The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

Biggins

MagicMarker wrote: »

Basically one side think Oasis were the better band, but the other side are of the opinion that Blur were better. Talks are ongoing.

<Ollie> wrote: »

But the correct answer was Jedward!

Couldn't agree more!

threeleggedhors

Cybertron85 wrote: »

It's completely fjucked, I have no love for Ghaddafi and he's definitely a dictator, but it's cringeworthy listening to these lying scumbags like Clinton or Cameron claim they're doing it for the poor people of Libya. They'll probably kill just as many or more Libyans over the next few days than Ghaddafi did over the past weeks.

Also...will they be taking such a hardline stance with Bahrain, Yemen or now Syria too? Doubtful, they like their standards double.

Don't forget all those who'll be killed by friendly fire ...

Dave!

The international community is largely toothless and spineless and hypocritical and inconsistent, and lacks the bottle to intervene when they should. But I don't see how they can be criticised here exactly, except perhaps for taking so long, or for not applying their morality consistently.

Events conspired and the stars aligned such that intervening was possible without having to commit too many resources, without too much risk, and without any additional disruption or inconvenience to the West. The uprising is already occuring, and the oil supply is already disrupted, so they can either let Gaddafi the despot get back into power, or they can support the ostensibly pro-democracy rebels.

It was pretty easy to do the right thing here, nobody has to get their hands dirty really, just drop a few bombs and help tip the war in the rebels' favour and hope that they can sort the rest out themselves.

Obviously it's a bit more difficult/impractical, risky and politically unpalatable to do the moral thing all the time, that's why there are still despicable regimes around, and why genocides and the likes can still happen.

A Primal Nut

Dave! wrote: »

The international community is largely toothless and spineless and hypocritical and inconsistent, and lacks the bottle to intervene when they should. But I don't see how they can be criticised here exactly, except perhaps for taking so long, or for not applying their morality consistently.

Events conspired and the stars aligned such that intervening was possible without having to commit too many resources, without too much risk, and without any additional disruption or inconvenience to the West. The uprising is already occuring, and the oil supply is already disrupted, so they can either let Gaddafi the despot get back into power, or they can support the ostensibly pro-democracy rebels.

It was pretty easy to do the right thing here, nobody has to get their hands dirty really, just drop a few bombs and help tip the war in the rebels' favour and hope that they can sort the rest out themselves.

Obviously it's a bit more difficult/impractical, risky and politically unpalatable to do the moral thing all the time, that's why there are still despicable regimes around, and why genocides and the likes can still happen.

Exactly. The reason it is happening here and not in other countries is because its easier with much less risk of civilian/western military casualties than interfering in Bahrain, Iran or North Korea. I would have thought this was obvious. But instead people insist on using those countries as examples of hypocrisy.

Unpossible

Cybertron85 wrote: »

Well, they sure took their sweet time if that was the case. They were being shelled for atleast a week and a half even though we see that from putting the vote to the UN to having French jets make a first confirmed kill took less than 24 hours.

If the west had pushed the UN to go in earlier then people would be ranting about how things could have developed with less bloodshed if there was no intervention. No matter when or how action is taken people will complain.

The west is damned if it does something and is damned if it does nothing.

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.
Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

Seeing as there are to be no occupying forces, "NATO troops" wll be, in the main, fine.

"The lives of his own people" were already in danger, as he was shelling and bombing them, even while claiming he was observing a ceasefire.

As a footnote, I'd like to think you started this thread just for divilment...

aligator_am

kraggy wrote: »

The regime's tanks and artillery stations that are killing innocent civilians?

In Bahrain, the country is run by a minority Sunni regime. The majority of the country are Shias. They want democracy. And because of their demands, they are being murdered.

Looks like Iran are trying to stir it up, I'm hoping they're just sabre rattling as the entire region seems to have the potential to kick off.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/19/c_13788025.htm

Iran calls on Saudi Arabia, UAE to leave Bahrain "immediately" English.news.cn 2011-03-19 23:07:42

TEHRAN, March 19 (Xinhua) -- The National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Iranian Parliament (Majlis) issued a statement in support of the Bahraini people and called on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to leave Bahrain's soil immediately, the Satellite Press TV reported on Saturday.

"The oppressed people of Bahrain are a part of the Islamic world and the Islamic Republic of Iran feels obligated to support them," the statement was cited as saying on Saturday.

