The Libyan uprising

Einhard

I don't see how the West can win in these situations. Impose sanctions and it's accused of indirectly killing thousands of children ala Iraq. Trade normally with such nations, and it's aiding and abetting murder. Trade as normal, though with an arms embargo, and people still accuse the West of abetting murder.

First and foremost, the West looks after her own interests. Everything else comes second to that. And it's exactly how the rest of the world operates.

Jonny7

Einhard wrote: »

I don't see how the West can win in these situations. Impose sanctions and it's accused of indirectly killing thousands of children ala Iraq. Trade normally with such nations, and it's aiding and abetting murder. Trade as normal, though with an arms embargo, and people still accuse the West of abetting murder.

First and foremost, the West looks after her own interests. Everything else comes second to that. And it's exactly how the rest of the world operates.

Not this again

Right, simple concept.. actions - consequence

Attack an entire country over the actions of a small group of extremists, recklessly abandon that country for _six_ years to the wolves - consequences

Attack an entirely different country with absolutely no links, '91 was the perfect time to 'liberate' Iraq not ****ing 12 years later over a complete lie. What if the Allies had suddenly 'attacked' Germany 12 years after they invaded Poland?? premptive or 'coalition' wars ONLY work when there is a clear bad guy who has clearly done something wrong.

Doing these retarded things mean we can't do anything in Libya

and thats just in the past 20 years, I'm not going to count all the crap both sides did in the Cold War.. but at least Russia does not get all preachy about it

The only sanctions that vaguely work are freezing assets of said leader/leaders family, luxury goods they consume and military materials, other sanctions don't work has been proven a long time ago.

UN is nowhere near as strong and as respected as it used to be

Yes we are pretty powerless in the West but because of our OWN actions and past and double standards and hypocrisy. Yes our options with Libya are limited..

Look at it like this - taking action in the Yugoslav crisis was GOOD, there were no lies, there were plain bad guys, it was a genocide, it was pretty black and white (well as black and white as a war can be)

That was a _good_ thing

but in recent memory that is the only _good_ thing I can think of which didnt involve lies, or total propaganda, or hypocrisy or whatever

Somalia? nice try, but retarded, one ****ed up arrogant operation done by total rookies.

Maybe all we are left with is a line
If genocide starts to happen anywhere and the world is united, then we take action
But that line is constantly broken by bull**** like Iraq and little resource wars and crap

/speech mode off
//gets to me when people make the West out to be 'victims' of something

Einhard

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not this again

Right, simple concept.. actions - consequence

Attack an entire country over the actions of a small group of extremists, recklessly abandon that country for _six_ years to the wolves - consequences

Attack an entirely different country with absolutely no links, '91 was the perfect time to 'liberate' Iraq not ****ing 12 years later over a complete lie. What if the Allies had suddenly 'attacked' Germany 12 years after they invaded Poland?? premptive or 'coalition' wars ONLY work when there is a clear bad guy who has clearly done something wrong.

Doing these retarded things mean we can't do anything in Libya

and thats just in the past 20 years, I'm not going to count all the crap both sides did in the Cold War.. but at least Russia does not get all preachy about it

The only sanctions that vaguely work are freezing assets of said leader/leaders family, luxury goods they consume and military materials, other sanctions don't work has been proven a long time ago.

UN is nowhere near as strong and as respected as it used to be

Yes we are pretty powerless in the West but because of our OWN actions and past and double standards and hypocrisy. Yes our options with Libya are limited..

Look at it like this - taking action in the Yugoslav crisis was GOOD, there were no lies, there were plain bad guys, it was a genocide, it was pretty black and white (well as black and white as a war can be)

That was a _good_ thing

but in recent memory that is the only _good_ thing I can think of which didnt involve lies, or total propaganda, or hypocrisy or whatever

Somalia? nice try, but retarded, one ****ed up arrogant operation done by total rookies.

