Middle-East & North African Discussion

I thought that in the ways of economy, the US is China's she-dog?

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.

i) In what form? Directly dependent on the United States due to a large amount of American companies? I do not think that is fair. The United States government cannot make decisions for US companies. It goes against the classical liberal ideology of the American political parties. The elected officials will have a hard time justifying those actions to the electorate, Republicans more so than Democrats. Of course Congress can enact sanctions but these need proper justification too.

If you mean as a manner of receiving foreign aid.. Well yeah, then one could say they are dependent on the United States. I would still not say that this is a correct criterion either as we can look at Western Europe with regards to the Marshall Aid and conclude that they were not, and are not satellite states. Yes, Marshall Aid was used to pressure some things that the United States did not want, like the Dutch attempt to reassert control over Indonesia. Yet I ask you, how can you justify giving aid to a regime which is doing things you are opposed to? The only time I can see this happening is where you have two evils to pick.

ii) see my previous post with regards to my feelings regarding this criterion.

iii) This is very broad. The United States has a great interest in the politics of China, of the EU, of Russia, of India, to name a few. None of these is an American satellite. My point is, this is not a good criterion because it is far too broad and just doesn't apply to satellite states alone.

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:I thought that in the ways of economy, the US is China's she-dog?

In a way, but it goes both ways. If the US economy sinks then so does the Chinese. They are bound to each other, whether they like this fact or not. Same goes for Europe and China and I think it could be applied to Europe and the US too. The fact that China controls a large portion of the US government's debt ensures that this relationship is much more publicized and leads to a misleading picture of how interconnected these economies are.

Antistia wrote:
i) In what form? Directly dependent on the United States due to a large amount of American companies? I do not think that is fair. The United States government cannot make decisions for US companies. It goes against the classical liberal ideology of the American political parties. The elected officials will have a hard time justifying those actions to the electorate, Republicans more so than Democrats. Of course Congress can enact sanctions but these need proper justification too.

No, that would be indirect.

Antistia wrote:If you mean as a manner of receiving foreign aid.. Well yeah, then one could say they are dependent on the United States. I would still not say that this is a correct criterion either as we can look at Western Europe with regards to the Marshall Aid and conclude that they were not, and are not satellite states.

I disagree. I would say that your counter-examples were indeed satellite states. If you disagree with this, we are only discussing semantics and we should probably take the discussion elsewhere.

Antistia wrote:Yet I ask you, how can you justify giving aid to a regime which is doing things you are opposed to? The only time I can see this happening is where you have two evils to pick.

Easily, you don't give aid to a regime, but instead to causes that benefit the people - such as schools, water and apartments.

Antistia wrote:iii) This is very broad. The United States has a great interest in the politics of China, of the EU, of Russia, of India, to name a few. None of these is an American satellite. My point is, this is not a good criterion because it is far too broad and just doesn't apply to satellite states alone.

It doesn't matter if the criterion is too wide, it's if the definition is. Neither EU, China, Russia or India are directly dependant on the US for their economy, therefore this is not a counter-argument.

There's a saying that goes: If you owe the bank 1000 euro, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank 1.000.000 euro, they're in trouble.

On a bright note, the speech of Barroso really made me smile. It shows more of the spirit I wanted to see. The humanitarian aidefund for Libya goes up from 3 million to 10 million euro. Money for tents, food, medicines and what not! Frontext is helping the Italians with the refugees. There's money made availible to help neighbouring countries of the EU to get their economies up and help them with their changes.

I disagree. I would say that your counter-examples were indeed satellite states. If you disagree with this, we are only discussing semantics and we should probably take the discussion elsewhere.

Obviously I disagree

Easily, you don't give aid to a regime, but instead to causes that benefit the people - such as schools, water and apartments.

That's all nice and beautiful, but a lot of schools are government institutions. One can of course drill a well, but if you want to provide a city with running water you're either going to need to make use of corporations (let them compete for a contract) or the government, and will most likely need the government's cooperation either way. Apartments, they're private property so you could give money to individuals, or you're going to need to build new apartments in which case you're going to need a corporation again. (and building permits)

Or you're going to need to ask a non-profit organization to carry all this out.. It is my personal preference to make use of corporations though.

It doesn't matter if the criterion is too wide, it's if the definition is. Neither EU, China, Russia or India are directly dependant on the US for their economy, therefore this is not a counter-argument.

When you make use of too broad a criterion for a definition, then the definition isn't correct. But I seem to have forgotten that you meant that a government must have 1 to be eligible for 2 etc. My apologies.

Now, I propose that we return to the unrest in the Middle East and Africa.

Lo and behold, the USS Kearsarge! This is the amphibious assault vessel currently moving towards Libya. It is accompanied by the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport dock.

Antistia wrote:Lo and behold, the USS Kearsarge! This is the amphibious assault vessel

That ugly son of a ship can go on land too? Do want to see that! xD

Nithel wrote:

Antistia wrote:Lo and behold, the USS Kearsarge! This is the amphibious assault vessel

That ugly son of a ship can go on land too? Do want to see that! xD

Not personally, in the back there is what appears to be a hole if you look closely. If I understood it correctly one can fit in, I think, a hovercraft or two to use for an amphibious assault.

I looked at a bigger picture of the ship too, and what I could see on deck were Chinooks, Apaches and fighters which I'm guessing are harriers.. I'm not good with identifying aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(LHD-3)

Antistia wrote:
Lo and behold, the USS Kearsarge! This is the amphibious assault vessel currently moving towards Libya. It is accompanied by the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport dock.

That looks worryingly short for a ship with a flight deck. Might just be a weird camera angle/deceptive distance, though. I can't see what an amphibious assault ship would be doing unless they do really expect the shit to hit the fan enough to warrant a full blown landing.

Edit: Yeah, just a weird angle in the small picture. Looks much more normal in the wikipedia pictures.

Cyaska wrote:

Antistia wrote:
Lo and behold, the USS Kearsarge! This is the amphibious assault vessel currently moving towards Libya. It is accompanied by the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport dock.

That looks worryingly short for a ship with a flight deck. Might just be a weird camera angle/deceptive distance, though. I can't see what an amphibious assault ship would be doing unless they do really expect the shit to hit the fan enough to warrant a full blown landing.

Edit: Yeah, just a weird angle in the small picture. Looks much more normal in the wikipedia pictures.

Chinooks can be used to airlift in humanitarian aid, I would also assume that the USS Kearsarge can have quite a stockpile of supplies on board so it's rather logical. We'll see what the US will do, I doubt there will be many boots on the ground in any case.

Antistia wrote:

Cyaska wrote:

Antistia wrote:
Lo and behold, the USS Kearsarge! This is the amphibious assault vessel currently moving towards Libya. It is accompanied by the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport dock.

That looks worryingly short for a ship with a flight deck. Might just be a weird camera angle/deceptive distance, though. I can't see what an amphibious assault ship would be doing unless they do really expect the shit to hit the fan enough to warrant a full blown landing.

Edit: Yeah, just a weird angle in the small picture. Looks much more normal in the wikipedia pictures.

Chinooks can be used to airlift in humanitarian aid, I would also assume that the USS Kearsarge can have quite a stockpile of supplies on board so it's rather logical. We'll see what the US will do, I doubt there will be many boots on the ground in any case.

Upon further reading, it "Has one of the best hospitals in the US Navy, seconded only by dedicated hospital ships."

That's explained, then.

Yeah, and apparently the US would need more aircraft to enforce a no-fly zone than are stationed on a single US aircraft carrier. A no-fly zone would also require attacking the Ghaddafi regime according to Secretary Gates.

The idea of protective military flights over Libya has gained footing with some in the United States and Europe as a means to prevent Gadhafi from launching aerial attacks on rebels seeking his ouster. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers that a military operation would have to come before creation of a no-fly zone.
"There is a lot of, frankly, loose talk about some of these military options," Gates said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. "Let's just call a spade a spade: A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."
He added that the operation would require more warplanes than are on a single U.S. aircraft carrier.
"It is a big operation in a big country," he said.
Gates said the Pentagon could get the job done if ordered by the president, but his message was unmistakable. With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military has no interest in getting bogged down in a third one, especially in another Muslim country.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_mideast;_ylt=Ag0ObWkt.Zltt8h0HO8M_1uyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJpZTk4c2dyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzAyL3VzX3VzX21pZGVhc3QEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN1c3JlZWxzYmFja3Q-

I honestly think that Nato/western intervention would be disastrous. Partly because it is short of the greatest favour that can be done to Ghaddafi's cause. Right now it's the sole lunatic versus his own people, the moment western powers step in to do anything... it will be a muslim state versus western oppressors.
The moment western powers steps in... there will be people flocking to Ghaddafi's side.

Another problem is that in order to even just establish a no-fly zone, the anti-aircraft capabilities of Tunisia needs to be knocked out (because as long as those stands air-superiority cannot be achieved). So in order to just establish a "basic protection" for the libyian people... NATO needs to begin with bombing Lybians. Sure... one might think it's just Ghaddafi's supporters... but what if his supporters and the people fight over a city? Will not NATO pre-emptively bomb those AA-sites? Even if the people still hold them?

Antistia wrote:
When you make use of too broad a criterion for a definition, then the definition isn't correct. But I seem to have forgotten that you meant that a government must have 1 to be eligible for 2 etc. My apologies.

Not true. Consider for example the definition of a modern human woman;
i) member of the family homo sapiens sapiens
ii) female

Both criterias are too wide by themselves, but the definition is still correct, since it requires both criterias.

With that sorted out, I agree that we should leave this discussion.

I think that Gahalla brings forth several good points.

I honestly think that Nato/western intervention would be disastrous. Partly because it is short of the greatest favour that can be done to Ghaddafi's cause. Right now it's the sole lunatic versus his own people, the moment western powers step in to do anything... it will be a muslim state versus western oppressors.
The moment western powers steps in... there will be people flocking to Ghaddafi's side.

That's exactly why it should be coordinated through the United Nations. It requires at the very least a UN mandate (which is not going to come), and it should (preferably) come at the request of the rebels. If that happens then we have a good legal basis as well as a moral one. This ought to cover us at least a little bit, but there will always be people flocking to Ghaddafi's banner if the West does anything, whether sanctions or intervention, both will get Ghaddafi a few anti-Western supporters.

So in order to just establish a "basic protection" for the libyian people... NATO needs to begin with bombing Lybians. Sure... one might think it's just Ghaddafi's supporters... but what if his supporters and the people fight over a city? Will not NATO pre-emptively bomb those AA-sites? Even if the people still hold them?

Military operations would be needed, yes. If the US or NATO are going to take out AA sites then this must be done with the greatest of efficiency and the least amount of civilian casualties. This would require having special forces in place to observe the sites at the very least and attacking the sites themselves at most. It is doable, but we would need to go to great lengths to ensure this.

All in all, it seems to be a difficult thing to achieve. I'm just an armchair general here, mind you, so I probably messed something up in the above or forgot something. All in all I would need to say that having boots on the ground would be very bad for the view of the West in Libya and might be quite the propaganda coup for Ghaddafi.

This just in: Last Sunday Dutch troops tried to rescue a Dutch citizen and another European from the town of Sirte in Libya. They were attacked by pro Ghaddafi forces and 3 Dutch soldiers have been captured.

http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2459360/drie-nederlandse-militairen-gegijzeld-in-libie.html

Expect me screaming for their release once I have more time.

Edit: here is an English source

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/03/libya.netherlands.sailors/index.html?hpt=T2

They what?
Should we expect a

soon then?

The Libyans handed over the "European (not even simply Dutch) nationals" that the Dutch "Special Forces" were rescuing to the Dutch Embassy in Tripoli (and they've already left the country).

But they kept hold of the troops...

It's an interesting, if potentially stupid, step...

grufftoof wrote:The Libyans handed over the "European (not even simply Dutch) nationals" that the Dutch "Special Forces" were rescuing to the Dutch Embassy in Tripoli (and they've already left the country).

But they kept hold of the troops...

It's an interesting, if potentially stupid, step...

It has not been confirmed that these guys were our special forces. As far as I know the "Korps Commandotroepen" (KCT) weren't deployed, but I wouldn't know for sure, they might have been.

And Kristeas, the Dutch are pansies, we won't do a thing militarily to get them out. Diplomatically we are trying but I think they might just be tried for endangering Libya's national security. Probably they'll get life in jail or be executed if they are tried. I'm not at all comfortable with a regime which is willing to bomb its people having my fellow countrymen captive.

As such, I would love to see a rescue operation at the very least because these guys need to be released, either by the Libyans showing some damn brains or by force.

Yeah, look at how they handled the case with that Dutch-Iranian woman who was hanged. "We did all we could through diplomacy. They lied to us. Boohoo.'

"Venezuelan proposal from Reuters:

The Libyan government has accepted a plan by Venezuela to seek a negotiated solution to the conflict in the north African country, a spokesman for president Hugo Chavez said on Thursday.

Information minister Andres Izarra also confirmed the Arab League had shown interest in the Chavez plan to send an international commission to talk with both sides in Libya."

Make of that what you will...

Take it as you will.

Considering that footage of bombs falling have already been smuggled out... yeah.

I've not seen any of that footage. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

Darilas/Annyra/Aneeta wrote:Yeah, look at how they handled the case with that Dutch-Iranian woman who was hanged. "We did all we could through diplomacy. They lied to us. Boohoo.'

That was completely ridiculous, I can understand that they acted like they did while she was still alive. But the moment she was hanged we should have recalled our ambassador, expelled theirs and joined the Americans in calling for whatever sanctions they want on Iran.

As for Russia Today.. Russia is opposed to a no-fly zone over Libya, I reckon they have arms contracts or see a way to increase their energy monopoly over Europe.

Oh, and let me quote a former RT reporter:

"I had a series of live, video satellite links scheduled for later that day, and they were cancelled. The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/aug/12/russiantvreporterresignsaf


Edit:

I've not seen any of that footage. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

I personally don't have such footage, but I do know for a fact that Libyan pilots deserted and landed on Malta. Their reason was that they were ordered to bomb Benghazi and did not wish to do so. Furthermore, two Libyan pilots also let their plane crash so that they wouldn't need to bomb their countrymen, according to the news.