Should NATO invade Libya?

johnmcdnl

or let the civilians at their own devices and take power by themselves and get the **** out of power for good like what the rest of the arab world seems to be doing these days...

getz

its not in the role of NATO to invade unless there is a security risk to the west,[ireland is not a member of NATO] that would be the role of the UN,

fulhamfanincork

I think we should nuke the place. Total non entity of a country.

ejmaztec

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I think we should nuke the place. Total non entity of a country.

When did we get nukes?

fulhamfanincork

ejmaztec wrote: »

When did we get nukes?

Well like we are a stakeholder in nato so i decide we use nat
o nukes to nuke the fo-shizzle out of the libyan cretins.

Royal Irish

seamus wrote: »

Maybe I'm crazy, but don't you think an Islamic democracy is better than any dictatorship? How many democratic countries (as compared to dictatorships) have waged war on their neighbours in the last 100 years?

Think about the last world war. 3 primary belligerants, all dictatorships. All of the primary Allies, democracies.

The thing is, when you let people vote for what they want, they very rarely vote for, "Yes, let's send our children to invade a foreign country and blow the ****e out of themselves because we want a bigger country". They usually vote for the, "We like our country as it is, just keep us safe and keep us healthy" option.

Dictatorships breed poverty, which breeds ignorance, which breeds religious extremism. It's no coincidence that Islamic fundamentalists tend to come from poor dictatorships. It's in much the same way that IRA sympathisers and supporters tend to come from working-class areas.

Some very good points there.

If fair and transparent elections are held in these countries, the likes of the muslim brotherhood will get into power, so the current agreements Egypt or whatever other country in the Maghreb have with Israel will be null and void. Already we have seen Iranian warships pass through the Suez canal, which hasnt happened in over 30 years I think. It wouldnt of happened if Mubarak was still in charge.

But worse still the likes of the muslim brotherhood will introduce Sharia Law, which in my opinion is just medieval savagery. They have already been quoted as saying that they will introduce it and people will still vote for it. I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live with the possibility of one of my sisters being stoned to death because she came home from a night out with a 1.5 inch scrape on her bum. If they even go as far as very strict Sharia Law that the Pashto Taliban live under, that would mean that young girls wont be allowed an education. Stuff like that just shouldnt happen in the 21st century and its where those countries a heading.

whitesands

wes wrote: »

Its truly amazing that people seem to think peaceful pro-democracy protesters, are some how interested in starting a war with the West. Some people are truly living on bizaro world.

All eyes will be on Israel, Iran have 2 ships being held back from entering the suez canal, supposedly for 48 hours, I'm not sure as there are too many conflicting reports.
If Israel hit them ships it will plunge the world into a devastating world war, were on the brink of it now.

The worrying thing is Israel expect it, want it. The outgoing IDF head said only a couple of weeks ago before he left, Israel must prepare for war in multiple theaters. The UN told them to tone down their rhetoric.

pro-democracy protesters won't start a war, Israel will with US support.

wes

Royal Irish wrote: »

If fair and transparent elections are held in these countries, the likes of the muslim brotherhood will get into power, so the current agreements Egypt or whatever other country in the Maghreb have with Israel will be null and void.

There is no guarantee that they would win an election firstly, and secondly even if they did, there is no guarantee they would rip up any agreement with Israel either btw.

Royal Irish wrote: »

Already we have seen Iranian warships pass through the Suez canal, which hasnt happened in over 30 years I think. It wouldnt of happened if Mubarak was still in charge.

Except that Egpytian policy has been to allow such ships through the canal, as long as they are not at war with Egypt. So, as per the previous policy, nothing has changed in that regard.

Royal Irish wrote: »

But worse still the likes of the muslim brotherhood will introduce Sharia Law, which in my opinion is just medieval savagery. They have already been quoted as saying that they will introduce it and people will still vote for it. I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live with the possibility of one of my sisters being stoned to death because she came home from a night out with a 1.5 inch scrape on her bum. If they even go as far as very strict Sharia Law that the Pashto Taliban live under, that would mean that young girls wont be allowed an education. Stuff like that just shouldnt happen in the 21st century and its where those countries a heading.