Maybe all we are left with is a line
If genocide starts to happen anywhere and the world is united, then we take action
But that line is constantly broken by bull**** like Iraq and little resource wars and crap

/speech mode off
//gets to me when people make the West out to be 'victims' of something

Ummm right. I see you've quoted me in your post, but don't seem to have actually replied to anything I said. I didn't, for one, claim that the West are victims. I didn't mention Iraq, nor Afghanistan. I stated that there is only so much that the West can do in to influence despotic regimes, and even less when the West actually depends on the resources of said regimes. It's great to be all idealistic and rail against the fact that the West hasn't had longstanding sanctions against the likes of Egypt and Saudi- great than is, until the oil is stopped and your back to chopping wood to warm your home.

SamHarris

caseyann wrote: »

I did not mean those people sorry lol I meant Sinn Féin.
The USA always always support people in their best interest and then change their tune when bad publicity for them especially were oil is concerned.

The US government looks out only for the interests of US people? When will the Evil Yanks learn! :rolleyes:

So your point is countries trade with other countries and when the situation changes, they change their position? ... ... What age are you?

Libya is hardly an ally of the states - nor has it ever been. A recent thaw in relations is not a ringing endorsement of the regime. European countries on the other hand have no problem kow-towing to Libyan demands, including the release of a convicted mass murderer.

Military ties with doctators is not actually all a bad thing - note the lack of leverage Western powers now have in this situation, contrast that with Egypt were military leaders were meeting directly with the US during the crisis. You can be guaranteed the effects on Western funding would be one of the first things to run through the military commanders heads if (or when) Mubarak gave the order to crack down harshly.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not this again

Right, simple concept.. actions - consequence

Attack an entire country over the actions of a small group of extremists, recklessly abandon that country for _six_ years to the wolves - consequences

Attack an entirely different country with absolutely no links, '91 was the perfect time to 'liberate' Iraq not ****ing 12 years later over a complete lie. What if the Allies had suddenly 'attacked' Germany 12 years after they invaded Poland?? premptive or 'coalition' wars ONLY work when there is a clear bad guy who has clearly done something wrong.

Doing these retarded things mean we can't do anything in Libya

and thats just in the past 20 years, I'm not going to count all the crap both sides did in the Cold War.. but at least Russia does not get all preachy about it

The only sanctions that vaguely work are freezing assets of said leader/leaders family, luxury goods they consume and military materials, other sanctions don't work has been proven a long time ago.

UN is nowhere near as strong and as respected as it used to be

Yes we are pretty powerless in the West but because of our OWN actions and past and double standards and hypocrisy. Yes our options with Libya are limited..

Look at it like this - taking action in the Yugoslav crisis was GOOD, there were no lies, there were plain bad guys, it was a genocide, it was pretty black and white (well as black and white as a war can be)

That was a _good_ thing

but in recent memory that is the only _good_ thing I can think of which didnt involve lies, or total propaganda, or hypocrisy or whatever

Somalia? nice try, but retarded, one ****ed up arrogant operation done by total rookies.

Maybe all we are left with is a line
If genocide starts to happen anywhere and the world is united, then we take action
But that line is constantly broken by bull**** like Iraq and little resource wars and crap

/speech mode off
//gets to me when people make the West out to be 'victims' of something

Wow. You have an incredibly shallow understanding of nearly everything. It's almost impressive.

It was not a "small group of extremists" it was a government protected, funded and integrated organistation that continued to remain safely following dozens of attacks and thousands of deaths. The throwing to the wolves part is histrionic but correct.

Russia is not preachy because it was not Russia that was in the cold war, it was the Soviet Union. They were incredibly preachy.

Do you even know why the Somalia operation was called, or how the Rangers (rookies :rolleyes:) actually got caught up? You really should read about it, it will change your mind.

Sadam Hussein was not a clear enough "bad guy" for you? I'm not saying the war was a good idea, I was and am against it, but your descision to label some wars as "good" and "bad" is clearly not based on a basic moral code or set of standards, but on a case by case basis.

Which is exactly how it SHOULD be and how the Western governments choose to do so now.

The aqusation of government policys being hypocritical is as old as governments themselves, and it will continue untill they are gone. They are not, and should not be based purely on some unbending moral code, but the interests of their own people (within limits). The irony that you are calling for the West to be a world police I hope isn't lost on you.

