look at the situation from both sides. In countries where the media isn't run by the state, it's run by private enterprise, and, let's face it, bad news sells. And we get BBC News here as well.

The article conveniently neglected to mention that there are plenty of eyewitnesses in Libya telling us that Gaddafy's forces opened fire with machine guns on unarmed crowds of protesters and subsequently shelled and bombed civilian areas resulting in thousands of casualties.

If the mainstream media were some kind of global cover up conspiracy more interested in covering up the truth than sustaining their credibility and integrity (such as it is in the fog of war) how come NATO can't drop a bomb down the wrong chimney without it being endlessly replayed on every channel and in every periodical?

Did you see the the rebel convoy which NATO forces were ostensibly helping that was accidentally destroyed by NATO planes? Oops!

I saw it on CNN. There was also a lengthy discussions about "just who are these rebels, anyway?" They seem to be a rather motley lot.

But weigh that against bombing and shelling of civilians by a brutal dictator.

To me, the really bad news is that nobody really knows how this will all shake out, and it's quite possible that all this expenditure of blood and treasure will be for naught.

But none of this is being swept under the rug, regardless of what the anti-western news cherry-pickers would have you believe.

Holm
April 5th, 2011, 01:44 PM
A quick read into the other recent Middle East thread gives a good overview, that

Every
Single
Thing
The
WEST
DOES
Or
DOES NOT
Do
In
The
Arabic
Countries
Is
Wrong,
Malicious
And
Has
Sinister
Motives

zakco
April 5th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Every
Single
Thing
The
WEST
DOES
Or
DOES NOT
Do
In
The
Arabic
Countries
Is
Wrong,
Malicious
And
Has
Sinister
Motives

Sounds pretty accurate to me.

As "they" say: "past behavior is the most accurate indicator of future behavior...."

Holm
April 5th, 2011, 05:50 PM
Sounds pretty accurate to me.

As "they" say: "past behavior is the most accurate indicator of future behavior...."

Good to clear that one out then. It's nice to know that you can do no good, whether you choose to do ANYTHING or NOTHING. The shit WILL be slinged towards you no matter what.

Wide-O
April 5th, 2011, 06:39 PM
Good to clear that one out then. It's nice to know that you can do no good, whether you choose to do ANYTHING or NOTHING. The shit WILL be slinged towards you no matter what.

Um, yes, that's the situation the US is in right now.

zakco
April 5th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Good to clear that one out then. It's nice to know that you can do no good, whether you choose to do ANYTHING or NOTHING. The shit WILL be slinged towards you no matter what.

Pretty good asessment, no arguments here.
Having reached this point, it would be an appropriate time for everyone living in the west to look around and ask "How did we get here?".

That's where the past behaviour thing comes in.

Z

zakco
April 5th, 2011, 07:35 PM
For those that would blame Obama for not handling Lybia properly, you've got to be joking. I'm amazed that any rational person could possibly hold any expectations of your president to fix anything. Your country (as are most, including mine) is run by bankers, not politicians.

Holm
April 5th, 2011, 07:58 PM
Pretty good asessment, no arguments here.
Having reached this point, it would be an appropriate time for everyone living in the west to look around and ask "How did we get here?".

That's where the past behaviour thing comes in.

Yeah, while you're at it, care to explain then why did the Arab League explicitly ask the west then to enforce the no-fly-zone? If we've behaved that badly then shouldn't we be held off the arab countries like plague?

My point is, take a side and stick to it. "All western countries are inherently evil and are harrassing the poor wee arab countries" is not much of a side to speak of.

DPower
April 5th, 2011, 08:12 PM
Yeah, while you're at it, care to explain then why did the Arab League explicitly ask the west then to enforce the no-fly-zone? If we've behaved that badly then shouldn't we be held off the arab countries like plague?

My point is, take a side and stick to it. "All western countries are inherently evil and are harrassing the poor wee arab countries" is not much of a side to speak of.

Here's why:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27823.htm


As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.


As for pick a side and stick to it... Dude, this isn't a sporting event, my team over everything. It's just a wee bit more complex than that. Oh... and people die.

Holm
April 5th, 2011, 08:21 PM
As for pick a side and stick to it... Dude, this isn't a sporting event, my team over everything.
Dude, it's about either the west is good trying to stay out of it or it is bad trying to stay out of it. At the moment the west is bad when it is trying to stay out of it and it is bad when it is in it. I get it. The west is bad. E V E R Y T H I N G the west does or - again DOES NOT - is bad. I get it. Do YOU?


It's just a wee bit more complex than that. Oh... and people die.
Gee! Really? You don't say! Have people died in the middle east this year? Really? Shit, man, I did not even know!

zakco
April 5th, 2011, 08:28 PM
If we've behaved that badly then shouldn't we be held off the arab countries like plague?
Not when they are despots that we're business partners with. C'mon man...your making my point for me.


My point is, take a side and stick to it. Sounds kinda like "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" to me. Do you really think in such black and white terms?


"All western countries are inherently evil and are harrassing the poor wee arab countries" is not much of a side to speak of. Nor is it really what anyone is saying. This statmenent is nothing but another victim trip. "Ooohhh poor western countries, always trying to do the right thing, but always misunderstood...boo fucking hoo...

How about:
"All countries are run by inherently evil forces, while the citizens desperately try to balance their own personal morals with their desire to prosper while being sucked along for the ride that ultimately benefits nobody except those that are charging interest on public debt, building weapons or landing security/rebuilding contracts.
Follow the money. Find the problem.
Now I'm going to go and try and make some of it myself...capitalst pig that I am...

Z

Holm
April 5th, 2011, 08:54 PM
"All western countries are inherently evil and are harrassing the poor wee arab countries" is not much of a side to speak of.


Not when they are despots that we're business partners with. C'mon man...your making my point for me.
What point? I've yet to see a point in your postings besides "the west is baaaaad".

So when we are business partners with dictators, then we have a mandate to show military force against them? So, the no fly zone is all good then according to you? Well, why don't you simply say so?


Sounds kinda like "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" to me. Do you really think in such black and white terms?
Sounds like you don't have a clue what I am talking about. Either the west is doing something positive when it is enforcing a no-fly-zone or it is doing something negative doing so. IF the nfz is a POSITIVE thing then sitting on the fence as long as they could - especially the Americans were in no hurry to jump into the war - is a very NEGATIVE thing. If the nfz is an act of oppression mostly to the benefit of western bankers then sitting on the fence and delaying as much as they could must be viewed as a more POSITIVE thing.

