The Libyan uprising

Euroland

[Jackass] wrote: »

Does anyone else find it extremely unsettling that the security council and the U.N. (aka world police) have just taken it on themselves to bombard this country and completely intrude on domestic and political affairs?

YES, I understand there is / was civil war and he had his unfair advantage with air strikes and there was bloodshed and uprising, but I find it appauling that the international community can be the bigger bully and come in and decide to even up the fight by destabalising all millitary capabilities of the Government and even an attempted murder on Gaddafi by bombing his compound...

This is outrageous...I'm not sure how people don't really give a sh*t about this or if we don't realise that we have an elite few who pretty much dictate the entire world affairs. Quite literraly, humanity is under a dictatorship if we're going to be pedantic about motives...

I find this all outrageous...

And, interestingly, is it a coincidence that when any major oil producing nation shows any sort of political instability, this world police are in there like a shot...if nothing else it drives the price of oil through the roof, and is a commodoty under major control of the likes of the United States and essentially rockets the value of their stocks held in oil...

I don't know..sometimes I feel like the U.S.A and the Security Council need a nuke waved in their face.

Makes me hope North Korea & Iran get their act together and break up this alliance of the valliant.

+100%, Agree

-100%, Disagree.

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

oil.. are you kidding me? 2% of world production?

It is at the moment only 2% of oil production, but when it comes to the proven reserves, Libya is among the global oil leaders. US, France and Britain now want to steal Libyan oil and increase the production, benefiting own corporations.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

Euroland

opinion guy wrote: »

Anyhow - interesting developments afoot in Russia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566


Is anyone else imaging the Putin will be bodyslamming Medvedev through his desk by the end of the day ?

Russia is a democratic country and there also could be disagreements between deferent politicians.

Euroland

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a UN operation, so it's being done on Ireland's behalf as a member of the UN.

NTM

No, we are a neutral country.

Since a long time ago UN became an American arm legalizing any war crimes they maid.

Euroland

Deleted User wrote: »

Zimbabwe would require a ground invasion and would be counter productive.
10's of thousands would be killed in the guerilla warfare that ensued.

We may complain but we're lucky to be living in a civilised democracy..
Hence it's not and never was an option.

The main point is there aren’t vast oil resources in Zimbabwe

Euroland

opinion guy wrote: »

Why would he go to prison for enacting a lawful UN resolution ? Barrack Obama hasn't broken any laws. On the flipside Gadaffi has broken....well, all the laws.

He broke the resolution

Euroland

Deleted User wrote: »

Invading Iraq is history.
Lessons learnt.
No need to keep bringing it up.

In the here and now we are now.

Nonsense, people keep dying in Iraq and hundreds of thousands already dead.

Euroland

metrovelvet wrote: »

America does not get much oil for Libya. France gets about 17% and Italy 25% of their oil from Libya, so Im not buying economics as the motivator for the US, historical memory possibly.

You’re talking about current production while we are talking about vast proven reserves, the ownership of which can be easily changed, though the UN resolution.

Scofflaw

metrovelvet wrote:

America does not get much oil for Libya. France gets about 17% and Italy 25% of their oil from Libya, so Im not buying economics as the motivator for the US, historical memory possibly.

The US strategy in the Middle East has never been about securing its own oil supplies, which come primarily from Canada and South America. It has always been about securing US control of Europe's oil supplies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Poccington

Euroland wrote: »

No, we are a neutral country.

Since a long time ago UN became an American arm legalizing any war crimes they maid.

No, we're not.

Ireland isn't afraid of picking sides, just look at Afghanistan.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

In work not much time to articulate.....

.....If Gaddafi holds strong - then there is the unknown - the no fly zone means things are reversable.......

......The people of Libya clearly do not want this man, but, as you can see, if they rebel, they get slaughtered - Gadd has been in power for 40 years, his sons all have military control, he has very good control - the rebels are the only chance of breaking that - him and his sons will be there another eternity if this doesn't work

Y`see Jony7,this is where I have my cynicism problem too.

The World Bank has some interesting stuff on the country here....

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/LIBYAEXTN/0,,menuPK:410809~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:410780,00.html

It`s the simpler stats that get my attention such as the "Access to Improved Sanitation Facilities" or the access to education for young girls.

I`m afraid I can`t say with any great degree of certainty that a definite majority of the 6 Million "People of Libya do not want this man".

What is now apparent is that a significant number DO wish him to remain as their leader.

The problem that the Wesht now faces is how to depose a supposedly undemocratic vicious tyrant who has,thus far,not really behaved in that all-out lunatic manner.

Yes,we have seen the plumes of black smoke,yes we have seen wounded and dead insurgents and yes we have heard the Oul Lad ranting on in that highly individual manner he has made a trademark of, then we have seen his far too smooth,suave and westerny Son,Saif coming across kinda half-normal by our standards of Politicians...but still we have no overwhelming or incontrovertible evidence of the massacres this military adventure appears predicated upon.

I`m all too aware that very few of us have any real understanding ofd Libyan daily life or of the intricacies of the socio-political situation there.

