Page 1 of 2
UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:12 pm
by Gob
The UN Security Council has backed a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" short of an invasion "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".
The UK, France and Lebanon proposed the council resolution, with US support.
Meeting in New York, the 15-member body voted 10-0 in favour, with five abstentions.
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces have recently retaken several towns seized by rebels in an uprising.
Loyalist forces are threatening the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, home to a million people.
Earlier reports suggested that if the resolution were passed, air attacks on Col Gaddafi's forces by the British and French air forces could begin within hours.
It is not thought that the US would be involved in the first strikes, but the British and French are likely to get logistical backup from Arab allies.
Russia and China - which often oppose the use of force against a sovereign country as they believe it sets a dangerous precedent - abstained rather than using their power of veto as permanent members. Germany also abstained.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:43 am
by Grim Reaper
And of course Gaddafi manages to dial his insanity to 11 and
threatened to attack air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean if the no-fly zone is enforced.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:45 pm
by rubato
He had an 'invisible line of death' at one point too, it was about as effective in the real world as Reagan's 'star wars' system. Maybe he can't tell the difference between movies and reality either?
yrs,
rubato
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:17 pm
by Sue U
Regardless of what you might think of Gaddafi, the situation in Lybia is a domestic insurrection/civil war that threatens no one outside the country (except, potentially, the economic interests of the oil industry, and even that is not clear). International intervention in a civil war that is not a genocide or other recognized crime against humanity may or may not be a "good" thing, but it is entirely a political decision and not, fundamentally, an international humanitarian mandate. America's intervention in Vietnam's domestic affairs and the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan's should serve as cautionary reminders to those agitating for direct involvement of foreign forces.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:22 pm
by dgs49
While I don't pretend to be well-informed about U.S. policy in this part of the world, one does not have to be an expert to perceive that our policy is a mixed bag of hypocritical stupidity.
We support regimes that blatantly oppress not only the political opponents of the regime, but the populations generally. We always have and continue to do so.
But when there is an understandable uprising of the discontented populace, we pretend that we not only support The People, but have supported their human rights all along.
Bullshit?
Are we going to turn against the other despots in the region now? Are we going to support The People, even though we don't know who they are or what they represent, or what (the fuck) will happen if they ultimately gain control?
Do we have any influence with Israel? Is there any pretense that we recognize their ultimate game plan (which is obvious but never spoken out loud), and either support it or oppose it? And why?
Do we have a coherent policy? Can somebody articulate it with sufficient precision that it will fit on a bumper sticker for me?
And I'm not bashing Barry here, our policy has been muddled enough for decades.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:11 pm
by dales
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:59 pm
by Scooter
Sue U wrote:Regardless of what you might think of Gaddafi, the situation in Lybia is a domestic insurrection/civil war that threatens no one outside the country (except, potentially, the economic interests of the oil industry, and even that is not clear).
This isn't strictly true. Continued violence in Libya threatens to send a flood of refugees across the borders and the Mediterranean, and indeed there are already substantial numbers of refugees in Egypt and Italy. While not constituting a "danger" to those countries, it nevertheless risks spiralling rapidly into a humanitarian crisis.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:01 pm
by Long Run
dgs49 wrote: Can somebody articulate it with sufficient precision that it will fit on a bumper sticker for me?
The things we do for oil
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:33 pm
by liberty
I have a hard time believing that the UN Security Council did something because it was the right thing to do. Is this some kind of trick?
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:58 pm
by Sue U
dgs49 wrote:While I don't pretend to be well-informed about U.S. policy in this part of the world, one does not have to be an expert to perceive that our policy is a mixed bag of hypocritical stupidity.
We support regimes that blatantly oppress not only the political opponents of the regime, but the populations generally. We always have and continue to do so.
But when there is an understandable uprising of the discontented populace, we pretend that we not only support The People, but have supported their human rights all along.
Bullshit?
Are we going to turn against the other despots in the region now? Are we going to support The People, even though we don't know who they are or what they represent, or what (the fuck) will happen if they ultimately gain control?
Do we have any influence with Israel? Is there any pretense that we recognize their ultimate game plan (which is obvious but never spoken out loud), and either support it or oppose it? And why?
Do we have a coherent policy? Can somebody articulate it with sufficient precision that it will fit on a bumper sticker for me?
And I'm not bashing Barry here, our policy has been muddled enough for decades.
American foreign policy has always been based first and foremost on protecting and advancing primarily commercial American interests abroad; security of international trade has always been the overarching goal of diplomacy (
see, e.g., the Barbary Wars and their resolution). If that has required relations with, and even support for, some unsavory governments, then that is the price paid. When that calculus is no longer cost-effective, diplomatic relations change (
see, e.g. Iraq 1983 v. Iraq 1990 for an object example;
see also Egypt 1981 v. Egypt 2011). Human rights runs a distant third or fourth place behind broader governmental economic and military cooperation. In the few instances where foreign policy is purportedly dictated by some "principled" position, it is invariably where economic and military interests are fairly insignificant (
see, e.g., embargo of Cuba).
When in the past have you ever expressed concern about human rights and political freedom for the citizens of Lybia, or Bahrain, or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Or Singapore, Malaysia or Indonesia, for that matter? When (and why) did you ever think that those issues might be of some relevance to U.S. foreign policy?
Also, what in the world do you think Israel's "ultimate game plan (which is obvious but never spoken out loud)" is???
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:12 pm
by dgs49
(a) Israel's game plan: Occupy, with military force if necessary, every square meter of arable or otherwise desirable land on the West Bank; leave nothing of value to the indigenous population; do whatever is necessary to see that the indigenous people never have a viable sovereign nation; use the indigenous people as a source of cheap labor.
(b) Given that Iraq under Saddam was a reliable source of oil for the world market (and would have been more so had the "sanctions" been lifted), what is the "commercial American interest" that induced the second Iraq war?
(c) What was the "commercial American interest" that led to our deposing the Taliban in Avganny-stan?
(d) Politically speaking, I have no interest or concern whatsoever for the "human rights" of the people living in these countries. When things get bad enough they will do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation, just as happened in other countries and regions of the world. Blood will be shed, but let it be their blood. On what basis should we expend American lives and treasure to "save" them? We're broke. We gave at the office.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:34 pm
by Joe Guy
I've read and listened to a lot of people who have said that Obama is dragging his feet on the Libyan situation and not acting soon enough.
One example I heard from a local talk show is that Obama said that Omar Khadafi needs to step down, so "Why isn't Obama doing anything about it?"
That is an example of the thought process of some people who have that opinion and also criticize the U.S. for being the world's "Police."
Of course, CONservative talk radio personalities use the situation in Libya to demonstrate how "weak" our current President is and how he can't make good decisions.
Bullfarts!
Obama has enough wars to deal with without going in and attacking another country's crazed leader. Why is it that we should be jumping in to help the Libyans instead of the people of Yemen? Should the U.S. also have taken the lead and taken out Mubarack in Egypt?
Why didn't we send fighter jets and marines years ago to Darfur or Rwanda?
How come we don't attack Mexico?
And those Canadians? Why are they allowed to sell us oil when we could just declare war on them and take over?
People need to get their priorities straight and realize that we are not obligated to act every time any people in any part of the world have a problem with their government.
Unless or until we solve our own problems here at home, we need to stay out of every other country's internal problems.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:40 pm
by Gob
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:41 pm
by Gob
Joe Guy wrote:I
People need to get their priorities straight and realize that we are not obligated to act every time any people in any part of the world have a problem with their government.
Unless or until we solve our own problems here at home, we need to stay out of every other country's internal problems.
I'm sure us outside of the USA would be cheering you on there Joe.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:33 pm
by rubato
The best thing that George H.W. Bush did was to enlist the support of most of the world in "Desert Storm". But without US leadership Saddam would now own Kuwait and maybe a large chunk of Saudi as well. The rest of the world are weak and rudderless w/o the US. But we have to be at our best.
I think Obama is doing the same thing here.
We'll see how it comes out, but allowing the rest of the UN to take a leadership role in the real fighting is a stroke of genius. They can earn their stripes by bearing a more significant portion of the real cost this time. And shedding blood in a cause ties the nation to the sacrifice of its servicemen and women. When a despot or a terroristic ideology says "America is evil" or "France is evil" in isolation that message has force. But when they have to say that "America, France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Germany, Spain, Austria, Iceland, Canada, New Zealand &c &c are ALL evil" their message loses force and they will fail.
George W. Bush fucked the donkey by rudely rejecting the help of France and others in Afghanistan (a typical "fuck the rest of the world" Republican error) where allowing their support would have tied them to the larger success of the operation; and the larger success was not trivial like a mere military victory was. The larger success was to leave behind a legitimate government which would suppress terrorism especially across the border with Pakistan. And that is something that we alone can not do. But we with our allies, including the Islamic ones, might.
yrs,
rubato
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:37 pm
by Gob
Now watch Gaddafi's forces take a bit of thier own medicine...
The UK, the US and France have begun attacking Libya as enforcement of the UN-mandated no-fly zone gets under way.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya. French planes flew reconnaissance missions and destroyed Libyan vehicles earlier on Saturday.
US media say the US has fired Cruise missiles on Libya from a warship.
Western planes bombed targets in the capital, Tripoli, said the AFP news agency, quoting witnesses and state TV.
A British submarine has fired a number of missiles at Libyan air defence targets, the Ministry of Defence said.
Prime Minister David Cameron said that launching military action against Libya was "necessary, legal and right".
Libyan state TV reported that what it called the "crusader enemy" had bombed civilian areas of Tripoli, as well as fuel storage tanks supplying the western city of Misrata.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:48 pm
by Joe Guy
I guess we (the U.S.) got a bit bored with fighting in only two wars for so long that we decided we needed some new blood.
I'm proud to be an American.
We always defend people that are being slaughtered by their own government (unless, of course there is no oil in it for us).
But hey... we can't be everywhere and our resources are limited.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:40 am
by dales
Here's my 2 cents.
All US troops out of ALL foreign lands.
Europe, Asia, The Middle East and anywhere else we don't belong.
Our resources ($$$$$$$) could be better used by spending it on AMERICANS CITIZENS and helping people (AMERICANS!) suffering thru the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression.
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:22 am
by Gob
Allied forces
UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines
France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships
US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney
Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available
Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972
Re: UN authorises force against Gaddafi (at fucking last)
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:35 pm
by Big RR
We always defend people that are being slaughtered by their own government (unless, of course there is no oil in it for us).
And many times, awful governments which are threatened by their own people.
