Libyan Uprising - Page 45

On March 18 2011 10:46 Kukaracha wrote:
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.

UNSC(United Nations Security Council, not the Halo UNSC) voted 10-0 to put a no fly zone into effect over Libya to protect citizens "At All Costs" Canada, Britain, France, and the US are all putting it into effect with the help of the United Arab Nations, Qatar, and Jordan. COALITION AIRSTRIKES ARE NOW PERMITTED.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/


Also note that Gaddafi has said that loyalist forces are going to push into Benghazi tonight. Expect NATO/UN Coalition intervention.

Also note that the UN operation is NOT US led. Either a British or French General will be in command.

Canada first to give hard numbers of support 6 CF-18s are en route to Libya and the support ship HMCS Charlottetown is in the Mediterranean and is providing artillery and electronic warfare support

US is not disclosing force to the public.

No word on contribution from Britain or France.

Arab League is asking UN to step in on their behalf in ground operations.

Gaddafi to "fight to the last man"

Germany: Gaddafi's reign is over.

Egypt is skeptical of Western intervention. Is pleased with no-fly zone and will supply troops to monitor western involvement to avoid any needless western aggression.

Italy has cut remaining ties from Libya and is now being used as a staging area alongside Malta for no fly zone.

Gaddafi has stated he WILL DIE before giving in to rebels. he believes the people want him in power

Gaddafi challenges Coalition to use all force they can bring to bear, including nuclear weapons, saying it will not break his resolve

Reports suggest UN coalition is supplying pro-democracy rebels

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.

On March 18 2011 10:46 Kukaracha wrote:
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.

On March 18 2011 11:21 Alou wrote:
Did India and Brazil give reasons for abstaining? Russia and China's decision to abstain makes a lot of sense based on how they generally vote. Not to sure why India and Brazil abstained though.

On March 18 2011 11:05 Nightfall.589 wrote:

I'm afraid that people are bitching about the hypocrisy of propping up friendly repressive regimes, and condemning hostile repressive regimes.

On March 18 2011 11:26 Asshat wrote:


Just like Germany, they are against the use of force. On another note, the moment it came to my notice that Libya was a major supply of oil I knew this was going to happen, there's no chance the US military intervention will be limited to just a "no flight zone" for very long.

On March 18 2011 11:33 Ocedic wrote:


Reading this thread I was under the impression that the Libyan situation has greater ramifications for Europe than US, namely both the oil issue and potential refugees into Europe should the rebels lose. And the US is definitely being a lot more passive on this issue than, say, the war in Iraq.

And let's face it, the US army is already stretched way too thin; the last thing we need on our plates is another front to wage a ground war.

On March 18 2011 10:51 0mar wrote:


You don't understand the implications of what this intervention means. It's as simple as that.

On March 18 2011 11:26 Asshat wrote:


Just like Germany, they are against the use of force. On another note, the moment it came to my notice that Libya was a major supply of oil I knew this was going to happen, there's no chance the US military intervention will be limited to just a "no flight zone" for very long.

On March 18 2011 11:49 Jibba wrote:
I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. The US evaluated all the cases and decided that non-intervention best meets our needs when it comes to brutal allies. Intervention, humanitarian or otherwise, does have a place against our brutal enemies. At the very least it's a step up from the realism and neorealism that has always plagued IR.

If the issue is that you think there will be a blow back effect when we don't help in those countries, the answer is so? Is that ire going to be any less if we don't help anywhere? There's plenty of awareness in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia that the US is overextended at the moment, and it seems pretty clear that the US is not taking the lead in Libya. One of our requirements for agreeing was that a coalition of neighboring Arab states were also involved, and it was France and the UK leading negotiations. I think it will remain that the majority of our vitriol from the Middle East will come from our actions in Pakistan and non-action in Palestine.

It's unfortunate that we continue to provide weapons and support to dictators and their paramilitaries, but I don't think our actions in Libya will have nearly the effect on those other countries that you're imagining it will.

On March 18 2011 11:49 Jibba wrote:
I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. The US evaluated all the cases and decided that non-intervention best meets our needs when it comes to brutal allies. Intervention, humanitarian or otherwise, does have a place against our brutal enemies. At the very least it's a step up from the realism and neorealism that has always plagued IR.

If the issue is that you think there will be a blow back effect when we don't help in those countries, the answer is so? Is that ire going to be any less if we don't help anywhere? There's plenty of awareness in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia that the US is overextended at the moment, and it seems pretty clear that the US is not taking the lead in Libya. One of our requirements for agreeing was that a coalition of neighboring Arab states were also involved, and it was France and the UK leading negotiations. I think it will remain that the majority of our vitriol from the Middle East will come from our actions in Pakistan and non-action in Palestine.

It's unfortunate that we continue to provide weapons and support to dictators and their paramilitaries, but I don't think our actions in Libya will have nearly the effect on those other countries that you're imagining it will.

On March 18 2011 12:10 Taguchi wrote:
Western motives aside, can we all agree that Gaddafi is, in fact, a dangerous, if not insane, individual who does his countrymen no good by staying in power?

This is what the UN is supposed to do, protect the weak and punish the ones who oppress them (in the fantasy world of people acting out of goodwill instead of calculated moves to further their selfish designs) and the one time western intervention is good and just people are reflexively going to freak out?

Bahrain, Palestine etc are examples of the western world acting wrongly, does this mean we have to throw them under the bus when, for once, they're doing the right thing (extremely delayed timing, but still better late than never) ?

Come on now. If nothing else, just look at the reactions of the people in rebel-controlled areas...

On March 18 2011 11:59 sushiman wrote:

India and Brazil might also have reasons similar to China, namely not supporting anti-governmental forces in another country when they have restless populations of their own. Brazil is ripe with poverty and criminality, but especially India have reasons to thread carefully in this matter, since they long have had trouble with their minorities, especially muslim-hindu tension, as well as communist insurgents.

On March 18 2011 12:23 Soap wrote:


Not really. There's plenty of gang activity, drug dealing and illegal gambling in Brazil but no political motivation, actually the ruling party is widely approved.

It's more because brazilian diplomacy is obsessed with independence, and since Libya is far away and our military assets are laughable, sounds better to be rebellious than an irrelevant ally.

On March 18 2011 12:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Doesn't Brazil have the only Carrier in South America... Making it pretty much the powerhouse of South America?

On March 18 2011 12:04 0mar wrote:



The problem is that, ultimately, dictatorships cannot survive. If we constantly look the other way while these protests go on in our allied countries, when the people come into power, they won't soon forget what happened.

Iran is the perfect case. We overthrew their legitimate government in the '50s, installed a very strong dictator and supported him when he rose against his people. When his regime crumbled, the entire Middle East landscape changed for the worse against us to the point where we had no choice but to support an even more brutal dictator in Saddam.