England andf France playíng superpowers in Libya. After Gaddafi conquered 90% of Libya again, the UN decides to give some countries the mandate to fight Gaddafi's troups by airstrikes. The third western war in an arabian country since Iraque. The same old mistake. The falcons start a war without any concept how to finish it. They don't even know if the rebels still got the power to resist Gaddafi with their support. They don't have the mandate for army operations. So they will prolong the bloodshed for weeks or months in the name of democracy. The Mediterranean sea might become a combat zone. Terrorist attacks in France or England might be the answer. I wonder why governments who don't know how to finance their households waste blood and money like that. It probably will be a long nasty affair.

I was wondering if or (most likely) when a thread about the...situation in Libya would be made.

I do not know much about the situation. I have heard different view points from different people. Some say America should help (I believe I was told that it is the Rebels we are siding with?), others have said that it is none of our business and America should stay out of it.

In regards to England and France, I admit to total ignorance.

And I fear that in regards to the entire mess I haven't been able to form a solid opinion. It is one of those subjects I can see all sides and because I feel so distant from it (without much knowledge, background, or present information to boot), and so nonobjective to any particular thing I cannot form any judgments or characterizations, shoulds or should nots about what is going on in Libya.

Here is an article about on http://www.washingtonpost.com/. More than 100 cruise missiles were fired on Lybia and lots of jets bomb this country. When I started this thread, Obama and Clinton said America would not play the leading role. Meanwhile an American general leads the attack. The coalition against Gaddafi could not find a leading structure, because France wanted to lead without the NATO structures. Now its the old game again. In fact it seems to be France which is responsible for it, because America hesitated to start another war.

So Miss Clinton said:



The official reason is, they can not watch Gaddafi slaughtering the rebels. I wonder why they can see it in a dozen other countries like Sudan for example, were probably millions was killed without any military action against the Government in Khartum in the last decades.

This we probably will have to face:


Obviously the european shall overtake the leadership until Gaddafis air defence is switched out, then the europeans shall lead. I think America will loose reputation, because it let France involve it into a war many Americans do not want.

The west ballsed it up by prematurely denouncing Gadaffi, thinking the rebellion would succeed. Now that he looks like winning they have to smack him down, as they know he will remember this and let the oil flow only to his 'friends'. The US is playing it smarter than most by not being directly associated with any party. It's a cockup of monumental proportions and only furthers the prospect of global destabilisation.

I wonder if those who slammed Bush over Iraq are going to give Obama a pass because of party affiliation.

On the other side of the coin, will those who were all gung-ho for Bush to attack Iraq will support Obama should he decide to send in ground forces, because of party affiliation.

Its this extreme change in policy which makes me distrustful. Last Year Sarkozy sold new weapons to Gaddafi, a nuclear plant and they were the best friends. Now Sarkozy provokes the war by aggressive rethorics and used a moment of incertitude in the western community to start this war. Sarkozy got heavy problems in France, at the moment his party is no. 3, behind the socialists and an faschistoid party called Front National. So he try to use the french ambition towards "Grandeur" of the french nation to play the international leader of the western countries. I don't think this is a sustainable basis for a long termed dirty conflict in the name of the human rights. Especially because the rights of each victim will be hurt and there might be a lot of victims in this conflict.

No, they'll do it because there's a UN mandate this time.....

Gee, someone must be bloody psychic!

Funny how some people will still try to down a certain president, even if he's playing by the 'rules'. There's just no pleasing some people!

Yeah, there's totally gonna be thousands of people badmouthing Obama no matter what happens. Funny thing is, those same badmouthers are the idiots that voted in the opposition that will guarantee that their 'predictions' of 'nothing getting done' happens. Good job, peeps. I've never seen anyone with the genius to vote in the political party that will validate all of their gripes. *slow clap*

Well, Gaddafi's troups try out a new strategy. They use civilians as shields against cruise missiles. That probably becomes a really mean nasty shit in Libya. Especialy if the western countries can't decide about a command structure. France wants the job, Italy and England wants the NATO, but Turkey says no, because of too many civilian victims at the moment. Its a bit dilletantish, I must say.

Oops. I created a poll for what y'all here think the U.S. should (or shouldn't) do regarding Libya, having forgotten about this thread! Choices were: Should the U.S. stay out of it? Should the U.S. continue air strikes? Should the U.S. arm the rebels?

Personally, I think the U.S. military is already spread a bit thin in the Middle East. Good intentions aside, the U.S. doesn't exactly have the best record these days when it comes to intervening in the Middle East (although Libya is in North Africa), and I wonder if U.S. intervention in Libya may make things worse.

Anyway, I read that Britain has simply proposed assassination of Gaddafi. Which seems to be taking a page out of Thomas More's Utopia. (The Utopians fight their wars by assassinating the leaders of their enemies.) Do you think this is a good or bad idea?

-- Nephele

Assassination would certainly work and spare an untold number of troops dying. I say go for it!

It would seem to be the most expedient measure.

In Utopia, the Utopians also settled warfare quickly by sending spies into the enemy's nation by night, who would put notices up all over the place offering a huge monetary reward to any members of the enemy's citizenry who successfully assassinated their nation's leaders.

Devious, but possibly effective, considering human greed.

-- Nephele

I still haven't paid this much attention, but I think (and know this is from a perspective that knows nothing about the situation) should simply stay out of it and let people fight their own wars without us. Have have enough problems as it is without sending troops in places that should be none of our concern other than maybe economically (oil wise). I sometimes think that America is much to quick to get involved in other people's wars...but again I don't know the situation.

I don't like to see the U.S. getting into another war, either. But I think our membership in NATO may oblige us to participate along with the other NATO nations.

-- Nephele

Evidently reporting is taking a little while filtering through to the US.

The assassination call was a gaffe on the part of William Hague, our Foreign Minister; one of our chief military advisers had already nixed it as illegal under the terms of international law. Hague retracted the call.

As to involvement in Libya...

I agree with LS's earlier comment. The two reasons we're doing this are:

1. Oil. Same as ever.

2. To ensure that Gaddafi doesn't recover control of the country, given that we threw ourselves behind the rebels as soon as it looked as if they were going to get rid of him. This feeds into point 1, above.

It's yet another military involvement that we're all going into to take the supposed moral high ground, when the reality behind it is far more pragmatic. More lives, more cost - no good reason.