Middle-East & North African Discussion

"US paves way to arm Libyan rebels
Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 over-rode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya"

So, that might be the next step then. Oh, we haven't seen that before... I know this isn't the same. And I did kinda expect it. But America have given no clear message so far really. "no intervention except logistics" "no bombing" "no groundforce" "err... we're not sure. who are you?"

:/

The US is just pushing the resolution to see how much help to the rebels they can get away with. I very much doubt that it'll come to ground forces though. The rebels have been adamantly against that themselves.

Geldar wrote:Antistia, you seem to have been wrong. The rebel advance according to the latest news turned into a routing operation by the Pro-Ghadaffi forces. Rebels already lost two towns.

Unfortunately I have been wrong, yes. I think the shorter supply lines are working tremendously in Ghaddafi's advantage as he can now better supply his better armed troops. I now think it'll end up in a stalemate somewhere in the middle.. Or we're going to see a WW2 type of scenario play out in Libya again where there are huge advances and huge retreats the entire war.

"US paves way to arm Libyan rebels
Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 over-rode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya"

So, that might be the next step then. Oh, we haven't seen that before... I know this isn't the same. And I did kinda expect it. But America have given no clear message so far really. "no intervention except logistics" "no bombing" "no groundforce" "err... we're not sure. who are you?"

Well, I'm going to be honest here. This is what one could lovingly call the Obama Doctrine At War (bar the fact I'd personally say there is no Obama Doctrine at all). He's really using a scalpel to figure out how to best support the rebels (and the Libyan people). This means pragmatic escalation or deescalation of operations against Ghaddafi (and in support of the rebels). Afghanistan is a nice example of it too, there he did a lot of consideration about how to best escalate the conflict.

In essence, the messages out of the White House seem contra dictionary because they have no one-size-fits-all approach. Some would call it a Doctrine, I won't.

The US is just pushing the resolution to see how much help to the rebels they can get away with. I very much doubt that it'll come to ground forces though. The rebels have been adamantly against that themselves.

Not to mention that it would very likely be political suicide in the United States.

Oh, I know ground troops would be suicide for Obama. And very unlikely. It was just an extreme example of the failure to confirm or clarify from within the US/Pentagon/Whitehouse/etc

It seems that a few artillery shells is enough to rout the rebels.

http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-38562140:tv-2-p%C3%A5-flugt-med-libyske-opr%C3%B8rere.html

Run the article through translate.google.com

If the rebels can't handle that, then they'll be unable to advance any further.

Something I found on a Dutch videosite, I do not know how real it is but still, I'm sharing it.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1421321/ec4a56ae/rebellen_pimpen_trucks_met_raketten.html

Truck carried Tomahawks!

Geldar wrote:Truck carried Tomahawks!

Haha, if only, if only.

And look what I found, exiles of the opposition can rap!

Spoiler:

Rebels push towards Brega again, this time something very very strange happened. Rebels were bolstered by regiments of highly trained and equipped soldiers seemingly appeared from nowhere as reinforcements, following two former ministers of the pro-Ghadaffi regime who defected.

Geldar wrote:Rebels push towards Brega again, this time something very very strange happened. Rebels were bolstered by regiments of highly trained and equipped soldiers seemingly appeared from nowhere as reinforcements, following two former ministers of the pro-Ghadaffi regime who defected.

...Seriously? Source? Edit: Nevermind, I just read it in an article on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12931731

And I know that the CIA is on the ground, but I very much doubt this was their doing. Maybe defectors?

Edit #2:

The United States Air Force is ending its air campaign over Libya. Congress has immediately criticized the move, I agree with them disagreeing to the Pentagon's withdrawal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110401/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya;_ylt=ApdQNU3H33kMyAPAlLiPi0CyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJoZmViZmt0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDAxL3VzX3VzX2xpYnlhBGNwb3MDMTEEcG9zAzgEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA3VzZW5kaW5naXRzYQ--

Antistia wrote:
The United States Air Force is ending its air campaign over Libya. Congress has immediately criticized the move, I agree with them disagreeing to the Pentagon's withdrawal.

Congress has criticized any action by the executive branch in the past year, even in cases where that action had the opposite effect of the previous action, so it doesn't really count for much anymore.

Just because somebody draws a conclusion for the wrong reasons doesn't mean their conclusion is incorrect.

I haven't actually read the story but for them to be described so vaguely (Surely anyone in Libya would know if they were government defecters? There must be casualties, these full military uniforms must have insignia on them if they're official soldiers, or are they just plain DPM?) I'd assume they're somebody's special forces. We know the SAS are in the area on observational duties and it wouldn't be setting a precedent for the UK to use them in conflicts we can't legally be involved with.

The SAS put down two Communist revolutions in Oman in just this way, all of the officers and soldiers involved were 'officially' on leaves of absense from the regiment or retired (only to rejoin afterwords) because it would have been illegal/questionable for UK forces to be involved.

Of course that's just wild speculation. I just wanted to type SAS and wave the flag.

Turkey ordered a chartered ferry into Misrata to evacuate wounded civilians. The ship had been waiting four days for permission to dock before Turkey's foreign minister ordered the ship into Misrata. The Turkish air force patrolled the skies as it was happening with 10 f-16s.

I quite like that the Turks did that.

Well.. The regime in Syria seems to be digging in as the situation there escalates.

AMMAN (Reuters) – A convoy of at least 30 Syrian army tanks was seen moving on tank carriers on the Damascus circular highway on Wednesday, a witness told Reuters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110427/wl_nm/us_syria;_ylt=AuPqSr3NUmCJCZNODMoKqtVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTI5M2cwa2tlBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNDI3L3VzX3N5cmlhBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN0YW5rY29udm95c2U-

Bastards.

/cast Thread Necromancy

We haven't posted much here recently. But I am sure we all realise there's still a great deal of stuff happening out there.

The rumoured 'issue' of 'European special forces' on the ground in Libya (possibly contravening the UN Resolution 1973). Reports of heavy fighting and dogged battles continue in an around the major cities there. But much of the "news" is now slipping down the papers (or interwebs).

But some breaking news in from Yemen: the president has been wounded (and four guards killed) in a shelling (mortar?) attack on his compound. There were some fuzzy reports that Saleh was dead to start with, these have been denied by the official line.

the rumoured 'issue' of 'European special forces' on the ground in Libya (possibly contravening the UN Resolution 1973).

Actually, I think the presence of 'our' special forces in Libya would not go against the resolution. If I recall correctly the Resolution prohibits occupational forces, which the special forces surely are not.

On a sidenote, I think more firepower had to be deployed to Libya at the very start.

But some breaking news in from Yemen: the president has been wounded (and four guards killed) in a shelling (mortar?) attack on his compound. There were some fuzzy reports that Saleh was dead to start with, these have been denied by the official line.

Yeah, I read this. Don't really know what to think of it, really. Saleh could become furious and dig in further or he could give up. Let's hope for the latter.

People should wake up about Syria. People are dying, and nobody cares. All I hear is either: If we do something, Russia will be mad/If we do something, Syria will do something to Israel/Why shall we do something, muslims killing muslims is good.

This is not the morales the West is proud of.
What happend to the Democracy USA preaches of? Only when it fits it? what about thhe European union, why don't they do anything?

Saying "Bad bad Assad" won't save the next 500 citizens. Something must be done.

This is not the morales the West is proud of.

Sorry for the wheels-up-landing here, but actually, yes, yes it is. You're just being bullshitted daily that things have developed in a better way. It's called "propaganda".

What happend to the Democracy USA preaches of? Only when it fits it?

You mean the same country that announced as President the one with the less votes? What Democracy? Have you even seen real democracy after the classical years? You can't have democracy when the public doesn't know shit what they are voting for. That's ochlocracy. And the latter goes for most of the "democratic" bubblewrap world, not just the States.

what about thhe European union, why don't they do anything?

Because the European Union is just that: a union. Where every part of the union is looking for their own interests. "Do we have interests there? No? Bugger off then, we got better things to do." followed by a "Aww. That's shameful. " statement to keep prestige up - and off we go.

I've carefully avoided entering debate, but I wanted to let some steam off, about hypocritical regimes that fancy themselves "advanced" and "civilised", sorry. I'll trot away again.

PS: And stop ninja-adding me to your calls thinking I'm Nass, you muppet. xD

I wish we had both the will and the means to intervene in every conflict around the globe but the fact is we don't. I could spend every moment from now till the day I die just listing the atrocities backward regimes inflict upon their people never mind fighting against those regimes.