There are already elements of Sharia law in Egypt, which most people seem to be unaware of.

Secondly, this all depends on firstly the Muslim brotherhood getting into power, and then for them to introduce the kind of laws that your are suggesting. Finally, Libya and Egypt are 2 different countries, and from what I can see the Muslim Brotherhood, don't have the same organization in Libya, so in the context of the thread, everything you have said is largely irrelevant.

wes

whitesands wrote: »

pro-democracy protesters won't start a war, Israel will with US support.

Now, while I could see the Israeli's trying to kick something off, but I seriously doubt the US is stupid enough to start another war, with all the domestic problems there country has, and even if they were insane enough to do so, I doubt the rest of the world, would decide to tag along on another pointless ME mis-adventure.

Fratton Fred

Exactly what sort of ships do Iran have in the red sea?
If Iran attacks Israel by sea they will get their arsed kicked and the world will do nothing.

If Israel attacks them, they will get a bollocking from the UN and maybe Iran will attack, which again would be an arse kicking. And the world will do nothing.

Krusader

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Well like we are a stakeholder in nato so i decide we use nat
o nukes to nuke the fo-shizzle out of the libyan cretins.

Ireland isn't in NATO

prinz

Royal Irish wrote: »

Already we have seen Iranian warships pass through the Suez canal, which hasnt happened in over 30 years I think. It wouldnt of happened if Mubarak was still in charge..

AFAIK the two ships (one of which is a supply ship) are due to enter the Med tomorrow, if at all according to some news reports. There are conflicting news reports over the last few days, ships are continuing, ships withdrew application to use canal, Egyptians are postponing rights to use canal.... all a bit up in the air.

Although the Suez is regarded as an internal Egyptian waterway, there are international agreements in place as to fair usage etc., with Egypt only being allowed to block civilian international shipping from a certain country if at war with that country.

Military shipping has to get clearance (which is only denied if the military shipping is deemed a security risk to Egypt itself) from the Egyptian authorities to make the journey through the canal which the Iranians seem to have done and paid the cost of passing (something like quarter of a million dollars). As for this being a new departure, I looked for examples of Iranians requesting access to military ships before and being denied by Mubarak's Egypt and haven't found any records. Could it be that it hasn't happened before because the Iranian Navy never requested passage before?

nacho libre

prinz wrote: »

AFAIK the two ships (one of which is a supply ship) are due to enter the Med tomorrow, if at all according to some news reports. There are conflicting news reports over the last few days, ships are continuing, ships withdrew application to use canal, Egyptians are postponing rights to use canal.... all a bit up in the air.

Although the Suez is regarded as an internal Egyptian waterway, there are international agreements in place as to fair usage etc., with Egypt only being allowed to block civilian international shipping from a certain country if at war with that country.

Military shipping has to get clearance (which is only denied if the military shipping is deemed a security risk to Egypt itself) from the Egyptian authorities to make the journey through the canal which the Iranians seem to have done and paid the cost of passing (something like quarter of a million dollars). As for this being a new departure, I looked for examples of Iranians requesting access to military ships before and being denied by Mubarak's Egypt and haven't found any records. Could it be that it hasn't happened before because the Iranian Navy never requested passage before?

So you're saying Iran is testing the new Egyptian regime. Here is some background info on Suleiman:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html

prinz

nacho libre wrote: »

So you're saying Iran is testing the new Egyptian regime. Here is some background info on Suleiman:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html

I am saying the Iranians are doing a bit of strutting showing off their first home-built frigate about the region. As for testing the new regime.... I'm still not aware they 'tested' the old regime. Could just be a coincidence of timing, as the Iranian navy has not ventured that far 'til now. The two ships pose no serious threat in and of themselves so I was failing to see the reasoning Egypt could give for refusing them passage.

