Um, Are We About To Be In A Third War?

lukin2006 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

Russia and China abstaining is the same thing as approving. Come on guys, you know better than that. Either could have vetoed and killed the whole thing. They didn't. But abstaining lets them be able to bark about not approving it. If they didn't approve they should have vetoed.

Two days ago the Arab League asked for the no fly zone. Now they are critical. Who is worried about image again?

I do believe oil is a factor. But again I firmly believe Libya is an easy, low risk target. You can bring up Iran, China and these other places but doing something there would spark a major conflict. The UN thinks they can do this in days.

Then if the UN/West is doing this because they think it can be done quickly, then say so and quit trying to convince people that the UN/West really has people's interest at heart.

kenny olav · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

I'm on board with it, 100%. I agree with everything else you said too. While I think the situation in the Middle East would be better if the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't happened, I don't see how anyone can say Libya would be better off if the world didn't answer the call of the Libyan people. Ghadafi only controls a few tribes and some mercenaries from other countries, right? Ghadifi was never a ally to the West, but he was a business partner. Hopefully the next business partner will be better to his people, but if the current one is left in power, things will only get worse.

puremagic · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

[
The Arab League secretary has also just announced his critisicm of the air strikes against Libya.

No, no, Arab League, you wanted it, you got it. You honestly thought the Saudis and the West had your best interest in hand, well the jokes on YOU. Libya's a goddamn African nation with oil and a Muslim population, did you really think the West gave a fuk?

What hell did you think 'air strikes' were going to do, kick up a little sand!!! You dumb fuks, 'air strikes' ='s shooting missiles at targets and if you happen to be in that 'zone' Mr. Protester' too bad. If your precious mosques are in the 'zone' again, too bad.

Like I said, the jokes on YOU. All you had to do is look at the countries who were in favor of this air strike.

LIBYA - Oil Background
Major Import Products: Manufactured goods ... Italy, Germany, Spain, and France, account for about 98% of Libya's oil exports ... http://www.ker.co.nz/LIBYA/oil_background.html

1.The US had already frozen Libya's assets.

2.Guess who's assets and future oil revenues will be paying for all those 'air strikes' the new government of Libya.

3.By time the oil companies stop suing Libya for losses, all those protesters will be eating sand paddies. They'll get to vote, but they'll be some poor ass voters selling their goods cheap and looking for handouts from the West, just like the people and government of Iraq.

Next time Mr. Arab League if you don't like a leader, shot him yourself. One bullet vs western missiles.

CH156378 · March 2011

puremagic wrote:

boyo79 wrote:

[
The Arab League secretary has also just announced his critisicm of the air strikes against Libya.

No, no, Arab League, you wanted it, you got it. You honestly thought the Saudis and the West had your best interest in hand, well the jokes on YOU. Libya's a goddamn African nation with oil and a Muslim population, did you really think the West gave a fuk?

What hell did you think 'air strikes' were going to do, kick up a little sand!!! You dumb fuks, 'air strikes' ='s shooting missiles at targets and if you happen to be in that 'zone' Mr. Protester' too bad. If your precious mosques are in the 'zone' again, too bad.

Like I said, the jokes on YOU. All you had to do is look at the countries who were in favor of this air strike.

LIBYA - Oil Background
Major Import Products: Manufactured goods ... Italy, Germany, Spain, and France, account for about 98% of Libya's oil exports ... http://www.ker.co.nz/LIBYA/oil_background.html

1.The US had already frozen Libya's assets.

2.Guess who's assets and future oil revenues will be paying for all those 'air strikes' the new government of Libya.

3.By time the oil companies stop suing Libya for losses, all those protesters will be eating sand paddies. They'll get to vote, but they'll be some poor ass voters selling their goods cheap and looking for handouts from the West, just like the people and government of Iraq.

Next time Mr. Arab League if you don't like a leader, shot him yourself. One bullet vs western missiles.

boyo79 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

Russia and China abstaining is the same thing as approving. Come on guys, you know better than that. Either could have vetoed and killed the whole thing. They didn't. But abstaining lets them be able to bark about not approving it. If they didn't approve they should have vetoed.

Two days ago the Arab League asked for the no fly zone. Now they are critical. Who is worried about image again?

I do believe oil is a factor. But again I firmly believe Libya is an easy, low risk target. You can bring up Iran, China and these other places but doing something there would spark a major conflict. The UN thinks they can do this in days.

I'd like to know why the UN, US, UK, France etc didn't get involved in the uprisings in Egypt and Bahrain? It annoys me how the West pick and choose which conflicts they decide to get involved in. They only get involved when it is of benefit to them.

nuffingman · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

I'd like to know why the UN, US, UK, France etc didn't get involved in the uprisings in Egypt and Bahrain? It annoys me how the West pick and choose which conflicts they decide to get involved in. They only get involved when it is of benefit to them.

Egypt and Bahrain have mainly been public demonstrations unlike the promised slaughter by Gaddafi. There have been casualties but I think if the president of Egypt had announced he was going to wipe out protesters something may have been done. I'm not quite sure how we benefited from the Yugoslavian and Falklands conflicts.

Also there is history with Gaddafi. He's dangerous, has openly supported terrorism and is quite obviously as mad as a bag of ferrets.

Strange how we avoided Zimbabwe, Rwanda and various other countries with appalling human rights records though.

Flagg · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Russia and China abstaining is the same thing as approving. Come on guys, you know better than that. Either could have vetoed and killed the whole thing. They didn't. But abstaining lets them be able to bark about not approving it. If they didn't approve they should have vetoed.

Two days ago the Arab League asked for the no fly zone. Now they are critical. Who is worried about image again?

I do believe oil is a factor. But again I firmly believe Libya is an easy, low risk target. You can bring up Iran, China and these other places but doing something there would spark a major conflict. The UN thinks they can do this in days.

I'd like to know why the UN, US, UK, France etc didn't get involved in the uprisings in Egypt and Bahrain? It annoys me how the West pick and choose which conflicts they decide to get involved in. They only get involved when it is of benefit to them.

Bahrain? - I don't know. Except that the West considers them an ally. They are a major oil producer though. So by that logic shouldn't we be bombing them too, to get to their oil? Who knows. If the protests get loud enough and the government starts trying to kill all of them maybe we will. Libya was an oil producing "ally" too. Ally in the very loosest definition of the term.

Egypt was pretty much a bloodless coup. Although there was some violence it was nowhere near the scale of what was going on in Libya. There was no need to get involved. Also Egypt is not an oil producer.

It is annoying, I agree. We (the US) should have put a stop to what has been going on in Rwanda and places like that a long time ago. Use a little of our "unique capabilities" there. If you are going to flex your muscles, and you want to make an impression (I still think that is one of the goals here - Look at us helping the Arab people!) then flex them against these African warlords and help those that cannot help themselves. That is what you should use your overpowering military resources for.

Flagg · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Russia and China abstaining is the same thing as approving. Come on guys, you know better than that. Either could have vetoed and killed the whole thing. They didn't. But abstaining lets them be able to bark about not approving it. If they didn't approve they should have vetoed.

Two days ago the Arab League asked for the no fly zone. Now they are critical. Who is worried about image again?

I do believe oil is a factor. But again I firmly believe Libya is an easy, low risk target. You can bring up Iran, China and these other places but doing something there would spark a major conflict. The UN thinks they can do this in days.

Then if the UN/West is doing this because they think it can be done quickly, then say so and quit trying to convince people that the UN/West really has people's interest at heart.

Oh yeah, I agree. But that sounds better doesn't it?

I like this thread. Good debate that hasn't degraded into name-calling. Shocker!

lukin2006 · March 2011

Flagg wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Russia and China abstaining is the same thing as approving. Come on guys, you know better than that. Either could have vetoed and killed the whole thing. They didn't. But abstaining lets them be able to bark about not approving it. If they didn't approve they should have vetoed.

Two days ago the Arab League asked for the no fly zone. Now they are critical. Who is worried about image again?

I do believe oil is a factor. But again I firmly believe Libya is an easy, low risk target. You can bring up Iran, China and these other places but doing something there would spark a major conflict. The UN thinks they can do this in days.

Then if the UN/West is doing this because they think it can be done quickly, then say so and quit trying to convince people that the UN/West really has people's interest at heart.

Oh yeah, I agree. But that sounds better doesn't it?

I like this thread. Good debate that hasn't degraded into name-calling. Shocker!

I agree, great debate going on...just shows that people can be on opposite ends of a debate and behave responsibly.

Has the the UN/West stated it's objectives. From what I understand it is to stop the violence, or is it to remove leadership? If they plan on removing leadership then that may require boots on the ground.

gimmesometruth27 · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

I agree, great debate going on...just shows that people can be on opposite ends of a debate and behave responsibly.

