The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

HavingCrack

mike65 wrote: »

Yemen needs dealing with, the Arab League needs to get its own act together, ditto whats happening in Bahrain. Saudis really are scumbags. This coalition can't be everywhere all at once though.

The Arab League are a joke to be honest. A bunch of totalitarian dictators criticising other dictators. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Algeria....

TheGodBen

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.

They have given him a way out. They offered to stop once his forces have pulled back from rebel areas and restored utilities to those cities. Seems fair to me. The only reason Gaddafi wouldn't do that is because he's a madman.

Whatever happened to negotiations.

Negotiation? With Gaddafi? When people protested peacefully against his rule, he shot them. When they overpowered his security forces, he shelled their cities with artillery. He claimed to order a ceasefire but used it to buy time to launch an assault on Benghazi.

Do you really think Gaddafi wants to negotiate. He wants nothing less than to kill everyone that has opposed him, that is not a position that one can negotiate from.

SafeSurfer

mike65 wrote: »

Here we go again, the coalition of the stupid all jumping into an After Hours thread to attack a programme designed to stop a city being leveled by a nutty dictator.

Its not about the oil and gas, the west can buy as much as it likes from Libya and has been doing so for a good few years now.

I have never seen action taken by the UN so quickly before. I don't have to start naming all the dictators that are torturing or starving their people for years without a whimper from the UN. 300,000 dead in Dafur since 2003 and not one UN resolution?

I see Gadaffi as being a sacrificial lamb to rehabilitate the US image in the Arab world. They have to regain trust and were slow off the mark in Egypt. Two political pygmies could never sail a UN mandate for military intervention through the Security Council in a matter of weeks.

Obama is eyeing his second term and a possible breakthrough in the middle east in term 2, the holy grail of US foreign policy. Cameron and Sarkozy are trying to mould themselves as tough guys, also with a view to re election.

HavingCrack

Cybertron85 wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me it's about the sheer hypocrisy. Selling arms to a 'nutty dictator' and then attacking him when he uses them against an armed uprising in his own country for whatever reasons.
.

Nothing new there, just look at Noriega in Panama or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, once they lose their usefulness, the lose their get out of jail free card.

Fart

What trillion dollar bill?










Oh wait, nevermind.

galwayrush

I say Ireland should offer asylum to Gadaffi's bodyguards.:D

HavingCrack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have never seen action taken by the UN so quickly before. I don't have to start naming all the dictators that are torturing or starving their people for years without a whimper from the UN. 300,000 dead in Dafur since 2003 and not one UN resolution?.

Nothing will ever happen to Sudan, they have the Chinese as their largest trading partner. Any attempt to sanction Sudan would be vetoed by China.

Metallitroll

HavingCrack wrote: »

The Arab League are a joke to be honest. A bunch of totalitarian dictators criticising other dictators. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Algeria....

Saudis in particular are cretins, assange's leaks told me all i need to know about them

epgc3fyqirnbsx

HavingCrack wrote: »

I think it basically comes down to a sense of morality. At what stage does the death of innocents and brutal oppression become too much to stand by and ignore? It's a rhetorical question really, every state and person would have their own standards. I always imagine that if Hitler had never invaded Poland there's every chance the Nazi regime would never have fallen for a long, long time.

Yeah I agree with this completely, the German economy flourished and such strong nationalism and the productivity that resulted in it is what gave them such strenth. It was the inevitable racism that came with it and as you say the invasion of Poland and all that followed that led to the downfall but you would think that if the jews were just expelled that it would last years. And it is a question of morality, I suppose that is why a blanket apporach is what is needed for consistencies stake. And that;s exactly what is lacking leading to justified cynicism

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's all to do with your own moral compass really. Should the North Korean and Iranian regimes just be left alone because they don't really concern us? This policy happened in Latin America and saw lots of nasty regimes flourish for quite a long time. I would say no but lots would disagree with me.

I know little of Latin America tbh but have no reason to doubt you. North Korea is abhorrent to me for the ridicolous propaganda and the barriers to the outside world. Iran less so because, speaking to people who have travelled there, the youth seem to be very open minded and there is an obvious want for reform that I am sure they will get sooner or later. As far as I know the cultural revolution came about in no small part as a result of western interference and the installation of a western friendly leader. But again my knowledge is passing

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be honest, from a historical perspective it's a very mixed bag as to how well a country recovers from civil war. The United States recovered remarkably well considering the numbers who died but it certainly left its legacy in the Jim Crowe laws of later years. The Spanish experience wasn't so neat. Franco continued to murder people for several years after the war ended and most of the population continued to live in dire poverty for a long time afterwards. China has been left with a a fairly totalitarian regime in the present day. Congo is still unstable and seeing constant low level fighting, rapes and killings. Bosnia is still divided etc.Lebannon appears to recover but I get the impression a lot of tension is waiting to flare up beneath the surface. A mixed bag indeed.

