Libya no-fly zone

Syscom our uk reaction was justified..you used our territory...bases here out of the brusa pact or treaty without informing us..see the downing st years..thather..personally id have shot you down..she juat went ballistic.

 

France arguably provide more help to the US than NATO and company plan on providing to the Lybians.

Vietnam was a disaster because there wasn't a plan or there were too many "plans". Setting up a democracy there was never high on the list.

That's due to the fact that during the cold war the purpose of "support' in those areas was to keep the dictators friendly to one side not to promote democracy. A case can be made for the failure being due to this short term "amoral" goal. I notice you exclude South America in your list and of course there are Central American democracies.

It hasn't got a great track record to date that doesn't mean that it can't. Describing Africa as haveing "a culture" is rather problematic as well.

That's one option. There are others.

That's an opinion but not a very well supported one.

And an example of incorrect data and falty logic producing a rather tenuous conclusion.

As pointed out French military aid was of considerable help to what became the US in its revolution vs GB. Military aid and support resulted in a democratic South Korea. Columbia is well on it's way to becoming a prosperous democratic country in part due to US aid which included troops (although mostly technical, training, and spec ops types). There is ample evidence to conclude that your agenda is suboptimal.

 

Gentlemen please keep htis thread in control. I'd hate to have to close it.

Latest news:

The coalition suffered a first casualty today when the USA apparently confirmed the loss of a F-16 .

 

South Korea still exists because of the American presence. Had the Americans not stayed, South Korea would have ended up like Vietnam. As for Vietnam, the whole point of US involvement was to keep Communism from defeating democracy. The French failed to keep Vietnam and the US was trying to help Vietnam keep its freedom. Look how that turned out. As for South America, excluded because the US did not get too involved there compared to Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The aid to Columbia was not direct military intervention. Pretty much what I am advocating. The Columbians are doing all the work. The US is supporting that effort, not leading it. Are we to repeat the Iraq fiasco? The Iraqis welcomed our entry at first. Now they kicked our a**es out. The majority of the population did not want us there anymore. That is being repeated in Libya. Let them fight it out. Let them earn their freedom. They can then stand up and join the free nations as equals.

 

Saw that on the NPR site when I looked up the transcript earlier. Aparently the crew are either in the hands of the US or allies but no details.

 

agree jugs..but replace the word libya with bharain...im not into any of this we can only do what we can weasal words of david cameron..hes using tony blairs words..all your concerns equally apply to bharain..folk shot in front of us..maybe your fith fleet should find a better home and my lot should stop arming bharain and send their trainee officers back home...we are both guilty of appeasment in gulf states..like gaddafi..actions speak louder than words..if libya why not our allies in bharain..and saudis..morral selectivity smells.

 

bharain...

 

I read it was an F-15 and photo looks like one. Crew bailed out and recovered.

 

Agreed. That's rather the point is it not. Also note that the US didn't enforce it's laws and rules on the people of South Korea.

Not quite it was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming Communist. There wasn't reallly a functional democracy there at the time and the US didn't seem all that intent on establishing one. There's a chance that had the US done so inparticular if it had built up the economy as well that things might have turned out different.

Again the US was trying to keep South Vietnam from becoming communist. There's a big difference between that and trying to establish a viable democratic country. Looks like a case of self interest type of diplomacy that you were advocating.

My impression is that Panama is a democracy now. The same seems to hold for El Salvador. And Honduras. 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

Pretty much what we are doing in Lybia too. By the way the Columbians did most of the work but not all of it. As time went on our participation has decreased in response to the need.

I wouldn't describe Iraq as a fiasco. Indeed the Iraqis welcomed our entry but they never wanted us to stay and they hardly "kicked" us out. By the way it's not at all clear that the majority of the population didn't want us there. If so it wasn't a huge majority and some of the minorities defintily wanted us to stay.

??? That's a rather absurd statement. There are no plans for troops on the ground right now a rather huge difference.

That seems to be the plan we're just establishing conditions to give them a chance to do so.

 

