One one really likes the Col and he is an unsavory sort of fellow. A megalomaniac with vision of grandeur extending throughout North Africa. It appears that al-jazeera is extremely influential; in the Arabic world just as I pointed out in an earlier blog. However, this channel is successful against secular dictators and is making no headway in countries like Saudi Arabia in which repression is a way of life.
Col Gadaffi is unlikely to give in to the US backed EU enforced no-fly zone. Bengazi is right now on the verge of falling to Col Gaddaffi's troops and since the US has ruled out ground troops, the no fly zone will only lead to civilian casualties which will turn the world opinion against the intervention. The only gainer from this ill advised move is al qaeda which will now have yet another cause to trumpet. With allhis failings, the Col like Saddam Hussain had kept Islamic terrorism firmly under control and his weakening will only result in North Africa becoming another war zone. Already the civilian casualties have started increasing and the hospitals have started showing signs of overstretch.
The intervention in Libya is ill timed and will further erode US credibility in the Arab world.
The Arabs need to police their own. Obama will be remembered for his belated, seemingly uninterested stance, one way or the other, on the issue. The US will be damned if it does or damned if it doesn't buy the Muslim community for any deaths that may have occurred before or after US involvement. If ever a case can be made that it was "for the OIL" this is it.
Now I'm no big fan of Momar (I was on the giving end to Libya in 86). He ordered the deaths of Americans, and deserves a horrible death himself. Where were the oppressed freedom fighters in the 80's when the bombs were falling and the opportunity was ripe? That said, he is the devil we know. I haven't heard squat about the people (or person) that will replace him. Just that they are the poor, innocent "civilians" (apparently with AA guns, RPG's, and other weapons) that need our protection. Will they be better or worse? Nobody can say. Didn't we learn one thing from the ending of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan? I think not. When you have a civil war you don't just step into the middle it, the chance that either side can punch you is too great.
Some may compare this to the American Revolution (I see it every 5 minutes across the internet). Many believe France helped the colonies out of "love and respect" (and completely forget about the previous French and Indian War). France sold us weapons, then went on to help us to tweak the nose of the British who at the time were not exactly friendly to them. In the end France made money and gained a safe, reliable business partner that later came to their aid in 2 world wars and were never repaid. Clever French!
So, who benefits today with Libya? The US? No. Those Tomahawk missiles aren't cheap, nor are the other resources to keep ships and other support units offshore. Does anyone truly expect more than a thank you from Libya for our effort? France? Well they do get a LOT of oil from Libya. Seems the French still come out ahead two hundred + years later. The Arab League? Sure it's win win for them, little to no effort on their part, maybe a more reliable future OPEC partner, and a big "WE CARE" to the Muslim world in the hopes of pacifying their own troubled populations. The Libyans? Hard to say, haven't heard what they want. Some say democracy, some say Islamic state. Doesn't matter we'll shoot first and ask questions later.
So now what do we do in the rest of the Arab world? Protesters were shot by US backed government forces in Yemen. When does the no-fly zone and the tank busting start there? How about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Iran? Or are only some worth saving? Surely the US's actions will embolden other protesters in the middle east. Will we come to their aid as well? Or (more likely) be the great hypocrites we are, and cause more distrust. What a slippery slope.
Personally, I'd let them fight it out, their victory (and freedom if that's what they really want) would be much sweeter. They want US arms... that will be cash... up front please. Supporters could go their to help on their own if they feel that strongly, just like the Spanish Civil war. The US is broke, we don't have the money for this. I'm not suggesting isolationism, just that we need to pick our battles more carefully. We have allies that need us (Japan). We have our own unsecured border. We don't need to waste one more American life for someone that will be pissing on or burning a US flag tomorrow. Of course everyone should be free, but it can't be given, it must be earned, otherwise it holds little meaning. A lot of folks are forgetting that right here.
My favorite part was "US backed EU enforced", had it been the other way around he would have said US led EU backed making us, as usual, the main bad guys. I love how Bahu always puts the US and the main villain on this planet.
The Arab League as expected runs with the Hare and Hunts with the hound. If US did not understand this, it is unfortunate. Now they are calling for a halt to US bombing of Tripoli.
US is doing notyhing to prevent the bloodbath in Bharein and in Saudi Arabia human rights is non existent. Sop Barack Obama has shown himself to be just another clever version of Bush.
Well said and I agree. US backed regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bharein are killing protestors and things will get worse.
Let the middle east implode.
Astute observation.
But Bahu again misses the main point. Action should have been taken before it was too late. Once Gaddafi regained the upper hand, force was inadvisable. Neither the EU nor the US acted in time, and therefore should not have acted.
There are a great many contradictions inthe present policy. UK mounted a rescue/relief mission which was captured by the very men the mission had been sent to help. Libya got a a propaganda windfall as a result. Obama has no real reason to get into the Libyan mess except a death wish to go down the road of George Bush. The Libyan misadventure will push up the price of petrol, a situation USA cannot afford. Sarkozy will not be reelcted and so he came in with a whimper but wants to exit wuth abang.
In the meantime innocent civilians are being killed.
You are getting senile. Obama is many things (and not many of them good), but an emulator of Bush is not one of them.
The Nato initiative backed by Obama has spluttered to a halt. The ill adviced intervention will only lead to furthering the interest of all those opposed to democracy in the region.
The initiative was to create a no fly zone. The French and British (and to a lesser extent Obama) went far beyond that. No fly just means grounding the air force. They are attacking Ghadhafy's ground troops.
But without a full fledged invasion (doubtful), you are correct in that it has fizzled. I said that at the beginning. They jumped in too late.
I think there is more. You may not agree with me, but I do think it is not an accident that on the day that Obama announces his relection bid he also orders the bombing of LIbya. Is Arab blood to be sacrificed to get Obama another term in the White House. Those who supported him thinking that he would be different, find Obama worse than Bush. At least Bush was not a hypocrite.
I dislike Obama as much as the next guy, but that is not correct. He bombed then announced. I have no doubt it was to appear to be tough for his re-election, but the announcement and bombing were not on the same day.
There is no such thing as coincidence in politics or war. Remember that, and you'll stay sane until you're not. Just ask James J. Angleton (if you could).
The irony is that Obama, a Nobel Prize winner for Peace, has become addicted to war to sell his Presidential image and ride of Libyan corpses to the White House. I hope that the Americans do not reelect this man. Bush and Cheeney for all thie faults did not deceive the world.
Not sure what Obama's objective is/was in his Libyan exercise. If it was to 'channel Reagan', it was an abject failure. Now he acts like he's already forgotten his objective, if he ever had one. For 'the smartest President in history' to think, as you seem to believe he does, that acting tough toward Gadhafi will help him win re-election seems bizarre. If he were attempting to 'shore up his base' by doing so, that would be one thing, but his base wants nothing to do with military intervention anywhere.
If his objective was to remain a man of mystery, I suppose he's succeeding.
Spot on. When Obama announcved the relection bid and the Libyan bombing campaingn in he same breath we kown that he is only sayinf, YES WE CAN and I hope the US will say fianlly, NO YOU Cant.
I am quoting and saving this quote! It is the reason I continue to read your posts!
No, it was to pivot to the center. His rabid base cannot win elections. Who else are they going to vote for?
If Obama wants to look Presidential let him do something over tne most brutal regime in the region--the SAUDI KINGDOM. He has not spoken a worrd against the repression that is going on there. At least we can say that Obama is consistent. I think his record is so bad that he will not be reelected. Even if the man wants to be a junior senator from Illinois, he should find political rehabilitation difficult.
Your consistency shows. However, Obama is a politician. As Jeffrey pell said in The Hunt for Red October - "I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops"
So it is with Obama. Like it or not, Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest suppliers of oil. It is stable and indeed the royal family's recent doling out of money shows they intend to keep it that way. If Obama was consistent, and did what you said to, he would cause a shortage of oil in this country (Libya does not since we do not buy from them). With gas currently heading to $5/gal now, that would push it up to 8 or 9 bucks. And although his words would be backed up on several fronts by such a price hike (i.e., his stated love for democracy and his hatred of anything carbon), he would stand no chance of re-election. So he is merely lying and cheating.
The ones who think he is different are just idiots.
So it boils down to oIL. If the same logic is extended then it is clear that in Libya too the uS is interested in a regime that would enable it to extract oil. So as I have always said why this huge noise of protecting civilian lives, human rights, humanitarian aid etc.
Your world view is way to simplistic. The UK and France want Libya to extract oil. The US does not care as we get none from it. Unlike the UK where outrage is transitory, the US has not had dealings with Libya in a very long time. But it is in bed with Saudi Arabia. In the Middle east it is oil. But that does not drive all things, or all decisions. Stop acting like a simpleton. Look at each situation and extract the real purpose and motives. not all are alike, even 2 countries of OPEC (if that were so, Chavez would be dead).
Simpistic or not, what I ahve said is the hard reality and with the drone attacks being mounted on the Libyas and Misrata under constant barrage from nato FORCES LET US SEE WHAT happens. I think USA will regret its ill considered decision.
I regretted the decision the moment it was made.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