A mixed bag indeed. Do you have a blanket approach whereby a (functional) UN can step in to what it perceives to be totalitarian or disfuntional states to install democracy? In the long run it would seem that democracy is the obvious choice. Then again a blanket policy of installing it and liberating countries seems akin to the policy politburo and installing communist regimes which such countries were convinced that this was in fact the unltimate freedom.

There's no answer really, the lack of consistency and the picked battles does stink of hypocrisy but then whats the alternative...
A western campaign of installing western style governments in the assumption that these will work or just picking the battles.

It's understandable then that a heavy media coverage of any particular regime and its intolerances will lead to action for the simple reasons that the West tend to believe in our values and the fact that our governments, by their very nature and purpose, are likely to act to uphold these

Gordon Gecko

twinytwo wrote: »

you think there are doing it for the people?

its all about the oil full stop.

Please cut out that Michael Moore, pinko BULLSH*T! It's a no fly zone to prevent Gaddafi using his air force and artillery against the rebels. The UN resolution has specifically interdicted ANY involvement on the ground. The oil is not going anywhere. So please actually research these news topics before smugly putting down your cynical left-wing tripe

orangebud

yes at last we can bring democracy to the county give them a load of loans maybe even give them a housing bubble and then screw them

got to love democracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6bu6yka_as

Amhran Nua

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't have to start naming all the dictators that are torturing or starving their people for years without a whimper from the UN.

And that makes it okay to start ignoring this one?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I see Gadaffi as being a sacrificial lamb to rehabilitate the US image in the Arab world.

I see the trots' heads asploding with the conflict here - on the one hand you have a real, bona fide popular uprising, on the other you have the US supporting it. Still, if in doubt look to mother Russia, which is Gadaffi's main arms dealer, so no question where the dice will eventually fall for the hard left.

SafeSurfer

TheGodBen wrote: »

They have given him a way out. They offered to stop once his forces have pulled back from rebel areas and restored utilities to those cities. Seems fair to me. The only reason Gaddafi wouldn't do that is because he's a madman.

And they gave him a couple of days in which to restore utilities. It took the US army corps and thousands of civilian contractors years to restore even electricity supplies to Baghdad.

Unpossible

Cybertron85 wrote: »

They attack him for something he didn't even do (yet),

Are you suggesting that Gaddafi hasn't used artillary and airstrikes against rebel cities and their populations?

brianthelion

My mother in law thinks all the Lesbians live in Lesbiania somewhere in the middle east and she does not understand why they are kicking up such a fuss.God Bless Her shes 88

Cybertron85

Unpossible wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Gaddafi hasn't used artillary and airstrikes against rebel cities and their populations?

No, I was referring to the Benghazi massacre everyone was talking about.

Unpossible

Cybertron85 wrote: »

No, I was referring to the Benghazi massacre everyone was talking about.

Ah, ok. I understood the reason for the no fly zone was because of his use of artiliary and air strikes

Stinicker

brianthelion wrote: »

My mother in law thinks all the Lesbians live in Lesbiania somewhere in the middle east and she does not understand why they are kicking up such a fuss.God Bless Her shes 88

She is not too far out, never doubt an old persons knowledge.

Lesbiania itself!

SafeSurfer

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And that makes it okay to start ignoring this one?


I see the trots' heads asploding with the conflict here - on the one hand you have a real, bona fide popular uprising, on the other you have the US supporting it. Still, if in doubt look to mother Russia, which is Gadaffi's main arms dealer, so no question where the dice will eventually fall for the hard left.

You have to ask yourself why France offered to send troops to shore up the regime of Ben Ali in Tunisia? Similiar situations, completely different responses.

Cybertron85

Unpossible wrote: »

Ah, ok. I understood the reason for the no fly zone was because of his use of artiliary and air strikes

Well, they sure took their sweet time if that was the case. They were being shelled for atleast a week and a half even though we see that from putting the vote to the UN to having French jets make a first confirmed kill took less than 24 hours.

Biggins

MagicMarker wrote: »

Basically one side think Oasis were the better band, but the other side are of the opinion that Blur were better. Talks are ongoing.

<Ollie> wrote: »

But the correct answer was Jedward!

Couldn't agree more!

threeleggedhors

Cybertron85 wrote: »

It's completely fjucked, I have no love for Ghaddafi and he's definitely a dictator, but it's cringeworthy listening to these lying scumbags like Clinton or Cameron claim they're doing it for the poor people of Libya. They'll probably kill just as many or more Libyans over the next few days than Ghaddafi did over the past weeks.

Also...will they be taking such a hardline stance with Bahrain, Yemen or now Syria too? Doubtful, they like their standards double.

Don't forget all those who'll be killed by friendly fire ...

Dave!

The international community is largely toothless and spineless and hypocritical and inconsistent, and lacks the bottle to intervene when they should. But I don't see how they can be criticised here exactly, except perhaps for taking so long, or for not applying their morality consistently.

