UN issues Libya no-fly zone (War Powers vote FAILS)

[paulw]

Gadafi is oppressing people but in order to bring democracy it takes paradigm shift, critical mass of educated people, free media, political opposition who can monitor government without fears of being prosecuted... If you just change the person in charge and stage a PR campaign how the new guy is now democratic without serious changes to system which take decades for behavior throughout society to change this is not democracy.

Unless you haven't been following the news Gadafi is going to kill every one who opposes him plus the front page of one of our local papers here said that Gadafi was going to destroy passenger airplanes in the Mediterranean if the no fly goes ahead. This guys a nut case so sooner the better that he is taken out.. Maybe we should leave the no fly to the British as they were so keen to do a terrorist bomber for oil deal last year with Gadafi ..

[KRSESQ]

So an act commited 23 years ago would justify a fulle scal war now? Even with all the diplomatic actions taken?

In a word, yes.

23 years ago there was no evidence that Gaddafi was directly involved. A few conspirators were tried and convicted, that's all.

Now, if proof DOES emerge that this was a state-sponsored act with the full knowledge and approval of the head-of-state, are we not entitled to seek justice against that head-of-state? And are we not entitled to determine for ourselves what action is justified to that end?

Say, for instance, 23 years ago a group of skinheads burned down a church with 223 people inside. The arsonists were brought to trial, convicted, and punished. Today it emerges that the act was carried out with the full knowledge and approval of the then-and-current Governor and his cronies. Are the survivors of those killed not entitled to justice because the act was carried out 23 years ago? Is the Governor entitled to immunity because he's now an old man? What's the Statute of Limitations for murder?

Gaddafi is one superweapon away from being a James Bond villain. The only reason he's survived this long is because of the control he has over a substantial oil supply that's brought him substantial wealth which he's used to brutalize his own people and sponsor terrorism around the globe. Simply put, he has to go. By whatever means necessary.

Yeah, it sounds like I'm talking about Saddam again. Which means we need to be a lot more diligent about the evidence against Gaddafi, and not just take this or that former official at their word.

[Dr Mordrid]

^^^^____ what he said.

[Umfriend]

Wow, just wow. Mind boggling, I'll have to think about that one for a while. Not that I would argue that those involved should walk free but going to war to get justice after that time... I donnow.

Let's hope diligence is observed.

Meanwhile, I'm not convinced a noi-fly-zone is such a good idea (especially given how long it took to get there). My fear is that of the two camps, one was vastly superior and would win rather easily. Now the advantage may be far smaller causing the conflict to exist far longer and with much more casualties and suffering. I'm hoping for the best but, uhm, fear a lot of trouble.

[paulw]

I see one of the main groups calling for the no fly zone The Arab League is now having second thoughts. Typical of these people. Call for the west to do something then change their minds and will no doubt blame the west for any civilian casualties.. They should have been the ones to sort this guy out..

[UtwigMU]

I'll provide some prior insight:
- after being branded as terrorist sponsor (this was 90s, early 2000s), Gadafi primarily built relations with subsaharan Africa, he was in good relations with many African leaders
- few years ago he apologized for Lockerbie, paid compensation and started being friendly with Europe. He was in good relations with France (he recently called for Sarkozy to return campaign money), he also had many business deals with other countries.
- he was also personal friend with Berlusconi (planes are flown from Italy and Italy is taking part). One of issues that Italy is being swamped from illegal immigrants from Africa and EU rules prevent them from returning them (they also have huge influx of immigrants from Albania and Roma people from Romania, Bulgaria...). He struck a deal with Gadafi who policed the immigrants and prevented them from crossing over for which he was paid.
- also there is issue of gas: Europe is dependent on natural gas, which they can get either from Russia or from north Africa, there were gas deals going on between Italy and Libya
- once Obama was elected Gadafi praised him for his African and muslim ancestry, they also met, shook hands

So I find it interesting how all people who were buddies of Gadafi suddenly decided to replace him. Also that he was behind Lockerby is public knowledge for a some years now, he apologized and paid compensations to families of victims, so I fail to see how this is all of a sudden a reason to replace him. More of one of reasons to convince American public for yet another war.

Also while he may be ousted, another possible outcome is either a protracted war or a split of Libya in 2 countries. This might destabilize rest of Arab countries and possibly Italy which is already swamped by refugees and Berlusconi who was one of longest running post-war PMs about to be ousted.



I have my own theories as to why (it's not war for oil and it's not about democracy or protection of civilians either).

[dZeus]

In a word, yes.

23 years ago there was no evidence that Gaddafi was directly involved. A few conspirators were tried and convicted, that's all.

