Strategic Importance of Libya?

paky

Whats the strategic importance of Libya that NATO feels it has to back the terrorists/rebels against Gaddaffi?

hmmm

paky wrote: »

Whats the strategic importance of Libya that NATO feels it has to back the terrorists/rebels against Gaddaffi?

Looking at it in a wider strategic context it makes some sense. The Arab street typically sees "the West" propping up dictators like Gadaffi while he massacres his own people, and this feeling provides a fertile breeding ground for Al Quaeda. In Benghazi last night there were French flags flying and as some Arab blogger said on Twitter today "I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be hoping the US bombs an Arab state".

There may be short term downsides, and some restrictions on access to Libyan resources, but the long term strategic position fits into Obama's narrative that democracy is to be welcomed in the middle east.

paky

is there any danger this may escalate into a wider conflict? surely this will have implications on a wider scale.

Raging_Ninja

paky wrote: »

Whats the strategic importance of Libya that NATO feels it has to back the terrorists/rebels against Gaddaffi?

Finding out what grounds you can hate the west for?

1. Humanitarian grounds since it looks bad if a nation carries out atrocities against allegedly pro-democracy civilians with Europe only a few hundred miles away.

2. Long-standing belligerence between Libya and NATO.

3. Libya is a big exporter of oil, which like it or not is vital to the western/developed world.

Raging_Ninja

paky wrote: »

is there any danger this may escalate into a wider conflict? surely this will have implications on a wider scale.

It is UN-mandated, and has the backing of the Arab League. The US seems content with limited air attacks, and Obama seems to really not want to have to put boots on the ground unless absolutely necessary.

Basically think of it as an extension of what has been going on across the region for the last few months.

paky

i think what there doing is insane. doesnt the whole consept of invading countries and proping up other governemnts contradict to whole consept of democracy?

johngalway

paky wrote: »

i think what there doing is insane. doesnt the whole consept of invading countries and proping up other governemnts contradict to whole consept of democracy?

Who's invaded Libya tell me?

There is a legitimate rebel force willing to fight and die to over throw a terrorist dictator who thinks little of killing his own people.

There is no democracy in Libya, there is only dictatorship.

paky

johngalway wrote: »

Who's invaded Libya tell me?

NATO

johngalway wrote: »

There is a legitimate rebel force willing to fight and die to over throw a terrorist dictator who thinks little of killing his own people..

how do you define legitimate? gaddaffi came to power the same way> what are you talking about

johngalway wrote: »

There is no democracy in Libya, there is only dictatorship.

so what?

johngalway

paky wrote: »

NATO

Really, have they, that one got by me. How many troops have they on the ground then? By the way, you need ground troops for an invasion, you know.

paky wrote: »

how do you define legitimate?

Not terrorists.

paky wrote: »

so what?

Ah yeah, right. So you'd be happy with a Unionist dictatorship in NI then? That's where this thread has come from, Gadaffi's previous support for the IRA, like how you put the terrorist label beside the rebels and not Gadaffi even though he's exported it to many other countries.

Locust

OP - oil?

Raging_Ninja

Gadaffi is hardly a nice guy, ordering civilian airliners to blown up and all.

Besides, the Arab League and the rebels were begging for western intervention.

And enforcing a no-fly zone does not count as an invasion.

goldie fish

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Gadaffi is hardly a nice guy, ordering civilian airliners to blown up and all.

Besides, the Arab League and the rebels were begging for western intervention.

And enforcing a no-fly zone does not count as an invasion.

His healthcare service is the best in the world though.

It's the only place in the world where someone can arrive with terminal cancer and weeks to live, only to be living happily 2 years later.

PatsytheNazi

johngalway wrote: »

Really, have they, that one got by me. How many troops have they on the ground then? By the way, you need ground troops for an invasion, you know.



Not terrorists.



Ah yeah, right. So you'd be happy with a Unionist dictatorship in NI then? That's where this thread has come from, Gadaffi's previous support for the IRA, like how you put the terrorist label beside the rebels and not Gadaffi even though he's exported it to many other countries.

Well it's more of a case of the British exporting terrorism to Gadaffi as they were recently selling him millitary hardware and among others those British terrorists the SAS were training some of his militia. But that's just the Brits up to their usual old tricks as they armed Mr Hussein in Iraq among others didn't they ?


