Libya no-fly zone

It was a French fighter jet who shot him down . I have little details I don't even know whether it was a Rafale or a Mirage , but apparently the Lybian attacked him and met his fate.

 

He learned the hard way that boys shouldn´t play the men´s games!

 

got some more details from Reuters here:

The Lybian loss was confirmed but not in a dog fight . It was shot shot down by a Rafale after it had just landed at Misrata. So the Lybian had not atacked but had possibly intended to dodge the fight or was taken by surprise after a random milkrun.

Un Rafale français a détruit au sol un avion libyen | La Provence

 

The fact remains that in 1939,the prosperity in Germany was greater than in 1933,and the increasing prosperity was not endangering the naziregime.
There is also the following:
You did write :
1)one of the things K did was to keep the Libyan people impoverished :I object to this assumption :can you give a figure of the standard of living for Libya in 1969? and one for 2010 ?Was the Libyan people impoverished in 1969 ? And,is it still now ? The fact that K was filling his pockets,does not prove that the Libyan people is impoverished .
2)so he can exert more control over them :is that so ? My assumption is :if the Libyan people was impoverisned (relative to which period?)K could exert LESS control over them,because there would be more opposition .Thus,a fair statement would be that there is a correlation between the increasing standard of living of the Libyan population and their support to K .if A is increasing,B will do the same
3)I don't see the importance for the West of an increase of the standard of living in Libya,unless this would be very spectacular,but I don't believe in miracles
a)how would such increase be possible ? an increase of the oil production would be very difficult
b)even if a was possible ,would the west buy more oil from Libya?as Brndirt 1 did write :the demand is lower than it has been in a decade.
c) if the Libyans were becoming richer ,why would they buy things from the West ?
d)and,even if they did,why would the fact that a few million Libyans were richer,influence the world economy ?
d) you also can speculate that if the Libyans were richer,they would fire K,they would abjure extremism and adopt the western liberalism.Well,I have not seen anything that would prove this :the Germans were richer in 1939,but they did not revolt against Hitler,the peoples of the SU although they were richer in the sixties,did not revolt against communism,etc...
Conclusion :I have still to see a proof that an increase of the standard of living in Libya would be important for the West(economically or politically) .

 

1) why would Germany be something special ?The facts are there:during the dictatorships in Germany,the SU,Spain,Libya,...the standard of living was increasing and the result was that the support of the eople for the regime was increasing also,thus the assumption that a dictator would impoverish his people so that he can control them easier,is false.
2 ) in a dictatorship money does not protect you from the secret police .
3)The assumption that the risk of a dictatorship is less if there is more prosperity is WRONG :ex:Chili:Chili was richer in 1973 than before,but this did not prevent the arrival of Pinochet,the same for Greece .There is no correlation between the level of prosperity and the risk of a dictatorship.
4 )I don't see a win win situation(see my reply to Formerjughead),I thought this was obvious and that he was also alluding on the claiming (his one)that,if the Libyans would become richer,they would rebel against K,and becoming tolerant and democratic .

 

I posted a link yesterday on it. Post 186 just about to slide off page 2. Here's the link again: BBC News - Libya: France jet destroys pro-Gaddafi plane
It identifies the French plane as a Rafale and the Libyan plane as a "smaller trainer aircraft " and a "a G-2/Galeb ". However many third world countries have configured trainers as ground attack or even low performance fighters.

 

Dang, missed out on the combat on the forum AGAIN!

 

Wasn't it? Hitler had promised the people guns and butter. He'd managed to hoodwink them by supplying a minimal amount of butter while buying a lot of guns but the reconning was coming. Germany was on the edge of going bankrupt. The occupation of Austria and Checkoslavakia provided enough reserves for him to keep going for a while but in many ways the econmics and pressure from the German people forced him to either go to war or risk being thrown out.

It doesn't take a spectacular increase if it's across the board. Trade increase tend to take on a life of their own as well. No miracle required.

Take a look at how much of Kadaffi's assests have been fronzen and then distribute that a bit more equitably. Then quite hiring mercenaries and decrease the size of the military. Oh and increasaing oil production wouldn't be all that hard.

If the west wouldn't the Chinese would.

