Libya

[StillettoDoll]

The U.S. is taking increased military action to remove Gadhafi from Power.

Favor
Oppose
Not sure

[girl_dee]

I am in favor of doing anything to stop the blatant abuse of the women of a population.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I am in favor of our taking military action in Libya. However, I do believe that other nations need to step up to the plate and take over in bombing missions, and giving arms to the people. The US cannot police the world. We are suffering so much ourselves. With the money being spent in Libya, we could have invested it in ourselves.

[Tommi]

Assasian: A murderer of and important person in a surprise attack. Whe he started the murders of the anti-regime where are the highly skilled heroes?

Oh, yeah, only happens in the movies. I guess I watch to many action movies.

Why are these nasty bad guys not taken out by a sharpshooter???. Why can't one single strike force do it before it gets to all the bombing, destruction, strafing, raping and international tensions reach boiling points and all just hate America.

Kill no more of their civillians and our soldiers who think they must do or die.

USAF Retired

http://wnm3647.k12.sd.us/air-force-planeopt.jpg

[Kobi]

From what I can understand, it seems what is happening in Libya is
different from the revolutions that have toppled other dictators
in the region lately. In those other revolts, masses of people were
rioting, those guarding the dictator defected, there was a clear
intent of numbers wanting something different. And, they didnt need
NATO or anyone else to come to their rescue.

Libya seems different to me. This seems like a distinct group of rebels - not masses of people, perhaps trying to take advantage of the successful revolts in other countries. The military forces havent abandoned their leader, and are continuing to squash the rebels which seem to be in one area of the country. I dont see masses of people revolting all over the country.

Bad things are happening. Bad things happen in any revolt and in attempts to quell a revolt. It's a matter of perspective and collateral losses.

But, I am wondering if this is a clear cut revolution or if it is international powers, conveniently, banding together to get rid of another pita dictator.

And, it irks me when NATO decides IT needs to step in....IT meaning can it twist the arm of the USA to expend billion of dollars we dont have in forces and equipment to do NATO's bidding.

And for what reason? We, as a country, have stuck our head in the sand when we know and have evidence of ethnic cleansings going on in other countries. So, what is it about Libya that is of significance to the USA to the point we would allow ourselves to be dragged into this?

When I watched Obama's speech yesterday trying to justify what was and might be done, I had to shake off the feeling there was a caricature of Bush on one of his shoulders and Cheney on the other.

For a man who ran on a platform of "change", it never occurred to me that "change" was synonymous to "status quo".

[Andrew, Jr.]

On a talk show today, someone mentioned that arming the people (rebals) is really giving arms to Al-Qaida. Well, I think Tommi is right. Lets use the sharp shooters. Give 'em a job, and bring 'em home. How much money has to be spent on this? It reminds me of Husaain (sp?).

[Toughy]

NO NO NO oh hell NO

Let the Arabs deal with the Arabs.

How come we have not intervened in the Sudan? Millions have been massacred and we have not intervened. Why is the potential massacre of people in Libya more important than the millions massacred all over Africa?

We sold Gadhafi all the weapons he is using to kill his opposition. We need to stop arming the frigging world.

[Glenn]

When I saw my oppressed sisters finially in the streets in the middle east, raising their angry hands in protest after years of oppression, I cannot help but be in favor of this, there, or anywhere.

[Toughy]

When I saw my oppressed sisters finially in the streets in the middle east, raising their angry hands in protest after years of oppression, I cannot help but be in favor of this, there, or anywhere.

Libya is NOT Egypt. This is not a mass uprising of the population like Egypt and Tunisia. Our oppressed sisters are not in the streets in Libya.

The Egyptian people were not interested in violence, they wanted a change in leadership and they got it with almost NO bloodshed.

Who are the rebels? Where are they getting their guns and money? What do they want besides violently taking over the government? Who is the leader?

Besides the Arab League has plenty of bucks and military equipment to deal with what's going on in their back yard.

[Glenn]

T; I just read about it this morning in the Huffington News, and other websites like middle east online.com

[QUOTE=Toughy;310727] Our oppressed sisters are not in the streets in Libya.

[girl_dee]

Clip > Why is the potential massacre of people in Libya more important than the millions massacred all over Africa? < clip
.

I just said this a while ago. If we are going to fight for human rights who gets to decide where when and how?

[UofMfan]

The US, like it has in any other military intervention (and there have been many), only helps itself. Noam Chomsky does a great job of detailing these all the way back to the Founding Fathers.

Yes, Lybia needs some help from NATO.

Lybia has something to offer the US, oil, strategic location, etc. Africa does not, simple as that.

[Rook]

I honestly think this is one of those "out of the frying pan , into the fire"caveats..
Libya is not another Egypt or Bahrain uprising, those in power (ghadaffi) are slowly losing the battle against Allied Forces-supported rebels, which btw, reminds me vividly of another huge mistake..y'know, afghanistan (providing rebels with guns to fight soviets) & BOTH iran/iraq, paving the way for factions far worse than their deposed leaders..
I don't agree at all with the US intervention, via NATO..
We need to take care of our own issues, economy , education, our own political clusterfuck & most importantly, our own civil rights being blatantly violated in order to appease a conservative majority who seem to enjoy throwing their voting weight around...
Once my opression, my denied equality issues are resolved, I'll happily advocate investigating our "opressed" sisters worldround, and maybe fixing it w/o bloodshed from our troops in foreign lands, or the other countries civilians, not just those following Islamic law.
I think Libya is in the spotlight mostly because of their Oil..
Mostly, because Bahrein has similar issues, and not much being said.. Go figure

[Greyson]

I support the US and NATO being in Libya. I am not naive enough to believe that part of the interests of the US and others does not include oil. However, because we do have a monetary interest in being there, does that mean we should ignore the calls from civilian people for help? BTW, does anyone remember Lockerby?

I too ask the same questions as many of you do that oppose any US involvement in Libya (part of Africa) or the Mideast. I do realize that the US needs to work on domestic problems as well. When the young people of Iran and China, (Remember Tenemin Square?) asked for intervention, why was there none offered by the US or the West for that matter?