Britain to help rebuild Gaddafi's military
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Britain-to-help-rebuild-Gaddafis.2514427.jp

SAS trains Libyan troops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6176808/SAS-trains-Libyan-troops.html

johngalway

Well, it's really not as he wasn't in the throes of a rebellion then and didn't come out with statements that had unmerciful revenge written across them.

I don't care if people want to start anti-British topics but have some backbone and don't dress it up as something that paints a terrorist, who has exported that terrorism to many countries and which has killed many innocent people, as a victim.

You reap what you sow.

unclejunior

johngalway wrote: »

Well, it's really not as he wasn't in the throes of a rebellion then and didn't come out with statements that had unmerciful revenge written across them.

I don't care if people want to start anti-British topics but have some backbone and don't dress it up as something that paints a terrorist, who has exported that terrorism to many countries and which has killed many innocent people, as a victim.

You reap what you sow.

how is this an anti-british thread eh?
your raving on about Gaddaffi killing his own people yet its absolutely acceptable for NATO to do it.
This conflict will last even longer due to NATO involvment.

BrianD

paky wrote: »

NATO

NATO is not even involved! NATO members are but not NATO. In fact, the French don't want NATO involved.

how do you define legitimate? gaddaffi came to power the same way> what are you talking about

Gaddaffi is the de facto ruler of the country but he did come to power via a military coup. The "rebels" only came to the use of arms due to repression by Gadaffy.

Note that the UN backed resolution is a humanitarian one not a mandate for regime change.

johngalway

unclejunior wrote: »

how is this an anti-british thread eh?

Read it :rolleyes:

unclejunior wrote: »

your raving on about Gaddaffi killing his own people yet its absolutely acceptable for NATO to do it.

It's UN mandated, not NATO.

Where have I raved please?

[/quote]This conflict will last even longer due to NATO involvment.[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

oncevotedff

paky wrote: »

is there any danger this may escalate into a wider conflict? surely this will have implications on a wider scale.

Of course. If Gadaffi isn't removed from power he will strike back at some future date with terrorist attacks on European targets. There's also the obvious problem that the longer the air campaign continues the more likely it is that someone will drop a bomb on an orphanage or a hospital. That woud see the end of Arab League support. The revolt appears to be a disorganised mess which hasn't a hope of toppling Gadaffi. In order to do that NATO is going to have to deploy ground forces and quite frankly I doubt that anyone has the stomach for it, assuming they can get the UN to sanction such a move. Even if by a stroke of luck Gadaffi and sons suffer some fatal accident and his supporters throw in the towel, the likelihood is that the newly-freed Libyans will just elect some North African version of Hamas. This all looks like a lose-lose for everybody involved.

johngalway wrote: »

There is a legitimate rebel force willing to fight and die to over throw a terrorist dictator who thinks little of killing his own people..

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. For instance in the eyes of a Taliban supporter, his lads are a legitimate force willing to fight and die to defeat the invaders of his country. Likewise Gadafi's supporters, and there appears to be no shortage of them, do not confer any legitimacy on the rebels.

There's also the problem that until a few weeks ago Gadaffi was the recognised legitimate ruler of Libya. He was on a much-publicised state visit to Italy just last year. Libya was a member of the UN Security Council until January 2010.

On top of all that there is no shortage of governments, terrorist dictatorships or otherwise willing to kill civilians, be it with airpower or using other weapons. In the interests of consistency, now that the UN and the western democracies have initiated a policy of regime change for the murder of civilians, what do we do the next time the US drops a bomb on a school bus. Or when the Russians decide to whack Chechnya again. How about the next time Israel rolls into Gaza or Lebanon or conversely next time Hezbollah or Hamas drops a rocket on Israeli civilians. What the UN has done is actually create a blueprint for endless conflict. And now there are no more terrorists. Everybody with a gun and a grudge has been legitimised by UN decree.

There is no democracy in Libya, there is only dictatorship.[/QUOTE]

Overheal

BrianD wrote: »

NATO is not even involved! NATO members are but not NATO. In fact, the French don't want NATO involved.

Thats changed: Turkey made up it's mind, NATO is taking over operations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/france-turkey-nato-libya