Slashdot Mirror
UN Intervention Begins In Libya
maliamnon writes "US, French, and British forces began enforcing a UN resolution (1973/2011) to defend civilians in Libya today. French aircraft are attacking tanks, while the US and possibly UK are supporting the operation with cruise missiles from sea."
Update: 03/19 22:34 GMT by T :
Adds reader bloggerkg: "More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, US Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing. The US will conduct a damage assessment of the sites, which include SA-5 missiles and communications facilities. A senior US military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the missiles landed near Misrata and Tripoli, the capital and Gadhafi's stronghold."
FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."
The goal of it is to assist the anti-Qaddafi rebels; they are the 'ground forces'.
Or so it seems based on the resolution.
The people against Bush were against the questionable intelligence of WMDs by the Hussein regime. This UN-sanctioned action is to protect civilians against a violent quelling of a peaceful uprising. Can you see a difference there?
Everything we touch turns to merd'.
And eventually, when it fails, fingers will be pointed at the US as a "world tyrant". We should let the EU handle this one, by themselves. Or the Arab League
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum.. and we're all our of gum.
...is like fucking for virginity!
Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?
The mandate for action and the goal seem clear. Clear the way so the Lybians themselves can march into Tripoli. Much better outcome than having US troops on the ground not knowing who to shoot. Added bonus, we -start- to make a clear break from the ruthless dictators we've supported in the name of the cold war and later the phantom menace, er, I mean the war on terror.
Letting the Q-Man succeed would have been the best thing the West could have done to ensure continued supplies of Libyan oil. They did the one thing that would jeopardize that flow.
Just profit. "Defending civilians" will end killing even more people that did Gaddafi, maybe orders more if we take Irak as an example, but the oil production will get ensured and under more friendly hands.
yep... put that ROI down the drain... (/sarcasm) innocent people are dying... and you are talking about a bad move for oil.... just another typical money blinded capitalist!
Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster who had more blood on his hands than Qaddafi has ever dreamed of.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
You mean like the 16 UN resolutions Saddam ignored? Like the UN inspectors he kicked out of the country? Like when he gassed his own people?
Oh BS. People like you whine when no one goes in to protect civilians and also whine when someone does.
...knock over a ruthless dictator...
We got a plate full of ruthless dictators.. Like my mother said, "Pick the one closest to you".. Is that how it goes? Once again, just like before, you are believing the lies... Incredible... Get it through your head.. We aren't wanted there...
We pull our destroyer up to the dock, "mind if we park here for a few minutes?"
You are deluded as ever if you believe for a second we are helping anybody but the money changers..
I am dismayed and shocked.. You illustrate how little hope there is.. War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Canada is there guys, no really, I saw it on TV.
We're bringing the free beer and good times!
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
And the French don't have cushy oil deals with Gaddafi as they did with Saddam, the real reason Chirac opposed the Iraq War so fervently. There are wars for oil, and there are anti-war movements for oil as well.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I think they mean "NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Libyan military units can slaughter dissidents alone".
the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this? Sure the security council nations have the highest obligation but there's no reason Italy, Netherlands, Greece, South Africa, and a multitude of other nations can't get involved.
Italy is providing naval and air bases as staging points for NATO operations. I think some Canadian and other nation's jets are beginning to be staged out of southern Sicily.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
War is not the solution to everything.. but when an insane dictator starts shooting civilians, you either stand on the sidelines, get some popcorn and cheer, or you pick up a gun and do something about it. -- Added bonus, no occupation means they can thank us for helping without having us hanging around year after bloody year.
Well, Italy is letting the UN forces use their ports and airbases, Denmark and Norway have both sent fighters.
Not to mention that the first planes that went into Libyan airspace were French and British. Oh, and various shared NATO resources, and the french have the Charles de Gaulle parked off the Libyan coast and...
Oh sorry, you wanted to rant about how Amurka(!) is always called upon to play the world police only to be bashed by the world community. Feel free to continue.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Why do they need ground forces? The point is to get gaddafi to leave, not to take over the country. A combination of supplying materiel to the resistance, and eliminating air threat, along with close air support against any heavy equipment they find will hopefully either convince gaddafi to go pitch his tent on Chavez's lawn for the rest of his life, or empower the rebels to take over.
Well, that, and they're paying mercenaries and using special forces to support the rebels. Libya is a country of 6.4 million, only half of whom are adults, and about half the country is allied with the resistance. I'd guess the adult population under gaddafi's control is around 1.5 -2 million people. Not exactly a huge resistance for the combined might of denmark and ireland let alone the US, UK, Canada, France, Italy and anyone else who wants some combat experience for their pilots.
Bush did make the humanitarian case against Hussein as well. In fact, Saddam did gas thousands of his own people. And that questionable intelligence was propagated by every major intel agency in the world, not just the US. Saddam was as ruthless as dictators get. His idea of a fun Saturday night was to break out VHS tapes of dissidents being tortured, with some Jiffy Pop.
I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not. Just as you can't justify a warrant by what you find after the search, you can't impute 20/20 hindsight on probable cause after the search either. Saddam did have like 16 months to cover his tracks before the US invasion. Just sayin'...
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The rebels actually were holding most of the oil fields a few days ago (I'm not sure of the current situation), the biggest worry I heard of from various "experts" was that Ghaddafi would decide to emulate the Iraqis at the end of Desert Storm by attacking the fields from the air...
Also, if all that mattered was the oil then it would've been easier to just let Ghaddafi wipe out the rebels and buy oil from him.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive. Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation -- if it were, we'd invade Africa.
I thought wikileaks exposed the fact that there were indeed wmd in Iraq? Maybe not nukes, but lots of chemical weapons.
http://www.alan.com/2011/03/18/no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-1-2-billion-a-month/ This is going to get very expensive. Luckily, GE can build more missiles and sell them to the government. (Check into how much GE donated to the Dems and how often their CEO gets White House visits. Basically, follow the money).
We surely did not give a flying crap before.
And if we look at how we are doing NOTHING when it is happening in Bahrain or Yemen, it simply makes us hypocrits. Same was with Egypt.
Maybe in Bahrain or in Yemen's case, we were unsure who might come out on top and we did not want to spoil our good relations with the local despots.
Hell in Haiti we even supported the rebels against a democratically elected government with arms and when the rebels took over, we helped them take away everyone's weapons again. (would not want our new puppet Government to fall again)
Fact is, we don't care who is in charge of a country as long as we get what we want.
Are you seriously suggesting that Obama is a pussy because he doesn't blow in all Team America* style? Jumping the gun and leading the charge does not define a non-pussy - it defines a self-important vigilante moron.
[*] - America, FUCK YEAH!
Truth be told, the UN should have done this long ago, when the rebels controlled about three quarters of the country, just after the National Council was formed. At that moment, the Rebels were the legitimate government according to the foundation of international law, and were entitled to protection from Khaddaffi's forces, which were "threatening the territorial integrity of a state with a representative government", which is sacrosanct under the Helsinki Decalogue's fourth point (protection of the territorial integrity of the state).
As it stands now Khaddaffi might have a chance to win if he can crush the opposition fast enough with half the western world pounding his forces to dust, and claim "All Clear" as a basis for ending the intervention...
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
We aren't wanted there? Ask the protesters. They want us there.
What, we aren't wanted there by the Libyan government? The leader who has said he has no problem killing as many people as it takes to retain control over his country? The government that has been gunning down peaceful protests with machine guns (sure, the protests aren't very peaceful now, but that's why)? The government that was sending fighter jets against chants and flags?
When innocent people are being murder by the hundreds and thousands for doing nothing more than speaking their minds...we have a responsibility as human beings to take action to help them. I can agree that military action is not always the best choice. If you have some alternative proposal, I may agree with you 100% after hearing it. But at the moment, I see no other option.
On a related note, it could be said that France wasn't wanted in the American Revolution either. But they got involved. And without their involvement, it is quite likely that the US would not exist as a nation.
Long, long ago, I heard that it was wrong to fight ruthless dictators in oil-rich countries. It was wrong even if the dictator in question had viciously attacked his own people, supported terrorism and harbored terrorists. It was a sure sign of Western racism because the people who lived in that country aren't white. Even the fact that the UN had imposed sanctions against that country, like they have against Libya, was not a mitigating factor.
Dictators in non-white, oil-rich countries should be free to hurt whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, in any manner they want, inside their own country and, using terrorist attacks, in other countries. That's what we learned. But apparently the lessons were forgotten.
Maybe it's because the anti-war protests were mostly phony all along.
They told me if I voted for John McCain that these war policies wouldn't change, that we'd still have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for years, and that the President might even attack other oil-rich countries. And they were right!
US: bankrupt ...
UK: bankrupt
France: close to bankrupt, just not so well known
Belgium: bankrupt country without a government goes to war
Growing economies don't participate in this stupid war.
Germany - No, Brasil - No, India - No, China - No...
So the right of Libyan people to self-determination will be enforced by bombing the heck out of them? Why are you ignoring pro-Gaddafi Libyans? Are they not Libyan? Do they have no right to self-determination?
You got your history turned upside down. The UN agreed with the Afghanistan war in 2001 mission as there was a proper reason for it. Only when Bush extended it to Iraq in 2003 for no reason at all against the will of every country other than the UK (prime minister only, the population was against the war too) and a few paid off votes did the global opinion turn around.
And opening a second front in Iraq and splitting the forces is one of the main reason why Afghanistan turned into the quagmire it is now, so there's no surprise in countries like Spain and Germany wanting to pull out from there after the US fucked that one up.
A while back Hillary was complaining that our propaganda machine paled when compared to "theirs". She's full of it. Al Jazeera could never convince us to go to war three times in ten years as well as CNN and FOX do and have. Nobody, but nobody can beat us in public relations. We rule the world. Neither China or Russia can stop us. No doubt they will expect us to share the plunder, and I'm sure we will to keep the peace.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
> Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation
Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.
Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people. I realize that you think he should just stop doing so because several Important People have used Really Stern Language telling him that he must stop doing so. But (shockingly!) he just keeps on dropping bombs on those civilians, and using artillery to kill them. What part of that are you not actually understanding? Or when say that we're "believing lies," do you mean that the Gaddafi regime's statements about the nature of what they're doing is actually the correct body of information? That all of the international press on the ground - who are sending us video of Gaddafi's aircraft attacking people on the ground - that they're all part of the conspiracy?
And you're calling other people deluded? How much money are you getting from Gaddafi to astroturf on behalf of his regime, anyway? Do tell.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Also, if we wanted oil, they'd be called "Terrorists", not "rebels" or "freedom fighters".
Yes, except that this was a UN resolution.
Wonder what the UN thought about us going into Iraq... oh wait.
Might be easier to swallow if they hadn't sat with their dicks in their hands for what, a week? Two weeks?, letting the murder go on while they were too busy hand-wringing and making cutting remarks about Gadaffi's character.
Bush coalition-building / nation-building = bad
Obama coalition-building / nation-building = good
Wait, what?
So with those two lines you're trying to make Obama's coalition building and Bush's coalition building look similar...
The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.
and then you're criticizing Obama for not building/leading the coalition? Are you claiming that he's building the coalition or not?
Para Bellum!
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster who had more blood on his hands than Qaddafi has ever dreamed of.
That's beside the point - it's not a game of "who is the worst dictator?". If it was, perhaps Idi Amin - who killed hundreds of thousands of his people - would have been deposed. Oddly enough, Gaddafi gave him military support at one time, but Amin died in Saudi (I'm reading this stuff off wikipedia, naturally :)
Of course getting rid of Saddam was good in of itself; but part of the reason why it hasn't gone ... so smoothly since the actual invasion might be that the Iraqis don't feel 'liberated'. This is why the nations attacking Libya at the moment are trying to do it without landing troops. Well, except us British, who sent a diplomat with some special forces as protection, and got chucked out of the country again. Leading to the classic quote from one of the rebels "Why didn't they ask us? There is a proper way to do these things...".
The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.
I really don't think the states needs to flash the size of its dick again quite so soon. If it's going to be done, it should be done right, and welllll, America doesn't exactly have the best reputation for taking charge and doing it right at the moment.
Just to note, I'm in the UK and to be honest I'd say the same for our country right now. Also, I recommend you actually read the quick analysis on the bbc website. The most important phrases in the analysis I feel are this:
Crucially it excludes any "foreign occupation force" in sweeping terms. This is a message to the Arab world - this is not another Iraq.
and this:
[] a final settlement to the crisis in Libya must be political and reached by the parties to the conflict themselves
This is not the same as what Bush did. Libya UN Resolution 1973: Text analysed
Who need's speling and grammar?
So because we didn't do anything in the past, we should never do anything in the present or future? We (the United States) are not allowed to admit we made a mistake in Iraq and try to fix that mistake by stopping our unilateral regime-change actions and instead joining a UN action against Gaddafi? That it is the French and US providing the forces does not change that it is a UN mission.
With the amount of guidance those missiles have and the intel that goes into targeting them, coupled with them being smarter than the people who push their buttons, I'd say a very long time indeed...
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Wow. Political, military, and historical ignorance plus a gratuitous anti-French slur all in four lines! (Not counting whitespace.) You must have worked really hard to pack that much small-mindedness into such a short post. Um, congratulations, I guess.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It's one thing to slaughter your civilians using guns and light tanks, it's completely another to use artillery and bombers to destroy cities with heavy resistance movements.
The reason we're helping in Libya and not in the other countries is because the other countries aren't so blatantly anti-civilian. When you have to use your MILITARY to keep people under control, it's no longer a matter of people disagreeing with your government, it's a matter of you holding them hostage. Imagine if instead of getting mugged on the street, the mugger simply took office and demanded everyone's money or he'd order the military to napalm the city.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.
Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We aren't wanted there? Ask the protesters. They want us there.
Depends on when you ask.
At the beginning, they didn't want us there (March 2nd). Of course, once the government started using tanks, fighters, etc. the opinions kinda changed...
the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this?
That's just what I could quickly dredge up from BBC News
Pirate Party UK
You destroy someone's tanks and fighters today. Next week you sell them new tanks and fighters. Profits and Chaos are the byproducts of the transaction.
Sorry for the flippant answer. I am sure that whoever replaced Halliburton in controlling the current administration did an analysis that showed deployment of ground troops was not necessary to generate obscene profits.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
And in favor of the even more ruthless regimes that will likely follow...
There was never a good choice. Hopefully it will turn out that this was at least the least bad option. Things are starting to get pretty hot everywhere, though. I hope Tunisia won't turn out to be the Archduke Ferdinand of our generation.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
No, they do not have the right to have a vicious tyrant that kills his own people out of shear paranoia.
Like when he gassed his own people?
... which happened at a time when the US considered him our best buddy in the Middle East and enthusiastically supported his regime because he was fighting Big Bad Iran, yeah. Like that.
There was really one and only one point when the US and our allies had both the moral authority and the military opportunity to do in Iraq what we're currently doing (or at least starting to do) in Libya: at the end of Desert Storm, when we had the largest allied military force assembled since WW2 waiting just across the border in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and a genuine popular uprising took place against Hussein's battered but still powerful army. Instead, we stood back and let the rebels get slaughtered. As one of the people who would have been fighting that war, having just done my part in fighting the last war (you know, the one that we won) I can't decide to this day if I wish we'd gone in or not. But I have no reservations in saying that doing what we did instead -- letting the serious internal opposition get wiped out, maintaining sanctions and a no-fly zone for over a decade with the inevitable hardening of national will, and then going to war over something that had nothing to do with Iraq or Hussein at all -- was unmitigated stupidity.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"Oil"
Yeah, that Qaddafi guy is just trying to do what is best for his people. HE should be the one to profit from the oil. You know, as a reward!