I too share a concern about the US arming the world. But I also have the same concern about Russia, China and unscrupulous greed mongers across the planet plying their trade.

[AtLast]

I support this action fully. This isn't a popular, leftist position. However, i feel the US should have gone into other areas in the past to help stop the slaughter of people by their government or class systems.

Prior to the US joining allied nations in Europe during WWII, there was more than enough evidence of what Hitler was doing in the death camps to Jews. Yet, many dismissed this evidence on isolationist grounds. This was acting much the same as German people living near the camps- just looking the other way as far as I'm concerned. How many Jews could have been saved from their fate in the hands of the Nazis if we would have acted sooner and helped?

Sometimes, it really is about humanitarianism. Also, there is quite a different force going on in the middle eastern and north African countries going on via a new generation of rebels and protesters as far as I'm concerned. Young people realizing that their future deserves a free society. are critical in these struggles and I see a very different kind of battle for women's rights going on in this region than I have in the past. Women's Rights These protests and demonstrations and taking up arms by common people are not the product of past dynamics- there is something very different going on. Social media has brought the goals and desires of the people to a new state of awareness worldwide. And younger generations are not going to accept oppression.
I in no way think that the US or any other western nation should be involved in the forms of democracy that the people in Libya (or other countries) form.

My consciousness about this action has shifted. Seeing Arab people in several countries losing the fear they have had for decades and say enough across this region has a very different meaning to me than ever before. And the fact that women are out there- is significant.

[Words]

I don't understand the question.

''Does Libya need our help?''

What 'help' exactly are we talking about and, more importantly, are we sure it's the 'help' the majority of Libyans want? When someone can answer those questions - and I doubt that any one person on this site can - then I'll be in a position to decide.

Words

[Toughy]

The entire continent of Africa (including Libya, Tunisia) is rich with all kinds of resources important to the US. Ask Pat Robertson why he has had a 'christian humanitarian' presence in Africa for decades. He has been getting stinking rich in the diamond, gold, oil and 'rare-earth' minerals found on the continent.

Who is gonna make money off us bombing another damn country? The Apprentice musical theme 'money' is going through my head.

NO NO NO..........no more bombing and killing people with USA stamped on the weapons.

[Rockinonahigh]

I voted not shure..Why? I vividly remember Vet Nam..it was supose to be only a policeing action by helping the the people of vet nam fight for freedom.Insted we got drug into a 10 year war that cost way to many lives,cost bazillions of dollars.
We are in two simular wars right now they both cost to many lives as well as big bucks we really dont have.Now do we really need to get involved in another one?I know we should do something but nato need to stop looking at the U.S.A. like we can save the world,others need to step up to the plate and hold there fair share of the load.Yes,Kadafy needs to be put out of power quickly...a fue snipers do the job..a multi national force of snipers could stop the whole thing or a well aimed bomb if we knew where Kadafy was so it could be put in the right place.This is just my humble opinion.

[AtLast]

I don't understand the question.

''Does Libya need our help?''

What 'help' exactly are we talking about and, more importantly, are we sure it's the 'help' the majority of Libyans want? When someone can answer those questions - and I doubt that any one person on this site can - then I'll be in a position to decide.

Words

I understand your view of the structure of the poll question. However, you might be waiting a long time for Libyians to have the right to free speech outside of those that support (or fear, thus state agreement) the present dictatorship. And, I'm guessing tht queer Libyans are not going to rush to the Planet any time soon.

There are several organizations that do protect and keep secret the identity of Libyan rebel supporters in an attempt to get information out to the rest of the world. It is this very element of the oppression of rights to free speech and to assembly that is needed if we are ever going to hear what the majority of Libyans want.

I do have some contact with 2 families from Libya. No, they certainly do not represent the entire country. But they have given me some new perspectives to consider (including quite a few myths about th role of oil and US interests that we seem to swallow, especially in the left and progressive political realm). Yes, this does influence my support for this revolution and US involvement as well as a better understanding of how young rebel women are experiencing some kind of role in political and social structures emerging in Libya and throughout the region.

This is difficult, as I have a hard time appearing to agree with some GOP right-wingers. but, I have never let affiliational prejudice stop me from researching and considering new stances.

I have much more to learn

[StillettoDoll]

I guess in the perfect world Gadhafi could just pack up his bags and leave. It would save alot of people alot of trouble.
Voted not sure.
if we can get in and out very quickly I'm for it.

[Mister Bent]

"Between war and passivity there are a thousand possibilities." - Howard Zinn

Which is to say, a military/armed response is not the only way to support democratic process. We could offer constructive aid that will provide support to those people already fighting for democracy within Libya, or for women's rights in Libya, Afghanistan, etc. I can't profess to know what that looks like, but I do know it seems unlikely as American foreign policy is not motivated by humanitarian issues, but by economic interests. We support regimes that cooperate with us and give us access to their oil (and other economic benefits).

The idea of sending in "sharpshooters," our own military (or private sector) assassins, is arrogant. Because we're the United States of America, we have the right to dispatch leaders who we find unpalatable? And yet, we are stunned when our nation is attacked.

[Daywalker]

Not to be selfish, but it is our Tax dollars that are once again saving
Humans from the Inhumane across the Planet. Our Country has Deficit
that is fucking ridiculous. Our schools, City-State-County programs, Health
Care, Social Security...Homelessness and a gaggle of other issues continue
to suffer while we spend 10 million bucks a day at minimum elsewhere in
the World to ensure they all have what we used to. It's about fucking time
some of the other Allies pitch in a Billion or three this time. Perhaps I am
just in an angry mood today, which is true...but this shit seems to have
triggered the Hippy today. There is something to be said for 'Setting
your own table before asking others to join you, and before teaching
others how to set theirs'. Our 'Table' is missing plates, cups...and napkins.
We owe many Countries a large amount of money. Why not ask for debt
forgiveness, etc...before going in to save a Country that we have an
outstanding balance with?