It seems to me that according to you, sitting on the fence was a negative thing, enforcing a nfz is a negative thing, I am sure not putting ground troops on the Libyan soil is a negative thing and putting the ground troops on the Libyan soil would ALSO be a negative thing. In your book, what would have been a POSITIVE thing?


Nor is it really what anyone is saying. This statmenent is nothing but your own victim trip.
Oh really? In the Mubarak thread Americans were blamed in consecutive posts in 1) empowering and keeping Mubarak in power while 2) orchestrating and scheming the whole "revolution" then 3) orchestrating the military coup to force Mubarak out using the military as their puppet 4) while not speaking out publicly in behalf of the Egyptian revolution

All this was done by the Americans. Apparently. The Egyptian people were just bystanders there.

DPower
April 5th, 2011, 09:01 PM
Oh really? In the Mubarak thread Americans were blamed in consecutive posts in 1) empowering and keeping Mubarak in power while 2) orchestrating and scheming the whole "revolution" then 3) orchestrating the military coup to force Mubarak out using the military as their puppet 4) while not speaking out publicly in behalf of the Egyptian revolution


Are you really only just now cluing into the fact that people have different opinions?

Holm
April 5th, 2011, 09:02 PM
Are you really only just now cluing into the fact that people have different opinions?
Well, it's my pleasure to clue you in that it was all by one guy.

zakco
April 5th, 2011, 11:07 PM
What point? I've yet to see a point in your postings besides "the west is baaaaad".

You don't seem to realize that I've pretty much agreed with everything you've said. The difference is that I can understand why we are being judged the way we are. I'm not remotely surprised by the villification you're complaining about. It's to be expected. At least by a cynical bastard like me...

FACT: The west has a long history of deposing foreign leaders (many democratically elected) and installing regimes that better server OUR needs. When those governments become a problem for us, we arm the opposition. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Central America or Central Asia, the history is there. We always claim humanitarian motivation, but the FACTS tell otherwise.

The sad reality, is that here we are in the 21st century and now we're seeing the result of 100 years of these policies. Even if our intentions were truly 100% honorable today, what rational thinking individual would believe it? NO...REALLY....THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT!!! :Roll eyes: I seem to recall a story about a boy and a wolf...

That's the only point I'm making. I'm NOT weighing in on whether we should intervene or not, I'm just genuinely disgusted with fact that we've arrived here and I'm expressing that in the sarcastic, cynical fashion that I always do. You're not the first person to have a hard time with that...

Z

samc
April 5th, 2011, 11:46 PM
FACT: The west has a long history of deposing foreign leaders (many democratically elected) and installing regimes that better server OUR needs. When those governments become a problem for us, we arm the opposition. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Central America or Central Asia, the history is there. We always claim humanitarian motivation, but the FACTS tell otherwise.
With this and other history of misbehavior in mind you would think that people asking pertinent questions about what's going on would be considered prudent.

Based on some of the events that have unfolded in this situation over the last two months alone it is unbelievable that any sane, well thinking person would just swallow what's being said hook, line and sinker...

zakco
April 6th, 2011, 12:00 AM
Based on some of the events that have unfolded in this situation over the last two months alone it is unbelievable that any sane, well thinking person would just swallow what's being said hook, line and sinker...

Well, as long as most of the media is owned by corporate monopolies and the public is kept sufficiently fat and terrified, this will probably not change. Reminds me of a quote by some Austrian fellow...something about a lie getting so big...

zakco
April 6th, 2011, 12:07 AM
Yeah, while you're at it, care to explain then why did the Arab League explicitly ask the west then to enforce the no-fly-zone? If we've behaved that badly then shouldn't we be held off the arab countries like plague?

Are you actually inferring that the Arab League is representative of the citizens of this little club of oil soaked dictators?

That's like suggesting that the federal reserve is there to protect the financial interests of the american people...

samc
April 6th, 2011, 12:40 AM
Are you actually inferring that the Arab League is representative of the citizens of this little club of oil soaked dictators?
No shit... Not to mention the little fact that less than half its members actually voted took the decision.

McAllister
April 6th, 2011, 08:03 PM
I don't much care who, or what groups, think that this war is good idea. Libya still did nothing to us.

I don't pretend to understand all the motives or factors in play here. We could argue "who benefits" or "follow the money/oil" forever and still get it wrong. What I do know is we're bombing a place that did nothing to us.

I am not an isolationist, but I have a strong non-intervention streak. And call me crazy, I think we have far too many Americans overseas killing people already.

nobby
April 6th, 2011, 09:30 PM
Libya still did nothing to us.

Right, NATO is indiscriminately carpet bombing the whole country :Roll eyes:


I don't pretend to understand all the motives or factors in play here.

Why are you posting then? At least the rest of us can pretend!

.

TubaSolo
April 7th, 2011, 05:46 AM
I don't much care who, or what groups, think that this war is good idea. Libya still did nothing to us.

The world is a village, don't you know? The "did nothing to us" mentality implies you consider your country somehow isolated from the rest... which it is not.

US presidents already knew that a century ago, that's why we had world wars I & II, among other extra-national conflicts.

Otherwise, what would be the alternative? Lock the borders, give them weapons and come back a couple years later to see who's left? :Roll eyes: Brilliant...

moaus
April 7th, 2011, 06:17 AM
The world is a village, don't you know? The "did nothing to us" mentality implies you consider your country somehow isolated from the rest... which it is not.

US presidents already knew that a century ago, that's why we had world wars I & II, among other extra-national conflicts.

Otherwise, what would be the alternative? Lock the borders, give them weapons and come back a couple years later to see who's left? :Roll eyes: Brilliant...


America only went into WW1 and WW2 after many profitable years on isolationist policy,

just sayin

TubaSolo
April 7th, 2011, 07:07 AM
America only went into WW1 and WW2 after many profitable years on isolationist policy,

just sayin

Yes... for that could only be profitable until then, as technology (railways & telephone, then planes, radio & tv...) had started to turn the world, and especially its economy, not mentioning politics, into the full-on interactive global affair it is now.

As for recommending isolationism today... well that's just ridiculous.

samc
April 7th, 2011, 07:38 AM
US presidents already knew that a century ago, that's why we had world wars I & II, among other extra-national conflicts.
This is total and utter Bullshit!

You either don't know the history or you're attempting to rewrite it....