The United States is definitely responsible for the murder of Bahrainis by ordering its "regional mercenaries" to invade the country and repress peaceful protesters, the statement added.

The statement also called on the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to take serious actions on regional developments.

Bahrain has slammed Iran's "interference" in its internal affairs after the latter communicated with international organizations expressing concern about the situation in the Kingdom.

On Thursday, Hamad Al Amer, Bahrain's Foreign Ministry official in charge of Regional and Gulf Cooperation Council Affairs, described the Iranian step as a "very strange act and an encroachment" on the sovereignty of Bahrain.

SafeSurfer

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Exactly. The reason it is happening here and not in other countries is because its easier with much less risk of civilian/western military casualties than interfering in Bahrain, Iran or North Korea. I would have thought this was obvious. But instead people insist on using those countries as examples of hypocrisy.

Why because Bahrain is protected by Saudi Arabia, Iran have a formidible military and North Korea is protected by China?

If they are doing the right thing in Libya and not elsewhere just because of it's convenience then western leaders should stop posturing and admit that.

Offy

A Primal Nut wrote: »

In what way do they benefit from interfering against Gadaffi? Many western companies have favourable oil deals with Gadaffi and don't want to see him gone. If it was about oil, they would protect Gadaffi and fight the rebels.

Its rediculously simplistic analysis and doesn't change the fact that they are fighting on the right side.

The right side is defined by who you support, the victor writes the history.

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why because Bahrain is protected by Saudi Arabia, Iran have a formidible military and North Korea is protected by China?

If they are doing the right thing in Libya and not elsewhere just because of it's convenience then western leaders should stop posturing and admit that.

..what point are you trying to make?

Dave!

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Exactly. The reason it is happening here and not in other countries is because its easier with much less risk of civilian/western military casualties than interfering in Bahrain, Iran or North Korea. I would have thought this was obvious. But instead people insist on using those countries as examples of hypocrisy.

Indeed. It's a bit silly to say "you shouldn't get involved here, because you didn't get involved there." Maybe they should have intervened at other times, and maybe they should intervene in other places today, but those are seperate matters -- they got it right this time.

SafeSurfer

Nodin wrote: »

Seeing as there are to be no occupying forces, "NATO troops" wll be, in the main, fine.

"The lives of his own people" were already in danger, as he was shelling and bombing them, even while claiming he was observing a ceasefire.

As a footnote, I'd like to think you started this thread just for divilment...

You can like to think what you want. You say he was shelling and bombing his own people. But the rebels were shelling and bombing his loyal troops and civilians too. The rebels even had their own air power if you believe the news.

Offy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you actually know what's going on in Libya?

Or did you just read "America" "Middle East" "Attack" and go on from there?

lol I dont need to know whats going on in Libya, Ive watched America spread BS about so many countries in the past that I know enough to know they dont care about innocent people, they only care about the dollar. Why dont they stop Isreal if they are so worried about innocent lives?

Nodin

Dave! wrote: »

Indeed. It's a bit silly to say "you shouldn't get involved here, because you didn't get involved there." Maybe they should have intervened at other times, and maybe they should intervene in other places today, but those are seperate matters -- they got it right this time.

Indeed. The fact they're a shower of hypocrites doesn't change the fact they'd doing the right thing here.

SafeSurfer

Nodin wrote: »

..what point are you trying to make?

Never mind, quick look your missing Fox News.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Dave! wrote: »

Indeed. It's a bit silly to say "you shouldn't get involved here, because you didn't get involved there." Maybe they should have intervened at other times, and maybe they should intervene in other places today, but those are seperate matters -- they got it right this time.

I think I agree. Got a bit longwinded (read tipsy) earlier, but do you ever think that maybe a nation should be let sort out their own domestic issues or shpuld be intervene as far is praticable?

Dave!

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Never mind, quick look your missing Fox News.

Man you're so edgy. You must get your news direct from local sources on the ground. My hero!

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You can like to think what you want. You say he was shelling and bombing his own people..

He was, its not just me saying it.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But the rebels were shelling and bombing his loyal troops and civilians too. The rebels even had their own air power if you believe the news.

...because they don't want to be ruled by a half mad arsehole for another few decades, and one of his offspring after that. Tired of the torture, maybe, and the odd dissappearance. Now you might think they should sit there and take it, but obviously they've tried that, and want something different now.

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Never mind, quick look your missing Fox News.

Wonderful, incisive wit there - topical and exposing my notorious right wing views.