:vampire: <<<End Rant Due To Head Explosion

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zKBbtj9rWrU/SqM2ELkSuPI/AAAAAAAACvk/oXqW3gHtR10/s320/scanners-exploding-head-4.jpg

:daywalker:

[Apocalipstic]

No more wars.

Military stretched thin
Deployment after deployment
PTSD
High military family suicide rates

OK for US to bomb innocent civilians?

Qaddafi has been up to the same crap since I was 6, back in 1969. Why now?

[Andrew, Jr.]

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa left Libya and went to Britain in protest over the attacks on civilians. This makes me wonder what he knows is coming in the future, and we don't know. Also, so close to the Royal Wedding. Makes one wonder of possibilities.

It is being reported that Koussa is talking about linking Gadhafi to the 1988 bombing of Flight 103 aka The Lockerbie Bombing now. But again, that is just the media. I am not sure of who to believe.

[EnderD_503]

Yes, because the last time you went around dropping bombs every which way in nations you have no fucking business in it worked out so great! [/sarcasm]

Next time European or North American nations go around "supporting democracy" and bombing the shit out of a "coincidentally" strategically placed (btw, to those talking about the oil/US connection, it is not so much the connection to the US as to Western Europe. Personally, I see why Obama has been very sceptical about this and probably is only falling to political pressure more than anything else) developing nation, ask yourself why no one gave a shit about the countless genocides and other civil wars and rebellions that have taken place throughout the modern era, that were not so strategically placed.

It's already become blatantly obvious that this was an attempt to garner more votes for Sarkozy in the upcoming French elections. Same with dropping support for Cameron in the UK. A war is always a nice way to distract your citizens from important national issues and the fact that they don't want you in office.

Anyone who believes their over-glorified western government is employing military intervention without imperialist dreams is sorely naive.

And funny how the nice little rebels are now on a spree to imprison and beat African migrant workers.

[Softhearted]

As long as the Western World will depend on oil, these type of interventions will occur... Of course the West is protecting its assets and oil, there is no doubt about it. This mission is not based on "humanitarian" reasons...



But how are we going to break the cycle of this oil dependency? Are you willing to buy an hybrid car? Use more public transportation? Avoid buying SUVs? Pay more for an alternative energy?

Just some thoughts...

[AtLast]

It is very important to check sources, especially internet blogs about these kinds of actions. There are not many sources I trust much any more. I'm tired of both left and right propaganda. There are agendas in both.

[EnderD_503]

As long as the Western World will depend on oil, these type of interventions will occur... Of course the West is protecting its assets and oil, there is no doubt about it. This mission is not based on "humanitarian" reasons...

Yes, it is very obvious but there is far too much talk around here about "humanitarian reasonings" behind French/British/American intervention that's a bit scary and reminding of the last holy geostrategic war. I think its important to recognise that this has nothing to do with humanitarianism, we shouldn't have any illusions about western motives. It's quite dangerous to have such illusions.

But how are we going to break the cycle of this oil dependency? Are you willing to buy an hybrid car? Use more public transportation? Avoid buying SUVs? Pay more for an alternative energy?

Just some thoughts...

Good questions. For myself I can answer that I don't own a car to begin with, and my only methods of transportation are public transit, my bicycle and my own two feet. I'm also very supportive of expanding public transit, but unfortunately we don't have the best mayor in power here in T.O. He is not particularly pro-TTC or pro-bike paths.

As far as alternative energies, I think it's not so difficult to power a home with alternative energy as some make it sound. Especially if you have a few people with even a small amount of income sharing a living space. Of course, there are still many complications, but it's good to see some nations like Germany and Holland (sometimes I wonder why the hell I ever moved back to North America lol) slowly advancing as far as solar energy and wind power.

As for transportation, the Central/Northern European model is very admirable again. I never saw as massive bike racks as I did in Utrecht or Nijmegen. The Dutch are completely enamoured with bikes, as are the Germans but I don't think I ever saw a literally parking-lot sized group of bike racks like I did in Holland. Though public transit is a prefered method of transporation, they aren't as obsessed with large trucks/SUVs as North America is. Car owners mostly own small cars, not huge gas guzzlers. That would be a good trend to see in NA.

Still, obviously there is oil dependency, but it's good to see some nations moving away from it and it gives me some hope. Too bad we can't jump ahead 50 years, cause I've no doubt things will be different then as far as this oil dependency in Europe. Who knows which way North America will go. The only thing that worries me is that France was talking about setting up solar pannels in the middle east and Africa, running to Western Europe via Turkey which has its own political issues with it. Bah. We'll see.

Anyways, all this to say that I think the population, at least in Europe, is becoming increasingly open to alternative forms of energy and public transit and bicycles have always been fairly popular there (thanks to a wide network of bike paths and very efficient public transit). There is a bit of this in Canada and the United States as well, and hopefully that will grow as well. What worries me in Canada is our current PM and the coming elections that may put us in a worse situation in the future, including environmentally. But hopefully popular opinions on alternative energy and alternative methods of transportation will continue to change.

It is very important to check sources, especially internet blogs about these kinds of actions. There are not many sources I trust much any more. I'm tired of both left and right propaganda. There are agendas in both.

Well, evidently everyone has an agenda. Even humanitarianism is technically an agenda. Even then I am against foreign intervention. It reeks far too much of policing. Post-WWII this kind of militarism has never ended well...ever. In the long term it is no good for the country being assaulted by western powers, nor the nations doing the assaulting.

As far as sources, of course nothing can be seen as 100%, but right now I'm more confident in sources like Al Jazeera, BBC, The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star than blogs and such. Also there are some interesting facebook feeds on the situation in places like Tunisia and elsewhere.

Anyways, in other news some interesting turn of events in Egypt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9441935.stm

I was really hoping Egypt would not swing that way. There seemed some hope in their revolution, but like I think I was saying in another topic, there's always been that behind the scenes presence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the most organised of those rebeling.

