rjw63 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Please can we get this back on topic and stop the silly bickering? The main forum has enough of this. Thanks. ****, he's a MOD now!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 What's funny is that US has barely even posted in the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Yes there is oil which is important, but a wounded Gaddafi (with long experience in projecting terrorism either by his own resources or by proxy) clinging to power is not in the UK national interest. Firstly - I have no interest in the UK national interest, the USA national interest or any other national interest other than the people who live in the lands - their national interest is the only moral reason that supports any armed force. Yes it's simplistic, but the nations that have suffered colonisation will understand the damaging impact the colonists have. Moving on Libya was very different from the other uprisings. The idea that 100,000s would die is western media speak. Because there was no popular uprising in Libya as there was in other countries. Libya is very different. When tunisians revolted the french foreign minister offered to send military support to the govt. Democracy Hey! When Egypt errupted the us vice president said that mubarak was not a dictator and that internal issues would be dealt internally. The libyan rebellion was very different - instead of weeks, the west were there straight away. And willing to deploy. The moves here are not about the false war of terror, it's about securing a position in the new north africa. If egypt can be turned, so can libya, and the middle east can carry on their inhumanity with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 What's funny is that US has barely even posted in the thread Typical United States - proxy wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 What's funny is that US has barely even posted in the thread No, but if he went to skule with dvin and stevo then he probably thinks libya is a kebab shop off broad street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Awol, Iraq was (well, still is) a massive political minefield as well. I have read a small amount about Yemen, but I think the Lockerbie bomber situation, combined with significant oil motivations are important reasons why we're so heavily involved. EDIT: With Libya. Although Yemen does have oil/gas resources obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 but the nations that have suffered colonisation will understand the damaging impact the colonists have. You're telling me. Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans.. Libya was very different from the other uprisings. The idea that 100,000s would die is western media speak. Really? He was urging hs supporters to "kill the cockroaches" and stating that he would "wipe out" resistance, "inch by inch, house by house". His own words with more than a shade of Rwanda about them. He was publically committed to a course of action leading to mass killing so I'm not sure how you can deny that. Because there was no popular uprising in Libya as there was in other countries. Yes there was and they were hard at it - even fighting in Tripoli itself initially. The West didn't get involved until the rebels were getting spanked, Gaddafi's tanks had pushed them back hundreds of miles and were literally entering Benghazi. One more day's delay by NATO and it would have been all over. When tunisians revolted the french foreign minister offered to send military support to the govt. Democracy Hey! When Egypt errupted the us vice president said that mubarak was not a dictator and that internal issues would be dealt internally. Shocking, it's true. I'm not sure why getting it wrong twice means reacting more appropriately to the third north African uprising was also wrong? Also worth noting that Egyptian protesters fought the police off the streets with sticks and stones and the army stayed neutral. Libya was more like a conventional conflict, with both sides using all available means from the word go. Had Mubarak been shelling Cairo with tanks, artillery, naval gunfire and airstrikes, even good 'ole Joe Biden might have demurred. the middle east can carry on their inhumanity with impunity. Just as they always have and no one in the West can change that. In Libya however, there is a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Reacting to the third north African uprising and ignoring the fourth and the fifth? It's the why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 It's the why? Bahrain, Yemen, Syria (getting really bad by all accounts) are simply beyond our capability and diplomatic clout to deal with, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 It's the why? Bahrain, Yemen, Syria (getting really bad by all accounts) are simply beyond our capability and diplomatic clout to deal with, imo.So seems Lbya, Bahrain could be captured within days with the amount of ships that NATO have nearby. If you wanted to turn the saud's noses up. Yemen nasty, Syria - interesting - I didn't mention Syria, I said Yemen, but also very nasty, My point is not the capaility, it is the will. Why Libya? Why Syria - poses a threat to Isreal - why else is it important. Libya wasn't the only option, nor the easy option, as apparently the current no lie zone isn't working. Either stay out of it or it becomes a part of the false war of terror that the west has been pursuing for 10 years now. Are there extremists? Yes? Does invading more arab territory reduce or increase the threat from extremists? 