What's Going On In Libya?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1300842437' post='2222498']
Stern being anti-war, in and of itself, isn't why kujo annoyed, I would venture to guess.
[/quote]
[img]http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/O-Rly-Owl-British-580x419.jpg[/img]
[spoiler][img]http://files.myopera.com/drlaunch/albums/37656/no-wai001.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300843771' post='2222508']
[img]http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/O-Rly-Owl-British-580x419.jpg[/img]
[spoiler][img]http://files.myopera.com/drlaunch/albums/37656/no-wai001.jpg[/img][/spoiler]
[/quote]


k

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's ironic this is 'liberal war for civil rights' but iraq was a 'same ol republicans at war' even though both were for civil rights. at least putatively. and in truth, both could be about civil rights, even if iraq were about oil or something. so both could be said to be about civil rights in end.

i don't know why all those who were for war in iraq are suddenly against this war.

[Jesus_lol]

About canadians sending jets over to Libya, here is a crucial difference.
[url="http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110322/canadian-cf-18s-operation-odyssey-dawn-libya-110322/20110322/?hub=CalgaryHome"]http://calgary.ctv.c...hub=CalgaryHome[/url]

[quote]
Two Canadian CF-18 fighter jets took part in a mission over Libya on Tuesday morning, but returned to base without attacking their target because the risk of collateral damage was too great.

Canadian CF-18 fighters and Polaris CC-150 air-to-air refuelling tankers are helping enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's troops.

Tuesday was the second day of missions for the Canadians who are working alongside their counterparts from France, the U.K. and U.S., but it was their first bombing mission, said Maj.-Gen. Tom Lawson.

"Two CF-18s were tasked for a ground attack mission against a Libyan airfield," Lawson told a news conference in Ottawa.

"I can confirm for you that the air crew returned not having dropped their weaponry. Upon arrival on the scene of the target area the air crew became aware of a risk they deemed too high for collateral damage."

Lawson said the risk was not related to any threat to the CF-18s, but rather potential damage to civilians or important infrastructure such as hospitals, on the ground.

Lawson said the decision was in compliance with the rules of engagement that NATO forces have been given, and proves "the system works."

In a report from Trapani, Italy, where the Canadian air force contingent is based, CTV correspondent Martin Seemungal said the CF-18s are prepared to attack targets on the ground and in the air.

The commander of the flight of fighter-bombers said his pilots are there to enforce a UN resolution against attacks on civilians.

"He essentially defined their role as protecting the civilians both from air attack and from ground attack," Seemungal told CTV News. "So if Moammar Gadhafi were to use his air force or his tanks against civilians, then the Canadians could deal with that along with other allied forces."

One day earlier, on Monday, four Canadian CF-18 fighter jets and two CC-150 Polaris refueling planes took part in a "defensive counter-air" mission, flying into Libyan airspace to intercept any Libyan military aircraft,

They returned safely to base without firing a shot, Lawson said.[/quote] More on the link above



[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1300834494' post='2222452']
If it was all about the oil, the easy thing to do would be to cut a deal with whatever dictator is in charge (like say the shah), and then enjoy the price stability offered by the iron grip he has over his country.

If it was all about the oil, the easy thing to do would be to attack and destroy any populist leadership aspiring to establish a new, unpredictable government (like say Mossadeq)

[/quote]

you mean like the last 40-50 years of foreign policy from the USA? its all blowing up in their faces now, but that doesnt mean they dont still have the same motivations there.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300838191' post='2222474']
That's pretty inappropriate. Is being against war that utterly unacceptable to your worldview?
[/quote]

It depends on what you think my "worldview" is. If you believe that I'm some neo-con crusader, looking to spread the "Bush Doctrine," then yes, you'd be wrong.

If you think I'm some bleeding heart who feels the need to apologize for America's preeminence, you'd be wrong again.

But if your comment referred to the fact that war is ALWAYS inevitable because of the primacy of self-interest...well, you'd be closer to the truth, anyway.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1300842437' post='2222498']
Stern being anti-war, in and of itself, isn't why kujo annoyed, I would venture to guess.
[/quote]

I'm annoyed at the kneejerk reaction to Obama around here. There's no way that he can do anything right. You know, because he's pro-abortion. If he's wrong, he's REALLY wrong. And if he's right, well, that's an accident. Kinda like how the Left in America used to treat Bush.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1300847726' post='2222536']
it's ironic this is 'liberal war for civil rights' but iraq was a 'same ol republicans at war' even though both were for civil rights. at least putatively. and in truth, both could be about civil rights, even if iraq were about oil or something. so both could be said to be about civil rights in end.

i don't know why all those who were for war in iraq are suddenly against this war.
[/quote]

I read a very intriguing editorial in the NY Times which said that this is pretty much the epitome of a "liberal war": it has the explicit approval of the UN, it is being led by a TRUE coalition of Western Allies, it enjoys moderate support from the Arab League (depending on what time of day it is, at least), it was approached with glacial speed after much consideration, and it will not require a longterm commitment by the U.S. In other words, HOORAY! It's Bosnia and Somalia all over again!

