Libyan No-Fly Zone?

[Rickster71]

Israel and Egypt may receive the majority of all the international aid that the US provides. However, of all the donors to the Palestinians, the US can still be their biggest donor. In other words, nobody gives more aid to the Palestinians, than the USA - no matter how much you give the other two. No contradiction there.

Sorry for the derailment.
I see; it was a bit ambiguous.
I took it to mean who the US sends the most to. IOW I was thinking 'all recipients.' It was meant as 'all donors.'

 

[GO-NAD!]

Sorry for the derailment.
I see; it was a bit ambiguous.
I took it to mean who the US sends the most to. IOW I was thinking 'all recipients.' It was meant as 'all donors.'

No sweat. I'll just try to type a little slower next time....

 

[rnatalli]

The US gets about 5% of it's oil from Iraq.
The US gets less than 1% of it's oil from Libya.

Neither figure is worth going to war over. If it's war for oil you want, invade Canada, Mexico or Venezuela.

Then I vote no to U.S. intervention. IMO, it's only worth going to war if there's something real to gain or to defend oneself.

 

[highfigh]

Then I vote no to U.S. intervention. IMO, it's only worth going to war if there's something real to gain or to defend oneself.

But the history of US involvement being "for humanitarian reasons", we'd be crucified if we didn't get involved. All we would hear is "Why didn't you do something?" for far longer than "What took you so long?", or "Why do you stick your nose in everyone else' business?".

 

[Chu Gai]

To get to the Libyan titular head of state, you'll have to get past his personal guards.

 

[Highlander]

...I vote no to U.S. intervention. IMO, it's only worth going to war if there's something real to gain or to defend oneself.

The U.S. may indeed "...gets less than 1% of it's oil from Libya", but with a change in regime that could all change...

That'd be something real to gain.

Fancy going to war?

 

[Jed M]

Regardless of how much oil we get from Libya, our relationship with Libya is very important to our friends in Europe who get a great deal of their diesel fuel from Libya. To assume only our immediate interests are involved would be naive. I have no doubt we would have never rekindled our lovefest with Libya had it not been for enormous pressure from our allies who need their oil.

Also, even though we get a small amount of oil from Libya, its the quality of oil. Their oil is superior for stuff like fighter jet engines, which we value highly even if its such a small amount.

Overall, I say we get the hell out of there, because we are literally going to go bankrupt digging the middle east out of its own doing. I wish we had all the money, but we don't. Maybe China should get off their wealthy *** and do something besides screw with the value of our currency just this once.

 

[Davemcc]

Regardless of how much oil we get from Libya, our relationship with Libya is very important to our friends in Europe who get a great deal of their diesel fuel from Libya. To assume only our immediate interests are involved would be naive. I have no doubt we would have never rekindled our lovefest with Libya had it not been for enormous pressure from our allies who need their oil.

Also, even though we get a small amount of oil from Libya, its the quality of oil. Their oil is superior for stuff like fighter jet engines, which we value highly even if its such a small amount.

Overall, I say we get the hell out of there, because we are literally going to go bankrupt digging the middle east out of its own doing. I wish we had all the money, but we don't. Maybe China should get off their wealthy *** and do something besides screw with the value of our currency just this once.

It is notable that in 1973, Libya was flying French Mirage jets but by 1981 they were flying Russian SU-22's and in 1989 Russian Mig 23's. It's clear that the Soviet Union was actively involved in trying to gain influence and allies in the region. In the context of the Cold War and the Soviet Union seeking resources, influence and allies to prop up it's own inhuman regime, it only makes sense that America should want to take Libya away from the Soviet sphere of influence. It's pretty hard to remove a guy like Gadaffi when he's controlling a client state of the Soviet Union.

In the post-Soviet era, circumstances were somewhat different but historical ties, influence and contracts had to be overcome to draw Libya out of Russia's sphere of influence. However, the US had little opportunity for this given the rise of Islamist powers like Iran, Taliban Afghanistan and NGO organizations like Al Quaeda. Libya was quite involved in Islamist terrorism as a state sponsor of international terrorism. Again, quite hard to remove a guy like Gaddafi when his allies are among the most powerful and wealthiest sponsors of terrorism in the world. It was only Libya's admission to and apology for this following the Lockerbie bombing that a rapproachment between Libya and the west could be accommodated.

Such rapproachment could only happen without destroying its internal economy if it found other buyers for it's oil. So the question of Libyan oil is not that the US needs it but that Libya needs to sell it to the US to replace it's previous shipments and cash sources from the Soviets. If buying a bit of oil is what it takes to draw Libya away from the Russian sphere of influence and into the realm of civilized and engaged nations, then I'm all for it. Oops, did I go over my 6 second sound byte?

The issue of whether Gaddafi is fit to rule is a separate issue which again is unrelated to oil.

 

[Jed M]

Dave, we got back in bed with Khadafi to appease our allies and their oil concerns. This whole justification you are giving is the six second sound bite. We are trying to stop communism, or the sphere of Russian influence. The facts are obvious to me that that justification is simply spin to do business with a horrible person. Look, if we tell people we are releasing the Lockerbie bomber because England desperately needs that oil that doesn't make a very good sound bite, yet if we say we only did it to protect the free world from Russian influence, well there is your sound bite that we love to hear because we don't have to fact the ugly reality. Either way, sounds like you got your mind made up that America was only looking out for the freedom of mankind as to why we are still in bed with the country that most of the attackers were from on 9/11 (Saudi) and the man who used terrorism against us was released from prison years before his sentence was up. Oh yeah, he was going to die in a couple weeks. Must be more of those sound bites that make us feel good about doing horrible things, instead of just saying Libya allowed the British Govt and BP to open offshore drilling off coast of Libya shortly after he was released. That would be much harder for us to digest than the sound bite we get on humanitarian, caring society, mercy, global stability, etc.

 

[Boerd]

Let Libya resolve its problems. They will not appreciate democracy when somebody will just handed to them. If they want democracy let them bleed for it. US should stay put. We can't afford to pay for all the world's problems. How about we first pay our external debt and bring some jobs back home? I think US has much bigger problems.

 

[Davemcc]

Dave, we got back in bed with Khadafi to appease our allies and their oil concerns. This whole justification you are giving is the six second sound bite. We are trying to stop communism, or the sphere of Russian influence. The facts are obvious to me that that justification is simply spin to do business with a horrible person. Look, if we tell people we are releasing the Lockerbie bomber because England desperately needs that oil that doesn't make a very good sound bite, yet if we say we only did it to protect the free world from Russian influence, well there is your sound bite that we love to hear because we don't have to fact the ugly reality. Either way, sounds like you got your mind made up that America was only looking out for the freedom of mankind as to why we are still in bed with the country that most of the attackers were from on 9/11 (Saudi) and the man who used terrorism against us was released from prison years before his sentence was up. Oh yeah, he was going to die in a couple weeks. Must be more of those sound bites that make us feel good about doing horrible things, instead of just saying Libya allowed the British Govt and BP to open offshore drilling off coast of Libya shortly after he was released. That would be much harder for us to digest than the sound bite we get on humanitarian, caring society, mercy, global stability, etc.

Please don't mix up the context of the eras. The 70's and 80's were a period of containment and Soviet involvement in Libya. In this era, the US had no influence and interests there. In the 80's, Libya fell into the Islamist global terrorist network. In fact, the only contact the US has had with Libya over the last few decades was shooting down it's fighter jets and bombing it's military bases. The recent rapproachment of Libya with the west is not simply about containment or terrorism, but more about drawing Libya into the modern, civilized world and engaging Libya in context of civilized nations. Yet Libya still needs to sell it's oil whether or not the west wants to buy it. That's how they fund the operations of it's government.

Whether or not Qaddafi is fit to lead that country is another question entirely but suffice it to say that it is best that Libya is engaged with the commonwealth of nations than isolated within the Islamist terrorist network. This very recent rapproachment with the west was a positive development. So far there is no indication which way the anti-Qaddafi rebels will swing once in power, either towards an Islamic sharia republic like Tunisia or a free democracy. Perhaps the no-fly zone siding with the rebels is simply of act of good faith towards the rebels so that the west can buy more oil if they win...that this tactic is more motivated by oil than any diplomacy in the past.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The crocodile tears being shed by Russia and China over the no-fly zone and the airstrikes really annoy me. I'm pretty sure they don't like it, because they see it as interference in another sovereign country's affairs. That brings it close to home for them, i.e. Russia bombing the snot out of Chechnya or China oppressing Tibet. I'm would think that China is also concerned about North Korea receiving a smackdown as well.

 

[markw]

OK, we've done our part with the missles. Time for us to leave.

We've already pithed off everyone by doing what they wanted (yes, an oxymoron) so it's time for the UN to take over now.

Hey, we've even under theskin of the ever-powerful and wise African Union, that stalwart protector of human rights that brought us Somalia, Darfur, Zimbabue, and other fine examples of freedom that exist all over that beleagued continent.

Oh, and china is wagging it's finger now, just waiting to claim all that oil for themselves..

 

[Davemcc]

they see it as interference in another sovereign country's affairs.

Well it is. So now that the U.S. has chosen sides in a civil war in favor of the rebels, does anybody know what kind of gov't the rebels want to form?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well it is. So now that the U.S. has chosen sides in a civil war in favor of the rebels, does anybody know what kind of gov't the rebels want to form?

No argument here Dave. I just don't believe that the Russians and Chinese are against it out of any sense of right vs wrong. Their motivation is purely out of their own governments' self-interest. When they're kickin' the snot out of their own citizens, they don't want any nosy foreigners stickin' their noses where they don't belong.

Then we have the concept of "responsibility to protect". Of course, it has been very selectively applied, in accordance with the interests of the intervenors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/23/f-rfa-macdonald.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Why Libya and not Bahrain or Yemen? Of course, those regimes are valued allies for the US government (That's an observation, not a criticism). Libya doesn't produce enough oil to make that a primary motive, so what gives there? Maybe it requires a tipping point: at x-amount of bodies, we go in. Or, when TV coverage reaches a certain threshold, we go in. There doesn't seem to be any set of parameters to be met.

It's certainly a no-win situation. You're criticized for acting and criticized for not acting.

As for what kind of government replaces Ghaddafi - who knows? If it's even marginally democratic, I'll be surprised....

 

[Davemcc]

Maybe it requires a tipping point: at x-amount of bodies, we go in.

Darfur?

At least the U.S. gov't took the weekend to decide whether to form a coalition and intervene rather than the 12 years it took to go back into Iraq. It's not like Libya attacked it's neighbors, broke international law or violated any UN sanctions BEFORE the coalition was formed. I don't understand US involvement there at all.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Darfur?

At least the U.S. gov't took the weekend to decide whether to form a coalition and intervene rather than the 12 years it took to go back into Iraq. It's not like Libya attacked it's neighbors, broke international law or violated any UN sanctions BEFORE the coalition was formed. I don't understand US involvement there at all.

I really can't figure it ouit either. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the decisions to intervene or not. If Libya is justified, Darfur certainly is/was.

Maybe the decision was subconsciously (or consciously) influenced by several decades of Ghaddafi's insanity and being a pain in the a** to the west. Whereas, Bashir's crimes in Sudan have been primarily against his own people, in Darfur. That said, the International Criminal Court has issued warrants for Bashir's arrest. But, unless somebody is willing to go into Sudan to arrest him, he's unlikely to face justice. Oh, and guess who opposes the warrant for Bashirs' arrest - the African Union. The same crowd supporting Ghaddafi's toppling. At least Russia and China are consistent - they oppose these warrants as well.

I'd be perfectly happy to see Ghaddafi held accountable for his conduct, but he's just one of many. He should've been tried long ago, for the Pan-Am/Lockerbie bombing, but we settled for one of his minions instead.

 

[Davemcc]

If Libya is justified, Darfur certainly is/was.

I would like to think that if Libya is justified, Iraq is justified as well. At least in the case of Iraq, Iraq actually invaded a neighboring state, actively sponsored terrorism, violated multiple UN resolutions, was run by a maniacal dictator for decades and used Mustard Gas on its own citizens. If there is any justification for Libya, it justifies all military action in Iraq, morally, militarily and politically. Every aspect of Libya's situation pales in comparison to what was previously found in Iraq.

One other thing I don't get that maybe somebody could shed a bit of military knowledge upon...how does a "No Fly Zone" translate into Americans blowing up tanks and artillery? Tanks and artillery can't down modern fighters, can they?

 

[Jeepers]

I would like to think that if Libya is justified, Iraq is justified as well. At least in the case of Iraq, Iraq actually invaded a neighboring state, actively sponsored terrorism, violated multiple UN resolutions, was run by a maniacal dictator for decades and used Mustard Gas on its own citizens. If there is any justification for Libya, it justifies all military action in Iraq, morally, militarily and politically. Every aspect of Libya's situation pales in comparison to what was previously found in Iraq.

Nobody mournes about Saddam Hussein being executed and Khadafi being removed from power wouldn't be a bad thing except that this should be done by the Libyans themselves.

Regarding the comparison between Libya and Iraq; Iraq was invaded because of the so called threat of weapons of mass destruction for which (the invasion) there was no UN resolution.

'run by a maniacal dictator for decades' : Khadafi is not the only one so what should be done with the other dictators ?

'actively sponsored terrorism' : yes but also here he is not the only one.

Bottom line; the issues I have are the double standards used by the Western countries. Why attack Libya; is Syria next and why not take action against Bahrain, Yemen etc.. which are not known as being examples of Democracy ?