Quote :

"Whose voices?"

You could start with France.

3/5/2011 11:54:05 AM

Oh, like we care shit about what France says regarding anything related to war.

3/5/2011 11:57:42 AM

You're right. Particularly when it involves Third World dictators they've been a little too chummy with. The point is that even the reflexively anti-intervention French are calling for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, which should answer your question about who is calling for action.

[Edited on March 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2011 12:09:35 PM

No, I don't think you understand....of course the do nothing French are going to call for action because they don't do shit and Libya just happens to be a bit closer to their doorstep than Iraq.

3/5/2011 12:18:27 PM

Quite right.

3/5/2011 12:20:53 PM

Quote :

"^^ there’s nothing on point there except for him saying we should do more to help. Outside of that, that guy seems pretty blindingly ignorant of the facts of history."

LOL

3/5/2011 2:49:46 PM

Intervention in Libya would poison the Arab revolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/intervention-libya-poison-arab-revolution

Quote :

"... While American and British politicians have ramped up talk of a no-fly zone, US warships have been sent to the Mediterranean, a stockpile of chemical weapons has been duly discovered, special forces have been in action, Italy has ditched a non-aggression treaty with Tripoli and a full-scale western military intervention in yet another Arab country is suddenly a serious prospect... When more than 300 people were killed by Hosni Mubarak's security forces in a couple of weeks, Washington initially called for 'restraint on both sides'. In Iraq, 50,000 US occupation troops protect a government which last Friday killed 29 peaceful demonstrators demanding reform. In Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, the regime has been shooting and gassing protesters with British-supplied equipment for weeks. The 'responsibility to protect' invoked by those demanding intervention in Libya is applied so selectively that the word hypocrisy doesn't do it justice. And the idea that states which are themselves responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in illegal wars, occupations and interventions in the last decade, along with mass imprisonment without trial, torture and kidnapping, should be authorised by international institutions to prevent killings in other countries is simply preposterous..."

3/6/2011 9:48:28 PM

here is a blog i read that has a lot on the idea of a no-fly zone:
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama

he spends a lot of time pointing out how a no-fly zone is a military action. a lot of people don't really realize that a no-fly zone means that we would be bombing targets to neutralize any air-defense and may even mean boots on the ground as we may need a landing zone to station helicopters for any potential downed aircraft rescues. one of his posts is here:
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/and-todays-prize-biggest-cup-ice-water-goes.html

3/6/2011 10:04:19 PM

it's just one big god damn mess

3/6/2011 11:36:32 PM

We need to stay the fuck out of this shit

3/7/2011 12:44:04 AM

^4

It's almost like it's not possible to criticize any number of US policies or actions taken during the early to mid-1940s without coming to the conclusion that our involvement in WWII was "preposterous." What paltry moral reasoning.

The author is correct, though, in pointing out the hypocrisy of US foreign policy as it relates to Arab dictators - a policy, by the way, which was until now the pride and joy of every smug foreign policy "realist."

[Edited on March 7, 2011 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2011 9:22:20 AM

^
I'm not sure that I follow your first statement. What actions were taken by the U.S. in the decade prior to World War II that would have led one to that conclusion?

3/7/2011 2:45:26 PM

I said during the war. Internment camps, rapes along the French coast, bombed out cities, nuclear wastelands... the US did a lot of reprehensible shit during the Second World War. I'm still glad Europe was liberated from the Nazis. Such a view, however, would be "preposterous," per the logic of the author of the Guardian piece.

3/7/2011 11:41:28 PM

Thanks for the clarification, but I would disagree with the comparison. The author appears to be referencing the previous war in Iraq. Your comparison would be more apt if he were arguing that actions taken during the U.S. intervention in Libya were unconscionable, but I understand your point.

3/8/2011 5:14:04 PM

Quote :

"The 'responsibility to protect' invoked by those demanding intervention in Libya is applied so selectively that the word hypocrisy doesn't do it justice."

I'm not sure this is entirely fair. Clashes with riot police and the like turn violent all the time, and it seems unreasonable that we should go around bombing somebody every time it happens. Canada wasn't firing up the jets after Kent State.

There's also the reasonable point that a no-fly zone wouldn't have done jack-all shit in Egypt or Iraq so far.

---

I do think we should stay the fuck out of it, at least directly. Encourage the AU or Arab League to take over, or at least let the French and Italians and Spanish do the dirty work (since they weren't on board last time...). I think a no-fly zone might help, not only in stopping the air attacks but also in signaling to Gadhafi that his ticket's punched. Put I think it would help a lot less if we were involved.

3/8/2011 5:26:43 PM

a no-fly is an act of war, its among one of the worst responses in that its only a half measure at that

3/8/2011 7:08:57 PM

I couldn't give half a shit if we declared war on what's left of the Gadhafi's government.

As to it being a half measure...in strictly military terms, I agree. In terms of it making clear to all parties what the inevitable outcome is, I think it packs quite a punch. Muammar (or however we're spelling his name now) might continue to rail on, but his lackeys might be able to see the writing on the wall a little more clearly.

To some extent, we've committed ourselves. Gadhafi played nice with us for a while there; now, we've outright called for his ouster and (possible) prosecution. If he ends up in control of the country, he has no incentive to continue being chill, and every incentive to fuck us. As far as the US goes, he needs to be toasted. And that's to say nothing of the Libyan people, who I wholeheartedly support in giving him the axe. Literally.

3/9/2011 1:17:19 AM

I just worry about how much support we would have from the Libyan people when innocent people die in the bombings that come with a no-fly zone. I would rather not see us involved in yet another cluster fuck in that region.

3/9/2011 8:51:30 AM

That's why it should a NATO mission.

Quote :

"Your comparison would be more apt if he were arguing that actions taken during the U.S. intervention in Libya were unconscionable, but I understand your point."

OK, then, it would be like saying, "The US committed unspeakable atrocities during WWII, so it's preposterous that they would intervene on behalf of South Korea four years later." Again, I don't know about you, but I'm glad that millions of South Koreans today live in a vibrant democracy and not the dystopian shit hole their brethren to the north have had to endure.

The problem with Milne's reasoning is that it situates the Unites States' image ahead of the more important issue, which is the future of Libya. I would think that anyone claiming to possess a tincture of solidarity with their fellow humans would rank, in terms of importance, the well being of the Libyan people over the philosophical or moral consistency of US foreign policy. In other words, if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it exposes the US to charges of hypocrisy or not.

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2011 9:13:05 AM

We gave up in Vietnam, gave the country over to the worst kind of communists, millions died, but because South Vietnam no longer existed to drive North Vietnamese philosophy to unhealthy places, Vietnam today is a fairly tolerable dictatorship akin to China.

The same goes for Cuba, which today would be capitalist if only the U.S. had not made itself such an enemy of the people. And once capitalist, it is only a matter of time until democracy takes root.

As such, I firmly believe that had we not split Korea or Vietnam, not only would the wars have been avoided, and saved all the millions of lives lost, but today they would be normal ordinary capitalist dictatorships akin to Vietnam and China, and possibly even Democratic states akin to Tailand or Taiwan.

3/9/2011 10:03:40 AM

Cute theory.

And even if it were remotely plausible, which it isn't, you're still wishing the conditions of Cuba and Vietnam onto a legitimately democratic and prosperous country. What a joke.

Quote :

"to drive North Vietnamese philosophy to unhealthy places"

As ridiculous as that is to say about the North Vietnamese, it is ten times as absurd to say about the North Koreans. The South didn't "drive" them to their philosophy. Their philosophy was gladly adopted from the Chinese and ushered in by an insane family of dictators.

Not that I surprised to hear someone blame the US for the problem of North Korea, along with all the other problems in the world. If only the US would stop existing all the time, surely there would be heaven on earth. Or at least a bunch more Cubas and Vietnams.

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2011 10:18:56 AM

No less plausible than your theory that without the Korean War, Korea would be identical to North Korea of today. At least my theory accepts the idea that if the world were different then it would in fact be different.

And I can't imagine why you call a bunch of capitalist dictatorships is heaven on Earth.

3/9/2011 10:40:32 AM

I think it's adorable when people refer to The United States as a dictatorship.

3/9/2011 11:18:02 AM

quick question - who is arming the Libyan rebels?

3/9/2011 1:00:27 PM

Looks like its mostly equipment from defecting Libyan military units. And I've seen some reports of them ransacking military barracks.

3/9/2011 1:24:08 PM

GCC and OIC both call for a no-fly zone and are asking the Security Council to enforce one. Arab League to decide soon, and will probably call for it as well.

Well, whyTF don't they do it themselves? What is the use of all the weapons and training that Arab and Muslim countries have been buying from the West for decades?

If they want the West to do it, then the death of any innocent people will be on the hands of the Western powers, and then they will get blamed for killing/colonizing Arabs/Muslims.

Let the Arabs/Muslims handle shit in their backyards themselves, so that if innocent people die, it will be on their hands, as it should be.

3/9/2011 4:07:35 PM

Quote :

"Well, whyTF don't they do it themselves?"

Sounds like you answered your own question.

Quote :

"If they want the West to do it, then the death of any innocent people will be on the hands of the Western powers, and then they will get blamed for killing/colonizing Arabs/Muslims."

[Edited on March 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2011 4:29:48 PM

^^ Absolutely.

3/9/2011 4:45:51 PM

Seems like the countries can only be processed in series... come one Libya, finish processing already so that other countries can start and finish as well! Just leave (or die), Qaddafi.

AFAIK, Qatar and UAE are the only countries where demonstrations/protests have NOT taken place. Small ones in SA and Kuwait. Major stuff in Yemen and Bahrain, and medium in Oman.

3/9/2011 6:20:59 PM

Medium in Wisconsin.

3/10/2011 9:40:01 AM

If a no fly zone is to exist, it must be the UN. Other Mid-East countries cannot be trusted and the US would taint the whole operation.

3/10/2011 9:46:32 AM

3/10/2011 2:27:54 PM

^lmfao.

bbc news crew detained and tortured by libyan forces:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12695077

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM. Reason : [0]

3/10/2011 3:36:30 PM

The Rebels Love Us, Right?

Quote :

"I was looking through the Sinjar documents (.pdf) today because I remembered (incorrectly, as it turns out) that Benghazi had sent more foreign fighters to Iraq than any other city in the Arabic-speaking world. On a per capita basis, though, twice as many foreign fighters came to Iraq from Libya -- and specifically eastern Libya -- than from any other country in the Arabic-speaking world. Libyans were apparently more fired up to travel to Iraq to kill Americans than anyone else in the Middle East. And 84.1% of the 88 Libyan fighters in the Sinjar documents who listed their hometowns came from either Benghazi or Darnah in Libya's east. This might explain why those rebels from Libya's eastern provinces are not too excited about U.S. military intervention. It might also give some pause to those in the United States so eager to arm Libya's rebels."

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/rebels-love-us-right.html

3/10/2011 4:36:38 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/11/saudi.arabia.protests/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/10/saudi.arabia.protests/
Witnesses: Saudi forces fire on protesters, injure 3

3/11/2011 12:31:27 PM

^^from the comments, and extremely apt:

Quote :

"Don't you think that is a rather small sample size to be making judgments about an entire region? Hell, the Westboro Baptist Church has more members than that - I guess Kansas is a breeding ground of gay-hating troop-hating anti-Americans."

3/11/2011 12:37:49 PM

but kansas is a breeding ground of gay-hating fundamentalists

3/11/2011 12:51:52 PM

i have watched this video so many times, and every time, i am in even more disbelief and i just shake my head. this guy should be a clown or a stand-up comedian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12603259

3/12/2011 5:04:41 PM

The Libyan revolution has failed. The bloodshed in retribution will be immense.

3/16/2011 10:27:41 AM

I am sure Qaddafi is thanking God for the tsunami... the whole world seems to have forgotten about the repression in Libya. Government forces have captured back more and more towns from the rebel forces.

3/16/2011 12:55:21 PM

Let's just be happy the US didn't violate anyone's sovereignty.

3/16/2011 2:16:41 PM

So I've been thinking lately.

As is no doubt clear, I was a supporter of the Iraq war when it started and have been ever since. Saddam Hussein was a monster, and though far from alone in his monstrosity among world leaders, he was one we had the power and political ability to take out.

Lately I find myself wondering if I would have agreed back in 2003 if I had known what would be happening in 2011: a wave of revolutions and unrest with some success at ousting long-term dictators.

As of now, I think I would...Muamar is not much crazier than Saddam was, and the latter probably had a stronger military to enforce his insanity. And it's far from a given that an overthrow would improve things -- even now in Egypt we see Copts and women rebelling because their needs are ignored, and who knows if the military will relinquish power.

I dunno. I will admit, however, that recent events have made me wonder about whether invasion was better than waiting things out.

3/17/2011 1:21:53 AM

Something about hindsight....

3/17/2011 9:00:21 AM

Quote :

"Saddam Hussein was a monster, and though far from alone in his monstrosity among world leaders, he was one we had the power and political ability to take out."

You seriously still think that our goal in Iraq was humanitarianism?

[Edited on March 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2011 9:11:37 AM

If previous anti-Baathist rebellions in Iraq were any indication, Saddam's crackdown in 2011 would have surpassed in terms of civilian deaths in months those which occurred over the last eight years. And if the current anti-Qaddafi uprising were to be seen as another indicator, it would appear that Saddam would have remained in power. Instead there is a deeply flawed but democratic and free Iraq whose people are not the playthings of an insane crime family.

Quote :

"You seriously still think that our goal in Iraq was humanitarianism?"

It was very explicitly stated as one, that's for sure. And you're going to need more than random images spliced together in a Michael Moore "documentary" to show that it wasn't.

[Edited on March 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2011 9:19:10 AM

Quote :

"You seriously still think that our goal in Iraq was humanitarianism? "

Did I fucking say that?

My reason for supporting the Iraq war was humanitarian.

3/17/2011 12:26:42 PM

No-Fly Zone finally agreed upon. Too little too late?

3/18/2011 8:44:08 AM

Not necessarily. Perhaps right on time to save the Gaddafi regime.

3/18/2011 9:24:55 AM

Cease-fire declared.

3/18/2011 9:57:41 AM

Dozens of protesters killed in Sana'a. Witnesses telling Al Jazeera that plain clothes snipers hidden in buildings began shooting as soon as the chants started. Footage showed many patients with bullet wounds to their chests, necks, and heads.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12783585

[Edited on March 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2011 12:24:39 PM