It's ironical that I,an European,have to remind an American member of Washington's farewell address .
1)That,in the long term an interventionist politic will be the best for US interests,is very questionable .
2)About the road to the hell being paved with good intentions,it's a reply to those who are arguing that the US have to intervene to make the world safe for democracy :good intentions will not give automatically good results (see Vietnam)
3)IMHO,a less interventionistic policy will more protect US interests
4)Why would some form of isolationism not be a good thing for the US?
5)Isolationism will be the only choice for the US,because it will no more have the strength to be the policeman of the world .
6)US has 2 interests in the ME rotection of Israel,and control of the oil .IMHO,Khadaffi is-was no threat for any of these interests;that he is a murdere,etc,is irrelevant :think on Syria,Iran ,Saddam
7)that it is the duty of every human being to help others...,is irrelevant,as we are talking about foreign policy,and not on the Sermon of the Mount :you can't use the Sermon of the Mount,or the Ten Commandments for foreign policy
8)About the Kurds,Timor,.....:if the reason to intervene in Lybia is that the people of Libya is suffering from a dictatorship,why not intervene in Turkey,China,Sudan ,etc,etc,:you have to be logical :what applies for Libya,applies for Sudan,etc....
9)If your foreign policy is to eradicate injustice in the world,the results will be very disappointing(see my point 2)
10)About the reactions after 09/11,there was joy in the ME,joy from the Muslims in Europe (the socalled 5th column),you don't have any idea of the anti-americanism and anti-semitism of the European media .
11)The Islam is despicing the Western values,and the Moslims only have respect for force;talking about democracy and such things is perceived in the ME as a sign of weakness .
12)About Turkey :it will have to choose:a military dictatorship,or an islamitic regime
13) After ten years of war in Iraq,I do think that it is not to soon to evaluate the results :these are catastrophic (the fault of the US ideologues)
14)About an easy solution being available :it is the following :immediately after victory,give power to a general,don't disband the Saddam secret police,and,GET OUT after a few weeks :benefit :no US victims,no loss of prestige,and the saving of a lot of money
15)About Egypt,we will see,but,the country is broken ,and the new regime will have no other option than to blame the US for everything .
16) About Moubarak:the fact that the US were watching the fall of their staunchest ally,is perceived in the ME,as a sign of weakness,and,you know what is happening with countries that are demonstrating signs of weakness ?
I hope ,you will not take personnell the following,but,it's something that I have seen with a lot of Americans:the misconception that people who are talking about democracy and liberty,are good people ,similar to the Americans,that must be helped .
In Lybia,there is a civil war ,and the opponents of Khadaffi are no democrats (the idea of democracy is something totally ununderstandable for them),but ,they belong to an other and hostile tribe :there is no Lybian people,and there is no Iraq people,only hostile tribes,Sunnites,Sjiites,....Of course,they are talking about democracy and such things,but it is only to get money and weapons from the US .Stalin also was talking about democracy (a peoples democracy haha)
In the (amonst others) Islam world,and Africa,you can talk about democracy untill the calfs are dancing on the ice,and the result will still be :a total waste of efforts .

 

What it boils down to at least with me is this; is American blood worth being spilled over this? I say no. As pointed out, it is a tribal dispute. Let them hash it out. There is nothing to gain. There is no good vs evil here. Only outcome will be one despot replacing another. How will the military participants be thanked for the expenditure of $$$ and blood?

 

OO yeah sure and let a mad man kill all of the people who ever hated him yeah sure thats a great idea do you need to know why the U.N. was created? To stop inciddents like this.

 

People die in civil wars. Was he killing his people for the 20+ yrs he's been their leader? It is not genocide like that in the Balkans. Big difference. As you pointed out, it is an incident where the people who differ are attempting to overthrow him. He is a despot. Who is going to replace him? Do we Know? There is no justification in getting involved. There are other African countries with the same 'incidents' and yet the UN does not help there. It is just another civil war. The UN does not really have a good track record in doing what it was designed to do.

 

I think it is. If the US shouldn't be involved, in Libya, does that also mean we should not assist Japan in the wake of the Tsunami / Earthquake, should we have excused ourselves from Kosovo? The UN can not sit by while the people of a nation are being persecuted for their desire for freedom anymore than the US can sit idly by while Japan struggles through disaster.

 

I agree but if this idioit wins he is going to kill thousands of people both rebels and by standers alike he dosent care what he does aslong as he is in power and his psycho son of his.

 

The claim that the US was attempting to keep South Vietnam from going Communist has always struck me as a complete farce. "North" Vietnam and "South" Vietnam were entities invented during the Geneva Conference of 1954 and which were intended to be reunited by a democratic vote in two years. Such a vote was prevented by claims that "North" Vietnam would not carry out the vote ethically and in the meantime the US supported an oligarchy, headed by the corrupt Ngo Diem, that saw vast land inequality. There is no doubt that the US was attempting to prevent "communism" (in many cases simply land reform and other attempts to reduce inequality) from spreading to the region, but this idea of fighting for "South" Vietnam's "freedom" was taken too far and unfortunately has been too widely accepted.

The US was fighting to maintain the balance of power in Southeast Asia, it is as simple as that. The US, like any other country, has and always will act to benefit its own interest--something that is often masked by "freedom" and "democracy" whether the results of the military action bear such consequences or not.

Vietnam, along with countless other conflicts in third world countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Chile, and Iran, were all efforts by the US to either maintain the status quo of oligarchy and autocracy or extend such policies to those nations under the guise of preventing the spread of Communism. During this Cold War, such actions were the best way to serve the US national interest, and often resulted (and continue to result) in much hardship for the lower class citizens of the nations with which they get involved.

 

It might be if you had or could explain why it's relevant to the topic at hand.

That depends an awful lot on how you define "interventionist politic".

Indead but neither does non action and the results of the latter can be even worse.

Highly debateable. Try making a case for it rather than just stating an opinion. However it should probably be in it's own thead not here.

This is probably not the thread to debate this. It might be ok in a thread by itself. Basically the world is to closely linked for any major economy to be isolationist any more.

Well since the US isn't trying to be "policeman of the world" this is a nonstarter.