Doesn't explain what point you were trying to make though.

johnmcdnl

3/1 that USA troops will still be in Libya by 2018 anyone??

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Whatever happened to negotiations.

*points at OP*

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA......


etc etc

Op thinks Gadaffi would have negotiated.

He responded to protests in the streets by sending fighter jets to bomb and strafe the protests. Let the bastard rot.

Nodin

johnmcdnl wrote: »

3/1 that USA troops will still be in Libya by 2018 anyone??

Seeing as the resolution explicitly excludes occupation, why would you be opening betting?

SafeSurfer

Deleted User wrote: »

*points at OP*

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA......


etc etc

Op thinks Gadaffi would have negotiated.

He responded to protests in the streets by sending fighter jets to bomb and strafe the protests. Let the bastard rot.

Your use of bigger letters is a convicing argument.

SafeSurfer

Nodin wrote: »

Seeing as the resolution explicitly excludes occupation, why would you be opening betting?

The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

Offy

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

The same French that blew up a greenpeace boat? Ya they really protect the innocent.

Son Of A Vidic

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner...

I think that's the first time anyone has classed the Libyan military as having considerable firepower. The military performance against rag tag rebels thus far, has illustrated their military incompetence.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.

Gaddafi has being doing quite a good job of putting the lives of his own people at risk, through the actions of his loyal forces for the last few weeks.

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

Has he got weapons of mass destruction? Another war started for oil under the guise of protecting innocent people. Anybody that believes its over anything other than oil is mad.

Anyone who believes this is all about oil is either spectacularly uninformed, or deliberately ignoring all the evidence against such an analysis for partisan purposes. Gadaffi has friendly relations with most of the nations involved in this alliance, has bi-lateral agreements with more, and has signed massive economic agreements with foreign companies. He has not threatened to interrupt the supply of oil; indeed, he has been quite eagar to open Libya's natural resources to the international market. In light of this, your assertion is absolutely nonsensical. It's as lazy, and reactionary an analysis as they come.

Cybertron85 wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me it's about the sheer hypocrisy. Selling arms to a 'nutty dictator' and then attacking him when he uses them against an armed uprising in his own country for whatever reasons.

I agree that there's a huge amount of hypocrisy at play in international relations, but that shouldn't prevent us from supporting the rare instances when a good decision is taken. You seem to be saying that, as the West doesn't always act out of genuine goodwill, then it should never do so. How would that help the Libyans? Far better I think, to be hypocritical and inconsistent, and do some small amount of good, than to be entirely consistent by doing no good at all.

They attack him for something he didn't even do (yet), and they don't lift a finger when then Yemeni government or Saudi governments kill peaceful unarmed protesters?

Well, to be honest, what exactly would a no fly-zone achieve over Saudi and Bahrain?

It's the callousness of it all, the absolute disregard for the morals we in the West supposedly stand for and support.

I don't see how refusing the pleas of the Libyan people for help would ameliorate such Western (international) hypocrisy. Better to do some good and be accused of hypocrisy, than do no good and free of such charges. I'm pretty sure the people of Benghazi are willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the West in this instance.

Cybertron85 wrote: »

Well, they sure took their sweet time if that was the case. They were being shelled for atleast a week and a half even though we see that from putting the vote to the UN to having French jets make a first confirmed kill took less than 24 hours.

In fairness, one of the main objections to the Iraq war was its lack of a UN mandate, which therefore made it an illegal action in the eyes of many. I don't see how people can demand a mandate for one action, and then object to the seeking of one for another? How is that consistent?

twinytwo wrote: »

you think there are doing it for the people?

its all about the oil full stop.

I really think some people just see "America" "war" and "Arab/Middle Eastern nation" in a headline, and immediately scream oil without any attempt to actually think about the situation. It's bloody tiresome. If America or the West were so concerned about oil, then they'd be backing Gadaffi to the hilt!!

Nodin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

I'm normally a complete bastard but I'm going soft in my old age. Heres a hint - reading the resolution would help you no end.

• It authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory''.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/un-security-council-resolution-key-points

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

The same French that blew up a greenpeace boat? Ya they really protect the innocent.

That was 26 years ago. Seriously, how can people judge current actions on events of a quarter of a century ago? When Germany adopts a positive stance on something, do you seek to dismiss by bringing up the Nazis?

