Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zhivvy

Following the middle east

Recommended Posts


It's clear that foreign governments are concerned that Libya doesn't slip into Civil War for a fear it would have a detrimental impact on oil reserves.  Their concern for the Libyan people is a secondary mission.  Whether or not Gadaffi is in any position to withhold oil sales is not the issue here.  The primary concern is to save the oil.

You are so cynical.  But since you believe this so strongly, have you tried to live a fossil-fuel free life?  Try it.  It might be an interesting exercise for you, and you would be playing your part to diminish the rapacious appetite for oil, which, you believe, supersedes all else.  Now you realize, this means no gas, no electricity, no plastics, no clothes you did not make yourself--by hand, no food you did not grow yourself (and without fertilizer),   etc, etc....

I have always done my best to minimize my fossil footprint to the extreme.  But without the stuff, unfortunately, developed society cannot function.  The developing world is lucky--much of it has yet to build infrastructures and when they do, hopefully they will be able to benefit from new energy technologies and will design their societies on something other than fossils.  But the rest of us are, to a certain degree, lamentably stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear that foreign governments are concerned that Libya doesn't slip into Civil War for a fear it would have a detrimental impact on oil reserves.  Their concern for the Libyan people is a secondary mission.  Whether or not Gadaffi is in any position to withhold oil sales is not the issue here.  The primary concern is to save the oil.

You are so cynical.  But since you believe this so strongly, have you tried to live a fossil-fuel free life?  Try it.  It might be an interesting exercise for you, and you would be playing your part to diminish the rapacious appetite for oil, which, you believe, supersedes all else.  Now you realize, this means no gas, no electricity, no plastics, no clothes you did not make yourself--by hand, no food you did not grow yourself (and without fertilizer),   etc, etc....

I have always done my best to minimize my fossil footprint to the extreme.  But without the stuff, unfortunately, developed society cannot function.  The developing world is lucky--much of it has yet to build infrastructures and when they do, hopefully they will be able to benefit from new energy technologies and will design their societies on something other than fossils.  But the rest of us are, to a certain degree, lamentably stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear that foreign governments are concerned that Libya doesn't slip into Civil War for a fear it would have a detrimental impact on oil reserves.  Their concern for the Libyan people is a secondary mission.  Whether or not Gadaffi is in any position to withhold oil sales is not the issue here.  The primary concern is to save the oil.

You are so cynical.  But since you believe this so strongly, have you tried to live a fossil-fuel free life?  Try it.  It might be an interesting exercise for you, and you would be playing your part to diminish the rapacious appetite for oil, which, you believe, supersedes all else.  Now you realize, this means no gas, no electricity, no plastics, no clothes you did not make yourself--by hand, no food you did not grow yourself (and without fertilizer),   etc, etc....

I have always done my best to minimize my fossil footprint to the extreme.  But without the stuff, unfortunately, developed society cannot function.  The developing world is lucky--much of it has yet to build infrastructures and when they do, hopefully they will be able to benefit from new energy technologies and will design their societies on something other than fossils.  But the rest of us are, to a certain degree, lamentably stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here...to shake you out of your conspiracy-mongering and give you some sense of what leaders are actually thinking about.

Cripes.....having to engage in this sort of conspiracy-busting gets so f*cking old and tiresome!

ap_logo_106.png

Realistic options for ousting Gadhafi look limited

By ROBERT BURNS and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press â€“ 39 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Short of a U.S.-led military offensive, international options to quickly force Moammar Gadhafi from power now appear to be highly limited, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for an end Wednesday to "loose talk" about steps that would amount to an act of war.

There are still hopes that U.N. sanctions and other diplomatic moves can undermine Gadhafi's authority, and Libyan rebels pressed their fight against troops loyal to Gadhafi on Wednesday.

But while a leading U.S. senator urged the Pentagon to be prepared to provide air cover for the rebels, there was little evidence of an appetite by the U.S., Europe or other powers to risk the consequences of military intervention.

Gates captured the mood in telling a congressional panel, "Let's call a spade a spade: A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses. His point: To ground Libya's air force in a way that minimizes risk to U.S. or coalition pilots would mean initiating an act of war in an Arab land.

The unspoken subtext is that with U.S. forces already deeply committed in Afghanistan, still winding down military operations in Iraq and on the watch for surprises in Iran and elsewhere in the suddenly volatile Persian Gulf region, the risks associated with military action in Libya might be unacceptable.

Alluding to Gates' announcement a day earlier that he had ordered two U.S. warships into the Mediterranean in case they were needed for civilian evacuations or humanitarian relief, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in separate testimony that the crisis could call for a mix of diplomacy and more.

"We are taking no option off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people," she said.