TubaSolo
April 7th, 2011, 08:08 AM
Sorry, when I say "that's why we had ww1 & 2", it can easily be misunderstood: I put the emphasis on "world", meaning: that (the ineffective, artificial nature of economical and political national "borders" in a world turning global) is the fundamental, underlying reason why the US eventually got involved, making those wars "world wars".

A century before that, conflicts in Europe could stay local. That's all I'm saying.

If the US couldn't afford to stay put in the 90s, regarding conflicts in Bosnia or Somalia, it can certainly not stay out of Lybia now.

But otherwise, "whatever, dude" applies. :grin:

G cubed
April 7th, 2011, 11:21 AM
Here's a little collection of facts that resonates truth. Make of it what you will.

SbINVdRm5es

DPower
April 7th, 2011, 12:56 PM
Something with a little less hyperbole:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/06/libya_war_class_resnikoff/index.html


In other words: The more powerful the rich have become, the more they've shifted the cost of war downward. And because the interests of the rich are effectively the only interests now being represented in government, politicians have no incentive to avoid policies that exert pressure on the middle and lower classes. For the people in charge, war has gotten cheaper than ever.

That makes the Obama administration's promises of a "limited engagement" hard to swallow. The official policy of the United States in Libya is regime change, and the Obama administration faces no formal or material constraint on its ability to escalate the conflict. Even if they were to deploy a significant ground force to Libya, the reaction from Congress would be feeble at best -- perhaps some symbolic outrage and an impotent, inconclusive Senate hearing.

That's why the White House has scarcely bothered to consult with the legislative branch while pursuing military intervention. Congress has spent the past few decades gradually ceding its capacity to conduct meaningful oversight on matters of war. After all, if it doesn't affect their constituency, why should it affect them? Better to have no say on the issue, so they won’t have a record their opponents can run against.

For these reasons, even supporters of intervention in Libya should be alarmed by the manner in which the United States now goes to war. Even if the rebels were to seize Tripoli with only modest American assistance, and even if they were to install a functioning liberal democracy in Gadhafi’s place, that would not change how America entered this conflict in the first place. Nor would it have any bearing on how we enter future conflicts.

Because no matter how the conflict in Libya ends, the rich will still be the only meaningful political constituency in this country. War costs them little. And until that changes, we can look forward to a continual state of war at the expense of everyone else.

PRobb
April 7th, 2011, 02:59 PM
Otherwise, what would be the alternative? Lock the borders, give them weapons and come back a couple years later to see who's left? :Roll eyes: Brilliant...
It worked in Afghanistan, right?:headpalm:

zakco
April 7th, 2011, 06:51 PM
world wars[/I] I & II, among other extra-national conflicts.

No.

America entered both world wars in order to force Central Banking on the county eventually resulting in both income tax and the federal reserve. Financing BOTH sides can be very profitable. Not to mention that it help create the military industrial complex that is still raping american taxpayers via Haliburton/Blackwater/KBR etc...

Sorry for the tinfoil hat rant...back to Lybia!

Z

nobby
April 7th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Something with a little less hyperbole:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/06/libya_war_class_resnikoff/index.html

The reason that seems strange is that it emanates from my country's right wing propaganda ministry (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=+Media+Matters+for+America.&cp=27&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&rlz=1W1GGLR_en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=+Media+Matters+for+America.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b1525cf885aaccb5)

You can always tell that something is either utter bullshit or profound ignorance when the writer claims that both major parties are identical.

Iraq is a great example of how it really works. War is, if anything, more expensive than ever. Iraq is a good trillion dollars or so.

But one party, the Republicans, who, with Bush-Cheney at the helm, rammed that war down the throats of the American People, have a plan to pay for that, and another trillion dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans:

By eliminating or sharply curtailing programs that would benefit the poor and middle class such as Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, Head Start, etc, IOW programs that don't benefit the rich.

And while they're at it, eliminating education programs that would help keep the US competitive in the 21st century and letting the aging infrastructure of bridges, railways, and highways crumble.

Johnny
April 7th, 2011, 11:54 PM
Media Matters is right-wing propaganda?

nobby
April 8th, 2011, 02:10 AM
Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?

Absofuckinglutely!

DPower
April 12th, 2011, 06:03 PM
Are you actually inferring that the Arab League is representative of the citizens of this little club of oil soaked dictators?


There may have been an element of strategy in the vote...

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/103375


The Arab League said on Sunday that it would ask the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over the Gaza Strip to protect civilians against Israeli air strikes.

The league said it would ask for an emergency meeting of the UN security council to discuss Israel's ongoing attacks on Gaza, to lift the siege and impose a no-fly zone against the Israeli Defence Forces.

PRobb
April 12th, 2011, 06:45 PM
No.

America entered both world wars in order to force Central Banking on the county eventually resulting in both income tax and the federal reserve. Financing BOTH sides can be very profitable. Not to mention that it help create the military industrial complex that is still raping american taxpayers via Haliburton/Blackwater/KBR etc...

Sorry for the tinfoil hat rant...back to Lybia!

Z


Do you actually believe WWII was about central banking?
That's a joke, right? Seriously, the world is such a crazy place you really need to use a smiley when making jokes like that. People might think you mean it.

zakco
April 12th, 2011, 07:47 PM
Do you actually believe WWII was about central banking?

It certainly wasn't the cause of it, but I definitely believe that the bankers (along with many industrialists) were a major factor behind Americas decision to enter the war. American industry (and European) have a fairly well documented history of profiting from both the rise and fall of dictators. War is a very profitable enterprise for those with money to lend or weapons (or other resources) to sell. Nothing like having an entire country willing to back a loan with their taxes...


the world is such a crazy place you really need to use a smiley when making jokes like that. People might think you mean it.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you...:icon_eek:

Z

samc
April 12th, 2011, 08:47 PM
By the way, is there anyone here still buying the 'humanitarian' crock of shit that France, the US and their NATO allies sold us to get permission to go rain bombs on Libya?

Holm
April 12th, 2011, 09:22 PM
By the way, is there anyone here still buying the 'humanitarian' crock of shit that France, the US and their NATO allies sold us to get permission to go rain bombs on Libya?I think that France, the US and their NATO allies are just waiting for any excuse whatsoever to bomb anything. Anywhere. Just give them an excuse and they will bomb. If there are women and children in there THEN they have finally have their day made and they will give it their special something extra. In raining bombs. That has always have been the goal of France and the US and NATO in general.

samc
April 12th, 2011, 10:47 PM
Thanks for the info...care to answer the question now...no?

