No Fly Zone over Libya - Rhetoric/Implications

[EnderD_503]

@AtLast,

Personally still not thinking the UN is as benevolent as it claims to be, and I continue to think this is all about oil. If Sarkozy and David Cameron were so concerned about Gaddafi they wouldn't have been so friendly as to be selling him weapons/weapons systems a few months back (again, are we not seeing a pattern here?). And if it wasn't, then why would the West only be extending military aid to a country with a rich oil supply that exports 83% of its crude oil to Europe? Why not get involved in Egypt? Why not get involved in Tunisia? What about Syria? What about Algeria? Apparently Libya is the only one worth taking a military stance on. Again, the West benefits from a destabalised Middle East/North Africa.

I also wonder if the French elections are playing any role on Sarkozy's stance, which is something else to consider.

Yes, I am concerned about the US getting into yet another quagmire military situation, the cost to us and I don't trust the fact that Libyan sweet crude is the major type of oil used for heating in western European countries (the ones joining in this action). Yet, I don't want to dismiss the social movements that have been rising in the Middle East. What is changing in these countries? Why are these movements robust at this time? Am I understanding fully what a people that have been ruled under such oppressive regimes live with? What are international obligations here in terms of these movements? Or, am I falling prey to just another brand of propaganda?Anyone else have feel this way? Or, have helpful links, etc.? Guess my jury isn't out yet. I need to think further- read material- guess just kick it around more!

I totally share your concerns about people taking a stance on the oppression they face. But unfortunately there is a danger to it. Most of the people protesting against their respective dictatorships right now are not members of organised groups, and there are no real organised groups ready to replace Gaddafi should he step down or be forced out. The reality is somebody has to take his place if he's to step down. The only organised groups ready to step in and take control of the country are Islamic extremists. So yes, I think people should want to free themselves from dictatorship. However, the problem is that they may be freeing themselves of one dictator that is leading the nation to some semblance of prosperity and eventual democracy, and may very well lend themselves in the hands of religious extremist dictators who would be far, far worse and, instead, be leading them backward. What is worrying is that, at least in Egypt there seems to be a clear intent about the direction the protestors want to go that won't be likely to allow the Islamic Brotherhood to take hold of the country. Particularly interesting is that there are some women's rights groups who are speaking out particularly loudly at this point. What is worrying is that doesn't seem to be the case in Libya, and it seems more likely to fall to religious extremism rather than further toward democracy.

Do we really need more Middle Eastern and North African nations in Iraq's/Afganistan's shoes? If the West were actually concerned about democracy in Libya or any other such country there would be far better ways to support it than to go in guns blazing...that much is for sure. Right now the West just seems set on destabalising another North African/Middle Eastern oil nation.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

@AtLast,

Personally still not thinking the UN is as benevolent as it claims to be, and I continue to think this is all about oil. If Sarkozy and David Cameron were so concerned about Gaddafi they wouldn't have been so friendly as to be selling him weapons/weapons systems a few months back (again, are we not seeing a pattern here?). And if it wasn't, then why would the West only be extending military aid to a country with a rich oil supply that exports 83% of its crude oil to Europe? Why not get involved in Egypt? Why not get involved in Tunisia? What about Syria? What about Algeria? Apparently Libya is the only one worth taking a military stance on. Again, the West benefits from a destabalised Middle East/North Africa.

I also wonder if the French elections are playing any role on Sarkozy's stance, which is something else to consider.



I totally share your concerns about people taking a stance on the oppression they face. But unfortunately there is a danger to it. Most of the people protesting against their respective dictatorships right now are not members of organised groups, and there are no real organised groups ready to replace Gaddafi should he step down or be forced out. The reality is somebody has to take his place if he's to step down. The only organised groups ready to step in and take control of the country are Islamic extremists. So yes, I think people should want to free themselves from dictatorship. However, the problem is that they may be freeing themselves of one dictator that is leading the nation to some semblance of prosperity and eventual democracy, and may very well lend themselves in the hands of religious extremist dictators who would be far, far worse and, instead, be leading them backward. What is worrying is that, at least in Egypt there seems to be a clear intent about the direction the protestors want to go that won't be likely to allow the Islamic Brotherhood to take hold of the country. Particularly interesting is that there are some women's rights groups who are speaking out particularly loudly at this point. What is worrying is that doesn't seem to be the case in Libya, and it seems more likely to fall to religious extremism rather than further toward democracy.

Do we really need more Middle Eastern and North African nations in Iraq's/Afganistan's shoes? If the West were actually concerned about democracy in Libya or any other such country there would be far better ways to support it than to go in guns blazing...that much is for sure. Right now the West just seems set on destabalising another North African/Middle Eastern oil nation.

Thanks for your take on these things- I know, it is damn hard to justify these actions with such a history about oil and politics and religious extremism.

And I have been thinking about why the US and other western nations never went into African nations slaughtering people like ants in the past. With Libya, it is obvious that western European nations have a direct link to the "sweet crude" in Libya.

