Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Europe, not U.S., pushed for military force in Libya

    An RAF Tornado taxis on the runway at RAF Marham, south east England Saturday March 19, 2011. (AP Photo/Chris Radburn/PA Wire)PARIS (AP) -- America unleashed the heavier firepower, but Europe -- to the surprise of some -- was the driving force behind the assault on Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.

    France, perhaps hoping to purge memories of a dictator-coddling past, fired the first strikes Saturday. Britain, still stinging from its release of the Libyan agent behind the Lockerbie plane bombing, cajoled other nations into joining.

    And all 27 countries in the European Union insisted nine days ago that Gadhafi "must relinquish power immediately" -- unexpected, from a bloc often accused of being too slow and too soft. President Barack Obama, initially reticent, joined in the call and seemed happy to let Europe take the lead publicly.

    The contrast with 2003 -- when France led global opposition to the war on Iraq -- shows how much has changed since then, and also how different things can be when the problem is on Europe's doorstep.

    Europeans fear a flood of refugees, making them particularly sensitive to the possibility of a humanitarian disaster in North Africa.

    But the reasons for Europe's anti-Gadhafi push are more complex than that, and may have as much to do with personalities as politics: The frenetic French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, eager for attention on the world stage and suffering in the polls at home; Britain's youthful prime minister, David Cameron, eager to deflect attention from tough austerity measures and score some foreign policy points.

    It doesn't hurt that there is a grand ideological imperative that Europe can embrace: Alongside the oil interests in Libya, the Arab world is undergoing a massive convulsion fed by a desire for freedom -- a value modern Europe has always claimed to uphold.

    Speaking Saturday as he announced the wide-reaching international agreement on military action, Sarkozy framed it as a decisive measure to support pro-democracy protesters.

    "We have the duty to respond to this anguished appeal," he said. "The Arab people have chosen to liberate themselves from the servitude they have found themselves locked in for too long. These revolutions have made a huge hope grow in the heart of all those who share the values of democracy and human rights."

    Sarkozy said the allies want to protect Libyans from "the murderous insanity of a regime that, in assassinating its own people, has lost all legitimacy."

    The operation has its critics. The Arab League, which backed calls for a no-fly zone, said the day-old military operation has already gone too far. Russia, China and Venezuela are opposed. Germany supports it but won't join in.

    Sarkozy's aggressive stance may be an effort to compensate for past mistakes. France has a history of cozy relations with autocrats in former colonies, and Sarkozy underestimated the power of protests in Tunisia that toppled the ruling regime in January.

    This time, he was the first world leader to recognize the Libyan opposition governing council. He pushed hard and repeatedly for a no-fly zone, and helped get other EU and Arab countries to agree.

    And in a trademark Sarkozy move, he summoned world leaders on less than 24 hours notice to Paris for a summit Saturday to announce the intervention.

    "France has decided to assume its role, its role before history," he proclaimed, as French warplanes staged their first sorties.

    France broke a half-century tradition when it fired the first airstrike on Libyan tanks Saturday. Francois Heisbourg, of the International Institute of Security Studies, said it was the first time since the Suez expedition in 1956 that "the initiative has come from the French."

    France fired "the opening shot of a war, that's the strategic significance. We now know we have crossed the line," he said.

    Britain has its own reasons to take the lead on punishing Gadhafi, whose regime has a history of anti-British hostility.

    Gadhafi has accepted Libya's responsibility for the worst act of terrorism to have taken place on British soil: the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans. And links between Libya and the Irish Republican Army go back to the 1970s, when Gadhafi first praised the group as allies in a struggle against Western imperialism.

    Britain came under heavy criticism from American politicans after Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, was released in 2009 from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds. The government has strongly denied claims that al-Megrahi was freed to smooth an oil exploration deal with Libya.

    Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, meanwhile, has been criticized for helping to rehabilitate Gadhafi's international status in exchange for lucrative deals.

    Cameron, a relatively inexperienced politician, was championing no-fly zones two weeks ago, but he initially looked diplomatically isolated and naive as the U.S. and other allies rejected his muscular talk.

    After Gadhafi's attacks on rebels worsened, international opinion turned, and Cameron's stance became a golden opportunity to boost his international profile and domestic popularity. This weekend he was lauded as a driving force in the international operation by the oft-critical British press and many lawmakers, including those in the opposition.

    "He's riding on a wave, his image has been enormously enhanced. I'm not suggesting it's a piece of shameless self-promotion, but the cards just happened to haven fallen this way," said Oliver Miles, a former ambassador to Libya.