We can,I feel,get carried away by a sometimes misplaced notion that we westerners,and even we cultured and refined Irish should be appalled at the savagery of the Arab or African tribes.

Yet if we poke around a bit,we come across our own little examples of "Tribalism" as was more than adequately demonstrated in Dublin`s Smithfield a fortnight ago.

However in our little world it`s more palatable to describe these as "Family Feuds" or "Traveller Disagreements"...it`s just SO much easier than having to admit to being...well...kinda..Libyan really ...?

Or maybe my cynical side is just too active ?

Jonny7

Euroland wrote: »

You’re talking about current production while we are talking about vast proven reserves, the ownership of which can be easily changed, though the UN resolution.

-stop spamming individual points, try to include everything in one post

-this thread is about Libya, not a personal crusade against Bush/Blair/Iraq/USAisevil

-I've been on the anti-Iraq threads for many years and some most of the claims you are making are absolute fiction and nonsense, please back up with facts (not a fact-nazi, but some sources help when making claims)

cheers

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

-this thread is about Libya, not a personal crusade against Bush/Blair/Iraq/USAisevil

Yes, it is about Libya, just re-read my posts

Euroland

Some time ago…..everybody loved him:

Euroland

Euroland wrote: »

Nonsense, people keep dying in Iraq and hundreds of thousands already dead.

Did you read my comment.
Let me rewrite with the intention that it implied.
Invading Iraq is history..the actual decision to invade.
Lesson learnt there by the parties involved.

As for your pictures of Gadaffii meeting obama and the rest of them,what does that point out worthwhile in this thread? Answer nothing.

At that time he was being reintroduced into the mainstream probably as a bulwark against Al Queda.

I don't care how friendly they became then,they aren't friendly now because things have changed...like Gadaffi deciding,if Bengazzi wasn't to be loyal,lets obliterate it.

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Y`see Jony7,this is where I have my cynicism problem too.

The World Bank has some interesting stuff on the country here....

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/LIBYAEXTN/0,,menuPK:410809~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:410780,00.html

It`s the simpler stats that get my attention such as the "Access to Improved Sanitation Facilities" or the access to education for young girls.

I`m afraid I can`t say with any great degree of certainty that a definite majority of the 6 Million "People of Libya do not want this man".

..snip..

Or maybe my cynical side is just too active ?

Again - in work, have to super summarise

There's no true gauge under a firm regime or dictatorship really.

I understand the cynicsm but not the logic

They rose up against Saddam, but was brutally put down, did the people rise up against him after that? country under sanctions, state tv, hated party and regime - but not a single voice within the country openly calling for Saddam to go, why? fear and control

North Korea - are the majority against Kim Il Yong? how can we tell, do they revolt? no. Is there dissent? no.

Zimbabwe? a diff situation again but one thing in common, fear.

Fear, fear, fear.

Modern dictators in these countries can keep an entire pop under control, under fear with fear, state tv, iron control of army, etc, as I said before this isn't the French revolution - its actually relatively easy when you think about it

If you are in North Korea and you speak out, they will throw you and possibly your entire family into a Gulag, be worked to death - who in their right mind would dare to speak out?

That the people in Libya are revolting at all is a freakin miracle actually

The vast majority want Gaddafi to go, yet how can this be proved. It can't be proved, but the opposite - how many are under fear and unable to do anything? can be understood - very easily - if you speak out against him you are a 'rat' and will be 'cleansed' - again just like NK, Zimbabwe, Saddam

Egypt, Tunisia, Burma and Iran are again individually different and obviously each one has its complexities, but the pop could revolt and speak out, I would class those as 'lighter', not quite as controlled (still nasty, as case with Burma)

There are too many factors to list, e.g. as Gaddafi started to put down the revolt and large amount of Libyan diplomats, Libyans ambassadors, officials, etc, immediately defected - in the scheme of other more successful revolts this was quite large

I am without any doubt that the VAST majority of Libyans want this man gone and I'm also under no illusion whatsoever what will happen to these people if they speak out, and neither are they.

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

as Gaddafi started to put down the revolt and large amount of Libyan diplomats, Libyans ambassadors, officials, etc, immediately defected

They all were bribed in advance.

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am without any doubt that the VAST majority of Libyans want this man gone

Are you talking about 25-30% of the population, many of whom are foreign?

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote: »

Great! A Victory for Democracy the four stage Strategy of the foreign Office
I like this form the same episode:
Sir Richard Wharton: If the PM gets into one of his ghastly patriotic Churchillian moods, he may intervene. All that pro-British, defending democracy nonsense.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh, I know, I know.
Sir Richard Wharton: He must understand that once you start interfering in the internal squabbles of other countries, you're on a very slippery slope. Even the Foreign Secretary's grasped that.

The thing about YM/YPM is that it's just so damned accurate. I wonder how many of today's Boardsies have never seen it? They just don't make TV shows like they used to...

But if the point of your quote was to imply that the military action was the start of a slippery slope, I would beg to differ. It started when our Leaders started publicly opining on what needs to happen in Libya, like Gaddaffi leaving.

Sadly the EU don't have Rapid Reaction Forces in place.

