The Libyan uprising

Denerick

AlekSmart wrote: »

What particularly interests me is the swashbuckling Tornado waving being carried on by our Imperial neighbours when,just over a month ago they were embarking upon one of the largest demilitarization campaigns ever instituted.

Where the fcU*k is Her Majesty`s Government going to find the funding to embark on yet another campaign to impose order upon fuzzy-wuzzy tribals in far flung corners of former empire ?

This latest Libyan situation just does`nt sit right with me at all.

For sure there are domestic security issues,many of which will present a Westerner with serious comprehension issues.

I`m also struck by the relative ease with which Western Media have moved around within the hot-zones of the country and the availability of the Ghaddafi clan to the same media.

Is there anybody suggesting oul Muammar is some kind of Saint ?

I would appreciate anybody pointing me in the direction of a modern Middle Eastern country which does`nt have religious or tribal dissent constantly running alongside what we would consider "normal" public administration.

Call me an oul cynic,but I find EU/American declarations about "Protecting the Libyan People" sticking in my throat when put alongside the same alliance`s total indifference to the real quantifiable savagery and rapaciousness of Robert Mugabe`s administration...or is it that Zimbabwean People are somehow not deserving of their protection..?

Leave the Libyan`s to sort out their own differences,which they most assuredly will,or at least allow the rest of the Arab world already "protected" to get back to it`s own normality before embarking on yet another mad crusade. :mad:

The difference is this; there is a revolution happening right now in Libya. People are dying in their hundreds and the regime is utterly callous and capricious. There is a clear reality on the ground; troops loyal to the regime are only a few miles away from the rebel stronghold - the retribution will be immense.

48 hours ago I shared your cynicism, but sometimes the world moves in mysterious ways. If the west can do something good and productive here then I applaud it. If it can prevent a massacre then I commend it. We sat back and watched thousands of innocents die in the former Yugoslavia before we finally took action. Imperfect for sure its outcome was in the end, but at least we prevented what would have been a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo.

I don't buy this 'oil' crap either. Libya has an insignificant share of global oil resources - Its relevance here utterly exaggerated by the indymedia crowd; The Balkans and Somalia had none. The west intervened in West Africa for no apparant material gain. Not all politicians are unscrupulous mustachioed Machiavellians striving for global domination...

Denerick

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It happened a bit too close to Europe for comfort.

Yet Europe was happy to debate ad naseum for years and do nothing. It took the Brits and the Americans to lead the charge; two countries the least affected by any risks to immediately adjacent countries. It would have made sense for someone like Italy to lead the way, considering the waves of migration...

ei.sdraob

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It happened a bit too close to Europe for comfort.

Tripoli is 500km farther than Belgrade from Paris... 1000km from Berlin ...
Distance from Paris to Bucharest (in EU) is same as distance between Paris and Tripoli...
London to Athens is same distance as London to Tripoli...

Libya is in our "backyard"

Killer Pigeon

Denerick wrote: »

Yet Europe was happy to debate ad naseum for years and do nothing. It took the Brits and the Americans to lead the charge; two countries the least affected by any risks to immediately adjacent countries. It would have made sense for someone like Italy to lead the way, considering the waves of migration...

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Tripoli is 500km farther than Belgrade from Paris... 1000km from Berlin ...
Distance from Paris to Bucharest (in EU) is same as distance between Paris and Tripoli...
London to Athens is same distance as London to Tripoli...

Libya is in our "backyard"

Wasn't it only after reports of genocide that America and Britain decided to get involved? I'm not hearing any reports of genocide or mass civilian suffering from Libya, on the scale of the Bosnian war.

R P McMurphy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sarkozy can barely handle the muslims in his own country. What does he think he is doing with muslims in their own country?

Had not thought of that, a badly aimed rocket could cause ructions in Paris

murphaph

Denerick wrote: »

The difference is this; there is a revolution happening right now in Libya. People are dying in their hundreds and the regime is utterly callous and capricious. There is a clear reality on the ground; troops loyal to the regime are only a few miles away from the rebel stronghold - the retribution will be immense.

48 hours ago I shared your cynicism, but sometimes the world moves in mysterious ways. If the west can do something good and productive here then I applaud it. If it can prevent a massacre then I commend it. We sat back and watched thousands of innocents die in the former Yugoslavia before we finally took action. Imperfect for sure its outcome was in the end, but at least we prevented what would have been a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo.

I don't buy this 'oil' crap either. Libya has an insignificant share of global oil resources - Its relevance here utterly exaggerated by the indymedia crowd; The Balkans and Somalia had none. The west intervened in West Africa for no apparant material gain. Not all politicians are unscrupulous mustachioed Machiavellians striving for global domination...

This.