Has the the UN/West stated it's objectives. From what I understand it is to stop the violence, or is it to remove leadership? If they plan on removing leadership then that may require boots on the ground.

the way i read it the main objective is to stop the violence and weaken his abilities to inflict mass violence and casualties on the rebels. as of last night the goal was "not necessarily to remove ghadaffi from power", and gates said that he could still end up holding on to power when all is said and done. but in my honest opinion is that after this coalition getting involved i do not see how they can allow him to stay in power. his people will never respect him and will never forgive him for what he has done by trying to quell the uprising. the rebel forces have proven that they are not strong enough to oust him and that they were days from being defeated. hell, what is going to happen to those rebel leaders if khadaffi stays in power? they will be tried or tortured or killed for their acts of treason. if they are interested in saving lives khadaffi has to go. if he stays we will have the same situation as when we left saddam in power after desert storm. and to remove him boots will need to be on the ground, and it will be a lengthy war, just like in iraq and afghanistan. stupid decision to get involved in this mess. very stupid decision....

lukin2006 · March 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I agree, great debate going on...just shows that people can be on opposite ends of a debate and behave responsibly.

Has the the UN/West stated it's objectives. From what I understand it is to stop the violence, or is it to remove leadership? If they plan on removing leadership then that may require boots on the ground.

the way i read it the main objective is to stop the violence and weaken his abilities to inflict mass violence and casualties on the rebels. as of last night the goal was "not necessarily to remove ghadaffi from power", and gates said that he could still end up holding on to power when all is said and done. but in my honest opinion is that after this coalition getting involved i do not see how they can allow him to stay in power. his people will never respect him and will never forgive him for what he has done by trying to quell the uprising. the rebel forces have proven that they are not strong enough to oust him and that they were days from being defeated. hell, what is going to happen to those rebel leaders if khadaffi stays in power? they will be tried or tortured or killed for their acts of treason. if they are interested in saving lives khadaffi has to go. if he stays we will have the same situation as when we left saddam in power after desert storm. and to remove him boots will need to be on the ground, and it will be a lengthy war, just like in iraq and afghanistan. stupid decision to get involved in this mess. very stupid decision....

Once we put boots on the ground, any support from the arab world will quickly turn against the west. Originally the people of Iraq and Afghanistan seemed happy that US/West got involved, not so much now.

gimmesometruth27 · March 2011

lukin2006 wrote:

Once we put boots on the ground, any support from the arab world will quickly turn against the west. Originally the people of Iraq and Afghanistan seemed happy that US/West got involved, not so much now.

i have to disagree with what you said regarding iraqis and afghans wanting us to be there. remember how we were constantly under attack from them with the rpgs and roadside bombs? remember how rumsfeld said "we would be greeted as liberators" and that "they will greet us with flowers" etc? that is not how it happened in most situations. they would say they are happy to our face while shooting an rpg at us from behind.

i do not think anybody that is making decisions in this thing really cares about what the arab world thinks. if they did they would not have blanket support for israel, we would not have bases in saudi arabia (which is what bin laden said makes us a target in the first place), and we would not constantly be getting involved over there. the fact is libya and that region has oil they need to sell, and we have a need for their oil, and the greatest threat to that business is war and violence. they need our money just as bad as we need their oil. i think this is going to come down to something stupid like we need a "friendly" dictator or a friendly elected official in the region to advance our standing in that region. khadaffi had allowed us to do that for decades even if he did not like the us. but from what i have read about world affairs is that you know what the guy in power is like, but you fear the uncertainty of what his successor is like...i am thinking that is why saddam was allowed to stay in power after desert storm because we at least knew what he was capable of. we had no idea what his crazy sons would have done and could not take that chance by letting them take over. i am thinking the same idea applies here...

BinauralJam · March 2011

boyo79 wrote:

The bottom line is the US, UK and France are only interested in Libya because of the oil. They aren't interested in protecting the civilians. They've already started dropping bombs just ONE DAY after getting this No Fly Zone in place. The US, UK & France have engineered this so they could drop bombs. They've probably helped the rebels attack Gaddafi's troops knowing he'd retaliate. And then they get the OK to attack.

Don't get me wrong, Gaddafi shouldn't be in power but the US & the UK have no business in this. What they are doing is nothing short of legalised terrorism. Its Iraq all over again.