Because many of the things they'd want to buy are made there. Japan and China would probably do well also.

Yes.

That of course is speculation. Would they have fired Kadaffi? Perhaps but he almost assuredly would be in a weaker positon. Would they abjure extremism? some would some wouldn't over time I suspect most would. Would they adopt "western liberalism" that depends on your defintion of the above to some extent. If you are using the US defintion I'd hope not.

Indeed but how long would this have continued if he didn't go towar.

Right you are that took a couple more decades but it did happen.

Is there proof not really. If there were proof there would be far less debate. But the case is stronger for it than the alternatives.

In the short term yes. In the long term no.

That is very much dependent on the secret police. In many cases it can. Bribes are a possiblity. Leaving is also one. For instance it allowed a fair number of Jews to get out of Germany before WWII.

The dismissal of something like this because of a couple of examples is not well founded unless it can be shown that the examples are truly representtive. Both cases you mention take place with strong cold war influences becoming dominant. There is typically no one factor that decides these things but that doesn't meant there is no factor or that the perception that one was dominant means the others didn't exist.

Why am I not surprised?

Because the situation didn't have time to fully play out.

No that's just the short term impact. Dictators can often buy some temporary support by increasing the standard of living. If they do it long enough and at least give the impression of benevolance they may even gain enough loyatly for it to last out their reign. That doesn't mean that the people aren't more powerful indeed they are but they are supporting rather than opposing him. However this can be a lot like catching a tiger by the tail. Especially if the dicator is doing unpopular things then he has to keep up the bribes or he's likely to be in trouble and the time will come when he doesnt' have enough to keep up the bribes.

 

Maybe this thread should be split into one covering events and the other for the "philosophical" discussions of it. The latter is tending to burry the former and I must admit to some of the blame in that regard.

 

1) Germany in 1939 is proving my point (thank you):economic difficulties would endanger the naziregime,economic progression would fortify the naziregime
2)about the distribution of K's assets:who would do this ? ME governments are not known for the fair distribution of a country's wealth
3)all your points are founded on improbable assumptions,wishfullthinking (why am I not surprised?) as :increase of the oilproduction(while the existing wells are decreasing and,for the moment,no new ones have been found,that someone (the Chinese) would buy this extra oil(why should the Chinese buy in Libya and not elsewhere?),that,if more oil was produced,more was sold,the revenues equitably distributedthe Libyans would use the money to buy US products.A lot of if's,not suitable for the defense of a military intervention .The same of always referring to the long term :I thought that we were adults,who knew that politicians were not making terms for the longterm(in the US the longest term is 8 years ),nor do the average human being(some special specimens excepted).
But ,the whole thing does not lead us to something;you always will stick to your Wilsonian illusions (as making the world safe for democracy,doing the right thing,deposing dictators,etc)things who are totally unfit to use in foreign policy;the only thing a US president must set as aim is the survival of the US as worldpower (and it will not be that easy,given the weakened position of the US,and the fact that a lot of vultures are waiting on a misstep from the US).The intervention in Lybia will not fortify the position of the US,but is risking to weaken its position (especially in the ME).There are no vital interests at stake in Libya,as they were in the war against Iraq .

 

According to a White House spokesman, we are not in a war, intervention or even in a police action, but in a 'Kinetic Military action'. I can see it now "grandpa what did you do in the great kenetic military action? well I shoveled $#@% in Lousisana!"

 

To some people who think I am only arguing to make noise,I will repeat what I posted on ACG (Bush War vs Obama War thread)
1)Without hindsight,the decision by GWB was the only one a US president could take,without repudiating his oath .
2) IMHO,the decision from BO to intervene in the Libyan civil war is suicidal .No vital US interests were at stake,if the US win,its position will not be fortified.,if it loose,the results will be catastrophic for the US (and the West)
Why then was BO intervening ?IMHO,there only was one explanation :the good (IMHO bad) old Wilsonian principles of doing the right thing,fighting against dictators,making the world safe for democracy,packed up in a sauce of PC.
It seems that the days ofJ.Carter have returned,and,I suppose we all know how the days of J.Carter finished .
But,I am only an European,anxious about the direction the US are taking .
Of course,one is free to consider this only a bunch of noise .

 

From news reports I have seen here in the US, they make it out the the main players were still debating what and how to do the implamention of the UN resolution when the French aircraft fired the first shots. Some within the US administration see this purely as a Humanitarian act, some as a heaven sent chance to deal with a perenial thorn in the side of the US, and some as a pay back to European powers for backing the US elswhere, with a dash of see arab man in the street we support you! I also suspect that in varing degrees these motovations, plus worry about Libyan oil are driving the other coalition members.

There are too many players on both sides to make this a neat and tidy issue.

 

from this side of the Atlantic the attacks are seen as a support to the rebels and a military way to weaken Khadhafi. As a matter of fact the Rebs managed to liberate a city in the west today.

 

It would really help if you read and understood what I said. The point was that Hitler promised both guns and butter. He also made some politically well accepted moves (repudiating the Versailles treaty for one). But he wasn't passing out much in the way of butter and even if he had it was only going to buy him support while he could keep it up. Since Germany was having severe economic problems without a war I doubt the Nazis would have lasted until 45 and if they had it would have been only through very drastic actions.

It's hypothetical and something of a best case. I thought that was obvious.

What improbable assumptions? Wishful thinkig no simply acknowledging the possibilities which you seem unable to do.

Well if you look at the graph at http://www.theoildrum.com/files/WOE[02]LibyaProduction_small.png you'll see they belive Libya can increase oil production. While there known reserves are decreasing that doesn't mean that they can't pump more at least until the wells start to run dry. If you read the info that accompanied that decline rate you keep talking about and took the time and effort to understand it I wouldn't even have to point it out.

The Chinese have been buying up oil anywhere they can but others would buy it as well. Look at the history of oil production and demand.

They don't even have to be equitably distributed just more equitably. And there will be considerable pressure to do so. At least in the short term as any new government will want to gain as much support as possible.

Not really.

In your opinion. But then you aren't making the decision.

Just because you can't think long term doesn't mean that others can't. While some politicians are interested in the short term as you suggest others are clearly not. Most have consider the continum from very short term out to decades. US presidents have a pretty good record in that regard.

The popularity of insurance and retirement programs rather disproves that.

Who are you to tell the US president what his aim must be much less how to do it? Certainly the survival of the US is important being a world power is less so. However that doesn't mean that the actions he's taking that you disagree with aren't aimed specifically at that.

I'm curious at just why you think the US position is weakened but PLS put it in another thread.

That's your opinion. It's not widely accepted. Certainly there is risk but the consensus both in the US and at least some other countries is that this is indeed worth it.

In your opinion. We have listed a number of them however which your refusal to acknowledge doesn't repudiate.

 

Have you ever heard of "enlightened self interest"?
You seem to visualize diplomacy as a more complex version of the "prisoner game" with no memory where it actually is a rather complicated version with memory.

 

Based on the price set by world markets, which are largely driven by OPEC & Arab despots

Yes

Well I ain't a liberal.
At the time of Lockerbie there wasn't a substantial link to Gaddafi

Because the US didn't have a major problem with Ceylon's government (Sri lanka it is now), as opposed to Gaddafi who is seen as a dangerous & erratic tyrant, with the blood of US citizens on his hands.

I'm really saddened and dismayed to think that today this is the extent of Belgian fortitude & determination.

So if the British had decided in 1939 that it would save a lot of time and trouble if we just gave in to whatever he wanted....
Never mind, at the risk of bringing Godwin into the discussion.

 

I think that lwd had answered/refuted most of your points, you are making all kind off assumptions that don't seem to have any reasonable basis.

And what foreign countries did Carter invade, intervene or attempt 'regime change"?
Oh yes, Grenada, Panama, Iraq & Afganistan.
(oh wait a minute )

I'm having some trouble understanding your logic on many of your points.

We do? And they are?
Based on what?

Basis for this assumption?

Basis for this assumption?

Basis for this assumption?

He is useful how exactly?

Why do you think that the US only has these 2 objective in the Med?

 

Latest news: the Rebels took Brega back . French pilots claim five more pro Kadhafi aircrafts destroyed as well as two copters.