Libya no-fly zone

LWD:about point ten :if anti-semitism was not growing in Europe (principal cause :the growing Islam minority),why are so much Jews leaving-escaping Europe?
One of them told me :I am taking no risks,we know what happened in the thirties .Of course,you can continue to believe in the existence of a Lybian people,of an Iraqui people ,but the thruth is that Lybia and Iraq are recent and artificial constructions,who were kept together (for Iraq) by Saddam's blood-thirsty regime.The fact that every day,Sunnites and Shiites are killing each other is,IMHO,an indication that the existence of the Iraqui people is an invention .
That the world can be a better place :yes,that it will be a better place :an illusion (the 20th century has not given proofs that mankind is doing better)
How to make the world better? Not by interventions founded on "humanitarian principles (if such things exist)

 

I do not deny that the war was fought to prevent the spread of Communism in Vietnam. Perhaps I should have been more careful with my words, looking back now I see that we might be in agreement, and that what I said may have seemed contradictory.

The thing I have an issue with is propagating the Vietnam war as an attempt to help the "South" Vietnamese people and prevent communism from spreading specifically to "South" Vietnam, because doing so creates this apparent good vs. evil situation of South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam. The US was fighting to make sure that Vietnam, as a whole, could not serve as an example of a successful Communist state, fearing that if allowed, such a situation would incite other neighboring nations to embrace Communism as well. North and South Vietnam were made-up identities, and I am merely objecting to the rhetoric describing the US as trying to help the South Vietnamese people from falling to Communism (with the emphasis being on helping the "South" Vietnamese"). The US was no more fighting for the South Vietnamese as it was fighting to free the Iraqi people.

I agree that the US was certainly concerned about the spread of Communism, and many interventions were simply to prevent that spread, but there were also times when the US took advantage of the US population's fear of Communism to take action against countries that had no connection with the Soviet Union or China. The US is taking advantage of terrorism in the same way now.

 

Mark4 is correct the United Nations was formed in the hope that this collective body would do a better job than the League of Nations at keeping the peace and provide acceptable treatment of people within the member nations. While the UN has done a better job than the League, it has more often than not fallen short of the original hopes.

I share the sentiment that most of us have that it would be wonderfull if Khadaffi were to face justice for things he has done both recently and in the past. It would also be grand if Libya became a peacefull, just society that embraced the welfare of it's people as it's primary goal.

We should however look at this with open eyes and not thru rose colored glasses. As I see it one of 4 possible outcome's are likely:

ONE) The Rebels force Khadaffi out of power and attempt to set up some form of government. Our best hope, but lets be real they are stuck unless we do more to aid them which we are at least now not ready to do.

TWO) Khadaffi is overthown but is replaced by a strongman little different from himself, enough said.

THREE) Khadaffi is overthown but is replaced by strongman/junta worse than him. Enough said again.

FOUR) Khadaffi survives the rebellion. A nightmare for all who opposed him, an embarrisment to the west and a rouge state with no reason to behave as he had for the last few years and a good reason to get even.

A one and four chance to get a good outcome is not great odds.

Nor should we delude ourselves that this is righteous act humanitarism on the part of the west to aid a downtrodden, oppressed people. It took years and several hundred thousand victim's of ethnic cleansing before the UN acts in the Balkans. It took over a year and a million victim's in Darfur before it acted in the limited way it did. North Korea has oppressed millions, and killed thousands from neglect and misteatment yet no action. Somali pirates attack western ships, kidnap European and American's, killing some, but we are a little too busy to deal with a direct threat to our own people.

In the case of Libya after a few weeks and a few hundred dead yes bad, but not months/years and thousands of dead, we are committed to topple Khadaffi. We are not acting because of humanitarian reasons, but because of the oil that Europe needs for the economy to run smoothly and because the Arab League has given us cover for acting.

Who is the Arab League? Not a group of progressive, forward thinking Jeffersonian democrats. They are leaders who are one mob away from being in Khadaffi's shoes. They are cynicly trying to control public opinion in there own countries by looking like they support the rebels. They have already waffled and will drop us as soon as the arab man in the street demands it.