8 weeks ago, Libya and Gadaffi was our friend. From a strategic point how do these actions help reduce the threat from extremists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 The longer we stay there, the harder it will be to get out. Our involvement to date has probably done some good in reducing the damage Gaddafi has been able to inflict on his opponents. From here on, it looks like a stalemate, with continued conflict of the kind that's hard to police from 30,000 feet. I can only see our involvement as having less good outcomes from here on in. And the longer we stay, the more we will be distrusted. We need to hand on the baton (unfortunate arms sale reference, sorry) to people who will be more trusted to broker negotiations. It would be helpful if some combination of us, France, Italy or whoever could be in a position to come back if Gaddafi retains and uses against civilians the kind of heavy arms that only superior force can deal with, but that apart, we would now be better to look for a diplomatic lead from other countries, perhaps Turkey or someone with more credibility than us in the Arab world. It would also help to show that we're not just after the oil. We're not, are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Really? He was urging hs supporters to "kill the cockroaches" and stating that he would "wipe out" resistance, "inch by inch, house by house". He was also telling us that everyone loved him, that he had called for a ceasefire and, probably, that Saif had won x factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 The longer we stay there, the harder it will be to get out. Our involvement to date has probably done some good in reducing the damage Gaddafi has been able to inflict on his opponents. From here on, it looks like a stalemate, with continued conflict of the kind that's hard to police from 30,000 feet. I can only see our involvement as having less good outcomes from here on in. And the longer we stay, the more we will be distrusted. We need to hand on the baton (unfortunate arms sale reference, sorry) to people who will be more trusted to broker negotiations. It would be helpful if some combination of us, France, Italy or whoever could be in a position to come back if Gaddafi retains and uses against civilians the kind of heavy arms that only superior force can deal with, but that apart, we would now be better to look for a diplomatic lead from other countries, perhaps Turkey or someone with more credibility than us in the Arab world. It would also help to show that we're not just after the oil. We're not, are we? Is that an admission that you aren't quite as sure of your position as you were a fortnight or so ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Really? He was urging hs supporters to "kill the cockroaches" and stating that he would "wipe out" resistance, "inch by inch, house by house". He was also telling us that everyone loved him, that he had called for a ceasefire and, probably, that Saif had won x factor. The former rebel city of Zawiyah now resembles Carthage after the Romans popped in, no one knows how many civilians have been murdered by Gaddafi's forces but eye witness reports have been grim. Misratah will likely share Zawiyah's fate if it falls. It's fair to surmise that Gaddafi's threats against hs own people are far from hollow. ...the longer we stay, the more we will be distrusted. The main beef of the rebels apears to be that we are not involved/doing enough. The boys from Benghazi are fully aware that if the air cover disappears so do they, and Gaddafi has reiterated his position of no negotiation with those who have enlisted western military help, i.e. the whole of Eastern Libya. The rebels have also been clear that they will not negotiate any ceasefire terms that don't include Gaddafi and Sons getting the heck out of town. Obama, Cameron and Sarkosy have all said Gaddafi remaining in power is unacceptable to the West. When you put all that together the only logical option is escalation to achieve the limited aim of killing the Colonel or forcing him to flee, then getting out immediately. Anything else is a recipe for protracted conflict. we would now be better to look for a diplomatic lead from other countries, perhaps Turkey or someone with more credibility than us in the Arab world. Aside from the difficulties outlined above regarding negotiations (neither side wants them), the Gaddafi hating Arabs voted and begged for intervention. Qatar and UAE are actively participating in military action, and most of the other Arab states are repressing their populations to one degree or another. I'd suggest this creates something of a credibility gap when it comes to being viewed as honest brokers, but if talks were to happen then Turkey does seem the best bet to manage them. It would also help to show that we're not just after the oil. We're not, are we? Seeing as the first oil exports from the rebel area recently set sail from Tobruk for China, it would appear not. If the West isn't going to commit troops then we need to get oodles of weapons to those holding out in Misratah, maintain a front line supported by airpower west of Benghazi and spend 3-6 months turning rebels into soldiers in secure rear areas. Playing fantasy strategy for a minute.. It would