I am generally quite cynical too but for once the useless talking shop otherwise known as the UN actually agreed on some real action to help real people in time. The Russians of course (remember they are still fighting in Chechnya) were against it.

I see this as just levelling the playing field a bit. There's no way Obama wanted this. I can just imagine his advisors telling him to keep out of it "another Iraq" etc. which is why I especially commend his action.

I know a few Libyans in Ireland. They HATE Gadaffi and always have. No "ordinary" Libyans like him. The ones you see chanting support for him are all members of his extended tribe, all "looked after" by the regime, just like Hussein did in Iraq. The Libyans have seen what's happened in Egypt and Tunisia and they just want what we already have, the freedom to decide their own fate. If they want an Islamic Republic then so be it, but they should get what they want as a people and not be constrained by a dictator who only holds on to power because he has a massive (relative to the largely unarmed civilians) military machine.

The UN should do MORE of this stuff, that's what the thing was set up for.

ei.sdraob

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Wasn't it only after reports of genocide that America and Britain decided to get involved? I'm not hearing any reports of genocide or mass civilian suffering from Libya, on the scale of the Bosnian war.

The UN stood idly by while genocide occurred in ex Yugoslavia under the eyes of UN staff present in the area.

This time the UN has been more proactive, as well as the Libyan people themselves asking for air support.

does a genocide have to occur before psychopaths are removed?

Killer Pigeon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The UN stood idly by while genocide occurred in ex Yugoslavia under the eyes of UN staff present in the area.

This time the UN has been more proactive, as well as the Libyan people themselves asking for air support.

does a genocide have to occur before psychopaths are removed?

The UN could have done something to stop what happened in Rwanda yet they didn't.

The coalition isn't going to launch such a swift attack unless there wasn't anything in it for them.

I bet, if there was a massive oil well under Belgrade or Sarajevo, the UN (or more importantly the USA) wouldn't have been so slow to act then. They only acted long after it became clear that they needed to act. When they did act, they didn't exactly get a massive blow to the Serbian forces.

The reason why the un has worked well in this case is because the u.s,russia and china are buddies now.
They get on-so the veto's are rarer.

Killer Pigeon

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason why the un has worked well in this case is because the u.s,russia and china are buddies now.
They get on-so the veto's are rarer.

China and Russian could benefit from an opening of Libyan oil supplies now you mean - that's why they haven't said much. They don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

metrovelvet

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

China and Russian could benefit from an opening of Libyan oil supplies now you mean - that's why they haven't said much. They don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

I think they voted against going into Libya in the UN vote. Germany also voted against it.

Killer Pigeon

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think they voted against going into Libya in the UN vote. Germany also voted against it.

They didn't vote for or against it - they abstained. Germany's Angela Merkel was at the meeting about Libya in Paris earlier today.

AlekSmart

Denerick wrote: »

The difference is this; there is a revolution happening right now in Libya. People are dying in their hundreds and the regime is utterly callous and capricious. There is a clear reality on the ground; troops loyal to the regime are only a few miles away from the rebel stronghold - the retribution will be immense.

48 hours ago I shared your cynicism, but sometimes the world moves in mysterious ways. If the west can do something good and productive here then I applaud it. If it can prevent a massacre then I commend it.

Doubtless this is true,but the nature and extent of this "revolution" is to my mind not yet definitive.

Yes we have seen video of excitable crowds brandishing AK47`s or sitting perilously on the barrels of elderly T38 tanks as they career through Benghazi streets.

Equally we have seen footage of some very brave or foolhardy "revolutionaries" sitting exposed on desert highways whilst Lybian Air Force jets pass overhead WITHOUT blowing the exposed convoys to smithereens...?

If retribution was uppermost on the Ghadaffi Governments mind,I fear they would have demonstrated it at a far earlier point in proceedings.

The "clear reality on the ground" is,to me,far from clear at all and appears all to unreal in many ways,perhaps best typified by the downing of the Fighter Jet over Benghazi today,which now seems to be far less cut n dried than first reported.

There is to me rather too much of a rush-to-judge the Government of Libya as being the oppressive bad boys here without any real evidence show that it is`nt just takin care of it`s own business ?

Callous and Capricious regimes are ten-a-penny in the world,indeed these descriptors were not far from many tongues when describing our own governments indifference to people dying on trollies in hospital corridors.

Whether or not these descriptions can be used to justify military aggression on Libya is another issue altogether as it may,at best, only delay or frustrate the settling of old tribal or religious scores whilst costing the lives of perhaps hundreds of young Europeans or Americans in the process.

CiaranC

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

They didn't vote for or against it - they abstained. Germany's Angela Merkel was at the meeting about Libya in Paris earlier today.

They shouldnt be anywhere near the security council in the first place

recedite

AlekSmart wrote: »

Leave the Libyan`s to sort out their own differences,which they most assuredly will

metrovelvet wrote: »

And who are these rebels btw? Are they as bad or worse than Gaddafi? Do the allies know who they are helping.

