Libya

[Fronty]

Suprised theres not been a thread on this - would love to know peoples thoughts,


Last night Gadaffi is not a target
Tonight Gadaffi is a target.

Bit all close to home in the UK, many buisnesses have Arab investers plus were not ( in proportion to the world) that far away !

 

[Bez]

If he had no Oil, nobody would be bothered what he did.

 

[Olly]

if Cameron/Sarkozy came clean and said it was for economic motives a lot of cynics would have a lot more respect for them.

I actually think there is a case for defending oil supplies, if you are to prevent hyper-inflation (and potential social chaos) - I think the view of most commentators is yeah, get rid of the cnut but stop kidding us that there is any moral objective to this.

the problem is there is no ground strategy - eg who should run Libya? the whole middle east is so interconnected - all the dominoes falling - where does it all stop?

the french involvement is yet more cynical still - sarkozy is behind in the polls and le pen's daughter is doing well. he needs to pull off some big patriotic stunt to claw back front nationale support on the hard right.

it stinks, but hey that's politics!

 

[ben]

you've got to look at the way instability in the country effects oil prices and how that filters through to the global economy. when you consider the downside of high oil prices versus a fragile economic you will begin to see the benefits of keeping libya calm.

it's about the oil. but not in the way most people think it is.

 

[Ikoda]

That, and we don't want to tick off the larger oil producers in the arab league who have asked us (a few times) to step in and help.

 

[xxVic-zeexx]

Ignorant person incoming...

Had the Sun newspaper today as always and said to my work mates 'i dont even wana open it up seein theres this gold awful pic on the front'

Work mates gave me the low down as i didnt have a clue, through choice,as to whats going on....and tbh i wish i didnt

wtf is this world coming to for god sake...i jst dont want any of our troops to have to go out there

 

[Ikoda]

IT's going to be messy and drawn out.
To me, this sounds like another Iraq.

 

[Morbyd]

I just don't get the whole rationale.

If we were worried about not disrupting oil supplies, we should have let Gaddafi re-take control.

Now what we've basically done is inserted ourselves in a civil war. Really not our friggin' business!

Can the rebels win with our air support? Who knows. Will civilian casualties end? Not likely. The whole thing just doesn't seem very well thought out. I blame you Europeans for dragging the Americans into this mess

 

[djjaycool]

It is all about getting a western friendly leader in place for the oil

 

[Olly]

I just don't get the whole rationale.

If we were worried about not disrupting oil supplies, we should have let Gaddafi re-take control.

Now what we've basically done is inserted ourselves in a civil war. Really not our friggin' business!

Can the rebels win with our air support? Who knows. Will civilian casualties end? Not likely. The whole thing just doesn't seem very well thought out. I blame you Europeans for dragging the Americans into this mess

I suppose the problem with doing nothing is that it would've been terrible pr for western leaders -those pictures of western leaders courting gaddafi over the last few years on every page, as the slaughter escalated, sarkozy was also crapping himself at the prospect of a refugee crisis across the Med and there is also a broader interest in seeing more pro-western leaders in North Africa. The calculation is surely that oil prices will eventually stabilise once gaddafi has been removed - a big gamble imo because the rebels are an unknown quantity, some settling scores, some idealistic, in most cases hopelessly amateurish. It suits Obama for the French to make all the noise, it means Obama won't get tagged with the bush warmongerer tag and it suits Sarkozy to act the hard man too. Everyone's a winner. Well nearly. I read that Putin wasn't too happy earlier about the allied assault with his 'crusaders' speech although the fact Russia has mega-dollar arms contracts pending with gaddafi surely has nothing to do with it..

 

[Morbyd]

In a show of just how awkward things are between them, President Medvedev called out PM Putin for using incendiary language. I don't think Russia's position is quite so straightforward.

Obama had laid out a position of using force only in what you might call a righteous war (Afghanistan) as opposed to unnecessary intervention (Iraq). Now he's tarnished his position by letting Sarkozy drag him into this. He should probably give back that Peace Prize now.

I also thought that France might be fearing a refugee crisis. Only problem is, this won't necessarily stop that from happening!

And if (big IF) the rebels consolidate power, what's next? Hopelessly amateurish is a good characterization. (given my line of work, I chuckle at their press statements)

 

[Bez]

Now what we've basically done is inserted ourselves in a civil war. Really not our friggin' business!

Tell us something we dont know

At least it will afford Matt Damon, George Clooney and some token black rapper the opportunity to make a kick ass action movie about it in a few years time

 

[Olly]

you could be right. If it carries on, I'd be amazed if the coalition holds together - arabs don't like other arabs being attacked by imperialist westerners is the lesson of history, especially if pictures of weeping mothers appear in the rubble

...but it does feel like pandora's box has been opened. The syrians are watching intently as are the saudis. if the UN ratify military action against one regime, then how can nato forces not justify intervening in countless other pariah states repressing their people step forward burma, zimbabwe or even benign states with negligeable human rights eg saudi arabia - how do you differentiate legally between one situation and the next? + will people now rise up in countries under the illusion that mirage jets will support them? In which case they're gonna be disappointed...Foreign policy was never based on supporting the "good guys", it was always based on national self-interest first and always will be.

The other real risk is that yet another war against yet another muslim state will only increase terrorist recruitment amongst disaffected muslim men both overseas and in Britain and France.. You can imagine the MI6 chiefs groaning..

There's all these oxford brains in the foreign office, and I'm ready to wager not one of them has thought this all through.

 

[Morbyd]

It's funny, in a way. The evil crusaders bombing Libya will help extreme elements with recruiting, but those same people will cheer the removal of Gaddafi because he's a secular leader. Win-win!

 

[djjaycool]

This military intervention was sanctioned by the Arab league and the United Nations. The USA took the because of it's military capabilities. The crisis in Yemen is about the same except they don't have oil; so there will be no intervention. until there is an alternative to oil we will have war for oil.

 

[MARKB]

you could be right. If it carries on, I'd be amazed if the coalition holds together - arabs don't like other arabs being attacked by imperialist westerners is the lesson of history, especially if pictures of weeping mothers appear in the rubble

...but it does feel like pandora's box has been opened. The syrians are watching intently as are the saudis. if the UN ratify military action against one regime, then how can nato forces not justify intervening in countless other pariah states repressing their people step forward burma, zimbabwe or even benign states with negligeable human rights eg saudi arabia - how do you differentiate legally between one situation and the next? + will people now rise up in countries under the illusion that mirage jets will support them? In which case they're gonna be disappointed...Foreign policy was never based on supporting the "good guys", it was always based on national self-interest first and always will be.

The other real risk is that yet another war against yet another muslim state will only increase terrorist recruitment amongst disaffected muslim men both overseas and in Britain and France.. You can imagine the MI6 chiefs groaning..

There's all these oxford brains in the foreign office, and I'm ready to wager not one of them has thought this all through.

Amen. The parrallels with Iraq are becoming clearer by the day.

I thought going into Iraq was the right thing to do and I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say otherwise with the benefit of hindsight.

But I was wrong in thinking it would result in a better outcome for the people of Iraq and for the world in general. And it made me change my view.

And with Libya I think you've got to apply the lessons learned in Iraq.

ie: regardless of the "honorable" reasons you use to enter a conflict, unless you have definite exit strategy from the start, steer clear. Particularly, when dealing with Islamic States.

Cameron (and Milliband) have made a mountain of political capital from the previous goverment's war mongering. And yet they suddenly have amnesia and develope a "moral" duty to enter this conflict, which will inevitably result in the deployment of ground troops.

But as rightly said by many in this post, it's also about oil and oil security.

Which is a fair point, we don't want the light going out do we? So if this is the reason, why not be upfront?

Or is it about removing a murderous dictator (a la Saddam)?

Either way, there's a huge amount of ambiguity and hypocracy surrounding this conflict.

And Sarkosy, funded politically by the Gaddaffis, suddenly is very keen to get him out. Why? and why now? Something going on there...

I think our great leaders should have put the likes of the Sudan and Congo top of the list for intevention before tackling Libya, if they are suddenly feeling so "morally responsible".

****ing idiots for getting involved and trying to palm us off with this "moral duty" bull****.

 

[WeLuvIbiza]

It's a shambles, not surprising the US want to take a back seat. Hard to know what the true situation is with the people on the street? It appears from the bits and pieces I have seen the people of Libya are already preparing themselves for an all out invasion by the west Looks like we will have to start work on the 'hearts and minds' chapter asap!

 

[Bez]

Im a great believer in the old Star Trek Prime Directive that There should be no interference with the internal development of civilizations.

Whats happening in Libya is different to Iraq. Iraq was set up for a fall by the west and invaded for a reason that we now know was false.

Libya is a civil war between its own people. It up to them to sort it out.

I apply the same mantra to all situations, especially relationships, just dont get involved let the people themselves sort it out.

Its 90 years since my country saw brother kill brother for an ideology or identity. Its only 70 years since the same happened in Spain and 140 in America.

Civil wars shape the people and country that they live in and if these necessary evils have to happen then it should be allowed to run its course without any interference.

 

[djjaycool]

Im a great believer in the old Star Trek Prime Directive that There should be no interference with the internal development of civilizations.

Whats happening in Libya is different to Iraq. Iraq was set up for a fall by the west and invaded for a reason that we now know was false.

Libya is a civil war between its own people. It up to them to sort it out.

I apply the same mantra to all situations, especially relationships, just dont get involved let the people themselves sort it out.

Its 90 years since my country saw brother kill brother for an ideology or identity. Its only 70 years since the same happened in Spain and 140 in America.

Civil wars shape the people and country that they live in and if these necessary evils have to happen then it should be allowed to run its course without any interference.

The invasion of Iraq was wrong for a number of reasons. #1 the no fly zone was working and the Iraqi people were under no direct threat, #2 the world was under no threat from the regime.

If you look closely at all civil wars in modern history USA, Spain other countries got involved and helped one side or the other. If not with manpower than with material aid. The Arab league wanted intervention in Libya as well as Bahrain, The Arabs as well western countries are worried about the downfall of current regimes.

 

[MARKB]

The invasion of Iraq was wrong for a number of reasons. #1 the no fly zone was working and the Iraqi people were under no direct threat, #2 the world was under no threat from the regime.

#1. Unless you were Kurdish.

#2. Is the world under threat from the Libyan regime??