And more of Gaddafi's men are defecting: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113312103411544.html

[Kobi]

The older I get, the more cynical I become. And I am tired of us wasting
people and money on wars to ensure our supply of oil along with rhetoric on how we need to cut our dependence on it.

Reducing dependence on oil is easy....if you have politicians with the gonads to do so.

How much oil would be saved if we refused to allow vehicles to be sold in this country that didnt get a minimum of 50 mpg? We can put people in space but we cant figure out how to increase mpgs?

How much oil would be saved if we stopped allowing the sales of SUV's and Ford F-me trucks? Will the world stop spinning? What is more cost effective and energy efficient given the driving habits of Americans....a hybrid or a compact car getting 50 mpg's? Hybrids are great for city driving but do nothing for highway driving. So what makes sense?

The lights of Vegas, Broadway, and most lighted signage makes for a nice sensory experience but is it necessary?

How much oil would be saved if people werent allowed to waste 100 gallons a day to fuel their speedboats? It's nice but is it necessary? Buy a freakin sailboat!!!

How much oil would we save if every new house was built with wind technology? Wind turbines the size of a small satellite dish can power, at a minimum, half the energy it takes to run a household. So, does it make sense to give tax breaks for hybrids or invest that money in peoples homes?

We are a spoiled people being led by people lacking common sense and beholden to the almighty dollar and those who wield its power.

I am weary of the bullshit we are fed. I am tired of the lies and half truths. I am tired of being misled so someone can profit from it.

And I am tired of the USA thinking it is the giant teat for the world to suck dry when our own people are starving, homeless, going without medical care, and suffering.

It's been a bad day. Does it show?

[Toughy]

Just a couple of quick things about oil. BP just got a permit to deep water drill again in the Gulf. I've heard folks say yeah more oil produced for the US by the US............less dependence on foreign oil. The truth is that is utter bullshit.

EVERY drop of oil pumped out of the ground, no matter where it comes from, goes into a commodities market. That market.....called OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries).....determines the price of a barrel of oil. Every country that uses oil buys those barrels at the OPEC or speculators price and imports that oil back to their country. We are buying oil pumped out of our ground from OPEC.

There is no US oil, no Libya oil, no Saudi oil......there is oil sold on the commodities market. It's a big fat joke to say we get 17% of our oil from Libya. What we do know is we use more oil than we pump out of the ground. So we do have an oil deficit.

Concerning green/renewable energy. Coal is not green/renewable energy and neither is nuclear. Folks are telling you it's cost prohibitive. Yes it is IF you continue to think about energy production and distribution in the same way we do it now....power plant supplies all energy to a town.

For solar/wind to work you have to change the paradigm of how energy is produced and distributed. If every new building (house, office, skyscraper, etc) had to be equipped with solar panels and/or wind turbines, you could end up with significant decreases in energy coming from the power plant. If every house in this country could reduce by half (with solar for example) the amount of power it got off the grid it would truly decrease the need for fossil fuel.

Nuclear............damn what a stupid and expensive way to frigging boil water to make steam to drive a turbine to produce electricity.........

And Libya........so now Obama wants to supply arms to the rebels via Saudi Arabia....like somehow passing them through the Saudis makes it better than directly giving weapons to the rebels....NO NO NO no more weapons with USA stamped on them killing/maiming people across the world.

[adorable]

Normally I am for things like this. I am one of the few people that was for us going to Iraq when we did specifically because I believed that Saddam was killing his own people. The problem I have right now is that we are just all over the place. The last thing we need is to get bogged down in another war. It annoys me that we still have our people dying in two others - wars that seem to be just dragging on. We have the military might to end it definitively, but we don't. It's like a cat playing with a mouse. Dragging it around, dropping it, picking it back up, playing some more......Just end it already!

I believe we should intervene in any country where there is government sponsored killing. I see it as an obligation following WWII. That isn't what we do of course. There has to be a real monetary interest on our part or strategic location that we want. If we were really all humanitarian about it - I'd be more behind it. But when we can ignore what's going on in the Sudan and other places where so many people have been slaughtered by their governments - it's a little hard to follow the administration's logic that all of a sudden we need to throw ourselves into the middle of this particular civil war.

[Toughy]

I believe we should intervene in any country where there is government sponsored killing.

you cannot really be serious..........how in the hell is that gonna be paid for?????

let me just start a short list here:
USA
Somalia
Uganda
Libya
Iran
Iraq
Afghanistan
North Korea
most of those 'stan' countries
Russia
South Africa
Mexico
Sudan
Cuba
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
pick some countries in Africa
pick some more countries in central and south america

I don't understand how WWII makes us the police force of the world........could you help me with that logic?

[AtLast]

Joining allied forces in Europe during WWII could be identified as part of US "policing." I see it as a matter of having a conscience about cruel and inhumane treatment of a people. And the US clung to the doctrine of isolationism for a very long time before entering the war even with all of the proof of what was going on in concentration camps to Jews and various other populations by the Nazis.

I have been wondering about how our Jewish members might feel about this topic as many do have parents and grandparents that were in those camps and had many relatives killed during that time.

There are many areas that the US did not go in the past mentioned where there were inncocent people were murdered by their own leaders. I think we should have and Obama was not the president during those times. Would he have gone into Iraq - Not under the reasons we were fed, I believe. And we did go in earlier after Saddam murdered some of his own people, in part by using chemical weapons.

Mummar Qaddafi has in excess of ten tons of mustard gas and sarin. He is delusional. Not a good combination. There is not only proof that he has these- we even know where it is.

[adorable]

Because we KNEW what Hitler was doing and did nothing. We didn't even fulfill our own pathetic quota of 10% wartime Jewish immigration. We stood by, like everyone else and didn't intervene. We could have saved millions of people.

How much it would cost?? How much does it cost not to act against brutal regimes who kill hundreds of thousands of people? How much does it cost to let women be raped while their babies are pulled from their hands then murdered by government police forces? Literally, thrown up in the air and shot in front of their mothers?