    Public opinion is less hostile to European action here than it was in Iraq, and geography clearly plays a clear role.

    Unlike Iraq, Libya is just a short boat ride away, just across the Mediterranean. The fear of refugees fleeing Gadhafi's offensives and landing on European shores is an immediate concern -- at a time when many Europeans are already fretting about growing numbers of Muslim immigrants.

    But despite broad agreement among Western nations that military intervention was necessary, the allies -- who don't yet have a coordinated command post -- may differ on the goals of the operation.

    U.S. officials have suggested that the goal is not necessarily to dislodge Gadhafi. Perhaps an end to the fighting would be enough, leaving Libya effectively divided between a rebel east and a Gadhafi-ruled west.

    But Cameron and Sarkozy have repeatedly said Gadhafi's time is up. And given their rhetoric, his ouster may be the only way the assault's initiators can save face at a time when Europe wants to prove it can still walk tall on the global stage.
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MOBIUS View Post
      Why is it stupid?

      It's all very well sitting on the fence and doing nothing while people die - is that your 'solution'?

      It's people like you that gave us Rwanda, Srebrenica et al. We don't even have to wait for you to concede that point because they actually happened...
      I do not propose a solution, MOBIUS. I am opposed to United States military intervention in Lybia, as I think it's dumb. Why, you ask? We're picking sides in a civil war in a country we know little about, backing a group of people we known next to nothing about against another group we know little about. What could POSSIBLY go wrong? Have you slept through the past 10 years?

      There is a good chance this turns into a cluster****. Even if it does not, by some miracle, I think it increases the odds of yet more interventions down the road... which you will presumably be cheering on. Wave that flag, MOBIUS, as coalition troops invade Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia (again), etc.

      It's people like you that gave us Rwanda, Srebrenica et al.
      Aww, no Hitler?

      -Arrian
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MOBIUS View Post
        WTF are you babbling on about!?

        Civilians were dying in large numbers and it seemed pretty certain that, if unchecked, Gadaffi was about to embark on a bloodbath in Benghazi.

        Still, I guess it's safer for people like you to twiddle your fingers and pretend not to notice when the odd genocide is committed here or there in the world...
        Seriously, when you sign up to go off and save people from genocide, I might have the slightest bit of respect for this argument. But even then, it's bull****. #1: brutally putting down a rebellion != genocide, but that's a semantic argument so let's let it go. #2: what you are advocating would require "interventions" all over the world. We'd be bombing and invading significant numbers of ****hole countries (and then what, exactly?).

        If you want to head down to Lybia, Yemen, Bahrain, Somalia, the tribal areas of Pakistan... and "nationbuild" you go right the **** ahead. I'll pass, both on going and on funding it. You know, 'cause I'm such a moral monster.

        -Arrian
        grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

        The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

        Comment


        • i, too, find mobius' saul on the road to damascus style conversion rather strange.
          "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

          "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

          Comment


          • As previoulsy stated consistency for Moby applies only to the concept that teh US is in the wrong.

            Trollish consistency yet consistency none the less.
            "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

            “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Arrian View Post
              Seriously, when you sign up to go off and save people from genocide, I might have the slightest bit of respect for this argument. But even then, it's bull****. #1: brutally putting down a rebellion != genocide, but that's a semantic argument so let's let it go. #2: what you are advocating would require "interventions" all over the world. We'd be bombing and invading significant numbers of ****hole countries (and then what, exactly?).
              Why? Invading/bombing/whatever country x does not mean you have to do it in country y. Even when there are similar circumstances it's still another decision with different factors to consider in every case. Noone forces the French/UK/US to do the same they do in Libya now in other Arab countries, and they certainly don't want to do so for example in Yemen or Bahrain.
              Blah

              Comment


              • MOBIUS was making a moral argument that it was wrong to "do nothing" when nasty people are shooting other people. That moral argument would demand interventions all over the world (including, just for example, Iraq in the early 1990s), not just selective "doable" (technical term from circa 2002 there) ones. To the extent he's advocating a principle, that principle extends far beyond Lybia.

                -Arrian
                grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                Comment


                • I still don't think a Berber tribal fight is worth American blood or treasure.
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Arrian View Post
                    MOBIUS was making a moral argument that it was wrong to "do nothing" when nasty people are shooting other people. That moral argument would demand interventions all over the world (including, just for example, Iraq in the early 1990s), not just selective "doable" (technical term from circa 2002 there) ones. To the extent he's advocating a principle, that principle extends far beyond Lybia.