Apparently it has been decided internationally that the rebels should win this civil war, therefore we presume that they have been examined and the "democratic" aspect to them is more significant than the "islamist" side of things.

That being the case, it is better to support them with overwhelming firepower from the air, so that they can get the job done on the ground with the minimum of casualties all round. Don't forget they were at the outskirts of Tripoli only last week without any air support, so they can do it.

Also, we can expect large numbers of Gadaffy's troops to find alternative employment in the next 24 hrs, now that the odds have changed so much against them.

The Massacre of Benghazi has been averted, thankfully its one that won't appear in the history books.

Killer Pigeon

CiaranC wrote: »

They shouldnt be anywhere near the security council in the first place

Well it wasn't just the Germany who abstained. The Russians and the Chinese did too.

metrovelvet

Well all I can say is hip hip hooray. We have fundamentalism all over the middle east and oil at $7 a barrel.

Im guessing, and Im not a military strategist [obviously] the only hope for rebels [whomever they are] to recreate Libya as a new political country is to secure the oil fields and supplies. And that means ground troops. Which means the Euros will have to supply troops and eventually the Americans will be called in as they usually are and we will all have ground troops in Libya. We will eventually move from supporting the rebels to taking them over.

Wouldnt suprise me either if G blows up the oil supply out of spite anyway.

I wont be travelling for a while, thats for sure....

Meanwhile....no formal declaration of war...maybe they are deluded enough to think this will be a short one.

What are they planning to replace G with?

Killer Pigeon

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well all I can say is hip hip hooray. We have fundamentalism all over the middle east and oil at $7 a barrel.

Im guessing, and Im not a military strategist [obviously] the only hope for rebels [whomever they are] to recreate Libya as a new political country is to secure the oil fields and supplies. And that means ground troops. Which means the Euros will have to supply troops and eventually the Americans will be called in as they usually are and we will all have ground troops in Libya. We will eventually move from supporting the rebels to taking them over.

Wouldnt suprise me either if K blows up the oil supply out of spite anyway.

I wont be travelling for a while, thats for sure....

Meanwhile....no formal declaration of war...maybe they are deluded enough to think this will be a short one.

I could deffo see Gaddafi ordering the bombing of oil reserves and setting oil fields on fire when he sees the end is near.

AlekSmart

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well all I can say is hip hip hooray. We have fundamentalism all over the middle east and oil at $7 a barrel.

Im guessing, and Im not a military strategist [obviously] the only hope for rebels [whomever they are] to recreate Libya as a new political country is to secure the oil fields and supplies. And that means ground troops. Which means the Euros will have to supply troops and eventually the Americans will be called in as they usually are and we will all have ground troops in Libya. We will eventually move from supporting the rebels to taking them over.

Wouldnt suprise me either if K blows up the oil supply out of spite anyway.

I wont be travelling for a while, thats for sure....

Meanwhile....no formal declaration of war...maybe they are deluded enough to think this will be a short one.

Yea metrovelvet,we`re rapidly running out of warm,friendly middle-eastern countries willing to pay top-dollar for English Language teachers, Nurses and assorted other "professionals"......:eek:

It`s always amused me that countries such as Iraq under Saadam,Iran under the Shah.Libya under Ghadaffai,Egypt under Mubarak and South Africa under PW Botha were much favoured by the Professional Irish "Wild Geese" as typified by many of those who were "rescued" from Libya when this revolution kicked-off.

mike65

Can the "Anti" mob tell me why failure to intervene in country A means intervenion in country B is wrong?

metrovelvet

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yea,we`re rapidly running out of warm,friendly middle-eastern countries willing to pay top-dollar for English Language teachers and Nurses.......:eek:

Yeah... I was thinking more about Lockerbie....and UTA

A Dub in Glasgo

mike65 wrote: »

Can the "Anti" mob tell me why failure to intervene in country A means intervenion in country B is wrong?

It is not wrong, just as intervention in coutry B means failure to intervene in country A is right.

I support the assistance given to the Libyan rebels

Killer Pigeon

mike65 wrote: »

Can the "Anti" mob tell me why failure to intervene in country A means intervenion in country B is wrong?

They'll just be replacing one source of exploitation with another.

metrovelvet

mike65 wrote: »

Can the "Anti" mob tell me why failure to intervene in country A means intervenion in country B is wrong?

Well, it might not be wrong for the Euros in a moral sense. I don't know because I dont know what or who is going to replace G, im sure that is why Ronald Reagan didnt take him out when he had the chance. It might be wrong in a practical sense for the Euros because they may not have the airpower to be able to pull this off. They will probably have to secure the sea and ports so that G cant get more arms supplies. Libya is in Europe's back yard. I see this more as a Euro-Muslim problem. Hell, G should just move to Veneuela and drink rum with Chavez and call it a day.

