Libya no-fly zone

Did they ask for assistance ?
Our own interests always should come first.
After O9/11,do you think there was anyone willing to help the US?
Yes,I prefer to set back and watch the atrocities (which ones?) on TV,unless you think it is the duty from the West to prevent atrocities(and there were a lot of atrocities we were watching)and to make the world safe for democracy .And,if there are people who don't want to have democracy ?
The only duty of the west is to act in its interests(because the taxpayer will have to pay the bill) .
Khadafi is a gangster,as the leaders from Syria,Iran,etc,etc
The West was watching the atrocities in Indonesia,Timor,Irak (Saddam was gasing the Kurds with US weapons),Biafra,....because it was in the interest of the west to watch and to do nothing .Now,the claimings about morality (morality in foreign politics?) should be translated in :claimings about hypocrisy .
To let your foreign policy be dictated (or influenced) by morality is the most stupid thing one can imagine,unless you are willing to nuke the half of the world .
Or has the people of Tibet less rights than the Lybian ? And,what about the Kurds ? And why not liberate the people of Cuba?Etc,.....

 

Foreign politics is not about to help or to do the right thing:that's the business of the Salvation Army and the Boyscouts .

 

Yes there was help After 09/11 : a coalition ( 26 countries at the time if I'm correct) joined in to invade Afghanistan and many of those are still there ten years later.

 

Yes,I know,but (excepted for the British),these were only figure-heads.
I think that as an European,I can say to the US members of the forum :don't revolve in self-deceit :the general attitude in Europe after 09/11 was revelling and fear .Don't expect any gratitude :the modern European generation has been brainwashed .Some (naive) people in the US imagine that the world is full of gratitude to the US (and a lot of countries have all reasons to show gratitude):but,this is totally wrong :Europe is hating the US,because Europe has lost all backbone,the ME is of course hating the US,as Africa,Asia,...The reason is envy .
To return to Lybia :another inflammating post(!)
I have seen no reason justifying the intervention
Is it in the interest of the West ? IMHO,it only will increase the risk of a new 09/11
Is it in the interest of the people of Libya? Will they now live in a democratic paradise ?A bet :no longer than 2 years before a new Khadaffi will rule Libya .

 

The last report I saw at about 4:00 pm central time is that there seems to be at least 3 factions present in Libya now. The rebels we are supporting, Khadaffi and his supporter's and some portion of the army that has defected from Khadaffi, but has not joined the rebel's. This last group seems to be taking a wait and see approach.

 

That's the neat thing about the US military helping; we're the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army all rolled into one!!!

 

SIGH

 

Im outta s so ya got the other and, VERY well said and couldnt agree more. PS, bad boy get more neg reps from me just now.

 

See the above in (((((((()))))))))

 

Is it me or does it seem people are saying that we should stay out of this?

 

No, it's just you :lol::lol: ONLY the blind, think we need to stay out of this and only the STUPID, say we are in it ONLY for oil.

 

Oil has nothing to do with this :Khadaffi was selling us oil .
The ME is a powder-magazine,any intelligent person would keep out .
The whole politic of the West is suicidal ne (!) exemple :Iraq :while the invasion of Iraq was (without hindsight!) justified,after the victory,the ideologues took over,and,of course,they bartered away the fruits of victory :their aim was to instaure in Iraq a western style democracy(haha),while any intelligent person is knowing that Islam and democracy are excluding each other ;we have seen the result,and,an easy solution was available .
The same will happen in Lybia:if Khadaffi disappears,to keep the population quiet,the new regime will have no other option than to double,or triple the oilprice .
In Egypt,the West was watching,without doing anything,the fall of one of his staunchests allies:I will bet what I have,that the new regime will be very hostile to the West .

 

One word bharain..cant do mucch my a..e

 

Not oil, but economics are not for away. For instance this is a great showroom for the Rafale and I wouldn't be surprised some countries will soon order a couple.

 

But,who ? The Argentine generals have disappeared,Saddam is dead,maybe the new "democratic leaders" of Libya,or the loved leader of North Korea ?

 

From: Libyan Rebel Forces Celebrate Security Council Vote : NPR
Broadcast on the morning of the 18th

While NPR does lean to the left a bit the best of their shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered not only try to be even handed they give complete enough reports it's not to critical. I'm not sure I'd call what's on TV news anymore ....

 

Well LJAd has been prolific over the last few hours. Here's my response to most of it.

Irrelevant. We're talking the long term benefit for the US and/or Western Europe and by extension other democratic governments.

That because they think it's in the long term best interest of the US. I happen to agree.

And what does it add to this converstation?

Wise to at least some extent but much of the above is directly related and the rest indirectly related.

Yes.

It does. However it's not always clear what is in our best interest. Clearly an isolationist solution isn't though.

Yes.

I believe it is the duty of every human being to help others when and where they can. That said it isn't always clear what is helping and what isn't and what is possible and what isn't. There are indeed people who don't want democracy but I kind of view that like most freedoms. They don't have to exercise it as long as it's available. Of course some of those that don't like democracy want to be in charge and not responsible to those they are in charge of. I don't particularly care if they are not happy.

Which can be argued is exactly what we are doing. Or it can be argued that your wrong on it being the "only duty". In either case your position looks rather difficult to defend.

No, it was not. However it was also judged to be cost prohibitive to interfere directly at the time.

No, mearly that here like everywhere practicality comes into play as well as morality.

On the contrary it it is impossible for it not to be influenced by morality and indeed because of that the "nuke half the world" option isn't on the table for any sane leader.

What about them? And I thought you were railing against morality in foreign policye?

On the contrary it is exactly about doing the "right thing" and helping.

Then I think you need to review your history a bit.

You don't have to be European to say that. It's been said by others as well. You don't have to be European to be wrong either.

That's certianly not the message that came across here. Maybe it's just the company you keep.

There are probably some but I suspect a lot fewer than you imagine.

I certainly haven't seen evidence of this, in fact just the opposite.

As a rational for hatered of the US this makes no sense at all nor does it seem to be valid.

Perhaps less incorrect than about Europe but still not particularly valid.

Again both your assessement and rational are very questionable. Envy doesn't necessarily imply hate nor for that matter do all in those regions envy the US.

Then I suggest you have your vision checked or read/listen to reliable news sources.

The two are not closely related. It may be in the interest of "the West" and increase the risk or it may be in the interest of "the West" and not increase the risk. Not interveneing may also increase the risk. The reality IMO is that there may be an increased risk of terrorist action in the intermediate term. In the near term AQ and company are probably going to keep their heads down and try to pick up as much as they can in the aftermath. In the long term removing insane dictators should make the world safer. In between well there may be some increase in risk or not.

It's possible but it will to a large extent be up to them. They took the first step and put their lives on the line to make the change. Looks like we're going to give them the oppertunity to proceed with it. I doubt many thought the US would become a bastion of democracy in the 1770s or even 1780s either.

That very much depends. If you are on a ship with a powder magazine and you suspect a fire is likely then making sure it doesn't happen or containing it makes a lot more sense than ignoring it.

Your welcome to your opinion. You'll get more respect however if they are well grounded in reality.

The aim wasn't to make Iraq a western style democracy although that was one of the hoped for end states. Indeed it was the most desireable one. However as Turkey has shown Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive although they are not congenial partners either.

Have we? IMO it's way to early to state that.

Was it? Care to inform us what it was? I have a feeling we have a significant difference of opinion on what "available", "easy", and "solution" mean in this case.

The same may or may not happen. It's not at all clear to me how they can jack up the price as much as you suggest and who will be buying from them if they do.

Mubark's regime had reached the point where it was untenable. Not much the West could do even if it wanted to. Things are confused enough there that it's difficult to say what the end result will be. Making or taking such a bet would be foolish IMO but that fits the MO.

 

How many times have the people in the middle east requested help from the west and then after it is received turn around, criticize and attack those who helped? I am a firm believer that if people want liberty and freedom, it is valued more if they earn it rather than have it given to them. The most that a nation could do to assist a fighting people is to support them publicly and provide arms, food, medicine and clothes. Help them help themselves. Look at those nations who have had revolutions in the past and still exist with governments that are elected. How did they come about their freedoms. Was France's freedom given to them by England? Was America's Freedom given to them by France?

The only time when a people's freedom was successfully 'given' to them was actually by force of consequences. Japan and Germany were freed due to their surrender. The people were fed up with the previous regime, they eventually accepted their new way of life. Easier in Germany than in Japan but both have adapted and prospered.

Look at the half measures. Vietnam was a disaster. Support in Central America and the Middle East have only produced dictatorships. Support in Africa failed because the culture there cannot nuture democratic ideas. If America wants to bring democracy to a country, it literaly has to do what it did with Germany and Japan. Occupy the country, enforce the new laws and not worry about politcally correctness. Anything less will end in failure which is why I do not support any moves to involve our military to 'help' free other people. Provide them logitic support, Yes! Send troops, NO! If those people want freedom bad enough, it is up to them to fight and even die for it. Nothing wrong with sitting it out.

I'm off my soapbox.

 

no thanks mate..our only interest is oil workers or expats of which there were as many yanks evacuated last month by royal navy..apart from revenge..which applies to us both...libyan civil war has nothing to do with me thanks...im in as much danger on my farm here from greenland as libya.

 

I think jagdpanthers post number 13 should be re read by all here..A question ill ask is why resolution 1970 not 1973 was not seriously followed and we wouldnt be arguing now.