Seriously, I don't know what the French motivation is, and I don't know what the British motivation is. Perhaps they are just being good humanists? Perhaps they are just letting the emotion of the "Arab Spring" get to them. Perhaps they want to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Americans have their backs, and even the Arab League is in. Whatever the motivation, the result is good, for most definitions of the word "good".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Does (in theory) an edict from the UN security council ordering a conflict to end override the chain of command within a sovereign nation? I realize its a messy and imperfect world (and we were possibly within hours of a catastrophic massacre) but I've never been a fan of the medieval idea that in the great game of diplomacy, you kill pawns to influence the mind of a king.
The difference actually is that Obama isn't after the oil in Libya...
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
War is the solution to nothing for you people. Delusional.
Yeah, maybe the next gov't will be worse... It's easy to make doomsday predictions, much harder to back them up. Iraq and Afghanistan have free elections, they got corruption and profiteering, but no dictatorship so far. Egypt is voting on changing their constitution or throwing it out and starting over... There's big things afoot, and no way will the people-power that has produced these changes go away. *** From now on, the governments will fear the people, not the other way around.
This just tells you who we are rooting for, not what we want. It's like NASCAR, sure you say you like fast cars and Tony Stewart, but you really want to see crashes.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Perhaps then the problem is that we never hear about this in the news stories.
That's about 5-7 years of NPR funding right there.
While I can't really disagree with you since Egypt and Tunisia aren't major oil players it should be noted their protests were mostly without military action and wouldn't have warranted UN intervention in any case.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
For the fourth time since Vietnam, I am living through the exact same scenario as your responses show today. It is truly astounding.. Hitchcock couldn't dream this up.. Maybe some science fiction writers have, I don't know. But what I see here is getting to be spooky.
We are sticking our nose in there to ensure we have a pro western regime in place. It is why we are repressing protests in Bahrain. The protesters there are too friendly with Iran. And we need the parking space. We aren't there to help anybody but ourselves to whatever they might have.
Please, it was eight short years ago when they pulled this. Why is everybody so fast to fall for the same ruse again?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The rebels were doing pretty well until Gaddafi brought his air force out.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
You may not have noticed, but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya. A dictator was mowing down his own people. The UN getting involved isn't starting a war, it's preventing someone almost universally regarded as evil from winning. "War" is not the solution - involvement is. If the Arab League and NATO aren't welcome, the people dancing in the streets have a funny way of protesting.
Personally, I'm quite selfish and would have been perfectly content to just sit this one out. But since we're involved now, I hope that Qaddafi recognizing futility when he sees it and doesn't get his whole military killed.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But Libya doesn't have that much oil, only about 1% of world production. I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq, but in this case there is a home grown up rising that needs some help. If all we do is destroy Libyan military forces that are murdering civilians, but otherwise leave the revolution to the locals I support this action.
Anarchists never rule
Iraq was a unilateral American war, trying to single handedly force democracy on a country whether they want it or not..
Libya actions are air support for a popular democratic uprising.
Just because both countries are Arabs, does not make the military action the same thing.
Either way, nobody is under the illusion that war in Libya results in more oil.
Perhaps then the problem is that we never hear about this in the news stories.
In the UK, at least, the government have been very careful to highlight the broad international consensus for and involvement in the action against Gaddafi, and the media here also seem to have been emphasising the cooperation from other countries.
However, it's only natural that people want to hear how their country is helping out, so there have also been quite a lot of interest stories on the news here about the particular British units that are involved.
Pirate Party UK
The Charles de Gualle Aircraft carrier has yet to leave port. It's expected to depart later this week. The French do have a few cruisers and other assets in the area but no aircraft carrier. French planes are using ground based launch platforms.
Unlike the US the French do no have their single aircraft carrier deployed except in times of conflict. At all other times it remains in port.
> Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation
Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.
Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.
It doesn't matter who they are or how they feel. They are "organization men". They are true believers in the top-down approach. This is nice when you want to run an assembly line. It is not nice when you want to fix a broken nation by reviving a broken people. That isn't something you can dictate at the top. Even if you remove the tyrant from power you still aren't fixing the shit conditions that allow one to take power in the first place. Apparently we learned nothing from the Third Reich - conditions in a nation have to get pretty desperate before the average person thinks that a power-drunk madman starts making sense.
All the good intentions in the world won't fix a broken approach. The fact that the very worst kinds of people are attracted to positions of fame, power, and prominence on the world stage just greatly compounds the problem.
Yes wars cost a lot of money. That's why the corporate powers behind the military-industrial-complex love them so much. Someone has to build all the planes and ships that are going to get destroyed. Yes wars cost a lot of lives, but the wealthy elite and the politically connected never have to send their sons or their daughters overseas to die in some third-world shithole. Occasionally the children of the elite gain a conscience against all training provided by their parents, like in the case of a certain European prince, but this is an extreme rarity. One would think that the leadership voting for the war would set the example by manditorily sending their sons to fight, but what's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. War is okay when it's the poor and the lower middle classes who fight and die.
Honestly the only thing I am thankful for in the whole mess is that so many youth are brainwashed into accepting patriotism that they volunteer. If not for that there might be a draft. That'd be bad news for me, as I am not a murderer so I refuse to go invade some sovereign nation that is no threat to us and go kill people who are guilty of no crime other than fighting a foreign invader. If a foreign army WITHOUT PROVOCATION marched on US soil you wouldn't need a draft and wouldn't even need a military to convince me to resist them. That's the difference.
Let the people of Libya sort this one out on their own. They outnumber their leaders several hundred thousand to one. I for one am tired of the US and its allies having their noses in everyone else's business. If things were going perfect for the US I would say maybe I can understand it. But we got too many of our own problems to go around playing world police and the effort to do it is only making us lots of enemies. A little isolationism is a great idea right about now, along with a repealing of NAFTA.
In the face of all this, how well I personally know the rank-and-file clerical workers and bureaucratic administrators at the U.N. is a petty, trifling non-issue. Thank you very much.
At the beginning, they didn't want us there (March 2nd). [presstv.ir] Of course, once the government started using tanks, fighters, etc. the opinions kinda changed...
Well yea, the entire argument for us being there is based on the government using tanks, fighters, etc. to gun down innocent (and some not so innocent I suppose) people. On March 2nd, I too would have been saying that we have no business getting involved. Things have changed.
I respectfully disagree. I believe the decision is based in large part upon whether intervention stands a substantial, realistic chance to do any good. Military intervention in places like Somalia would accomplish nothing productive; it's been tried. There often is no central government oppressing and attacking people, it's dozens (or more) bands of irregulars, led by warlords working mostly from drug money, fighting each other and taking the opportunity for the occasional tribal massacre. In some cases there *is* a central government oppressing and murdering people, but the alternative would be another Somalia.
In the case of Libya, it seems clear that the citizenry wants the current regime out, and the current regime is willing to kill a substantial percentage of the population to hold onto power. It's also a fair bet that, once the smoke clears, Libyans will be willing and able to establish a new government and bring things back to some semblance of normalcy.
If the decision were based solely upon maintaining a cheap oil supply, we could just as easily help crazy-ass dictators like Gaddafi restore order and suppress the rebellion, in exchange for a few price and production promises.
I agree mostly with this, reduce our army of conquerors, keep our national guard, and only use our forces as part of UN actions. I would agree with it even more if the UN Security Council wasn't broken as designed, but that's an issue for another day.
What in the world made you think that gtall disagrees with assisting the rebels? Nothing in his post indicated that.
If anything I think he was trying to suggest that the U.S. decision to intervene wasn't motivated by a desire for oil.
The Charles de Gualle Aircraft carrier has yet to leave port. It's expected to depart later this week. The French do have a few cruisers and other assets in the area but no aircraft carrier. French planes are using ground based launch platforms.
Huh, I've read on at least a couple of news websites that the Charles de Gaulle arrived either today or yesterday. Well, I suppose low accuracy is hardly surprising when it comes to the news media...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.
Well yeah, kinda
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
When the hell did the left pick up this crazy interventionism? There are dozens of dictators that murder their own people, sometimes with far more efficiency than Qaddafi. North Korea does mass public executions in statiums. Russia deliberately targets hospitals. Dictators exist, and trying to overthrow all of them is both impossible and idiotic.
Bullshit. The Libyans can't throw out Qaddafi and his supporters without help. They have air and land superiority ... fighter jets, tanks, and a well-organized and disciplined infantry. I have also heard reports that Qaddafi's forces have attacked the rebels with chemical gas, although this may not be true.
The rebels are mostly civilians and their best weapons are RPGs. Their leader is an IT worker with no military experience. They were losing ground, too, with the Libyan military approaching the rebellion's stronghold. If captured, they would likely be slaughtered.
As someone who opposed both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I think these cruise missiles were well-spent.
To me it seems like there's a pro-Gaddafi majority that's suppressing an insurgency in the distant provinces. The same exact thing that would happen here if Texas decided to secede from the Union all of a sudden.
Maybe this is for the best, but I have a queasy feeling about how it's going to turn out.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That's dead simple - supporting people against another genocide bound despot willing to kill his own people to retain his money and power.
By remotely hitting air defence systems (radars, missile launchers) they make it safer to later fly over Libya to attack government ground forces.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.
Sorry, Slashdot's HTML parser doesn't allow the <joke> tag.
I'm genuinely pleased to see so many European nations working together on this, including the French. I am a little concerned about Sarkozy's grandstanding, but truth be told, the UN resolution couldn't have been obtained without the French, and as far as I can tell, France (not the UK or USA) is the linchpin of the military coalition that's being assembled.
Pirate Party UK
I understand that. But the moral high horse still stumbles a bit when you consider the damage said air forces did between the request and the OK.
Sadly, the resolution says no such thing. The resolution merely seeks to stop the fighting. If Gadhafi isn't a moron, he will stop fighting shortly and negotiate with the goal of keeping all the territory he is occupying right now. This would keep him in power indefinitely and keep the $billions of oil money flowing into his Swiss bank accounts. The dithering UN bureaucrats are indeed stupid enough to go along with this. If he is stupid enough to fight the coalition, this will lead to his demise.
The US never admits it made a mistake. Instead, it changes its plan and claims the new plan is what they meant to do all along. "They have terrible weapons of mass destruction and aided the 9/11 terrorists! Wait, we can't prove that? Err, we meant to liberate them all along, Saddam was a bad guy (even though we taught him everything he knew), yeah, go team go!"
If the US was willing to admit when it makes a policy error, the War on (some) Drugs would have ended at least 30 years ago. Or it would have never been started in the first place and we'd have never pretended that the lesson learned from Prohibition can only apply to ethanol.
I don't think the point was that we should never change our course of action when it's the prudent thing to do. I think the point was, we never seem to use foresight. We will let something build up for decades, during which time it would be a relatively small issue resolved with relative ease, until it becomes a crisis. When there is an insurrection someplace, or all-out war, or something else that's smack-you-in-the-face undeniable, then we say A CRISIS, WE MUST DO SOMETHING! in typical reactionary politician mode. If we paid half that amount of attention to the conditions that cause crises in the first place I think we'd have a McDonalds on Alpha Centauri by now.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive. Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation -- if it were, we'd invade Africa.
Troll or geography lesson - you be the judge.
Let the people of Libya sort this one out on their own. They outnumber their leaders several hundred thousand to one.
What are even several hundred thousand, or millions, of civilians going to do against just a few tanks and bombers? You can't defeat a bomber by dog piling it.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?
It's very important to keep in mind that this is not Iraq.
First of all, the revolution was sparked by the people, and fought by the people before the UN intervention. In the present case, the UN is in fact offering military SUPPORT, not a full-scale military intervention and is not starting anything.
Second, one major problem with Iraq is the huge amount of civilian casualties, estimated at 100k. Whether they were killed by the Taliban, lack of medicine* or American troops doesn't matter: the war killed them, without the war they would have lived, and the war was started by the USA.
In Libya, the war is already started so it's definitely not the UN's fault if people die indirectly as a result. The UN is indeed trying to reduce the damage that will occur.
*The stats actually do not include people who died indirectly from the war, such as lack of medical treatment for injuries/diseases not caused by the war or lack of food.
Third, the UN must stick to offering military support where needed and nothing else. Air strikes on military assets are efficient - they are accurate and do not require a presence on the ground. Jets and bombers can take off from nearby countries, drop bombs on very specific military assets in Libya, then go back to where they came from. No territorial occupation, no troops spending too much time among the population (which can put the population at extra risk by drawing enemy fire or causing troops to mistake civilians for enemies). On top of that, when foreign troops are on the ground the local population may feel "invaded" even if troops are on their side, so at least air strikes avoid this and the population feels like they're leading the fight.
The Libyans must be in control or else they will resent the UN and things will not get better. Basically, the UN must offer the required help but needs also to keep their involvement to a minimum. Most of all, the UN must make sure that Libyans are happy about their help. If at any point the Libyans want to UN to leave them alone, the UN must back off not matter what help the UN believes it could provide. The moment the UN takes control, we're headed for another Iraq.
Fourth: Mistakes will happen. A bomb might hit civilian assets by mistake and kill innocent people.
This is a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan because when it happens we point the finger to the USA and say "It wouldn't have happened if you hadn't started this mess".
But if the Libyans started the revolution, if they asked for the help of the UN or at least approved of it and if the UN takes extra care to avoid errors, then the UN can't be blamed for mistakes. What I'm saying here is not that the UN must cowardly put all the responsibility on someone else. But it's important that the Libyans do not come to hate the UN's involvement or else the new government will be anti-democracy and anti-Western World. It's important that the Libyans see that the Western World is a friend and the UN must be a genuine friend.
Fifth: the USA should not have gotten involved in this. The USA have a terrible image in the Middle-East, Africa and pretty much all third-world and all Islamic countries. This is unlikely to improve the image of the USA, instead it's much more likely to make Libyans think "If the USA is involved, the UN's help might be a bad thing after all". This just makes it easier for terrorists and religious fanatics to gain support from the population and take power.
I can't believe the US government was that stupid. And frankly, I'm actually wondering if the USA really are involved because they want to help the Libyans. I'm suspecting they can't be that stupid and did this on purpose to serve whatever new megalomaniac secret plan the CIA/White House/DoD came up with.
I won't say the USA should back out, it's too late anyway, the harm is done. The UN intervention has been tainted with the mark of conquest by the USA now.
Sixth: the UN must back out once their role of offering military support is done. They have to let the Libyans choose the
The "No blood for oil" mantra came from opposition to the first Gulf War (when Iraq invaded Kuwait), which had a UN resolution authorizing it.
I know that RTFA'ing is not well received around here, but in this case reading the second one would be a good thing.
First of all, the resolution only gives the different countries permission to defend civilians, not to depose Gaddafi.
Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity... ...
Analysis: These first two highlighted sections emphasise that this is all about defending the civilian population in Libya from attacks by its own government. One of the conditions for action set out by Nato countries has been "a demonstrable need" to intervene.
1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
Analysis: The overriding stated aim is to halt the fighting and to achieve a ceasefire. It does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi though one can assume that this is what the countries promoting this resolution would like. Many of their leaders have said so quite explicitly.
Also, other countries are barred from putting in occupation forces and so on. Current attacks seem to be aimed at anti-air defenses so their forces can start enforcing a no-fly zone without having their planes shot down.
They'll probably target sites shelling other cities and so on.
And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian?
Was there an uprising going on in Iraq when the invasion began? No, was all about the weapons of mass destruction and how they wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors access to the places where those WMDs were stored. Of course, that wasn't helped by the fact that there were no WMDs and that the "evidence" of their existence was doubted by other countries from the beginning. It turns out the French were right.
In this case, there IS a violent uprising going on. I think that it is right to go in now, and that it was right to wait and see how things would progress before taking action. If it had turned out that the popular support in Libia was enough for the military personnel to turn against their leader then having the UN come charging in would have done more damaged that it cured. It may have galvanized support for Gaddafi if people considered an outside military action to be an invasion.
What are even several hundred thousand, or millions, of civilians going to do against just a few tanks and bombers?