make sense to land everything we can spare east of Misratah, roll to Benghazi and destroy every conventional unit along the way. Even if the rebels still couldn't take the enclave of Tripoli they could cut it off and Gaddafi's position would soon become untenable. The current half arsed approach is typical of UK military actions over the last decade and about as likely to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Is that an admission that you aren't quite as sure of your position as you were a fortnight or so ago? What I was in favour of was intervention to prevent an imminent bloodbath, with the support of other countries. I'm not in favour of an intervention which becomes a self-interested attempt to grab their natural resources. The original aim has largely been achieved, though I imagine if we simply ended involvement tomorrow, Gaddafi would return to what he was doing, but on a slower timescale reflecting his diminished weaponry. So we can't just stop without anything else happening instead. The sooner negotiation can replace force the better, for me. If Gaddafi is prepared to stop attacks and negotiate (which continues to seem unlikely, from what we hear) then we should support that, and in fact if we don't, the international support for our action would probably melt away quite quickly. It doesn't seem like there will be a decisive outcome to this by force, in so far as you can judge these things from reading the papers. It's also far from obvious what Libyan people want, though they plainly don't all want the same thing any more than any other large group of people all want the same thing. We come to a stage at some point where further action on our part becomes regime change for its own sake, and at that point I think we go beyond what we should be doing. We also face the familiar slide into continued engagement with no clear idea of how we will disengage, or maybe a situation where our support for one side prolongs the violence. There seems to be some efforts under way to find a diplomatic way forward. I assume we are supporting that, as we should. Our aim now should be to withdraw as quickly and cleanly as we can, without creating conditions where there's a further period of conflict. The question for the Libyan people is, can you find a way of reaching agreement on how you will be governed, and how can other countries support that. It's not for us to impose a solution, or a western form of "democracy", or anything else, but we do and should have a role in helping to prevent bloodshed on a massive scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Various things. Perhaps we ought to have been asking questions from the outset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Various things. Perhaps we ought to have been asking questions from the outset. Perhaps we should also recognise that waiting for definitive answers to these questions, and preventing what appeared to be an imminent bloodbath, were mutually exclusive. There was a point where a decision had to be made either to intervene or let the attack take place, and the time to explore all the things we would want to consider wasn't available. I suppose this was recognised by countries who had the most reservations about this action; if more time had been available, presumably they would have vetoed action until these questions had been fully explored and where possible resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 bloomberg"]Gates Holds Talks With Saudi King on Iran Threat, Region Tumult U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived in the Saudi capital of Riyadh today to meet with King Abdullah on the upheaval in the region, the threat from Iran and a $60 billion U.S. arms package for Saudi Arabia, the Associated Press reported. It is Gates’s third trip to the region in the past month. The regional turmoil has included troops from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states entering Bahrain to help quell protests in that Persian Gulf nation. The incursion occurred within days of a March visit by Gates to Bahrain’s capital, Manama. Bahrain’s crackdown and the Saudi military intervention “could turn a mass movement for democratic reform into an armed conflict while regionalizing a genuinely internal political struggle,” according to an analysis published today by the International Crisis Group. The Brussels-based organization advocates for policies to prevent conflicts. The U.S. defense chief, like other Obama administration officials, has urged Arab governments to respond quickly to peaceful protesters’ demands for reform. Gates probably won’t raise Saudi Arabia’s own internal political tensions during the visit, the AP reported, citing a U.S. defense official traveling with the secretary. Relations with Saudi Arabia have been strained because the kingdom’s rulers saw the U.S. as abandoning a long-time ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, when demonstrators there successfully called for his ouster, the AP said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Punt & Dennis observed that since Tony Blair became the Middle East Peace Envoy the place has collapsed in to chaos. Who needs an army? Just send Tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Perhaps we should also recognise that waiting for definitive answers... Who said anything about waiting for definitive answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts