Hard News: Libya
175 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
chris, in reply to
Based on this intervention, whatever is at stake in Libya could be perceived to be of more value to the UNSC than what Sudan had to offer. That Libya’s military is supplied by Brazil, China and Russia is surely relevant, as is the increase in gold and oil prices.
Brazil, China and Russia all abstained on the Security Council vote, so it’s counter-intuitive to suggest they had an interest in intervention.
I'm still getting the feeling you're under the assumption that these are details I'd missed in my initial summation. I hope you can reread that paragraph again. In particular the preceeding two sentences (quoted below*)
Again to clarify the paragraph you pulled me up on. Based on this intervention, UNSC members abstaining from voting for intervention in a conflict with a country who they deal arms to but whom has an arms embargo levied against is relevant to the spectrum of UNSC motives, relevant to what the UNSC as a whole represents and it's deeper priorities.But here’s the thing: the UN, even the Security Council, isn’t some dark, conspiring bloc.
+
On the other hand, China and Russia – both arms-manufacturing nations – abstained.
=
*amongst numerous economic considerations. But to simplify it as such doesn’t seem to be the right tack.
And further to my initial summation:
b) serve as a staging ground for weapons testing without undue scrutiny.
American air force's newest acquisitions and has rotor blades which can swivel in order to allow it to fly like a helicopter or a conventional fixed-wing aircraft
Information I surely needed.
The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007; it is supplementing and will eventually replace their CH-46 Sea Knights. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat and rescue operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya[5]
-
Sorry, had to do a spot of work just now. Most poignantly Russell, assuming the western led intervention goes as far as to remove The Colonel, who will replace Brazil, China and Russia as major arms suppliers to New Libya?
That the three major arms suppliers to the Libya abstained to vote for a resolution involving an arms embargo, an asset freeze and military intervention is as relevant as all get out.
I don't see the UNSC as a dark conspiring bloc, it's as visible an indication as any of the moral integrity of the global marketplace.
It was almost 8 years ago to the day that we saw the invasion of Iraq, it will be interesting to see who Libya's main arms suppliers are 8 years from now. Where are Yemen and Bahrain in this discussion? Over what threshold does a massacre become genocide?
A hypothetical question that comes to mind for me, inspired by Conal Tuohy's well written piece on western imperialism and particularly this paragraph:
And yet … this time everything is different somehow. This time our bombing campaign will make the world a better place. This time the enemy leader really is a mad dog. This time we won’t divide them; we won’t plunder their resources; we won’t usurp their national sovereignty and foist new laws, financial systems, foreign investors, foreign police forces, new kings and military dictators onto them.
is:
How British would Britain be today had China intervened in the English Civil War?
-
-
There is one alternative no one seems to want to discuss and that is that Obama has made a gargantuan error by committing the USA to a war of no defined objective (at least Bush and co went to enormous lengths to sign up other nations and get the full vote of congress), with no clear strategy, with no clear command, with key NATO members standing back (Turkey and Germany are keeping their mitts well clear). Russia and China will always stay well clear of an operation led by NATO or the USA.
Italy and France have clear interest in removing the dictator on their doorstep, Britain as well to some extent. But the USA? Ghadaffi has been playing nice, publicly removing his nuclear program after the invasion of Iraq, his military does not threaten the USA. His sponsorship of terrorism is about the same as Saddam's, so the threat to the USA national interest is much the same. His Arab pals are of course keen to see him gone, their is no honour among thieves and they will all be jockeying for influence in whatever results in the break-up of Libya into its tribal factions (no ethnic dimension my big fat ass).
It seems quite clear that what no one is prepared to say is that Obama's foreign policy is a mess with even Hillary running a mile from the job after this term. The Europeans will play the US involvement for all it is worth to their own end, as they would. The American public quite rightly has no interest in pursuing another entanglement in the region and unless Obama suddenly discovers a hidden talent for actual leadershop and strategy this is going to cost him dearly in 2012.
Can other oppressed nations expect such "aid" in their uprisings? You bet your ass the answer is no. North Korea can murder and starve millions, Myanmar can brutally repress its nation, etc etc, but Ghadaffi suppressing an uprising is somehow a nobel and shinng cause to expend a few tomahawks on.
Nup, the only reason Juan Cole, the Guardian and all the rest are backing this is because they cannot yet bring themselves to admit what is glaringly obvious about Obama. But give it a few months to turn sour with the USA left holding the baby and just watch how this will be rewritten.
-
Pete, in reply to
Chris I believe that Biden was visiting Russia shortly before their abstention vote and was integral to getting them to sit the round out.
I think that Obama is being pragmatic and can see that this wave is still rolling across the Arab world.I don't think its so much about who is going to be a future arms market for external actors.
Facebook and Twitter have served up enough connectivity to allow this Arab wave to see solidarity and unity of purpose but I see this whole Arab wave as coming from their basic desire to stop some fucker standing on their throat. -
Also remember Obama's own professed policy on petty dictators who butcher their citizens:
"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
No, not like Iraq at all...
-
Or the current Secretary of State back when she had different agendas:
"No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."
A Libyan problem, clearly they cannot be saved from themselves.
-
Chris I believe that Biden was visiting Russia shortly before their abstention vote and was integral to getting them to sit the round out.
I think that Obama is being pragmatic and can see that this wave is still rolling across the Arab world.Biden in Russia, ostensibly to discuss Russia’s WTO bid, and assist Russia in overcoming the final hurdles to entering the WTO, encouraged Russia to sit out a UNSC vote.
Facebook and Twitter have served up enough connectivity to allow this Arab wave to see solidarity and unity of purpose but I see this whole Arab wave as coming from their basic desire to stop some fucker standing on their throat.
Neither Facebook nor Twitter were involved in the vote for military intervention. And neither Facebook nor Twitter delivered the world this great steaming pile of propaganda:
[Chris, I’ve edited out the other 2000 words of that 2009 speech you pasted in. C’mon, be sensible please – RB]
-
Pete, in reply to
Oh Chris
To think that I wasted mental effort arguing with you.
Bigger fool me. -
glennd, in reply to
Hmm the same Russians calling the "bombing" a crusade now? Really, this stuff is just a gift that keeps on giving to the Russians et al.
-
andin, in reply to
Geez mate you could have just put a link to Obama's speech.
Ceremonial speeches aren't worth the paper or bandwidth they often take up.
They havent been since someone came up with peace treaties, when speechifyin'
really took off. -
glennd, in reply to
So the one thing Obama is good at, speechifying from a text, is worthless anyway. Huh, interesting.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It is a pity that the countries that are so keen to help enforce the no fly zone in Libya weren’t able to persuade their great friend and ally Saudi Arabia to stay the hell out of Bahrain.
Quite. Although firing on civilian demonstrators from warplanes and helicopters -- Libya's response to the pro-democracy protests a month ago -- seems objectively an order of magnitude worse.
-
glennd, in reply to
Quite, and so the current coalition will clearly be going after Syria now, which is busy shooting civilians this week too.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Quite, and so the current coalition will clearly be going after Syria now, which is busy shooting civilians this week too.
Horrifyingly so. But I doubt you’ll see the same confluence of factors that led to the authorisation of the no-fly zone.
ETA: Specifically, the Arab League and African Union demanding it.
-
Sorry about the length of the speech there Russell, Andin, people, I just found its paragraph to paragraph hypocrisy so compelling over a late night binge, I am a little disappointed you stripped Islander's quote off the bottom though.
Oh Chris
To think that I wasted mental effort arguing with you.
Bigger fool me.Firstly Pete, why would you even bother arguing with a stubborn tool like me?
Secondly, exactly how much mental effort was required to post that ? I'm honoured at your and anyone else's engagement of me on this topic, my angle on it is pretty blunt, and I'll happily step aside if you can give me some more solid evidence or insight to lead me to believe that the UNSC is anything more than a malignant side effect of the UN's higher principals, but unsourced Biden heresay and casual name dropping of social networking services doesn't convince me that the UNSC has the world's best interests at heart.Quite. Although firing on civilian demonstrators from warplanes and helicopters – Libya’s response to the pro-democracy protests a month ago – seems objectively an order of magnitude worse.
Yesterday I noticed numerous reports, almost all from entirely spurious or questionable sources, that according to the Russian military, this never happened. The internet is just nuts.
But Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, where's it gonna end?
-
Meanwhile ...
Russia's former ambassador to Libya has stoked new tension between President Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, after calling the Kremlin's acquiescence to air strikes targeting Libya a "betrayal of Russia's interests" ...
... Aides to the two men have moved quickly to downplay the disagreement, but Vladimir Chamov has reignited it after flying home to Russia on Wednesday night. Chamov, who was sacked as ambassador to Tripoli by Medvedev earlier this month, told reporters that Moscow's failure to oppose the bombing raids would lose Russian companies huge sums of money in arms and other contracts.
-
Quite, and so the current coalition will clearly be going after Syria now, which is busy shooting civilians this week too.
I'm not sure if those advocating not intervening in Libya are arguing against any intervention anywhere at all or that one can only intervene in all places at the same time or else do nothing.
-
I'm not sure if those advocating intervening in Libya are arguing for intervening anywhere else at all or that one can only support intervention where the US is currently intervening and otherwise do nothing.
But that might be a straw man.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
I’m not sure if those advocating intervening in Libya are arguing...
Since you asked, I consider intervention on a case by case basis and have long thought intervention in several places around the world long overdue. However I don't require holding the well-being of some to ransom just because little action is being taken on behalf of others.
So, do you think no intervention should take place until every necessary intervention takes place at the same time?
-
chris, in reply to
From the resolution Russell posted, I'd latch onto this as indicative of how I'd prefer to see the situation handled:
Security Council President LI BAODONG (China), speaking in his national capacity, said that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Libya was of great concern to China. However, the United Nations Charter must be respected and the current crisis must be ended through peaceful means. China was always against the use of force when those means were not exhausted. His delegation had asked specific questions that failed to be answered and, therefore, it had serious difficulty with the resolution. It had not blocked the passage of the resolution, however, because it attached great importance to the requests of the Arab League and the African Union. At the same time, he supported the efforts of the Secretary-General’s Envoy to resolve the situation by peaceful means
Clinton's admission that there is ongoing dialogue with The Colonel implies that all avenues were not exhausted before bombs were dropped.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
No Neil, I don't, I’m not the straw man you’re looking for.
-
It’s hardly a straw man. I quoted the example of the argument with Syria. It’s an argument being made and I’m interested to know just what the argument means exactly.
Is it an opposition to intervention of any sort at any time or is it a demand for nothing less than every necessary intervention at the same time.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I get the impression Putin never really relinquished control of post-Yeltsin Russia. The guy seems to think of himself as Tsar 2.0.
Also, Libya would seem to be a military steamroll in comparison with Myanmar and Zimbabwe. There's also Belarus, but it just happens to be on Russia's backyard, and no-one would risk pissing off Moscow.
-
Clinton's admission that there is ongoing dialogue with The Colonel indicates that all avenues were not exhausted before bombs were dropped.
Yes, he's very keen to exhaust all avenues, whilst simultaneously finishing off his internal opposition. There was never any attempt to exhaust all avenues of peaceful negotiation with them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.