The Situation in Libya

[Mzrokks]

3...2...1...go!

Seriously, though. Your thoughts about it. What will happen next? Agree with the UN approval of a no-fly-zone? What goes on in Muammar Gaddafi's head?
Discuss.

[Mysticrose_x3]

I think we should stop poking our nose where it doesn't belong and bring our troops home<3

[Mzrokks]

I think we should stop poking our nose where it doesn't belong and bring our troops home<3
You are American, British, French?

[TBot411]

It is all about oil! President Obama is bought and paid for by the big oil companys. The French cannot wait to get there hands on all that Libyan oil. We have seen this all before.

[Black_Barook!]

Wow. When it's about oil they dress it up as freedom. When it's about freedom, they dress it up as oil.

*Long sigh*

[pinketamine]

I generally don't agree with military interventions in a country that hasn't even attacked anyone, and this case is no exception. I find it clear that there are other interests different than "Libyans' freedom", as Libya is a very rich country (when it comes to resources such as oil). I don't agree with the UN resolution and I'm afraid that some countries will probably break it because they won't find it "generous" enough.

About what goes on on Gadafi's head, I think he's clearly mad of power. Some of the things he has said are just... wow.

[TUN3R]

Welcome to World War 3.

[pinketamine]

Welcome to World War 3.
Oh, you are SO funny, considering that innocent people are dying and in WWII only over 60 million people died, the perspective of having a new World War is really hilarious...

Military intervention was the worst solution and I bet majority of people in Great Britain, France, Italy and United States reject it. We have to act reasonably but what governments of western European countries did was irresponsible and against the will of their own people.
The problem is that there are many uninformed people out there. You tell them "but Gadafi is such a dictator, he is horrible and should be killed" and they immediately say "oh yes, then go there kill him". In Spain, the news are totally defending the military intervention as something totally necessary. Some people just accept these arguments without thinking more.

[Mistermook]

I'm not opposed to enforcing a No-Fly Zone, I just want some other country to do the enforcing for right now. Someone in Europe, who isn't already enormously committed elsewhere in the world and who doesn't have a track record of turning No-Fly Zones into extended military interventions. Ideally I'd love for the Russians to step up, show that they're committed to democracy in other countries at least?

I don't think any humanitarian aid will do any good as long as Gaddafi's in power now, and I don't think he's going to lose this civil war without some significant military aid in some capacity either, so either we suck it up and watch as he kills a bunch of his people or we ship in some missiles sideways up his rear end and then maybe help the rebels with some guns.

I'm not opposed to watching Gaddafi kill his people though either. Obviously the world has dealt amicably with worse dictators in the past and probably continues to do so elsewhere. It is a bit strange watching people focus in on Gaddafi alone while other protests elsewhere in the Muslim world continue to go on and are violently squashed by our allies. I don't understand the disconnect of righteous anger people have for Libya rather than Bahrain, for example, except as an implicit acknowledgment that most westerners don't know where Bahrain is but understand that Libya is somewhere south of London and east of New York.

<snark>

I think it would help if there were some idealized Middle Eastern partner for the West to help the public keep score. The closest we come is Israel, and they're really no help at all. The West needs some Middle Eastern democracy fully invested in providing the public face for the whole region, wholly or mostly without fault, able to translate the politics in some sort of digestible soundbites for consumption by Europe and North America.

When things happen in Europe, for instance, I think the powers that be in the US pretty much ask someone in London what's going on and whatever they say, whether it's "the French eat cheese" or "Germans like farts" they just nod and go, "Well, it's a trusted source." The Middle East needs someone for us to replace Israel with (because these days their answer is always an untrustworthy and uninspirational, "kill them all, and send more money") to tell us which regimes we should care for and trust, and which ones we should denounce and depose. Sort of like the service Japan provides for the West in Asia.

</snark>

[Rawra]

Welcome to World War 3.

Yeah, and my name is Lady Gaga.

[TUN3R]

Wasn't trying to be funny. How many countries are involved in this crap? Huh?

Face it, from this point on it's only gonna get worse.

[TBot411]

Funny how it works- When they are in the middle east they are called freedom fighters and we send our airforces to help them overthrow their government. When they are in the west, they are called domestic terrorist and imprisoned, and in the U.S. executed by the federal government.

[Mistermook]

It is all about oil! President Obama is bought and paid for by the big oil companys. The French cannot wait to get there hands on all that Libyan oil. We have seen this all before.
If Obama was bought and paid for by Big Oil then we'd have been in Libya last week as soon as it was politically feasible to do so, the same way we did with Iraq. Twice. With Herbert and George. Similarly, there wouldn't have been a moratorium on offshore drilling during the BP oil spill.

Any US President, any sufficiently commercially invested government anywhere, has to be somewhat beholden to large commercial interests of any sort and strategic interests before those. I don't see how it could possibly be any other way, without turning their backs on huge amounts of capital necessary for growth and the livelihoods and economic interests of their constituencies. If Obama's got a soft spot, in fact, it's probably for the military of all things - since I think it's clear he knows he's not particularly educated on the intricacies of projecting military power he's more or less stood off from the whole thing except for giving broad political direction and letting the people in charge run things as they like.

Business I think he thinks he understands, or at least understands enough to tell people no when he disagrees with them. But no one running a government can afford to turn their backs completely on something that risks so much money and economic investment in a strategic asset like oil. It would be irresponsible for them to do so.

Whether or not it would have sold well to the press or not, it would have been vastly more correct to have invaded Iraq, for instance, on the pretext of oil. Rather than nonexistent weapons technology, or some trumped up argument involving moral principles than nations mostly can't afford except for the purposes of propaganda and election campaigns, we could at least declare a concrete victory over that: "We've secured an oil field, when operational the global economic engines shall be humming!"

It is not more moral for nations to kill people for principles than for resources. A dead person is a dead person, and principles only seek to excuse wars, they don't generate them. I can't even find it in myself to chastise this notion, because in part it's how civilization polices itself of ideas, distributes wealth and stays dynamic; and in part because I don't see how we could possibly grow away from such an intrinsic aspect of ourselves and still be ourselves.


Yeah, I know I'm cynical.

[Rawra]

Wasn't trying to be funny. How many countries are involved in this crap? Huh?

Face it, from this point on it's only gonna get worse.

Nope, it's not.

[TUN3R]

Nope, it's not.

Whatever.

[Tempscire]

Face it, from this point on it's only gonna get worse.
Show your work. What trends have you observed, both contemporary and historic, suggest to you that things will only continuously escalate to the point of global warfare, rather than coming to a head in that region and calming back down?

[amandatea]

Show your work. What trends have you observed, both contemporary and historic, suggest to you that things will only continuously escalate to the point of global warfare, rather than coming to a head in that region and calming back down?


WW3 has been going on for about 8 years. It's just escalating. During WW1 and WW2, they probably didn't realize it was a full fledged war until well into them. This is a simplified explanation but also interesting (http://www.tentimesone.com/if-world-war-one-was-a-bar-fight/) regarding how WW1 started. It starts as a disagreement or someone being an asshole (speaking in the context of the URL posted previously) and continues to get worse and worse, with other guys (countries) joining and piling on. If WW2 was a bar fight (http://www.tentimesone.com/if-world-war-two-was-a-bar-fight/) this is how it would look. Now, there are some details left out but it is fairly descriptive.

This site displays a large quantity of contemporary events (http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm) which show that WW3 is building. This was written before the friction in Egypt and Libya started to happen/build. Also, I believe the unfortunate catastrophic blows to Japan will be a large factor in leading to a world depression (even more than what is already going on in that field)

There is a LOT of information to go over, there. However, it is very difficult to simplify if you want a real explanation. Here is a way to look at it which is a bit easier (http://www.threeworldwars.com/overview.htm) to absorb.


Study history in great detail (modern and ancient). Pay attention to subtle details of current events. Pay attention to motives by the U.S war machine (military) which just looks for justifications and moralization to invade (or "protect") foreign countries. It's all in plain view. All we have to do is pay attention and be willing to see what is difficult to admit. I could go on for a while about historic trends (e.g. Problem/Reaction/Solution) used to devastate certain countries or groups of people and get what they want (Power).

[TUN3R]

Show your work. What trends have you observed, both contemporary and historic, suggest to you that things will only continuously escalate to the point of global warfare, rather than coming to a head in that region and calming back down?

Oh wow so we're experts now... didn't think I had accidentally logged in to discoverychannel.com, my mistake.

[game90]

The West needs constant justifications to show their voters on why billions are being spend on the military budget every year. At the same time, military personnel can gain experience from real war situations, which beats training any day. Also, wars means factories continue to churn out arms and supplies, which keeps jobs, which keeps the defence lobbyists happy.

[unalisaa]

Oh wow so we're experts now... didn't think I had accidentally logged in to discoverychannel.com, my mistake.
We just enjoy reading thought-provoking opinions backed up by facts as opposed to one-line statements. It's more fun for all parties involved, and it encourages other people to make an effort; if you can't be bothered to type out your opinion beyond one sentence, why should we be bothered to care? A debate or even an argument doesn't go far if you just post one sentence describing your opinion with nothing to back it up. It's a statement. Nothing more. Do you see where I'm coming from?


"One line posts that aren't even funny are stupid... didn't think I had accidentally logged in to the BBS, my mistake."

[Tempscire]

First off, thanks for elaborating on one of TUN3R's classic one-line semi-troll posts.
During WW1 and WW2, they probably didn't realize it was a full fledged war until well into them.
WW1 started because of a complex systems of alliances that meant that once a couple of countries declared war on each other, everyone who had treaties with them got pulled into it as well. That's as simple an explanation as there needs to be. They knew it was a "full-fledged war" because war was officially declared. It took a year or so for them to realize just how long it was going to take to resolve, and they had to discover how much more bloody it would be than other wars, but they certainly didn't just wake up one day in the middle of it.

Likewise WW2 grew directly out of consequences of WW1 and the worldwide depression, and again, once war was declared, the involved countries knew they were in it (and due to WW1, they had better understanding of what to expect). You could argue that parts of it were sneakily ongoing at first--Japan's imperialism in China, Germany bringing other countries into the Fatherland--but while both those situations can be directly traced to WW2, they were not part of it directly.

This site displays a large quantity of contemporary events (http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm) which show that WW3 is building.
I'm skeptical of a site that goes on to explain The New World Order. Further, beyond just the conspiracy theory stuff, the author is writing everything in a framework (http://www.threeworldwars.com/admin/faq.htm) of a massive, massive assumption:# There is a plan for world domination.
# It has existed for more than 4 generations.
# The plan is demonically inspired, hence the consistency in following it from generation to generation.
# The battle we see on earth is a physical manifestation of a spiritual battle.
# Today's leaders are unwittingly guided by influence from the spiritual world.
That is, to say the least, a very unscholarly approach to discussing whether we're in WW3 at the moment (another huge claim the author takes for granted). I would not consider that to be a reasonable... well, anything, but it's just not a very good source.

Study history in great detail (modern and ancient). Pay attention to subtle details of current events. Pay attention to motives by the U.S war machine (military) which just looks for justifications and moralization to invade (or "protect") foreign countries. It's all in plain view.
The problem with history, is that though it can inform current events, it is still very very poor at predicting future ones. There is always some kind of war, skirmish, or revolt happening somewhere-- it does not suggest global involvement or even necessarily global effects. Perhaps one day we'll look back and see that the events unfolding now contributed to the development of a mass war, but this is not a proper "world war" at the moment. The world wars to which we refer to, which have already taken place, were single, large-scale conflicts: not one incident here, one incident there, these couple of countries committing some troops, etc.

And no, we can't just assume things are self-evident and "in plain view" if we just look-- humans and everything associated are far too complicated for that. For one thing, many things are not in plain view, and for another, it's quite a trick to accurately interpret what is.

Was Vietnam a world war? By these loose criteria, it would be.

Oh wow so we're experts now... didn't think I had accidentally logged in to discoverychannel.com, my mistake.
As unalisaa has pointed out, you can't have a debate just slinging around cryptic one-liners. We're in the Debate Room. If you are uninterested in intelligent debate conducted through, say, paragraphs, perhaps this is the wrong sub-forum for you. I mean, why bother saying anything here if you don't want to elaborate on it thoughtfully?

[TUN3R]

Point taken, I'll STFU from now on.

[MaydayParade]

To be honest if Gaddafi's going to keep up his regime someone is going to kill him sooner or later, i don't agree with Gaddafi but i don't agree with the rebels actions. My father has a brilliant explanation: Egypt asked their dad (leader) for an xbox, their dad said no so Egypt put a fight Egypt's dad eventually let them have an xbox, then Libya saw that Egypt got an xbox so Libya asked their dad for an xbox but Libya's dad is a bit of bastard an decided to slap Libya around. :llama:

[Tempscire]

Point taken, I'll STFU from now on.
I'd rather you just elaborated more on things you do say. :)

Edit: oh, just noticed the "banned" tag...uh...never mind? :blink:

[Black_Barook!]

My father has a brilliant explanation: Egypt asked their dad (leader) for an xbox, their dad said no so Egypt put a fight Egypt's dad eventually let them have an xbox, then Libya saw that Egypt got an xbox so Libya asked their dad for an xbox but Libya's dad is a bit of bastard an decided to slap Libya around. :llama:

Wait what? When did we trade freedom for an Xbox? I want a recount!

[pinketamine]

To be honest if Gaddafi's going to keep up his regime someone is going to kill him sooner or later, i don't agree with Gaddafi but i don't agree with the rebels actions. My father has a brilliant explanation: Egypt asked their dad (leader) for an xbox, their dad said no so Egypt put a fight Egypt's dad eventually let them have an xbox, then Libya saw that Egypt got an xbox so Libya asked their dad for an xbox but Libya's dad is a bit of bastard an decided to slap Libya around. :llama:

Oh yeah, except that the Xbox they want is just a bunch of democratic rights. So basically, you mean the Libyans are just jealous of Egypt, or what?
I will never get why some people have decided to treat non-occidental (in a cultural sense) countries as if they were little kids that can't manage on their own.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

personally, i agree that military intervention with the affairs of a country we have no dealings with is none of our business and a waste of resources--UNLESS they have specifically requested military intervention. but, to my knowledge, they have not.

I don't think any humanitarian aid will do any good as long as Gaddafi's in power now, and I don't think he's going to lose this civil war without some significant military aid in some capacity either, so either we suck it up and watch as he kills a bunch of his people or we ship in some missiles sideways up his rear end and then maybe help the rebels with some guns.

we're kind of fine with that (http://www.cambcomm.org.uk/holocaust.html), in general, though, arent (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_did_Stalin_kill) we..? when they start killing their neighbors, you can bet meddling will be option #1.

[Rafe Weisz]

Just... poor, poor Lybia. The attacking countries should be thrown to the pillory, or fed to the pit monster (yes, sims medieval here, but I'm serious about punishing them)

[malfoya]

Just... poor, poor Lybia. The attacking countries should be thrown to the pillory, or fed to the pit monster (yes, sims medieval here, but I'm serious about punishing them)

The attacking countries are there to free Libya, mister.

[whiterider]

Kinda. In fact the attacking country is Libya - the other countries just sort of joined in later. It's not quite like the other "liberated" countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. So yeah, let's throw Libya to the pillory for being mean to Libya!

[game90]

The attacking countries are there to free Libya, mister.

Yes. They also attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to free them, mister. At the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilian casualties, countless homes and families destroyed. Are they truly free?

Easy for you to justify War, at the comfort of your home.

[rcranger9]

i believe it was good that we stepped in. the rebels asked for help and we are helping them. even if the rebels are just terrorists in disguise trying to take power, Ghaddafi isn't innocent either. when people started protesting and wanting change, what did he do? did he ask what they want, did he compromise? no. he pulled out machine guns and started slaughtering them and saying he'll never leave. then when the west was considering intervening, he said that he would attack anyone who meddled with libya, even though he can't stand up to the many countries that are part of the U.N. he said that the libyans love him and will stand with him against the west if the west attacks, even though he's fighting his own people that are supposedly standing with him. then a few days ago he changes tactics and tries to sweet talk Obama to stop the intervention. he is clearly off his rocker and doesn't deserve to be in power.


@game90: and you are in a war right now are you?

[Nekowolf]

Iraq and Afghanistan were complete bullshit.

We went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. Well, at first. Supposedly.

And we went into Iraq for who the fuck knows why anymore. We were told it was for nuclear weapons (which they didn't have), and then the story got changed around to taking out a dictator (which was probably closer to the truth, but not for the sake of freeing Iraqis). Furthermore, Iraq was so unbelievably mishandled that the level of asinine incompetence would make your head explode. I mean, Christ, you had top military leaders resigning in protest because of what Rumsfeld wanted. And quite a bit of it was his fault. Military leaders wanted a massive ground force because they knew it would be required to stabilize the region. Rumsfeld kept sending plans back, asking for less troops. His idea was to rely heavily on smart weaponry, which is great and all but useless if you don't have any ground troops to back it up. But apparently, that didn't get through to him. Cheney, who knows why. From what I have heard of all the crap, the best I can say was probably because he thought it would be a great success and he'd be credited (basically, an ego boost). Bush didn't even know what was going on until right before the invasion because he was left out of the loop by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Iraq was a complete clusterfuck.

Libya is not Afghanistan, and it is not Iraq. To compare them honestly shows that either you are trying to make some kind of (really poor) protest of Libya, or that you don't know very much about the shitstorm that was Iraq (I will say that Libya is closer to Afghanistan in this case, but still different, but it is nothing like Iraq at all).

[malfoya]

Yes. They also attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to free them, mister. At the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilian casualties, countless homes and families destroyed. Are they truly free?

Easy for you to justify War, at the comfort of your home.

I don't justify war. I'm a pacifist. What I say was that the point with entering Libya is to make peace. For me everything should be sorted out peacefully, but in some countries it seems like everything is about war.

If you throw all the attacking countries to "the pit monster", that's not good as those countries are the ones with stable economy and that actually can help people escape from wars.

[Mistermook]

Libya, from the US perspective of operational intent and participation, has more in common with the first Gulf War than anything else that comes to mind off the top of my head, bearing in mind there's not much there right now. I'm not as awake as I probably should be. Some people asked for military aid, we formed a coalition of forces to provide that aid with a limited mission, and performed it. It's still different because we're not "protecting" anyone really, we've picked sides in a revolution; but then there's the point were Ghaddafi's such an unlovable tool that there were probably senior leadership in several nation's military forces that were literally getting wood at the thought of finally having the political will in place to really stick it to the guy for once and for all. Saddam Hussein wasn't a nice guy, but ultimately his main historical contribution was in being the US proxy for fighting Iran after the hostage crisis, not "what an evil guy." He was, but for most of his career he was our bitch and we happily let him do whatever he wanted mostly.

Ghaddafi's only recently attempted at kissing behind, and poorly at that. Previously he was the king of goons, the mastermind of terrorist attacks and weapons smuggling mostly until 2003. Everyone kind of shrugged and went "Well, he's getting old, maybe he's decided to stop being a bastard while he still has teeth," and then he turns around and decides not to gracefully exit his country in the face of revolution and take a chance with stealing millions of dollars and seeking someplace that won't extradite him to his enemies. It was sort of inevitable that someone would get involved in this. It's just too sweet an opportunity, and Ghaddafi's too much of a jackass that's placed himself in the bad graces of too many people.

[RunSims]

i believe it was good that we stepped in. the rebels asked for help and we are helping them. even if the rebels are just terrorists in disguise trying to take power, Ghaddafi isn't innocent either. when people started protesting and wanting change, what did he do? did he ask what they want, did he compromise? no. he pulled out machine guns and started slaughtering them and saying he'll never leave. then when the west was considering intervening, he said that he would attack anyone who meddled with libya, even though he can't stand up to the many countries that are part of the U.N. he said that the libyans love him and will stand with him against the west if the west attacks, even though he's fighting his own people that are supposedly standing with him. then a few days ago he changes tactics and tries to sweet talk Obama to stop the intervention. he is clearly off his rocker and doesn't deserve to be in power.


@game90: and you are in a war right now are you?