We should have entered WWII before Japan attacked us. We didn't. When "we" (the people) saw the horrors of Nazi Germany - that moment was our call to action. It isn't just America's responsibility to ensure that mass murder doesn't happen - it is a human crisis that all of humanity SHOULD be responsible for - we SHOULD take the lead, as a world super power. We don't. We never go to war for purely humanitarian reasons. We have an underlying agenda and claim to be there (sometimes) for the greater good of innocent people.

"Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe." ~Elie Wiesel

[Kobi]

It is hard to keep in mind that war or getting involved in others issues is no guarantee that a miraculous outcome of peace, prosperity, and fellowship will ensue. The reality, the repetitive lesson is very different.

No matter how much money or lives are thrown at problems of people treating others poorly and disrespectfully, the problem of human nature will never be eliminated.

People problems in any country are the result of a complicated set of factors. There is no easy answer or method to change or fix this. War or change of leadership, historically, has the tendency to just create a somewhat different set of problems. It is a vicious cycle and no amount of money or deaths is likely to solve it. And no country should be expected to be the moral compass or guardian of the 7 billion people in the world. It is not rational, realistic or even possible.

Until we are willing to take off the rose colored glasses, to stop thinking there are simple answers to complex problems, to stop believing the rhetoric/marketing and look at the actions/reality, we will never come close to addressing the horrors humans inflict on one another.

[Greyson]

I will concede that I am not a Foreign Policy wiz. I do agree with Kobi that "Simple Answers to Complex Problems" are not going to necessarily bring peace. I did and still do support USA/NATO intervention but my opinion can be changed because this is a very complex situation. I found this piece today and it is written by an American Muslim from the Maydan Institute in NYC. Mr. Moghul brings to light some excellent points to consider. I think it is worth reading.

______________________________________________
Haroon Moghul, Executive Director of The Maydan Institute and fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, teaches at Adelphi University. Mr. Moghul holds a B.A. from NYU in Philosophy and Middle Eastern Studies and an M.A. from Columbia University in Middle Eastern Studies, where he is a doctoral candidate. His first novel, The Order of Light was published by Penguin in 2006 and his work has appeared or he has been otherwise featured on CNN, BBC, The History Channel, The New Yorker, and Tikkun.

I, like many others, have found myself unable to turn away from the Arab revolutions. As a strong believer in the egalitarian nature of the Muslim religion, and a fervent critic of common assumptions about Arabs and Muslims, these revelations were a welcome confirmation of my beliefs. I also hate dictators.

As such, I never had, and still have, no love for Libya’s clown Colonel, Mu’ammar Qaddafi; and like any other person of conscience, I watched with heavy heart as his armies approached liberated Benghazi. Every time I prayed, I included the people of Libya in my prayers, that they be given strength, freedom, and protection from harm.

And then, kind of, sort of, in the nick of time, France, Britain, and the United States obtained a Security Council resolution—forwarded for debate by Lebanon, whose government was formed by Hezbollah, a convenient ally this time—and began devastating Qaddafi’s forces before they could effect a likely mass slaughter in Benghazi.

But the timing was also the least bit troubling. On pretty much the same day in March 2003, the United States went to war with Saddam Hussein, alleging that he had weapons of mass destruction (he didn’t). And one century ago this year, the Italians seized Libya from the Ottomans, depriving that crumbling empire of its last African territory. Still, in many ways, the Libyan intervention appeared to solve many of the problems of previous interventions, or non-interventions.

In Iraq, in 2003, we didn’t have a Security Council resolution and there was no imminent danger of mass slaughter. We waited for too long in Bosnia, and tens of thousands were slaughtered. UN peacekeepers could do nothing to prevent the killing of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. And in Rwanda, by the time it was over, up to 1,000,000 were dead, and we had done nothing; but we had no regional mandate to act, and there was no army for us to destroy from the sky.

So does that mean I’m okay with this? Actually, no. And that’s a solid segue to the substance of the matter. Here are six reasons why I don’t feel right about Operation Odyssey Dawn:

1) Just because Obama is a Democrat doesn’t mean the Constitution allows him to go to war without consulting Congress—there’s simply no excuse for violating the democratic principle of checks and balances. If another President down the road starts a war without asking us, and then tries to explain him or herself a week later, is that supposed to make it okay? Let’s say it’s President Palin, and she wants to bomb a country more likely to hit back.

Supporters of the war against Qaddafi have argued that Obama intervened for humanitarian reasons. Perhaps he has, but there are troubling facts to consider. Explaining your actions after the fact does not constitute a valid check or balance. Anyone who was paying attention to the region knew that the Libyan rebels were in tremendous danger more than a week before the actual intervention began.

Considering that this did not drop out of nowhere, and everyone knew how brutal Qaddafi was, is, and would be against those who challenged him, why is it that President Obama couldn’t explain himself to the American people until a full week of war had passed? If it were a matter of an emergency humanitarian intervention, he should have stood up the minute the missiles started flying and explained why he hadn’t consulted the American people—because, as he saw it, there was no time.

Still more, making exceptions is a messy business. There are many court cases in which a defendant is clearly guilty, and yet we must throw out the case due to a violation of the rules of evidence. In individual instances, this creates injustices—we wish the judge could act with more discretion. But that discretion itself causes the greater danger; hence the wisdom of our political system. Because, in the aggregate, the presence of such checks and balances ensures a more just society for all; maybe not immediately, but over time.

So too with our government and our foreign policy. While, yes, it is true that consulting with Congress may have caused us to intervene far too late, or not at all, this intervention sets a terrible precedent. The President cannot simply start a war on the grounds that he and his advisers thought that there was a humanitarian crisis, and then only bother to explain it to us shortly before Dancing with the Stars. If the crisis were so grievously serious, he could have laid out his case, told Congress the time to act was now, and trusted in the humanity of his fellow Americans.