You obviously haven't heard of Afghanistan, huh? 9 years and counting...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They're called rebels and freedom fighters because we will sell them weapons on credit, in exchange for oil.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive
If oil were the motivation here, Western powers would be fully committed to support Gaddafi, like they do with the regime in Saudi Arabia.
Canada: Lots of air assets (not clear what yet)
I believe they are farting in that general direction.
Seriously, I don't know what the French motivation is,
Payback from Chad. Also, are you Americans going to continue to make surrender jokes now? "It may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend's folly" -- JRR Tolkien. France and the US did not agree on Iraq, but how about now? Want some French Fries again?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sure does look like you may need professional help with your paranoia. Please, post what you like, nobody is in your way.
o_O
The google news pages should be covered with protests, and I hear crickets...
I'm sure you could get some of your supporters to make those protests. Oh, you have no supporters? How sad.
They did the one thing that would jeopardize that flow.
Coincidentally, jeopardizing the flow of oil also causes the price to go up. "Q-Man's" income takes a hit, BP takes a hit on its Libyan investments, but makes it up with the overall price increase?
Just speculating.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Meh, I think it's a bad idea but Khaddafi has had it coming for a long time. I remember Lockerbie. There's nothing like celebrating the death of innocent people on a transatlantic flight for making others remember you. I was scheduled to fly across the Atlantic on Pan Am a week after the tragedy. It could just as easily have been me. I'm sorry for the Lybians who will die, however. On both sides. My understanding is that the "rebellion" is not exactly run by "nice people" either.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The interpretation of the resolution by NATO (as described by Obama) does not merely require him to stop fighting - it also requires him to withdraw from the number of positions previously held by rebels that he had overrun in the last few days. Yes, it wouldn't kick him out of power, but it would still mean liberation for a large chunk of the country.
The difference is that the people there are actually having a revolution there.
It may be surprising, but people can manage to live pretty well under a dictator. For many people a dictator doesn't mean that much in practice. They still go on with living their lives, and it generally works OK even without freedom of speech or justice. If you remove a dictator in a place like that a lot of people won't be sure where to go next. So chaos is near guaranteed.
Now where there is an outright civil war it's different. It's clear the people want somebody else in the ruling position and that they will fight to get there. And that they have some sort of plan for when they do that. Of course it's not a guarantee, but the chances of something good coming out of that is much higher.
We got a plate full of ruthless dictators..
But we don't have a plate full of armed uprisings. In Libya, there is one going on right now. With our air support, it may win. Without it, there will be slaughter.
If there shall be an armed uprising in Iran or DPRK, I sure as hell hope we'll do the same for them - then and there. For now, there's nothing to be done that can help (ground invasion wouldn't).
Iraq had an outright civil war in 1991. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed during the war, and thousands more executed afterwards. Should the US have intervened?
You conveniently remember Vietnam, but why do you forget Korea?
I think the problem here is the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilians by pro-Gaddafi forces, which is a crime against humanity.
Because people stopped caring about politics. They're too busy surfing for porn or playing with their video game consoles or watching their big-screen TV's. Nowadays the masses get their politics in a can - abortion/no abortion. Gay rights/No gay rights. Don't Ask Don't Tell. Republican vs Democrat. It's become a chant, a litany, and nothing more. Actually sitting down and thinking about the world is only done by those very few of us who are much smarter than the rest. And of THAT group, a good chunk have decided to run things for themselves - with the results you see today. The rest of us see the world as an academic exercise among countless other academic exercises.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya.
Oh come on - you know that at the end of the day all of this is going to get blamed on Julian Assange and Wikileaks...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Crimes against humanity on a large scale, thoroughly documented with mountains of evidence?
UN resolution giving a go-ahead for military intervention? Check.
Multi-national action with no dominance by US forces (heck, it's spearheaded by France!)? Check.
Precise point air and missile strikes on military targets, with no occupation and takeover? Check.
Sounds like legitimate military action to enforce peace to me. What does it have to do with the illegal, unilateral ground invasion of Iraq, under falsified pretext, and in defiance of world popular opinion, by US forces under Bush command?
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys: pretty much their entire navy and air force
A drunk guy in a dingy and another guy throwing paper airplanes ?
Well hell ! Why didn't I protest the Moors conquest of Spain? No wait.. I should should've been there protesting the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah.. Fuck man! I shoulda slapped that apple out of Eve's hand, and we could've avoided the whole thing...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You mean like the 16 UN resolutions Saddam ignored? Like the UN inspectors he kicked out of the country? Like when he gassed his own people?
Sadly when Saddam was gassing his own people, we were all looking the other way. Other countries have ignore UN resolutions, UN resolutions rely on 5 countries agreeing, it is not neccessarily the will of the majority.
I think we should have removed Saddam with desert storm but - as usual it seems - politics won the day and stopped the war before the job was finished. The argument that it would have fractured the alliance and the west would be busy running Iraq (according to Bush and Cheney) are, in my opinion, rather flimsy.
I was and still am against the second war in Iraq. The people are a lot worse off, fundamentalists have moved in, Iran is sitting in the box seat regarding influence there and the country is rife with corruption (I know - pot, meet kettle). An invasion of a country justifies military intervention (Iraq and Kuwait) - Purported possession of "WMDs" does not (imo).
Regarding Gadaffi, I believe removing the dictator is long overdue but I hope we (the west - or any other "interested party" for that matter) are not busy selecting who the winner of their "free and fair" election is.
BM3
Tanks, and especially the bombers, have a logistics chain stretching halfway to Mars. Interdiction of that chain at any point will blunt the tip of the spear.
You figure it out.
And a shitload of empty desert that can be used to harvest solar power.
But more importantly - Libya is right smack in the middle of the shortest route for transportation of electricity from North Africa to Europe.
Electricity should start flowing from North Africa to Europe by 2020. By 2050, North African and European renewable sources should provide 100% of EU and NA power needs.
Transported by HVDC transformers like the ones Siemens built for China along the link like the one Abengoa Group will build for Brazil.
Abengoa Group will also build the Solana Generating Station in Arizona - to the tune of 2 billion dollars.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?
How come we're not bombing Yemen and Bahrain, who are also using force against their uprisings? Or Saudi Arabia, for lending a hand in Bahrain?
Where were we during the genocides in sub-Saharan Africa? Or when Saddam was gassing his own people, or when he started a war with Iran that got ~900,000 people killed?
Maybe this intervention is a good thing, but let's don't pretend our intervention policy is based on noble motives. We're more likely to jump in bed with a murderous dictator than to bomb him.
Hell, we're even content to let our own people suffer a lack of basic health care, to keep the insurance companies' stock prices high. If we're motivated by humanitarin concerns, we should start by bombing ourselves.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Did you miss the part where French fighter planes were in the first strike wave? And that Brits are also launching cruise missiles alongside US?
Interesting. When did manufacturers start using biological processing units? And are they faster/more efficient than a generic electronic CPU or an FPGA?
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.
Letting France rather than US lead it is to show the world that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation. US does not have a lot of credibility in that area after Iraq. This isn't to say that US shouldn't participate - it just should not look like US alone is in charge.
Tried this once. Remember Somalia?
Military humanitarian interventions when aligned with economic interests seem to be pragmatic in comparison.
And this is a truly internationally sanctioned intervention quite different from the (incredibly stupid) Iraq war of aggression.
The goal is to reduce Gaddafi's military capabilities and assets to a point that allows the rebels to survive and hopefully regroup.
Anyone with half a clue knows the french military has been potent for centuries. There's a reason they're a permanent member of the security council. Them getting rolled in WWII was embarrassing but then, then it took the combined might of how many countries to finally bring the germans down? Lets not pretend they were defeated by a bunch of amateurs with slingshots. America was pretty seriously unprepared for WWII when it broke out and took a couple of years of building up the army to be able to credibly challenge germany. It's easier to mock other countries for being conquered when you've got enough natural defense (read:ocean and size) to make invasion impractical.
That said, the jokes are hilarious. Which is why they exist. :P
Also, are you Americans going to continue to make surrender jokes now?
Based on my purely anecdotal perusal of my Facebook news feed, the current joke is along the lines of, "Awwwwww, look at France trying to get all tough."
Breakfast served all day!
Two questions:
1. How do you know it's indiscriminate? I mean other than from what they tell you on TV?
2. How is NATO bombing any more "discriminate"? You can't hit 112 targets and not hurt any civilians.
3. Why not just let Gaddafi re-establish law and order in the country?
I fully support the military action in Libya, because nothing short of that is going to stop mass murder of civilian population that is perpetrated by Gaddafi forces in rebelling parts of the country. Good for them that they've acted swiftly enough, too (one month sounds like a lot, but when it comes to world diplomacy it is remarkably fast).
However, I'm afraid that UN forces will make the same mistake that NATO did in Bosnia and especially Kosovo - acting as peacekeepers in name, but picking a side and sticking with it in reality. In Kosovo this was most prominent - when Serbs were burning down mosques, killing Albanians and driving them out into Albanian, NATO was quick to intervene. But when Serbian army and paramilitaries withdrew, and the only force remaining in the province was KLA, the latter started burning down churches, killing Serbs, and driving them out into Serbia - and KFOR stood aside and watched.
Now, if the rebels prevail, I don't think anyone is going to shed tears if the "colonel" hangs, trial or no trial. But the sides in this civil war are largely arranged around tribal identity - Qadhadfa vs the rest of them. We say that the rebels are "pro-West", but so was KLA, by their own words - which did not stop them to partake in genocide themselves when they had the upper hand. So if the rebels win, and start massacring Qadhadfa - would the West also intervene militarily to stop that? Somehow, I doubt it, which is too bad, and would discredit the whole operation. I hope I'm wrong.
You're right... it doesn't work like that... here is how it works:
Popular uprising begins in a country, popular uprising controls half the country. Dictator starts rolling over the people who have formed their own democratic government, UN drops a no fly zone over dictator and starts bombing the crap out of their military resources so the rebels can continue to free themselves.
It works a lot better like that than it did the Neo-Con way which wasted over a trillion dollars and over ten thousand lives of US service members.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell here. Time-wise Korea and Vietnam were far closer to each other than they are away from us. And Korea is clearly a far better analogy, as it is also a UN-sanctioned military operation where many countries - not just US - participated towards a well-defined goal. The result is that 50 million people live today in a free democratic country, and not in a Stalinist dictatorship.
We got a plate full of ruthless dictators.
And Qaddafi is among the worst, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years or so. The biggest difference between Qaddafi and the bulk of the other despots is that he actively wages war against his perceived enemies in the rest of world, rather than just talking about it.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
When the hell did the left pick up this crazy interventionism?
Wow, that's some nice revisionism. So a sitting Republican president has never authorized military intervention, huh? Fascinating.
Breakfast served all day!
I don't know how much you know about Islam. I don't know much about it myself, but to call it objectively "worse" is just blatant arrogance, (I'll let more articulate people argue the finer points of that) and what I have seen is the Christians overtly invading three sovereign countries over the last ten years, and have killed hundreds of thousands of people, yes, that's right, hundreds of thousands.. Covert operations are.. well.. covert.. So we don't know about all the adventures we're on. So let's play the numbers game shall we? How many people have the Islamists killed over the last.. 60 years, let's say.. how about 63 years to be a bit more precise?
You've had it too good to even remotely understand.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The protesters in China did not control half the country.
At this point neither of these despotic regimes have lost whole cities that they subsequently attacked with air raids and heavy armored infantry.
On the other hand your point is well taken. These evil regimes are of strategic and paramount economic interest to the Western world. A civil war in Saudi Arabia is a sure way to bring the world economy to a screeching halt. Unfortunately the totally corrupt House of Saud shows no signs to move towards meaningful reform. At this point there is no reason to expect this to end well.
The Republicans have, absolutely, and they were (properly) criticized heavily for it. That dichotomy is when a Democratic President takes office and does what is effectively the same thing and gets near-universal praise for it.
you are a fucking idiot if you can't see the difference between a colonial intervention (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and a supportive intervention where the rebels want democracy, have fought hard and made huge gains on their own and with a little air support, can topple their despot on their own and get to work setting up their own government on their own terms.
. War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
So if the US had intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide there, you'd be against that war too? When, in your worldview, is war justified. Please enlighten us.
Are you seriously suggesting you don't know why the US got involved there?
Pretty much can be summed up in three words: Charles de Gaulle. The entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is just a cheap shot and did not originate during WW2 as far as I can tell. I happened later after the cold war was underway due to policy set by France and de Gaulle. First, de Gaulle thought that NATO didn't have what it took to win the cold war and the heartless Soviets would win the day, so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way. Two, France was in a big hissy to prove that they were a world power and could do anything the US could while Britain was just a US puppet and only had importance because they rode on the US coattails. They insulted Great Britain a lot, tried to throw their weight around, and did things like unilateral nuclear testing after everybody else had agreed on a ban. All of this after the Allies had freed France and given it back to the people because it was expected that we'd all be friends. It was pretty much felt as a big betrayal, so the surrender remarks are the cheap shot that is easy to make without having to actually get into real issues.
How do you know it's indiscriminate? I mean other than from what they tell you on TV?
Firing artillery at residential city blocks is kinda indiscriminate by definition. If you want to see an example of what it looks afterwards, have a look at the photos of Grozny circa 1995 or 2000.
Last I checked, Gaddafi did not deny that he's using artillery in his attempt to take over Benghazi (and other rebel cities).
How is NATO bombing any more "discriminate"? You can't hit 112 targets and not hurt any civilians.
Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.
Of course this depends on what will actually be done. NATO was also claiming to be using precision munitions in Kosovo, but they have classified railroad bridges and TV stations as "military targets" and bombed them (in one case, hitting a civilian train as it was crossing a bridge). That kind of thing is a war crime no less than what Gaddafi is doing. So far, however, the talk has been only about 1) shooting down planes, 2) hitting individual artillery and armor units, and 3) bombing army bases and munition depots. If they stick to that plan, it's good enough, and civilian deaths would be minimal.
Why not just let Gaddafi re-establish law and order in the country?
Because he said, in a public and televised speech, that "those who do not love me do not deserve to live", and so far has been consistently implementing that. Consequently, the only "law and order" he can possibly reestablish is the kind where dissenters are massacred en masse.
you still aren't fixing the shit conditions that allow one to take power in the first place.
Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that the people are ready for change! Maybe a mass uprising or something...
we got too many of our own problems to go around playing world police.
That's why we have several people, in several places, each doing their own jobs. The Department of Labor doesn't give a damn about Libya. Likewise, the Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now. Government is a part of society, which is a group of people who have realized that people can work together, each doing their own jobs, to accomplish many things at once.
Do you also expect the President to not sleep tonight, because some kid in Oregon broke his leg?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we should have rolled into Baghdad in '91 since we had a popular movement of rebels that could have take control of the country once we finished off Sadam's military which would have been easy since they were far more loyal and far more convention, making the war more like the conventional war that we had practiced for since the start of the cold war.
Protecting civilians means also protecting armed rebels? I'm surprised no one spotted this.
Do the words "legitimate self defense" mean anything to you? Or do you think those civilians should let Gaddafi kill them and go get their quota of virgins in Paradise?
I submit the Lockerbie bombing
Finally there is an opening to get back at Gaddafi.
This war effort makes for some strange allies because Gaddafi managed to sorely piss off so many factions. Interesting find at Juan Cole's blog:
Have you ever heard of any other military intervention where the US was aligned with Hezbollah?
You forgot to mention that not only did Hussein not comply with UN mandates with regards to chemical weapons (even though he wasn't developing them), but was actively spreading rumors and leaking information that he was to his neighboring countries so that he could still use fear of them as a stick. This is why every country was for the invasion of Iraq or at least silent except for France and Germany. Hussein was playing the bully and got bear down for it. He could probably still be in power if he had just let inspectors inspect and fail to find the things he didn't have anyway.
BTW, guess what two countries oil companies were pumping and selling Hussein's oil and making lots of money? France and Germany.