Nicely said, Ghaddafi has been in power for like 40 years and now people want a change but then he just ordered his men to kill all of the people who will go against him, and I don't think that will do good for Libya especially the welfare of the people living in that country. And for you Americans, it's a good step in to help the people who are wanting a change in their community, because it is better to help people who are now suffering and wanting a change rather than just sitting there and doing nothing, right? Because if we won't help their country who is being slaughtered by their own President,therefore, that will leave their country in a hopeless and poor condition. Ghaddafi is never deserving to be in power unless all he does is for the good and peacefulness of the country, but look what he is doing now, killing, raping, ambushing, and blowing up people who go against him, jeez.

I really hope Libya can stand up again, and will be able to fight away from a situation they are currently in.

[Rafe Weisz]

So Ghaddafi was killing, raping, ambushing, and blowing up his own people. Now Usa and half of europe are killing, raping, ambushing, and blowing up lybians. What is the difference? I fail to see it. Oh, yes, the difference is that Usa and half of europe are , every one of them, militarily superior (by a lot) to Lybia, and will not risk their own people to get killed, raped, ambushed, and blowed up in that war, while Ghaddafi did not have the technology to do that and had to risk his own soldiers.
So now Is not a "tyrant" (I seriously doubt he is a tyrant or anything like that) sending troops against rebels, but four or five tyrants showering another country with missiles, bombs, and who knows what else.
And who here thinks usa did it because it is a kind and devoted to peace contry, only wanting peace in the world? (do not forget all the spending in "defense", and all the wars that country was involved in, most of them not having anything to do with "defense")

[game90]

I hope you people who are praising western intervention in Libya realize that the west, primarily USA and UK sold arms to Ghaddafi before the crisis started. The West, whom promote freedom and democracy, sold arms to dictators. And switched sides whenever rebellions occur claiming to support freedom. Hypocrisy?

[malfoya]

game90, there are other countries than the US and the UK in this war. And not every country has the same intention. Not every country has sold weapons. You should be careful with taking everyone under the same grip. Most people I know aren't supporting the US government at all... Our politics are very different from theirs. But there's one thing you see more of in Middle Eastern countries, and that is people bombing each other. Suicide missions. So before judging ALL western countries for wanting to spill blood, please check out the country's history when it comes to wars or people treathment.

[Nekowolf]

We sold arms to pretty much bloody freaking every god damn dictator in the Middle East! (okay, over-exaggerating a little, but seriously, we did sell a lot to various dictators, as well as other messes). One thing you apparently seem to be forgetting is America... changes leadership. Hypocrisy? No. Why? Because we are frequently changing Presidents and the Congress. And with that, majority opinion.

That, or things change. Not so much hypocrisy as 1. we really make stupid mistakes, and 2. don't always learn from them. This, however, was one of them. This has been referenced to Clinton's inactivity during Rwanda. This may have stopped what may have been another Rwanda from happening.

And, in fact, it was France who took the initiative.

[HoodieDoodie]

1.Troops come home
2.Bomb Libya with big bomb
3.End of war and celebrate

Go to afghanistan and repeat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hope that didn't offend anyone in anyway.....but I'm sick to death of our good people dying because of some knobheads in these countries. Without, there would be no war or conflict

And that Gaddafi fella.....If I was a Libyan he'd be dead by now.

[Nekowolf]

Well, that's for the most part what's happening. We're relying mostly on missile and air strikes, along with espionage.

[Mistermook]

I hope you people who are praising western intervention in Libya realize that the west, primarily USA and UK sold arms to Ghaddafi before the crisis started. The West, whom promote freedom and democracy, sold arms to dictators. And switched sides whenever rebellions occur claiming to support freedom. Hypocrisy?
Before 2003 Libya was under sanctions and any arms sales claims simply aren't based on anything factual. After 2003 when the sanctions were lifted there were something like less than $50 million in arms sales from private US companies approved to Libya (and less actually sold, as I've said, Ghaddafi's not exactly a popular guy that most companies want to be associated with) and military aid in the form of counter-terrorism training and access to whatever they're calling the foreign command college we turned the Army of Americas thing into I think. That was all a result of Libya declaring that they'd "quit their nuclear weapons research program," however much bullshit it was that they actually had a viable weapons program in the first place was. It was a bit of a political coup though, a bit of "in your face" political posturing in the face of the ever-increasing criticism of the war in Iraq, the rejection of demands to quit the Iranian nuclear program, and medium range missile testing in Best Korea.

The real reward wasn't military arms sales but the lifting of those sanctions. Those sanctions included over a billion dollars in frozen assets and they'd been in place since the mid 80s, but they also cost the Libyans several billion dollars in compensation to the victims of Libyan sponsored terrorist attacks. That would have been a raw deal, but it opened Libya back up to tourism and commercial investment - the rest of the world probably paid for more of the recent bits of infrastructure and industry than anything else.

That $50 million in arms sales in 2008 is a pittance when it comes to real equipment on a military scale though. Basically you can't buy an airplane for that much, nor a tank, and you don't get a navy out of it either - basically you can get some cheap, older spare parts for such things if you've already got them, ammunition, suicide transport, or small arms with that sort of money. After 2008 the amount of arms sales approved to Libya started to decrease, presumably because Libya really wasn't going to benefit from throwing money at the US in exchange for something that wasn't going to actually transform their military.

Libyan forces are composed mostly of 1970s era Soviet equipment and the sort of widely exchanged small arms stuff that's scary to demonstrators and necessary for infantry but not particularly important in real terms for imposing military power these days. I'm assuming that they were looking for replacement parts for their WW2 era artillery pieces and ammunition if they were shopping in the US, or else someone in the states makes adequate replacement parts for Soviet Su-17s and T-72s these days. Unless you've got another source or something, I'm calling bullshit on this one - I'm just not seeing any evidence. As for the British involvement, I can't speak for UK arms sales, but as far as I know the most British thing about the Libyan military is that they're based on the British brigade system leftover from their colonial period. They've approved arms sales to Libya like the US, but like the US they've not exactly approved enough to cause anyone particular pause. Again, you have to look at what you can actually get for the money that gets approved and look at it in the context of the equipment they already have, along with what can be done with that equipment.

Italy's probably sold the most military hardware to the Libyans, but (not to offend any Italians here too terribly) Italian military equipment isn't exactly highly regarded. Plus they're right across the water from them so I see that mostly a matter of being closer to Libyan than most people are.

Next come the French, but even allowing for the scale of their arms sales (which were still modest) Libya possesses older Mirages in its inventory. While perhaps Libya was buying new cheap equipment, it makes more sense that it was spending money to do things like try to upgrade the avionics on 40 year old fighters and maybe get some spare parts for those planes to keep them running since no one was approving selling them JSFs and F-15s.

Upgrading older equipment is usually a better investment for places like Libya than buying new equipment, precisely because no one will sell them the best, newest equipment either because they don't have the money or because, as is in Libya's case, no one cares to. In some respects it's even strangely humanitarian giving this sort of upgrades and replacement parts - a fifty year old anti-air battery that's been in continual service in the desert isn't ever going to be able to be transformed into a modern weapon, but without some care I imagine it could very well be as dangerous to its ground crews as anything else if improperly maintained... and snarkiness from some people aside, it's hardly ever part of a modern military strategy to simply kill people. That's because if you can just blow up enough weapons (which yes, kills the people manning them sometimes, but there is a distinction since it's just as well to blow them up while people are sleeping) you can stroll in afterward with less weapons and just arrest people more or less.

[rcranger9]

Now Usa and half of europe are killing, raping, ambushing, and blowing up lybians. What is the difference?

ummm... i believe the difference is that the libyan government is living and human so it can actually rape people. last time i checked missiles and bombs can't rape people or are even alive. (if they are, we better worry because they are coming for us next!)

this is how i see things from an american point of view.

after the Rwandan genocide:

the masses: why didn't you go in and stop all the murders of innocent people?
the government:sorry, we won't do it again.

current day:
the masses: why did you go into libya?
the government:we went in because we don't millions of people to die because of our inaction like Rwanda when you yelled at us.
the masses: you are endangering a few western citizens!
the government: citizens who swore to give their life to the country. besides, its only air force and not ground troops. there have been only one or two crashes and these are because of mechanical failures. there have been no western deaths in libya. the chances of dieing are infinitesimally small.

[pinketamine]

Well, Gadaffi has been on the power for.. 40 years? Did he just become a dictator a couple of months ago? If not... why didn't any country care about it before?

I think NATO saw the revolts and thought "cool, let's help them, maybe we will get something (namely oil) in return".

[Mistermook]

People did care before. That's why Libya had sanctions against it from 1986 to 2003, why Libya was on everyone's short list of suspects whenever an act of terrorism happened, and why in the 1980s we were in a state of armed, unannounced conflict with the country - we shot down two Libyan planes in 1981 after discovering Libya was behind the assassination plots on diplomats, they were behind the Achille Lauro hostage crisis and blew up a club in Berlin, and it was followed by El Dorado Canyon was entirely a punitive raid against Libya with the unspoken intent to kill Ghaddaffi in response.

It's not like this blew over into this overnight. It's part and parcel of forty years worth of on again, off again armed conflict with the guy.

[whiterider]

Hope that didn't offend anyone in anyway.....but I'm sick to death of our good people dying because of some knobheads in these countries. Without, there would be no war or conflictAnd it's better for good people in Libya or Afghanistan to die because of those knobheads?

[Purity4]

And let's not skip the opportunity to quote from the movie, Back to the Future:

Libyan nationalists/terrorists (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes?qt=qt0416303)

and

Oh Noes! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes?qt=qt0416325)

[Mistermook]

Right, it sucks whenever anyone dies, whether it's from bad people doing bad things, or good people trying to stop bad people, or just having the misfortune to cross the street at the wrong moment. By the same token, you can't just turn your backs every time the bad things are happening to other people because it might inconvenience you, or cost a lot of money, or even if it means that people you love and care for might come into harms way. Things don't happen in the world in a vacuum, what happens ten thousand miles away affects you whether you realize it or not in the same way we're all whirling around the sun at thousands of miles per hour and breathing air because it shines on us.

But we've also got finite resources, things we care about more than others, and things like that. Why weren't we clamoring to enter Rwanda during the genocides? Well frankly because Rwanda is poor. It's poor and it's also land-locked in the middle of several other countries that aren't particularly friendly or outfitted to become places where we could operate out of remote bases from. Look at it on the map, it's a tiny, tiny place. To go back to the celestial analogy, what happened in Rwanda probably should have been more concerning to the rest of us, but one of the chiefest ways we interpret international politics is economically. Poor places don't enter our direct vision very often, for much the same reason people can name large or politically important cities but can't always name all the little towns and villages in a place. We prioritize.

Meanwhile, it would have been hard to do a lot in Rwanda. What would we have done? Shown up and picked a side? Picked no side and basically sat in the middle of two opposing peoples who wanted to kill each other that much, on the pretense of protecting them but realizing that we'd essentially end up shooting both sides? Where would we base ourselves outside the country? Tanzania would be the most obvious place to start, but all the issues we have with operating in conjunction with Pakistan would be amplified a hundredfold. Pakistan is a wealthy country with good infrastructure compared to Tanzania, and we have issues with Pakistan not being up to the standards our military requires for our missions in Afghanistan. Seriously, Pakistanis make nearly five times what Tanzanians do. We had to buy ourselves a spot in Pakistan, and we'd have to buy a spot in Tanzania too, if they weren't gun-shy about the notion of inviting in another semi-colonial power into their post-colonial nation even. For comparison, Tanzanians make about as much during peace time right now as Afghans are making right now in the middle of nearly a decade worth of war. Afghanistan is a miserable operating theater, Rwanda would be intolerable.

So anyways, everything that we've spent in Afghanistan, lets say we triple the expense for any proposed trip to have intervened in Rwanda (in real cash and in lives), something that also might spill out to Congo and/or Burundi because we're not truly talking about a nationalist issue but a tribal one and tribes don't work cleanly within borders. Perhaps we finesse things with the aid of other African nations and bring that only down to the price of Afghanistan, and we pat ourselves on the back for stopping a terrible thing, right?

But where's our larger strategy? Our direct interest? Whether they explain it or not, Afghanistan is a much more interesting place strategically than it might seem. Between former Soviet states (such as Turkmenistan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan) and Iran, for instance, and has a border with China and Pakistan. While they haven't done much with it in centuries, the place is known to have economic potential in mining. Sure, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were there, but there's also that we'd been there before back during the Soviet invasion. It wasn't unknown and our brain trust for whatever we'd gotten from that episode was going to be entirely vanished soon. What else? We were staring down the barrel of the current recession when Afghanistan started, and fighting is a pretty good way to rationalize short term injections of cash into the economy even if you normally claim to be opposed to "socialism" and hand-outs to businesses. Add in millions of pissed off people calling for blood, oppressed women, angry archeologists ticked off at the destruction of priceless artifacts AND all that? You pull the rabbit out of the hat with that - you've got something like at least a half-assed reason to be there.

Was it ultimately a good idea or a bad idea? I don't know. I think a lot of the sorts of conflicts nations find themselves in are short-sighted because people have tunnel vision focused on the next year or the next two years, but on the other hand I think it's important to recognize that playing the short term isn't a completely terrible strategy as long as you play it well. But Libya isn't particularly short term - I think there have been fairly good reasons to have considered this sort of thing in Libya since the early 1980s, as we measure good reasons for engaging in warfare at least.

On the other hand, I also understand that there are people out there that believe that fighting is never justified, that war is always bad, peace is love and love is peace, all that sort of jazz. I get it. I admire it even. In an ideal world I'd love for that to work every time and man, it would be great if we could all just get along. But sometimes talking things out and figuring out how to make things change the ways we want them to just by having an earnest conversation, a lot of times it's simply terribly difficult.

By contrast while more expensive in some respects, both economically and to civilization itself, sometimes it's worth noting that a very difficult, long conversation might possibly be settled very quickly and easily by pulling out a gun and putting a bullet into someone's head. Individuals don't, and shouldn't, have that option and possibly nations shouldn't either as an abstract principle, along with printing currency and imminent domain and taxation, but as a practical consideration they do and as long as they do it really doesn't make a lot of sense to treat them like they don't.

Oh, and apologies for this being such a long post. Like I've said, it's a complicated subject. More apologies if I've made any factual errors here, because it was long and I cobbled it together in a fairly short period of time, ok?

[Purity4]

Do you really believe that the United States or western European countries want to protect the citizens of Libya?

I cannot speak for every citizen, but I can tell you that I would like to see T\the US government and western European countries protect the citizens of Libya. You can't really roll every individual up into a big ball of play-doh and say 'they all' think a certain way.

[malfoya]

I cannot speak for every citizen, but I can tell you that I would like to see The US government and western European countries to protect the citizens of Libya. You can't really roll every individual up into a big ball of play-doh and say 'they' think a certain way.

Exactly. All western governments have different ways to rule their country. It's actually quite unfair to say that they are all the same. It's like me saying that the whole Middle East should be bombed into a big crater.

[Mistermook]

Mistermook: A small correction. There is no Soviet Union today :)
That was a contraction for It was, rather than It is, in the sentence:
It's between the Soviet Union and Iran, for instance and has a border with China and Pakistan.
You're right, it's probably a little unwieldy, but currently there's no border with Russia either, only former Soviet states such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Naming those places individually didn't appear to make quiet the point about strategy I was aiming at (there's really no larger military strategic consideration directly with any of those places), so I reverted to referring to their former masters while allowing myself the segue into the issues about the origin of Osama bin Laden and our involvement in the Soviet invasion. In any case, I apologize for manufacturing a sentence that made things more complicated rather than simplified things as I intended.

Do you really believe that the United States or western European countries want to protect the citizens of Libya?
Do you really believe that nations of any flavor ever have good intentions, or bad intentions, as opposed to intentions to promote their interests and the interests of their constituents? Nations don't have moral centers or moral imperatives. Morality doesn't scale that way. They have the interests of their citizens, and sometimes those interests have moral implications or perhaps they have strategic interests that play upon the way the constituencies of other nations feel about this or that moral issue, but even then a nation can't afford to do anything without a strong observance of strategy or economy.

Maybe smaller, weaker nations can afford to ignore those things, but part of me says that this is a misdirection, that nations stay small, weak and ineffectual when they ignore their prime interests of economy and long term strategy.

It is a political showcase of power and when the war ends, everybody is going to forget about it.
Every use of power is a showcase for power, isn't it? I don't see how you can exercise power at all, without recognizing the implications of that demonstration in the perceptions of others? If everyone forgets about armed conflict, isn't that the very notion of peace?

I am really sorry for Libyans no matter whether they support Gadaffi or not
I'm really sorry for most Libyans too. War is terrible. If I'm less than sympathetic with Ghaddafi himself, it's only because he's pretty much made the bed he lays in by being a complete bastard whose only brilliance over the last few decades is in managing to only be a bastard just so without encouraging anyone to send more missiles in earlier than this.

I think that instead of boasting we should provide the Libyan people with humanitarian aid.
Sending humanitarian aid into a war zone without stopping the war is useless. It's just another thing for people to fight over. At this point sending aid in if the rebels lose? All we'd be doing is giving the leadership in Libya more wealth, because they'd certainly not want any aid to get to people who were in armed conflict with them previously, and part of the issue in the first place in Libya is the lack of a middle class and unemployment - something that supporters of the regime have to worry about less. How do you help people whose government is intentionally repressing them without overthrowing that government or coming into armed conflict with it?

[Mistermook]

Many people in Islamic countries detest the West and treat it as a threat.
Well of course. I mean, you detest the west and discuss it as a threat - probably for the many of the same reasons as Muslims. When people don't want anything to do with a place though, they shouldn't have anything to do with them. If Poland didn't want to accept the terms of the EU, they shouldn't have joined the EU, and if Libyans never intend to have westerners poking into their business they shouldn't have made a point on going on television and asking why the West wasn't doing more to protect them. Even when you call the fire department because your house is burning down, I wouldn't do this if you didn't want to pay taxes or have people with hoses in your house. If people want to be isolationist they can't at the same time complain when they invite people in and suddenly they're interacting with the world.

[Mistermook]

It reminds me of how North Korea fouls Western countries. Those countries send aid but ordinary people do not benefit at all. All the money or rice given goes to the ministries or soldiers. And I agree that Gadaffi id a bastard. Repressing his own people and saying that the West kills makes them suffer is foolish and illogical. He has to visit a psychiatrist.
He needs to visit a jail. For an extended stay.

If and when the people of North Korea rise up and start fighting against their government, I expect that someone in some country, whether its China, the US, or simply South Korea on its own, will likely rush in at the earliest opportunity to make this revolution viable. Despots aren't good for anyone. Sometimes they stay in place because there are terrific problems with kicking them out, but revolutions are good opportunities for governments to try to promote goodwill AND stick it to their enemies.

(Thank you France, I still appreciate your contributions to my country's existence.)

[Robodl95]

Do you really believe that the United States or western European countries want to protect the citizens of Libya? I don't believe in their good intentions at all. It is a political showcase of power and when the war ends, everybody is going to forget about it. I am really sorry for Libyans no matter whether they support Gadaffi or not and I think that instead of boasting we should provide the Libyan people with humanitarian aid.

I disagree, the US was pretty hesitant to get involved at all. A lot of Americans are rather unhappy with the situation because we're already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and don't want to get involved in another conflict. But like any conflict there is no black and white motivation. Is it possible that we just want to show off? Honestly I don't think so, what have we got to prove and to whom? What's the point of giving food and supplies when people get shot in the streets?

The term 'protecting' people is in many cases only an excuse to actually occupy a country. Do people really want this kind of protection of the West? In the past Soviet Union also said it wanted to 'protect' the people in 1939 when it attacked my country. During the communist regime Soviet Union also 'protected their friends against the evil imperialists'. Many people in Islamic countries detest the West and treat it as a threat. I don't really think people in Libya are eager to allow the West to decide about their future. People organized a revolution but they do not want anyone to decide what to do with their country afterwards.
Please research a little more, the rebels have asked for US and NATO help so they obviously do want the west. http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/06/libyan-rebels-demanding-more-nato-us-support/ I don't think the US would have gotten as involved as it has if it wasn't for their requests.