SamHarris

Manic Moran wrote: »

What weapons have the Americans sold Libya which are being used against Libyan civilians?

Only reason I ask is that I went looking to see if the American arms embargo against Libya was still in place, and it appears that it still is. Non-lethal stuff may be sold, granted, but that doesn't mean it has been.

The EU lifted its arms embargo in 2004 mainly at Italian request, not British.

NTM

I know alot of the airforce's equipment is French.

The constant assumption that everywhere is propt up by the CIA really reminds me of the entire "Reds under the beds" mindset. Ironically.

On another note, is anyone else convinced Gadaffi is on an awful lot of drugs? Thats a serious question.

caseyann

SamHarris wrote: »

The US government looks out only for the interests of US people? When will the Evil Yanks learn! :rolleyes:

So your point is countries trade with other countries and when the situation changes, they change their position? ... ... What age are you?

Libya is hardly an ally of the states - nor has it ever been. A recent thaw in relations is not a ringing endorsement of the regime. European countries on the other hand have no problem kow-towing to Libyan demands, including the release of a convicted mass murderer.

Military ties with doctators is not actually all a bad thing - note the lack of leverage Western powers now have in this situation, contrast that with Egypt were military leaders were meeting directly with the US during the crisis. You can be guaranteed the effects on Western funding would be one of the first things to run through the military commanders heads if (or when) Mubarak gave the order to crack down harshly.

What is your problem?
Who called Americans evil?
You just realize you wrote that for nothing?

mike65

Didn't the Irish sell a lot of beef to libya?

caseyann

mike65 wrote: »

Didn't the Irish sell a lot of beef to libya?

Yes and still do.
In 2009, Libya was Ireland’s 39th largest merchandise trade partner. Trade that year amounted to €284.6 million, an increase of more than 55 per cent on the previous year. Of this, imports from Libya – mostly petroleum and petroleum-related products – amounted to €258.21 million. Exports amounted to €26.48 million, and included medical and pharmaceutical products as well as dairy and other food products.

The relationship between the two countries has also been shaped by migration. Libyans constitute one of the biggest Arab communities in Ireland. Many came for professional or educational reasons and decided to stay, often marrying Irish citizens.

Several work in the medical sector. Those who returned to Libya after studying in Ireland include high-ranking government officials, some of whom belong to what is described as an active Trinity College alumni association in Tripoli.

A significant proportion of the Libyan community in Ireland sought political asylum here from the 1990s on. Of these, several were involved in the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition groupings.

One of the quirkier facets of the relationship between Libya and Ireland is the fact students at the ISM international school in Tripoli sit the Leaving Cert.

In 1995, school officials settled on the Irish exam system as the best option for their multinational student body.

madraj55

Dotsey wrote: »

Uprisings is every country across North Africa and spreading into the Middle East could effectively bring about an Arab Emirate style mega country. Which in turn could turn on the Israelis for the genocidal acts committed on the Palestinian people. This could be WW3 people

Just ignore all the high talk from Western leaders about democracy in the MidEast, that's the last thing they want, as they prefer the dictators where they have a hold over them rather than the choice of the peop,les in the region. They couldn't care less [especially in the US whether the people get tortured or murdered by their goons in control, so long as Israel's interests are looked after. The double standards of Britain and the US are exposed finally for what they are, and protesters in Egypt and Libya aren't in the least fooled by 'Support' from the west.

SamHarris

caseyann wrote: »

What is your problem?
Who called Americans evil?
You just realize you wrote that for nothing?

It was flippancy, hence the smiley face.

The fact is, everyone expects every goverment to look out for their peoples interests (they should expect nothing less) both internally and internationaly - and then to change said policy as the situation changes.

SamHarris

madraj55 wrote: »

Just ignore all the high talk from Western leaders about democracy in the MidEast, that's the last thing they want, as they prefer the dictators where they have a hold over them rather than the choice of the peop,les in the region. They couldn't care less [especially in the US whether the people get tortured or murdered by their goons in control, so long as Israel's interests are looked after. The double standards of Britain and the US are exposed finally for what they are, and protesters in Egypt and Libya aren't in the least fooled by 'Support' from the west.