Holm
April 13th, 2011, 05:52 AM
Thanks for the info...care to answer the question now...no?The question got exactly the answer it deserves, you are welcome.

samc
April 13th, 2011, 07:37 AM
The question got exactly the answer it deserves, you are welcome.
That's an answer? I thought you made a comment.

Just flapping your arms and saying you disagree doesn't count, you really need to present arguments to support your position.

Keeping an eye on what our governments do and how they do it, and speaking out when we think or know that they're making bullshit is actually a big weapon against them actually doing bullshit...just saying.

I bet you still believe there are WMD's in Iraq...

Holm
April 13th, 2011, 07:59 AM
That's an answer? I thought you made a comment.

Just flapping your arms and saying you disagree doesn't count, you really need to present arguments to support your position.No, I don't. When there are statements presented formed to be as "questions" nobody will have to do anything.


Keeping an eye on what our governments do and how they do it,I have. Have you? Did you notice when Gates said that USA is in no hurry to enter the NFZ because establishing NFZ means that the FIRST HAVE TO BOMB LIBYAN AIR DEFENSES AND MISTAKES WILL BE MADE AND CIVILIANS WILL GET HURT IN THAT SCENARIO. ALWAYS. That happened a week before the NFZ was established.

Although I am sure you will find a way to spin it in such way that says it was all part of a great master plan and Gates' real intention was actually to carpet bomb Tripoli all along.


I bet you still believe there are WMD's in Iraq..
I bet you still believe that Stalin was "our last line of defense" out there to prevent imperialist capitalistic swines of NATO from taking over the whole world. Your rhetoric is right out the pages of PRAVDA.

Yes, I am sure, the respect is mutual.

samc
April 13th, 2011, 10:29 AM
I bet you still believe that Stalin was "our last line of defense" out there to prevent imperialist capitalistic swines of NATO from taking over the whole world. Your rhetoric is right out the pages of PRAVDA.
There is a huge miscalculation in your reasoning here dude, I actually believe Stalin was a murderous asshole...there...Glad to get that out of the way...

Criticizing the actions of my government in a particular affair DOES NOT equate to me hating my system of government, or wanting another system of governance. This is one of the precepts of democracy, although I can understand that this may not be immediately apparent to, or might even seem like blasphemy to someone who spent their life trying to make their country be like the west. I have never ever wanted to be a communist or to live in a communist state, how you arrived at that conclusion is beside me...This, and your other 'either or' conclusions in the thread just shows how faulty and unreliable your powers of reasoning are.

There is a lot of historical precedence and recent evidence to support skepticism in NATOs (namely France, the UK and the US) claimed reason for going into Libya. I won't bore you with the preponderance facts on which I base my arguments, but, they called for and got a UN mandate to create a NO FLY ZONE, they have since extended that to regime change are now actively helping the rebel forces to win the 'civil war'. Some NATO members are against this, and are now even questioning the legality of this action based on the UN mandate...They must all be communist.

Doing nothing about the situation is not a reasonable option but doing bullshit should not be acceptable either, this usually ends with us playing into the hands of exactly the wrong people, (Afghanistan anyone...least we forget) and then paying a high price for the consequences later. Political expediency and big business interest can't, and should not be our only motivating force when we actually decide to do something. We cannot achieve good results (especially in a timely manner) when we do not have credibility, even when our intentions are good, and we not just have to be credible, we also have to appear to be credible too. The way the coalition has been acting thus far does not engender this.

We want to protect innocent people from a horrible dictator, great, but we are only going to help those people living in a country that is geographically and economically strategic to us...of course we will also not even acknowledge that the dictators who are our friends and allies are committing some or all of the same crimes against humanity as we sit in our ivory towers waxing poetically about democracy, freedom and safety. The French offered to send manpower and weapons to Tunisia to help their friend, (the dictator) Ben Ali and his band of merry men to defeat the popular revolt against his corrupt and dictatorial rule... The common people of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen obviously don't 'qualify' for humanitarian protection because the 'do-gooders' have not even spoken out in their defense let alone publicly demand that the dictators that run these countries step down. The west is not being criticized for doing something, they are being criticized for doing bullshit!

Speaking out against the bullshit actions of your government is par for the course in a democracy, and my 'rhetoric' has a lot of historical precedence and evidence to prop it up...





PS: Holm, if you choose to respond to this post it might be a good idea for you to read it carefully and understand what's being said and to also understand that this is not intended to be personal...

nobby
April 13th, 2011, 05:43 PM
Doing nothing about the situation is not a reasonable option but doing bullshit should not be acceptable either

Once again, what's the 3rd option?
.

Holm
April 13th, 2011, 06:04 PM
Once again, what's the 3rd option?
.
Terribly interesting to hear aswell. So far I've heard only that doing whatever the fuck they happen to be doing anytime anywhere is as wrong as it can be.

I'm really sorry, but I have watched BBC almost every day since the things started in Egypt and the general consensus seems to be that it is mighty hard to find the IDEAL model of behaviour in the situation the world is in at the moment but regarding what hand they are given to play with they are doing at least a reasonable job in excruciatingly hard circumstanges. Especially considering how the average arab folk is regarding the west and especially the US. Dunno, is BBC generally biased?

Again, yesterday in Charlie Rose the Egyptian boss of Orascom Telecom expressed similar sentiments. Is he too in the pocket of the West? I mean - he IS a coptic Christian, so perhaps he too isn't credible as a true Egyptian? And what is your proposed solution?

Holm
April 13th, 2011, 06:22 PM
This, and your other 'either or' conclusions in the thread just shows how faulty and unreliable your powers of reasoning are.Well, unfortunately I remember too well the rhetoric that was used to "criticize" western governments and when your contribution resorts to general snide remarks with no offers for solutions whatsoever so far, you are exactly on the level of what I said on my previous post.


There is a lot of historical precedence and recent evidence to support skepticism in NATOs (namely France, the UK and the US) claimed reason for going into Libya.
BTW, Sweden is also taking part in the NO FLY ZONE. Just saying.


I won't bore you with the preponderance facts on which I base my arguments, but, they Who? Of the western states I recall only France actively calling it and I recall the US stalling and dodging the theme as much as they could, pointing out - again, you apparently missed that in my last post - that NO FLY ZONE starts with BOMBING Libya and in any scenario some civilians WILL be killed. They were the ONLY ones having balls to say that out loud.


called for and got a UN mandate to create a NO FLY ZONE, they have since extended that to regime change are now actively helping the rebel forces to win the 'civil war'. Weirdly enough the rebel forces are complaining that they are not helping them to win the civil war actively enough for their tastes. Can't win, eh?