Clinton said she feared the prospect of Libya becoming infested with al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist groups on the scale of Somalia, the Horn of Africa country where the al-Shabab terrorist organization has gained a foothold.

"One of our biggest concerns is Libya descending into chaos and becoming a giant Somalia," Clinton said. "It is right now not something that we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaida activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya, which is now the so-called free area."

Gates, in testimony before a House committee, decried "loose talk" about military options in Libya, noting that even a no-fly zone would be a major undertaking. He said it could be accomplished if ordered by the White House, but it would require more airplanes than are found on a single U.S. aircraft carrier, which typically carries about 75 planes.

"So it's a big operation in a big country," he said, adding that the U.N. Security Council has not yet authorized any form of military action in Libya.

In support of Gates' point, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that despite media reports of Libyan aircraft attacking rebel areas, the Pentagon as of Wednesday had not confirmed any such attacks. He also said it must be assumed, in planning for the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone, that Libya's air defenses are substantial. Neither he nor Gates said explicitly whether they support or oppose such an operation.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked about Gates' comments, said, "The fact that the no-fly zone idea is complex does not mean it's not on the table."

Egyptian officials said two U.S. warships passed through the Suez Canal on Wednesday on their way to the Mediterranean Sea, closer to Libya. The amphibious assault ships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce entered the canal from the Red Sea. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to media, said the Kearsarge carried 42 helicopters.

There has been no consensus call from Congress for U.S. military action in Libya. However, Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday that while a no-fly zone over Libya is "not a long-term proposition," the Pentagon should be prepared to go that route if so ordered.

"The people of Libya do not ask for or need foreign troops on the ground," Kerry said. "They are committed to doing what is necessary, but they do need the tools to prevent the slaughter of innocents on Libyan streets, and I believe the global community cannot be on the sidelines while airplanes are allowed to bomb and strafe."

Senators, meanwhile, worked on an aid package to Arab countries to solidify democratic gains and improve relations with citizens in a part of the world accustomed to U.S. support for questionable rulers.

Kerry, D-Mass., said at a hearing attended by Clinton that "significant financial commitment by the U.S." was crucial to help what he called a "monumental and uplifting transformation" in the Mideast.

Some U.S. allies in NATO are mulling the idea of creating a no-fly zone over Libya. But Germany cautioned Wednesday against playing into charges that the West is unduly meddling in Arab affairs.

"I would advise that we conduct the debate ... about military options with all the appropriate caution and reserve," Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in Berlin.

The U.N. Security Council slapped an arms embargo, a travel ban and an assets freeze on Gadhafi, his family and top associates during an emergency weekend meeting. It also agreed to refer the case to the International Criminal Court at The Hague — a permanent war crimes tribunal — to investigate and prosecute possible crimes against humanity. But the U.N. has not yet included an authorization for the use of military force against Libya.

Charles Heyman, a defense analyst and editor of The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, said sanctions directed at the bank accounts and freedom to travel of high level Gadhafi supporters would have an impact. In his view, military intervention, including imposition of a no-fly zone, would prove to be counterproductive.

"A no-fly zone is the least bad option, but it's technically very hard to do and it costs a fortune and I don't think the U.S. or Europeans have to the money to spend now," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here...to shake you out of your conspiracy-mongering and give you some sense of what leaders are actually thinking about.

Cripes.....having to engage in this sort of conspiracy-busting gets so f*cking old and tiresome!

ap_logo_106.png

Realistic options for ousting Gadhafi look limited

By ROBERT BURNS and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press â€“ 39 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Short of a U.S.-led military offensive, international options to quickly force Moammar Gadhafi from power now appear to be highly limited, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for an end Wednesday to "loose talk" about steps that would amount to an act of war.

There are still hopes that U.N. sanctions and other diplomatic moves can undermine Gadhafi's authority, and Libyan rebels pressed their fight against troops loyal to Gadhafi on Wednesday.

But while a leading U.S. senator urged the Pentagon to be prepared to provide air cover for the rebels, there was little evidence of an appetite by the U.S., Europe or other powers to risk the consequences of military intervention.

Gates captured the mood in telling a congressional panel, "Let's call a spade a spade: A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses. His point: To ground Libya's air force in a way that minimizes risk to U.S. or coalition pilots would mean initiating an act of war in an Arab land.

The unspoken subtext is that with U.S. forces already deeply committed in Afghanistan, still winding down military operations in Iraq and on the watch for surprises in Iran and elsewhere in the suddenly volatile Persian Gulf region, the risks associated with military action in Libya might be unacceptable.

Alluding to Gates' announcement a day earlier that he had ordered two U.S. warships into the Mediterranean in case they were needed for civilian evacuations or humanitarian relief, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in separate testimony that the crisis could call for a mix of diplomacy and more.

"We are taking no option off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people," she said.

Clinton said she feared the prospect of Libya becoming infested with al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist groups on the scale of Somalia, the Horn of Africa country where the al-Shabab terrorist organization has gained a foothold.

"One of our biggest concerns is Libya descending into chaos and becoming a giant Somalia," Clinton said. "It is right now not something that we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaida activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya, which is now the so-called free area."

Gates, in testimony before a House committee, decried "loose talk" about military options in Libya, noting that even a no-fly zone would be a major undertaking. He said it could be accomplished if ordered by the White House, but it would require more airplanes than are found on a single U.S. aircraft carrier, which typically carries about 75 planes.

"So it's a big operation in a big country," he said, adding that the U.N. Security Council has not yet authorized any form of military action in Libya.

In support of Gates' point, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that despite media reports of Libyan aircraft attacking rebel areas, the Pentagon as of Wednesday had not confirmed any such attacks. He also said it must be assumed, in planning for the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone, that Libya's air defenses are substantial. Neither he nor Gates said explicitly whether they support or oppose such an operation.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked about Gates' comments, said, "The fact that the no-fly zone idea is complex does not mean it's not on the table."

Egyptian officials said two U.S. warships passed through the Suez Canal on Wednesday on their way to the Mediterranean Sea, closer to Libya. The amphibious assault ships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce entered the canal from the Red Sea. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to media, said the Kearsarge carried 42 helicopters.

There has been no consensus call from Congress for U.S. military action in Libya. However, Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday that while a no-fly zone over Libya is "not a long-term proposition," the Pentagon should be prepared to go that route if so ordered.

"The people of Libya do not ask for or need foreign troops on the ground," Kerry said. "They are committed to doing what is necessary, but they do need the tools to prevent the slaughter of innocents on Libyan streets, and I believe the global community cannot be on the sidelines while airplanes are allowed to bomb and strafe."

Senators, meanwhile, worked on an aid package to Arab countries to solidify democratic gains and improve relations with citizens in a part of the world accustomed to U.S. support for questionable rulers.

Kerry, D-Mass., said at a hearing attended by Clinton that "significant financial commitment by the U.S." was crucial to help what he called a "monumental and uplifting transformation" in the Mideast.

Some U.S. allies in NATO are mulling the idea of creating a no-fly zone over Libya. But Germany cautioned Wednesday against playing into charges that the West is unduly meddling in Arab affairs.

"I would advise that we conduct the debate ... about military options with all the appropriate caution and reserve," Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in Berlin.

The U.N. Security Council slapped an arms embargo, a travel ban and an assets freeze on Gadhafi, his family and top associates during an emergency weekend meeting. It also agreed to refer the case to the International Criminal Court at The Hague — a permanent war crimes tribunal — to investigate and prosecute possible crimes against humanity. But the U.N. has not yet included an authorization for the use of military force against Libya.

Charles Heyman, a defense analyst and editor of The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, said sanctions directed at the bank accounts and freedom to travel of high level Gadhafi supporters would have an impact. In his view, military intervention, including imposition of a no-fly zone, would prove to be counterproductive.

"A no-fly zone is the least bad option, but it's technically very hard to do and it costs a fortune and I don't think the U.S. or Europeans have to the money to spend now," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here...to shake you out of your conspiracy-mongering and give you some sense of what leaders are actually thinking about.

Cripes.....having to engage in this sort of conspiracy-busting gets so f*cking old and tiresome!

ap_logo_106.png

Realistic options for ousting Gadhafi look limited

By ROBERT BURNS and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press â€“ 39 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Short of a U.S.-led military offensive, international options to quickly force Moammar Gadhafi from power now appear to be highly limited, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for an end Wednesday to "loose talk" about steps that would amount to an act of war.

There are still hopes that U.N. sanctions and other diplomatic moves can undermine Gadhafi's authority, and Libyan rebels pressed their fight against troops loyal to Gadhafi on Wednesday.

But while a leading U.S. senator urged the Pentagon to be prepared to provide air cover for the rebels, there was little evidence of an appetite by the U.S., Europe or other powers to risk the consequences of military intervention.

Gates captured the mood in telling a congressional panel, "Let's call a spade a spade: A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses. His point: To ground Libya's air force in a way that minimizes risk to U.S. or coalition pilots would mean initiating an act of war in an Arab land.

The unspoken subtext is that with U.S. forces already deeply committed in Afghanistan, still winding down military operations in Iraq and on the watch for surprises in Iran and elsewhere in the suddenly volatile Persian Gulf region, the risks associated with military action in Libya might be unacceptable.

Alluding to Gates' announcement a day earlier that he had ordered two U.S. warships into the Mediterranean in case they were needed for civilian evacuations or humanitarian relief, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in separate testimony that the crisis could call for a mix of diplomacy and more.

