Jump to content

Archived

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

Zhivvy

Following the middle east

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s coming through a hole in the air
]from those nights in tiananmen square
It’s coming from the feel
That it ain’t exactly real
Or it’s real, but it ain’t exactly there
]from the wars against disorder
]from the sirens night and day
]from the fires of the homeless
]from the ashes of the gay
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

It’s coming through a crack in the wall
On a visionary flood of alcohol
]from the staggering account
Of the sermon on the mount
Which I don’t pretend to understand at all
It’s coming from the silence
On the dock of the bay
]from the brave, the bold, the battered
Heart of chevrolet
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

It’s coming from the sorrow on the street
The holy places where the races meet
]from the homicidal bitchin’
That goes down in every kitchen
To determine who will serve and who will eat
]from the wells of disappointment
Where the women kneel to pray
For the grace of God in the desert here
And the desert far away
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty ship of state!
To the shores of need
Past the reefs of greed
Through the squalls of hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on...

It’s coming to america first
The cradle of the best and of the worst
It’s here they got the range
And the machinery for change
And it’s here they got the spiritual thirst
It’s here the family’s broken
And it’s here the lonely say
That the heart has got to open
In a fundamental way
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

It’s coming from the women and the men
O baby, we’ll be making love again
We’ll be going down so deep
That the river’s going to weep
And the mountain’s going to shout amen!
It’s coming like the tidal flood
Beneath the lunar sway
Imperial, mysterious
In amorous array
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can’t stand the scene
And I’m neither left or right
I’m just staying home tonight
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen
But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
That time cannot decay
I’m junk but I’m still holding up
This little wild bouquet
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at Libya, and think the same thing I did with Egypt: any change is going to have to come from the Libyans themselves, or it's not going to work. Witness Iraq: the U.S. went in and overthrew the government, and the Iraqis still have not really "stepped up." The only thing the U.S. can really do is to offer humanitarian and evacuation assistance, and keep speaking out against Qaddafi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Barbara: Wow, did you write that poem? If not, who did, please?

 

@LinneaS: I just want to be clear on my opinions:

 

It is not the case that the US cannot do anything. It can do a lot, and is/ will.

 

Nor am I saying there should not be a military act against Gaddafi--more likely than not, there will need to be.  I am only saying that this should not be a US-led initiative, at least not on the surface.

 

I am also NOT saying that military action would require a UN resolution--it certainly would not.

 

Before anything happens, it really needs to be determined WHO, exactly, within the Libyan rebels are asking for this foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Barbara: Wow, did you write that poem? If not, who did, please?

 

@LinneaS: I just want to be clear on my opinions:

 

It is not the case that the US cannot do anything. It can do a lot, and is/ will.

 

Nor am I saying there should not be a military act against Gaddafi--more likely than not, there will need to be.  I am only saying that this should not be a US-led initiative, at least not on the surface.

 

I am also NOT saying that military action would require a UN resolution--it certainly would not.

 

Before anything happens, it really needs to be determined WHO, exactly, within the Libyan rebels are asking for this foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Barbara: Wow, did you write that poem? If not, who did, please?

 

@LinneaS: I just want to be clear on my opinions:

 

It is not the case that the US cannot do anything. It can do a lot, and is/ will.

 

Nor am I saying there should not be a military act against Gaddafi--more likely than not, there will need to be.  I am only saying that this should not be a US-led initiative, at least not on the surface.

 

I am also NOT saying that military action would require a UN resolution--it certainly would not.

 

Before anything happens, it really needs to be determined WHO, exactly, within the Libyan rebels are asking for this foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me a cynic? lmao. I'm probably the most cynical person you'll ever come across when it comes to the US and it's involvement in the World's affairs. And I have good reason. Since 1775, there has been a total of only 26 years that the U.S. has not been involved in conflict. Since 1990, the US has been continually involved in conflict in Africa and the Middle East, amongst other countries.

 

In many cases, the U.S has been the cause and "solution" (I use this term loosely) of those conflicts. For instance, the Gulf War of 1990-92 happened because the US backed Iraq in the Iran Iraq War so that Iran would not succeed. The result? The war officially ended in 1988 with the signing of a ceasefire between both countries. By this time Iraq was virtually bankrupt and owed a huge debt to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Debts that neither country would forgive. This debt was exacerbated by the reduction in oil prices. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas, and that it was also slant drilling into Iraqi territory. Furthermore Iraq felt that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi territory but that the UK had created a separate country from that region after WWI, which Iraq felt was created by the British to limit any Iraqi government from threatening Britain's Domination. It was due to the above reasons (full or partially) that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

Who was responsible for the cause of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

But you know, this is a similar story to how WWII started... The Treaty of Versaille. I prefer to call it "The Treaty for WWII". Who came up with the treaty? Again, the U.S. and the U.K. were well in the thick of it. It set the stage for a second world war.

 

Who was responsible for this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Now we have the Libyan situation.

 

The U.S. backed Libya's independence from Italy in 1951. It was only when Gadaffi got into power in 1969 that the U.S.' relationship with Libya became strained. And for the most part, this was justified, esp. because of his support for terrorist organisations. He also used oil embargoes to try and force the west to terminate their support for Israel. The U.S. has had a number of hostile confrontations with Libya in the 1980s where there were an exchange of missiles where at least 4 Libyan planes were shot down. Incidently, these skirmishes took place in what Libya considers territorial waters, whereas the U.S. considers it international waters.

 

Gadaffi is responsible for acts of terrorism, including the Berlin Discotheque bombing, the Lockerbie disaster, and UTA Flight 772 bombing. Throughout the 80s Libya's relationship with the West and also with the Soviet Union was becoming more and more strained. Libya had to re-think its objectives and throughout the 90's it worked to improve its international relationships but with UN sanctions imposed upon it in 1992, sanctions which were not challenged by the Arab states, the Libyans relationships with both the Arab and Western countries were severely diminished. So, Gadaffi decided to improve his ties with the African states. This has worked out quite well.

 

In the meantime Libya has paid compensation for those affected by its terrorist acts in the 70s and 80s. This included paying compensation for the killing of a UK policewoman outside their embassy in London in 1984. This act helped to improve their relationship with the UK. Throughout the noughties, Libya has made further steps to improve its relationships with the West. This included dropping its program to create weapons of mass destruction. It's compensation for the aforementioned terrorist acts paved the way for the U.S. to improve ties with Libya in 2008. Gadaffi even got to visit the U.S. for the first time in 2009. The most notable development was Italy's agreement to pay Libya 5 billion dollars for it's military occupation of the country pre-1951. Interestingly, Italy is the biggest exporter of military weapons to Libya.

 

Italy was also one of the countries that signed the Treat of Versaille (The Treaty of WWII).

 

What's my biggest problem with the U.S. taking military action against Libya? The U.S. ties with Libya for the most part have been strained. Maybe in the early days of the state's independence, when it was a monarchy, were it's ties at its strongest. And it's no harm to mention that in those days, the UK was it's biggest supplier of arms.

 

Consider the following:

Do the people of Libya want the West to help them take the Libyan leader out of power?

Who is mainly responsible for leading the rebels?

Will the state of Libya disintegrate with the removal of Gadaffi?

Would Western involvement solve the situation or make it worse?

Would it be better if someone close to Gadaffi end his rule?

If there are many who profit greatly from Gadaffi's rule, it may prove extremely difficult to get to him because if the game is up for gadaffi, the game is up for those individuals also.

There is little reliable information coming out of Libya to know how many exactly support the man.

If the West go in, and to quote Colin Powell: China shop rules: you break it, you own it. Who wants to "own" Libya?

Who, in the Western World, would be foolish enough to rise up against an Arab leader when there is so much Muslim hostility?

 

The Libyan Revolution was initiated by the Libyan people. It is their revolution. It is their war. When they initiated it, they must have expected their leader's reaction. There is no turning back. Either they will usurp their leader or they will fail. In any case, whatever your view of Gadaffi, if any military action is taken by the Western nations could cause far greater problems than he staying in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members from among the Libyan "rebels" are the ones who have asked the international community, formally, for foreign military intervention.  They have asked for it.  They want to be  armed and foreign airstrikes leveled against Ghaddafi's forces, but no foreign ground troops.  And they are calling for the no-fly zone to be imposed.

But, it is not yet clear WHO, exactly, are these Libyan's calling for this foreign military intervention.  Do they even represent the Libyan people?  Or are they serious trouble makers taking cover under the popular uprising, which is quite possible.

According to the US Secretary of State and intelligence services, many of the al quaida fighters operating in other parts of the world come from Libya--especially from the now "free and liberated" Eastern part of the country that the "rebels" hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members from among the Libyan "rebels" are the ones who have asked the international community, formally, for foreign military intervention.  They have asked for it.  They want to be  armed and foreign airstrikes leveled against Ghaddafi's forces, but no foreign ground troops.  And they are calling for the no-fly zone to be imposed.

But, it is not yet clear WHO, exactly, are these Libyan's calling for this foreign military intervention.  Do they even represent the Libyan people?  Or are they serious trouble makers taking cover under the popular uprising, which is quite possible.

According to the US Secretary of State and intelligence services, many of the al quaida fighters operating in other parts of the world come from Libya--especially from the now "free and liberated" Eastern part of the country that the "rebels" hold.

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...