This belief that only he and his circle know what’s right is, at the very least, elitist; it’s not dissimilar from the Republicans’ insistence on prosecuting the war in Iraq even after the 2006 elections, when the American people made it clear that they wanted out. Are the American people really that irrelevant, that you can wait a full week to bother to tell us why you got us into another war before we’re even out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

2) I am rightly made uneasy by conflicts with no obvious goal. The United States, like every other institutional body that has interests in the region, is deeply confused, and trying to hide that. Only a few months ago, our Vice President was denying that Mubarak was a dictator. Now our government is arguing that we must intervene to get rid of a tyrant in the region—the same tyrant we were recently trying to lure with carrots (while hedging as to whether that’s the purpose of our war).

Moreover, if the purpose of the Security Council resolution is to protect civilians, the only way in which we can do that is with boots on the ground or tons of guns. The problem is, we have no crystal ball. We can destroy Qaddafi’s armor, but he will have forces operating within cities, and those most loyal to him may fight to the bitter end (see also: Iraq). The rebels don’t have any military capacity, and Qaddafi’s army could as of now easily wipe them out.

It is plausible that Qaddafi’s tribesmen may still reach Benghazi, at which point we will have to escalate our war to save Benghazi (again). Our options at that point would be arming the rebels, landing troops to finish the job, bombing the Qaddafis out of Libya, or splitting Libya into two separate countries, with peacekeepers patrolling the boundary between them (oil goes to the east); or walking away after it’s even more screwed up. And imagine how that would play out.

3) Why is it that we can intervene in other countries but find it so hard to intervene in our own? The Obama administration must tell us every day how much this so-called “kinetic action” is costing the American people. I’m also wondering how much of this we’re going to be able to afford, and when this cycle might end. Do we, the American people, also believe that once this is over—let’s say successfully, with Qaddafi gone—we’ll simply walk away? It’s too easy not to, until the next thing you know you get a bill far larger than you expected. (In that case, wars are like cell phones.)

We have a right to know just how much can be spent on uncertain military objectives, and it would be nice to know whether that much money could be spent, without consulting Congress, on the betterment of the condition of the American people. The roads around my apartment need repair. Can we get NATO to send some army engineers in? New York City also desperately needs new airports, which I’m sure we could build up at least partway, and then address the American people as to why we were forced to build it without clearing it first; after all, New York is vital to the American and global economy.

If we’re going to transgress certain democratic principles, at the very least we should do so in our own clear and obvious interest. Or maybe it’s just me.

4) This intervention only drives us further into a negative conversation with the Muslim world and the Middle East. Over and over again, we insist that we are not the world’s policeman, and yet we get involved in police actions with astonishing regularity. We intervene selectively, we make huge mistakes, but we insist our intentions are good. I recall something about a certain road being paved with good intentions, but it must not be an American road, since it’s so hard to get those paved these days.

The United States was able to eliminate Libyan air defense systems in days, and this wasn’t even a full-scale war. Qaddafi has been revealed to be as impotent as Saddam, with an army that can be picked off as so many inert targets in a videogame you have a cheat code for. I’m sure many Arabs and Muslims across the region watched this and thought two things: what exactly was the point of independence, if some 60 years later a country has no actual capacity to defend itself? And, given that, why is it Western powers are still rescuing Arabs or Muslims, as they see it, on their own terms?

5) Let’s not pretend that this is truly an allied operation. We’re doing all the heavy lifting; and even if we didn’t want to, it wouldn’t work out any other way. (Can you see America agreeing to put its troops under French command?) The only Muslim majority country with any real military capacity is Turkey—the only Muslim democracy with guns in this fight—and Turkey was deeply hesitant to get involved. Even after the war started, we still had to fight (diplomatically) to get Turkey onboard.

While Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have loaned out fighter planes, they’re probably going to make, at best, a miniscule contribution; and neither are democracies that, theoretically, have to consult their people about their entanglements. And, while the Arab League has endorsed the Security Council resolution, let us not confuse the Arab League for a democratic body that speaks for the majority of its peoples. In fact, the majority of the Arab League was or is currently experiencing democratic uprisings in one form or another.

6) It’s time for the Arab and Muslim-majority world to get its act together, and Western intervention only delays the inevitable. It’s simply unacceptable that there’s no broader security architecture to solve the region’s problems. If the Arab League were so insistent that a no-fly zone be established over Libya, it should have created one itself and put its own armies and monies at risk. If the OIC’s desire to develop an Islamic solidarity is genuine, then they have to prove it. Either option sounds absurd to us right now, and why shouldn’t they? What’s the long-term trajectory of these democratic revolutions? How will they be protected? How will they achieve legitimacy?

And how long will Western powers be responsible for Libya?

Libya isn’t Bosnia; there’s no NATO and no EU to welcome the new governments down the road, to give them benchmarks to work towards and real rewards for realizing those benchmarks. We need to stop enabling Arab and Muslim political inertia. The Arab and Muslim world needs to figure out how to solve its own problems. Too often, its consultative bodies are reduced to irrelevant bystanders, its local powers unable to have civil dialogue with one another (see: Bahrain), and its biggest problems all but ask for foreign intervention since there’s no local mechanism to resolve the conflict before it explodes out of all proportion.

[Zimmeh]

Our newly elected governor here in the ass backwards state of Florida, just vetoed the new SunRail project. This project not only would have created jobs, that are badly needed, but help link the cities of: Daytona Beach, Orlando, Tampa and Miami...It would have lessened the congestion on Interstate 4, Interstate 95 and Interstate 75. But instead, he chose not to accept the grants the US government was giving us....I am also fed up with the fact that for the last 13 months, I cannot find a job. I am over being told, that I am either to over qualified or under qualified, when I have a f**king bachelor's degree and 15 years of experience to back it.

I am over it, and my grandfather didn't fight in WWII or my dad fight in Vietnam, to have our children live in a bankrupt nation.

My two cents,

Zimmy

As long as the Western World will depend on oil, these type of interventions will occur... Of course the West is protecting its assets and oil, there is no doubt about it. This mission is not based on "humanitarian" reasons...



But how are we going to break the cycle of this oil dependency? Are you willing to buy an hybrid car? Use more public transportation? Avoid buying SUVs? Pay more for an alternative energy?