Gaddafi is insane but I'm also rather skeptical of these rebels, considering our support of other rebels which turned out to be terrorists I'd like to know more about these people.

My heart goes out to the Libyan people, let's all hope that it's a short conflict :)

[Mistermook]

Gaddafi is insane but I'm also rather skeptical of these rebels, considering our support of other rebels which turned out to be terrorists I'd like to know more about these people.
Like a lot of things, nothing is ever as black and white and simple as we'd like. Assuming everyone in charge of the rebels is every the inch the bastard Ghaddafi is, they've still not had decades of being in charge to build up ill will between themselves and the West and they'll still not be able to say in the event of their revolution succeeding that they managed to do it without the West's aid. So anyways, if they turn out to be Ghaddifi Two at some point, then we deal with them like Ghaddifi Two, but until then I'm just not seeing a downside to Ghaddifi tripping and falling in the way of a missile as a possible outcome of this war.

They say it's better the devil you know, but I think that only applies when the real, nonfictional, "devil" isn't constantly poking you with his metaphorical pitchfork and doesn't have a history of doing so in the past. If the US or anyone outside of Libya had suggesting starting this war I'd have told them to go stick their head in an oven, but since it started without us I just don't see what the problem is stepping in a little and trying to do ourselves a favor and making sure the war goes a way we'd like. That's even if we realize it was a worse idea later - you can't paralyze political action because of possible consequences sometimes, people are too complex to be sure what will happen next even in the best of circumstances, and while people are shooting at each other it's not like you've got all day to sit around with your thumb up your behind and analyzing things indefinitely.

[Nekowolf]

"f and when the people of North Korea rise up and start fighting against their government, I expect that someone in some country, whether its China, the US, or simply South Korea on its own, will likely rush in at the earliest opportunity to make this revolution viable."

/off-topic

Actually, if that happens, I think it would be a joint-venture by the U.S. and South Korea. China, I'm not sure what they'll do. They've shown interest trying to keeping North Korea out of trouble, but I don't think it's because it's because they actually like NK all that much (I've heard largely has to do with China's fears of a sudden wave of North Korean refugees trying to get into China).

[pinketamine]

Oh! I've just read my previous comment and it sounded incredibly rude! I should write things when I'm angry.

Anyway, I'm going to elaborate my opinion a bit, to clarify things mainly.
Firstly I (as a rule) don't agree with military interventions in a foreign country. In my whole life, I can't remember a single case when I agreed with a foreign military intervention. Having this as a base, I don't agree with the intervention in Libya either.

I think there are "hidden" interests behind it too, I honestly don't think that helping the civil population is exactly the only reason for the NATO to intervene. I would say there are strategic economical and political reasons too and these are being hidden to the population. Why? Because people, at least where I live, don't like wars and don't want their military forces to intervene in a war unless it is totally necessary (i.e. X country attacks Spain, we have to defend ourselves).
Another point is which civil population must the NATO help/save? As far as I know, there are a lot of people in Libya who approved Gadaffi's government. Are the rebels civil population? If they just want to save the civil population, why do they need bombs? They trying to sell this as an humanitarian intervention, but it is not, it is a war, simple as that.

I also think we don't know enough of these rebels. Suddenly, they rise against Gadaffi, that's fine if he is/was a dictator. But why now? And why are they asking for money to get armed? I don't believe that "enemies of my enemies are my friends" policy is really intelligent. Some countries like the US already have had previous experiences providing weapons to the "wrong" people who later were actual terrorists (Al-Quaeda, I'm thinking of you) so I don't think it is intelligent to use contributors money to buy weapons, this money should better be used in humanitarian actions.

[Robodl95]

Anyway, I'm going to elaborate my opinion a bit, to clarify things mainly. Firstly I (as a rule) don't agree with military interventions in a foreign country. In my whole life, I can't remember a single case when I agreed with a foreign military intervention. Having this as a base, I don't agree with the intervention in Libya either.

I think there are "hidden" interests behind it too, I honestly don't think that helping the civil population is exactly the only reason for the NATO to intervene. I would say there are strategic economical and political reasons too and these are being hidden to the population. Why? Because people, at least where I live, don't like wars and don't want their military forces to intervene in a war unless it is totally necessary (i.e. X country attacks Spain, we have to defend ourselves).
Assume for some reason that your country was attacked or that you were trying to break away from an insane dictator (I realize that Spain is not a dictatorship of course), would you not ask for help in order to defeat your enemy?

[Mistermook]

More importantly, the rebels have already tipped their hands. There's really no good place for them to end up BUT for them to win. The other options end in exile or firing squads, because I hope no one thinks that Ghaddifi accepts a peace treaty with the rebels that involves him going "Oh you rascally scamps! I guess I deserved this...Well, let's go back to the way we were!" It didn't work out that way with our own Civil War here in the US, even though Lincoln wanted it to happen (and whatever you think about the Confederates deserving it or not) the Reconstruction was at least partly organized as a program of retaliation and punishment, and it won't happen that way anywhere else.

At this point? Hidden interests be damned, you're committed. From the viewpoint of the West? Hidden backers for the revolution be damned too, because A. there are absolutely other reasons, which I've gone over in some detail, to support just about anyone who might stand a chance of getting rid of Ghaddifi and B. The moment the news started portraying it in a certain light there was going to be a lot of political momentum to do something.

So if you can't give humanitarian aid to Libya because it won't reach the rebels, and supporting Ghaddifi in any meaningful sense sticks in most people's craws like a bad piece of fish, and you're told you must do something by significant amounts of your constituents, and it's one of those places where "Hey, we could do something here that won't cost anyone ten trillion dollars and two decades of investment," and there's natural resources to trade for after the fighting is over, and natural resources that are interfered with while it goes on, why in the hell wouldn't you act exactly as everyone's done?

I know there's all sorts of pacifists, but a nation can't afford to exist on a platform of pacifism. Even the Japanese have a scary efficient military that they choose not to explore to their full potential, while cheerfully hosting thousands of US soldiers on a more or less continuous basis. That's to say, even the most overtly peaceful of nations retain a military presence one way or the other to pursue their military objectives, even if it's by proxy. The only other kinds of nations without military might are those that quite rightly decide they're simply too poor to profitably perform those duties at all - and those tend to have a rather ah, robust police force compared to most.

[rcranger9]

you people keep saying we should send humanitarian aid. from the very beginning of the conflict our humanitarian aid was in the country and helping out. every time i read about the situation in libya it's at least mentioned that the west is trying to get ghadaffi to let humanitarian aid into the government controlled west.

[pinketamine]

Assume for some reason that your country was attacked or that you were trying to break away from an insane dictator (I realize that Spain is not a dictatorship of course), would you not ask for help in order to defeat your enemy?