Like it or not we now own this. It would be nice to see Khadaffi gone, but in a couple of years will we be happy with what we have? I sincerely hope so, but the road to hell is paved with good intention's.

 

By your reasoning why should this be a US concern?

Iraq existed in one form or another for considerable time. Indeed I suspect the analogies to say Poland are fairly close. Indeed the US isn't all that old of construct. During the religious wars of previous centuries the people of various countries in Europe were killing each other on a frequent basis due to the same. That didn't mean that there was not an English people for instance. Europe grew out of it there's no reason other countries and regions can't.

I disagree. What existed in the way of personal freedom or rights for anyone aside from royalty in say the 17th century much less earlier? The 19th and 20th centuries showed huge advances not just in science and technology but in the rule of law and personal freedom. Certainly not everyone gained these bennefits but huge numbers did.

I strongly disagree well thought out interventions can and have made huge differences as we've noted here. To pretend they don't exist is to play the proverbial ostrich.

 

Oh, Dear! I think even the US military has had some green clue lights coming about the "freedom fighters" in Libya. (The new devil is worst than the old devil)

Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy:U.S. Military Document Reveals | Asian Tribune

 

I am loosing again an illusion:I was convinced that an intelligent (yes) person as LWD would know that Washington was warning in his farewell address against permanent foreign alliances (what,IMHO,implies also against foreign interventions)
But,whatever,arguing with someone who is believing in the kindness of mankind,is a waste,although,I could reply with Auschwitz (a cheap one,I know),but also with the following :take away the police of ..Detroit,and after ...2 weeks,we will see what will remain of the idea that mankind is doing better .

 

Things arent going well.......
Snipers, shells, tanks terrorize key Libyan city - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
I wont be shocked if thier were western covert ops thier now.

 

If history has taught us anything; no one, no matter their power can stay in power for very long with out a foundation/support. Even with all the paralyzing fire power which the West is demonstrating, khadaffi's military and leadership is not defecting. Perhaps the Libyan tyrant has more support than once thought?

If the mission was trully about saving civilians, then I must ask where were these same Western powers during the massacres in Rhawanda or Sudan? Even the war in Iraq was not started for humanitarian reasons. The termoil in Libya is an internal problem and a Sovereign nation is alowed to have them with out outside interference...

 

Hi Urgh, syscom is like a Horse, you can lead him to water, but cant make him drink.

 

Canada's first operation in the region turns back,

Canadians abort Libya attack, fearing casualties | News by Country | Reuters

 

Agreed, the structure of the UN is vastly inefficient, although its efforts have also been hindered by the US. A multilateral organization such as the UN poses a great threat to the legitimacy of the US's unilateral, hegemonic superiority. Thus, the US has partaken in actions to undermine the legitimacy of the UN and, furthermore, has used its military might to defy the demands of the UN and live above the law.

If we take for example the First Gulf War, the US failed to allow time to analyze if the the UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq, or other methods related to diplomacy, were having any effect. Rather, Bush rammed through a resolution approving a unilateral war using the US's ultimate power on the Security Council and helped established the use of force as the status quo.

With respect to the Rwandan genocide, not only did the Clinton administration neglect to send aid, but it pushed for the retraction and eventual withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping force, again, in an effort to prevent the UN from being seen as efficient.

There are also many examples of the US using its ultimate power in the UN to do essentially whatever they see fit. For example, various votes to move for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinain conflict in the 90s were opposed by only two nations: Israel and the US--and how many states do we now see? Or the 2003 invasion of Iraq where Bush might as well have told the UN to go to hell.

The UN needs great restructuring, including an expanded Security Council with its own intelligence services, a focus on conflict resolution and prevention by means of various sub-commities for each region, a push to eliminate all Nuclear weapons, and most importantly, its own standing army, greater than that of any one country.

 

And why is that C.Evans?

 

You're entitled to not let anyone use your airbases, and we are entitled to not spend a cent on YOUR defense.