It is no where near the same thing as what Bush did. The only similarity is that the Military was used in Iraq and it is being used here.
The political and social conditions in the country are completely different. Our level and type of involvement is completely different. Our on going involvement will be relegated to a supporting role in 3-5 days.
This is more like Kosovo than Iraq.
Take the black and white glasses off. High contrast reduces the detail.
There's a lot of posters from the USA here that like to pretend they got their country on their own without French help and instead have a myth about some civilians with rusty muskets freezing in the woods and then winning a country on their own. The French (and the trained military on the US side) are the flies in the ointment of that myth so people that hold it HATE to be reminded of it and have ended up hating the French.
Also the French response to US demands on any issue (eg. don't grow hemp) is generally a rude hand gesture. There's also the "we saved your ass in WWII so bow down to us" attitude and the French respond once again with a rude hand gesture. I suppose the last thing is the experience of US tourists in France that generally go to Paris. Apparently people in Paris really hate tourists and make that very clear.
The rational for the Iraq war that was initially pushed was "weapons of mass destructions". Humanitarian arguments were mostly introduced after the fact to see what would stick to sell the war.
All this is well documented.
Nice try though.
And if we look at how we are doing NOTHING when it is happening in Bahrain or Yemen, it simply makes us hypocrits
Yes, we should help no one just to be consistent. Great proposal.
I've seen video of Libyan freedom fighters taking on a roof-top sniper with rocks.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Its a popular myth that prohibition was a failure. While its cannot be denied that it created economic conditions that helped finance organized crime which became a major social problem; prohibition had a number of effects most would characterize as positive. Also its modern myth that the repeal movement was primarily motivated by the desire to curb organized crime, the major factor was probably the need for tax revenue during the depreciation, which incidentally was the driver for the recent failed legalization efforts for cannabis in California my how things never change..
* Domestic violence and killings declined vastly during prohibition
So victims of alcohol related crimes were no longer so often innocent women and children drunk men came home to but willing participants in speakeasies. Some would say that was more just.
* Alcohol related illness had become very common and also declined during prohibition
In fact the level of per capita consumption did not return to what it had been until the mid sixties.
I am not advocating for prohibition I think peoples personal freedoms to put any substance(any at all) into their own body should not be infringed. I reach that conclusion being aware of the facts knowing there are consequences, others should too. We should all
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The only thing keeping those people alive in Afghanistan is America is too squeamish to murder them all...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The war was in progress, and tweaking the result to benefit the EU and US is reasonable.
War is how humans resolve disputes. There is no Good, no Bad, only Temporary Advantage and Disadvantage just as in Nature.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
the Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now.
Actually the DoD has unfilled positions, go talk to a recruiter about employment possibilities.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It will be hard to find anybody as surreal and deranged as Qaddafi.
If Texas decided to secede from the Union peacefully, and the USA responded by bombing the civilians, I would for sure support an intervention if there was a chance of success, like there is in Libya.
Why is it right for the West to poke their noses into another country, YET again.
Some military personnel turned against their leader. This isn't Egypt where it was a popular revolution.
This is a minority, attacking standing government and fighting a losing battle. The standing government does not want to let rebels win and doing all they can to preserve their rule. Any other sovereignty would do the same (though with differing views on excessive). This is a standing government that the West doesn't like so they want to topple it, just like Cuba.
This is just as bad as any other invasion.
And this is vindication to every single terrorist organization out there for defending themselves to extreme measures in the face of Western invasion. They don't have the power to fight against a big bully head on so they are fighting for their very lives any which way they can.
"It is why we are repressing protests in Bahrain."
WE? The rulers of that kingdom and their buddies next door have the controls on that adventure.
Just another schismatic squabble between superstitionists, so why not side with the more useful superstitionists?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Gadhafi already called for a ceasefire Friday before the deadline, to talk things about with the rebels.
This isn't a peace talk. This is the West imposing their will on the Middle East again.
You mean like we are doing in Jordan?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
No point in fights where one gains nothing.
The current idea that the only acceptable non-existential wars must be Moral Jihads to be acceptable makes for some interesting diplomatic acrobatics, and has the effect of making them into mini-Crusades.
Utilitarian war makes sense. Jihad, not so much.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Or a bunch of rebels trying to overthrow a standing government.
The difference between domestic terrorist and honored revolutionary? Popularity and success.
The US has their own rebels, maybe the rest of the world should overthrow the Tyrant US government?
The result is that 50 million people live today in a free democratic country...
Oh? What country is that?
Korea wasn't about Korea. It was about China. The benefits that the South enjoys are entirely ancillary, and it provides a nice showcase for your "free" market economic system, but please, don't call it free and democratic. If we cared about Korea, it would be unified. I would say that war was just as corrupt as all the others.
The other thing is that I merely brought up the wars being fought during my lifetime so far. It appears we'll be in for many more. The empire needs braaains...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I'll only address point 1:
The reporters from all the agencies that I know, including Al-jazeera, BBC, etc. plus some (at leas apparently) independent twitter accounts reported indiscriminate attacks on civil population. It could either be a world-wide conspiracy or it could just be the true. With no facts supporting the first hypothesis, I'll rather believe the latter.
Just to pick from your list two of the worst offenders:
Zimbabwe and Myanmar
If there was an opening to topple these regimes it'll be criminal neglect on any Western government to not pursue the opportunity.
Just because stupid US neo-cons have given humanitarian intervention a bad name doesn't mean there aren't times when they are required and successful. Just asked the people of Sarajevo how they feel about it.
The interesting thing to note is that the US ans UK were ready to immediate launch those cruise missles. Apparently we already had full intelligence and a list of targets just waiting. I suspect we have a list of target for most countries and it's just a matter of giving the word for the subs/ship to get in position and fire away.
Another day. Same thing.
An invasion of a country justifies military intervention (Iraq and Kuwait)
Well, the funny thing with this one is how it was apparently almost green-lit... (love how cabkle leaks (quite interesting, this one) seem to be used now among sources for such ;> )
One that hath name thou can not otter
Korea wasn't about Korea. It was about China.
No, it was about what China was trying to do to Korea. For a start.
If we cared about Korea, it would be unified
Specifiy how you would make that happen without the use of force or economic calamity (vis-a-vis China). Be very specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
UN security council decisions take time. This is a flaw in the system but moving in without a solid resolution and support from the Arab league would have introduced serious risks of additional blow-back.
At any rate as far as UN security resolutions go this one came at lighting speed. Really seems to illustrate that the euros are much better at this diplomacy thing.
I am still surprised the Chines let it pass. After all they went Qaddafi on their own people not too long ago.
Yes, that strategy worked wonders for North/South Korea, Central American wars, North/South Vietnam, Nationalist(Taiwan)/Communist China among others. You have any idea how much blood was spilled? Plus there are still unresolved conflicts in those areas with the exception of Vietnam. The way the Central American wars was finally over was with a group of neutral countries getting everybody to sit around in a table to negotiate a truce, the same way it was done in Ireland, they way the government pacified the guerrillas in the 1960s here in my country (Venezuela) as opposed to what happened in Colombia, and my point is that violence rarely stops violence when it comes to state affairs. Dialogue on the other hand is rather uncool, boring and slow, but in the end it actually gets the job done. There are two outcomes that I see happening in Lybia, either the country will be split in two or the coalition will somehow try to fetch Gadaffi to try him in court the same way they did with Milosevic.
That would have been the time to do it.
But the diplomatic framework needed to be in place as well. I.e. an additional UN security council decision. That's were things fell apart. A shame really. It would have been the golden opportunity to remove Saddam from power without looking like crazy crusaders to the Islamic world. Would have saved the US so much in blood and money.
Hahahahaha
*wipes a tear from his eyes from laughter*
Next you'll tell me Obama fulfilled his promises from 2008 and pulled out of Iraq in a year.
If the perpetrators sit in the UN security council it is very hard to get a resolution against them.
Probably would have gone much better, yeah. Also the idea of liberation would have made a lot more sense back then.
Look at Iraq now, just who is the US fighting at the moment? Saddam's army? It's long gone. So who are you liberating and from who now?
OK, how about Bosnia then?
The situation is bad but it is not our conflict. If there is an issue between a couple in your neighborhood you don't become involved, even if you know that they are causing a lot of grief to each other. Civil war is one of the worst forms of warfare, but when the US was fighting itself, no one had the right to intervene in favor of the north or the south, and you can say that the government was killing rebels in that case. Using humanitarian reasons is ambiguous in this case since it is a selective use of justice. Just like many posters have said, that will give grounds to start invasions in Yemen and Bahrain right away based on recent events. I personally would not like to see a UN with the authority to be the world police. The French and Chileans were able to topple equally corrupt and dictatorial governments, with France having to deal with all the other monarchic countries going against her, so don't tell me that self-determination of the population does not work, no matter the odds. Mess with enough people enough, and even something as mighty as the Soviet Union will fall under its own weight.
FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."
Great, who's going to protect the civilians from the UN using "all necessary measures" in Libya?
"It's okay that we killed these people, it's for the greater good. Really."
20 years down the road, Whomever the leader we put in charge is going to be Public Enemy #1.
Be seeing you...
I have to agree with the last poster. This war is actually "legal" if you will, even if I don't buy it's based on humanitarian reasons. Iraq is a whole different story. The US is a well respected international player so it really needs to abide to this type of procedures, as opposed to what Bush did. Now if you want everybody to think you are a rogue/cowboy country, then by all means go ahead and invade at will.
FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."
Who's going to protect the cililians from the UN forces?
And, 20 years down the road, whomever we put into office in Libya, how do we know they aren't going to be the big enemy? Seems like that's what has happened all the times before.
Be seeing you...
And that 50 million people live in the brink of war everyday. In fact they haven't signed peace just an armistice. Well done there. Look up what the Contadora group did in Central America and then maybe we can talk about something far more productive than sending Marines somewhere.
you obviously have no clue about the geography of the two countries. afghanistan is impossible for anyone to hold (remember the soviets going in? no, of course you don't, because dumb septics like you have no clue about history - oh but you've rushed to wikipedia now to pretend you knew all along, prick) because of its geography. you can bomb all you like but fighting guerilla wars in inhospitable mountain territory against men who know the area perfectly is basically impossible. it's like city warfare except you can't simply shell the shit out of the mountains like you can buildings.
libya, on the other hand, is relatively flat and most of the important areas and cities are right on the coast. a few hundred thousand civilians can go against tanks, and they can get wiped out.
or hey, this might penetrate your pig-fucking-thick mind. you obviously haven't heard of the somme? a few hundred thousand men going up against just a few machine guns. the final score? a few hundred thousand men: nil. machine guns: a few hundred thousand.
idiot. fuck off back to your basement and stay out of world politics because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Well the Canadians just showed to the fight in goalie pads. All of Canada is in rage after Gaddafi was quoted saying " Hockey is for pussies".
What part of Civil War you do not understand? Let me put it easy for you: I T I S N O T O U R P R O B L E M. People were killing each other in the US in 1861 and no one had the right to intervene in favor of the government (North) or the rebels (South). Going there for humanitarian reasons is a bunch of BS, call it what it is, removing somebody that was hated by us from power to impose a friendly government. I actually have no problem with that but of course that doesn't sell well, it's the hypocrisy of the situation that gets to my bones.
Want some French Fries again?
I think what pissed off Americans was this close ally deciding to get all idealistic over Saddam freakin' Hussein. There were about 1000 reasons to knock the guy over, and while Bush was a dick and France was probably right, you are supposed to have your friend's backs. Especially after the US was dragged into the Balkans kicking and screaming. France is all warlike now for whatever reason, and so the US has their back. My cynical side says that we just can't stand to sit out a good war :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well lets see the non-neocon way just shot off a hundred BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at US$569,000 a pop so that's working out to almost 57 million a day in ammo!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's obvious we, the United States, want to rule everything. We are trying to force out copyright laws on other countries, we are the "police" force of the world, etc.
It's time we stop playing around and get on our real agenda.
What's that? Total world domination, of course.
We ain't ever leaving Iraq, soon we'll be running Libya. We almost had Eygpt.
You think I'm kidding or trolling? Watch.
The corporation will push congress to stay in those countries because without our force, we can't protect copyright laws.
All I can say is: Libya, do this on your own, or your future will not change. Meet the new boss, just as fucked up as the old boss.
Be seeing you...
UN: Uhh, House of Saud, we think we should invade you.
HoS: Who is your daddy?
The reason the Iraqis do not feel liberated is because now they must attempt to run a country which is still fighting the same civil war started in 632 when Muhammad bit the dust. It has nothing to do with how they were liberated from Saddam, what matters is they were liberated to resume killing each other over dusty bones from a probable late stage schizophrenic who heard voices and somehow presumed it to be the arch-Angel Gabriel. Allah, being all powerful, is also all *other* and does not interact with this world. However, a little known escape hatch allows his angels to do the communication in his stead....very tidy...one might even say, predictable...and I'm not even a prophet...errr...not to my knowledge, at least not according to voices in my head....
Muhammad, being a good little petty dictator with a messiah complex (Q-Man, take note), "predicted" he was the last prophet. All very neat if you want to be known as the Big Cheese long after you've given up the ghost. And Muslims have been killing each other over his legacy ever since, which is somewhat surprising given that it is peaceful religion...as long as you are Muslim....the right kind of Muslim, that is.
The reason the West is not landing troops is because the West doesn't have the balls left to take out a ruthless dictator. It has nothing to do with somehow preserving a sense of allowing the Libyans to have their own personal revolution. One should recognize a weenie when one sees one, and Europe has been weenies for so long no one expects any more of them. So they can comfortably hide behind their years of weenieness and do nothing more than shoot a few cruise missiles and fly a few French planes around to act like they somehow have balls again. They don't have the military muscle left to do anymore than that because they've spent too long hiding behind American power. The best thing the U.S. could do is pull out of NATO and tell Europe we simply do not care anymore about their sanctimonious asses.
Gadahi/Kadaffy/Qaddafi/whatever did say he declared a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Libyan tanks continued to roll into Benghazi to "disarm to protesters".
cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt
Yep, they were a big help during WWII. There's another notion of being neutral, that of being morally bankrupt.
Korea was a bargaining chip. We would have given up the whole damn place for the right price. Why else would we allow what happened happen?
So here we are, "saving" Libya.. Why aren't saving the whole continent? It's a mess. It's because we don't give shit about Libya. We want what they have. We need to close the deal. And this is more for France and Italy than us specifically. They have some big weapons deals they don't want to lose. BP just signed a contract recently. They would like to recoup some money from the gulf thing.
We have no credibility. We have no right to meddle. Summer reruns appeared to have started early. Different actors, same script. And the participating audience remembered its lines perfectly. Comic to a degree - Tragedy without end..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Indeed that'll be silly.
It is a good day when economic interests, international diplomacy and noble motives align once in a while.
This seems to be one of those rare occasions. (The last time we had such a constellation was the campaign to stop the Serbian incursion into Bosnia).
The Libyans weren't trying to secede peacefully. They were trying to overthrow Gaddafi by force. Protests of late have been very violent. The difference? Egypt had popular revolution force backed by the military. Libyans? No. Minority.
"A minority attacking a standing government"? It was a mass uprising against an incredibly brutal regime who they knew would gun them down (but they did it anyway), an uprising that nearly took the entire country before Gadaffi got his largely mercenary army back together and started shelling entire cities to take them back from the people. "Some military personnel"? This was largely a civilian revolt (which is the main reason they're so poorly trained; they have lots of equipment but don't know how to use it effectively; it took them over a week to figure out how to get their first airplane off the ground, and it got shot down the next day).
Baghdad Bob, is that you?
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
That is easy. We were right behind him, supporting him both economical and militarily.. Not that that was a good thing, but the west definitely intervened.
You do realize that both the UN and the Arab League requested the intervention, right? The Secretary of State was very clear that we wouldn't barge in without the international community's approval. And, I have yet to hear any talk directly of how this is in any way our best interest. Which wasn't the case previously.
This isn't Iraq or Vietnam, we've got a clear objective and one that is relatively straightforward to understand. When it's over we'll be able to assess whether or not it was a success, which hasn't always been the case in the past.
The UN isn't referring to the Libyan people as "cockroaches" and ordering their military to go on a door-to-door "cleansing".
We're not going to put anyone in charge. We're not going to have anyone on the ground. What we will be doing (ostensibly purely as a side effect, although almost certainly by intent) is clearing the path for the rebels to do what they will. Which will almost certainly be the creation of a democracy (however flawed of one).
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Yes, I'm aware of the possibility that the US said "go to it" (and the slant drilling practices employed by Kuwait) but my attitude is an invasion is an invasion regardless of who says it's fine by me. The US does not have the jurisdiction to decide such things - they may have the power to enforce things either way but trust them at your own peril, the primary interest of the US is the US.
BM3
Yeah, some ceasefire when you keep bombing and shelling cities.
You seriously take this guy at his word? After all the absurd stuff about al-Qaeda and people hopped up on hallucinatory drugs (with the videos of prescription pain killers taken from a hospital as "evidence"), in between the talks of a "cleansing"?
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Have you ever heard of any other military intervention where the US was aligned with Hezbollah?
LOL, yeah, you know you are a real asshole when you have those two coming at you at the same time :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They were also rolled rather badly in the Franco-Prussian War in the 19th century.
And others.
Note, for reference, that the reason for the French jokes about WW2 is that the French (plus the British Expedionary Force) was defeated by an Army that was smaller than the French Army and that had fewer tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, and aircraft.
Note that during the susequent invasion of the USSR, the Soviets were also pounded by an Army that was smaller, had fewer tanks and aircraft (can't say that the Soviets had more trucks - we had to ship them hundreds of thousands of trucks in the war).
AS to your question, the answer is three. The USSR, the UK, and the USA. The USSR did most of the dying (and arguably most of the killing), and the USA provided most of the material used by all three.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You forgot Canada.
You don't think that happened in Iraq too?
Gadhafi already called for a ceasefire Friday before the deadline, to talk things about with the rebels.
This isn't a peace talk. This is the West imposing their will on the Middle East again.
First Gaddafi broke his own "cease fire".
As for who is imposing their will, it appears that Gaddafi imposing his will on the African country he has ruled for 41 years. Strange that you would support a dictator. I guess you may have a case if the dictator had stayed in power by winning free and open elections for over 40 years, but that's not even the case here. It's not like the population is laying flowers down at his feet. There is an open rebellion going on over there.
So, again, it doesn't seem like it's the west imposing their will. It looks to me like the west is trying to remove the people out from under the oppressive rule of a dictator.
Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong here.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You are joking, right? Estimated cost of the war in Iraq is $2.4 trillion, in total, by the time we are exited fully from the country. Spending a few hundred million on ammo to wipe out Qadaffi's air capabilities is less than a hundredth of a percent of what we will have spent on the War in Iraq. I mean, in Iraq the *rounding errors* are measured in billions, so this doesn't even qualify for rounding error.
Ghaddafi still has more loyalist. But why should he let his own loyalist die when he can hire mercenaries to defend them against insurgents.
My comment on some military was a comparison with Egypt's military support and the fewer that is neither helping the rebels nor staying on Ghaddafi's side.
And I'm from Massachusetts and sick and tired of the Westerners imposing their will upon the Middle East at the expense of our own people.
Weapons inspectors have been Iraq up until the last war started.
To quote from wikipedia:
To compare this truly international effort with regards to Libya with the war of aggression against Iraq is nothing but convenient revisionism.
No I don't trust this Ghaddaffi, but if there are ties to terrorism, than I feel it's vindicated with the Westerns constant encroachment into the Middle East's sovereignty. The US 'armed' the al-Qaeda they are fighting now. The US has seeded unrest and discourse in the Middle East for generations. If they fight back, it's out of necessity against a larger force and they fight back the only way they can, striking at civilians till the civilians stop their own military.
I also don't trust the rebel forces. If I was the rebel, and I wanted to push for a fight. And the other side called a ceasefire. I would break the ceasefire and blame the "tyrant" and keep the fight going. The rebels aren't to be trusted either.
Or maybe they just need to sell ads.
Here's an account from a Russian dude on the ground who says Al Jazeera is greatly overdramatizing the situation (translated): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Foleg-shein.livejournal.com%2F286597.html
Seems to me like the situation is nowhere near as bad as the media tell you it is.
The reason is simple - this time international law has been followed and things were done properly.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
France never withdrew from NATO (only from the unified command structure). To quote wikipedia:
France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2045354&cid=35546816 regarding why I don't trust either side about what happened to the cease fire. Could have just as easily been the rebels.
And as the West imposing their will. It's the West's thought that dictatorship is wrong. Not everyone opposes to not being in a democratically elected country. It's the West's will that everyone must have democratic elected government. Not everyone in Libya is backing the rebels, or it would be going more along the lines of Egypt.
Open rebellion doesn't mean they're right. Lots of countries have open rebellion and civil wars. It's not the place of outsiders with no vested interest to interfere. This is a civil war and the West will regret AGAIN with interfering with another country, time and time again.
My best example is how much Al quada loves the US after the US went into their country and armed Al quada.
Fair point. Please allow me to rephrase:
The Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now, unless you aren't otherwise occupied and are willing to do whatever task it is that they do care about, but generally speaking they will not take notice of your employment status unless they are interested in you for other reasons.
Doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
As a Zimbabwean I know that nobody's going to "misdirect" one of those 110 tomahawks a bit further south to sort out our problem but I do know that Mugabe considered Gadaffi an ally and has received help from Lybia. It is also clear that Bob has reacted to the situation in the middle east - i.e. he has felt the cold fear that bullies feel when they realise that they are more alone and beginning to stick out.
So from us Southern Africans to the rest of you - we don't have any aeroplanes to send but we are with you in spirit. Kick G's hairy arse as thoroughly as you can for us please. One day when we have sorted out our own home we will be able to help you like we did in WWI and WWII.
Regards,
Tim
This is all just my personal opinion.
"you people"....who you callin' you people?
The Soviets weren't and they were there a long time as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
knocking over that one we were just sending billions of dollars ? Does that mean anything to your patriotism-spewing brain?
What we will be doing (ostensibly purely as a side effect, although almost certainly by intent) is clearing the path for the rebels to do what they will. Which will almost certainly be the creation of a democracy (however flawed of one).
I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.
Who are these rebels, and why does anybody think they'll create a democracy, or anything other than a dictatorship just as brutal as Ghaddafi's, if not more brutal?
If it was about securing access to oil then the security council would be backing Gadafi. The other African despots are not dropping bombs on their own people, so a no fly-zone over them would be kinda pointless.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Every million dollar missile has been "paid for already". We need targets so we can make more missiles, which creates more jobs. (by we, I mean USA). I could be wrong though.
Most (not all) of the nations that you mention are far cries from what Libya is doing. Cuba is opening up; it may be at a creakingly slow pace for most, but it is happening. Zimbabwe has seemed to be on the tipping point of reform for a few years now, though it never quite seems to happen. Ivory Coast looked like it might be on the right path until the recent election, the results of which were deemed to be free and fair by international observers, was contested by the incumbent president, who refuses to step down. UN boots are on the ground in DR Congo, totaling some 18,000 uniformed personnel. Over time, the group has gone from a monitoring and observation mission to one taking a more active role in the protection of civilians.
In some of the other cases, you have to pick your fights. The world is, in general, not in a shape to launch an attack on either Iran or North Korea. Opposition elements can be supported, but the costs of a full-scale war in either case is beyond what we can reasonably sustain on an optional basis. Iran, at least, has a chance of getting a reform in place; it may look unthinkable, but the chances of an overthrow in Tunisia and Egypt were generally deemed zero just a year ago. There are horrible situations happening in many countries, but you do what you can, where you can. It may not make many people--or even the majority--happy, but even combined, the world does not have the resources to topple all of the dictators at once.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."
I heard a lecture by a military ethicist who said that according to U.S. military studies, about half the fatalities in any large military action are innocent civilians, and that's a reasonable standard for collateral damage.
True?
And why should I believe this guy over everybody else? Al-jazeera, BBC, and even the individuals using tweeter might have a hidden agenda, but this guy is a Member of the State Duma of Russia, and a declared Marxist revolutionary. That's pretty much as non-neutral as you can get.
To be fair, France isn't that far from Libya. Assuming 20knots/hr it could be there relatively fast.
Just ask Napoleon, whose occupation of Spain lead to the invention of modern guerrilla warfare.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's dead simple - supporting people against another genocide bound despot willing to kill his own people to retain his money and power.
Who are these rebels, what do they stand for, and how do we know they won't be even worse than Ghadaffi?
I often wonder why guys like you so readily become the mouthpieces of monsters like Gaddafi. Is it stupidity or cowardice?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not only that but Obama wanted to avoid the accusations that Bush had got nailed with about unwanted American-centric interventions. Clinton was beating the pavement big time to get a coalition not just of the usual NATO suspects but also some Arab countries, not to mention convincing China and Russia to abstain (which, when you really look at it, particularly so far as China is concerned, is a major sea change in international relations). I'd say, despite the appearances of taking a week or two too long, this is a pretty substantial foreign policy victory for Obama, actually constructing a wide-based coalition to take on Gaddafi.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1994, almost a million civilians butchered, and the UN just stood by and wrote angry letters! useless, in the face of great evil
if qaddafi retakes the entire country, you tell me, in honesty and intelligence, what a man of qaddafi's nature is going to do to those who defied him
you tell the world how to respond, if not with war, then with what, so we do not see another rwanda. i like to wake up in the morning thinking i'm a good person. i can't do that if i witnessed a murder, or a rape, and did nothing to prevent it or call the police. the same with the world, or anyone else with a human conscience, aware of what is going in libya right now
do you consider yourself a person with a conscience? i really wonder. about people who are so averse to war they will not even engage in it to prevent genocides
taking a human life is a very bad thing. taking a human life that is about to take the lives of many innocents is an unfortunate, but necessary thing
those whose only opinion on war is "never" must be people with very little understanding of reality or human nature. of course war is necessary some times: wake the fuck up. and of course it is unfortunate, at all times. please grow up. if you continue to think war is always something that can be avoided, you're just foolish about human nature and the reality of the world you live in. get out of your damn ivory tower of ignorance and try to understand reality, or please stop making pronouncements from on yonder tower, sealed off from reality, as if an opinion formed in a vacuum apart from the reality of humanity is supposed to mean anything. your empty headed platitudes about war are useless
and of course, people will hear the words i just wrote, and accuse me of being a warmonger. *sigh* completely deaf, completely dumb
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Now where there is an outright civil war it's different. It's clear the people want somebody else in the ruling position and that they will fight to get there. And that they have some sort of plan for when they do that. Of course it's not a guarantee, but the chances of something good coming out of that is much higher.
Who are these rebels and what reason do you have to think that they'll be any better than Ghadaffi?
When the hell did the left pick up this crazy interventionism?
If you consider Obama to be on the "left," then you don't have any idea of what the left is about in this country.
Or if you consider Kennedy and Johnson, who got us bogged down in the Vietnam war, to be on the "left," then you don't have any idea of what the left was about for the last 50 years.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow, you are a perfect throwback, word for word. I'm awestruck. This is so amazing to see such an accurate reenactment of times long past. Memories suddenly rushing back. And the sudden realization that our protests went unheard then like they do now. You will create every pretense possible. You are incapable of saying "no" to war.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
On the face of it you are a complete moron.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
There's a pro-Gaddafi military and a bunch of hired mercenaries suppressing an insurgency. The majority of Libyans in Gaddafi-controlled territory are keeping their bloody heads down.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most intelligence agencies, were convinced Saddam had WMD's or was trying to get them. There were also Al Qaeda links, and of course is attempts to buy yellowcake from Niger. Whether or not they thought he was worth deposing over it was another matter.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?
Why should they be? Bahrain and Saudi Arabian military are not shooting up Libyan towns, or towns anywhere else either. You might as well ask why "they" aren't demanding the bombardment of Belgian or Canadian military either.
At some point, the demand for punitive response has to be appropriate to the provocation or it's meaningless equivocation.
And you are incapable of seeing when it is necessary. You live in a cocoon of privilege and liberty, and will jealously guard it from the oppressed, convincing yourself that their continued misery makes you more moral, not less.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's not the place of outsiders with no vested interest to interfere
Ahhh, but the United States and Europe certainly do have a vested interest there. Libya, like many other Arab countries, has oil that is vital to the continued functioning of the global economy. The Arab league has also had quite enough of Gadhafi and his pan-Arabic socialist bullcrap; it undermines their authority and it's bad for business. This is what happens when a dictator makes too many enemies and not enough friends. The world has had enough of Gadhafi and it would be in just about everyone's best interests to see Gadhafi hanging at the end of a rope. He is a relic of the past that nobody needs and nobody wants.
You can't defeat a bomber by dog piling it.
A bomber isn't really that useful for crowd control, unless it's dropping nukes. The tank really is the more serious problem, but even then, you can take out its infrastructure. A tank without gas is near useless. A bomber without gas is useless.
You don't have a clue my friend how I live. I can assure you it's not inside your walled garden. And I have seen the other end of your big stick. It is you who are of the privileged who thinks he knows what's best for others. Teddy Roosevelt "caring for" the Filipinos. You are NOT wanted. GTFO!
Shame on all of you
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
My best example is how much Al quada loves the US after the US went into their country and armed Al quada.
The US armed the Mujaheddin that grew into the Western Alliance, not Al Qaeda. The Western Alliance was the non-bat-shit crazy group of terrorists half that was fighting for control of Afghanistan for 30 or so years. The other half was the Taliban. Guess which side we abandoned after the Soviets left Afghanistan? Guess which side we jumped in and started helping after 9-11.
Oh, and the Western Alliance has loved America since we provided them Stinger missiles to counter the Soviet Hind-D. This was well known by Al Qaeda and the Taliban as well. They assassinated the leader of the Western Alliance with a car bomb within days of 9-11. Many believe the two operations were closely related.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
People were killing each other in the US in 1861 and no one had the right to intervene
At the time nobody much wanted to. War can be quite profitable, especially when you can sell supplies to both sides.
Going there for humanitarian reasons is a bunch of BS, call it what it is, removing somebody that was hated by us from power to impose a friendly government.
Obama and others have said precisely that. Gadhafi has to go. The humanitarian part is that we get him out by force before we have another pol-pot style killing fields on our hands. I don't think that the coalition currently bombing Libya has been coy about their objectives. They want Gadhafi out, that much has been made abundantly clear.
I actually have no problem with that but of course that doesn't sell well, it's the hypocrisy of the situation that gets to my bones.
What hypocrisy? The world gave Gadhafi an ultimatum and we followed through when he dared to call our bluff. Now the cards are on the table for everyone to see and Gadhafi has clearly lost.
Amen. Sometimes I wonder if the "peace at any price" crowd actually lives on the same planet; they are in desperate need of a reality check here.
This is not about your petty domestic infighting, it's international politics. The US is receiving "near-universal praise" because this time US policy actually matches it's rehtoric. Respecting UN procedure is as democratic as international politics gets, the "Bush doctrine" is the exact opposite and basically states the US will do whatever it wants regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ghaddafi still has more loyalist.
I'm going to have to ask for proof that there are more Gaddafi loyalists fighting for Gaddafi than against him. Otherwise this claim just sounds total, 100%, completely outrageous to me.
My comment on some military was a comparison with Egypt's military support and the fewer that is neither helping the rebels nor staying on Ghaddafi's side.
And I'm from Massachusetts and sick and tired of the Westerners imposing their will upon the Middle East at the expense of our own people.
Ok, I'm willing to be dictator of Massachusetts for life. We can't have our people miss out. You'll probably miss out, having been reprocessed for basic materials in the Great Glue Shortage of 2015, but I'm sure the few shattered survivors will have a renewed appreciation for democracy when it's over.
