The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Really? :rolleyes:

Really. How exactly does taking action against Gadaffi, strategically position America to move against Iran? I'm sorry to inconvenience you by asking that you explain such sweeping statements, seemingly unsupported by any evidence or reasoned analysis.

phosphate

Einhard, you claim western countries need to be seen supporting democracy in Libya which is what the rebels are presumably attempting to achieve.

However, you're unable to answer why there are no resolutions for Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and any other country around the world living under an oppressive regime like that in Libya.

Can you explain why the EU collectively exported $1 billion of weapons to Gaddafi if they believed he was a dictator?

Your argument this is a humanitarian effort is laughable.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Isn't this what resulted in the mandate in the first place?

It authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory''.

Nothing, as far I can see in the resolution, answers the question I asked. Gadaffi is interdicted from attacking rebel civilian areas. My question is, what happens if rebel and loyalist forces meet, for example, outside Tripoli? Gadaffi's forces would probably still have the ability to crush the rebels in such a confrontation, and the resolution seems to make no provision for such an occurence.

Still not sure how that's a disingenuous query tbh.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Really. How exactly does taking action against Gadaffi, strategically position America to move against Iran? I'm sorry to inconvenience you by asking that you explain such sweeping statements, seemingly unsupported by any evidence or reasoned analysis.

You seem to misunterstand. I was referring to your assertion that US military intervention in Iraq was not a good strategic inevstment.

force majeure

poor old Gaddy luck as it he pissed off the brits and the french and now he is getting his comeuppance next stop eeehhh hold on while i do a stocktake on tommyhawk's, this may take some time.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

Einhard, you claim western countries need to be seen supporting democracy in Libya which is what the rebels are presumably attempting to achieve.

However, you're unable to answer why there are no resolutions for Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and any other country around the world living under an oppressive regime like that in Libya.

Because not every situation is the same and, as I pointed out, international relations are full of hypocrisies and doublt standards. In this instance however, nobody has been able to provide credible evidence of an ulterior motive. It's not enough simply to shout "Oil!", especially as the evidence contradicts such a view.

Can you explain why the EU collectively exported $1 billion of weapons to Gaddafi if they believed he was a dictator?

I believe that was wrong. However, I do think there's a difference between exporting arms to a nation, and then watching as those arms are used against civilians. I'm not arguing that the West, or the UN, are whiter than white, but I do think that Gadaffi has crossed a line, and most people seem to understand that.

Your argument this is a humanitarian effort is laughable.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but nobody has managed to posit credible evidence of malign motives at play here. The most positive thing for the West to do, economically speaking, would be to back Gadaffi. But they're not. And despite your scoffing, you've not explained their true motives, which I assume are readily apparent to you.

HavingCrack

phosphate wrote: »

Einhard, you claim western countries need to be seen supporting democracy in Libya which is what the rebels are presumably attempting to achieve.

However, you're unable to answer why there are no resolutions for Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and any other country around the world living under an oppressive regime like that in Libya.

Can you explain why the EU collectively exported $1 billion of weapons to Gaddafi if they believed he was a dictator?

Your argument this is a humanitarian effort is laughable.

To be honest, this occurs for a very simple reason. Western states have preferred stablily under dictators such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, The Yemenese regime, the Shah, Suharto, the Saudi monarchy, the Colombian regimes, the Argentinian junta, Mobutu etc that are regimes that are friendly towards western interests rather than democracies that may be unstable and hostile.

1-Yemen is a key US ally in the war on terror.
2-Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and a supplier of oil
3-Bahrain is seen as needing to stay in line for the Saudi's benefit.
4-Picking a fight with Syria would achieve nothing.

On the whole though, this policy has come back to bite them in the arse over the last few months obviously. I think they;re getting unfair press, they're supporting democracy where they can and where it does not clash with their allies interests. However in the absence of viable alternatives they're not too bothered with the status quo unless them become hostile to western interests (aka Iran ). Hence they were happy enough to do business with Gadaffi until he started butchering civilians.

citizen_p

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 1. is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.


