Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac an Eisenhower and told France and UK to go it alone.  

fixed it for you sbane

[President Mitt]

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac and told France and UK to go it alone. 

Of course, why would we bother saving all those lives if it takes so much time and make us waste so much money ?

Maybe I'm hallucinating, but it doesn't appear to me that mass killings and violence have stopped when the no-fly zone was put into effect. It also isn't going to win any more Arab friends.

Let's remember that having the approval of the Arab League doesn't translate into approval from the Arab people.

[Sbane]

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac and told France and UK to go it alone. 

Of course, why would we bother saving all those lives if it takes so much time and make us waste so much money ?

Hmm...why didn't the west get involved in Sudan or countless different places around the world? What's so special about Libya. People around the world can put 2 and 2 together you know.

And no this not about money. I would gladly donate whatever money the US used for those operations to the Libyan people.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's so special about Libya.

Mostly its closeness to the European mainland.

[Mr. Morden]

What's so special about Libya.

Mostly its closeness to the European mainland.

Of course, there are other differences between this and some of the other recent humanitarian catastrophes in Africa, which would argue in favor of intervention here.  One is that in Libya, the early uprising was so broad-based (with uprisings against Gaddafi not just in the east, but in about 80% of the northwest outside of Tripoli, plus some neighborhoods in Tripoli) that it looked more like a popular revolution against Gaddafi, rather than an ethnic/religious/tribal conflict.  (Of course, Gaddafi subsequently took back most of the west by force.)

And of course, the conflict in Libya is one in which it's actually possible to have some impact on things from the air.  If the conflict involves moving tanks across vast swaths of desert, then there's something you can do from the air.  If they were just fighting with small arms, knives, and machetes, then you wouldn't be able to do anything about it without ground troops.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe I'm hallucinating, but it doesn't appear to me that mass killings and violence have stopped when the no-fly zone was put into effect.

Nobody was expecting a miracle, you know ? Now just imagine what would have happened in Benghazi if we had let Gaggafi's troups enter in the city and "purify" it. We prevented the worse from happening, and that's already a great thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Arab people mistrusts westerners for obvious (and mostly justified) reasons. Whatever we would have done, they would likely disapprove of us nonetheless. Now if we start building a new relationship with these people, based on respect, solidarity and freedom, their opinion will probably start evolving. What we are doing in Libya can be a first step : the people of Benghazi has already expressed its gratitude toward us.

Hmm...why didn't the west get involved in Sudan or countless different places around the world? What's so special about Libya. People around the world can put 2 and 2 together you know.

Yeah, of course everything the west does is only for oil, right ? What a lame talking point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that you can't. The conditional mode will maybe reassure your conscience, but not prevent people from being killed. Instead of showing good intentions, let's try to do what we can to improve things.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What's so special about Libya.

Mostly its closeness to the European mainland.

Of course, there are other differences between this and some of the other recent humanitarian catastrophes in Africa, which would argue in favor of intervention here.  One is that in Libya, the early uprising was so broad-based (with uprisings against Gaddafi not just in the east, but in about 80% of the northwest outside of Tripoli, plus some neighborhoods in Tripoli) that it looked more like a popular revolution against Gaddafi, rather than an ethnic/religious/tribal conflict.  (Of course, Gaddafi subsequently took back most of the west by force.)

And of course, the conflict in Libya is one in which it's actually possible to have some impact on things from the air.  If the conflict involves moving tanks across vast swaths of desert, then there's something you can do from the air.  If they were just fighting with small arms, knives, and machetes, then you wouldn't be able to do anything about it without ground troops.

And oil.

[Sbane]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

Also my conscience is perfectly clear. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew the reason for my opposition isn't money.

[Lief 🗽]

If the world only cared about Libya's oil, wouldn't it have been easier to just do nothing, let Qaddafi massacre the rebels in Benghazi, and then carry on like before?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah removing Gaddafi really does nothing for the west in regards to oil since he was already selling and exporting as much as possible. The best way to keep the oil flowing as much as possible would be to have Gaddafi crush the rebellion as soon as possible.

[Sbane]

It's not as if Gaddafi was ever our friend. I would be surprised if we bombed friendly Arab nations if there were insurrections there.

[Verily]

It's not as if Gaddafi was ever our friend. I would be surprised if we bombed friendly Arab nations if there were insurrections there.

See: Bahrain. Which also has a lot of oil, incidentally, and yet there was no intervention.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not as if Gaddafi was ever our friend. I would be surprised if we bombed friendly Arab nations if there were insurrections there.

Well of course, but "the west is doing this because they're pissed at Gadaffi" is quite different from "it's all about oil and nothing else". The latter doesn't hold up as anything beyond a mere bumper sticker slogan. Removing Gaddafi isn't going to do anything to benefit western oil companies.

