There will be a power vacuum. The rebels appear to be a loose group with the common thread being the ouster of Kadaffy. Afterwards, assuming they get control, there will be no common purpose. It becomes every tribe for itself. There is a lot of money waiting for someone. The oil money would be hard to resist.
The rebels have no experience or education for running the government. Kadaffy put his followers in all the offices. If they get killed or run, who will know how to run a government?
The western oil companies will not sit by patiently while they sort it out. They want the oil now.
ElvisL1ves and Frank, you need to either take this to the Pit or get back to having an actual discussion of the issues.
OK.
As to why we intervened in Libya; over the past decade or so there has been a push to change the UN from protecting the sovereignty of countries to intervening into the internal affairs of those countries. The concept is Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Here’s it’s purpose:
(bolding mine)
So, instead of Libya fighting it’s own civil war or take care of the insurrection (or whatever it was); the UN intervened - it was their “duty.” It obviously wasn’t why the UN was formed, though.
No, sir, no more than the French fought the American Revolution instead of the Americans.
The UN intervened in the Libyan War because of the concept of R2P.
If you’re just commenting on the comparable levels of intervention (French in American Revolution vs. UN in Libya) - the UN/NATO and the rebels both fought. Not just NATO, not just the rebels - and I never claimed it was just the UN, anyways.
Yes, we went over that in other threads (or maybe earlier in this one). I would say that’s the excuse, not the reason. If it’s the reason, when do the bombs start dropping on Syria?
The fact is, we pick and choose when to intervene, and the Europeans REALLY wanted to intervene in Libya, for whatever reason. But nobody really gives a shit about Syrians being mowed down by the hundreds. There are no emergency meetings, no Security Council scrambling, no Arab League hand ringing (or us twisting their arms).
It can still be the reason, but not mean it’s an obligation to intervene every time. The mere fact that a sitting Council Member can veto would prevent that from ever being the reality (i.e., you wouldn’t be able to intervene every time even though the R2P concept exists). Maybe Syria has more friends than Libya did.
The UN is currently drafting resolutions re: Syria. Whether they will lead to military intervention is too early to tell - remember, military intervention is not the first choice in how to handle the internal affairs of sovereign States, it’s the last choice. There is also the reality of UN/NATO limited resources.
When their own insurgency gets strong enough and well-enough organized to be a plausible successor, and when it becomes possible to assist with tactical operations there. Or are you confusing tactical support of ground forces with strategic destruction, as your “bombs dropping” comment suggests?
“For whatever reason?” :dubious: That was gone over in detail here, as well as in Europe and in the halls of power. You really have no idea?
Maybe *you *don’t, but that statement is still silly bullshit. “Nobody”? :rolleyes:
Define something that can be done that would be productive in the long run and perhaps that can be discussed. And you don’t know that it isn’t being discussed pretty seriously, either - it would be far more reasonable to suppose that it is, hmm? You don’t have to be this facile.
Marley, I’ve been trying manfully to draw **Frank ** and Magiver out on the reasoning they claim to be behind their own facile dismissals, in the spirit of Great Debating. Their refusal to provide them is not my responsibility. Kindly be more cautious about drawing equivalences here, please.
I was addressing Magiver. Scroll up.
America needs to bomb and overthrow regimes abroad and install puppets I mean democracies to further American interests. Anyone who disagrees with this plan supports tyranny and hates our beloved leader.
Manfully? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
You posted childish garbage like this in post 411:
For starters, explain why you concluded the arguments were wrong. You have never done so, only tossed in some snark. All you’ve provided by way of thought is on the same level as Magiver’s. So, force yourself to post like an adult and we’ll take it from there, m’kay?
You haven’t established any criteria that could be used for Libya that wouldn’t draw us into every idiot war on that side of the world. We are not the world’s policeman and we have no vested interest in Libya. There is no clearly defined side to take in this war other than “not Gaddafi”. The country consists of little feudal states that will certainly fight each other for control of the only real source of wealth which is oil. There are plenty of Gaddafi’s to go around so I ask you again, what is the criteria for going into Libya?
I’d argue that we did have a vested interest in getting involved in Libya. Gaddafi, besides being really hard to spell, and in addition to being a really nasty guy, has been an enemy of the US for quite a while. If you look at the history of Libya under Gadaffi, it attacked Egypt in 1977, just as they were improving their relationship with us. Gadaffi has, thoughout his career, funded terrorist groups that operate in opposition to the US and US allies, like the PLO, the IRA, the New People’s Army and Moro Islamic Liberation front in the Philippines, and the Red Army Faction. He’s had Libyan agents carry out terrorist acts on their own, like the 1986 nightclub bombing in West Berlin and the Lockerbie bombing. Libya has tried to sponsor terrorist actions in the US itself, funding the Nation of Islam affiliated Chicago gang Al-Rakr to bomb government buildings. In addition, Libya, for instance, supported Slobodan Milosevic in the Yugoslav Civil Wars.
These are all anti-US actions, and he’s been consistently against the US in all his years in power. So when there’s an actual active resistance group attempting to overthrow him, as was the case in 2011, it entirely makes sense for the US to assist them. If they succeed, it’s possible that a government friendly to the US might come out of it. If they fail, or if the government is hostile to the US, we’re not really much worse off, because the Gadaffi government is already hostile to the US and been acting against us.
So, I’d say the criteria for going into Libya is that it had a government hostile to the US that we had the opportunity to help overthrow without much cost to ourselves.
Kadaffy enemy of the US for a long time? I suppose some people don’t understand that international relationships are base on money and oil.
And if I was 18 again I’d agree with you but I’ve been around a bit longer and I’ve seen how this stuff blows up in our face. The problem, as I see it, is that we don’t have a horse in this race. We literally don’t know who we’re backing. If it turns into a 30 year civil war that we can stay out of then that’s on them but if Gaddafi-squared shows up then we made things worse for ourselves. And THAT’s never happened before.
If the new guy turns out to be as bad or worse than Gadaffi, we’ll deal with that then. But removing Gadaffi from power has been a US foreign policy goal for some time. I mean, Reagan tried to assassinate him 25 years ago.
And some people don’t understand that a few positive comments by a few US senators at a period when Gadaffi was trying to improve his image in the West don’t indicate a shift in US foreign policy.
Have yeah been to Libya…it’s all shore.
Some people know better. That is exactly how it is done.
I ask you, is donating $100 to a cause wrong because you can afford too but won’t donate $200?
You must have overlooked the discussion about doing what we can, along with most of the rest of the thread and its relatives. And what’s an “idiot war”, btw? :dubious:
A. To the extent we *can *help, we have a moral obligation to help. Same for a country as for an individual. You may, as pointed out already, not accept or perhaps not understand such principles, but there it is. B. Therefore, yes, we do.
A. If you’re looking for clarity in a war, you’re bound to be disappointed, B. Isnt’ that good enough at least for now, anyway? What would be worse?
Whence derives your claim of certainty? Your deep knowledge of local history, culture, tradition, etc. that for some reason you refuse to share with us? Or just your hope that this episode fails to redound to the credit of the hated Obama?
Cut the snark, scroll up, and reread the thread. Gawdamm, dude … :rolleyes: