|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 18 2011 09:32 RxN wrote:Or it could be the catalyst for another Islamist state cut from the same cloth as Iran popping up. The rebels are very disorganized, there will probably be a power vacuum should Qadaffi fall and, to top it off, eastern Libya is a breeding ground for jihadists/terrorists.
All of your post seem to indicate that you believe all arabs are fundamentalists anti americans who are just 10 minutes away from creating a theocracy and bombing the US.
This is not the case in Libya AT ALL.
|
On March 18 2011 09:14 DorN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 09:11 accela wrote:
oh great another "humanitarian" war
there were plenty of good points in time those past weeks/months for UN to actually make a difference and save hundreds of lives in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
now this decision is more like a bad joke and smells kinda like invasion in the long term. Tunisia and Egypt were not even close to what happens in lybia. An Invasion is not possible. At least not with this resolution because it excludes troops on the ground.
What's really the sign to help someone or at least to express your support? The number of dead bodies? Over 500 dead ppl we let our PR dogs out? Over 1000 we get in there?
Also what's really the point of the decision right now? Gaddafi is almost victorious and we may not see any more uprising any time soon. You think they gonna say "woopsy sorry for destroying your planes general, let's forget everything and get back to oil business" or just keep flying over Libya with Gaddafi trying to give a damn?
and the UN resolutions never actually dictated anyone to act accordingly. If US or anyone else decide to invade that will happen.
|
On March 18 2011 09:32 RxN wrote:Or it could be the catalyst for another Islamist state cut from the same cloth as Iran popping up. The rebels are very disorganized, there will probably be a power vacuum should Qadaffi fall and, to top it off, eastern Libya is a breeding ground for jihadists/terrorists.
Then again, a severely weakened but victorious Ghadaffi could lead to even more radical islamists popping up. He's been fighting Al Qaida for years, and if he wins even more people will probably join them - if he lose, the west would do better with currying favor from the rebels by intervening on their behalf and strenghten the cause of those looking for democracy.
|
On March 18 2011 09:47 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 09:32 RxN wrote:Or it could be the catalyst for another Islamist state cut from the same cloth as Iran popping up. The rebels are very disorganized, there will probably be a power vacuum should Qadaffi fall and, to top it off, eastern Libya is a breeding ground for jihadists/terrorists. Then again, a severely weakened but victorious Ghadaffi could lead to even more radical islamists popping up. He's been fighting Al Qaida for years, and if he wins even more people will probably join them - if he lose, the west would do better with currying favor from the rebels by intervening on their behalf and strenghten the cause of those looking for democracy.
It's precisely this thinking that got us into this mess.
|
What I find ironic is that we move against Gaddafi, who was clearly anti-west, but the exact same thing is going on in Bahrain and we basically gave the Saudis/Bahraini security forces a slap on the wrist, if that.
Basically, we've created a witch's brew in the Middle East. If more uprisings begin and get crushed, anti-West sentiment will grow even higher because we intervened in Libya but not in those other countries. We've set ourselves up for massive blowback across the Middle East.
|
On March 18 2011 09:54 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 09:47 sushiman wrote:On March 18 2011 09:32 RxN wrote:Or it could be the catalyst for another Islamist state cut from the same cloth as Iran popping up. The rebels are very disorganized, there will probably be a power vacuum should Qadaffi fall and, to top it off, eastern Libya is a breeding ground for jihadists/terrorists. Then again, a severely weakened but victorious Ghadaffi could lead to even more radical islamists popping up. He's been fighting Al Qaida for years, and if he wins even more people will probably join them - if he lose, the west would do better with currying favor from the rebels by intervening on their behalf and strenghten the cause of those looking for democracy. It's precisely this thinking that got us into this mess.
There are more things to consider. For European nations, Ghadaffi winning would also mean floods of refugees, something that isn't really welcomed with open arms. Supporting the rebels is more sensible in that regard, and probably weighs more heavily than potential fundamentalists do.
|
That's the whole point, the UN should not take sides. period. The resolution came at a time of civil war not before. It should enforce it on both sides of the equation, rebels and Gaddafi. The rebels were the ones advancing with arms towards the capital not the other way around. Yes he bombed the shit out of some areas, resolution should have come then. That is what I will remember.
|
Finally the security council came to their senses and gave the green light on the no fly zone. We have a moral obligation to help these people get rid of their dictator.
|
In Britain, a lawmaker with knowledge of defense matters confirmed that British forces were on stand by for air strikes and could be mobilized as soon as Thursday night. The lawmaker declined to be named because the Defense Ministry has not issued official confirmation.
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-2 Television that if the resolution was approved France would support military action against Gadhafi within a matter of hours.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, whose government had expressed misgivings about a no-fly zone, proposed that the council vote first on a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Libya. The council refused but added a paragraph in the resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire "and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians."
Source
|
Yea, the US state department guy on Al-Jazeera is implying aswel that if Ghadaffi tries anything they'll bomb tonight if they have to. If benghazi gets overrun now that would be the newest biggest western 'betrayal' to the arab world.
And leaking it so that Ghadaffi knows makes sense too.
|
|
|
On March 18 2011 10:11 Mietiex wrote:
Finally the security council came to their senses and gave the green light on the no fly zone. We have a moral obligation to help these people get rid of their dictator.
rofl, what a joke. What about the Chinese? Saudis? Bahrainis? It has nothing to do with stopping a dictator and everything to do removing an obstacle to western investment. This was politically easy, that's all. Tomorrow, we'll shake hands with Hu Jintao and King Abdullah while bombing Gadaffi.
|
On March 18 2011 10:27 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 10:11 Mietiex wrote:
Finally the security council came to their senses and gave the green light on the no fly zone. We have a moral obligation to help these people get rid of their dictator. rofl, what a joke. What about the Chinese? Saudis? Bahrainis? It has nothing to do with stopping a dictator and everything to do removing an obstacle to western investment. This was politically easy, that's all. Tomorrow, we'll shake hands with Hu Jintao and King Abdullah while bombing Gadaffi.
Yeah, because the US should totally bomb China and Saudi Arabia...
For the first time in a long time the powers of the world are actually doing something good (regardless of the reasons behind it), can we just accept that?
|
According to : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_us/libya_diplomacy
The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval.
according to wikipedia (yeah)
the current non-permanent members are:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Gabon
Lebanon
Nigeria
Colombia
Germany
India
Portugal
South Africa
I assume everyone other than the listed voted yes
|
True, but does it really matter if it is politically motivated? More countries will follow and we will have to lend aid to them as well.
|
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because the US should totally bomb China and Saudi Arabia...
For the first time in a long time the powers of the world are actually doing something good (regardless of the reasons behind it), can we just accept that?[/QUOTE]
Well spoken sir.
|
On March 18 2011 10:27 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 10:11 Mietiex wrote:
Finally the security council came to their senses and gave the green light on the no fly zone. We have a moral obligation to help these people get rid of their dictator. rofl, what a joke. What about the Chinese? Saudis? Bahrainis? It has nothing to do with stopping a dictator and everything to do removing an obstacle to western investment. This was politically easy, that's all. Tomorrow, we'll shake hands with Hu Jintao and King Abdullah while bombing Gadaffi.
Is it hypocritical to intervene in Libya and not in country x? Yes, but generally speaking removing an opressive dictator comes at a high cost. This time, most of the world agrees that it's time for Ghadaffi to go and to see if the Libyans try to make something better of it.