It does make me crazy that leaders in these countries have ruled with iron hands and ripped off the people taking oil money and common people live in poverty. No social services, intra-structure. Nuts, when you think about how much money is involved which is a resource of the people. They end up without education and opportunity and these ruling families stash the money away.

So hard to trust politics!

[DomnNC]

The fact of the matter is that the military never releases all the pertinent facts for going into another country. There are things that we do not know, that are not put out to the general public, as in Iraq, I know a couple officers who have served over there, one I think is going back. He very plainly stated to us one day NOT to believe what we hear on the news or in the papers, that we'd never know the truth, it's a freaking classified mission for petes sake, however he did state the reason that we went in was indeed the truth, that WOMD were indeed found, that was all he would say about it. Heck, Hussein was gassing his own people with chemical warfare (chemical warfare is WOMD). Do you know what a freaking painful death that is? As far as Iraqi's claiming they felt safe with Hussein, I ain't buying it, I never heard that, matter of fact the people I know that served in the military state just the opposite, they would run up to the US guys and tell them they were glad to see the US come in there and rid the country of him. Heck their own people couldn't wait to execute his lousy ass and they did, that wasn't the US doing it. His own people tried, convicted and executed him.
Just like Gaddafi, shooting on his own people, dropping bombs on civilians, killing kids. The US just doesn't decide to go roaring into a country on it's own, it's UN sanctioned whether you like it or not, again, they really don't give all the reasons and the details of the mission because that stuff is classified, it's not for public consumption, else it's passed onto the "enemy" so to speak. Gaddafi was given numerous chances to stop firing on innocent civilians, he refused, he lied and said he did but he didn't, he wasn't just fighting and shooting/bombing the rebels. He was given days to comply. Clinton did the same thing in Bosnia, sent a few bombers over and the genocide stopped. We didn't go in with ground forces, there was no need to do so. I'm sure this was the intended reason for bombing Libya's air bases, to stop them from dropping bombs on cities and killing tons of civilians, and as far as has been reported that's all that has been hit, air bases and army bases. We haven't gone in with ground forces and as far as they've said there is no intent to do so. Then again, we the general public, are never privy to the full scope of the mission, ever. So people can hypothesize and speculate all they wish.
We have no idea or not if there are people ready to step in and lead the country if Gaddafi chooses to leave, that'd be a little silly saying well so and so is going to temporarily take over when he does leave, who do you think Gaddafi or some other extremist group will go after upon hearing that news? There was no one planned to step in for Hussein either, they held elections and elected their officials after the fact.
I was in the military, you go on missions blind, they sometimes don't even tell you what the mission is til you get there. They just tell you to pack up and be ready to deploy, a lot of times you don't even know where you're going til you get there. It's just the nature of the beast.

[DomnNC]

I think that sometimes the reason we don't go into other countries, like some of the smaller nations is that they don't have a military per se, they don't have the bombers, the tanks, the missles etcetcetc to use against their people.

[Words]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

It does make me crazy that leaders in these countries have ruled with iron hands and ripped off the people taking oil money and common people live in poverty. No social services, intra-structure. Nuts, when you think about how much money is involved which is a resource of the people. They end up without education and opportunity and these ruling families stash the money away.

So hard to trust politics!

This doesn't apply to Libya.

I worked in Benghazi for almost a year way back in the early 80s and I can vouch for the fact that although Ghadaffi is indeed a total head case (don't even get me started on his 'Little Green Book') - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...0-quotes/full/ - he has done a lot of good for the Libyan people as a whole.

True, there's not much in the way of democracy, Ghadaffi being the power hungry nutcase that he is, but even way back when I was there, there was plenty of education and opportunity. Libya actually has quite a long history of spending small fortunes on educating its new generation of young graduates abroad, all expenses paid, to ensure that they get the best possible education. Obviously, it has motives for doing so but even so, it would be wrong to say that educational opportunites have never existed/do not exist today.

As to poverty, to the best of my knowledge, all Libyans have access to food, healthcare, and shelter - which is a lot more than can be said for many living elsewhere, democracy or no democracy.

Words

[Words]

Libya's education record...(note: highest literacy rate in the Arab World).

http://www.infodev.org/en/Document.412.pdf

[AtLast]

Something that is continually on my mind concerning this action (and what is going on throughout many nations in this region) is if what women endue everyday in many Arab countries will be addressed in some global manner. Stats for Eqypt show that over 83% of women across socio-economic lines are sexually abused and harrassed throughout their lives.

I have reservations about this action, yet there is a part of me that wonders about how Libyan (Eqyption as well) women view the possible collapse of this regime. Women are raped and harrassed in these countries on a regular basis. I don't accept the concept of cultural relativity as an excuse/reason for the treatment of women as shit in any nation.

Do women in Libya and throughout the Arab world see that they their daughters may have a different life if this tyrant is removed? Or, do the rebels even think about women's rights and treatment?

If Libyans are better educated, how does this apply to women? And are women included in living a freer life within more democratic Arab nations? Will they be part of future social and political institutions?