Some NATO members are against this, and are now even questioning the legality of this action based on the UN mandate...They must all be communist.
Turkey. Perhaps Germany. Germans generally are in no hurry sending their military anywhere after the Second World War. History anyone?


Doing nothing about the situation is not a reasonable option but doing bullshit should not be acceptable either, this usually ends with us playing into the hands of exactly the wrong people,
How do you define "wrong"? If Gadhafi imports mercenaries from North Korea and other African countries he has been paying off for some time now and he has effectively in his pocket to kill Libyan people with tanks how do you define which ones of them are right or wrong ones to back?


(Afghanistan anyone...least we forget) and then paying a high price for the consequences later.
You think that Afghanistan was because they backed the wrong people? Perhaps it was that when there finally was a country to back they buggered off and left the country where the majority of population was under 25 years old and had NO education whatsoever to their own means and what happened was that ones with the biggest guns won?


We cannot achieve good results (especially in a timely manner) when we do not have credibility, even when our intentions are good, and we not just have to be credible, we also have to appear to be credible too.
My problem is that according to you, there is no action possible for the west to be credible. If the west wouldn't have established the NFZ you would have trashed them for THAT. This is called hypocrisy and I have no time for that.

samc
April 13th, 2011, 07:52 PM
Once again, what's the 3rd option?
.
There is no magic bullet, there is no single action that's going to make it 'right'. We can however operate in a manner that is honest and irreproachable.

They could start by honoring the UN mandate and only the UN mandate, do not use the UN mandate as a license to take a side in the civil war. The playing field must be the same for everyone, We Must also hold our 'friends' and 'allies' to the same standard of behavior that we hold those that are not our friends.

The west have to clearly spell out as best as possible what they intend to do and how we intend to do it; it might even be good for them to consult with with a representative and not just make unilateral decisions for other people.

Most importantly, they need to stop acting only out of self interest.

nobby
April 13th, 2011, 09:07 PM
There is no magic bullet, there is no single action that's going to make it 'right'. We can however operate in a manner that is honest and irreproachable.

Honest, yes. Irreproachable would be impossible in this case, particularly when some people will use any reason, real or otherwise, to bash the western powers. NTTAWWT


They could start by honoring the UN mandate and only the UN mandate, do not use the UN mandate as a license to take a side in the civil war. The playing field must be the same for everyone

Well, to give the rebel forces an equal playing field, you'd have to provide them with artillery, tanks, planes, and a well trained army, just like their opposition has.


We Must also hold our 'friends' and 'allies' to the same standard of behavior that we hold those that are not our friends.

A noble principle, but easier said than done.


Most importantly, they need to stop acting only out of self interest.

If the US (for example) were only acting only in its own self interest, it would be many billions of dollars cheaper to just sit on the sidelines until there was a clear winner, then back that winner.

samc
April 13th, 2011, 11:56 PM
Well, unfortunately I remember too well the rhetoric that was used to "criticize" western governments and when your contribution resorts to general snide remarks with no offers for solutions whatsoever so far, you are exactly on the level of what I said on my previous post.
I always thought we were beyond this type of school yard reasoning... You have not made one argument in support of your position All you have contributed thus far is some silly name calling and a wild ass supposition about me being communist because I'm not drinking the kool aid...



Who? Of the western states I recall only France actively calling it and I recall the US stalling and dodging the theme as much as they could, pointing out - again, you apparently missed that in my last post - that NO FLY ZONE starts with BOMBING Libya and in any scenario some civilians WILL be killed. They were the ONLY ones having balls to say that out loud.
Are you trying to rewrite history? By the time this issue got to the UN, the British and the Americans were firmly on the wagon, don't forget that it was the Americans who tabled this in the UN.



Weirdly enough the rebel forces are complaining that they are not helping them to win the civil war actively enough for their tastes.
No shit!



Turkey. Perhaps Germany. Germans generally are in no hurry sending their military anywhere after the Second World War. History anyone?
Come on guy try to keep up will ya. Turkey was against the US led coalition forces taking action against Libyan forces and Germany said they would not be sending any troops; two different things, neither of them relevant. Some NATO countries are upset that the coalition has changed its mandate by taking sides in the civil war and are actively going after Libyan troops. When NATO signed on to enforce the no fly zone they were explicit that no such action would be taken.

BRUSSELS - NATO members on March 24 agreed to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya "to protect civilians" but held off military action against troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.



How do you define "wrong"? If Gadhafi imports mercenaries from North Korea and other African countries he has been paying off for some time now and he has effectively in his pocket to kill Libyan people with tanks how do you define which ones of them are right or wrong ones to back?
Since when have North Koreans been fighting in Libya, are you making this shit up dude because neither the BBC or Google know anything about it... A lot of reputable news organizations are not carrying the story about African mercenaries fighting in Libya, and even the sites that mention this story do so cautiously because they have no verification that this is fact.

I define 'wrong' as anyone not right, like criminals for example or religious zealots who want to kill and burn everybody who does not have the same beliefs as them. Protecting civilians is not the same as actively helping the rebel forces; and who are these rebels anyway, do you know?



You think that Afghanistan was because they backed the wrong people? Perhaps it was that when there finally was a country to back they buggered off and left the country where the majority of population was under 25 years old and had NO education whatsoever to their own means and what happened was that ones with the biggest guns won?
There you go again making up shit when history clearly tells us what happened. The Taliban were armed, trained and funded by the US through their Pakistani allies. Ahmad Shah Massoud, the moderate leader of the northern alliance who many claim was the most effective against the Russians was not supported by the CIA. He fought against the Taliban after the Russians left and was eventually executed two days before the terrorist attacks in USA. The killers used a very sophisticated camera/bomb that was clearly not made in Pakistan or Afghanistan...go figure.



My problem is that according to you, there is no action possible for the west to be credible. If the west wouldn't have established the NFZ you would have trashed them for THAT. This is called hypocrisy and I have no time for that.
I get the feeling that you are purposely being obtuse, I have not made the claim you have ascribed to me, (but I think you are well aware of that fact already) go back and read my posts on the matter. You are the only person here who have taken the position that things are either one extreme or another.

samc
April 14th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Honest, yes. Irreproachable would be impossible in this case, particularly when some people will use any reason, real or otherwise, to bash the western powers. NTTAWWT
I like your reasoning here; people will say we're assholes anyway so let's just act like assholes and prove them right. I also like how you guys just ignore all the history and behave as if criticisms are the result of some over active imaginations or just false claims made by commies...sheesh.