No double standards about it, the criteria you just disagree with - stability. I'm sure they do care, but it is far down on the list of priorities. Maybe it should be higher, but it certainly shouldn't be number 1. They are not charities, or Human Rights Watch.

Your neo-colonialist view that the West should rush around, cherry picking allies and forcing democratic reform through economic ostracization is not based in reality at all.

I am sometimes convinced that the people who are always jumping for the moral high ground are extatic that their opinions are rarely followed up on - then the outcomes and consequences of such a childish policys would become to obvious.

SamHarris

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm right. I see you've quoted me in your post, but don't seem to have actually replied to anything I said. I didn't, for one, claim that the West are victims. I didn't mention Iraq, nor Afghanistan. I stated that there is only so much that the West can do in to influence despotic regimes, and even less when the West actually depends on the resources of said regimes. It's great to be all idealistic and rail against the fact that the West hasn't had longstanding sanctions against the likes of Egypt and Saudi- great than is, until the oil is stopped and your back to chopping wood to warm your home.

Heat would be low on the list of priorities given that food production would be a fraction of what it is. And wouldnt be able to get anywhere.

People who assume that oil is secured so that we can use our cars a little more have no idea of the real world wide repurcusions of oil and it's prices. The visible "pump" is only one of it's many uses - and far from the most important.

madraj55

SamHarris wrote: »

No double standards about it, the criteria you just disagree with - stability. I'm sure they do care, but it is far down on the list of priorities. Maybe it should be higher, but it certainly shouldn't be number 1. They are not charities, or Human Rights Watch.

Your neo-colonialist view that the West should rush around, cherry picking allies and forcing democratic reform through economic ostracization is not based in reality at all.

I am sometimes convinced that the people who are always jumping for the moral high ground are extatic that their opinions are rarely followed up on - then the outcomes and consequences of such a childish policys would become to obvious.

I don't claim that the West should cherrypick the countries they should help out in but that is what they are doing in the middle east, I say they should keep out of the region altogether. full stop, and that will leave them free to look after their own interests.

opinion guy

mike65 wrote: »

Didn't the Irish sell a lot of beef to libya?

Yeah they did. But unless Gadaffi's henchmen are running around slapping people upside de'head with sides of beef - I don't really see a problem with that - do you. Presumably people ate it and did not go hungry.

Junco Partner

With well over 200 people gunned down. mercenaries roaming the streets killing indiscriminately. Is there a possibility of UN intervention. If so: how far do things have to go before it happens.
If not: why not.
maybe it's a stupid question but i'm just curious.

zig

Hard to say, there is talks of sanctions. Its an oil producing country so no doubt the West is going to show a huge interest sooner than later.

OS119

f0ggy92 wrote: »

With well over 200 people gunned down. mercenaries roaming the streets killing indiscriminately. Is there a possibility of UN intervention. If so: how far do things have to go before it happens.
If not: why not.
maybe it's a stupid question but i'm just curious.

what do think anyone should do - and did you question the candidates who came knocking on your door about why the defence budget was so low?

not being horrible, but 'something must be done' isn't a plan, its not even an objective - what about the risks that foreign involvement might make things worse, do you think Ireland should bother with the Triple-lock given Russia and China's views on foreign intervention in domestic bloodletting affairs, and quite how much force do you think an intervening force should use to restore order?

its actually about 2,000 fatalities that we know about - and probably many times that.

del88

Hard to say ...but my guess it's when the price of a barrel of oil hits the $130 mark...

Junco Partner

2,000 ? jesus

nacho libre

OS119 wrote: »

what do think anyone should do - and did you question the candidates who came knocking on your door about why the defence budget was so low?

not being horrible, but 'something must be done' isn't a plan, its not even an objective - what about the risks that foreign involvement might make things worse, do you think Ireland should bother with the Triple-lock given Russia and China's views on foreign intervention in domestic bloodletting affairs, and quite how much force do you think an intervening force should use to restore order?

its actually about 2,000 fatalities that we know about - and probably many times that.

is sending in special forces to try and assassinate him or at least force him and his sons to flee feasible? could it be special forces are already there helping the opposition? of course if that were the case Gadaffi would try to use it as propaganda that the protestors were agents of imperalists or something to that effect.

SamHarris

nacho libre wrote: »

is sending in special forces to try and assassinate him or at least force him and his sons to flee feasible? could it be special forces are already there helping the opposition? of course if that were the case Gadaffi would try to use it as propaganda that the protestors were agents of imperalists or something to that effect.

That is one of the reasons, according to Al Jazeera, that the US has not been louder in supporting the protestors - one way to discredit anything in the Middle East is for the UK, US or other Western power to throw their support behind it. The other in case anyone is interested (and it has been explicitly stated by the State Department) is that US citizens still in Libya were in danger if they spoke out whilst they were still there.

Assassination - probably not going to happen. A Kosovo style NATO targeting of military assets and infrastructure is more likely (also used very effectivly in 1991 when Sadam targeted the Kurds). I would imagine it would happen if or when airstrikes or artilery strikes begin being used. An occupation force, lead by the UN may be used much later, but they are often very slow to get going, and as everyone knows incredibly ineffective.

partyatmygaff

nacho libre wrote: »

is sending in special forces to try and assassinate him or at least force him and his sons to flee feasible? could it be special forces are already there helping the opposition? of course if that were the case Gadaffi would try to use it as propaganda that the protestors were agents of imperalists or something to that effect.

No way. If there were any foreign military powers involved we would have heard of it by now.

SamHarris

nacho libre wrote: »

is sending in special forces to try and assassinate him or at least force him and his sons to flee feasible? could it be special forces are already there helping the opposition? of course if that were the case Gadaffi would try to use it as propaganda that the protestors were agents of imperalists or something to that effect.

This discusses it if you are interested. http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/21/the_libyan_horror

SamHarris

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No way. If there were any foreign military powers involved we would have heard of it by now.

Not necassarily true, there are rumours that the CIA train people pretty much everywhere, including Iran. Libya is hardly an ally of the States, the US has twice directly tried to kill him (think they killed his daughter). Wouldn't surprise me at all if there was some. Dont think it would be an army operation though.

Fentdog84

f0ggy92 wrote: »

With well over 200 people gunned down. mercenaries roaming the streets killing indiscriminately. Is there a possibility of UN intervention. If so: how far do things have to go before it happens.
If not: why not.
maybe it's a stupid question but i'm just curious.

Whats happening is awful but its a domestic problem. For US or UN to start sending in troops would be cynical but of course as David Cameron said the world is watching. Hope its sorted out quickly because is the price of oil shoots up so does everything else..

opinion guy

Brits are gonna go in to rescue their citizens in the desert I reckon. As it stands they've already docked a frigate at a Libyan port which in an of itself is extraordinary. I reckon they are going to do some sort of clandestine rescue mission to the desert oil workers. Doubt we'll hear about it until afterwards thou.

BluePlanet

I'd rather the UN General Assembly get together (along with the SC) and push the Arab League to the front on this one.

OS119

BluePlanet wrote: »

I'd rather the UN General Assembly get together (along with the SC) and push the Arab League to the front on this one.

the Arab league isn't going to touch Libya with a 50ft burning bargepole.

doing so would legitimise the principle that outside states have the right/duty to physically intervene when governments use exessive force against their populations - can anyone see such bastions of the rule of law and human rights as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Dijibouti, Algeria and Somalia - let alone China - agreeing to that?

there will be talk, the UK will probably stage a recovery operation in the oilfields to gets its people out, but any action that requires Turkeys to vote for Christmas won't happen. interestingly of course, one option is the Two current EU battlegroup formations designed specifically for this type of operation, Ireland is a contributor to one of them - but only if China agrees with Irish foreign policy...

nacho libre

opinion guy wrote: »

Brits are gonna go in to rescue their citizens in the desert I reckon. As it stands they've already docked a frigate at a Libyan port which in an of itself is extraordinary. I reckon they are going to do some sort of clandestine rescue mission to the desert oil workers. Doubt we'll hear about it until afterwards thou.

According to the Daily Telegraph, british special forces have been operating in Libya since Thursday