Why should the US have any more interest in Israel than Egypt or Lybia for example? If a figure like Sadam or Khadaffi goes far enough out on a limb that we can cut him off I think we will continue to do so. It's a matter of cost and benefits and the US does indeed have more interest in that part of the world than just oil and Israel and we hardly control the oil there in any case.

It is quite relevant as some of your posts have shown. You seem to want to exclude morality when it suits you and not when it doesn't. The point is it is a consideration and always will be. It is however not the only consideration and may or may not outweight others.

Well Turdky is a democracy although at this point a possibly troubled one. China would be too expensive and seems to be making progress on it's own. Sudan not enough political support from the rest of the world. Remember your claim about the US being the "world's policeman". That's pretty conclusive evidance that we aren't and aren't trying to be. Again morality plays a part but so does cost, practicality, and the opinions of others. Diplomats and world leaders are not given to one dimensional thinking unlike some posters here.

Possibly but if approached reasonably probably not. Of course that's not anyones foreign policy so it's a rather moot point.

Islam is far less monolithic that you seem to imply. And even among some very devout followers of Islam peace is a major goal. Others see some benefit in democracy as well. If you don't believe it care to explain why we get so many coming here and why they do so well?

Or not. Historically the military intervened several times during the 20th centruy to prevent an islamist take over of the state. It didn't result in a military dictatorship. Likewise it's not clear that the islamist have enough power to take over.

The results were indeed catastrophic for Al Quada, Sadam and his regime, and arguably for the Sunnis in Iraq. For the rest of Iraq not so much. It's also not clear just what part ideologues played in this. Furthermore describing it as 10 years of war is hardly accurate. Making the judgement prior to things settleing down implies an extremely short sighted and narrow framed judgement.

As I said your defintion if "easy" is not the same as mine. For one thing which general? Especially since most of them were tainted. The US as an occuping power also has some obligation as to the wellfare of the peopel. Leaving at that point would almost have assuredly resulted in a very bloody civil war, which by the way Al Quada would probably have made signifcant use of. I'm not sure our allies in particular those in Kuwait would have been all that happy either. Indeed there's even a chance Sadam or one of his sons would have been back in power before it was all over. Or maybe the Iranians would have stepped into the power vaccum. As for US victims well we did loose some in the initial invasion. Prestige I'm inclined to think we'd have lost more by cutting out right away than by staying. It would have saved a lot of meny, unless we had to do it again, and again, and again. There's also the fact that there would have been little impact on Al Quada indeed it probably would have restulted in them being stronger rather than the final reslut of crippling them.

Of course they will. There are lots of people to blame: Israel, the previous regime, the Moslem Brotherhood, unnamed colonial powers, etc. Or they could just for get the whole blame game and start building something new.

I'm sure some will see it that way. Some will also probably see it as cynical. Of course the US wasn't just "watching" they were activly encouraging him to leave. I'm not at all sure how the majority there view this or how the various leaders do which are almost assuredly not the same thing. I strongly suspect however especially when combined with current events "weak" is not the prevalant opinion.

Well by American standards if they are really for democracy and liberty then they are at least well on the way to being "good people". There's enough cynacism here however to realize that not all who talk so mean it.

It's possible you are correct but I doubt it. There is little reason to believe that at least some of them don't understand and desire democarcy. Many probably don't but you are painting with way to broad a bursh.

You are welcome to your beliefs but as you have failed to support them with fact or logic I don't see any reason at all to agree. Indeed the use of such uneqivable language is almost always an indicator of a closed mind and flawed beliefs. This is especially the case when there are at least indicators to that effect. I'll continue to believe that the world can and will be a better place and that we can help it along at times.

 

In case somebody did misunderstood me f course,democracy,liberty,humanitarian principles are good things,but,one should use good things economically and in the right circumstances (election campaigns,...),but,you can't found your foreign policy on such things :two US presidents did try this ,and the results were not very good (an euphemism):Wilson (considered as a mixture of a missionary and a weapons-trader)and Carter (one still is laughing at him in the foreign departments of a lot of countries).
Realpolitik is the thing to use (Kissinger did use it very well):starting from reality,not from wishfull-thinking .

 

I share the same view but looking at the history of the Middle East, won't the rebels be doing the same thing? Who is to say they will not? Either way, I feel it is not worth American blood. My opinion

 

This is going to be good. It was pretty clearly The REASON.

Agreed and this does indeed support that the rational was to prevent South Vietnam becoming Communist.

There's a difference between the fight being to prevent South Vietnam becoming Communist and it being for their freedom.

I think you have it backwards. The effort was to prevent the spread of Communism. The support to dicatators and oligarchs was because they were viewed as useful in this effort. Communism was viewed as the big threat in the post WWII world by the US.

I'm not sure that they were the best way to serve US national interest but they were considered so at the time. It wasn't just the lower classes in other nations that suffered by the way. Part of the reason that Communism was viewed as the chance of reversing a communist take over looked to be extremely low during that period. I can't think of any cases in the 50s, 60s, or 70's where a nation that was communist changed governemnts. Of course this overlooked the long term problems of Communism that showed up late in the 20th century but it wasn't apparent until not long before it happened at least to most.