Well, to give the rebel forces an equal playing field, you'd have to provide them with artillery, tanks, planes, and a well trained army, just like their opposition has.
This is not the mandate. The mandate is to protect innocent civilians from attacks.



A noble principle, but easier said than done.
It's the right thing to do but it's difficult so maybe we shouldn't even try!?!? How difficult is it to tell the leader of Bahrain that he shouldn't bring Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti soldiers to his country to beat and shoot its unarmed citizens who protest?



If the US (for example) were only acting only in its own self interest, it would be many billions of dollars cheaper to just sit on the sidelines until there was a clear winner, then back that winner.
You didn't really think this through did you? There are people who don't want to be their friend at any cost.

nobby
April 14th, 2011, 01:21 AM
I like your reasoning here; people will say we're assholes anyway so let's just act like assholes and prove them right.

I never said "people will say we're assholes anyway" to begin with. We're not in High School, or at least I'm not. I'm also not sure who "we" are at this point.


I also like how you guys just ignore all the history and behave as if criticisms are the result of some over active imaginations or just false claims made by commies...sheesh.

I "like" the way you seem to think other people are ignorant about history or don't give a damn. I've likely been disgusted and horrified by what my government has done overseas over the years in the name of national security for longer than you have.

Before there was an internet you could go to the public library. There were things about the FBI and the CIA that made my skin crawl.

But, over the years, I've noticed that there is a limit to what one can do. Even if every CIA decision went through me, I'd probably rubber stamp the occasional assassination. Fill me in on the particulars later, I'm kinda busy on my music.

But, the way it actually works is that covert ops has never asked for my permission, and sometimes hasn't had permission from the president or congress for that matter.


This is not the mandate. The mandate is to protect innocent civilians from attacks.

Unfortunately for those of us who like to keep things tidy, it's way too easy to use a broader interpretation of protecting innocent civilians from attacks probably than you might like.

So, if Qaddafi's army is sent to attack innocent civilians, the mandate could be construed as allowing for the destruction of his forces.

Just sayin'.


It's the right thing to do but it's difficult so maybe we shouldn't even try!?!? How difficult is it to tell the leader of Bahrain that he shouldn't bring Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti soldiers to his country to beat and shoot its unarmed citizens who protest?

What makes you think he hasn't been told?

.

Holm
April 14th, 2011, 06:58 AM
I always thought we were beyond this type of school yard reasoning... You have not made one argument in support of your position All you have contributed thus far is some silly name calling and a wild ass supposition about me being communist because I'm not drinking the kool aid...Well as - according to you - I still believe there are WMD in Iraq that's pretty much what you have called for.


Are you trying to rewrite history? By the time this issue got to the UN, the British and the Americans were firmly on the wagon, don't forget that it was the Americans who tabled this in the UN.
By the time it went to the UN there had already been a weeks worth of active seesawing between the NATO countries over the issue. "Are you trying to rewrite history?" - Are you getting your information only from the Libyan State TV?


Some NATO countries are upset that the coalition has changed its mandate by taking sides in the civil war and are actively going after Libyan troops. When NATO signed on to enforce the no fly zone they were explicit that no such action would be taken. I see. Which? I've yet to hear the reports of any such things. Terribly interested to know.


Since when have North Koreans been fighting in Libya, are you making this shit up dude because neither the BBC or Google know anything about it...
Dude, I got it on the early days of the conflict, well before NATO went in and you apparently started to pay attention. It really doesn't matter if the mercenaries are from North Korea or Namibia or Molvania - what matter is that they are imported there with the task of killing Libyans.


A lot of reputable news organizations are not carrying the story about African mercenaries fighting in Libya, and even the sites that mention this story do so cautiously because they have no verification that this is fact.
I really like how you are throwing out phrases like "a lot of reputable news organisations" and "some NATO countries" etc etc, it has a nice ring to it. Wonder, where I've heard that type of rhetoric before? ah, yes. Remember now.


I define 'wrong' as anyone not right, like criminals for example or religious zealots who want to kill and burn everybody who does not have the same beliefs as them.
So the rebels are Al Qaida now? It's good to know, Qadhafi also said such a thing. He also said at one point that if the west is going to pose military action against Libya then he is going to JOIN Al Qaida. Apparently he is about as conflicted as of what the west should be doing as you are.


and who are these rebels anyway, do you know? They apparently have representatives that are traveling the world these days. Saw one on BBC just 2 days ago. No, I don't know any of them personally. - What is your point? We don't know them, so it's best to kill them? Kill them all? It WOULD get rid of the nasty rebel problem, yes. No rebels, no problem, end of "civil war".

I get the feeling that you seem to be against the rebels winning and for Gadhafi winning. Now that is all good and we are free to pick the sides we root for. But I also get the feeling that you are against the rebels because the west seems to be supporting them.


who many claim was the most effective against the Russians Ah that again.


I get the feeling that you are purposely being obtuse, I have not made the claim you have ascribed to me, (but I think you are well aware of that fact already)
I am well aware of the fact that no matter what the west is or is not doing you are here on the next day shitting all over it. If you are critisized in being doing that then apparently the one critisizing you is drinking the Kool Aid and believes there are WMD in Iraq to this day.

Holm
April 14th, 2011, 07:15 AM
There is no magic bullet, there is no single action that's going to make it 'right'. We can however operate in a manner that is honest and irreproachable.

They could start by honoring the UN mandate and only the UN mandate, do not use the UN mandate as a license to take a side in the civil war. The playing field must be the same for everyone, We Must also hold our 'friends' and 'allies' to the same standard of behavior that we hold those that are not our friends.

The west have to clearly spell out as best as possible what they intend to do and how we intend to do it; it might even be good for them to consult with with a representative and not just make unilateral decisions for other people.

Most importantly, they need to stop acting only out of self interest.

Libya. What. Should. The. West. DO?

Right now.

samc
April 14th, 2011, 07:35 AM
Libya. What. Should. The. West. DO?

Right now.

RESPECT THE UN MANDATE!!! STOP TAKING SIDES IN THE CIVIL WAR.

Wide-O
April 14th, 2011, 07:52 AM
RESPECT THE UN MANDATE!!! STOP TAKING SIDES IN THE CIVIL WAR.

They are doing exactly what the UN mandate says. See contact group meeting in Doha yesterday. You know something Ban Ki-Moon doesn't?