The EU can, though. There are currently two EU Battlegroups on standby. Ireland is in one of them.

Come on we all know the WMD thing was cooked up and stovepiped! the threat - and the consent - was manufactured.

The point of my statement wasn't so much that there was or was not a legitimate threat, but that the President has reversed his publicly held position (and that of his VP) and causing dissatisfaction in the US legislature in the process, thus adding to the ways this is screwed up.

Not for Irish economic gain. the Us have been involved in over a hundred military actions over the last century outside of WWI WWII and Korea and mainly for economic reasons.

So by implication the US can never be involved in something for a humanitarian reason? Note your earlier statement:

And my point again is "bringing freedom and democracy" are not usually on anyones mind. Bringing gold oil diamonds etc. usually are

So what is it about Ireland's virtuous politicians which makes it particularly unusual, and why should not the US every now and then conduct operations for reasons not involving gold, oil or diamonds? (What on Earth is the major product of Liberia that resulted in the US getting involved there before the Irish did?)

Really? On what basis did Jackson the US prosecutor at Nuremberg make his case? In many cases the Nazis dint break their own laws since they passed anti Jew laws before the war. the US made the case that the Nazis did wrong even though ther was no specific law against it. I refer here to discrimination and not just genocide ( which also was not a law then by the way).

For those instances, not any based on the laws of war, which cover actions against enemy objectives. No German was put on trial for the aerial bombing of enemy cities. The rather nebulous concept of crimes against humanity are more based on the principles of equity and common law which do not require legislation be in place. In the case of actual engagement of the enemy, there were already laws covering it, so nothing needed to be developed.

and also say that we should "do the right thing" or "fight evil" in Libya without defining "right" or "evil". One can't have it both ways.

I agree, which is one of my gripes. I am still waiting to hear from the elected leaders of the nations attacking Gadaffi's forces as to just what the heck we're supposed to be getting to anyway.

NTM

Dyr

The thing about YM/YPM is that it's just so damned accurate. I wonder how many of today's Boardsies have never seen it? They just don't make TV shows like they used to...

I used to watch it when i was in primary school and I think shows like that are a reason that kids back then grew up a bit more savvy then the current crop.

Euroland

US Marines ready to invade Libya:

Bataan Amphibious Ready Group Deploys

NORFOLK, Va. -- More than 4,000 Sailors and Marines from the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) began to deploy from Norfolk and Little Creek, Va., in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, March 23.

The decision to deploy the Bataan ARG/22nd MEU ahead of its previously scheduled deployment date was made based on continuing urgent needs in Libya and the region.

"This team is extremely well prepared to execute whatever mission our nation calls upon us to do," said Capt. Steve Koehler, USS Bataan (LHD 5) commanding officer.

http://www.bataan.navy.mil/default.aspx

Manic Moran

You could see that coming.

With groups like Human Rights Watch complaining about impending humanitarian calamity in the beseiged town of Misrata, and the practical ineffectiveness of tank plinking from the air, there were going to be two likely outcomes.

One is a land-based raid in the open terrain outside the town: Drive in, destroy the Loyalist forces in the area, then go back to the sea, or the other is to open a corridor. Most likely, I'd say, land at the Misrata harbour secure the dock, and start offloading supplies that way.

It'll take 'em a few days to get there, though. The group currently sitting off-shore should be capable of doing the work in the short term.

NTM

Stev_o

If the Marines invade i think it's going to be a disaster. The Air Force rescue mission with the result shooting of villains was bad enough but having forces on the ground is only going to increase the likely hood of something similar happening. Wouldn't take long for opinions to change amongst locals. This has to be approached very carefully.

Also some of the reports coming from news agencies quoting doctors seem very odd.

"One doctor quoted by the AFP news agency said pro-Gaddafi forces had killed more than 100 people and injured 1,300 in the past week."

100 people dead from artillery fire in a region that holds half a million people seems very very low.

Overheal

Marines?

Whats the line between Operation and Occupation?

recedite

Marines?
Ah well, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Go on ya good things!

Poccington

It should be noted that the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group was also used to provide humanitarian support in Haiti after the disaster there.

Just to show that their sole purpose isn't kicking in doors and getting the bad guys.

I guess the line is,in out in a few hours, days or weeks with a specific mission to take out gadaffi's henchmen.
Crack squads in and out job done and back again to do another if necessary always looked doable under the whatever means necessary to protect civilians remit.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess the line is,in out in a few hours, days or weeks with a specific mission to take out gadaffi's henchmen.
Crack squads in and out job done and back again to do another if necessary always looked doable under the whatever means necessary to protect civilians remit.

Perhaps, but I'd like to know the official (and legal) lines about that. I assume they would have to carry out very specific missions, like sorties, and not have general secure and patrol type situations. They'd also if you ask me (im a layman) want to not be stationed in Libya, but rather as an Amphibious force remain stationed off the coast except for when they are actually performing a role.

But I have no idea. Help me figure this out How is the marine involvement not crossing the line drawn by resolution 1973? Nevermind any relevant US law.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Marines?

Whats the line between Operation and Occupation?

Digging a hole for a crapper as opposed to portaloos?