Jump to content

Following the middle east


Recommended Posts

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.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

You say that the rebels have formally asked for assistance yet you have no idea who the rebels are exactly.  So who formally asked?   And where is this formal request?  What is considered a formal request?  A bunch of unknowns talking on BBC or PBS?  

You have a definite opinion on what the West should do in regard to Libya but you clearly show that your knowledge of what is going on in the region is, at best, muddled.  

A better understanding of what is exactly going on in Libya is required before anyone jumps to conclusions and makes a mistake that cost them more in the long run... but then again, the U.S. is used to making mistakes. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites
To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites
To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='security_in_anonymity wrote:


mummy']

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.

Ireland are currently working on developing fossil fuel free energy.  It is highly likely that they will become a world leader in this respect and will make billions selling it to the rest of the world.  

I believe that once the world runs out of oil, the better it will be for humanity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.
I stand corrected.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.
I never said you were jumping to conclusions. I'm not sure what would prompt you to say that I said that you were jumping to conclusions.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....
Now here you have changed your tone... first you said there were "formal requests" and now you say "reported calls".  If you read up above, you will see that you even underlined that section for emphasis. The following is your words, not mine:
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.

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)

I'm not anti-American.  I am anti-American-War-Campaigns. You can think whatever you like of me.  I'm not going to join you in character assassination because my point of view, though it doesn't reflect your view, has nothing to do with my view of you personally.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

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...