[4588686]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1300850457' post='2222559']
About canadians sending jets over to Libya, here is a crucial difference.
[url="http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110322/canadian-cf-18s-operation-odyssey-dawn-libya-110322/20110322/?hub=CalgaryHome"]http://calgary.ctv.c...hub=CalgaryHome[/url]

More on the link above





you mean like the last 40-50 years of foreign policy from the USA? its all blowing up in their faces now, but that doesnt mean they dont still have the same motivations there.
[/quote]

Did Vietnam have a lot of oil?

America didn't create Libya. Nor have we been BFF's with Gadhafi. This reflexive sense that America always acts for oil or to fix problems it is really responsible for is too much.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1300834494' post='2222452']
Cynicism is boring.

The "its all about the oil" thing is stale and boring too.

If it was all about the oil, the easy thing to do would be to cut a deal with whatever dictator is in charge (like say the shah), and then enjoy the price stability offered by the iron grip he has over his country.

If it was all about the oil, the easy thing to do would be to attack and destroy any populist leadership aspiring to establish a new, unpredictable government (like say Mossadeq)

The oil thing is just out of date. You should watch the news. The Pentagon complains in public, that we have no strategic interest in Libya. Obama then has to make up something about how we do.

This operation is about western guilt. And well it should be, we are guilty.
[/quote]

It is all about the oil. Just not to us. Actually, I have a hard time coming up with any real strategic reason to invest ourself in this situation, save for the old "instability breeds frustration which breeds aggression which breeds terrorism" sorta thing. And as quaint as that Ashton Kutcher movie was, The Butterfly Effect thing just doesn't do much for me. Not in this case, at least.

No, we're going in there because he's targeting civilians. Explicitly. Purposefully. And that's just not kosher, not in the epoch of the Global Watchdog. Of course we allowed/encouraged it to happen int he past. But, in this day in age, with the internet, social media and 24-hr news coverage? We've gotta be on-point at all points. We gotta be on the right side of every single fluffy air extraction that squeezes out onto the national stage. The oil isn't a big motivator for us; that oil is already owned by Western companies anyway. Nah, we're in it because we [i]have to be[/i]. It's why Obama dragged his feet; he wanted to see if it would resolve itself without our involvement. We don't wanna be there. But we can't let it get out of control. So we'll throw a few bombs and then let the Europeans deal with the ramifications.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sometimes it's just because the west is a bunch of shameless 'moral' busybodies.

[Jesus_lol]

sad the link about the canadian fighter jet pilots got ignored

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1300850951' post='2222566']
Did Vietnam have a lot of oil?[/quote]

No. The justification for that was was communism and the domino effect.

[quote]America didn't create Libya.[/quote]

Nope. That was the Italians.

[quote]...Nor have we been BFF's with Gadhafi. [/quote]

Every dictator has its sponsors.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300851305' post='2222568']
Sometimes it's just because the west is a bunch of shameless 'moral' busybodies.
[/quote]

Definitely agree with this comment!

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300851599' post='2222572']
No. The justification for that was was communism and the domino effect.[/QUOTE]

Right.



[QUOTE]Nope. That was the Italians.[/QUOTE]

Right



[QUOTE]Every dictator has its sponsors.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. That's an empirical claim and would be somewhat tricky to verify.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1300853187' post='2222580']
Maybe. That's an empirical claim and would be somewhat tricky to verify.
[/quote]

No it wouldn't. It would just take a lot of time.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300854186' post='2222583']
No it wouldn't. It would just take a lot of time.
[/quote]

It would be methodologically difficult as it would be pretty contentious to decide what constituted a dictatorship and what constituted a sponsor. Rome was a dictatorship under cincinnatus, who was its sponsor?

[4588686]

Stalinist Russia was also a dictatorship (maybe). We supported them in the fight against Hitler. Were we a sponsor?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Hasan

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1300854350' post='2222585']
It would be methodologically difficult as it would be pretty contentious to decide what constituted a dictatorship and what constituted a sponsor. Rome was a dictatorship under cincinnatus, who was its sponsor?
[/quote]

You're right--there would have to be very serious attention to exactly what the terms "dictator" and "sponsor" mean. I think "dictator" could be used to mean the leader of any authoritarian/totalitarian regime. And "sponsorship" could mean anything from financial transfers, military support, favorable trade relations, continued economic relationships that benefit and prolong said-regime's existence.

Very interesting topic, though. I'm actually an academic, so it might be worth doing the research and making it into an article. If I do, I'll make sure to credit you in some way!