The Libyan uprising

mike65

metrovelvet you really should make it clear that "we" is the USA not Ireland or anyone else. And yes the EU should be able to tie its own shoelaces, without looking to Uncle Sam.

partyatmygaff

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

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.

Generally speaking they are for UN intervention so long as it does not turn in to occupation.

metrovelvet

gizmo555 wrote: »

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

Nice to know it was the Italian prime minister at the time who warned G. That wiki article says that Burlesconi rolled out the red carpet for him. But isnt there Italian presence in these missions?

OK I'll try to be clearer about the WE. I meet myself across the atlantic sometimes.

mike65

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

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.

Tunsia is no postion is do anything other than take in refugees which they have been doing at huge strain to their governence. Egypt is still dealing with its own internal tensions after the overthrow of Mubarak. They are holding a referendum this weekend. I wouldn't expect them to take a lead on anything beyond their own borders for a while.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Gbagbo is pretty much unstoppable, unless they start sanctioning assassination

Very different situation to Libya, from every single standpoint.

I mean imagine putting a no fly zone down there, laughable

I am starting to notice people are lumping situations into the same category a lot in this thread, when they are extremely diverse. No one has mentioned Congo yet, when the place is far worse than anything mentioned so far

I'm glad you mentioned the Congo.
Has there been a UN resolution in the Congo authorising intervention by the west?
As for the Ivory Coast, Gbagbo is to all intents and purposes a dictator who is refuing to relinquish power and is killing his own people.

Also no mention of Yemen by you. Where Saleh's henchmen are killing protestors as the eyes of the world are on Libya. Yet no clarion call from Britain and France that military intervention is needed.

AlekSmart

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.



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

Well stupid or not,it`s all academic now as we watch the Tornado`s take off from blighty on their way Libyaward.

The ousting of Ghadaffi and his regime is not something which appears to have been thought through in any real sense by the Wesht and it still puzzles me as to what benefits his demise will bring to ordinary Libyan`s or indeed to the rest of us back here.

For sure the complexity of the Arab World as a whole often escapes European and American thinking,which was underlined just a few minutes ago when Pres Obama made reference to not "Standing idly by" while Libyan Government forces threatened "the people".

At this stage,as has now become almost an integral part of US/EU foreign policy,its just a matter of seeing if the "Shock and Awe" will bring the Colonel to his senses.

Then we can sit back,relax and make sure the next "democratically elected" leader of Libya is the right sort of fellow,dontcha know....;)

greendom

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

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.



... 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.

yes that's right they saw the fantastic opportunities in Iraq and Afganistan previously. They turned out so well for the Western countries involved that they want the same in Libya.

This is not about self-interest. It's about doing the right thing. As for the regional powers you're right but Egypt and Tunisia are in no position to do anything as they've got their own mess to sort out. But there are key Arabic states happy to help and be involved and there aren't too many dissenting voices out there.

kraggy

Why are the UAE against Gadaffi, by supporting the no-fly-zone over Libya, but anti the protesters in Bahrain.

i.e. they support the oppressive regime in Bahrain, but are against it in Libya?

Part of why I can't understand it is that the UAE and Saudi Arabia support the Bahrain regime as they are all Sunni, but so is Gadaffi.

So why are the UAE against Gadaffi?

Killer Pigeon

kraggy wrote: »

Why are the UAE against Gadaffi, by supporting the no-fly-zone over Libya, but anti the protesters in Bahrain.

i.e. they support the oppressive regime in Bahrain, but are against it in Libya?

Part of why I can't understand it is that the UAE and Saudi Arabia support the Bahrain regime as they are all Sunni, but so is Gadaffi.

So why are the UAE against Gadaffi?

$€£ CH-CHING $€£

metrovelvet

Can anyone tell me what this No Fly Zone is supposed to accomplish? Haven't the US had one in AFghanistan for nine years?

AlekSmart

greendom wrote: »

yes that's right they saw the fantastic opportunities in Iraq and Afganistan previously. They turned out so well for the Western countries involved that they want the same in Libya.

This is not about self-interest. It's about doing the right thing. As for the regional powers you're right but Egypt and Tunisia are in no position to do anything as they've got their own mess to sort out. But there are key Arabic states happy to help and be involved and there aren't too many dissenting voices out there.

