Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Sbane]

As for Obama's ME policy in general, I'm just trying to figure out whether it's incompetent or sinister.  Seriously.

What would you prefer he do? Seriously.

[Sbane]

And the west is watching all this without doing anything...

Who are we to be world police and impose our cultural values on others? You don't want to be a colonialist imperialist, do you?

The west gains nothing from intervening. If we can get some Arab states to do our dirty job then we should go for it. Otherwise the west needs to stay out.

[Sbane]

And the west is watching all this without doing anything...

Who are we to be world police and impose our cultural values on others? You don't want to be a colonialist imperialist, do you?

The west gains nothing from intervening. If we can get some Arab states to do our dirty job then we should go for it. Otherwise the west needs to stay out.

except that no Middle Eastern or African Nation has frozen Gaddafi's assets. (And the chairman of the African Union is freaking Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, a nation that has blacked out all coverage of the Libyan uprising)

the Arab government's are in an interesting spot of doing nothing to work for greater freedoms, and then using their media outlets to blame other people for their problems.

In other words, wait on the Arab league, and watch Muammar do a Saddam 1991 on the protesters as the Arab League does nothing. Followed by the people thinking the US is bad. And do something, and watch people think the US is bad.

So it's a matter of choosing who you want to be madder at you. And here, it'd probably be a lot of refugees who will have lost everything and who would have a grudge against the US government.

In the scheme of things, either Gaddafi dies or the protesters die. There's no exile or no compromise.

Oh yeah, they're gonna hold prayers outdoors in the Green Square to make it easier to murder any protesters. And Misurata got bombed.

Damn, deciding on a No-Fly Zone is hard, let's give Gaddafi a few more weeks to attack his opposition from the air.

Why do we owe the protestors anything? We shouldn't give Gaddafi any support but I don't see why military intervention is necessary. Then everyone is going to say the US is going in for the oil. It looks bad, and we don't gain anything. It's time to stop playing policeman.

[Sbane]

And the west is watching all this without doing anything...

Who are we to be world police and impose our cultural values on others? You don't want to be a colonialist imperialist, do you?

The west gains nothing from intervening. If we can get some Arab states to do our dirty job then we should go for it. Otherwise the west needs to stay out.

except that no Middle Eastern or African Nation has frozen Gaddafi's assets. (And the chairman of the African Union is freaking Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, a nation that has blacked out all coverage of the Libyan uprising)

the Arab government's are in an interesting spot of doing nothing to work for greater freedoms, and then using their media outlets to blame other people for their problems.

In other words, wait on the Arab league, and watch Muammar do a Saddam 1991 on the protesters as the Arab League does nothing. Followed by the people thinking the US is bad. And do something, and watch people think the US is bad.

So it's a matter of choosing who you want to be madder at you. And here, it'd probably be a lot of refugees who will have lost everything and who would have a grudge against the US government.

In the scheme of things, either Gaddafi dies or the protesters die. There's no exile or no compromise.

Oh yeah, they're gonna hold prayers outdoors in the Green Square to make it easier to murder any protesters. And Misurata got bombed.

Damn, deciding on a No-Fly Zone is hard, let's give Gaddafi a few more weeks to attack his opposition from the air.

Why do we owe the protestors anything? We shouldn't give Gaddafi any support but I don't see why military intervention is necessary. Then everyone is going to say the US is going in for the oil. It looks bad, and we don't gain anything. It's time to stop playing policeman.

He is drawing a parallel to how the US should have saved the Iraqi Shi'ites in 1991 from Saddam Hussein's wrath.

This is somewhat different anyway.

Until Qaddafi loses control of Sabha we wont find anything interesting.

The problem with that uprising by the shiites in 1991 was that it followed a few months after a US military operation. That is why they could have expected US support.

We have our hands relatively clean in Libya. Let's keep it that way.

[Sbane]

Remind me the U.S.' vital interest there again?  Oh, wait, OIL!!!!!!!

Damn that Bush Obama for getting us into a fight over oil.

To be fair, this is more similar to the Kuwait war than the 2003 Iraq war. The whole world (or at least the west with the rest of the world just laying low) wants that oil. This means that if things go sh**tty, the US isn't the only bad guy. In a globalized world, that means a lot.

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac and told France and UK to go it alone. 

[Sbane]

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac and told France and UK to go it alone. 

Of course, why would we bother saving all those lives if it takes so much time and make us waste so much money ?

Hmm...why didn't the west get involved in Sudan or countless different places around the world? What's so special about Libya. People around the world can put 2 and 2 together you know.

And no this not about money. I would gladly donate whatever money the US used for those operations to the Libyan people.

[Sbane]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

Also my conscience is perfectly clear. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew the reason for my opposition isn't money.

[Sbane]

It's not as if Gaddafi was ever our friend. I would be surprised if we bombed friendly Arab nations if there were insurrections there.

[Sbane]

I think we thought if we did this, Gaddafi would fall quickly and things could get back to normal with us buying oil from a friend. This was certainly not all about oil, Gaddafi's relationships with the countries involved and the way he acted after the protests started all played a part. But let's not pretend as if Gaddafi's the most horrible guy out there. Plenty of dickish mass murderers around.

[Sbane]

Eh, I am basically against intervention everywhere. Still it is interesting to see something happen only in Libya. Only country the us military can do anything in apparently.

[Sbane]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

*facepalm*

It's really sad to hear this kind of kind of arguments from you, after having been surrounded for years by bigoted "pacifists" and "anti-imperialists" in my country.

For your information, oil trade with Libya was going extremely well under Gaddafi. And not only oil, countries like France had important economic partnerships with Libya. Not to forget that Gaddafi was blocking emigrants for us. Basically, Europeans had every possible reason not to support Gaddafi and to hope he would resist. As for the rebels, a lot of westerners still feared "bearded men" as Opebo would say. There is no economical reason that would have led to western intervention. Not even one.

Of course there is an economic reason. You think they were only thinking of the short term? After the revolution started, and Gaddafi refused to back down when the west asked him to, the die was cast. At that point we probably just wanted a friendly face selling us oil and thought a little bombing would be enough to end Gaddafi (and in the end we might get rid or Gaddaffi and install a friend). Obviously the west isn't going in there to steal oil or any of that crap. And there were certainly other reasons for going in, as I have acknowledged here and in previous posts. That being said there is still a reason why we intervened in Libya and not in most other places.

And I doubt the only reason is because it's "easy" to do so in Libya.

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

[Sbane]

The relationship probably went south when gaddafi told the west to mind it's own business. Like I said, the die was cast at that point. Not to mention the fighting did stop the flow of oil and until the revolution ended it was unlikely to start up in a big way. Perhaps the west thought they would quickly end the revolution? And like I said economic concerns were one of many concerns.

And this isn't a matter of not feeling empathy for the Libyan people, but is it really the proper role of the united states and the west to go about intervening in other countries?

[Sbane]

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

Radical or not, it's an idea that makes me sick. When you see a govermnent slaughtering its own people, when you see massacres committed, "doing our own business" and not doing anything to stop it is untolerable. I couldn't care less about "national sovereignty" and all this bullsh*t. Human life and liberty come before all.

So Britain should have been invaded and Churchill hanged for the Bengal famine?

[Sbane]

Or the whole list of atrocities the west has committed. Did the citizens of those states deserved to get bombed?

[Sbane]

Syria will go sectarian once Assad's position looks fragile.

Have the protests been mostly sunni led?

[Sbane]

No, they probably just want to keep the Golan heights. Any settlements there yet?

[Sbane]

No, they probably just want to keep the Golan heights. Any settlements there yet?

There are not just settlements in the Golan Heights. It's been formally annexed into Israeli territory, which isn't the case for the West Bank and Gaza.

Aha, thanks for that info. Lol at the notion Israel will ever get rid of it then.

[Sbane]

If one can consume beef in India, one should be able to kick back on a Tripoli beach and indulge in a bacon cheeseburger and a Dead Guy Ale.

Indeed. Though I have never eaten Beef in India. No need when there is such good food being served by family all the time. I would really like to try. I did make Biryani with Beef on my own. It was pretty good. Would like to try it in Hyderabad itself though. Or Bengali style meat curry with Beef instead of Goat.