No Fly Zone over Libya - Rhetoric/Implications

[AtLast]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...72J47020110320

[iamkeri1]

A L H
I don't think you intended this thread as a place to which you alone will return on a fairly regular basis to post news about the Libyan situation, so I'm going to post - and interject my opinion.

I am unequivocably opposed to this intervention. I am opposed to any intervention by the US in another countries political situation. No matter how it turns out, we will be vilified by the Arabic press and nations while it is going on, and long after it is over. I do feel for the people of Libya. My usual desired cure for a deranged leader of the likes of Khadafy is assasination, preferrably by a member of his own government. It eliminates the problem quickly while reducing the number of lives lost.

In addition to my predictable, reliable, historic, constant, lifelong, opposition to interventions of this kind, there are other considerations at this time.

We are already enmired in two other military actions in the mid-east. Our Army is weary and over-worked. Our legislators, after having extended huge tax cuts to the ultra rich, are fighting over which non-military programs to reduce or defund altogether. Most safety nets for the poor and middle class are targeted for reduction or elimination. The actual targets, or course are medicaid and medicare, and then on to Social Security. No cuts are acceptable to military spending, however, even cuts recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff are being fully funded.

So my question is this - it is certainly a familiar question.
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
?????????????????
Smooches,
Keri

[mustangjeano]

Keri,
I am on the same page with you. I was holding my head and talking to the TV when I heard the news. Our country has ignored horrible situations in other parts of the world but we must intervene in Libya? It strikes me as hypocritical.

[EnderD_503]

I'm opposed to Western military involvement in Libya at all. Perhaps if it was as simple as "fighting for democracy," but I don't think the West's intent is as kind hearted as that.

It once more smacks of Western imperialism and don't think that UN should be taking sides here. I find it beyond coincidental that Western nations are particularly interested in Libya's "fight for democracy" when Libya possesses the largest oil reserve in Africa. Additionally, over 80% of Libya's crude oil is exported to Europe. As far as why France and others are opposing Gaddafi rather than the rebels, there might be a few reasons and I don't particularly believe that the UN is all that interested in democracy in Libya (probably about as "interested" as the US was in democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq). One could be that Misratah is one of Libya's major ports.

What supports the theory of oil once more being of more importance than democracy is the fact that the West did not see fit to involve itself in any other of the revolutions or rebellions that occurred throughout Africa and the Middle East. Oddly enough, Libya seems to be one of the only locations of Middle Eastern/North African rebellion where democracy is actually threatened by organised Islamic extremists posing as "freedom fighters" (Afghanistan/Taliban all over again?) moreso than the present leader (in this case Gaddafi).

Bahrain is currently going through a similar upheaval, and yet the West obviously doesn't give a shit enough to get involved there (or anywhere where oil isn't threatened for that matter). I suppose Bahrain is not a strategic enough location for the West. But it is apparently important to other Arab states with oil interests in Bahrain, who entered Bahrain for the specific reason of protecting oil interests. Rather telling. The difference between the two approaches is likely that the West likes to add a little decorum to its greed.

So why get involved in the only country with significant amounts of oil to export. Why support potential Islamic extremists?

I honestly do think it all comes down to economic greed. The West, despite having the resources, has yet to come up with an alternative form of energy that is as immediately convenient as oil. Because of this greed, I'm not sure that the Middle East will develop into democracies any time soon largely due to Western involvement and continuous unsettlement. Iraq was one example of the West completely disrupting an Arab nation that was growing closer to becoming a democracy. With the Middle East still being ridden with Islamic extremists that want to take the region backwards, men like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and others were what was necessary to keep them at bay and to move the Middle East forward. And it was working.

While I fully support democracy in the Middle East, I'm not sure many nations are really at the point where they can have leaders who will not take an iron fist to Islamic extremists (the kind Hussein was charged with killing/trampling on their "human rights." The truth is, that's part of what was bringing Iraq toward progress. Even Christian Iraqis were saying that they'd never felt safer than when under Saddam...but he wasn't playing the role the US wanted him to play, heaven forbid).

Additionally, the unfortunate side of many of these revolutions (and past rebellions in the Middle East) is that it is a mix of average people who just want to live in a democratic nation, leftists and, the most organised of them all, Islamic extremists (who are unfortunately among those calling themselves Freedom Fighers in Libya) like the Islamic Brotherhood. It's unfortunate, but true, hence why Gaddafi may be much better for Libya than the alternative.

Edit: Also wanted to add that I find it very interesting that Germany has decided to diverge with their usual ally on this one (France). Continues to confirm my suspicions that the German government has had more of a head on its shoulders with Angela Merkel in power than neighbouring France under Sarkozy. Also, reading some of Putin's comments I find myself agreeing there, and I think it's important to listen to what Russia's saying here.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

A L H
I don't think you intended this thread as a place to which you alone will return on a fairly regular basis to post news about the Libyan situation, so I'm going to post - and interject my opinion.

I am unequivocably opposed to this intervention. I am opposed to any intervention by the US in another countries political situation. No matter how it turns out, we will be vilified by the Arabic press and nations while it is going on, and long after it is over. I do feel for the people of Libya. My usual desired cure for a deranged leader of the likes of Khadafy is assasination, preferrably by a member of his own government. It eliminates the problem quickly while reducing the number of lives lost.

In addition to my predictable, reliable, historic, constant, lifelong, opposition to interventions of this kind, there are other considerations at this time.

We are already enmired in two other military actions in the mid-east. Our Army is weary and over-worked. Our legislators, after having extended huge tax cuts to the ultra rich, are fighting over which non-military programs to reduce or defund altogether. Most safety nets for the poor and middle class are targeted for reduction or elimination. The actual targets, or course are medicaid and medicare, and then on to Social Security. No cuts are acceptable to military spending, however, even cuts recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff are being fully funded.

So my question is this - it is certainly a familiar question.
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
?????????????????
Smooches,
Keri

LOL... nope, I so want other people to weigh in. I was thinking- "Shit- doesn't anyone care?"

[AtLast]

I have to say that my usual response to such events do tend to be about western oil concerns, interfering with other nation's sovereignty, tribal contingencies, etc. However, recent events in the Middle East wherein the common people are standing up to tyrants and for human rights issues- has me doing a lot of thinking and doing research. There are numerous Face Book pages by just folks in these countries that have not been around before.

The role of social media and youth in these countries in terms of movements against oppressive governments/leaders and even religious ideology feels different to me. Consequently, I am trying to gain new perspectives and not fall back on some of my past opinions.

Also, I do live in an area in which there are several middle eastern family businesses and new neighbors. talking with them does bring me to re-thinking global interventions. I have not yet formed any particular stance with the No-Fly Zone in Libya and the UN resolution. I am finding that I just can't revert to my usual stance- which would be more left-wing in nature.

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!

So- any an all thoughts on these subjects are welcome!

[Glenn]

Well uh..I thought we only imported 17% of our oil from the middle east??? I think we are living in a time of great fear, and the rest of the civilized world should swoop down on these petty dictators wherever they pop up.. Last I heard it's France, US, Britain,? Russia told US and the others, to stop attacks on Libya cause it's allied with red china now?..china now,is nearby to showcase it's naval might. www.cnn.com-Fareed Zakaria reports. This may turn into WWII!... honest, Folks.

[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!