Just some thoughts...

Yes, it is very obvious but there is far too much talk around here about "humanitarian reasonings" behind French/British/American intervention that's a bit scary and reminding of the last holy geostrategic war. I think its important to recognise that this has nothing to do with humanitarianism, we shouldn't have any illusions about western motives. It's quite dangerous to have such illusions.



Good questions. For myself I can answer that I don't own a car to begin with, and my only methods of transportation are public transit, my bicycle and my own two feet. I'm also very supportive of expanding public transit, but unfortunately we don't have the best mayor in power here in T.O. He is not particularly pro-TTC or pro-bike paths.

As far as alternative energies, I think it's not so difficult to power a home with alternative energy as some make it sound. Especially if you have a few people with even a small amount of income sharing a living space. Of course, there are still many complications, but it's good to see some nations like Germany and Holland (sometimes I wonder why the hell I ever moved back to North America lol) slowly advancing as far as solar energy and wind power.

As for transportation, the Central/Northern European model is very admirable again. I never saw as massive bike racks as I did in Utrecht or Nijmegen. The Dutch are completely enamoured with bikes, as are the Germans but I don't think I ever saw a literally parking-lot sized group of bike racks like I did in Holland. Though public transit is a prefered method of transporation, they aren't as obsessed with large trucks/SUVs as North America is. Car owners mostly own small cars, not huge gas guzzlers. That would be a good trend to see in NA.

Still, obviously there is oil dependency, but it's good to see some nations moving away from it and it gives me some hope. Too bad we can't jump ahead 50 years, cause I've no doubt things will be different then as far as this oil dependency in Europe. Who knows which way North America will go. The only thing that worries me is that France was talking about setting up solar pannels in the middle east and Africa, running to Western Europe via Turkey which has its own political issues with it. Bah. We'll see.

Anyways, all this to say that I think the population, at least in Europe, is becoming increasingly open to alternative forms of energy and public transit and bicycles have always been fairly popular there (thanks to a wide network of bike paths and very efficient public transit). There is a bit of this in Canada and the United States as well, and hopefully that will grow as well. What worries me in Canada is our current PM and the coming elections that may put us in a worse situation in the future, including environmentally. But hopefully popular opinions on alternative energy and alternative methods of transportation will continue to change.



Well, evidently everyone has an agenda. Even humanitarianism is technically an agenda. Even then I am against foreign intervention. It reeks far too much of policing. Post-WWII this kind of militarism has never ended well...ever. In the long term it is no good for the country being assaulted by western powers, nor the nations doing the assaulting.

As far as sources, of course nothing can be seen as 100%, but right now I'm more confident in sources like Al Jazeera, BBC, The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star than blogs and such. Also there are some interesting facebook feeds on the situation in places like Tunisia and elsewhere.

Anyways, in other news some interesting turn of events in Egypt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9441935.stm

I was really hoping Egypt would not swing that way. There seemed some hope in their revolution, but like I think I was saying in another topic, there's always been that behind the scenes presence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the most organised of those rebeling.

And more of Gaddafi's men are defecting: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113312103411544.html



The older I get, the more cynical I become. And I am tired of us wasting
people and money on wars to ensure our supply of oil along with rhetoric on how we need to cut our dependence on it.

Reducing dependence on oil is easy....if you have politicians with the gonads to do so.

How much oil would be saved if we refused to allow vehicles to be sold in this country that didnt get a minimum of 50 mpg? We can put people in space but we cant figure out how to increase mpgs?

How much oil would be saved if we stopped allowing the sales of SUV's and Ford F-me trucks? Will the world stop spinning? What is more cost effective and energy efficient given the driving habits of Americans....a hybrid or a compact car getting 50 mpg's? Hybrids are great for city driving but do nothing for highway driving. So what makes sense?

The lights of Vegas, Broadway, and most lighted signage makes for a nice sensory experience but is it necessary?

How much oil would be saved if people werent allowed to waste 100 gallons a day to fuel their speedboats? It's nice but is it necessary? Buy a freakin sailboat!!!

How much oil would we save if every new house was built with wind technology? Wind turbines the size of a small satellite dish can power, at a minimum, half the energy it takes to run a household. So, does it make sense to give tax breaks for hybrids or invest that money in peoples homes?

We are a spoiled people being led by people lacking common sense and beholden to the almighty dollar and those who wield its power.

I am weary of the bullshit we are fed. I am tired of the lies and half truths. I am tired of being misled so someone can profit from it.

And I am tired of the USA thinking it is the giant teat for the world to suck dry when our own people are starving, homeless, going without medical care, and suffering.

It's been a bad day. Does it show?

[Greyson]

I am not trying to change anyone's opinion regarding NATO/USA intervention in Libya. I am posting this information in the spirit of being informed. I am not a subscriber of the WSJ but I came upon this article today and found it to be useful to me in trying to have a broader understanding of what is happening in the mideast and northern Africa.

This article tells me that there are other Arab nations in support of the Libyan rebels. As to the "why" of their support I suspect there are many agendas. I know for me, I cringe when I perceive the every day people getting the short end of the stick consistently with no hope of changing their circumstances. (Yes, it can be argued this sort of injustice is not restricted to "other" countries.)

_____________________________________________

Rebels Hijack Gadhafi's Phone Network

April 14, 2011

By MARGARET COKER in Abu Dhabi and CHARLES LEVINSON in Benghazi, Libya

WSJ's Margaret Coker reports on efforts by telecommunications executives to restore cell phone service to rebels in eastern Libya, allowing them to communicate without interference from government personnel loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

A team led by a Libyan-American telecom executive has helped rebels hijack Col. Moammar Gadhafi's cellphone network and re-establish their own communications.

The new network, first plotted on an airplane napkin and assembled with the help of oil-rich Arab nations, is giving more than two million Libyans their first connections to each other and the outside world after Col. Gadhafi cut off their telephone and Internet service about a month ago.

