Jump to content

Following the middle east


Zhivvy

Recommended Posts


Security, read the UK papers - at least your government seems to be having some sense. Ours seem to be a bit behind in having any sense!!! I do think that Cameron will back down - he has too. It is a pity that you don't get the BBC over there - we have a political show called 'Question Time' every week and last week and most certainly this week this is a topic which will be hotly debated. Lat week a lot of the argument was the fact that UK sold weapons to Libya etc.... and this week it will be discussed again. And the oil issue was brought up too by the opposition.

 

It is getting late over here now and almost bedtime but if you want i can post the links of the UK papers tomorrow if you want to see what the view is over here of our government!

Thanks for the offer Zhiv.  Actually, we do get the BBC over here--on TV, and naturally on the web.  I also skim the main British papers nearly daily, as well as the German, French, Israeli, and a few other countries. (Thank god for the web!)

I know Cameron has been bungling his response to this, as has the US.  I followed the kurfluffel about the arms sales.  I am following the debate re: the proposed no-fly zone.  Naturally the people calling for this are expecting the US to provide the military cover for such a feat.  Thankfully our defense secretary has a level head--which I cannot say for the white house or state department at the moment.  Cameron's only other proposed military action that I am aware of is his announcement that that the UK would airlift 6,000 mainly Egyptian refugees stranded on the Libya-Tunisia border to Cairo.

Thanks again and Sleep well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Subscriber

[quote name='security_in_anonymity wrote:


Zhivvy']Security, read the UK papers - at least your government seems to be having some sense. Ours seem to be a bit behind in having any sense!!! I do think that Cameron will back down - he has too. It is a pity that you don't get the BBC over there - we have a political show called 'Question Time' every week and last week and most certainly this week this is a topic which will be hotly debated. Lat week a lot of the argument was the fact that UK sold weapons to Libya etc.... and this week it will be discussed again. And the oil issue was brought up too by the opposition.

 

It is getting late over here now and almost bedtime but if you want i can post the links of the UK papers tomorrow if you want to see what the view is over here of our government!

Thanks for the offer Zhiv.  Actually, we do get the BBC over here--on TV, and naturally on the web.  I also skim the main British papers nearly daily, as well as the German, French, Israeli, and a few other countries. (Thank god for the web!)

I know Cameron has been bungling his response to this, as has the US.  I followed the kurfluffel about the arms sales.  I am following the debate re: the proposed no-fly zone.  Naturally the people calling for this are expecting the US to provide the military cover for such a feat.  Thankfully our defense secretary has a level head--which I cannot say for the white house or state department at the moment.  Cameron's only other proposed military action that I am aware of is his announcement that that the UK would airlift 6,000 mainly Egyptian refugees stranded on the Libya-Tunisia border to Cairo.

Thanks again and Sleep well!

Cameron bungles everything!!!!!! - you may guess that i am not a fan!!! And don't get me started on what he is doing to screw the education system - that is a whole other thread lol!

Didn't realise that you got the BBC! If you get the show it is worth a watch very interesting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is interesting that many are trying to determine "who is in charge" of the Libyan and other uprisings--who speaks for the people, they wonder?   Who are the leaders??
I think it is just too great a leap of paradigm for systems accustomed to thinking in terms of personalities and "leaders" (and  following publics) to wrap their collective minds around the idea that nobody is in charge.  I think what is "directing" this is quite simply Zeitgeist.  What an interesting conundrum. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is interesting that many are trying to determine "who is in charge" of the Libyan and other uprisings--who speaks for the people, they wonder?   Who are the leaders??
I think it is just too great a leap of paradigm for systems accustomed to thinking in terms of personalities and "leaders" (and  following publics) to wrap their collective minds around the idea that nobody is in charge.  I think what is "directing" this is quite simply Zeitgeist.  What an interesting conundrum. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is interesting that many are trying to determine "who is in charge" of the Libyan and other uprisings--who speaks for the people, they wonder?   Who are the leaders??
I think it is just too great a leap of paradigm for systems accustomed to thinking in terms of personalities and "leaders" (and  following publics) to wrap their collective minds around the idea that nobody is in charge.  I think what is "directing" this is quite simply Zeitgeist.  What an interesting conundrum. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting that many are trying to determine "who is in charge" of the Libyan and other uprisings--who speaks for the people, they wonder?   Who are the leaders??
I think it is just too great a leap of paradigm for systems accustomed to thinking in terms of personalities and "leaders" (and  following publics) to wrap their collective minds around the idea that nobody is in charge.  I think what is "directing" this is quite simply Zeitgeist.  What an interesting conundrum. 
security can u help me righ this moment? i need ur help---look at ur pm right now
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is something grotesquely ironic developing around this Libya mess.

Years ago, when the US declared a foreign policy of fostering democracy in the Middle East as a long-term strategy to counter radical Islamic terror, voices throughout the world screamed bloody massacre and, among other things, insisted that:

1.  Arab and Islamic publics are not advanced enough to handle democracy (how offensive is this?)
2.  Democracy cannot be forced from without, it must spontaneously emerge from the grassroots

Nothing in the bloody complexities of international affairs is ever a clear-cut straight line.  But, keeping the above opposition-arguments in mind, I cannot help but notice with tragic bemusement that:

A.  Democracy was not a word even spoken in the streets of that part of the world until the Iraq invasion introduced the idea into the popular local lexicon.  Now, the entire region is rising up demanding democratic reforms.  Think what one will about the Iraq invasion--there is much to criticize.  But, eight years later, its seeds appear to be sprouting.