Events conspired and the stars aligned such that intervening was possible without having to commit too many resources, without too much risk, and without any additional disruption or inconvenience to the West. The uprising is already occuring, and the oil supply is already disrupted, so they can either let Gaddafi the despot get back into power, or they can support the ostensibly pro-democracy rebels.

It was pretty easy to do the right thing here, nobody has to get their hands dirty really, just drop a few bombs and help tip the war in the rebels' favour and hope that they can sort the rest out themselves.

Obviously it's a bit more difficult/impractical, risky and politically unpalatable to do the moral thing all the time, that's why there are still despicable regimes around, and why genocides and the likes can still happen.

A Primal Nut

Dave! wrote: »

The international community is largely toothless and spineless and hypocritical and inconsistent, and lacks the bottle to intervene when they should. But I don't see how they can be criticised here exactly, except perhaps for taking so long, or for not applying their morality consistently.

Events conspired and the stars aligned such that intervening was possible without having to commit too many resources, without too much risk, and without any additional disruption or inconvenience to the West. The uprising is already occuring, and the oil supply is already disrupted, so they can either let Gaddafi the despot get back into power, or they can support the ostensibly pro-democracy rebels.

It was pretty easy to do the right thing here, nobody has to get their hands dirty really, just drop a few bombs and help tip the war in the rebels' favour and hope that they can sort the rest out themselves.

Obviously it's a bit more difficult/impractical, risky and politically unpalatable to do the moral thing all the time, that's why there are still despicable regimes around, and why genocides and the likes can still happen.

Exactly. The reason it is happening here and not in other countries is because its easier with much less risk of civilian/western military casualties than interfering in Bahrain, Iran or North Korea. I would have thought this was obvious. But instead people insist on using those countries as examples of hypocrisy.

Unpossible

Cybertron85 wrote: »

Well, they sure took their sweet time if that was the case. They were being shelled for atleast a week and a half even though we see that from putting the vote to the UN to having French jets make a first confirmed kill took less than 24 hours.

If the west had pushed the UN to go in earlier then people would be ranting about how things could have developed with less bloodshed if there was no intervention. No matter when or how action is taken people will complain.

The west is damned if it does something and is damned if it does nothing.

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.
Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

Seeing as there are to be no occupying forces, "NATO troops" wll be, in the main, fine.

"The lives of his own people" were already in danger, as he was shelling and bombing them, even while claiming he was observing a ceasefire.

As a footnote, I'd like to think you started this thread just for divilment...

aligator_am

kraggy wrote: »

The regime's tanks and artillery stations that are killing innocent civilians?

In Bahrain, the country is run by a minority Sunni regime. The majority of the country are Shias. They want democracy. And because of their demands, they are being murdered.

Looks like Iran are trying to stir it up, I'm hoping they're just sabre rattling as the entire region seems to have the potential to kick off.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/19/c_13788025.htm

Iran calls on Saudi Arabia, UAE to leave Bahrain "immediately" English.news.cn 2011-03-19 23:07:42

TEHRAN, March 19 (Xinhua) -- The National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Iranian Parliament (Majlis) issued a statement in support of the Bahraini people and called on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to leave Bahrain's soil immediately, the Satellite Press TV reported on Saturday.

"The oppressed people of Bahrain are a part of the Islamic world and the Islamic Republic of Iran feels obligated to support them," the statement was cited as saying on Saturday.

The United States is definitely responsible for the murder of Bahrainis by ordering its "regional mercenaries" to invade the country and repress peaceful protesters, the statement added.

The statement also called on the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to take serious actions on regional developments.

Bahrain has slammed Iran's "interference" in its internal affairs after the latter communicated with international organizations expressing concern about the situation in the Kingdom.

On Thursday, Hamad Al Amer, Bahrain's Foreign Ministry official in charge of Regional and Gulf Cooperation Council Affairs, described the Iranian step as a "very strange act and an encroachment" on the sovereignty of Bahrain.

SafeSurfer

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Exactly. The reason it is happening here and not in other countries is because its easier with much less risk of civilian/western military casualties than interfering in Bahrain, Iran or North Korea. I would have thought this was obvious. But instead people insist on using those countries as examples of hypocrisy.

Why because Bahrain is protected by Saudi Arabia, Iran have a formidible military and North Korea is protected by China?

If they are doing the right thing in Libya and not elsewhere just because of it's convenience then western leaders should stop posturing and admit that.

Offy

A Primal Nut wrote: »

In what way do they benefit from interfering against Gadaffi? Many western companies have favourable oil deals with Gadaffi and don't want to see him gone. If it was about oil, they would protect Gadaffi and fight the rebels.

Its rediculously simplistic analysis and doesn't change the fact that they are fighting on the right side.

The right side is defined by who you support, the victor writes the history.

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why because Bahrain is protected by Saudi Arabia, Iran have a formidible military and North Korea is protected by China?

If they are doing the right thing in Libya and not elsewhere just because of it's convenience then western leaders should stop posturing and admit that.

..what point are you trying to make?