2 Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military

3 intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

1, hes been waging a civil war, he dosnt care about his own people or would of held democratic elections etc... also, no NATO ground troops are set to go in and air troops will severly outmatch anything libya has, losses will be minimal (for NATO anyway)

2. they failed, hence the no fly zone

3. bahrain is trying to oust a monarchy, and im unsure on yeman, but each case is individual and should be treated so, or else the whole of north africa and the middle east as there is unrest in Iran and syria too. its an Islamic revolution oust old religious/corrupt politics for democracy (in most cases)

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You seem to misunterstand. I was referring to your assertion that US military intervention in Iraq was not a good strategic inevstment.

Ah that's different. Still though, America has bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations in range of Iran, and the capability to hit Tehran from practically any spot on the planet. I'm not sure waging a massive, costly war in order to gain another military base from which to menace Iran makes sense to be honest. Especially as Saddam was nothing if not pragmatic, and would have had no problems patching things up with America and allowing a base on Iraqi as part of a rapprochement. Also, if Iran was the real target of the war, surely America would just have attacked Iran? Doesn't make sense to attack one country when your goal is another. This is a tad off topic though.

SafeSurfer

Mousey- wrote: »

1, hes been waging a civil war, he dosnt care about his own people or would of held democratic elections etc... also, no NATO ground troops are set to go in and air troops will severly outmatch anything libya has, losses will be minimal (for NATO anyway)

I think you will find it takes 2 sides to "wage" a civil war.

Lots of countries do not hold democratic elections.

2. they failed, hence the no fly zone

In 4 weeks?

3. bahrain is trying to oust a monarchy, and im unsure on yeman, but each case is individual and should be treated so, or else the whole of north africa and the middle east as there is unrest in Iran and syria too. its an Islamic revolution oust old religious/corrupt politics for democracy (in most cases)

So why not support all clamours for democracy?

HavingCrack

Barrett Fancy Saloon wrote: »

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

I think this is the main point. No matter what course of action is taken, it will always be criticised by someone, somewhere. If the west and Un had doen nothing in Libya, they would be accused of standing by while civilians were murdered and when they do intervene they're accused of onlybeing in it for oil. It's a no win situation. I think every case is individual, some battles (Libya) will be won and some (Saudi Arabia at present) won't.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Ah that's different. Still though, America has bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations in range of Iran, and the capability to hit Tehran from practically any spot on the planet. I'm not sure waging a massive, costly war in order to gain another military base from which to menace Iran makes sense to be honest.

Land frontier anyone, just like Afghanistan.

Especially as Saddam was nothing if not pragmatic, and would have had no problems patching things up with America and allowing a base on Iraqi as part of a rapprochement.

You can't seriously believe that. This is a guy who had no WMD to hide and still told the inspectors to F Off!

Also, if Iran was the real target of the war, surely America would just have attacked Iran? Doesn't make sense to attack one country when your goal is another. This is a tad off topic though.[/QUOTE]

Belgim, Laos, Norway etc etc.

Jeboa Safari

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So why not support all clamours for democracy?

Because it's not possible. Why oppose the ones the west do support?

SafeSurfer

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Because it's not possible. Why oppose the ones the west do support?

Because their priorities make me cynical.

HavingCrack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So why not support all clamours for democracy?

It's basic enough geopolitics. The rise of proper democracy in Bahrain and Yemen would increase the pressure on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia cannot allow these protesrs to threaten the Saudi monarchy so it sends troops into Bahrain to supress protests (I can see interference in Yemen as also plausible). The Saudi oilfields are vital for western interests so therefore the west cannot overtly oppose the Saudi machinations through military intervention.

Einhard

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be honest, this occurs for a very simple reason. Western states have preferred stablily under dictators such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, The Yemenese regime, the Shah, Suharto, the Saudi monarchy, the Colombian regimes, the Argentinian junta, Mobutu etc that are regimes that are friendly towards western interests rather than democracies that may be unstable and hostile.

1-Yemen is a key US ally in the war on terror.
2-Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and a supplier of oil
3-Bahrain is seen as needing to stay in line for the Saudi's benefit.
4-Picking a fight with Syria would achieve nothing.