It's all very well saying something must be done. But when did humanity become the United Kingdoms responsability? We've got our own problems and our own people, soldiers included, to take care of.

Look at the thanks we recieved for intervening in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Look at the thanks we recieve for intervening in Afghanistan and tell me why we should bleed to protect people who would rather see us as the enemy?

Regards,
Mike

You mean the same country that announced as President the one with the less votes? What Democracy? Have you even seen real democracy after the classical years?

Actually, the United States is a (democratic) republic. The people have the right to vote but they vote for the president indirectly. The votes that are of importance are made by the electoral college. The electoral college, in modern times, pretty much always votes as the people do, though they are not bound to do so. The Founding Fathers reasoned that this would preserve the republic by clamping down on runaway mob rule and the idiocy of the mob (You wouldn't want an avowed royalist to be elected, now would you?).

Funny thing is; it negates your point about ochlocracy. Yes, there may be portions of the American public who are uninformed, but is not mob rule. It's still working as intended.

....Now back to the Arabs!

What happend to the Democracy USA preaches of? Only when it fits it?

Actually, I believe the US is financially supporting parts of the Syrian opposition. However, militarily intervening would be more in line with neo-conservative thinking. That's a line of thinking that is deeply unpopular in the USA at this moment, they're not going in. But what of Libya, you say? There's an 'organized' opposition there and the US isn't very committed to the fight either way. Let's not mention that, counting Libya as a war, the US is currently active in 3 wars. This is not even mentioning counter-terrorism operations across the globe (training operations in the Sahara come to mind.).

I wish we had both the will and the means to intervene in every conflict around the globe but the fact is we don't. I could spend every moment from now till the day I die just listing the atrocities backward regimes inflict upon their people never mind fighting against those regimes.

This! Not intervening everywhere is a non-argument against interventionism. We simply do not have the means (nor the will) to intervene everywhere. We need to make pragmatic decisions about if, and when and where to intervene. People can accuse the West of many things due to this, but it's not complete and utter hypocrisy.

Anti, I know. Jefferson had said something about democracy being "simply 51% grabbing the balls of the other 49%" or something. But there's democracy as a purely technically political system and there's democracy as an ideal. I was referring to the latter. See the two major parties in the states. Democrats and Republicans. You don't see the Democrats changing the political system when they win elections. But yah, suppose my phrasing could've been misleading to someone unaware. Don't forget, however, that throughout the world there are many varieties of the ideal. Compare UK, Italy, France. Their political system (technically) is not the same. Still, they all claim to be democratic (as an ideal, in the meaning "people's rule"). Which is the same as the States. Besides, I did say it's not for the States alone but for everyone with that bubblewrap.

I've read an article in Times Magazine recently that asked the question: Can we really intervene in Libya when we let other countries rot? And does that make us hypocrites when we speak of aide for these regions?

I should look up the article.

Edit: Owh Nayan you idealist! The only country I can think of it with an idea-democracy: without working with constituents who chose the ones who make the choices for them (unlike most western countries due to practical reasons) is Swiss.

Alright, Nayan, I thought you were talking about democracy as a purely technical system. I also know you were referring to everyone but it just so happens that I have a certain affection for the US and have done more than a little bit of research into its political system. It makes me jump to the defense of the US all too often .

And Nithel, I think I read that article too. Don't remember it's name but I enjoyed reading it a lot.

If you refer to the early stages of the US, I'd be the #1 fanboi if they had kept on track. But they didn't^*. At present time, US is arguably the country with the highest degree of propaganda (not sure if they supersede North Korea's - and that's telling enough).

^*Which only goes to make them a prime example of my view that no fresh start can be truly fresh if the people participating are carrying with them the mentalities of what needed to change. But that's a lengthy topic.

If you refer to the early stages of the US, I'd be the #1 fanboi

Seems we agree on something... Though I kinda love the entirety of the USA. It's greatly due to ideological identification though.

At present time, US is arguably the country with the highest degree of propaganda (not sure if they supersede North Korea's - and that's telling enough).

This is where I disagree, the US ain't that by far. I'll hand you the likes of Fox 'news' and MSNBC though, that's just partisan hackery to the max.


But ehm, shall we agree to disagree instead of derailing this entire thread? (and just not discuss the US in this manner in this thread.)