                    -Arrian
                    I don't think laying out a principle forces you to do *everything* to uphold it, esp. when you come to the conclusion that what you want to do is not "doable" - that would not make much sense. If Moby thinks there are no other factors than moral implications (dunno if he does) it's nonsense, but I think it's pretty normal to consider chances of success etc. if you think something is desirable for moral reasons.
                    Blah

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Oerdin View Post
                      I still don't think a Berber tribal fight is worth American blood or treasure.
                      I don't think it's worth us taking ownership of. As commented, the Europeans pushed for it and the Obama administration has persistently said that they are going to turn over all responsibility to coalition forces...y'know, after the USAF and USN were the ones that did the hard part of leveling Libya's air defenses. Possibly the reason why it took so long was that it gradually sank in amongst the Euros that the US had zero desire to take ownership of it, and so needed to scramble to scrounge up the assets to provide for the operation.
                      Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                      Comment


                      • Yes, USA USA USA USA !!!! Waive the flag !!! War on terror !!! God hates fags !!! Umm oh **** no, wrong soundbite.

                        According to your rethoric you should be happy that finally the UK and France can play their game and project power into a country that is close enough to home. As you see we do not need the US to royally **** up the situation in the middle east. You have been good teachers.

                        That said, I still think we should have stayed out this tribal war.
                        "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

                        Comment


                        • You have been good teachers.
                          Erm, actually you've got that backwards. We learned from you lot.

                          Lonestar: I really hope that we don't end up "taking ownership" of this thing, but I'm still skeptical that the nation with the most firepower and that apparently was essential to making this happen (if Obama had refused, indications seem to be that the UK & France wouldn't have gone in) isn't going to "own" this thing.

                          -Arrian
                          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arrian View Post
                            I do not propose a solution, MOBIUS. I am opposed to United States military intervention in Lybia, as I think it's dumb. Why, you ask? We're picking sides in a civil war in a country we know little about, backing a group of people we known next to nothing about against another group we know little about. What could POSSIBLY go wrong? Have you slept through the past 10 years?
                            Exactly, you're the kind of guy that's happy to stand idly by and watch an easily preventable genocide unfold before your eyes - in fact why not give the bad guys some weapons to help them out as well...

                            Still, if lashing out against me assuages any latent guilt about letting all those innocent civilians die in their droves, then bring it on.

                            There is a good chance this turns into a cluster****. Even if it does not, by some miracle
                            The oracle has spoken!

                            Yep, more fool me for hoping that your dumbass nation's military couldn't **** up something as simple as a no-fly zone mission - firing indiscriminately on civilians trying to help a downed pilot within 72 hours!

                            Is that some kind of record in US trigger-happiness? No, don't answer that...

                            I think it increases the odds of yet more interventions down the road... which you will presumably be cheering on. Wave that flag, MOBIUS, as coalition troops invade Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia (again), etc.
                            Not really. Or at least it shouldn't, but all the dumbasses in the coalition seem to have already embarked on 'mission creep' as the no-fly zone already seems to have morphed into Operation Get Gaddafi...

                            Aww, no Hitler?
                            No as he declared war on the US, though America was happy to stand idly by for two years as he began to murder millions of Jews - not to mention not letting them escape in the first place.

                            But I guess you're OK with that too...
                            Last edited by MOBIUS; March 22, 2011, 16:51.
                            Is it me, or is MOBIUS a horrible person?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
                              i, too, find mobius' saul on the road to damascus style conversion rather strange.
                              Not a conversion. You just clearly haven't being paying attention to me for the last decade or so...

                              Some people on here might argue that this is a justified thing to do, but then they're the morons who thought that invading Iraq in 2003 was a good thing.
                              Is it me, or is MOBIUS a horrible person?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BeBro View Post
                                I don't think laying out a principle forces you to do *everything* to uphold it, esp. when you come to the conclusion that what you want to do is not "doable" - that would not make much sense. If Moby thinks there are no other factors than moral implications (dunno if he does) it's nonsense, but I think it's pretty normal to consider chances of success etc. if you think something is desirable for moral reasons.
                                Arrian his far too consumed in his blind hatred of me to consider such an obvious observation.

                                That and the fact that he thinks that committing genocide is fine and people should just be allowed to get along with it.
                                Is it me, or is MOBIUS a horrible person?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X