What has Suleiman to do with what I said

"In this case as long as they (Iranians) are not conducting some sort belligerent operation I think they would have a right to go through the canal like any other country; they are conducting counter piracy operations in that area," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110216/ts_nm/us_israel_iran_warships_4

seamus

Royal Irish wrote: »

But worse still the likes of the muslim brotherhood will introduce Sharia Law, which in my opinion is just medieval savagery. They have already been quoted as saying that they will introduce it and people will still vote for it. I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live with the possibility of one of my sisters being stoned to death because she came home from a night out with a 1.5 inch scrape on her bum. If they even go as far as very strict Sharia Law that the Pashto Taliban live under, that would mean that young girls wont be allowed an education. Stuff like that just shouldnt happen in the 21st century and its where those countries a heading.

Ignoring all the "ifs" here; It's still democracy. If a democratic population wishes to vote for strongly mysogynistic laws, then quite frankly that's their perogative.
We'd be horrified if the UK voted the BNP into majority tomorrow, but would that give the EU the right to intervene and install an EU-friendly dictatorship? Of course not.

There are equally many hardline religious people who will look at Ireland's democratic society allowing the "abominations" of homosexuality, non-marital sex and universal suffrage and decide that we are nothing more than Romanesque Hedonist who need to be dragged into their modern world.

As they say, a democratic population votes for the government that it deserves. If a society wants to vote itself into savagery and ignorance, then at least its being given that choice.
In reality democratic totalitarian regimes tend not to exist because no one regime has the complete support of the population. So democratic governments tend to do what they can to make everyone as happy as possible.
The ruthless application of Sharia law is not something that will keep a democratic government in power.

We have a tendency in the west to assume that all countries should adopt our way of thinking overnight, neglecting the time it took us to get to where we are. While we can condemn things like stonings and religious laws, we have to go hands-off to a certain extent and allow these countries to evolve themselves. Turning around and trying to turn Libya into a secular democracy overnight will simply cause the hardliners to become more hardline and seize control.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Crosáidí wrote: »

Ireland isn't in NATO

Your right, but we do have troops with ISAF, KFOR & SFOR.

sdanseo

NATO wouldn't be any help. What's needed is a little UK/US covert op to behead the gadaffi family and presto, psuedo-liberation.

Freddie59

positron wrote: »

The unrest in the middle east should be our way out of the economic mess. Here's the draft plan.

* Irish Government should declare emergency.
* Takeover Ryanair, AerLingus and all their air crafts and staff.
* Roundup men and women and beer onto planes, and arm them and drop them off near Libya.
* Promise Libyans that we are there to help, just to get Gaddaffi out.
* Wreck the place in the name of war. Blame it alll on Gaddaffi's people of course.
* Install Irish-friendly people into power.
* Strike cheap oil deal, and win all regeneration, rebuilding contracts.
* Profilt!!!

Oh sorry, that somehow sounds like what Americans do.

Oh so simplistic view of America. Tell me - do you use any American-made products? Or maybe some of that oil from the ME?

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

As they say, a democratic population votes for the government that it deserves.

Except in Iran.

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

Its truly amazing that people seem to think peaceful pro-democracy protesters, are some how interested in starting a war with the West. Some people are truly living on bizaro world.

In fairness, do you honestly believe that the displaced regimes are going to be replaced with bona fide democracies, which allow freedom of speech and expression. You just get the feeling that OBL and his henchmen are nudging all this along. It's all too coincidental.

nacho libre

prinz wrote: »

I am saying the Iranians are doing a bit of strutting showing off their first home-built frigate about the region. As for testing the new regime.... I'm still not aware they 'tested' the old regime. Could just be a coincidence of timing, as the Iranian navy has not ventured that far 'til now. The two ships pose no serious threat in and of themselves so I was failing to see the reasoning Egypt could give for refusing them passage.

What has Suleiman to do with what I said



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110216/ts_nm/us_israel_iran_warships_4

Sorry . It seems I completely misunderstood your post.