This may well be true,but the fact remains that for some strategically placed Western elements,for example Haliburton,the business of warfare in far flung parts brings with it opportunity.

metrovelvet

"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Barack Obama in 2002

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

partyatmygaff

kraggy wrote: »

So why are the UAE against Gadaffi?

The Saudis and the Emirates hate him personally. Search "Gaddafi Arab Leauge" in Youtube and you'll see him insulting the King of Saudi Arabia in a public forum (Not the online kind, mind you )

Killer Pigeon

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what this No Fly Zone is supposed to accomplish? Haven't the US had one in AFghanistan for nine years?

I imagine it's an air blockade of sorts. To implement the blockade they need to take out any forces (anti-aircraft, radar, etc..) that Gaddafi could utilise to impede it. At the end of the day, the coalition forces are going to use the UN resolution as a excuse to wipe out all of Libya's armed forces.

AlekSmart

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what this No Fly Zone is supposed to accomplish? Haven't the US had one in AFghanistan for nine years?

From early reports the French Military are now targeting Libyan Army Tanks,with SkyNews suggesting one destroyed near Benghazi.

What,one wonders,are this particular "Coalition" proposing to do with the substantial numbers of non-military Libyans who nonetheless support Col.Gadaffi`s Government ?

Perhaps a concerted Hearts & Minds campaign might just swing it ?

nacho libre

Einhard wrote: »

.



You realise that the West doesn't control the UN? Anyway, such points always forget that the West were having their interests fulfilled by Gadaffi. Why would they, after decades spent tolerating him as an enemy, wish to topple him so soon after he sought to rehabilitate his image, and cosy up to the West. It makes absolutely no sense.
.

Perhaps the point is there are countries on the UN security council who can effect the outcomes of votes and as a consequence what action the UN does or doesn't sanction? Some countries have the power of veto, which can scupper resolutions brought forth by other member states. A recent example would be the USA using its power of veto to block the passing of a resolution on Israel.

There is a rather obvious reason why Britain and America might be keen to now topple him Gadaffi.

Killer Pigeon

Interesting facts floating around that might interest people:

Each Tomahawk cruise missile carries 3 kg of depleted uranium (DU) in its warhead. DU is a waste product from nuclear reactors which can be up to 50% as radioactive as normal uranium. DU weapons have caused spikes in birth defects in Serbia, Afghanistan & Iraq.

The US & UK have carelessly launched 112 of these deadly weapons tonight alone (each of which costs in the region of $1.2 million). So the equivalent of 168 kg of Uranium (also the equivalent of the fall-out from around a dozen low kiloton nuclear explosions) has been released into the atmosphere.

Euroland

Einhard wrote: »

I think they're completely different situations. The decision to invade Iraq was practically unilateral, and had no mandate, either from the UN or, in a sense, the Iraqi people themselves. With Libya, the people are demanding action, and the UN has sanctioned it. Not to mention the fact that the Arab League is in support. Also, the intervention will be very limited. I'd be hugely surprised if regular foreign troops set foot on Libyan soil as part of this.

Both countries had one thing in common; they were very reach in oil and it had no American control. Now Iraqi oil is under full American control and, control over Libyan oil is on American agenda.

Euroland

junder wrote: »

I wonder if ground troops will be used

Some of them already there: French/British/American special forces have been operating on the ground already for several weeks, first of all in Bengazi area. Also several hundreds of well-trained Egyptian, Tunisian, American and French Arabs have been fighting among the so-called “rebels”. Americans plan to increase their numbers significantly.

Euroland

Einhard wrote: »

I think that's pretty lazy reasoning to be honest. Gadaffi has signed huge deals with foreign companies, and understandings with foreign states in recent years, and has been supplying 16% of Europe's oil (think that figure is correct). Libya was on friendly terms with much of the West, and things, in a commercial sense, were running along nicely. It's not as if Gadaffi was being truculent or witholding oil. So why would the international community launch a hugely expensive military force in order to secure something that they already have? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Iraq was also supplying the West, as so do Iran and Venezuela, but they all together with Libya are on the American agenda for change of leadership and transfer of oil/gas and other assets to American companies and their allies or granting them with multibillion contracts.
And don’t forget that Libya and Venezuela are the socialist countries, Americans hate them even ideologically.