We could also start doing what's right.
"We must kill Gaddafi's children. The first ritual sacrifice was the daughter...
That's some fucked-up shit, man.
Gaddafi is nothing if not a congenital liar, and this case was hardly any different. He claimed that his "adopted daughter" was killed in the 1986 bombing of Libya, but this was later shown to be nothing more than propaganda.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
First, off, re. history: the US never armed al-Qaeda. The US armed the Mujahadeen. A very small fraction of the Mujahadeen ended up forming al-Qaeda after the war, with the overwhelming majority of the al-Qaeda membership coming from other parts of the arab world who had no involvement with the war in Afghanistan. Their main gripes were the US support of Israel and the US's support of their brutal, repressive dictators. We're doing the opposite of the latter one right now.
Please explain how your "rebels breaking the ceasefire" scenario matches up with hospitals getting shelled in Misurata and tanks trying to break into the city in Benghazi.
And "tyrant" does not belong in quotes. It's pretty indisputable that he's a tyrant.
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Hey, close enough for the internet as the snipit you posted is from the wikipedia section titled "French Withdrawal" on NATO. Keep in mind I had to condense enough information to fill a book into a single paragraph from memory just so ./ers could read it instead of doing work. There are bound to be some things that need fleshing out or even some misremembered tid bits. For that matter, it is all just my guess. I've never actually seen a historical study on French surrender jokes to see if they began or at least became a more popular meme starting with the 5th Republic.
Perhaps the fact that basically everyone has been marching under the banner of and shouting for democracy? Perhaps that as soon as a single crack in Gadhaffi's leadership broke, nearly the entire country rose up against him?
Oh, wait, that's right, ragheads don't want and/or can't handle democracy, right?
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Yeah, I read the article... about 47 years ago...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
They're looking to achieve a no fly zone so the guy doesn't keep bombing his own people. We can speculate all we want about how this is another example of the US meddling in other nation's affairs, but the fact of the matter is this guy WAS BOMBING HIS OWN PEOPLE. Even after his 'cease-fire'... you know the one he agreed to right before he began shelling, and sent the tanks to, Benghazi.
Save your vitriol for those who deserve it - the lying, cheating, stealing, self-serving assholes who do the deeds that Assange exposes. They are the real problem, he's mainly an annoyance. And, he's only at the end of the chain; it's other people who go to the trouble of actually stealing the documents.
I'd feel better about the US as a "trusted adult" if they hadn't done so much to put and keep the murderous bullies in power - they've been doing this for far too long and it has to stop. And Americans can be blindingly stupid - preaching personal freedom, democracy and capitalism and yet doing so much to enrich the Arabs, Chinese and OPEC. Not to mention bankrupting themselves in the process ( mostly through the failure of financial oversight but the current wars did play a big role )
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I heard some wacky story that they're looking for some sheep herder named "Sam". Sounds like urban legend to me.
I've been told that it's been another bumper crop this year, and business is.. how would you say?.. *brisk*
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Just to pick from your list two of the worst offenders:
Zimbabwe and Myanmar
Mugabe has a lot of support from the Zim people unfortunately. He may brutally suppress his opponents but his supporters dont seem to mind.
As for Myanmar, the important US ally Thailand would shit enough bricks to rebuild Bangkok 20 KM down the road. They think the amount of illegal Burmese workers are bad now, wait until bombs start dropping.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Why shouldn't Texas, assuming a large majority of Texans vote for it, be able to secede from the Union?
If Texas really wanted to secede I'd be all in favour of sanctions against the rest of the United States of America for trying to stop it.
Personally I think secession should require a super majority, much the same as a super majority is required for changing most countries constitutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Very bad analogy.
Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a minority opposition from a different ethnic group. Gaddafi's army is being fought by his own people.
But the most importantly, the "blank cheques" that were handed to minor powers by the major powers just aren't there. What empire has offered unconditional support to Libya? China doesn't care, neither does Russia, the ME is not a united force (last time enough ME nations allied with each other was 1967 and that started falling apart in six days).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
We are removing Gaddafi because he is a public relations problem, the exact same reason we went after Saddam, and whoever it is in Afghanistan we're after. We don't give tinker's damn about the people. They're a big pain in the ass that only get in the way.
Just like before you accuse the anti war people of supporting the dictator.. All this pro war crap I've been hearing for over 45 years, and they are all still full of it. Once again you have swallowed the kielbasa whole..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I'm not sure which bothers me more, that we're going in so late (perhaps too late to ensure Quadaffi's removal) or that we're going in after the UN approved it. Why did we wait for the operation to be tainted with the UN's morally handicapped participation?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
But you are aware that the resolution was not approved on those grounds? I mean, it does not give the authority to remove Gaddafi from power. So if your ultimate goal is to remove him from power then using a line like "protecting civilians" as the main goal in the UN resolution is what I call hypocrisy.
What are even several hundred thousand, or millions, of civilians going to do against just a few tanks and bombers? You can't defeat a bomber by dog piling it.
One of the funny stories in Egypt was the ones where a can of spray paint could defeat a multi-million dollar tank.
Actually it was a WW2 tactic where you would just throw smoke bombs at a tank and force them to unbutton, but the tactic remains the same. If a tank can't out their optic ports, they are basically blind and the only way to see where they are going is to open a hatch.
Thats when you get them.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You must be one of those <Air Force sockpuppets> I've been reading about. I mean, that wicked argument you just presented there. Nobody could stand up to that. You're the guys sending all those tweets "from Libya" calling for help, right?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
People who want military assistance from other countries are adept at telling those countries what they want to hear. (Sometimes they hire Western PR firms to prime them on what to say, as the Kuwatis did in the runup to the first Iraq war.)
If western countries want to hear that rebels are fighting for "democracy," then the rebels will say they're fighting for democracy.
That doesn't mean that they really are fighting for democracy, or that they even know what democracy is. They're just telling you what you want to hear, like any salesman.
But I didn't even see a rebel quoted in the newspapers saying he *wants* democracy. I can't find any issues.
You still haven't answered my question. Once again, who are these rebels, and what reason do you have to think they won't be as brutal as Ghadaffi?
Not that I know what I'm talking about, but in my limited understanding I'm betting that:
1) Most people don't like the regime in Libya. Not a big deal, who really does like their own or others' regimes?
2) There's not much to lose as no ground forces are currently being introduced.
3) Libya's military is horrid shit; no problem throwing a wrench into their gears to let a new populist government be formed.
4) This is something that most nations have wanted for a long time, considering Gaddafi's history.
5) The fact that the usual suspects who vote "NO" on military interventions abstained rather than voting "NO" shows that even they are tired of Gaddaffi's bullshit.
6) The UN strategy is to preserve the momentum of oppressed middle-eastern people's revolutions by taking away Gaddafi's looming WIN. He was going to win, now he's going to get hanged. Momentum preserved, on to next intervention if necessary.
I'm no expert; in fact I know shit. But I hope this all works out well. I am AMAZED that the UN voted yes and is actually doing something. I expected the opposite; for Gaddafi to kill every last protester, and for the overall momentum of revolution to slow and finally die with modest but incomplete success. I'm excited to see that hope is still alive over there. I am just sad that, as usual, so many innocent people have to die for the cause of freedom. Death is forever, but freedom is not.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Just look at Iraq. We made it a veritable eden.
I bet they'll greet us dancing in the streets.
.
Performance must be inherent in every aspect of the system. It is not an afterthought, but always thought. - me
Will the US now bomb Israel toï force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?,
OFC not as the USA funds & veto's (blocks) all intervention at stopping Israel's illegal occupation, illegal constructions, genocide, torture, assassinations...
what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?
two of them have pro USA puppets & are allowed to murder civilians...
The Truth Is Out There:
oil, oil, oil, gas...
Will the US now bomb Israel toï force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?,
OFC not as the USA funds & veto's (blocks) all intervention at stopping Israel's illegal occupation, illegal constructions, genocide, torture, assassinations...
what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?
two of them have pro USA puppets & are allowed to murder civilians...
The Truth Is Out There:
No, not ancient. The Vichy Regime is still in living memory, and it takes a few generations for that type of 'aroma' to dissipate.
oil, oil, oil, gas...
Will the US now bomb Israel to force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?,
OFC not as the USA funds & veto's (blocks) all intervention at stopping Israel's illegal occupation, illegal constructions, genocide, torture, assassinations...
what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?
two of them have pro USA puppets & are allowed to murder civilians...
The Truth Is Out There:
I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.
So what? Even if you were telling the truth here, you would look elsewhere for this information.
Who are these rebels, and why does anybody think they'll create a democracy, or anything other than a dictatorship just as brutal as Ghaddafi's, if not more brutal?
Gaddafi has set the bar so very low here. I doubt myself that any democracy would result, it'd probably be some sort of reshuffling of power with other clans than the two that Gaddafi favors or perhaps even a balkanization of Libya.
That's a tough question, because there's a detail you left out. The US *did* intervene, on behalf of the Hussein regime, authorizing air strikes against anti-regime rebels. There's legitimate room for debate about whether we should choose sides in a rebellion of that sort, but there is no question that what we did do was worse than either of the options you presented.
I think a case can be made, especially in the context of a world where small events can trigger eruptions of chaos the likes of which we've never seen before, that we have an obligation to be on the "right side" of events like this where we can find a "right side", guided by moral principles rather than economic and geopolitical concerns. But where we can't, or even won't, do that, we at least have an obligation not to be on the decidedly "wrong side". Which puts us in a pretty awkward position, being on the "wrong side" of quite a lot already. There's no guarantee that by abandoning the horrible regimes we support throughout that region we would be ensuring victory for genuine improvement, but we are certainly impeding it by maintaining those regimes.
Where did you get that from? I mean about the Duma and stuff. One reason to believe this guy is because unlike BBC he's not trying to sell you anything.
That's a weird metric to use to justify intervention. Either they were right or they weren't, and either they should have been repressed or they shouldn't have. It's inconceivable that there would have been intervention on their behalf in any case, China is and was just too powerful for such an intervention to be embraced by those doing the intervening. That said, I really don't know if they asked for outside help. That might be a better metric. Don't you think?
countertroll, I was just watching the movie Carlos (the new one) plus watching this whole Lybian thing unfold and arrived at the same conclusion. The world is full of crap so I think I'll get a boat and start doing some fishing for a change. Life is too precious to waste it in politics with people who don't even understand they are being played at.
As the adage puts it: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
This "invasion" orchestrated by France and participated by the US, UK, Italy and Greece will be viewed by the more than 1 Billion Muslims around the world as yet another crusade against the Muslim world.
The West forgets one thing - that the Muslims still treat the West as their Enemy.
I am from a country where the majority Muslims rule, and every single day we are being bombarded with brainwashing propaganda that the West = Christian = Evil.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They were random leftovers that had been lost by the Iraqi military, and in most cases were worthless, though a few insurgents tried to make use of them. Even in the rare instance that they did go off, they didn't mix properly and resulted in only a few injuries, most or all not serious.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You're fucking kidding right?
Where were we during the genocides in sub-Saharan Africa?
Without more specifics, "probably arming the belligerents" is a good guess.
Or when Saddam was gassing his own people, or when he started a war with Iran that got ~900,000 people killed?
This is much easier to answer accurately. We were supplying arms, WMD supplies, financing and diplomatic support.
Not really. The metric isn't "were they right or not?" but rather "is there a strong possibility of leaving the country a better place if we intervene or not?". In China, it's just that any intervention would've likely resulted in a much worse enviroment for all involved, but here the revolution actually has a chance of succeeding if provided with proper support.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
WHAT! How dare you! Thing never change! Once you form an opinion, it is your moral duty to stick to that opinion, regardless of any new information or circumstances. You are an indecisive coward, drifting on the winds of reality.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
The de Gaulle regularly embarks on both training, patrol, goodwill, and combat missions, spending a considerable amount of time in the Indian Ocean in recent years, supporting both operations in Afghanistan and antipiracy operations off Somalia. You don't build a ship for a few billion euros (or thr equivalent) and then let it sit in port unused.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I'm not an Obama supporter (I voted for someone else... Winona LaDuke, if you must know, and I was embarrassed when I found out she endorsed Obama), and I oppose the vast majority of his political program. I think his policies are by and large a continuation of Bush policies, which I also opposed. Including his foreign policy, including Iraq, and including Afghanistan. I was opposed to the Iraq war on principle (not because it was a mistake, it was morally wrong). And I support this no-fly zone; I think it's one of the few things Obama's been on the right side of since 2008. I was on the fence regarding the NFZ (knowing the precedence of the devastation of Iraq under a NFZ regime in the 90s, under Bush I/Clinton) until I heard exactly what the rebels were saying: we don't have time for you to debate this, you need to do it now. Is that hypocrisy? I don't think so. It's not my fault that details don't enter into your analysis, and it's not my fault that you reflexively find lowest common denominator categories to place people's political positions into so that you can berate them.
There is a fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq, which is that a huge civilian population came out demanding limited, specific outside help. Beyond that fundamental difference, there are implementation differences: instituting a NFZ wasn't led by a political agenda in imperialist countries incubated over a decade earlier; it wasn't supported by an obvious campaign of deception and intimidation; it wasn't part of an imperial "remaking the region" strategy, in fact it was in reaction to the region attempting to remake itself. There's far less in common than different in these cases. And if the western strategy exceeds its mandate from the Libyan people, you can be sure those supporters who opposed the Iraq war will not follow.
I should add: the US could have intervened in Iraq and been on the right side, by enforcing the NFZ rather than authorizing Iraq to use its airspace for military purposes during the 1991 uprisings. They instead supported Hussein's repression of that uprising, and the rest of the Iraq strategy is tied to that decision.
Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.
If you believe that, then the obvious solution is to supply Gaddafi with precision guided bombs and Predator drones so he can take out the insurgents "surgically" with collateral damage limited to just one or two civilians within 10 meters of them, well maybe a bit more if the insurgents are using human shields.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Because the Brits are still pissed that they had to rely on luck, the English Channel and the combined armies of four empires to stop Napoleon from conquering the entirety of Europe, and the US is still very much shaped by its motherland whether they like it or not.
And of course, there's also an element of "America Saves The Day!" WW2-related thoughts since making France look weaker makes the US' subsequent "coming to the rescue" look more heroic by comparison.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I personally would not like to see a UN with the authority to be the world police.
Why not? That's kinda what the UN is suppose to be doing. The only thing that's a shame is they haven't been MORE active. The UN should be the one doing it, not the US. So turn your head, cover your ears, and whistle while crimes against civilian populations/humanity are committed? There comes a time where interfering in other people's affairs is necessary. Civil wars between armies is one thing, but when war crimes are committed against civilians it's time for somebody to step in.
The French and Chileans were able to topple equally corrupt and dictatorial governments, with France having to deal with all the other monarchic countries going against her, so don't tell me that self-determination of the population does not work, no matter the odds. Mess with enough people enough, and even something as mighty as the Soviet Union will fall under its own weight.
How many bodies will pave the way to that "eventuality"? Should we turn our back on the chance to lower that number at every opportunity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swScM_glSB0
Why don't you then "liberate" Bahrein too?
who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa
I agree with the other parts of your statement, but this one is a little silly. The major powers (US, USSR, UK and France) have been the ones supporting ruthless dictators for political reasons, while Khadaffi had more of a habit of supporting insurgents, such as the PLO and the ANC, one of the reasons why the other ruthless dictators don't like him much, and fleeing the country isn't a serious option for him.
All of them made in USA......priceless!!
I didn't know that Mirages, Eurofighters and Stormshadow missiles were made in the USA! Oh well, you learn something new every day.
Pirate Party UK
Actually people in Paris love tourists.