That March cutoff had rebels waving flags to communicate on the battlefield. The new cellphone network, opened on April 2, has become the opposition's main tool for communicating from the front lines in the east and up the chain of command to rebel brass hundreds of miles away.

A rebel fighter rested at the frontline at the western entrance of Ajdabiyah.
While cellphones haven't given rebel fighters the military strength to decisively drive Col. Gadhafi from power, the network has enabled rebel leaders to more easily make the calls needed to rally international backing, source weapons and strategize with their envoys abroad.

To make that possible, engineeers hived off part of the Libyana cellphone network—owned and operated by the Tripoli-based Libyan General Telecommunications Authority, which is run by Col. Gadhafi's eldest son—and rewired it to run independently of the regime's control. Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim, asked about the rebel cellphone network, said he hadn't heard of it.

Ousama Abushagur, a 31-year-old Libyan telecom executive raised in Huntsville, Ala., masterminded the operation from his home in Abu Dhabi. Mr. Abushagur and two childhood friends working as corporate managers in Dubai and Doha started fund-raising on Feb. 17 to support the political protests that were emerging in Libya. By Feb. 23, when fighting had erupted, his team delivered the first of multiple humanitarian aid convoys to eastern Libya.

But while in Libya, they found their cellphones and Thuraya satellite phones jammed or out of commission, making planning and logistics challenging.

Security was also an issue. Col. Gadhafi had built his telecommunications infrastructure to fan out from Tripoli—routing all calls through the capital and giving him and his intelligence agents full control over phones and Internet.

On March 6, during a flight back to the United Arab Emirates after organizing a naval convoy to the embattled city of Misrata, Mr. Abushagur says he drew up a diagram on the back of a napkin for a plan to infiltrate Libyana, pirate the signal and carve out a network free of Tripoli's control.

What followed was a race against time to solve the technical, engineering and legal challenges before the nascent rebel-led governing authority was crushed under the weight of Col. Gadhafi's better-equipped forces. After a week of victories in which the rebels swept westward from Benghazi toward Col. Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte, the rebel advance stalled and reversed on March 17, when the United Nations approved a no-fly zone and government forces kicked off a fierce counterattack.

In a sign of deepening ties between Arab governments and the Benghazi-based administration, the U.A.E. and Qatar provided diplomatic support and helped buy the several million dollars of telecommunications equipment needed in Benghazi, according to members of the Libyan transitional authority and people familiar with the situation.

Meanwhile, rebel military commanders were using flags to signal with their troops, a throw-back that proved disastrous to their attempts at holding their front lines.

"We went to fight with flags: Yellow meant retreat, green meant advance," said Gen. Ahmed al-Ghatrani, a rebel commander in Benghazi. "Gadhafi forced us back to the stone age."

More photos and interactive graphics Renewed signal jamming also meant that rebel leaders and residents in Benghazi had little warning of the government forces' offensive across east Libya and the March 19 attempted invasion of Benghazi, which sparked panicked civilian evacuations of the city.

Mr. Abushagur watched the government advances with alarm. His secret cellphone operation had also run into steep problems.

The Chinese company Huawei Technologies Ltd., one of the original contractors for Libyana's cellular network backbone, refused to sell equipment for the rebel project, causing Mr. Abushagur and his engineer buddies to scramble to find a hybrid technical solution to match other companies' hardware with the existing Libyan network. Huawei declined to comment on its customers or work in Libya. The Libyan expats in the project asked that their corporate affiliations be kept confidential so that their political activities don't interfere with their work responsibilities.

Without Huawei, the backing from the Persian Gulf nations became essential—otherwise it is unlikely that international telecom vendors would have sold the sophisticated machinery to an unrecognized rebel government or individual businessmen, according to people familiar with the situation.

"The Emirates government and [its telecommunications company] Etisalat helped us by providing the equipment we needed to operate Libyana at full capacity," said Faisal al-Safi, a Benghazi official who oversees transportation and communications issues.

U.A.E. and Qatari officials didn't respond to requests for comment. Emirates Telecommunications Corp., known as Etisalat, declined to comment.


After 42 years under Moammar Gadhafi's rule, it's hard to imagine what Libya could look like without the dictator in power. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports from Washington on the cloudy outlook for the north African nation.
By March 21, most of the main pieces of equipment had arrived in the U.A.E. and Mr. Abushagur was ready to ship them to Benghazi with three Libyan telecom engineers, four Western engineers and a team of bodyguards.

But Col. Gadhafi's forces were still threatening to overrun the rebel capital and trying to bomb its airport. Mr. Abushagur diverted the team and their equipment to an Egyptian air base on the Libyan border. Customs bureaucracy cost them a week, though Egypt's eventual approval was another show of Arab support for rebels. Egypt's governing military council couldn't be reached for comment.

Once in Libya, the team paired with Libyana engineers and executives based in Benghazi. Together, they fused the new equipment into the existing cellphone network, creating an independent data and routing system free from Tripoli's command.

The team also captured the Tripoli-based database of phone numbers, giving them information necessary to patch existing Libyana customers and phone numbers into their new system—which they dubbed "Free Libyana." The last piece of the puzzle was securing a satellite feed through which the Free Libyana calls could be routed—a solution provided by Etisalat, according to Benghazi officials.

A Libyan rebel stood guard Tuesday on a checkpoint between Brega and Ajdabiya. Rebels now can use cellphones to communicate between the front lines and opposition leaders.

On April 2, Mr. Abushagur placed a test call on the system to his wife back in Abu Dhabi. "She's the one who told me to go for it in the first place," he said.

International calling from Libya is still limited to the few individuals and officials in eastern Libya who most need it. Incoming calls have to be paid for by prepaid calling cards, except for Jordan, Egypt and Qatar.

Domestic calling works throughout eastern Libya up until the Ajdabiya, the last rebel-held town in the east. An added bonus of the new network: It is free for domestic calls, at least until Free Libyana gets a billing system up and running.

—Loretta Chao, Shireen El-Gazzar and Sam Dagher contributed to this article.