"We are taking no option off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people," she said.

Clinton said she feared the prospect of Libya becoming infested with al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist groups on the scale of Somalia, the Horn of Africa country where the al-Shabab terrorist organization has gained a foothold.

"One of our biggest concerns is Libya descending into chaos and becoming a giant Somalia," Clinton said. "It is right now not something that we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaida activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya, which is now the so-called free area."

Gates, in testimony before a House committee, decried "loose talk" about military options in Libya, noting that even a no-fly zone would be a major undertaking. He said it could be accomplished if ordered by the White House, but it would require more airplanes than are found on a single U.S. aircraft carrier, which typically carries about 75 planes.

"So it's a big operation in a big country," he said, adding that the U.N. Security Council has not yet authorized any form of military action in Libya.

In support of Gates' point, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that despite media reports of Libyan aircraft attacking rebel areas, the Pentagon as of Wednesday had not confirmed any such attacks. He also said it must be assumed, in planning for the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone, that Libya's air defenses are substantial. Neither he nor Gates said explicitly whether they support or oppose such an operation.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked about Gates' comments, said, "The fact that the no-fly zone idea is complex does not mean it's not on the table."

Egyptian officials said two U.S. warships passed through the Suez Canal on Wednesday on their way to the Mediterranean Sea, closer to Libya. The amphibious assault ships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce entered the canal from the Red Sea. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to media, said the Kearsarge carried 42 helicopters.

There has been no consensus call from Congress for U.S. military action in Libya. However, Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday that while a no-fly zone over Libya is "not a long-term proposition," the Pentagon should be prepared to go that route if so ordered.

"The people of Libya do not ask for or need foreign troops on the ground," Kerry said. "They are committed to doing what is necessary, but they do need the tools to prevent the slaughter of innocents on Libyan streets, and I believe the global community cannot be on the sidelines while airplanes are allowed to bomb and strafe."

Senators, meanwhile, worked on an aid package to Arab countries to solidify democratic gains and improve relations with citizens in a part of the world accustomed to U.S. support for questionable rulers.

Kerry, D-Mass., said at a hearing attended by Clinton that "significant financial commitment by the U.S." was crucial to help what he called a "monumental and uplifting transformation" in the Mideast.

Some U.S. allies in NATO are mulling the idea of creating a no-fly zone over Libya. But Germany cautioned Wednesday against playing into charges that the West is unduly meddling in Arab affairs.

"I would advise that we conduct the debate ... about military options with all the appropriate caution and reserve," Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in Berlin.

The U.N. Security Council slapped an arms embargo, a travel ban and an assets freeze on Gadhafi, his family and top associates during an emergency weekend meeting. It also agreed to refer the case to the International Criminal Court at The Hague — a permanent war crimes tribunal — to investigate and prosecute possible crimes against humanity. But the U.N. has not yet included an authorization for the use of military force against Libya.

Charles Heyman, a defense analyst and editor of The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, said sanctions directed at the bank accounts and freedom to travel of high level Gadhafi supporters would have an impact. In his view, military intervention, including imposition of a no-fly zone, would prove to be counterproductive.

"A no-fly zone is the least bad option, but it's technically very hard to do and it costs a fortune and I don't think the U.S. or Europeans have to the money to spend now," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mummy wrote:


security_in_anonymity']
I recall a recent history of a government (rather a coalition of governments) going in to forcefully remove a murderous tyrant--it was a most unpopular undertaking.

Gaddafi used air-strikes on his own people.  I would be fine with someone going in and forcefully displacing him.
I am just not sure it is in anyone's interest to do so (other than the Libyan people's)
.  And, I am fairly certain that if  anyone did go in to forcefully stop Gaddafi,  interest in the Libyan people would be immediately forgotten by much of  the oh-so-concerned outside world.   Instead, I do not doubt, whoever intervened would suddenly be perceived as an even more "evil" force than he. 

Eh, I can see at least one reason why people other than the libyans would be interested in going in and removing Mr. M Gadaffi.  For the same reason the "coalition of governments" removed the other "tyrant". One Word: OIL.I agree with you Mummy - as i said above - other tyrants haven't been removed by force and strangely they are in countries with no oil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am not saying that he should not be removed especially with his comments today of he will fight to the last Libyan man and woman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you guys go and get yourselves spooled up into something stupid, please....please....take a moment to read the above article and exercise just a tad of intellectual discernment. Everything does not have to warrant a mindless call to populist arms, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you guys go and get yourselves spooled up into something stupid, please....please....take a moment to read the above article and exercise just a tad of intellectual discernment. Everything does not have to warrant a mindless call to populist arms, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...