08 Jul 2011, 7:51 am
08 Jul 2011, 10:33 am
All of it, Doc. About keeping about Libya and not making it all about the USA.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Read the OP, Doc
About keeping it apolitical?
08 Jul 2011, 10:44 am
Well, a lot depends on the rebels, there. There are some indications that they are not whiter than white, but have been in many places trying to contain the 'revenge'.Archduke Russell John wrote:Further will getting Gaddafi replaced by the rebels actually achieve the purpose of the NATO intervention, i.e. protecting civilians from atrocities. If the Rebels start to do the same thing are we going to stay in Liyba and protect civilans from them.
08 Jul 2011, 12:02 pm
danivon wrote:All of it, Doc. About keeping about Libya and not making it all about the USA.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Read the OP, Doc
About keeping it apolitical?
08 Jul 2011, 2:16 pm
08 Jul 2011, 2:38 pm
danivon wrote:Maybe not in the US. There's another 6.7 billion people on this planet, you know.
08 Jul 2011, 2:54 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Maybe not in the US. There's another 6.7 billion people on this planet, you know.
Yes, all of whom would THINK about lifting a finger in Libya--much like our NATO allies.
If the US stopped its attack on Libya, this would not be a story because the rebels would lose.
08 Jul 2011, 3:08 pm
Ray Jay wrote:Yes, all of whom would THINK about lifting a finger in Libya--much like our NATO allies.
If the US stopped its attack on Libya, this would not be a story because the rebels would lose.
When you cut through it all, that is the argument for US involvement.
12 Jul 2011, 11:42 am
France's pivot to diplomacy was only underlined this morning when Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, was quoted in the Algerian newspaper El Khabar as saying that the Qaddafi regime was negotiating with France and not the rebels. Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero has denied any direct negotiations with Libyan officials but acknowledged that "we pass messages through the rebel council (TNC) and our allies." France is also distancing itself a bit from Longuet's statements yesterday. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe clarified that NATO still needed to "keep up the military pressure" on Qaddafi and Valero noted that "any political solution must begin with Qaddafi's withdrawal from power and abandonment of any political role." Juppe added, however, that France is simultaneously working to broker a political solution based on a genuine ceasefire and left open the possibility that Qaddafi could cede power but remain in Libya.
What explains the U.S./France role reversal on Libya? Three months of air strikes "have cost billions of dollars and failed to produce the swift outcome its backers had expected," Reuters explains, and "cracks are emerging inside the NATO alliance." An increasingly impatient France is growing "concerned about the mounting cost of the military campaign and the prospect of it running on into the start of a 2012 election campaign." The French parliament will reconsider the military campaign in Libya on Tuesday, according to France 24, but the vote is considered a "formality" and is widely expected to favor continued intervention. Still, France 24 calls France new position a "huge transformation," noting that the military campaign in Libya "is costing France a million euros a day."
12 Jul 2011, 11:53 am
You mean the NATO allies who are actually firing missiles over Libya? The very story you quote shows that France are currently doing a lot in terms of the campaign. The UK bill is about the $1bn mark so far as well.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Maybe not in the US. There's another 6.7 billion people on this planet, you know.
Yes, all of whom would THINK about lifting a finger in Libya--much like our NATO allies.
This is so deludedly US-centric as to be ridiculous. There was a big story before NATO intervened. Whatever the outcome there will be a big story.If the US stopped its attack on Libya, this would not be a story because the rebels would lose.
12 Jul 2011, 12:20 pm
danivon wrote:You mean the NATO allies who are actually firing missiles over Libya? The very story you quote shows that France are currently doing a lot in terms of the campaign. The UK bill is about the $1bn mark so far as well.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Maybe not in the US. There's another 6.7 billion people on this planet, you know.
Yes, all of whom would THINK about lifting a finger in Libya--much like our NATO allies.
This is so deludedly US-centric as to be ridiculous.If the US stopped its attack on Libya, this would not be a story because the rebels would lose.
There was a big story before NATO intervened. Whatever the outcome there will be a big story.
So, if the US (and the UK, and France and... and.. ) stopped, and as a result the rebels lost, you think that this would cease to be a story? You think that there'd be no repercussions for Libya and her neighbours? Or even for the US and NATO members?
12 Jul 2011, 12:34 pm
It's not clear. The US DoD and Congress are far better at getting costings and making them open to scrutiny. Our government have said it's £250M, but that doesn't include all possible costs. Estimates range from £400M to £800M, the mid point being £600M is about $1Bn.Doctor Fate wrote:Has the UK outspent the US on this one?
Ostensibly the protection of civilians from Gadaffi's evil regime.Again, why is the US fighting this war? What is our compelling interest? What's the UK's compelling interest?
Yes. It was a marginal case though.You were against this, right?
really? The UN resolutions included an arms-trading ban to all sidesTake it up with Obama's former SecDef, who made it sound like we were having to get our allies armed so they could drop bombs on the mighty Libyan forces.
Indeed. Which is one of the reasons I opposed it. The main one was that it would put us all in a very difficult position should other, more 'friendly' nations (eg: Yemen and Bahrain) attack civilians.Sure, because if the strong man outlasts us, we will have egg on our face for going in with some quarter-measures and lying about our intent.
FFS! I'm trying to get you to at least consider the impact beyond the US-sodding-A!No more than what is going on in Syria right now.
The US cannot and should not be involved when there is no compelling national interest.
Perhaps the precedent of Afghanistan should give us pause on the plan you had. Hindsight is great, but I can see considerable risks in your suggestion. What if we throw loads at it and don't get Gadaffi? What if we kill loads of civilians as 'collateral damage'? What if Gadaffi (or his successors) are able to galvanise support against a foreign occupation?If the NATO alliance wanted to go into Libya, they should have been straightforward about it, sent in enough forces to take Ghaddafi out on the first weekend, and been done with it. Instead, we've got the spectacle of NATO air units bombing Tripoli in support of a rag-tag army driving about in Toyota pick-up trucks.
12 Jul 2011, 1:23 pm
danivon wrote:It's not clear. The US DoD and Congress are far better at getting costings and making them open to scrutiny. Our government have said it's £250M, but that doesn't include all possible costs. Estimates range from £400M to £800M, the mid point being £600M is about $1Bn.Doctor Fate wrote:Has the UK outspent the US on this one?
really? The UN resolutions included an arms-trading ban to all sidesTake it up with Obama's former SecDef, who made it sound like we were having to get our allies armed so they could drop bombs on the mighty Libyan forces.
The defense secretary was even harsher in his critique of NATO’s command of the Libya operation. After an initial bombing campaign run by the Americans, the alliance took over the air war and Mr. Gates warned that NATO may not be up to the task.
“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.
While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.
“Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t,” Mr. Gates said. “The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”
Indeed. Which is one of the reasons I opposed it. The main one was that it would put us all in a very difficult position should other, more 'friendly' nations (eg: Yemen and Bahrain) attack civilians.Sure, because if the strong man outlasts us, we will have egg on our face for going in with some quarter-measures and lying about our intent.
FFS! I'm trying to get you to at least consider the impact beyond the US-sodding-A!No more than what is going on in Syria right now.
The US cannot and should not be involved when there is no compelling national interest.
Syria is a 'story', right? It would be whether we'd intervened in Libya or not, I expect. And it's a big story, frankly.
Perhaps the precedent of Afghanistan should give us pause on the plan you had. Hindsight is great, but I can see considerable risks in your suggestion. What if we throw loads at it and don't get Gadaffi? What if we kill loads of civilians as 'collateral damage'? What if Gadaffi (or his successors) are able to galvanise support against a foreign occupation?
Frankly, all of the options sucked. Not acting at all perhaps sucked least, but it still suggested that we don't care about democracy in the Middle East, or the civil rights of people beyond our borders.
12 Jul 2011, 2:35 pm
No need. Your attitude to the rest of humanity, all of us Gods children, is noted.Doctor Fate wrote:Unlike the President, I don't think of myself as a "citizen of the world." And, I won't apologize for it.
You being the expert on the region I defer to you. Do you care about human rights in Libya? You don't have to say you care enough to fight (or in your case, pay others to fight), just whether it gives you any cause for concern at all?I have no problem saying I don't care about democracy in Libya. None.
How can I be so heartless? Because the odds of it breaking out, even if we get Ghaddafi are what, one in ten?
And our track record of imposing democracy by force in the Middle East is what, exactly?If this was actually about that, boots should have hit the ground big time. We should have gone in and killed/captured Ghaddafi. He's not likely to surrender and will just get more desperate as time goes by.
12 Jul 2011, 2:53 pm
