Re: Middle-East & North African Discussion

by **Gahalla** Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:39 pm

One thing to consider is that the moment any western nation goes in militarily, the entire democracy movement (suchas it is) will lose a lot of credibility. As long as most people believe it is the citzens themselves that removed their dictators and built their democratic nations, then it will retain a lot of legitimacy and strength. It was -they- who got rid of the dictators. -They- who brought down corruption and authorianism... not a western general.

The moment any western power goes in however, will give tremendous strength to the argument that this was just a western conspiracy to put their puppets in place.

I am not saying it is right to allow people to suffer. Just that by going in, western powers can give strength to the cause of just those groups noone wants to see in power. So it's not really a simple decision.

by **Gunnell** Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:43 pm

by **Antistia** Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:49 pm

If any country get involved in it by any action, very much so millitary one, we are so screwd. To quote an American general: "Anyone who advices the President of the United States of America to enter with or without force into another eastern or African country, should be sent to be tested by a Doctor. Something is wrong in his head, that's certain."

A no-fly zone wouldn't have the consequences that this particular general foresees. We should not send in ground forces bar a small amount of Special Forces if everything goes wrong.

Also, let's not rule out a predator strike.

by **Rasonal Dranger** Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:23 pm

Antistia wrote:
If any country get involved in it by any action, very much so millitary one, we are so screwd. To quote an American general: "Anyone who advices the President of the United States of America to enter with or without force into another eastern or African country, should be sent to be tested by a Doctor. Something is wrong in his head, that's certain."

A no-fly zone wouldn't have the consequences that this particular general foresees. We should not send in ground forces bar a small amount of Special Forces if everything goes wrong.

Also, let's not rule out a predator strike.

The Libyans are begging for western powers not to get involve in any kind of millitary action. I am not saying it is not right to force a no-fly zone above Libiya to protect the citizens, I am just saying it may and probably will allow radical movements to take over.

by **Krogon Devilstep** Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:24 pm

i imagine an air campaign alone would bring gaddafi to his knee's.

by **Cyaska** Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:25 pm

Antistia wrote:
If any country get involved in it by any action, very much so millitary one, we are so screwd. To quote an American general: "Anyone who advices the President of the United States of America to enter with or without force into another eastern or African country, should be sent to be tested by a Doctor. Something is wrong in his head, that's certain."

A no-fly zone wouldn't have the consequences that this particular general foresees. We should not send in ground forces bar a small amount of Special Forces if everything goes wrong.

Also, let's not rule out a predator strike.

A UAV strike is crossing the line of "defending a democratic uprising" and "a directed act of aggression". At Rasonal says, if they don't want any direct help, then that's their wish. Best of luck to them.

by **Antistia** Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:51 pm

Cyaska wrote:
Antistia wrote:
If any country get involved in it by any action, very much so millitary one, we are so screwd. To quote an American general: "Anyone who advices the President of the United States of America to enter with or without force into another eastern or African country, should be sent to be tested by a Doctor. Something is wrong in his head, that's certain."

A no-fly zone wouldn't have the consequences that this particular general foresees. We should not send in ground forces bar a small amount of Special Forces if everything goes wrong.

Also, let's not rule out a predator strike.

A UAV strike is crossing the line of "defending a democratic uprising" and "a directed act of aggression". At Rasonal says, if they don't want any direct help, then that's their wish. Best of luck to them.

I was suggesting the UAV strike in line with Geldar's Spooky and your suggestion Wink

As for the Libyans begging for us not to get involved, I've not read that anywhere in the press. Could you find a source for that for me? Not that I don't trust you or anything, I'd just like to read it Razz

by **Cyaska** Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:55 pm

Antistia wrote:
Cyaska wrote:
Antistia wrote:
If any country get involved in it by any action, very much so millitary one, we are so screwd. To quote an American general: "Anyone who advices the President of the United States of America to enter with or without force into another eastern or African country, should be sent to be tested by a Doctor. Something is wrong in his head, that's certain."

A no-fly zone wouldn't have the consequences that this particular general foresees. We should not send in ground forces bar a small amount of Special Forces if everything goes wrong.

Also, let's not rule out a predator strike.

A UAV strike is crossing the line of "defending a democratic uprising" and "a directed act of aggression". At Rasonal says, if they don't want any direct help, then that's their wish. Best of luck to them.

I was suggesting the UAV strike in line with Geldar's Spooky and your suggestion

Figured you were following another discussion, eh.

by **Antistia** Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:01 pm

CNN has been told by opposition figures that pro Gaddafi forces tried to retake the town of Zawiya which is apparently close to Tripoli. The attempt failed but the Gaddafi regime is denying that an attack ever took place.

I also saw a nice video on CNN where a lot of old Soviet tanks were shown which had fallen into the hands of the rebels. The problem though is that they lack qualified personnel to operate these old Soviet tanks. They've also gotten their hands on old AA units and seem intent to march on Tripoli.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/01/libya.protests/index.html?hpt=T1

Also I watched the Colbert Report today and there was a former CIA employee who wanted to sell Stephen a bridge if he believed Egypt would become a democracy.

by **Rasonal Dranger** Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:28 pm

I don't have one official source (Maybe Shaelyssa can help me, as I don't speak such a good arabic), but I can give you some sources, not so much so officials but of Libyans bloggers and the likes who are, after all, the heart of this uprising:

LibyaUnited1944 @ShababLibya Libyan intern coalition in Benghazi has emphasized time & again that Libya DOESN'T require any foreign military intervention.
Monday, February 28, 2011 7:13:44 PM via web in reply to ShababLibya

Retweeted by ShababLibya and 55 others (Source: http://twitter.com/ShababLibya) *BBC quoted from this guy many things*
------------------------------------
@mglito @shabablibya No Fly is very much wanted by Libyans. I hope they enforce it ASAP, anything else no thanks.
Monday, February 28, 2011 7:44:13 PM via web in reply to mglito

(Source: http://twitter.com/LibyaUnited1944) *BBC quoted this guy as well*

I have some more, but they all go around the same: Libiya should be recognized as under the hands of the protesters. The Protesters should be given medical aid when and if possible, not via army forces. There is a debate about the No-Fly zone, some say it will do good and some say no. All agree that no Army should enter the country.

by **Darilas** Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:57 am

Now he's involving the nomads, according to this (Dutch) news article

by **Antistia** Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:20 am

Ah, ok Rasonal, thanks.

The US have positioned the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault vessel, near Libya. It will soon be loaded with 400 marines to replace units that have left for Afghanistan , I don't know if that is standard procedure or not.

by **Grufftoof** Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:16 am

Reports state that "Cameron's idea" (that's how it was spun, because he is a Saint, obviously) for the No-Fly Zone have been shotdown (pun intended) by the French (weirdly as the early reports stated they had drafted the resolution) and the US.

The US is pushing for "something", possibly sanctions backed by some other action. And most of the rest of Europe is pushing for sanctions...

Edit:

The following is from The Telegraph:

American sources have disclosed that the SAS is likely to be called upon to secure up to 10 tons of mustard gas and sarin that is believed to be stockpiled at three separate locations.
Special forces are thought to have been in Libya for about 10 days and have already played a leading role in rescuing hundreds of oil worker

And in brilliant news for the British troops in Afghanistan, it looks like they've received notification of the cuts the government is planning. Whilst they're fighting. Nice to be told I'm sure.

by **Shaelyssa** Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:15 pm

Oh how totally atypical of the US!!! Spreading democracy through violence!!! O how lovely, Im so looking forward to looking them sucking Libya dry and then leaving them to pick up the pieces like they did with Iraq

yaaaay

by **Cyaska** Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:35 pm

Shaelyssa wrote:Oh how totally atypical of the US!!! Spreading democracy through violence!!!

Middle-East & North African Discussion - Page 12 Demotivational_Poster__GAU_8_by_manguskahn

by **Máire** Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:42 pm

Shaelyssa wrote:Oh how totally atypical of the US!!! Spreading democracy through violence!!! O how lovely, Im so looking forward to looking them sucking Libya dry and then leaving them to pick up the pieces like they did with Iraq

yaaaay

Well, rather that than creating a democratic central government and then giving the rest of the country to fascist, male chauvinistic warlords like in Afghanistan.

I believe the muslim tendencies of the revolutions scare America. If these countries align themselves to Iran rather than the US, then Israel is in deep shit (especially if Egypt gets an ayatollah rather than a president). By pulling down the dictator themselves (the US), they can effectively influence the outcome of the elections, thereby, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, give the power to an american satellite state.

by **Amaryl** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:25 pm

Barbary coast pfff. lets get them dictators out yo!

by **Máire** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:52 pm

For those interested in the general picture of the situation, yet don't have the time to read through a years worth of BBC articles, CNN produced a very good resumé.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/28/mideast.africa.unrest/index.html?hpt=T2

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize in advance if I am re-posting.

by **Geldar** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:55 pm

Cyaska wrote:
Shaelyssa wrote:Oh how totally atypical of the US!!! Spreading democracy through violence!!!

Also nicknamed : "The Crowd Pleaser"!

by **Antistia** Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:17 pm

Shaelyssa wrote:Oh how totally atypical of the US!!! Spreading democracy through violence!!! O how lovely, Im so looking forward to looking them sucking Libya dry and then leaving them to pick up the pieces like they did with Iraq

yaaaay

You mean ALL the oil the US got out of Iraq? You know the US hit peak imports of Iraqi oil in 2001, right? You know most oil contracts went to non-US companies, right? You know the amount of oil the US got out of Iraq at the peak of their imports was just 5% of total oil imports, right? You know the Congressional Budget Office believes the war in Iraq cost the United States seven hundred billion dollars? That's the number until 2010 (don't know for sure if it is fiscal year or not), the US are still there and it is still costing the US money.

