Based on their illustrious track record they'd no doubt fuck that up as well, and end up snatching one of his servants by mistake.
No Fly Zone
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
While we in the West may like the Egyptian army playing hero, the sight of this happening may make the Saudis soil their robes....
You know as well as I that Russia would never agree to any military action unless things had gone completely to hell. And maybe not even then.
Not exactly the Gulf countries have given their support for a no fly zone, and if the Arab League can get onside then it's a done deal. NATO can on the surface impose one, but the real one could be done by the Egyptians who are vastly superior militarly to anything Libya has, and it would be seen as Arabs helping other Arabs instead of Sykes-Picot Part II.While we in the West may like the Egyptian army playing hero, the sight of this happening may make the Saudis soil their robes....
I am quite confident that the Quadaffi regime is dictatorial and abusing human rights. I also am quite confident that they are on the verge of committing genocide against his own unarmed people.
The key qualitative difference is that Canada offers legitimate means of change to disaffected groups while Libya does not.
I don't believe that Seperatists or the Mohawk Warriors are disenfranchised or repressed.
For me it is a fact driven analysis.
The bottom line here is do we have a right to interfear in an internal Libyan civil war, between parties that on one side are the legitimate govt, ( however reprehensible) and rebels of dubious petigree.
The latest news report has the rebels asking for a no fly zone to "even the playingfield" because they have no aircraft, if that is the case do we have the right to interfear in a civil war just to make the playing field level?
As far as the Egyptian army is concerned it will be going nowhere for the immediate future it has enough problems to deal with in Egypt.
A no fly zone is possible although whoever does try to enforce it will need to ready to take casualties, Gahdaffi has a reasonable air defense system, he actually owns an Italian arms manufacturer as well as several other businesses . Cratering airfields is of limited use as it is generally easy to repair and does nothing to stop helicopters , which are a greater threat to the rebels than high preformance aircraft , as well as being easier to hide.
Destroying the fuel and repair infrastructure would be of greater usefulness although a lot of the Libyan aircraft bases are colocated with civilian airports so if you destroy their infrastructure you destroy the civil side as well.
The latest news report has the rebels asking for a no fly zone to "even the playingfield" because they have no aircraft, if that is the case do we have the right to interfear in a civil war just to make the playing field level?
As far as the Egyptian army is concerned it will be going nowhere for the immediate future it has enough problems to deal with in Egypt.
A no fly zone is possible although whoever does try to enforce it will need to ready to take casualties, Gahdaffi has a reasonable air defense system, he actually owns an Italian arms manufacturer as well as several other businesses . Cratering airfields is of limited use as it is generally easy to repair and does nothing to stop helicopters , which are a greater threat to the rebels than high preformance aircraft , as well as being easier to hide.
Destroying the fuel and repair infrastructure would be of greater usefulness although a lot of the Libyan aircraft bases are colocated with civilian airports so if you destroy their infrastructure you destroy the civil side as well.
I do not suggest it is a decision easily made, or made lightly, however I think the slaughter of innocent civilians justifies intervention. Now I am not sure why you say the rebels are of "dubious pedigree", and while you may have doubt about them, I have certainty about the dangerousness and internationally destabilizing bad acts of the colonel. He has been a blight on Africa and the world for a long time.
From a legal perspective the potential for genocide gives us the right to intervene.
Here is also a realpolitik analysis of why we should intervene that makes sense to me:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/07/frum.libya.choice/index.html?iref=allsearch
The dubious pettigree is a concern about the origins of the "rebels" . Are they citizens revolting against the government, or are the Taliban/ or other groups of similar ideals seizing an opportunity to get a legal government cover for their operations. Do we know who they actually are? I don't and a number of other friends are unable to identify the leaders of the rebel groups whichis a concern.
I have a problem with the phrase genocide, it is being overused , genocide would refer to the killing of all of an indentifiable group, ie christians in a muslim country or a specific nationality, in this case I do not see a targeted identifiable group being systematically hunted down and disposed of. The possibility of large scale killings is entirly possible, upto the point of mass murder.