[Sbane]

I think we thought if we did this, Gaddafi would fall quickly and things could get back to normal with us buying oil from a friend. This was certainly not all about oil, Gaddafi's relationships with the countries involved and the way he acted after the protests started all played a part. But let's not pretend as if Gaddafi's the most horrible guy out there. Plenty of dickish mass murderers around.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But let's not pretend as if Gaddafi's the most horrible guy out there. Plenty of dickish mass murderers around.

That says more about other world leaders than it does about Gaddafi. Gaddafi would have to be in at least the top 10 anyway. The only regimes I can think of that would compare are Sudan, Eritrea, North Korea and maybe one of those ex-Soviet Central Asian despots.

But I don't think trying to remove Gaddafi to get back for Lockerbie and the Berlin nightclub is something condemnable.

[Mr. Morden]

But let's not pretend as if Gaddafi's the most horrible guy out there. Plenty of dickish mass murderers around.

Of course.  But he may be the worst mass murderer for whom an air war stands a chance of doing something about his mass murder.  I mean, there's no viable military option for dealing with North Korea for example.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But let's not pretend as if Gaddafi's the most horrible guy out there. Plenty of dickish mass murderers around.

Of course.  But he may be the worst mass murderer for whom an air war stands a chance of doing something about his mass murder.  I mean, there's no viable military option for dealing with North Korea for example.

That too. We shouldn't let the Nirvana fallacy dictate action.

[The Mikado]

"Why aren't you doing anything about situation X" is not really a valid argument, anyway.  Isn't doing some good in some situations better than doing nothing at all because you can't do everything?

[Sbane]

Eh, I am basically against intervention everywhere. Still it is interesting to see something happen only in Libya. Only country the us military can do anything in apparently.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Only country the us military can do anything in apparently.

That is largely true. Look at a map to see why.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record today Gadaffi's forces pulled back from Ajdabiya. The town was successfully defended.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

*facepalm*

It's really sad to hear this kind of kind of arguments from you, after having been surrounded for years by bigoted "pacifists" and "anti-imperialists" in my country.

For your information, oil trade with Libya was going extremely well under Gaddafi. And not only oil, countries like France had important economic partnerships with Libya. Not to forget that Gaddafi was blocking emigrants for us. Basically, Europeans had every possible reason not to support Gaddafi and to hope he would resist. As for the rebels, a lot of westerners still feared "bearded men" as Opebo would say. There is no economical reason that would have led to western intervention. Not even one.

[Sbane]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

*facepalm*

It's really sad to hear this kind of kind of arguments from you, after having been surrounded for years by bigoted "pacifists" and "anti-imperialists" in my country.

For your information, oil trade with Libya was going extremely well under Gaddafi. And not only oil, countries like France had important economic partnerships with Libya. Not to forget that Gaddafi was blocking emigrants for us. Basically, Europeans had every possible reason not to support Gaddafi and to hope he would resist. As for the rebels, a lot of westerners still feared "bearded men" as Opebo would say. There is no economical reason that would have led to western intervention. Not even one.

Of course there is an economic reason. You think they were only thinking of the short term? After the revolution started, and Gaddafi refused to back down when the west asked him to, the die was cast. At that point we probably just wanted a friendly face selling us oil and thought a little bombing would be enough to end Gaddafi (and in the end we might get rid or Gaddaffi and install a friend). Obviously the west isn't going in there to steal oil or any of that crap. And there were certainly other reasons for going in, as I have acknowledged here and in previous posts. That being said there is still a reason why we intervened in Libya and not in most other places.

And I doubt the only reason is because it's "easy" to do so in Libya.

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nice, sbane!

[Gustaf]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

*facepalm*

It's really sad to hear this kind of kind of arguments from you, after having been surrounded for years by bigoted "pacifists" and "anti-imperialists" in my country.

For your information, oil trade with Libya was going extremely well under Gaddafi. And not only oil, countries like France had important economic partnerships with Libya. Not to forget that Gaddafi was blocking emigrants for us. Basically, Europeans had every possible reason not to support Gaddafi and to hope he would resist. As for the rebels, a lot of westerners still feared "bearded men" as Opebo would say. There is no economical reason that would have led to western intervention. Not even one.

Of course there is an economic reason. You think they were only thinking of the short term? After the revolution started, and Gaddafi refused to back down when the west asked him to, the die was cast. At that point we probably just wanted a friendly face selling us oil and thought a little bombing would be enough to end Gaddafi (and in the end we might get rid or Gaddaffi and install a friend). Obviously the west isn't going in there to steal oil or any of that crap. And there were certainly other reasons for going in, as I have acknowledged here and in previous posts. That being said there is still a reason why we intervened in Libya and not in most other places.

And I doubt the only reason is because it's "easy" to do so in Libya.

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

Wouldn't the safest way to keep the oil flowing have been to let Gadaffi crush the rebellion?

When you say a country should mind its own business do you mean in the sense that one should only care about those with the same citizenship as oneself?