Should Sweden attack Libya?

[emzie]

I honestly don't think there needed here, it would be more beneficial to see Morocco or another Arab/Islamic country get involved.

France says a few nations have pledged fighters for the second phase. Wikipedia says Qatar and UAE, but I don't like their source (fijitimes?)

http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=168619

Does not seem to be a wire story so I'm not sure how much weight to give it. If true, UAE is pledging 2 dozen fighters and Qatar another 6.

 

[West 36]

I've heard similar things from BBC and al-Jazeera. Don't remember the exact figures but they were something like that.

 

[Mad Man]

I heard of Qatar specifically in the news, but I was hoping for a more prominent Muslim nation to take a stand against Libya, but I suppose they all have there own problems to contend with at the moment to be bothered.

 

[Hakim]

No country should engage in any international operations if there's a risk that it will have to abandon it soon afterwards. You can't have dozens of countries dipping their toes in an armed conflict only to run away as soon as it turns hot or get boring (ie takes longer than expected).

That spells no for Sweden. The country's political situation is a bit unstable for the moment. The government doesn't have a majority in parliament. Even if it did, any decision to take part in military action should have the support of the main opposition party which is in a leadership change right now and not fit to decide on such things. Since the election, Sweden can't be a trusted to uphold responsibilities like this because there's a constant risk that opposing policy is forced upon the government. Better for all everyone if it stays out then.

 

[Xanikk999]

Why bother?

You got the United States, NATO, France, and the U.K already owning the airspace and kicking ass.

What little military Sweden has would not be needed. Might as well not get involved in a bloody clean-up like the U.S has been in Afghanistan the past 10 years.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

No country should engage in any international operations if there's a risk that it will have to abandon it soon afterwards. You can't have dozens of countries dipping their toes in an armed conflict only to run away as soon as it turns hot or get boring (ie takes longer than expected).

That spells no for Sweden. The country's political situation is a bit unstable for the moment. The government doesn't have a majority in parliament. Even if it did, any decision to take part in military action should have the support of the main opposition party which is in a leadership change right now and not fit to decide on such things. Since the election, Sweden can't be a trusted to uphold responsibilities like this because there's a constant risk that opposing policy is forced upon the government. Better for all everyone if it stays out then.

Although, I think there's a broad, block transgressing(?) support for taking part in this operation. It's mostly the Moderates that have been silent, and the commies of course...

 

[Verbose]

What little military Sweden has would not be needed. Might as well not get involved in a bloody clean-up like the U.S has been in Afghanistan the past 10 years.

That's probably also a bit of a Swedish sore point. Due to the Gripen program getting the go-ahead just at the very end (which came kind of sudden) of the Cold War, Sweden has a ridiculously over-sized airforce for a small-to-middling western European state.

 

[berkut]

The problem is that there are too many europian countries in that atack, and too few arabs countries or countries from other places of the world to avoid the same old crusade/ colonization retoric.

 

[Verbose]

Well, my morning paper (DN) is now reporting that NATO is going to pop the question to Sweden about chipping in pretty soon.

Apparently the US has decided to hold back and that the other NATO members should do most of the flying. (Which kind of makes political sense as US aircraft over Arab nations tends to be viewed as more problematic in a said Arab nations.)

At the same time, to assemble the number of aircraft to keep this up for any amount of time the non-US NATO members might actually have to strain themselves. Which means since the Swedish airforce is one of the bigger and more competent ones in Europe, aside from the Big Boys (France, UK, Germany, Italy,and at least Germany is out for now) it starts looking interesting to them.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

This was a Franco-British endeavor from the start, let them handle it, we have nothing to gain from bombing Libya. I would support extra humanitarian aid though.

Where is Russia on this btw? Not that they matter as much as they used to but still.

 

[dosed150]

This was a Franco-British endeavor from the start, let them handle it, we have nothing to gain from bombing Libya. I would support extra humanitarian aid though.

Where is Russia on this btw? Not that they matter as much as they used to but still.

I think their just staying out completely, they abstained on the un resolution

as for sweden, i think the broader the coalition the better, and sweden is known for having a good airforce, and if they want to sell the gripen, an actual conflict demonstration could help

 

[Godwynn]

Yes, Sweden should attack, but only if they do it old school.

 

[onedreamer]

Do I as a citizen i neutral Sweden have a moral obligation to support an attack on Libya, which is in a state of civil war? On what moral ground in that case? Will this responsibility continue and stretch globally as more nations with an increase of economical and democratic issues revolt against their governments/regimes? Has our neutrality lost all meaning?

All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.E. Burke

That is all I have to say about the so called "neutrality" or "non interventionism". Rather than the last question, you should ask yourself "Has our humanity lost all its meaning, so much so that we became fat pigs watching on TV dictators massacring civilians of their own country?".

 

[onedreamer]

Where is Russia on this btw? Not that they matter as much as they used to but still.

In this episode, they play the role of those who sold weapons to Libya and would like this to not change, but of course can't state it publicly so they just abstain in resolutions. I hope you got the picture from this brief summary.

France and UK are interventionist because they have other interests which instead are clashing with that awfully crazy charachter that is Qaddafi.

It is important to note that common people are not involved in these decisions, when it comes down to foreign politics, governments (ie the oligarchy) does whatever is in their own best interest and all these discussions are wasted time.

 

[Verbose]

It is important to note that common people are not involved in these decisions, when it comes down to foreign politics, governments (ie the oligarchy) does whatever is in their own best interest and all these discussions are wasted time.

Hohum, that's Italian experiences of politics talking I think we can assume...

 

[onedreamer]

I have one last thing to say about "neutrality". This term is anachronistic, it was valid up until 2nd world war, we now live in a world where a country cannot lock itself out of the planet, everything is globalized and what happens in Libya does affect the whole world. Calling in "neutrality" does not make any sense nowadays.

Hohum, that's Italian experiences of politics talking I think we can assume...

Very hilarious, go read the thread started by SiLL and see how well do Germans agree with the decision of their country to stay "neutral". What about the war in Iraq, did the British population agree with the attack? War in Vietnam, Americans? Do yourself a favor and spare us from these childish comments.

 

[Verbose]

No, it actually seems to be one of these fundamental differences between Italian politics and how it works elsewhere. It's of course childish to expect otherwise wihin Italian politics, but Italian politics is kind of bad joke which outsider don't get anyway. All this is entirely off topic of course, except for the fact that differences of this kind seriosuly colours expectations and assumptions about what's going on.

 

[onedreamer]

continue with your generalist, uninformed, OT and childish remarks as much as you feel necessary to show the rest of the forum the importance of your thought Verbose.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Hohum, that's Italian experiences of politics talking I think we can assume...

No. Sarkozy didn't ask anybody as he doesn't have to thanks to our (I mean the french) constitution.

 

[Verbose]

I have no beef with anyone describing Italian politics as ruled by oligarchal interest. Knowing what I know of French politics, I don't have much of a problem with that either (preseidential rule and political parties that are mere election-campaign machines).

Make it blanket statement about politics in the various EU nations in general however, I'm just pointing out that the fit is often a lot less thight than those of you who have taken umbrage seem to think.