Yes, there is machiavellian politics, no doubt about it. There is also no doubt left that the early attacks prevented a mass killing of civilians.

And AFAIK the US has withdrawn their fighter jets a couple of days ago.

samc
April 14th, 2011, 09:31 AM
By the time it went to the UN there had already been a weeks worth of active seesawing between the NATO countries over the issue. "Are you trying to rewrite history?" - Are you getting your information only from the Libyan State TV?
Unlike some people, I didn't start paying attention to events in the Middle East and Africa when this started a couple of months ago and I don't get all my information only from the BBC and CNN reports about this conflict.

Getting all of your knowledge from only news reports does not qualify you to debate this issue at this level, you need a lot of historical and other background info to be able to analyze reports or arguments for yourself.



I see. Which? I've yet to hear the reports of any such things. Terribly interested to know.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-28/world/libya.nato_1_nato-civilians-libya-mission?_s=PM:WORLD



Dude, I got it on the early days of the conflict, well before NATO went in and you apparently started to pay attention. It really doesn't matter if the mercenaries are from North Korea or Namibia or Molvania - what matter is that they are imported there with the task of killing Libyans.
Can you point to one REPUTABLE link that provides evidence of the claim that mercenaries are fighting in Libya?



So the rebels are Al Qaida now? It's good to know, Qadhafi also said such a thing. He also said at one point that if the west is going to pose military action against Libya then he is going to JOIN Al Qaida. Apparently he is about as conflicted as of what the west should be doing as you are.
Who said anything about the rebels being Al Qaida? Why don't you stop making stuff up...



What is your point? We don't know them, so it's best to kill them? Kill them all? It WOULD get rid of the nasty rebel problem, yes. No rebels, no problem, end of "civil war".
At least with Nobby I can have a (somewhat) sensible debate, you on the other hand are just plain silly, who said anything about killing anybody? NATO have no business supporting any side in the civil war!



I get the feeling that you seem to be against the rebels winning and for Gadhafi winning. Now that is all good and we are free to pick the sides we root for. But I also get the feeling that you are against the rebels because the west seems to be supporting them.
You also got the feeling that I am a communist who get my info from PRAVDA...sheesh.



Ah that again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud



I am well aware of the fact that no matter what the west is or is not doing you are here on the next day shitting all over it.
But in your eyes they have never done any wrong, and can do no wrong, everything they do is great...



If you are critisized in being doing that then apparently the one critisizing you is drinking the Kool Aid and believes there are WMD in Iraq to this day.
And this is your problem, you're more concerned with criticizing me than you are about debating the issue.

samc
April 14th, 2011, 09:38 AM
I've likely been disgusted and horrified by what my government has done overseas over the years in the name of national security for longer than you have.
You base this claim on what information pray tell?



But, over the years, I've noticed that there is a limit to what one can do. Even if every CIA decision went through me, I'd probably rubber stamp the occasional assassination. Fill me in on the particulars later, I'm kinda busy on my music.
One would hope that the person charged with giving these approvals would have a higher regard for someone's life...



But, the way it actually works is that covert ops has never asked for my permission, and sometimes hasn't had permission from the president or congress for that matter.
If this is so (and I don't doubt that it is) it needs to change.



What makes you think he hasn't been told?
I haven't heard or read anything to the effect, have you?

Holm
April 14th, 2011, 09:59 AM
Unlike some people, I didn't start paying attention to events in the Middle East and Africa when this started a couple of months ago and I don't get all my information only from the BBC and CNN reports about this conflict.
Again. You are talking about what you are NOT doing. Not that interested in what you are NOT doing or who are you getting your information NOT from.


Getting all of your knowledge from only news reports does not qualify you to debate this issue at this level, you need a lot of historical and other background info to be able to analyze reports or arguments for yourself. And only reciting what anybody should NOT do and where are you NOT getting information from does NOT qualify you into anything. My best guess is that you ARE getting your information from the general word on the street from actual arab people. Nothing wrong about that except it has been said multiple times that the word from the street from actual middle eastern people is very anti west, especially very anti American as this is one of the things that the dictators in the Middle Eastern countries have used to keep themselves in the power.

A funny notion I heard about the situation is that while the people in the middle east generally loathe especially the Americans they also seem to think that they are at the same time omnipotent and at the flick of the switch could make the world go one way or the other. So, funnily enough, the people in the middle eastern countries are actually paying MORE attention to every single word that any western leader is saying at any particular time than the westerners themselves do. Thats mighty ironic.


Can you point to one REPUTABLE link that provides evidence of the claim that mercenaries are fighting in Libya?I've seen respectable sources commenting on the fact many times.

See - I'm arguing just like you now!


Who said anything about the rebels being Al Qaida? Why don't you stop making stuff up... Gadhafi said. You said they are possibly "religious zealots who want to kill and burn everybody who does not have the same beliefs as them."


NATO have no business supporting any side in the civil war! Well, the 1 000 000 people hacked to death by machetes in Rwanda might disagree to you but whatever.


You also got the feeling that I am a communist who get my info from PRAVDA...sheesh. Again, your understanding of what you are reading here is leaving you a bit shortchanged here, no surprise though. I said you USE RHETORIC like the propaganda spewing bulletin famous newspaper used to.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_MassoudSo... this was the fault of Americans exactly how?


But in your eyes they have never done any wrong, and can do no wrong, everything they do is great... Oh really? Nice to know, please kindly sir to point out the passages where I have expressed such opinions. Rather would like to know myself, too.


And this is your problem, you're more concerned with criticizing me than you are about debating the issue.
You are not debating the issue. What ever the action the west is taking about anything you are immediately here shitting all over it. It is a problem that presents multiple choices for possible answers and each of them are really bad in some or other regards. Critisizing every single one of them while offering no opinions for solutions whatsoever is not debating. Your "hold the UN mandate" doesn't really fly because you were against THAT too. It WOULD be nice to hear for once, for a fresh chance what do you happen to be FOR.

samc
April 14th, 2011, 10:07 AM
Your responses are circular, silly and predictable.

I give up, you win!

nobby
April 14th, 2011, 03:42 PM
You didn't really think this through did you? There are people who don't want to be their friend at any cost.

That statement is a bit vague. I can't respond to it unless you clarify it somewhat.


You base this claim on what information pray tell?


I wrote "likely" meaning that it's likely that I'm older than you. If you've been disgusted at certain aspects of US foreign policy before, say, 1970, I'm wrong.



One would hope that the person charged with giving these approvals would have a higher regard for someone's life...