I thought you were implying that if the Egyptians were to allow the Iranian ships passage it would signal a negative shift in the relationship between Israel and Egypt. Also the fact that you pointed out to the best of your knowledge Iran hadn't sought to use this passage under Mubarak, this signalled that the Iranians were looking to see how the new Egyptian leadership would respond to such a request. Therefore I thought it was a good idea to give you background info on Suleiman, since I interperted your posts as being apprehensive that Egypt if it granted Iran permission to use the canal would herald a change in the relationship between Israel and Egypt

prinz

nacho libre wrote: »

Also the fact that you pointed out to the best of your knowledge Iran hadn't sought to use this passage under Mubarak, this signalled that the Iranians were looking to see how the new Egyptian leadership would respond to such a request.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The only way of knowing would be if they had asked Mubarak to be let through and Egypt expressly denied Iranian Navy passage, which would show there has been a noticeable shift in policy. Like I said I can't find any record of Egypt under Mubarak refusing passage to Iranian navy vessels, just that it has never happened since the revolution in Iran, so it could be that Mubarak would never allow it, or it could also be that Iran never asked.

kraggy

Why would Nato go in?

Tabnabs

Lasers back in your holsters cowboys, rumours are that Gadaffi is off to Venezuela.

wes

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness, do you honestly believe that the displaced regimes are going to be replaced with bona fide democracies, which allow freedom of speech and expression. You just get the feeling that OBL and his henchmen are nudging all this along. It's all too coincidental.

I have no idea what will replace them, and I think these peaceful protests have shown how completely irrelevant Osama is to the people of the ME. He has more relevance to people in the West, as a boogie man. Osama is a joke, living in a cave, with some nut jobs who still follow him.

Right now, the people want democracies, and I am hopeful they can pull it off.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Right now, the people want democracies, and I am hopeful they can pull it off.

Insha'Allah.

johnmcdnl

Freddie59 wrote: »

Oh so simplistic view of America. Tell me - do you use any American-made products? Or maybe some of that oil from the ME?

well are you going to deny they do it????

what does it matter if we use american goods or not - no one mentioned anything about supporting the tactic - just that they do it;)

Funkfield

Tabnabs wrote: »

Lasers back in your holsters cowboys, rumours are that Gadaffi is off to Venezuela.

Well he won't last long there. South America has never been a good hiding place for right wing...........oh, wait.

Wolfe Tone

I just hope mad muslims dont take over like Iran

FlutterinBantam

sdonn wrote: »

NATO wouldn't be any help. What's needed is a little UK/US covert op to behead the gadaffi family and presto, psuedo-liberation.

What exactly do you want buddy?

Nodin

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness, do you honestly believe that the displaced regimes are going to be replaced with bona fide democracies, which allow freedom of speech and expression. You just get the feeling that OBL and his henchmen are nudging all this along. It's all too coincidental.

Well if Wahabi Sunni OBL is nudging along Shia majority protests in Bahrain as oppossed to setting off bombs amongst them, it would be a nice move towards ecumenism on his part...

Paco Rodriguez

I really hope these people do not give in to this incredible state terrorism on its own people, and stay strong. I have a Libyan friend who is luckily in NY now, but she hasnt had contact with her family back there.

The airforce is bombing protestors as we speak and snipers are firing on them.
Does anyone know are there protests arranged in Dublin during the week?

Son Of A Vidic

OP - Why would NATO invade Libya? They can barely manage or agree on a strategy in Afghanistan ffs!

Lirange

This is going to be much worse than Egypt in terms of loss of life.

Paco Rodriguez

Lirange wrote: »

This is going to be much worse than Egypt in terms of loss of life.

It is already way worse. It is reported that 160 people are dead in Tripoli alone tonight

Lirange

True but there seems to be a post Egypt stupor and it's not generating the same level of interest. Even though yes it's the news lead there's much less discussion on the interweb I've noticed.

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

I have no idea what will replace them, and I think these peaceful protests have shown how completely irrelevant Osama is to the people of the ME. He has more relevance to people in the West, as a boogie man. Osama is a joke, living in a cave, with some nut jobs who still follow him.

Right now, the people want democracies, and I am hopeful they can pull it off.

Believe me, I really hope you are right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this is more organised than we give it credit for. I hope I am wrong though.