As far as the colonal is concerned he is in my opinion, barking mad and should have had his story ended years ago, Ronald Regan missed him in the 80's which was unfortunate , however part of the problem I am refering to what happens when/if he is replaced does a Taliban mulah take over? As bad as Gahdaffi is there are worse options as Afghanistan following the Russian withdrawal showed.
The Frum article is interesting and from a regaining American profile in Africa and the middle east it does make some sense, the problem (IMO) anyway is that it will cost the americans more stature if the "wrong" people get control of Libya which is a definate possibility . The American record of supporting the people they put in power is questionable at best , from the SHah to the Kurds and a number of others the only country with non stop support has been Isreal and that is almost entirly due to the large Jewish population in teh states.
It is a complex situation and with the domestic problems facing both American and British governments are their constituants going to allow it to happen, ( intervening) . France has been making noises in that direction but they will not do anything without somebody else to do the work and the Germans will not allow their armed forces to go invading .
It all comes back to do we have the right to intevene in a civil war? If we decide we do what happens if China decide to invade Taiwan ? The consider it a province do we intervene in that one?
One has to ask Frum what happens when the Libyans are freed and elect a government that doesnt say "how high" when the US says "jump"?, like he and his neocon buddies tried to impose on the Middle East under Georgie Jr (remember Condolezza going on about the "new Middle East)
You know kinda like the Palestinians did in 2006 but then the necons, Israelis and Fatah goons tried to overthrow them.
My suggestion is that we supply arms and perhaps train the rebels, not neccesarily put boots on the ground...yet.
The question of whether we can intervene in a civil war in moot. The Libyan government did not make those fighters, or their other equipment are supplied by other countries to that government. We would just be leveling the playing field a little.
Now, I don't have access to all the intel that a government does but my information is that it is not a fundamentalist religious movement, rather a moderate democratic movement. If the intel confirms that than you go for it.
The US record on supporting governments is spotty because they often back the wrong side. JFK was clear that he thought the US was going to miss the boat by not supporting national liberation movements in Africa, and he was bang on. I think that they risk the same thing in the middle east. I don't think modern democratic nations, like us, should just talk about democracy and freedom, we should act in support of it when the opportunity presents itself, or we should shut up.
But if you have some info that causes you concern about the Libyan rebels I would be happy to read it.
And on the Taiwan question, I would love to be in a position to guarantee Tiawanese independence and democracy. Practically speaking we are not.
The Lockerbie bombing was an act of war, it was a direct response to the attack on Libya. Very tragic for all the civilians killed both in the Libya bombing and in Lockerbie. But when you unleash the dogs of war, often terrible and unpredictable consequences are the result. I don't think we should intervene in Libya. The rebels are already showing that they seem to be idiots. I don't necessarily agree Libya would be better off with them in charge.
David Frum was a hawk that help Dubya and Team 'w' promote their war(s). David Frum, as expected, was on CNN last night promoting more military intervention in Libya....
I do not have anything definative regarding the background of the rebels, either way and that is the question of the day. If they are supported by taliban or muslim extreamists there is a major problem.
The equipment on both sides is pretty much identical, Russian designed AK,AKM, and heavier weapons, the rebels at present have no aircraft to speak of, or armour. Training is not going to be relevent, I do not think this is going to last long enough for any training to have an effect. So the basic question is denying a legitimate govrnment the use of their equipment in putting down an uprising inside their national boundaries.
So do we have the right to interfear in internal matters of a sovereign country?
The Chinese would say no and as a matter of fact have done so any number of times when questioned by western politicians regarding Falung Gong as well as the Tianemin Square massacre. The AMericans would say yes and have infact acted s the worlds policeman at times to there detriment. As a modern democracy we should in your opinion we should act in support of democracy,, well and good but at what point does that become an act of war?
The Lockerbie bombing was a act of terrorism not an act of war. If the Libyans wanted to respond "proportionally" to the bombings there were any number of American armed forces targets available around the world tro target