And years later , citizen which were basically not involved continue the prejudicied insulting. Very mature. Such people should insult de gaulle not the french. Otherwise everybody HATING the American folk because of G W Bush are having fully acceptable behavior. Do I trhink so ? No. But this is the logical conclusion of the french bashing by the US : hating the folk for (long dead) leader action are acceptable.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So, according to you, the plan is:
1. Obama does not withdraw from Iraq as fast as he promised to during his election campaign.
2. ???
3. The US attack Libya with the intent to get its oil - and not like before in trade, but occupation of sorts. Also implied: Libya exports to the US, not to the EU, China, and Turkey anymore as it did before.
4. Profit!
Correct?
I hope, glorious American (and French, and Saudi) patriots realize that those "not an invasion" attacks most likely already killed more people in Libya than Gaddafi ever could. But that's OK, those dead people are "wrong", and should be replaced by American puppets, religious nuts or a combination of the above. Surely, Libyans don't deserve living under "dictator" who is merely weird, they must be punished for their brown skins by a life under colonial powers and Muslim fundamentalists just like equally deserving population of Iran was. Right?
This is completely disgusting, and I have no words to describe it that would work on people who still can't remove their military from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?
Because, ruthless as the Saudi regime is, Gaddafi has imposed a new level of ruthlessness.
There has never existed such mass protests in Saudi Arabia as there has been in Libya in the last few weeks, and the Saudi government has never resorted to mass murder of its citizens.
No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people.
I am sure a similar argument was used before "helping" Iraq too, and look what it turned into. I just hope this time it'll end when the dictator is gone (or at least weak enough) and the people of Libya will be allowed to make their own future. Let's not turn the rebels fighting against the oppressive government into the insurgents fighting against the invading force.
In other words multinational force supports one of the sides in power struggle in independent country.
So, do you try hard to ignore all involved in such NATO operations as ex-Yugoslavia or Afghanistan or just are blissfully unaware? (and remember, "per capita" is what matters; also, "who has the largest due payments to the UN")
:> )
(and, I assume you hold such view towards pretty much any religion?
One that hath name thou can not otter
How willing is his army to be slaughtered by far superior western forces? Iraq was plenty willing to face Kuwait. Once the US came onto the scene the soldiers didn't know how fast to run. In fact, there are currently some reports of soldiers changing sides. They might take this turn of events as a way to save their own lives. Wouldn't want to be a government soldier when the rebels win.
Ad for whether it should have been done earlier. Not so long ago Muslims where saying that the killing of Muslims by Muslims was Muslim business and the civilized world should stay out. Some of the Muslims (arab legaue) changed their tone, meaning that no longer can it be seen as a pure western (kolonialism) action. Jordan might only bring a handful of planes but they will be Arab planes flown by (presumably) muslims fighting muslims who are killing muslims. THAT is a HUGE change in the region.
Westerners killing Muslims is bad. An allied force saving Muslim civilians from a universally denounced madmen, that is good. Early this month, the world wasn't ready. Lets hope this time it is.
Let us not forget that the world has practically no experience with doing this right. I am excited to be alive to see the changes in Egypt and other countries but geez god, this could so easily go very very wrong. Most of North Africa is in an uproar and the move of Saudia Arabia into Bahrein is scary as hell. This could easily result in a mass war between Muslim factions and slaughter on a scale unseen in... well quite a few years sadly. God we human beings suck.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In WW2, there were a lot of french people in Great Brittain and some have memories of wanting to pay in say a restaurant and being told "the bill has been paid" referring to the French soldiers protecting the British retreat at Dunkirk.
Now cowardly comedians who never fought for anything and would shit themselves if asked to defend their country claim the French are cowards.
But then we have taken coward actors over real heroes for a long time.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
But we don't have a plate full of armed uprisings. In Libya, there is one going on right now. With our air support, it may win. Without it, there will be slaughter.
If there shall be an armed uprising in Iran or DPRK, I sure as hell hope we'll do the same for them - then and there. For now, there's nothing to be done that can help (ground invasion wouldn't).
OH no, don't delude yourself. No matter what kind of uprising happens in Iran, both China and Russia will do their best to stop any actions against the regime. The same wasn't true for Lybia, i.e. neither China nor Russia (and this time, not even the Arab League) have much interest in Gaddafi. That's all the UN righteousness right there: who has the interests.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
For the fourth time since Vietnam, I am living through the exact same scenario as your responses show today.
I think that the clue lies somewhere in those highlighted words there.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
... South Africa ...
Do you know how far away South Africa is? Libya is well beyond the range of any of our planes. And we don't have any aircraft carriers. So, if SA were to get involved, it'd mean sending our warplanes on a multi-hop journey to one of the coalition air bases. Considering the logistical nightmare, and the very small resulting incremental improvement to coalition forces, it's really not worthwhile for SA to get involved.
As for the rest of the countries you mentioned, sure that'd be a great idea. (not sure Greece can afford it, though ...)
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
Do you? (fully, not PR version for the masses; few quick examples: first, second, third; curiously even some(!) parallels with...)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well, the rebels hold very substantial part of Libyan oil-producing areas...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Why do people remember only Somalia?...
One that hath name thou can not otter
What's pissing off Americans is that the French were right. They knew (they've learned that lesson, the hard way...) how such style of regime change is reckless and would bring only instability and massive harm.
What good are "friends" if they don't point out when and why you're wrong? (and what that tells about your "friendship" if you belittle them in return?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
OTOH, regarding allies, where's Nelson Mandela? (probably the only figure on ~this side of the fence that Qaddafi respects, can listen to)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that Absolutely!
Given that the UN has publicly comitted more genocides than any other organization in history, I'd advocate violently keeping UN bastards out of everything.
Also, it's the same organization as the "League of nations". It's not often said exactly which organization put Germany in such a position that almost the entire population supported Hitler, but that organization would be the League of nations. Also the League of nations was the organization caused Poland's military to demobilize DURING Hitler's attack, "to allow for peace".
These organizations do not have anything at heart except the delusions of the politicians leading them (first amongst those delusions : that any UN politician, even low-level, should have a wage that Goldman Sach's CEO would be ashamed of)
People should be defended from UN intervention. Because, frankly, if the Libyans knew what they're getting into, they'd put Qadhafi back and give him a raise. Voluntarily. Because it's a lot better than the alternative.
Let's just review :
IAEA - Because pakistan doesn't yet have hydrogen bombs. Oh and pakistan won't help Iran (the one smart decision in a forest of lunatic, delusional decisions that border on warcrimes), so someone else will have to give them the bomb. ...
IMF - Because the UN does not yet control the money of every state
UNRWA - Because, let's face it, palestinians might finish what hitler started, wouldn't that be great
UNICEF - Giving money to dictators, but ONLY if they torture children
WIPO - You thought the DMCA was bad ? Enter this in google
UNAIDS - because blacks, frankly, deserve to die (and because agents of this agency themselves are the source of the disease in several provinces)
UN security council - Securing your oil supply -and our politician's superiority feelings- through human rights violations, rape, and genocide. Worldwide
UNESCO - Talibanizing your cultural heritage (you'd think an organization like would actually have restored or maintained even a single monument, right ?)
ILO - Ensuring adequate supplies of young girls to clean politician's houses at a wage low enough to ensure they're open to making something on the side (I know an ILO politician. Sadly. He likes to have a young girl as a cleaning lady, one that's illegal in the country, and yells at her publicly. So does his wife. To the point that his family defends the cleaner physically from him. He's working on the "child labour" issue, now for 20 years). He claims this is nothing strange. He may be right.
-oh and-
UN inspections didn't find ANY chemical weapons. Only dead bodies killed with sarin gas. That *obviously* means Iraq never had any chemical weapons. Too bad Saddam can't teach us how to fire non-existent weapons at our enemies. Let's face it, we could halve our military budget with that trick
People should be protected from the atrocity that is the UN. Why anyone even associates with these assholes is beyond me.
Normally I would agree with you. The US the big bully etc. But the rest of the world doesn't want an unstable Libya because Europe will be affected negatively. So we protect ourselves YES that's what anyone would do! (Europe and US are together). Moreover, the goverment of Libya seems to be no saint and they kill their own people. So we also protect others in the meantime. Ofcourse, if we were not affected by this, we wouldn't give a flying fuck about it.
/semi-humor
semi-humor: Haven't you ever played RISK?
Mainly because of the big hubub about the helicopter.
And the fact that we basically couldn't fix the shit, because it's like trying to clean up a sewer.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
No, this is a U.N. member not following the rules.
Get it right, and get that stick outta your ass.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
So you say.
...I think peoples personal freedoms to put any substance(any at all) into their own body should not be infringed. I reach that conclusion being aware of the facts knowing there are consequences, others should too...
Curious, considering how just above you said, paraphrasing, "those are not just personal freedoms" (nvm "awareness of consequences"... a major point, in a way, of substances in question is to lose that awareness; and generally, "if you're satisfied with the kinds of (quite universally) severe limitations existing in a given society, you call it freedom")
One that hath name thou can not otter
In the link you provided, click "Personal Information" or just google "Oleg Shein"
Gaddafi has set the bar so very low here. I doubt myself that any democracy would result, it'd probably be some sort of reshuffling of power with other clans than the two that Gaddafi favors or perhaps even a balkanization of Libya.
So we've gone from "almost certainly" to doubtful that a democracy will result.
What reason do we have to think that a reshuffling of the clans would be any better for the people of Libyia, either for the people of Libya itself, or for our interests?
Gaddafi was at least secular. How do you know that he won't be replaced by an Islamist, which is what happened in Iraq?
How do you know that al-Qaeda won't move in, which is what happened in Iraq?
How do you know that they won't have anarchy, with warring tribes of different sects exterminating each other's sect, which is what happened in Iraq?
Putting aside the 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis killed, do you think anyone is better off as a result of the Iraq invasion?
I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.
So what? Even if you were telling the truth here, you would look elsewhere for this information.
This gratuitous insult leads me to believe that you can't make a case based on facts and logic, so you're using personal attacks instead. Case closed.
But I didn't even see a rebel quoted in the newspapers saying he *wants* democracy. I can't find any issues.
From video recordings, it seems to be about Allah... ("... Akbar") maybe they're not so adept at PR after all. And about killing few dozen random bystanders (with better mortality rates than those due to fighting wounds)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well... it seems a few here have lived in the world of the real communist propaganda.... what i can say is that it was really far far behind today's "democratic" one in terms of maturity ... :S
The truth is that when money talks, conscious is always asleep...
It seems to me that in the near feature we will find a very bad dictator even on Mars... and we will go there to help the innocent and oppressed Martians to get rid of him.... I wonder what will be the real deal then...
So the Soviets weren't so bad after all? (plus it's not an American operation, it's a UN-sanctioned NATO one; but hey, if that's what keeps away crimes against humanity...)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Two last cities aren't exactly a counterexample... (victorious ruins of Stalingrad are just barely - achieved at a huge cost for vast areas / populations of Soviet Union, largely thanks to overextended German supply lines)
One that hath name thou can not otter
if it were, we'd invade Africa.
Libya is Africa, FYI.
Not that I disagree with you- there is a strong correlation between places that receive our attention and places with strategic resources. And I am in general reluctant to support military intervention. But this probably is the right thing to do in Libya- it'd probably be genocide if Gadaffi retook Benghazi. And seeing as he's yet another demon of our own making (we sold him weapons, we "welcomed him back into the international community"), that does give us somewhat a moral obligation not to abandon those people to their fates.
This is a UN-sanctioned action with tacit approval from China, Russia, Brazil, India, et al.- they don't exactly leap at foreign interventions in other countries' internal conflicts, and even they were convinced that intervention might be needed (even if not so convinced as to actually support the motion- lack of veto is as good as it gets from that crowd). That should tell you something about how the situation is panning out.
So....it's justification to topple a sovereign nation because
1. You have interest in their natural resource
2. Other countries don't like his stance like socialism (never would of thought a dictator could be a socialist, maybe a totalitarian could...)
Yeah very noble vested interests.
Bush coalition-builidng / invading a nation on false pretenses = very very bad
Obama coalition - joining / answering a desperate plea for help _from the people_ and promising not to invade = much much better
the fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about the care taken NOT to be a naked aggressor like _Bush_. (try again)
look sig is kool
you are several kinds of retarded.
look sig is kool
I don't know what Obama's plan is, but I don't believe the bullshit about this isn't about oil.
And Obama's broken promise doesn't exactly make me trust him more.
And people on the thread arguing for your side, already said the US is right in this because it does have a vested interest in the oil.
I don't know about you, but I expect my friends to tell me when I'm about to do something stupid, then do it with me when I start.
"Dude, you shouldn't order more Jaeggerbombs. Fuck, ok, give me one, too."
"You should not be with this chick, she's wrong for you. But of course I'll be your best man."
"I don't know, that river looks pretty shallow and this bridge is pretty high...so you first."
Anyone can be a friend when things are easy, real friends stick with you no matter what.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I'm from the US and I believe the West = Christian = Evil
And that 50 million people live in the brink of war everyday. In fact they haven't signed peace just an armistice. Well done there.
Do you think they'd prefer to live under Kim?
then maybe we can talk about something far more productive than sending Marines somewhere.
Who is talking about sending Marines anywhere? UN resolution for Libya specifically forbids ground invasion.
This "invasion" orchestrated by France and participated by the US, UK, Italy and Greece will be viewed by the more than 1 Billion Muslims around the world as yet another crusade against the Muslim world.
Considering the Arab League supports the intervention, you're probably (hopefully) wrong.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
What if the armed uprising is in a pro western country? Will you also support the rebels? I somehow doubt it. You will probably be supporting the existing government or try not to get involved in any way at all. Bahrain's government is bringing in foreign troops to take care of the demostrators.
I'm not sure who "you" means here. Me personally? Yeah, I'd support the rebels, if a "pro western country" is the likes of Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.
USA? I'm not a US citizen. In any case, just because US has its own underhanded reasons for getting involved (which I frankly don't see in this particular case), it doesn't mean that they cannot work towards a good goal.
That is true also. In fact, it was quite surprising that Russia and China were willing to stand aside for this one - I fully expected that to be a NATO only operation.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/20/video-us-launches-stealth-bombers-more-than-100-cruise-missiles-against-libya/ Surprise! Now we are also using fighter to attack ground troops.
The Arab League may support the action, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the citizens in Arab League countries support it. A substantial number of those countries have large protest movements pressing for democracy. Some of them would rather shift the focus away from their own efforts to suppress dissent.
I don't think that the objective is clear either. We say that we are acting to prevent harm to civilians, but I don't think anyone really wants to indefinitely enforce a partition of Libya. If the rebels don't win in the next few years, the countries enforcing the no fly zone will probably expand their involvement just like the US did in Iraq.
What? Did Timmy fell down a well again?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Germany is obligated by its constitution to stay home and is brown water. BraZil, China and India are brown water navies and couldn't if they wanted. They simply can't participate. i wouldn't want China there.
Are you using some new meaning of bankrupt?
Stupid? Are you such a partisan sheep/blame America firster that can't see that Qaddafi is a sick evil fuck killing his own people to stay in power? That Libya is not Egypt? That the people need help? That NOT helping the civilians is morally the same as helping Qaddafi?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
This gratuitous insult leads me to believe that you can't make a case based on facts and logic, so you're using personal attacks instead. Case closed.
You lose your case when you whined that that NYT and WSJ wasn't spoonfeeding you what you wanted to know. I frankly don't believe you. They aren't sloppy news sources. A few minutes of googling could have found news stories, opinion blogs, etc all talking about who the rebels are. I don't have respect for someone who can't do basic research.
So we've gone from "almost certainly" to doubtful that a democracy will result.
Welcome to the world of multiple people where opinion doesn't march in lockstep.
What reason do we have to think that a reshuffling of the clans would be any better for the people of Libyia, either for the people of Libya itself, or for our interests?
Gaddafi was at least secular. How do you know that he won't be replaced by an Islamist, which is what happened in Iraq?
Gaddafi is a big enough problem that I think a blind reroll of the dice would give good odds for the next government even if it doesn't turn out to be secular.