Now, if proof DOES emerge that this was a state-sponsored act with the full knowledge and approval of the head-of-state, are we not entitled to seek justice against that head-of-state? And are we not entitled to determine for ourselves what action is justified to that end?

Say, for instance, 23 years ago a group of skinheads burned down a church with 223 people inside. The arsonists were brought to trial, convicted, and punished. Today it emerges that the act was carried out with the full knowledge and approval of the then-and-current Governor and his cronies. Are the survivors of those killed not entitled to justice because the act was carried out 23 years ago? Is the Governor entitled to immunity because he's now an old man? What's the Statute of Limitations for murder?

Gaddafi is one superweapon away from being a James Bond villain. The only reason he's survived this long is because of the control he has over a substantial oil supply that's brought him substantial wealth which he's used to brutalize his own people and sponsor terrorism around the globe. Simply put, he has to go. By whatever means necessary.

Yeah, it sounds like I'm talking about Saddam again. Which means we need to be a lot more diligent about the evidence against Gaddafi, and not just take this or that former official at their word.

ok so you're saying...
Pan Am Flight 103, aka Lockerbie bombing:
deaths: 243 passengers + 16 crew members.
Libya formally admitted responsibility for Pan Am Flight 103
Compensation: US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family.

should result in an invasion of Libya?

Then what should happen to the people who perpetrated the following?
Iran Air Flight 655.
deaths: 274 passengers + 16 crew members
United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran
Compensation: $61.8 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger

and no, I don't buy the excuse that an Airbus A300B2-203 'looks like' a F14 Tomcat.

Anyway, the west never has been and never is concerned about the legitimacy of leaders in foreign countries. The only thing we care about is geopolitical strategy and natural resources. We're not any different from the Russians or Chinese, with the main difference that 'morality' is used as an excuse to sell our policies to the masses. In my opinion using morality as any excuse for actions happening in the world is a very naive point of view.

[Umfriend]

^^^^____ what he said.

[TransformX]

We can easily take it a step further. Why Libya and not Iran, Syria, Yemen, KSA, Bahrain, China, N.Korea etc. etc. etc.?
With all due respect, there's no genocide in Libya, really. Nothing even close to say.. Darfur?
I'm all for taking down Qadhafi or most any tyrant, but this whole story reeks of something else.

[Umfriend]

Indeed.

Perhaps the answer is that here the US and Europe might try and change the geopolitical situation to their perceived advantage with a claim to morality and justice and at relatively limited cost. Opportunity seems to be knocking but it may be a trap laid by the devil.

[Brian Ellis]

it may be a trap laid by the devil.

What? The devil incarnate?

[Dr Mordrid]

120+ Tomahawk cruise missiles launched by US ships, and at least a few more by a UK Trafalgar-class sub.

Lybian air defense and Command & Control taken out in the eastern half of the country with strong indications commandos were involved.

That most has to mean UK SAS, French COS, German KS or possibly Egyptian Task Force 777 since Obama said US "land forces" won't be involved - but then again if you parse it sufficiently, do sub-based Navy SEALs count as land forces?

[UtwigMU]

Doc: Libya has population of Arizona and GDP of New Mexico, of course 3 of top 10 military countries are pwning them. Though Gadafi has large gold reserves and he can finance guerrilla war for some time (similarly as Serbia lasted for months under NATO bombing and the armistice signed latter had better condition than before bombing for Serbia and Milosevic was ousted only latter - his popularity was low initially but after bombing people rallied behind him and it soared).

Germany is not taking part in Libya, thought they took part in Afghanistan. Since Germany is probably the only country in EU with sound economy left, I find it interesting. Also since they have CDU in power (more proamerican than PDS) and regional elections are already behind.

What are you guys thinking is the reasons behind this:
- it's not about democracy, this is only a pretext
- it's also not about oil as they had no problems making deals with Gadafi
- also France and Italy had numerous cozy deals with Gadafi, so i don't see immediate benefit to them

[cjolley]

Probably it's about not losing the big mo for democracy in the rest of the ME

[dZeus]

Probably it's about not losing the big mo for democracy in the rest of the ME

if you mean with 'rest of the ME' only the countries where the western world thinks democracy will better serve their interests, then I might agree.

Cause there is barely any western outcry on beatdowns on protesters in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Or other countries allied to the west...

e.g. we haven't heard much in western media on Egypt after the military (who are cozy with the west) took control again, like they have for the past many years (return to status quo). The people there are far from happy with a lot of what is happening after Mubarak's stepping down (they set the ministry of interior on fire very recently).