Which is why I thought we should get out of NATO back in 1987 and let you worry about Russia.

During that era, it was obvious that Europe had their agenda and the US, ours. The world would have been better off with the breakup of NATO so we wouldn't waste our money on Europe for a collection of ungrateful people.

"personally id have shot you down". McGovern was right in 1972. The US should have left Europe to its fate with Russia.

 

I don't know? only YOU have the answer to that.

 

You seem to bloviate a lot, don't you.

 

Again, you got it twixed up. We NEED to get out of the U.N, and stay in NATO.

Boy you sure seem to hate most of the world don't you? Leave Europe to the Russians? How about Japan? should we abandon the Japanese to the Chinese or even North Koreans? Or better yet, leave South Korea to fend for themselves against the north and china. Hmmmm, what it sounds like to me is that your basically in favor of a world gone mad, lawlessness, lack of order and such. Also, it almost sounds to me like your an advocate of former Presidents of the USA like the weenie-Woodrow Wilson. An Isolationist? Whats next? anarchy in the USA???? Did you get your College education at U.T? or Berkeley?

 

Ooooo, and you seem to like to use them fancy words tought to you by some Hippie wannabe Professor at some Ivy-League wannabe College.

Oh and, use some new words I have not yet heard of and maybe, just MAYBE, you might score some points????

Hmmm, its been a few minutes and no reposte? I guess you might have actually studied a tiny wee bit of history-possibly studying one tactic that Jim Bowie (pronounced) Booey and NOT bowwwweee. One of his tactics against Santa Annas Army @ the Alamo was instead of staying inside the walls of that Mission and be bottled up, that he suggested the tactic of Cut, Slash amd Run. You do the same with your posts.

 

The UN is somewhat like the comment of Winston Churchill on democracy, The worst form of government devised save for everything that has gone before it. Faint praise I admitt. JagdtigerI I think you could find many occasions when the UN was undermined by the USSR/Russia or China or by other counties other than the US. Since its inception the US has been the biggest player on the block and the UN is only relevant because the US has usually played by the rules. The idea of a all powerfull UN is not a reality. To have a dedicated military you must have men to man your forces, factories to build your weapons, natural resources to feed your factories, a labor force to work in those factories, land and ports to stage and deploy your troops, the ability to tax people to pay for all this, but then you must have the force to first to set all this in motion. The Chicken and the Egg delimma. Until we live in a world where every person lives in a democratic nation of some sort, where their religous beliefs are not carte blanche to oppress their neighbor, and the common person make a all powerfull UN respect his or her's wishes, then a all powerfull UN is something to fear, not embrace. Some eighty years ago a intelligent, hard working, free people allowed a government to take their right to choose in exchange for the illusion of prosperity and security. We would do well to remember our own history.

 

The subject of the discussion is interesting, and at least for me pretty close to where I live, we are within Lybian missile range and refugees crossing the Med to here are becomming a serious issue. So while I understand it's likely to trigger our own ideologies and convinctions can we stick to facts please?
- Looks to me no clear picture of what are the factions involved, Gheddafi, insurgents, tribes, army etc. or is it me that's unable to see through the fog?
- With that sort of confusion how can the miltary be given reasonablle mission objectives?
- The command structure looks very confused as well, France, USA, NATO, UN .....
- AFAIK logistics make the bases in southern Italy, mostly Sigonella, extremely useful if not vital to support any drawn out effort, AFAIK precedents with Sigonella make establishing clear ROE vital.

Can we stay away from ideological intrventionist/non interventionist debates and think about what can reasonably achieved?

One final thought that is making me literraly "see red". Getting rid of Gheddafi is now nearly inevitable, and achieving that and ensuring what comes after is not worse could be very costly in terms of money and lives.
The bungled attemtps to kill him the chances of avoiding some sort of fretailation if he keeps control of oil money is close to zero, IMO it looks very much like we let somobody push us into a corner by firing those missiles, in any "alliance" worthy of the name that sort of decision should be political and shared, not unilateral.

 

:bow::bow::bow::bow: