Italy really is in the best location. Greece is second. Malta lacks the facilities.
U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
- Thread starter Incodcito
- Start date
Italy really is in the best location. Greece is second. Malta lacks the facilities.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I figured it would happen, but I'm surprised it happened a bit later than I expected. I wonder if the fact that the rebels are losing ground hastened the decision making process.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
This would have been awesome two weeks ago, now its a bit to little to late I am afraid. The funny thing is that there is no real difference in the reasons to come to this course of action than there was then, all we needed is one particular person to have taken this leadership opportunity to do something that was a no brainer.
In any case, let not indulge in the fantasy that this will be anything but a US operation with a token handful of Europens to pretend this is international in character. Even with Italy involved it won't matter much. Italy was involved in the Serbia/Kosovo campign too and the US flew 90% of the sorties there witht the ranges much closer and the targets much softer. Not to mention the militaries of NATO are weaker than they were a decade ago.
I hope we can pull something out of this though.
In any case, let not indulge in the fantasy that this will be anything but a US operation with a token handful of Europens to pretend this is international in character. Even with Italy involved it won't matter much. Italy was involved in the Serbia/Kosovo campign too and the US flew 90% of the sorties there witht the ranges much closer and the targets much softer. Not to mention the militaries of NATO are weaker than they were a decade ago.
I hope we can pull something out of this though.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Of course Patroklos can't deny that NATO can suddenly increase their capacity and manpower in a matter of months or years while preparing for a large scale offensive of stabilizing a troublesome region or a country.
The other possibility of course is that this galvanises opposition to Gaddhafi in the areas he controls, as well as weakens his hold over the still-loyal military.
The situation started with massed street protests, with demonstrators and defecting troops taking control of large parts of the country. Why couldn't that happen again now that they know the international community is taking sides? Surely this would make waverers and doubters more likely to side with the revolution. Will there be new demonstrations in Tripoli and elsewhere now, more defections, tribes and jets and army units switching sides? News spreads fast, after all.
The situation started with massed street protests, with demonstrators and defecting troops taking control of large parts of the country. Why couldn't that happen again now that they know the international community is taking sides? Surely this would make waverers and doubters more likely to side with the revolution. Will there be new demonstrations in Tripoli and elsewhere now, more defections, tribes and jets and army units switching sides? News spreads fast, after all.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Democratic Movements now spread fast.
Yeah, they're going to have the tough decision of either choosing the front seat or the back seat.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
Actually yeah. Nobody intervened when they were firing on protesters, but now that they're taking out rebels and reclaiming land they want to intervene. I mean Bahrain is firing on protesters too.
I don't know, something about attacking Libya's military and defenses in order to prevent Khadafi from attacking rebels doesn't sit right with me. You have to attack before imposing a no-fly zone, and it's obvious it would be imposed to support the rebels, not some veiled excuse of protecting civilians.
Why is Europe so interested in helping the rebels? What's going on behind the scenes?
EDIT: I'm not against this. I want the S.O.B gone. The timing of it is not sitting right with me; a leader trying to take back control of his country from rebels and the UN comes along and says "no", with the US a major backer of the initiative, and yet there's past criticism of policing the world and sticking our noses in affairs that aren't ours.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Arwon is right. It is all about a popularity contest. Qaddafi failed in being "popular" in the school of international hard knocks.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
I see your point. I would have supported an intervention two weeks ago and I still support it now.
The timing is terrible, doesn't mean it's too late to do something.
Ah yes, Europe. I'm as europatriotic as the next guy (unless the next guy is an american rightwinger or Quackers) but this looks like a clear case of national politics. The British are so pro-american and pro-intervention that they want to commit before the USA even opens it's mouth, the French and Italians are pissed off because their pal Ghaddafi is bombing civilians and has again excluded himself from polite society and is embarrassing his friends. France and Italy traditionally regard northern africa as their backyard and while they usually support dictators as long as they keep things quiet and smooth, Ghaddafi has just proven himself unreliable and since it's now impossible to defend him the only available course of action is do remove him.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
It's about time they did something. What took them so long?
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Politics, NikyJ.
We should do that anyway.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
I agree that the americans for once are the reluctant ones. But I'm not sure that the french and the british really intend to remove Qaddafi. I still think this is just theater.
In any case, the last time France and the UK allied to invade north Africa was in 1956 and we all know how it ended. This time, if they really mean to invade Libya, at least they seem to have done some horse-trading with the americans before jumping to it. But Algeria, Morocco and even Egypt will not be pleased with any attempt at occupying Libya, never mind the talk bout support from the Arab League. Not at all, the colonial past is too recent to forget.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
I support it, I'm all for getting rid of dictators like Khadafi and Hussein. It's the reasons for removing them that I have problems with as government leaders tell us, which are never the real reasons. No, don't do anything when he's firing on innocent protesters, do something when he's fighting armed rebels who are taking over his country - the one situation where you should not intervene (that's a purely internal fight that should be left to them and them alone, or else why don't we intervene in all government vs rebel situations around the world?).
You see what I mean? Why it just doesn't sit right with me? It's kinda like when Principal Rooney made that strange face when watching Ferris in disguise kiss his girlfriend...something's just not right.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
I don't think so, but we'll see. To remove Ghaddaif looks like the only available option right now for any western power intent to remain at least a nuance of credibility
An invasion is highly unlikely, never mind an enduring occupation. The Arab League has called for a no-fly zone and western intervention against the regime and that's what we should do. Every measure beyond that should be civilian rather than military. Support towards the establishment of "something like a democracy" -because I don't think we can just transplant our political system- and stabilising the new state and the economy without boots on the ground.
I don't think the idea is that the foreigners remove Gaddafi.
The distinction you're drawing between protesters and rebels really doesn't exist. It was Gaddafi who escalated the situation, they're still the same people he's fighting. The reason for the timing is solely because it took this long to do the delicate multilateral international diplomacy thing. Credit to Obama for playing that game, something his predecessor could not hope to have done.
At any rate, I think a lot of people are falling into the trap of assuming the western powers are the primary agents and makers of these events, just because they've decided to lend force to the situation. Really, they're pretty clearly functioning as a secondary, external balance-tipping force to stop Gaddafi winning so the revolutionaries can.
It's an unfamiliar situation, because we're not used to Middle Eastern people being the primary driving agents in their own affairs and the West being forced to take a back seat.
The distinction you're drawing between protesters and rebels really doesn't exist. It was Gaddafi who escalated the situation, they're still the same people he's fighting. The reason for the timing is solely because it took this long to do the delicate multilateral international diplomacy thing. Credit to Obama for playing that game, something his predecessor could not hope to have done.
At any rate, I think a lot of people are falling into the trap of assuming the western powers are the primary agents and makers of these events, just because they've decided to lend force to the situation. Really, they're pretty clearly functioning as a secondary, external balance-tipping force to stop Gaddafi winning so the revolutionaries can.
It's an unfamiliar situation, because we're not used to Middle Eastern people being the primary driving agents in their own affairs and the West being forced to take a back seat.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Not remove, but support the revolution.