SafeSurfer

Nodin wrote: »

I'm normally a complete bastard but I'm going soft in my old age. Heres a hint - reading the resolution would help you no end.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/un-security-council-resolution-key-points

So they won't be killing any civilians themselves then.

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

Anyone who believes this is all about oil is either spectacularly uninformed, or deliberately ignoring all the evidence against such an analysis for partisan purposes. Gadaffi has friendly relations with most of the nations involved in this alliance, has bi-lateral agreements with more, and has signed massive economic agreements with foreign companies. He has not threatened to interrupt the supply of oil; indeed, he has been quite eagar to open Libya's natural resources to the international market. In light of this, your assertion is absolutely nonsensical. It's as lazy, and reactionary an analysis as they come.

With the agreements you speak of foreign countries buy the oil, thats not the American way so I just dont believe it. Time will tell but by then it will be to late plus it really doesnt matter what any of us say, it wont change anything so Im off for some frags!:D

Offy

Einhard wrote: »

That was 26 years ago. Seriously, how can people judge current actions on events of a quarter of a century ago? When Germany adopts a positive stance on something, do you seek to dismiss by bringing up the Nazis?

No I bring up the EU and Irelands bailout!

Einhard

Does anyone know what the resolution mandates in the event that the rebels move against Gadaffi, and he counters them militarily? It seems to be quite vague on his use of the military for defensive operations.

Einhard

Offy wrote: »

With the agreements you speak of foreign countries buy the oil, thats not the American way so I just dont believe it. Time will tell but by then it will be to late plus it really doesnt matter what any of us say, it wont change anything so Im off for some frags!:D

Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!

Offy wrote: »

No I bring up the EU and Irelands bailout!

Ah, but the Krauts haven't forced anything on us!

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Does anyone know what the resolution mandates in the event that the rebels move against Gadaffi, and he counters them militarily? It seems to be quite vague on his use of the military for defensive operations.

Don't be so disingenuous. The rebels can shoot at his forces, they will be armed by the "Allies" but Gadaffi's forces can't shoot back. The resolution that you refer to covers all bases. Guns pointed in rebels direction = threat to civilians = airstrikes.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!

Stratigicaly it leaves them nicely placed to keep manners on Iran.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Don't be so disingenuous. The rebels can shhot at his forces, they will be armed by the "Allie" but Gadaffi's forces can't shhot back the resolution that you refer to covers all bases. Guns pointed in rebels direction = threat to civilians = airstrikes.

I think it's pretty much impossible to be disingenuous whilst asking a genuine question of others...

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Stratigicaly it leaves them nicely placed to keep manners on Iran.

Eh no, it doesn't. Seriously, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Does anyone know what the resolution mandates in the event that the rebels move against Gadaffi, and he counters them militarily? It seems to be quite vague on his use of the military for defensive operations.

Isn't this what resulted in the mandate in the first place?

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Eh no, it doesn't. Seriously, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Really? :rolleyes:

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Really? :rolleyes:

Really. How exactly does taking action against Gadaffi, strategically position America to move against Iran? I'm sorry to inconvenience you by asking that you explain such sweeping statements, seemingly unsupported by any evidence or reasoned analysis.

phosphate

Einhard, you claim western countries need to be seen supporting democracy in Libya which is what the rebels are presumably attempting to achieve.

However, you're unable to answer why there are no resolutions for Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and any other country around the world living under an oppressive regime like that in Libya.

Can you explain why the EU collectively exported $1 billion of weapons to Gaddafi if they believed he was a dictator?

Your argument this is a humanitarian effort is laughable.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Isn't this what resulted in the mandate in the first place?

It authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory''.

Nothing, as far I can see in the resolution, answers the question I asked. Gadaffi is interdicted from attacking rebel civilian areas. My question is, what happens if rebel and loyalist forces meet, for example, outside Tripoli? Gadaffi's forces would probably still have the ability to crush the rebels in such a confrontation, and the resolution seems to make no provision for such an occurence.

Still not sure how that's a disingenuous query tbh.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Really. How exactly does taking action against Gadaffi, strategically position America to move against Iran? I'm sorry to inconvenience you by asking that you explain such sweeping statements, seemingly unsupported by any evidence or reasoned analysis.

You seem to misunterstand. I was referring to your assertion that US military intervention in Iraq was not a good strategic inevstment.

force majeure

poor old Gaddy luck as it he pissed off the brits and the french and now he is getting his comeuppance next stop eeehhh hold on while i do a stocktake on tommyhawk's, this may take some time.