Freddie59

johnmcdnl wrote: »

well are you going to deny they do it????

what does it matter if we use american goods or not - no one mentioned anything about supporting the tactic - just that they do it;)

Yeah, but don't you just find it a LITTLE hypocritical though?;)

Reminds me of that bit in Holy War Inc, where the writer met OBL's sidekick, who came out in traditional Arab dress - then proceeded to whip out a laptop and a satellite phone. When Bergen pointed this out, your man just said 'oh the west is evil - but this technology is wonderful'. FFS.:rolleyes:

sligopark

Jaiden Microscopic Soybean wrote: »

Either you believe a war will make diesel cheaper or you don't.. explain.

mor eexpensive Jaiden Microscopic Soybean - army stuff uses diesel - increased consumption forces prices up

Tabnabs wrote: »

Lasers back in your holsters cowboys, rumours are that Gadaffi is off to Venezuela.

Nope latest rumours are he is on his way to Ireland to take up fianna fail's suggestion that those with experience of f_cking up a country be brought into cabinet without a democratic mandate....

Bet the sh_t will hit the fan when he sees those 15% poll ratings ...

ItsAWindUp

Long live Colonel Gaddafi!

Bloody hell.

If I could, I'd go George W. on those civvie-bombing fighters. Italy-based F-15s in and blow them from the sky.

Wolfe Tone

He is hanging on, I feel bad doing what he is when I am playing Civ, I cant imagine how he can do it in real life. Although I say he is right, probably outside influence at play too.

Capt'n Midnight

It's only 200 people. The west has ignored far more deaths like that in other countries. A long as you don't nationalise stuff and keep all the killing within your boarders you can do as you wish. In the case of Cambodia we recognised DK instead of the evil Vietnamese puppet state. ( The fact that DK/Khymer Rouge killed about a third of the population wasn't reason to intervene. )

Until if affects other countries it will be seen as an internal affair, the real fear would be a power vacuum being filled by extremists.

Capt'n Midnight

mike65 wrote: »

Indeed Saudi will take in any types - if Idi Amin could find a home there the Qaddafi's can (Amin also hid out in Libya after he fled Uganda)

And like the IRA had close dealings with the PLO.

Overheal

The Government ordered it's Fighter Jets to drop ordnance on the protestors.

[at least some of] The Pilots have defected and have requested Asylum after landing in Malta. Several Helicopters carrying French oil rig workers have also escaped from Libyan air space.

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-pilots-defect-after-orders-to-shoot-20110221

NATO wont step in. The NATO treaties only deal with mutual Defense against external attack, not acting outside of NATO member borders, and not in the case of a civil war even at that. Libya is neither a member state of NATO or attacking another country. And the UN won't step in while there is an active war going on. Peacekeepers get sent in when there is peace to be kept.

Not sure what will happen now. Very bloody times. Im not sure of any country or organizations that would be prepared to go in to perform an armed intervention. but an interesting read from 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/opinion/07iht-edhaass.html

Lirange

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's only 200 people.

Only?

Anyway it's far more than that unfortunately.

Overheal wrote: »

NATO wont step in. The NATO treaties only deal with mutual Defense against external attack, not acting outside of NATO member borders, and not in the case of a civil war even at that.

Kosovo?

I don't think NATO will get involved. There's no clear vested interests at stake or pressure to intervene. Especially since the outcome is probably a given at this point.

Cathaoirleach

Gaddafi, the mad bastard, has deployed paid mercenaries in helicopters from Sub-Sar Africa to murder and terrorise civilians.

The army are indiscriminately bombing neighbourhoods with gatherings of people.

The country is completly out of control with no internal media reporting on the atrocities.

The UN must decide in today's meeting if they should send troops in. There will be untold bloodshed in the country if outside sources do not intervene.

HooterSnout

Duggy747 wrote: »

Send in Plato, he'll end up confusing everyone.

If Plato's going in, then send in Cato too with his money bags.

prinz

Overheal wrote: »

[at least some of] The Pilots have defected and have requested Asylum after landing in Malta.

Fair play to them. No wonder Gadaffi is importing mercenaries. Could be terrified of an army coup....... something he has some experience with.

wes

Freddie59 wrote: »

Believe me, I really hope you are right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this is more organised than we give it credit for. I hope I am wrong though.

Osama is in a cave, and non-violent protests are not the man's style either. He is not behind any of this.

The protests are well organised, but there organisation is by the people participating, and not by foreign elements like Al Qaeda.