What's the downside of spending a few billion to defend people from being slaughtered and to remove an oppressive dictator at the same time?
|
On March 18 2011 10:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 10:27 0mar wrote:On March 18 2011 10:11 Mietiex wrote:
Finally the security council came to their senses and gave the green light on the no fly zone. We have a moral obligation to help these people get rid of their dictator. rofl, what a joke. What about the Chinese? Saudis? Bahrainis? It has nothing to do with stopping a dictator and everything to do removing an obstacle to western investment. This was politically easy, that's all. Tomorrow, we'll shake hands with Hu Jintao and King Abdullah while bombing Gadaffi. Is it hypocritical to intervene in Libya and not in country x? Yes, but generally speaking removing an opressive dictator comes at a high cost. This time, most of the world agrees that it's time for Ghadaffi to go and to see if the Libyans try to make something better of it. What's the downside of spending a few billion to defend people from being slaughtered and to remove an oppressive dictator at the same time?
Will the world be screaming for military intervention when the Iranian Mullahs brutally suppress their populace for what will be the third time in as many years?
Picking and choosing which people to help and which to throw under the bus isn't going to win the western world any friends in the long run.
|
On March 18 2011 10:33 Steppen_Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 10:27 0mar wrote:On March 18 2011 10:11 Mietiex wrote:
Finally the security council came to their senses and gave the green light on the no fly zone. We have a moral obligation to help these people get rid of their dictator. rofl, what a joke. What about the Chinese? Saudis? Bahrainis? It has nothing to do with stopping a dictator and everything to do removing an obstacle to western investment. This was politically easy, that's all. Tomorrow, we'll shake hands with Hu Jintao and King Abdullah while bombing Gadaffi. Yeah, because the US should totally bomb China and Saudi Arabia... For the first time in a long time the powers of the world are actually doing something good (regardless of the reasons behind it), can we just accept that?
They aren't doing anything good. It's shortsighted if you think this is a good measure. For one, it's hypocritical because the Saudis and Bahrainis are doing the exact same thing, except that the Bahraini Monarchy is a close US ally. So we look the other way. In Yemen, there are protesters being arrested, shot and suppressed by the security forces, yet we don't help these people because Yemen is a front in the war on terror and we need the President-for-life's support. Saudi Arabia just crushed an uprising in their Eastern Province violently and yet we don't even hear a peep about in the US media because SA is a close US ally. What do these countries have that Libya doesn't? Libya was a major thorn in Western policy centers. All the other countries were close allies. The US was defending Mubarak for more than 2 weeks before reluctantly acknowledging the protesters had legitimate concerns.
We've opened the door for major blowback once other Arab countries violently suppress their own uprisings and we don't intervene. The Arab world will hate the West even more, necessitating the need for even more authoritarian rule. We've just reinforced the vicious cycle in the Middle East or we've opened the door for 10 years of Middle East instability. IMO, this is a "crossing the Rubicon" moment.
|
No, we shouldn't help protesters. Protest is an internal affair.
The difference in this case is massive slaughter using heavy weapons (including aircraft, which was very surprising) against a population widely agains Ghadaffi, using mercenaries when the very army defected... add to this that Libya is a small key country, and you get the picture. (I can't believe someone earlier compared it to Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt)
China? No, too big, too strong. Too old, too. People are forgetting about Tibet.
Russia? Same.
Iran? Already hostile, much more aggressive and powerful.
Bahrein? No, Saudi and US support. The possibility, however, would be to withdraw Saudi forces and try to deal with the royal family. But it's a very small kingdom with little media coverage.
What benefits do we get from helping libyan rebels, aside from a humanitarian act?
The possibility to influence the outcome. In the long run, less problems will stem from this country if we help it instead of supporting an unwanted, isolated leader. Jihadism is the result of poverty and oppression, most of the time; it's better to prevent than to cure.
But in the end, I'm happy that for once the UN has taken a "humanitarian" decision, whatever are the reasons. It does come a bit too late now, but I guess that that's what they needed to react.
I wonder, maybe if Ghadaffi had calmed things down, he would've managed to get his way.
On March 18 2011 10:40 RxN wrote:
Picking and choosing which people to help and which to throw under the bus isn't going to win the western world any friends in the long run.
Er, that's how things have worked since the dawn of times... no one has ever helped everybody, see?
I don't get people bitching about this. So it's all or nothing? Wow, what a subtle approach my dear friends!
I hope your chair is comfy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