Einhard

phosphate wrote: »

Einhard, you claim western countries need to be seen supporting democracy in Libya which is what the rebels are presumably attempting to achieve.

However, you're unable to answer why there are no resolutions for Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and any other country around the world living under an oppressive regime like that in Libya.

Because not every situation is the same and, as I pointed out, international relations are full of hypocrisies and doublt standards. In this instance however, nobody has been able to provide credible evidence of an ulterior motive. It's not enough simply to shout "Oil!", especially as the evidence contradicts such a view.

Can you explain why the EU collectively exported $1 billion of weapons to Gaddafi if they believed he was a dictator?

I believe that was wrong. However, I do think there's a difference between exporting arms to a nation, and then watching as those arms are used against civilians. I'm not arguing that the West, or the UN, are whiter than white, but I do think that Gadaffi has crossed a line, and most people seem to understand that.

Your argument this is a humanitarian effort is laughable.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but nobody has managed to posit credible evidence of malign motives at play here. The most positive thing for the West to do, economically speaking, would be to back Gadaffi. But they're not. And despite your scoffing, you've not explained their true motives, which I assume are readily apparent to you.

HavingCrack

phosphate wrote: »

Einhard, you claim western countries need to be seen supporting democracy in Libya which is what the rebels are presumably attempting to achieve.

However, you're unable to answer why there are no resolutions for Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and any other country around the world living under an oppressive regime like that in Libya.

Can you explain why the EU collectively exported $1 billion of weapons to Gaddafi if they believed he was a dictator?

Your argument this is a humanitarian effort is laughable.

To be honest, this occurs for a very simple reason. Western states have preferred stablily under dictators such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, The Yemenese regime, the Shah, Suharto, the Saudi monarchy, the Colombian regimes, the Argentinian junta, Mobutu etc that are regimes that are friendly towards western interests rather than democracies that may be unstable and hostile.

1-Yemen is a key US ally in the war on terror.
2-Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and a supplier of oil
3-Bahrain is seen as needing to stay in line for the Saudi's benefit.
4-Picking a fight with Syria would achieve nothing.

On the whole though, this policy has come back to bite them in the arse over the last few months obviously. I think they;re getting unfair press, they're supporting democracy where they can and where it does not clash with their allies interests. However in the absence of viable alternatives they're not too bothered with the status quo unless them become hostile to western interests (aka Iran ). Hence they were happy enough to do business with Gadaffi until he started butchering civilians.

citizen_p

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him 1. is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.


2 Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military

3 intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

1, hes been waging a civil war, he dosnt care about his own people or would of held democratic elections etc... also, no NATO ground troops are set to go in and air troops will severly outmatch anything libya has, losses will be minimal (for NATO anyway)

2. they failed, hence the no fly zone

3. bahrain is trying to oust a monarchy, and im unsure on yeman, but each case is individual and should be treated so, or else the whole of north africa and the middle east as there is unrest in Iran and syria too. its an Islamic revolution oust old religious/corrupt politics for democracy (in most cases)

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You seem to misunterstand. I was referring to your assertion that US military intervention in Iraq was not a good strategic inevstment.

Ah that's different. Still though, America has bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations in range of Iran, and the capability to hit Tehran from practically any spot on the planet. I'm not sure waging a massive, costly war in order to gain another military base from which to menace Iran makes sense to be honest. Especially as Saddam was nothing if not pragmatic, and would have had no problems patching things up with America and allowing a base on Iraqi as part of a rapprochement. Also, if Iran was the real target of the war, surely America would just have attacked Iran? Doesn't make sense to attack one country when your goal is another. This is a tad off topic though.

SafeSurfer

Mousey- wrote: »

1, hes been waging a civil war, he dosnt care about his own people or would of held democratic elections etc... also, no NATO ground troops are set to go in and air troops will severly outmatch anything libya has, losses will be minimal (for NATO anyway)

I think you will find it takes 2 sides to "wage" a civil war.

Lots of countries do not hold democratic elections.

2. they failed, hence the no fly zone

In 4 weeks?

3. bahrain is trying to oust a monarchy, and im unsure on yeman, but each case is individual and should be treated so, or else the whole of north africa and the middle east as there is unrest in Iran and syria too. its an Islamic revolution oust old religious/corrupt politics for democracy (in most cases)

So why not support all clamours for democracy?