On the whole though, this policy has come back to bite them in the arse over the last few months obviously. I think they;re getting unfair press, they're supporting democracy where they can and where it does not clash with their allies interests. However in the absence of viable alternatives they're not too bothered with the status quo unless them become hostile to western interests (aka Iran ). Hence they were happy enough to do business with Gadaffi until he started butchering civilians.

I think there's much that's correct in this, although I disagree that the West prefers autocracies to messy democracies. That may have been the case in the past, but I'm not sure such an argument can be made now. How does the democratisation of Eastern Europe, and establishment of a democratic framework in Iraq fit into this theory? Surely, if your view is to be upheld, then America should just have installed a puppet in Baghdad? Instead, we have a messy, volatile, inchoate deomocracy, which has proven itself willing to inimicable to American interests. Indeed, the easiest thing for America to have done in that country, was patch things up with Saddam Hussein.


I think the West (and indeed, the international community as a whole) did business with Mubarak, and continue to do so with the likes of Saudi Arabia, because they don't see an alternative. That may be hypocritical to an extent, but I don't think it indicates a current preference for such regimes over open, democratic states.

phosphate

Einhard wrote: »

Because not every situation is the same and, as I pointed out, international relations are full of hypocrisies and doublt standards. In this instance however, nobody has been able to provide credible evidence of an ulterior motive. It's not enough simply to shout "Oil!", especially as the evidence contradicts such a view.

I would say oil is certainly a factor; you don't invest money in a region which offers no financial reward.

EU are heavily dependent on oil from Libya, especially Italy accounting for 38% of what's exported.

Italy 38%, Germany 15%, Spain 9.3%, Turkey 6.2%, France 6.2%, United States 5.2%

According to oil and gas journal, in 2007, Libya were top oil exporter in Africa with 42 billion barrels in reserves.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but nobody has managed to posit credible evidence of malign motives at play here. The most positive thing for the West to do, economically speaking, would be to back Gadaffi. But they're not. And despite your scoffing, you've not explained their true motives, which I assume are readily apparent to you.

Credible evidence? Einhard, take your pick of evidence all over the internet.
This attack on Gaddafi regardless of his actions is purely motivated by financial gain on the Libyan resources and nothing else.

Just because the UK, France and US say they're protecting Libyan civilians, doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

K-9

It's simple.

If nobody had done nothing, the same posters would be on here moaning as when they did something.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Because their priorities make me cynical.

Fair enough, but surely doing some good, is better than doing no good at all?

For example, say my neighbour beat his wife regularly, and I ignored it. Now, any decent person would agree that such non-action would be pretty shitty on my part. Say though, I saw him beating his daughter, and immediately called the police, or ran over to stop him, would you say I shouldn't have intervened in the latter case, because I didn't in the former? Would you condemn me for both my intervention and non-intervention? Because that's the position some people seem to be adopting here.

phosphate

K-9 wrote: »

It's simple.

If nobody had done nothing, the same posters would be on here moaning as when they did something.

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

RichieC

Oil is certainly a factor, but on this one I'll let it slide since it will help people too... once it's all sorted and the yanks turn it into a libertarian business utopia my opinion will start to change though.

SafeSurfer

K-9 wrote: »

It's simple.

If nobody had done nothing, the same posters would be on here moaning as when they did something.

If nobody had done nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

OutlawPete

twinytwo wrote: »

its all about the oil full stop.

Libya only has control of 2% of the world's Oil production.

If anything this is a media driven war.

Quite apt that the first president ever to be elected by the media then.

ascanbe

I can't believe anyone would approach this question with any degree of cynicism or willingness to question motives. I mean, it's not like past instances would give anyone reason to do so.
The real victims here are those whose sensibilities have been offended by the rabid 'lefties' who would dare entertain the possibility of this intervention, perhaps, not being entirely motivated by 'humanitarian' ideals.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

I would say oil is certainly a factor; you don't invest money in a region which offers no financial reward.

EU are heavily dependent on oil from Libya, especially Italy accounting for 38% of what's exported.

Italy 38%, Germany 15%, Spain 9.3%, Turkey 6.2%, France 6.2%, United States 5.2%

According to oil and gas journal, in 2007, Libya were top oil exporter in Africa with 42 billion barrels in reserves.