But I feel it's wrong for the US to be involved in this for many reasons.

mike65

A Dub in Glasgo

Some people here seem to think it is though. The college debating society level of politics on this board at times like these is pretty dispiriting, the real world is far too complex for slogans. The oil (and gas which is more important) angle is uttertly bogus, Libyas government has been happy to sell it to whoever will pay, the conflict now disrupts supply so maybe the coalition of the willing should have just stood by and let Ghaddafi do his worst.

Originally Posted by AlekSmart
What particularly interests me is the swashbuckling Tornado waving being carried on by our Imperial neighbours when,just over a month ago they were embarking upon one of the largest demilitarization campaigns ever instituted.

Where the fcU*k is Her Majesty`s Government going to find the funding to embark on yet another campaign to impose order upon fuzzy-wuzzy tribals in far flung corners of former empire ?

The above is so stupid I'll just let it lie for others to consider.

Killer Pigeon

mike65 wrote: »

A Dub in Glasgo

Some people here seem to think it is though. The college debating society level of politics on this board at times like these is pretty dispiriting, the real world is far too complex for slogans. The oil (and gas which is more important) angle is uttertly bogus, Libyas government has been happy to sell it to whoever will pay, the conflict now disrupts supply so maybe the coalition of the willing should have just stood by and let Ghaddafi do his worst.

Didn't Saddam Hussein sell oil to the West too before he was toppled? After 9/11 the US had an excuse to go in and get even more oil (and no I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, just in case you're thinking that) - American companies benefited hugely from the Iraq takeover. The same will happen in Libya, they want MORE oil! This time French and British companies will benefit a little more alongside the Americans. Isn't it just a little coincidental that they decide to overthrow the government of a country which has the greatest oil reserves in Africa?

mike65

Why upset the status quo that was working fine? Also you and others appear to happy to overlook the fact that the rebels have been seeking intervention. Why wait for a city to be leveled before intervening? That was the failure of Bosnia - the EU having tea with Milosovic as his Serbian machine murdered tens of thousands of civilians.

from guardian

10.50pm: Qatar and the UAE will be sending forces to the no-fly zone. AFP is reporting that the United Arab Emirates will be contributing 24 fighter jets – Mirage 2000-9s and F-16s – while Qatar will contribute between four and six Mirage 2000-5s, according to a French official.

Iyad Ali, 37, unemployed: "We think this will end Gaddafi's rule. Libyans will never forget France's stand with them. If it weren't for them, then Benghazi would have been overrun tonight."

Khalid al-Ghurfaly, 38, civil servant: "We salute, France, Britain, the United States and the Arab countries for standing with Libya. But we think Gaddafi will take out his anger on civilians. So the West has to hit him hard."

Faraj Omar, 55, engineer: "We've all seen the news but we'll see what the results are later. To have any effect Gaddafi must be hit in Aziziyah, this is the head of the snake," he said referring to Gaddafi's heavily-fortified Tripoli compound.

gizmo555

metrovelvet wrote: »

I don't know because I dont know what or who is going to replace G, im sure that is why Ronald Reagan didnt take him out when he had the chance.

If Ronald Reagan "didn't take him out", it wasn't for want of trying . . .

metrovelvet

mike65 wrote: »

Why upset the status quo that was working fine? Also you and others appear to happy to overlook the fact that the rebels have been seeking intervention. Why wait for a city to be leveled before intervening? That was the failure of Bosnia - the EU having tea with Milosovic as his Serbian machine murdered tens of thousands of civilians.

Europeans like to talk. Americans like to get right in there.

I think we should stay out of it and stay out of everything. Let Europe develop its own military power.

Its easy to support a war, ahem, police intervention, when its not your kids, or your friends kids, or your compatriots, dying and risking their lives for people who resent you.

Killer Pigeon

mike65 wrote: »

Why upset the status quo that was working fine?

It's called opportunism. The West sees the unrest in Libya and the Middle East, comes in as though they were some guardian angel under the guise of "democracy", "freedom" and "liberty" but underneath it all they really have vested interests in the region. They used the same rhetoric in Iraq and Afghanistan.

mike65 wrote: »

Also you and others appear to happy to overlook the fact that the rebels have been seeking intervention. Why wait for a city to be leveled before intervening? That was the failure of Bosnia - the EU having tea with Milosovic as his Serbian machine murdered tens of thousands of civilians.

... or Rwanda, etc...

Of course I'm not happy watching the Libyan people suffer but I think that regional powers should have more of a say. Like the newly liberated Egypt or Tunisia who really understand what their Libyan brothers are going through. I don't think that American exploitationists should be involved, that'll just cause more unrest in a region that's already weary of American intervention.