Euroland

Einhard wrote: »

Oh, Bashir has been referred to the International Criminal Court. So something is being done. ironically though, it's probably exacerbated the political situation in Sudan.

Sudan as well was split by the Americans, who inspired and ignited the civil war and finally separated oil-reach regions from the country. They might use this strategy in Libya too.

Euroland

Einhard wrote: »

Why do you put dictator in inverted commas? Why is it that, as long as a dictator shares one's ideology, or is disliked by the West, some people seek to excuse his actions?

I don’t share the ideology with Gaddafi and consider myself the center-right, however Gaddafi is not a dictator, he is just portrayed so by the Western propaganda machine.

Euroland

Ghost Train wrote: »

Fighter plane shot down over Benghazi

That was the rebel’s plane, which was shot by either “the rebels” themselves or the Gaddafi forces (both claim the success). Apparently they intentionally used it to frame the regular army as a reason for initiating the American-led operation “Steal Libyan Oil”.

Euroland

greendom wrote: »

What about Yugoslavia ? Countless thousands of lives were saved in Bosnia and Kosovo

Yugoslavian partition and civil wars were inspired and financed by the US and Germany.

Euroland

whiteonion wrote: »

it lead to the rise of communism in Europe which was even worse the nazism

Here I disagree, Nazism was much worse.

Thats right,stalin was a saint.
As for the last 8 posts..evidence please..

Dr. Greenthumb

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah...I was wondering when iraq and wmd's were going to be brought into this...:rolleyes:
Total red herring.The U.N has spoken and in Paris today the sec general was at the multilateral summit declaring action will now have to be implemented,military action.

As for the BBC,you must be watching a different bbc that I am.
Their reporters have reported Ghadaffi tanks entering and shelling Benghazi.
The rebels ordinary citizens of libya are not subject to a ceasefire or the un resolution either.

I wouldn't call the opposition in Libya ordinary citizens. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen etc, they were ordinary citizens. The rebels in Libya were engaging the government forces in combat and should the government engage in return I don't believe it unreasonable.

What reason do the UN have to implement military action? What proof do they have any atrocities are being carried out? Unreliable information from the ground in Libya? Lol don't believe all you see on tv.

Dr. Greenthumb

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats right,stalin was a saint.
As for the last 8 posts..evidence please..

quite easy to do a search on the plane.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-benghazi-jet-idUSTRE72I16K20110319

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

from the bbc, the one your watching but not listening to

johngalway

Starting to think I've wandered into the Conspiracy forum...

murphaph

Euroland wrote: »

And don’t forget that Libya and Venezuela are the socialist countries, Americans hate them even ideologically.

Obama is a feckin socialist himself ffs, or at least as close as you'll get to one in the US...

Obama is NOT a warmonger like Bush, with his dodgy connections to Haliburton etc. If this was Bush ordering US troops in, I might be a nit more sceptical but I (maybe naively) trust Barack Obama (I believe he's basically a decent person who wants to do right by people).

What was the alternative here? To do nothing as Gadaffi approached Benghazi and butchered the people there? That would have been a disgrace and another failure of the UN, but it wasn't, the UN DID SOMETHING for once. This is a UN sanctioned operation, NOT even driven by the United States.

The fact that the UAE support the Bahrain and Saudi dictatorships does not change the fact that dictatorships are wrong. Democracy is often flawed (look at our own septic isle for proof of that) but it's the best system available.

Rather than shying away from helping ordinary (non Gadaffi circle) Libyans, the UN (not, "the west") should help any people where their government terrorises them. Perhapy this action will raise further questions as to why the UN hasn't helped the people of Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia etc. etc. I imagine the Saudi royal family are felling hot under the collar as people in countries all around them say "we've had enough of this".

The UN has failed people around the world soooo often (the Balkans, for example, was NATO operation initially, as the UN again failed the people of Sarajevo for many years) and this time it has acted in the nick of time. I personally support this, but I understand the cynicism, being a bit of a cynic myself.