Putting aside the 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis killed, do you think anyone is better off as a result of the Iraq invasion?
The Iraqis are.
So you say.
Unless you got something better, that's all I need to do.
(1) The FT article is behind a paywall, and I don't subscribe to the FT.
(2) The Andrew Sullivan blog you linked to doesn't tell who the rebels are either, it just links to another blog, which links to a PDF study. After 10 minutes of following that link, it seems that the authors suggest that the rebels are allies of al Qaeda. That doesn't sound like it would serve the interests of the U.S. to support them.
But generally, I'm not a foreign policy wonk, and I don't spend my time googling every issue. I just asked a reasonable question, and I was hoping for a reasonable answer, which you didn't give.
You don't have any respect for me, I don't have any respect for you. We're even.
Gaddafi is a big enough problem that I think a blind reroll of the dice would give good odds for the next government even if it doesn't turn out to be secular.
Ah, yes, the argument from ignorance. We don't know what's going to happen, so let's do it.
Putting aside the 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis killed, do you think anyone is better off as a result of the Iraq invasion?
The Iraqis are.
Iraq had the best health care system in the middle east. Saddam, for all his faults, sent doctors to study in England and elsewhere, and people came from around the Arab world to be treated. That's all gone now. Doctors and their families were getting kidnapped, so they left.
According to the Washington Post, the Bush Administration appointed a free-market campaign contributor from the right-to-life movement to run the health care system (replacing an administrator who had actually managed war zone hospitals for the U.N.). Bush's appointee replaced the pharmaceutical delivery system with a market-based approach. Result: The hospitals couldn't get drugs any more.
You think the Iraqis are better off without health care?
As far as I can tell, the citizens of the country
That's easy, because the citizens decided they want somebody else in charge. If they get what they want, it'll be better for them.
What's pissing off Americans is that the French were right.
Your thesis can't be right. Americans are LESS pissed at the French now than they were at the time.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
this time international law has been followed and things were done properly.
Partially because, when France started to talk like they were going to go it alone, the US stepped up and gave France their support.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Where did you read that? Read it more carefully. "Citizens" can be almost anybody. Ghadaffi is also a citizen, and so are the people who are supporting him.
This article argues that the rebels are supporters of Al Qaeda. http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf Is that true?
Are we just setting up al Quaeda in Libya, just as we set up the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Great news everyone. The war is OVER.
Yes, it's been Godwin'ed.
From http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/110320/libya-lybia-gaddafi-war-us-nato-jets-air-nazi-hitler: ... ... ...
Muammar Gaddafi says Libyans are armed for a long war and that allied forces were "the new Nazis."
The leaders of Britain, France and the United States will "fall like Hitler... Mussolini," he said.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Thankfully (hopefully?...) not a lot of people treat Jackass TV series as a guide to life. Much less to international relations. Usually.
(granted, "brothers in stupidity" is not anywhere near the worst description of friendship I've seen, but... Also, close to one of your examples: a friend is able to abstain completely from drinking to drive your ass home safely; the other two... I'm not sure if you know how random and insignificant in larger picture being chosen as a best man is (nvm how it primarily improves the social status... of the best man) - and are you really sure "go ahead, check with your neck whether I won't break mine" helps your point?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
The Shiites can't live in the Suni neighborhoods, and vice versa. If they don't leave, they get killed (that's why so many of the doctors left for Syria).
So people can't live in their own homes because they're the wrong religion, and they have to leave or the militia will kill them.
That's your idea of freedom.
Did it ever occur to you that some people might not want to be driven out of their homes under threat of death?
Well duh, obviously that kinda applies more to disagreements... ;p
One that hath name thou can not otter
If the US doesn't want to be the world's police force, then LET someone else do it. The reason the US helped Iran during the Iran/Iraq war is because they wanted both countries to lose, and thereby prevent any country from becoming a major regional power capable of opposing the USA. And they've done the same in every other region of the world. The US has actively prevented any other country from taking on the role of world cop.
Ghadaffi was an american regional ally, so why are they openly opposing him? The other (american allied) despots can't enjoy watching the US betray their ally, i've no doubt that the house of Saud is quite upset over this betrayal, and Bahrain certainly will wonder if they are next. The american government doesn't do things because "It's the right thing" or because "we support democracy", they've shown again and again they only support short term self interest. So why are they intervening here? The only reason I can see is that European allies demanded help to prevent a massive refugee exodus into europe that would have destabilized the EU, leading to economic collapse that would cascade through the world's (and america) economy.
Protesters were peaceful until they got shot at with machine guns.
" I'd say, despite the appearances of taking a week or two too long, this is a pretty substantial foreign policy victory for Obama, actually constructing a wide-based coalition to take on Gaddafi."
It seems that the coalition building was done by the French, and the US just jumped on the bandwagon, but even this seems like a big improvement on American foreign affairs.
Yep, the US is in Afghanistan because of "Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban".
What's your point? 9/11 made the intervention just a foregone conclusion and then the monomaniacs in the White House dropped the ball when they thought Iraq was an easy and more juicy target. They were fully vindicated in their assumption that it'll be easy to sell to the US public and entirely wrong in assuming it'll be a military cakewalk.
Reality check: Libya under Gaddafi's rule was a pro-western country. It cooperated with the war on terror thing and sold us oil, apologized for its earlier wrongdoing etc.
The resolution, if I understand it correctly, does not authorize ground units. So the thought occurred to me, "Why not organize and send in volunteers from the US, Europe, Australia, etc." Sort of like the International brigades of the Spanish Civil War in the 30's. People with prior military experience could serve as advisers, trainers, or in leadership roles.
As far as I know, it is not illegal in the US if you are not fighting against the US or its allies. It would also show solidarity with the rebels in their struggle against the evil empire. They would not fight for money but for freedom.
It would also counter balance any Jihadist influence. One of the problems in Afghanistan was that the Jihadists showed up and hijacked the fight against The Soviets. International Brigades, including all female brigades, might counter act this.
What do you think?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Yes; also good reasons to invade Pakistan (one of very few of our "allies" to quickly recognize Taliban gov; others being Kuwait and Saudis, IIRC) and label ISI as a terrorist organisation, for a start... Pakistani ISI which fought alongside Taliban against the Northern Alliance, greatly contributing to them being unable to hold Afghanistan.
:) ...well, still not on the level of Reagan team hampering Iranian hostage release efforts)
But don't forget how, immediately after the attack, rumors began that Iraq could have played a role...
It's just "9/11" (nvm its slight continuity problems) in mass PR, where it's irrelevant how getting in the way of investigations probably made those events much easier, how the ultimatum was a farce. Why the largest support was going towards the only mujahidin faction eager to fight not only against the Soviets. Why opium production skyrocketed. How the compromised ISI was again, also, quick to point out their enemies.
Such subtleties just confuse people... (and the farce of October surprise in 2004 was hilarious, with OBL tape clearly designed to make reelection easier
How many people now realize that bomber gap and missile gap were a fiction comparable to mine shaft gap? How many even heard about Team B?
One that hath name thou can not otter
To me it seems like there's a pro-Gaddafi majority that's suppressing an insurgency in the distant provinces.
It's not clear if either side is the majority. The reason why Gaddafi forces have made significant gains is that they control most of country's military aviation and heavy artillery. It's kinda hard to fight bombs and shells with bullets.
Of course it wasn't France's problem, they took a calculated gamble against their common enemy just like they are doing now. Oh wait, you thought the French were helping out of their good hearts? Lol. And before you go on and call everybody else stupid, just take a look in the mirror.
Try to follow the thread. We we talking about the Marines in the Korean context. I think it's best for the Koreans to decide what they wanted to live under or fight for whatever they thought was right. If it was full democracy, go for it, if it was Kim, then what the hell, one more enemy but it is their country you know.
The UN is supposed to promote peace, not war. More about promoting dialogue. In either case it is not supposed to become a world government in itself. Read this paper on the matter which pretty much reflects a huge chunk of US Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/52425/jesse-helms/saving-the-un-a-challenge-to-the-next-secretary-general So if interfering in other people's affairs is necessary why is the international community supporting the fight in Bahrain AGAINST the rebels and doing nothing in Yemen, just like they did in Rwanda not so long ago. Besides even the Lybian issue is starting to get messy, as this Arab League recent statement shows: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," This is regime change disguised under humanitarian action. Crimes against the civilian population is just the excuse to get in. Hell, there are crimes against the civilian population in Palestine and nobody gives a damn, and it's not only Israel, Egypt is also blocking their side of the frontier. So try to come up with something better than "war crimes are comitted against civilians". Read this if you are still not convinced: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece
Yes, we have seen it before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg
Yeah very noble vested interests.
In case you hadn't noticed, the real world is an ignoble place.
The language was worded so as to cause Gadhafi to be pushed out of power. That is how the "big game" works in diplomacy, nobody ever says precisely what they want to do, they use code words instead because that is how pleasant fictions, like international law, are preserved. Gadhafi, on the other hand, speaks bluntly as a barbarian would and so that is how the world treats him.
I think it's best for the Koreans to decide what they wanted to live under or fight for whatever they thought was right.
You speak as if a nation was one collective consciousness - it's not. It consists of people. What if half of those want democracy, and the other half want Kim - and to force anyone from the first half to abide by their choice as well?
Americans in general are so uniformed the PR doesn't even have to be very clever or otherwise Fox News wouldn't work.
BTW, just as a disclaimer: I lived for a while in the US but now in Canada and was born in Germany.
Because anyone who says "god damn you" means that they want to live in a Christian theocracy?
Some things are just phrases.
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Are you kidding? Al-Qaeda cites Israel and the Palestinians all the bloody time.
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Seriously? Have you checked the other countries?
in Bahrain the surrounding Gulf states have even sent in troops to 'secure the infrastructure' which basically frees up the military and police from such work so that they can fully focus on the rebellious civilians. Here the civilians are not violent and are getting killed.
In Libya the rebells also have military equipment! And the Libyans are using their military against these armed rebels.
Same shit the US & UK are doing in Iraq & Afghanistan.
I honestly wonder where people are getting their news from.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather get rid of Gaddahfi sooner then later, but let's be realistic pls.
These on and off again relationships with dictators is a flipping joke. He was bad before, then he was good, now he is bad again.
Did HE change in any way? No.
Where are the interventions when people in middle or south Africa are killing each other? Where are they in middle and south America?
Fact is, we want the oil to flow. And while we can piss off Libya (a country the other oil countries also do not like) we would not dare doing the same in certain other countries.
That make *US* the hypocrites.
This is the Iraq BS all over again.
Weapons inspectors have been Iraq up until the last war started.
In the country, but prevented from actually going where they wanted to go. In the country, but handed mountains of false or vague "documentation" about the disposition of things like the huge VX stores that were seen are reported by UN inspectors for years. Of course you know all of this, and are just trying to ignore the parts of the history that get in the way of your hate-fest.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I never said that. But that does seem to be YOUR position when it comes to most other countries.
Fact is, you would not dare piss off the wrong countries, so you only go after 'common enemies'.
You do shit elsewhere, but in this oil rich country with your on and off-again relationship to their dictator you know you go ahead.
And when all is over, the next puppet will be inserted and it is business as usual.
You did not give a shit in Egypt because if the rebellion failed, you wanted to keep your good connections.
Same with Yemen, Bahrain or Belarus.
Nah, let's not piss off the Oppressors that give us oil or allow us bases to attack other countries.
So maybe next time, why not support the rebellion in a country because they want democracy, and not just the next 'bad guy with oil you want to secure for your own companies'.
I war I can really get behind!
hate-fest ?
Speak for yourself. I am mostly saddened by this history. A regrettable and preventable loss of live and so much unnecessary suffering .
A regrettable and preventable loss of live and so much unnecessary suffering
Are you talking about the regrettable and preventable loss of life caused by Gaddafi using his military to attack people in his own country? Yes, that was both of those things. And because it was easily seen how regrettable it was going to be, and plain as day how preventable it could be, the main problem was that force was not used more quickly. The people who could have stopped the slaughter spent 30 days talking to each other about it while Gaddafi's hired goons (first) and military (later) went about butchering people. Regrettable, and preventable. We could have used the same force that was used over the last few days to save considerable lives over the last several weeks. That's what you mean, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You seem to confuse me with a knee-jerk pacifist.
IMHO the truly international effort against Gaddafi is fully justified. It's a large diverse alliance with solid diplomatic backing. Same holds for when Bush the elder led an alliance to kick out Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Bush Jr's Iraq endeavorer on the other hand was misbegotten and ill conceived from the get go.
Bush Jr's Iraq endeavor was the uninterrupted continuation of the earlier kick-Saddam-out-of-Kuwait action. Saddam never complied with the UN's terms when he was pushed back from that invasion. He continued to shoot at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones set up during that event, he continued to obstruct UN inspectors checking out his large stash of WMDs (do you know where all of that VX went? neither does the UN), he continued to build the long-range missiles he agreed to stop making, he continued to import weapons from places like North Korea, and so on. It was his years of deceit and defiance of the terms to which he had already agreed (when pulling out of Kuwait) that led to the additional UN sanctions and the UN approval of the use of force to remove him. Blaming Bush Jr on having the urge to get rid of Saddam completely ignores that it was Clinton's 8-year policy to remove him as well.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Blaming Bush Jr on having the urge to get rid of Saddam.
Don't blame him at all for that urge. That urge was fully justified and I shared it.
I blame him for the amateurish diplomacy, lackluster coalition building and too few boots on the ground when he finally moved in.
It was not the right time to act on Iraq. He wasn't able to establish a unified Western coalition like his father did. No new solid security council resolution. And then when he moved in regardless his administration completely underestimated the resources needed for a successful occupation.
He shouldn't have done it in the first place and then he didn't even do it right.
Sometimes you have to bid your time and don't give into your urges. But for Gaddafi the time is nay.
let the people of Libya sort this one out on their own
The people of Libya are human beings, as are we .
What is worse : a dictator slaughtering his own people , or good people standing by and doing nothing to stop him ?
It's not about oil : if it were , the US would be supporting Khadaffi , because then they would be certain of the oil . The situation now , is very unclear , and so not a smart choice if oil is what you are after .
Slipping shoelaces ?
Your "piss" has a Frost to it. That's all I need to know about you. Idiot.
And while I post under my account with "excellent" karma, you post as an Anon Coward.
Wait a sec.
And while I post under my account with excellent "karma", you post as an Anon Coward.
There, I fixed that for you. Have fun becoming successively angrier as people figure out ways to use the internet that suit their own needs.
postmodernsideshow.com
I think your comments are out of line.
Although I agree that your life would be better with some therapy, I have a feeling it would be lost on you. Have fun marginalizing and retaliating after being marginalized. Keep posting what you like. Nobody is in your way.
postmodernsideshow.com
But that does seem to be YOUR position when it comes to most other countries
You have no right to play the straw man on me. Don't put words on my lips. You DID criticise the intervention based solely on what "we" did on similar situations, hence my comment: to point out that you didn't enter on the debate of whether or not "we" should intervene in Libya.
But then, you came and started throwing all that BS about my "position when it comes to most other countries" and I cannot help but be pissed, as I never made an statement on Slashdot about such a thing, and for sure you don't even know what my country is to start with.
Because there doesn't exist such a thing as a false flag operation and a tyrannical dictator who is attacking his own citizens would never stoop so low as to engage in them when it comes to protesting foreign intervention?
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
Nonetheless... that suddenly makes such things like this discreet "go to it" an easy way to justify your inter^H^H^Hvasion? ;p
Then there's how much of an interference do we need to have a case of general violation of independence (itself going towards "invasion"). Say, how much of it such drilling / mining practices represent? (together with international economic policies / dumping the price of oil; openly (and most likely rightfully) described by your neighbor - who spilled a lot of blood for you recently - as harmful to them... but without much urgency to you)
Always fuzzy...
One that hath name thou can not otter