Libya
Posted by: JamieWednesday on 19 March 2011
All kicking off then...
I can't believe the French went in first!!!
I can't believe the French went in first!!!
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by David Scott
"Sometimes people write in metaphor, which is perfectly clear in its intended meaning. Only a numpty would fail to notice the metaphoric aspect, if they gave it a second thought. "
And sometimes when somebody uses a word in a certain context it's clear that they are aware that it's a technical term in that context and believe they are using it appropriately. If they are wrong then, unfortunately, they invite the attack of the pedant.
Of course, if one didn't realise it was a technical term, or assumed for some reason that the person using it didn't, then one might imagine it was intended as a metaphor.
I always think at least twice before I post anything.
And sometimes when somebody uses a word in a certain context it's clear that they are aware that it's a technical term in that context and believe they are using it appropriately. If they are wrong then, unfortunately, they invite the attack of the pedant.
Of course, if one didn't realise it was a technical term, or assumed for some reason that the person using it didn't, then one might imagine it was intended as a metaphor.
I always think at least twice before I post anything.
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by GraemeH
This must rank as the shortest number of posts to go from world crisis to self-absorbed one-upmanship in the history of the naim forum.
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by graham55
So, to take it back, the pro-Gadaffi Libyans are taking up the arse. Which is well deserved......
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by George Fredrik
To skip back to the reason for the thread, it already seems that the "intervention" is stiffening the resolve of at least ordinary Libyans, who may or may not be great supporters of their current leader, but would rather not see Western aircraft and missiles attacking their country.
I see nothing about this adventure that reasures me that our interventions will do anything but make the situation worse in the immediate furture, and certainly the long term.
Originally Posted by George Fredrik:
Almost certainly this is a lose-lose situation for anyone who interferes in the affairs of a nation like Libya.
The interventionists will be blamed for whatever happens, and what will happen will not be pretty with or without intervention from foreign powers. The question that cannot be answered is whether it would be better for the Libyan population as a result of intervention. As this question cannot possibly be answered then the case for intervening fails, however horrible the results might be without such an intevention. It could well be worse as a direct result of the intervention.
It is part of the evolution of culture that such issues are faced-off and solved with the resourced of that society - not applied from without.
It is an act of supreme hubris for us to imagine that we can teach the Libyans anything today that they have not learned from us in the last milenium. It seems to me that they probably think they have a thing or two to teach us! Given that gulf of cultural values, it is best to watch [and possibly be deeply sadden by] the inevitable horrors without getting bitten in a fight of a civil war nature, and alienating the Libyan population more than isolationism obviously would to some degree.
When there is a new government there, albeit it may be years hence, then that is the time to make offical contacts at a diplomatic level.
This does not rule out making contacts with the potential replacement regimes, but the selection and installation of the next Libyan regime is a matter for Libya and her population, and certainly not for Europeans or Americans.
Sincerely, George
The interventionists will be blamed for whatever happens, and what will happen will not be pretty with or without intervention from foreign powers. The question that cannot be answered is whether it would be better for the Libyan population as a result of intervention. As this question cannot possibly be answered then the case for intervening fails, however horrible the results might be without such an intevention. It could well be worse as a direct result of the intervention.
It is part of the evolution of culture that such issues are faced-off and solved with the resourced of that society - not applied from without.
It is an act of supreme hubris for us to imagine that we can teach the Libyans anything today that they have not learned from us in the last milenium. It seems to me that they probably think they have a thing or two to teach us! Given that gulf of cultural values, it is best to watch [and possibly be deeply sadden by] the inevitable horrors without getting bitten in a fight of a civil war nature, and alienating the Libyan population more than isolationism obviously would to some degree.
When there is a new government there, albeit it may be years hence, then that is the time to make offical contacts at a diplomatic level.
This does not rule out making contacts with the potential replacement regimes, but the selection and installation of the next Libyan regime is a matter for Libya and her population, and certainly not for Europeans or Americans.
Sincerely, George
If we could avoid going off-piste it is still possible that this thread may at least be a place to share contrasted topical views.
ATB from George
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by Don Atkinson
OK, back on track - without too much thought.
Top man in Libya (allegedly) retains his position by tribal torture and fear. Nothing new - fairly typical of much of the Arab world for centuries (and much of Europe until a couple of hundred years ago)
Top man in Libya is challenged and reacts with viscious violence, killing a few thousand opponents and promises to kill anybody else who threatens him.
Option 1 - Rest of the world stands by and watches.
Option 2 - Rest of the world, after extended debate (say 3 months) eventually unites and says "sod it! too late, we really should have intervened" (shades of Ruanda or Bosnia)
Option 3 - Rest of the world sort of reaches agreement and asks the "usual gang" to take some urgent military action which isn't perfect, but stops most of the viscious killing by the Top Man. Rest of the world reviews situation after (say) 10 days and suspends military action (assuming all is well) with promise to re-start if Top Man renews his viscious violence. Usual gang ceases military action as soon as the rest of the world gets cold feet. [We then revert to Option 1 or 2 or 3 again.]
i'm for Option 3 but open to further suggestions
Cheers
Don
Top man in Libya (allegedly) retains his position by tribal torture and fear. Nothing new - fairly typical of much of the Arab world for centuries (and much of Europe until a couple of hundred years ago)
Top man in Libya is challenged and reacts with viscious violence, killing a few thousand opponents and promises to kill anybody else who threatens him.
Option 1 - Rest of the world stands by and watches.
Option 2 - Rest of the world, after extended debate (say 3 months) eventually unites and says "sod it! too late, we really should have intervened" (shades of Ruanda or Bosnia)
Option 3 - Rest of the world sort of reaches agreement and asks the "usual gang" to take some urgent military action which isn't perfect, but stops most of the viscious killing by the Top Man. Rest of the world reviews situation after (say) 10 days and suspends military action (assuming all is well) with promise to re-start if Top Man renews his viscious violence. Usual gang ceases military action as soon as the rest of the world gets cold feet. [We then revert to Option 1 or 2 or 3 again.]
i'm for Option 3 but open to further suggestions
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by JamieWednesday
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by David Scott
I seem to have taken a certain amount of stick for my part in the digression above, so one last post in my defence.
My post was completely relevant to the one I replied to.
I never pretended it was important. In fact by being clear that I was being pedantic, I think I implied that it wasn't.
I didn't insult anyone.
The Libyan crisis is indeed terribly important. This however is a thread on an internet forum.
My post was completely relevant to the one I replied to.
I never pretended it was important. In fact by being clear that I was being pedantic, I think I implied that it wasn't.
I didn't insult anyone.
The Libyan crisis is indeed terribly important. This however is a thread on an internet forum.
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Mike-B
+1 for Option 3
But I am sure we might see 3a, 3b & maybe an Option 4 before its all over
I have a nasty feeling that in a few years time we still might not like the outcome.
Then what ??
Slightly off topic - Yemen.
Looks like a good chance that President Saleh is close to being ousted
That will leave the already very strong & fragmented tribal leaders to take over, that will turn to a series of tribal conflicts & the growth & local influence of Al Qaeda & possibly Taliban.
Then what ?? The Saudi's getting involved ?? That will be a first
But I am sure we might see 3a, 3b & maybe an Option 4 before its all over
I have a nasty feeling that in a few years time we still might not like the outcome.
Then what ??
Slightly off topic - Yemen.
Looks like a good chance that President Saleh is close to being ousted
That will leave the already very strong & fragmented tribal leaders to take over, that will turn to a series of tribal conflicts & the growth & local influence of Al Qaeda & possibly Taliban.
Then what ?? The Saudi's getting involved ?? That will be a first
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by JamieWednesday:
Opinions and context
http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/...130486/-/13bm0w0z/-/
Oh Gaawd! not another lesson in slavery and colonialism.http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/...130486/-/13bm0w0z/-/
I blame the first modern men who left Africa 75,000 years ago. Go tell them what a mess we're in.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by JamieWednesday
Personally, I share the view that climbing down out of the trees was our mistake...
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Hook
I have never been more confused by an international crisis.
I get it that Gaddafi is a bad guy. But does that make the "rebels" good guys? I read that they are mostly fundamentalist Muslims -- jihadists with close ties to Al-Qaeda.
I read that we (France, UK and US) are bombing Gaddafi's tanks and planes to prevent them from slaughtering innocent civilians -- to prevent another Rwanda. But all of the videos show rebels with guns and bazookas, just not as many as Gadaffi's side has.
I get it that we are operating under a UN resolution, and at the request of the Arab League. But no buy-in from China, Russia, India or Germany. We have put hundreds of millions into training the army in Egypt, right next door. Would this be a good time to call in those debts?
I thought we were only supposed to wage war when there is a clear and present danger...is that the case here? Or are we simply picking sides in yet another foreign country's civil war?
And oh yeah, what is the goal of all this? Kill Gadaffi? Install our own, more friendly Libyan government? Where will those people come from? The jihaddist rebels? Really hard to understand what the long term goals are...or even what they should be.
Also read that every Tomahawk missile fired costs $600k. 2 teachers salaries.....for a decade.
It all makes my head hurt.
Hook
I get it that Gaddafi is a bad guy. But does that make the "rebels" good guys? I read that they are mostly fundamentalist Muslims -- jihadists with close ties to Al-Qaeda.
I read that we (France, UK and US) are bombing Gaddafi's tanks and planes to prevent them from slaughtering innocent civilians -- to prevent another Rwanda. But all of the videos show rebels with guns and bazookas, just not as many as Gadaffi's side has.
I get it that we are operating under a UN resolution, and at the request of the Arab League. But no buy-in from China, Russia, India or Germany. We have put hundreds of millions into training the army in Egypt, right next door. Would this be a good time to call in those debts?
I thought we were only supposed to wage war when there is a clear and present danger...is that the case here? Or are we simply picking sides in yet another foreign country's civil war?
And oh yeah, what is the goal of all this? Kill Gadaffi? Install our own, more friendly Libyan government? Where will those people come from? The jihaddist rebels? Really hard to understand what the long term goals are...or even what they should be.
Also read that every Tomahawk missile fired costs $600k. 2 teachers salaries.....for a decade.
It all makes my head hurt.
Hook
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by jayd
Originally Posted by Hook:
Also read that every Tomahawk missile fired costs $600k. 2 teachers salaries.....for a decade.
It all makes my head hurt.
Hook
"You can't simultaneously fire teachers and Tomahawk missiles."It all makes my head hurt.
Hook
Jon Stewart
Great minds...
(full clip here)
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Don Atkinson
Hook
Don't complicate matters.
Gadaffi is a despot dictator. He has (allegedly) murdered or ordered the murder of lots of people.
Some people in Libya want to have more freedom than they currently enjoy and protested against Gadaffi
Gadaffi responded by killing the protesters using artillary, tanks and ground attack aircraft.
The UN authorised volunteer countries to try to deny Gadaffi from using his artillary, tanks and aircraft.
This is what is happing at present. The volunteers include the USA, France, UK and Qatar.
The UN hasn't decided what happens next. It's not for the volunteers to make that call - althought they could make suggestions to the UN, just like anybody else.
It would be a good idea for the UN to make that decision about the future quickly - but I can't recall the UN ever acting quickly. That's were it gets complicated.
The volunteers should cease their action when Gadaffi's weapons have been nutralised or significantly reduced, or if the UN or Arab League cease to provide continued support for the volunteer action.
Cheers
Don
Don't complicate matters.
Gadaffi is a despot dictator. He has (allegedly) murdered or ordered the murder of lots of people.
Some people in Libya want to have more freedom than they currently enjoy and protested against Gadaffi
Gadaffi responded by killing the protesters using artillary, tanks and ground attack aircraft.
The UN authorised volunteer countries to try to deny Gadaffi from using his artillary, tanks and aircraft.
This is what is happing at present. The volunteers include the USA, France, UK and Qatar.
The UN hasn't decided what happens next. It's not for the volunteers to make that call - althought they could make suggestions to the UN, just like anybody else.
It would be a good idea for the UN to make that decision about the future quickly - but I can't recall the UN ever acting quickly. That's were it gets complicated.
The volunteers should cease their action when Gadaffi's weapons have been nutralised or significantly reduced, or if the UN or Arab League cease to provide continued support for the volunteer action.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Haim Ronen
Perhaps the prize should be returned to Sweden.
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by u6213129461734706
It's kind of hopeless. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm inclined to think we (the West) should stay out of it. If we help bring any result there, with good intentions, it will be tainted by default, the West will be blamed for bringing it about, the unrest and uncertainty will go on much longer.
Dave
Dave
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Hook
Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:
Hook
Don't complicate matters....
Don't complicate matters....
Hi Don -
Most of the complications I raised (who are the good guys? what are the goals? will countries with better balance sheets ever invest in these worldwide police actions?, etc.) were first raised by Hillary Clinton on March 3rd in her testimony before the US congress.
So if it is complicated to her, is it any wonder why it is complicated to me and so many others?
The result you describe -- crippling Gadaffi to the point of stalemate -- sounds like it could be one of the worst possible outcomes. What would be the result of stalemate? Endless low-level civil war? Or perhaps another long-term occupation like Afghanistan or the Balkans?
I really do understand how evil Gadaffi is. But just like with that other maniac, Saddam Hussein, I wonder if we are once again grossly underestimating how much time, effort, money and, most important of all, lives, it will cost to create something better. I wonder if we have any plan at all for what to do once the conventional war has ended.
My opinion is that the only reason the US has agreed to intervene in Libya was politics. If the democrat administration stood by and did nothing why slaughter played out on the evening news, then the republicans and Fox news would have been given a huge opportunity for criticism. As for France and the UK, it looks to me like their reason for intervening is more straight forward: a nearby source of light, sweet oil.
Hook
Posted on: 23 March 2011 by Don Atkinson
Hook
Most "wars" are a bit like chess. You can't see much more than two or three moves ahead. Of course it is right to have a strategy to get right through to the end, but it's unwise to presume everything will go acording to plan.
As for the ulterior motives of everybody involved - we can all speculate to our hearts' content. The opposition and the opponants to war always paint the most disparaging picture possible, whilst the proponants always paint the most altruistic picture.
Transfering "morals" from one war (or potential war) to another isn't always appropriate.
As I see it in Libya, Gadaffi was murdering people. The international community agreed he should be stopped. Beyond that ? who knows ?
Cheers
Don
Most "wars" are a bit like chess. You can't see much more than two or three moves ahead. Of course it is right to have a strategy to get right through to the end, but it's unwise to presume everything will go acording to plan.
As for the ulterior motives of everybody involved - we can all speculate to our hearts' content. The opposition and the opponants to war always paint the most disparaging picture possible, whilst the proponants always paint the most altruistic picture.
Transfering "morals" from one war (or potential war) to another isn't always appropriate.
As I see it in Libya, Gadaffi was murdering people. The international community agreed he should be stopped. Beyond that ? who knows ?
Cheers
Don