This!

gimmesometruth27 · March 2011

BinauralJam wrote:

boyo79 wrote:

The bottom line is the US, UK and France are only interested in Libya because of the oil. They aren't interested in protecting the civilians. They've already started dropping bombs just ONE DAY after getting this No Fly Zone in place. The US, UK & France have engineered this so they could drop bombs. They've probably helped the rebels attack Gaddafi's troops knowing he'd retaliate. And then they get the OK to attack.

Don't get me wrong, Gaddafi shouldn't be in power but the US & the UK have no business in this. What they are doing is nothing short of legalised terrorism. Its Iraq all over again.

This!

this is essentially what putin is saying as well. he said the west is in "a medieval crusade against khadaffi".

if putin was so against this, then why did russia not veto the un resolution when they had the chance???????

nuffingman · March 2011

kenny olav wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Some of you guys see the boogey man everywhere don't you? Never can just take something at face value. Always have to find an ulterior motive or a conspiracy.

They asked for help. They are getting help.

The "indiscriminate death from above" comment made me laugh. Guess it's ok then if Ghadafi does it. Guess it is ok if he shells his own people with tanks and artillery and drops bombs on them. How else are you supposed to stop him?
Sanctions? Harsh language?

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan is a mess. This isn't the same thing. I am about as anti-war as you can get but that man is slaughtering his own people who are involved in a popular uprising. Hell I figured most of you would be on board with that.

I'm on board with it, 100%. I agree with everything else you said too. While I think the situation in the Middle East would be better if the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't happened, I don't see how anyone can say Libya would be better off if the world didn't answer the call of the Libyan people. Ghadafi only controls a few tribes and some mercenaries from other countries, right? Ghadifi was never a ally to the West, but he was a business partner. Hopefully the next business partner will be better to his people, but if the current one is left in power, things will only get worse.

Too many posts to comment on but I'll go along with these two. I have to laugh when I see China, Russia and the African union complaining. There's never been any human rights violations abuses in those regions have there (dripping with sarcasm smiley required).

The one thing I'll critisise is the length of time it took to do something. There were so many meetings I felt they were playing at making us think they cared. Another few days and there would have been nobody left to protect. I always understood it that when the UN sanctioned protection the bombing would start to make it difficult for the madman to attack Benghazi. You can't believe anything this guy says, he declares a ceasefire and starts shooting straight away. If what happened at the weekend hadn't happened we'd now be reading about a bloodbath in Benghazi and all the critisism would be at the lack of help.

puremagic · March 2011

The UN resolution expressly states that the mission was ‘not the removal’ of Gaddafi. The mission was to ensure that Gaddafi was not in a position to use military violence against its people. So where does that leave the people of Libya once the air strikes stop and they’re left with Gaddafi and a military who has lost many of their comrades? Someone has to be on the ground – Libya wants Turkey.

As to all the politicians and allies who called for a no fly zone and are now back peddling – does it really surprise anyone? You can’t have a ‘no fly zone’ when anti-air craft missiles are targeting your aircraft. The first obligation was to take out radar equipment and anti-air craft missiles and that requires air strikes – that task fell to the US.

The only way this would go bad for President Obama is if American ground troops land in Libya.

puremagic · March 2011

1. Egypt had its share of violence, however, the military and police stopped short of an all-out-attack on the protesters, mainly due to the fact that the protesters used the social network to send videos and current activities as they were happening. President Hosni Mubarak found it hard to issue a full crackdown and ultimately resigned.

--The problem facing Egypt now is that they did not have a plan. The military is calling the shots until an election is held. If the constitutional reforms sought are not enough for the protesters, the military will not hesitate to put down any uprising.

2. Bahrain is using just as much violence against it protesters as Libya. The difference is that Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are now claiming that it’s not a protest for democracy, they’re claiming they are putting down a foreign plot against its Kingdom backed by none other than the villain of the Middle East – Iran, and are targeting Shiites to create a division between the Sunni people just like in Iraq.

-The funny this about Hamad Khalifa the leader of Bahrain is that, he wasn’t elected King and he wasn’t appointed King. He simply gave himself the title of King and announced that Bahrain was now the Kingdom of Bahrain. The West did nothing and the people of Bahrain could do nothing.

Then there’s Yemen, do you go in or not?

whygohome · March 2011

puremagic wrote:

1. Egypt had its share of violence, however, the military and police stopped short of an all-out-attack on the protesters, mainly due to the fact that the protesters used the social network to send videos and current activities as they were happening. President Hosni Mubarak found it hard to issue a full crackdown and ultimately resigned.

--The problem facing Egypt now is that they did not have a plan. The military is calling the shots until an election is held. If the constitutional reforms sought are not enough for the protesters, the military will not hesitate to put down any uprising.

2. Bahrain is using just as much violence against it protesters as Libya. The difference is that Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are now claiming that it’s not a protest for democracy, they’re claiming they are putting down a foreign plot against its Kingdom backed by none other than the villain of the Middle East – Iran, and are targeting Shiites to create a division between the Sunni people just like in Iraq.

-The funny this about Hamad Khalifa the leader of Bahrain is that, he wasn’t elected King and he wasn’t appointed King. He simply gave himself the title of King and announced that Bahrain was now the Kingdom of Bahrain. The West did nothing and the people of Bahrain could do nothing.

Then there’s Yemen, do you go in or not?

There is a turning of the tide in Yemen:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42189503/ns ... tn_africa/

Also, I do not think that we can compare all of these movements/revolutions. On the surface we can see the similarities, but we need to do something that people are never able to do: dig deeper. Each revolution is different.
In Tunisia, the leader stepped down. This was also so in Egypt, and that was the reason that the U.N. or U.S. did not intervene. In Libya, we have a leader slaughtering his own people. Ghaddafi is insane. Certifiable. Intervention was necessary, and a U.N. led effort is the right approach.
As far as Yemen goes, read the included article. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are tricky; actually, they are beyond tricky. They are nearly impossible situations to deal with. The US has dug a hole for itself in our continual backing of dictators, and now we are being forced to own up to this support.
It's anyone's guess (educated hopefully, or else we regress into the discourse seen in the Yahoo Comments page).

Drowned Out · March 2011

I find the willingness of the public to support military intervention fascinating.
Why?
Because the media says the Libyan people want/need our help?
Would that be the same media who fed us the government line about WMD's in Iraq?....

Seriously....I'm betting pretty much no one participating in this thread knew sweet FA about Libya before this all started....and now you're willing to support bombing a sovereign country based on a couple hours of watching CNN????

65 civilians were killed the first day of bombing. Health and education facilities destroyed. Way to help.

Drowned Out · March 2011

I don’t pretend to know enough about Libya to offer an opinion on resolving the situation, but I have been reading a lot about this for weeks, and have noticed a lot of information that has not been shared in this thread.

- Libya was the highest ranking country on the Human Development Index in Africa (based on life expectancy, education, living situation etc)…it also has the highest per-capita income in Africa, largely due to the fact that they distributed nationalized oil revenues amongst the people. Ghadaffi is as much a monster as any other head of state, but he only stands out among the monsters because of the spotlight shone upon him.

- this is NOT anything like the uprising in Egypt. This is an armed coup, orchestrated by rebels with alleged Western intelligence backing. Some posit that these Western intelligence agencies were on the ground before the insurrection started.

- To say that this is not about Oil because of the small quantity physically imported to the US is a major oversight. Libyan oil is nationalized – NOC controls over 50%. We all know privatization of resources is a windfall for private corps. Currently, foreign companies explore NOC land at their own expense for five years, and win land leases by giving the biggest cut of profit to NOC. You know this has to drive neo-libs crazy. Libyan oil is cheap cheap cheap….light crude, very little refining necessary – estimated production cost of $1/barrel….43 billion barells of proven reserves, yet only 30% of Libya has been explored for hydrocarbons. 85% of Libyan oil is exported to Europe. The majority of foreign investment in Libya comes from Euro firms. If things continue to escalate, Libya will be paying Western (US) firms to rebuild their country, with loans from US-controlled international banks. This weakens the Euro influence in the area, and essentially locks China and Russia out of access to Libya’s resources. Another thing to consider – Libya is an important pawn on ‘the Grand Chessboard’. It is directly adjacent to a few resource-rich countries, and has a vast network of pipelines available to transport oil and gas from these countries to the Mediterranean and beyond.

- The Arab League support trumpeted in the media is not nearly as unanimous as it’s being made out to be. Of 22 member states, only 11 voted on the no-fly zone, and 2 were against it (Syria, Algeria). The African Union (representing 53 African countries), firmly denounced it.

- Yes, there are parallels to Yugoslavia….however, do the people making these comparisons understand the role of the West in lead-up to that conflict? And how the NATO bombing was actually a precursor to the bulk of the atrocities in the region?

Um, Are We About To Be In A Third War?

Comments

Categories