That actually disproves your point! Gadaffi has shown himself more than willing to supply the needs of Europe and the world. Foreign companies were making a fortune in Libya. Gadaffi's rapprochement with the West was an economic boon for all involved. Why on earth would the West seek then to kill the goose who laid the golden egg, especially when they didn't intervene when Gadaffi was public enemy #1, and funding the bombing of British city centres, and instigating the downing of American airliners?

I'm sorry, but it makes no sense. It's not that I believe the West to be incapable of acting so cynically, it's just that, in this instance, I don;t see how charges of malign motivations can be sustained.

Credible evidence? Einhard, take your pick of evidence all over the internet.
This attack on Gaddafi regardless of his actions is purely motivated by financial gain on the Libyan resources and nothing else.

LOL, noce try, but I'm not going serching for evidence to support a charge that you're making, which I disagree with, and against which I've laid out my own evidence.

Just because the UK, France and US say they're protecting Libyan civilians, doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

I don't believe it because they're saying it. I believe it because I cannot see any reason for them to be involved otherwise.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Fair enough, but surely doing some good, is better than doing no good at all?

For example, say my neighbour beat his wife regularly, and I ignored it. Now, any decent person would agree that such non-action would be pretty shitty on my part. Say though, I saw him beating his daughter, and immediately called the police, or ran over to stop him, would you say I shouldn't have intervened in the latter case, because I didn't in the former? Would you condemn me for both my intervention and non-intervention? Because that's the position some people seem to be adopting here.

If you only intervene because you have some ulterior motive in relation to his daughter then yes, it would be hypocritical.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

I think this is a completely amoral attitude to take! You're basically arguing against some form of positive intervention, because its not taken in all cases! How can you advocate such an approach? FFS, surely doing some good is better than doing no good at all?

HavingCrack

Einhard wrote: »

I think there's much that's correct in this, although I disagree that the West prefers autocracies to messy democracies. That may have been the case in the past, but I'm not sure such an argument can be made now. How does the democratisation of Eastern Europe, and establishment of a democratic framework in Iraq fit into this theory? Surely, if your view is to be upheld, then America should just have installed a puppet in Baghdad? Instead, we have a messy, volatile, inchoate deomocracy, which has proven itself willing to inimicable to American interests. Indeed, the easiest thing for America to have done in that country, was patch things up with Saddam Hussein.


I think the West (and indeed, the international community as a whole) did business with Mubarak, and continue to do so with the likes of Saudi Arabia, because they don't see an alternative. That may be hypocritical to an extent, but I don't think it indicates a current preference for such regimes over open, democratic states.

Hence why I said about it coming back to bite them in the arse. Their support for tyrants has caused chickens to come home to roost.

I think you might have missed a bit of my argument. While the international community prefers democracies per sae, it has no qualms about dealing with dictators if that's the best option on the table as you correctly point out. However historically speaking the West(in particular the US) has a history of undermining democratic states and installing dictators to further their interests. Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Colombia, the coup against Chavez in Venezuala recently, Pakistan, Laos etc. All these countries had democratic institutions which were undermined by the West as they were not in western interests. Interestingly if the west was truly interested in spreading democracy why did they not put one into Kuwait after the first Gulf War but instead put in a near absoltue monarchy?

I would argue that democracy was supported in Iraq because of the invasion rather than in spite of it if that makes sense. Parachuting another dictator in after deposing Saddam just wouldn't look good. To be honest, I;m suprised they just didn't come to an agreement with him though. I

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

If you only intervene because you have some ulterior motive in relation to his daughter then yes, it would be hypocritical.

Well, she is a hottie.;)

K-9

phosphate wrote: »

Why would I?

Oppressive regimes all over the world attack their people everyday and I don't hear you up in arms about it.

You don't hear me?

Safesurfer wrote:

If nobody had done nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

Plenty moaning about countries doing nothing, plenty. Now when they do something......................

Ideally we'd have 5 or 6 air strikes going on now and I agree, there'd still be moaners though. Israeli/Anti Arab plot etc.

Morons who can't see the positive in anything.