In the times were Spain had a Civil War that lead into a dictatorship, the help went to the dictator, so I don't think we have a good experience when it comes to asking for help to other countries :rolleyes: This isn't meant as a "you didn't help us, so screw others", what I mean is that other countries help who they want, so you never know if you will get help.

I truly understand that the population in Lybia needs to be helped, really. I agree with this feeling too, I hope too that Libyans can overcome this situation as soon as possible and with the less damage possible. I've just totally lost faith in military "humanitarian" intervention, because in the last years there have been a couple of examples when the supposed to be humanitarian intervention got longer and longer and turned into a political and military invasion... and I just can't agree with that.

[Robodl95]

We also talked about the situation in Libya at university during our British and American culture classes and everybody agreed that the US and western Europe do not do that to protect the Libyan people but they have their own goals. Our lecturers also agreed with us. As far as Gadaffi is concerned I believe he should be trialed and be sentenced for crimes against his own people. During the communist regime people who protested against the government and carried slogans "We want bread" called criminals or "traitors" by the officials. My mum told me than in 1970, when she was coming home from school the violent protests began. Nobody knew what was happening and the only thing people knew was what they saw in a censored state-owned TV. I heard even more stories about those times and I am sure that Libyan protesters are not criminals. They are only ordinary people who want to live in a country that respects human rights.
I agree with you, I don't think the west (or anywhere for the matter) has the right to intervene in a countries internal affairs unless it provides a significant threat to that country. However, you are ignoring the fact that the Libyans are asking NATO (and the US specifically) to help them.

Putting Gadaffi to trial is a great idea, but how do you plan to get him? It's extremely unlikely that he will give himself in so the only way would be to use military force which you oppose....

[pico22]

What I see.

First, a trinity of Western presidents:

- Sarkozy: up for reelection which he will probably loose. Has to prove that he is a strong leader and that with him in charge, France is still a world-leading power. Used Libya as a tool to prove this but no real success so far. Used Ivory Coast for the same reason and much more successfully - so far.

- Obama: up for reelection which he will probably loose unless his final opponent is even worse than he is. Has to prove that he is a strong leader and that with him in charge, USA is still a world-leading power. Used Libya as a tool but only half-heartedly at first, then set the stakes too high; does not seem to be sure where he is going most of the time. His pre-election slogans and promises and the Nobel Peace Prize keep haunting him.

- Cameron: safe at the moment but nor sure how much longer. Wants to prove that he has bigger balls than Margaret Thatcher and that with him in charge, UK is still a world-leading power. Managed to prove that neither is true.

Then, Libya:

- tribes opposing Gaddafi. No chance of success without a direct Western intervention.

- tribes supporting Gaddafi. Fair chance of success without a direct Western intervention.

- innocent people being bombed and shot at.

And last but not least:

Russia, India, China: formally protesting but really enjoying the spectacle. Waiting.

[Robodl95]

- Obama: up for reelection which he will probably loose unless his final opponent is even worse than he is. Has to prove that he is a strong leader and that with him in charge, USA is still a world-leading power. Used Libya as a tool but only half-heartedly at first, then set the stakes too high; does not seem to be sure where he is going most of the time. His pre-election slogans and promises and the Nobel Peace Prize keep haunting him.

One of Obama's main campaigning points was his intent to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, how is starting another war in his favor? You seem to think that the only way to prove yourself as a strong leader is to start a war....

[Nekowolf]

Except 1. It's not a war, and 2. There are no ground forces, instead choosing air support and CIA operation.

[pinketamine]

It is not a war? Of course it is a war. A civil war to say the least. And a civil with with external intervention, in fact.
You can use other names, but it will still be a war.

[pico22]

You seem to think that the only way to prove yourself as a strong leader is to start a war....
I don't think so but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is that Sarkozy certainly thinks so and so does Cameron and quite a few other politicians all over the world. As for Obama: what I see is that he certainly didn't pull troops out of any country so far and that he is getting bogged down in Libya. What he will really do and what he is really thinking I have no idea.

And of course this is no war. It's just continuation of politics by other means.

[Robodl95]

As for Obama: what I see is that he certainly didn't pull troops out of any country so far and that he is getting bogged down in Libya. What he will really do and what he is really thinking I have no idea.

Hah, that is the problem isn't it? Just more political lies.... it's certainly not winning him any votes though.

[Nekowolf]

@pinketamine

I should reiterate. It is not a war by terms of US involvement.

[rcranger9]

I don't think so but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is that Sarkozy certainly thinks so and so does Cameron and quite a few other politicians all over the world. As for Obama: what I see is that he certainly didn't pull troops out of any country so far and that he is getting bogged down in Libya. What he will really do and what he is really thinking I have no idea.

And of course this is no war. It's just continuation of politics by other means.



actually, he has started pulling troops out. you don't understand that you can't just pack up all the troops and leave. if you do, all you worked for and all the soldiers that gave their lives for it will be for naught, because the people you removed from power and/or other people will move in and take over. the army in Iraq and Afghanistan are training the soldiers and police of that country so the country can take care of itself and our troops can leave.

[Nekowolf]

Mmhm, in fact, I was watching the footage on MSNBC of the first troops to pull out of Iraq. It was a big special report.

[Mistermook]

Some of the confusion is because the media reporting these things are confused. For instance:

Last full U.S. combat brigade leaves Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38744453/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/) with the subtitle "Final fighting force rolls into Kuwait; 50,000 Americans to remain," sounds off hand like "Oh, well we're leaving, but we're not leaving." But that's really not a very good portrayal of what's going on at all. There's a big difference between a combat unit and a non-combat unit in terms of mission and what they're doing, for instance. It would be like a boxing arena closing and sending all the fighters home, but everyone going "There's people still in there cleaning up! There's still boxers in there!" And that might be technically true, since the janitors in the boxing arena might be ex-boxers, or wannabe boxers, or current boxers cleaning toilets, but it's miles away from a boxing match by any real understanding of what's intended to go on in there - even if there is a fist fight at some time between employees or even if they're taking advantage of the ring to have the local kids come and teach them how to box.

[Nekowolf]

If I may clarify further?

Think of it like this: you got the infantry, the artillery, special operations, etc. Those who are used for combat situations, the ones who often carry the big guns. Then there are the non-combat units; medics, engineers, computer technicians, cooks, trainers, etc. In fact, I've heard from somewhere that most of the military is actually comprised of non-combat units. There was some ratio for like, every one combat unit, there's so many others doing the non-combat behind-the-scenes work to make sure everything actually goes well.

The idea behind the Iraq pullout was to pull out the combat units and leave non-combat to help fix things, teach their police and military, provide assistance, etc.

[pinketamine]

@pinketamine

I should reiterate. It is not a war by terms of US involvement.

Sorry. I understood you said it was not a war, in general, and I honestly didn't get it.

[Nekowolf]

Okay, it's like this. While it may be a civil war between Libyans, it is not a war between the U.S. and Libya.