When I said I'd rubber stamp the occasional assassination, I was being facetious.



If this is so (and I don't doubt that it is) it needs to change.

I think there would have to be an end in covert ops for that to happen. Getting congressional approval for every drone flight would take forever and the bad guys (if you believe in the concept) would read about any covert action in Al Jazeera weeks before it happened making the action not covert.




I haven't heard or read anything to the effect, have you?

Like yourself, I'm not privy to what was or wasn't said behind the scenes.

I think the US is asking the government of Bahrain to chill out and they aren't.

You seem to think that the US can simply snap its fingers and the al-Khalifis will just do its bidding. Or else what? Find another place nearby to park the Fifth Fleet?

samc
April 14th, 2011, 08:56 PM
That statement is a bit vague. I can't respond to it unless you clarify it somewhat.
Never mind, its just that sitting back and waiting for the dust to settle is not the most efficient way of gaining control of a countries natural resources...



I wrote "likely" meaning that it's likely that I'm older than you. If you've been disgusted at certain aspects of US foreign policy before, say, 1970, I'm wrong.
Ok...



When I said I'd rubber stamp the occasional assassination, I was being facetious.
I figured that



I think there would have to be an end in covert ops for that to happen. Getting congressional approval for every drone flight would take forever and the bad guys (if you believe in the concept) would read about any covert action in Al Jazeera weeks before it happened making the action not covert.
We are talking about getting approval to summarily KILL people, and as such I would like to take the process out of the hands of some yahoo...



Like yourself, I'm not privy to what was or wasn't said behind the scenes.
Somethings need to be said publicly, as things are it doesn't look like the US, France or the UK don't seem to give a shit about what's happening to the people in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, these are the things that foster credibility for the claims of concern for humanity.



You seem to think that the US can simply snap its fingers and the al-Khalifis will just do its bidding. Or else what? Find another place nearby to park the Fifth Fleet?
I think you underestimate the power of persuasion of the government, I know that the US can twist arms when it wants to, you know the history.

Let me ask you something; are you personally happy with the way this whole situation has been handled thus far? Do you have any questions or concerns about how it's been handled?

If you answer yes to the above, please explain. Just curious...

nobby
April 15th, 2011, 01:06 AM
Never mind, its just that sitting back and waiting for the dust to settle is not the most efficient way of gaining control of a countries natural resources...


Nor is it moral or quick. I only said it was the cheap and self-serving way to go.


We are talking about getting approval to summarily KILL people, and as such I would like to take the process out of the hands of some yahoo...

And I'm saying that having congress micromanage the CIA wouldn't work. Congress works slowly, if at all, and can't keep a secret.



Somethings need to be said publicly, as things are it doesn't look like the US, France or the UK don't seem to give a shit about what's happening to the people in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, these are the things that foster credibility for the claims of concern for humanity.


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration condemned Bahrain's moves Thursday to disband two Shiite opposition groups, urging the ruling Sunni minority to favor pluralism instead.

"We're concerned by it. These were legitimate political societies that were recognized by the government of Bahrain," said State Department spokesman Mark Toner.

"We call on the government of Bahrain to support freedom of association and expression, and to foster an environment that encourages political pluralism and participation."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5itnM_QLLy5ULoJIxsms-YvWzRduA?docId=CNG.9baeed4b77985cc23322a6a1edf5ef6 e.c31


Do you have any questions or concerns about how it's been handled?

None that you can answer, apparently.

Wide-O
April 15th, 2011, 01:50 AM
None that you can answer, apparently.

And none that I can answer either. But it does seem that our "little Napoléon" did save quite a few lives after all. Self-interest? Most probably. But why don't we tell that to the people of Libya?

If anything, it shocks me that so many people already had to die, because of a mad man. (and no, I don't mean Sarkozy...)

Oh, and most of my information comes from one source these days. Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English). As Fisk stated last week, one of the few news sources who actually try to get a message across.

If it was just about "oil", I guess the US should be carpet bombing Canada and Mexico...

nobby
April 15th, 2011, 03:06 AM
If it was just about "oil", I guess the US should be carpet bombing Canada and Mexico...

I don't mean to brag, but 3 years ago I invaded Canadia.

Alone.

I met no armed resistance.

The border girl scouts searched my car, but I guess whatever they were looking for was buried so deeply in cocaine, plastic explosives and surface to air missiles that they eventually gave up.

:Wink:

Wide-O
April 15th, 2011, 03:21 PM
:grin:


I don't mean to brag, but 3 years ago I invaded Canadia.


I'm calling Al Jazeera right now! :Mad:

I'm now wondering how old you are. I was too young to follow US politics in 1970, but I made up reading on it later. Hitchens' book on Kissinger is jaw dropping. That war could have been ended in 1968. Everyone was ready to stop it. Madness. :Sad:

samc
April 15th, 2011, 09:25 PM
But it does seem that our "little Napoléon" did save quite a few lives after all. Self-interest? Most probably. But why don't we tell that to the people of Libya?
You think it's most probable that the French may have some self interest in going the route they have yet it's somehow okay because the action may have saved a few lives (in the short term). How long will this last, and what will be the final result? I fear that we are probably being near sighted and are not looking at the big picture. I just really wish that someone would ask the citizens of Libya what they want...all the people.



If anything, it shocks me that so many people already had to die, because of a mad man. (and no, I don't mean Sarkozy...)
Yes, it's always sad when people are murdered, don't forget though that it was only a few months ago that the very same 'mad man' was in Paris being fêted by the Sarkozy government and all the big business leaders of the country.



If it was just about "oil", I guess the US should be carpet bombing Canada and Mexico...
Of course it's not just about oil, that certainly is a big part of the equation but it's also about telecommunications, water, electricity, transportation and military contracts...

If it's only for humanitarian reasons what is being done about Yemen, Syria and Bahrain?

Wide-O
April 15th, 2011, 11:46 PM
Sam, for the second time today, may I refer you to the 14,900 posts I have on a Dutch Moroccan forum?

Are you teaching me to suck eggs?

I do think your heart is in the right place. But I also think you are extremely out of step here.

Tell me something I did not know already, then we can talk.

Wide-O
April 19th, 2011, 02:15 PM
Hmmm, it looks like it's going to be "boots on the ground" after all.

nobby
August 22nd, 2011, 11:54 AM
Here's hoping the TNC can keep things together and hold elections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/libya-rebels-tripoli_n_932706.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/08/22/libya.aujali.tnc.control.cnn