So, no, Iraq was not sucked dry by the United States so they could make profit or whatever.

...give the power to an american satellite state.

Iraq is less of a satellite state than you might think, much less.

American sources have disclosed that the SAS is likely to be called upon to secure up to 10 tons of mustard gas and sarin that is believed to be stockpiled at three separate locations.
Special forces are thought to have been in Libya for about 10 days and have already played a leading role in rescuing hundreds of oil worker

This is good news, these weapons need to be secured before it is too late. I am however not too sure about if I would have liked to see this published by the Telegraph. If we can read it, so can the Gaddafi regime.

Edit:

TRIPOLI (Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi launched a land and air offensive to retake territory in Libya's east at dawn on Wednesday, sparking a rebel call for foreign air strikes against African mercenaries they said were helping him cling to power.

An interesting development.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110302/wl_nm/us_libya_protests;_ylt=Ag6UzelrTXRiKrJGmYbDZeVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJpamJvOXF0BGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwMzAyL3VzX2xpYnlhX3Byb3Rlc3RzBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNnYWRkYWZpc3RyaWs-

by **Máire** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:07 pm

Antistia wrote:
Iraq is less of a satellite state than you might think, much less.

Either it is a satellite state or it is not a satellite state, more or less are irrelevant in this context.

by **Antistia** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:09 pm

Máire wrote:
Antistia wrote:
Iraq is less of a satellite state than you might think, much less.
Either it is a satellite state or it is not a satellite state, more or less are irrelevant in this context.

Then it is not a satellite state, judging by the amount of influence the Iranians have in the country.

by **Máire** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:14 pm

Antistia wrote:
Then it is not a satellite state, judging by the amount of influence the Iranians have in the country.

That of course leaves the question open; what constitutes a satellite state? I would suggest that the following definition should satisfactory define a satellite state of the United States;
i) The states' economies are dependant on the US
ii) The states' political decisions are heavily influenced by the possibility of economic repercussions.

I would also argue that ii) follows from i) (edit: should be added, not deductively), considering the fact that iii) US have been known to use economic repercussions and iv) i) is true, thus I believe it would be correct to assume that Iraq are indeed a satellite state. Sadly, they do not brand themselves as such, so empirical speculations are unfortunately the only argument I can present in favor of my belief.

by **Antistia** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:38 pm

Máire wrote:
Antistia wrote:
Then it is not a satellite state, judging by the amount of influence the Iranians have in the country.

That of course leaves the question open; what constitutes a satellite state? I would suggest that the following definition should satisfactory define a satellite state of the United States;
i) The states' economies are dependant on the US
ii) The states' political decisions are heavily influenced by the possibility of economic repercussions.

I would also argue that ii) follows from i) (edit: should be added, not deductively), considering the fact that iii) US have been known to use economic repercussions and iv) i) is true, thus I believe it would be correct to assume that Iraq are indeed a satellite state. Sadly, they do not brand themselves as such, so empirical speculations are unfortunately the only argument I can present in favor of my belief.

Every (developed) nation has used (potential) economic repercussions in the past and will use them in the future. It could also be argued that each and every economy in the world is dependent on the United States. It is that much of a behemoth. It's not a good way to define a satellite state in my mind. Furthermore, the potential of economic repercussions are, I believe, always somewhat important in developing nations. Both intended by a third party and unintended, which also factors into the decision making process of developed economies.

by **Máire** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:48 pm

Antistia wrote:
Every (developed) nation has used (potential) economic repercussions in the past and will use them in the future. It could also be argued that each and every economy in the world is dependent on the United States. It is that much of a behemoth. It's not a good way to define a satellite state in my mind. Furthermore, the potential of economic repercussions are, I believe, always somewhat important in developing nations. Both intended by a third party and unintended, which also factors into the decision making process of developed economies.

Oh, I agree, you are correct. We should probably adjust the first premise to "directly dependant", that is, US actively controls the economy instead of the other kind of dependancy; such as that their export and import are vital for certain countries (which are in turn vital for other countries, etc.).

However, this change is merely semantical and with this new narrower definition, Iraq would still be pointed out as a satellite state. My definition I however noticed suffer another problem; that is, all developing countries that receive free-trade agreements from the US (e.g. Cambodia until 200x, I can't recall the year) would be satellite states, and that is not correct. Therefore, we must also add a third criteria;

I propose the following definition;
i') The states' economies are directly dependant on the US
ii) The states' political decisions are heavily influenced by the possibility of economic repercussions.
iii') The politics of the state is of much interest to the US.

This would exclude Cambodia and similar nations, but include Iraq.

by Sponsored content