B.  Some of the same people who damned the U.S. for its actions in Iraq are now expecting the U.S. to provide military cover for the "grassroots" movements and want the US to lead the imposition of a no-fly zone, which does require an act of war against Libya.

I think  the US must provide humanitarian and evacuation assistance to Libyans.  But let someone else lead a military campaign, if there is to be one.  These developing hypocrisies are traps just waiting to be sprung.  The White House has already primed the country to step into these traps when it demanded Gaddafi step down without first considering how to assure this happens without military intervention and without knowing who would take over once the Colonel were gone. 

I hope Defense Secretary Robert Gates' good sense will spread to some of the U.S. political voices and that they will not allow the U.S. to be cajoled or coerced into taking the lead in a military action.  I trust they will keep the strategy of "entrapment" in mind.  

If I were hostile to the US, I would be looking at the U.S. leadership right now and licking my chops over the prospects of tricking it into a real screw-up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is something grotesquely ironic developing around this Libya mess.

Years ago, when the US declared a foreign policy of fostering democracy in the Middle East as a long-term strategy to counter radical Islamic terror, voices throughout the world screamed bloody massacre and, among other things, insisted that:

1.  Arab and Islamic publics are not advanced enough to handle democracy (how offensive is this?)
2.  Democracy cannot be forced from without, it must spontaneously emerge from the grassroots

Nothing in the bloody complexities of international affairs is ever a clear-cut straight line.  But, keeping the above opposition-arguments in mind, I cannot help but notice with tragic bemusement that:

A.  Democracy was not a word even spoken in the streets of that part of the world until the Iraq invasion introduced the idea into the popular local lexicon.  Now, the entire region is rising up demanding democratic reforms.  Think what one will about the Iraq invasion--there is much to criticize.  But, eight years later, its seeds appear to be sprouting.

B.  Some of the same people who damned the U.S. for its actions in Iraq are now expecting the U.S. to provide military cover for the "grassroots" movements and want the US to lead the imposition of a no-fly zone, which does require an act of war against Libya.

I think  the US must provide humanitarian and evacuation assistance to Libyans.  But let someone else lead a military campaign, if there is to be one.  These developing hypocrisies are traps just waiting to be sprung.  The White House has already primed the country to step into these traps when it demanded Gaddafi step down without first considering how to assure this happens without military intervention and without knowing who would take over once the Colonel were gone. 

I hope Defense Secretary Robert Gates' good sense will spread to some of the U.S. political voices and that they will not allow the U.S. to be cajoled or coerced into taking the lead in a military action.  I trust they will keep the strategy of "entrapment" in mind.  

If I were hostile to the US, I would be looking at the U.S. leadership right now and licking my chops over the prospects of tricking it into a real screw-up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is something grotesquely ironic developing around this Libya mess.

Years ago, when the US declared a foreign policy of fostering democracy in the Middle East as a long-term strategy to counter radical Islamic terror, voices throughout the world screamed bloody massacre and, among other things, insisted that:

1.  Arab and Islamic publics are not advanced enough to handle democracy (how offensive is this?)
2.  Democracy cannot be forced from without, it must spontaneously emerge from the grassroots

Nothing in the bloody complexities of international affairs is ever a clear-cut straight line.  But, keeping the above opposition-arguments in mind, I cannot help but notice with tragic bemusement that:

A.  Democracy was not a word even spoken in the streets of that part of the world until the Iraq invasion introduced the idea into the popular local lexicon.  Now, the entire region is rising up demanding democratic reforms.  Think what one will about the Iraq invasion--there is much to criticize.  But, eight years later, its seeds appear to be sprouting.

B.  Some of the same people who damned the U.S. for its actions in Iraq are now expecting the U.S. to provide military cover for the "grassroots" movements and want the US to lead the imposition of a no-fly zone, which does require an act of war against Libya.

I think  the US must provide humanitarian and evacuation assistance to Libyans.  But let someone else lead a military campaign, if there is to be one.  These developing hypocrisies are traps just waiting to be sprung.  The White House has already primed the country to step into these traps when it demanded Gaddafi step down without first considering how to assure this happens without military intervention and without knowing who would take over once the Colonel were gone. 

I hope Defense Secretary Robert Gates' good sense will spread to some of the U.S. political voices and that they will not allow the U.S. to be cajoled or coerced into taking the lead in a military action.  I trust they will keep the strategy of "entrapment" in mind.  

If I were hostile to the US, I would be looking at the U.S. leadership right now and licking my chops over the prospects of tricking it into a real screw-up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Republicans are bungling as well.   They criticized President Obama for not acting aggressively enough and early enough with Mubarak in Egypt.  However, President Obama did well with Egypt, and Egypt is an entirely different case from Libya. Among other attributes--most notably a more sophisticated populace--Egypt also has a military with strong ties to the U.S.   There was always the luxury of assuming some stability in the aftermath of Egypt's uprising.

Libya is an entirely different story, and essentially a dysfunctional state. Pressuring President Obama into responding with aggressive calls for Gaddafi to step down was not a wise course of action.  Allowing himself to be pressured is even less wise. Stop it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...