[Closed] Libya no-fly zone, for or against?

BTW, if the dickhead who put the "Ernie loves Gaddafi" tag wants to argue his point with me, I'm happy to listen to his thoughtful views on the matter.

It's ok Ernie, I posted a new one to balance it out.

Thanks clubber but I'm fine with it......I just wondered whether they wanted to back up that claim with something a tad more substantial. But I guess the limitations placed on an intellectually challenged halfwit suggests that maybe not.

I like "Colonel Ernie" btw, whoever done that......at least now they're getting fairly comical 8)

LOL @ the tags - Ernie, where shall we go for our date? Or shall we skip that and just sh@g?

I wouldn't say that surrendering will automatically mean you will live of course - war isn't like that. In Benghazi the rebels murdered over 200 Gaddafi supporters after taking control. Although I'm sure you haven't heard of that, or that you are prepared to believe that both sides are capable of that sort of stuff.

Source?

Well Mr Cameron, what first interested you in supporting the people of the oil rich state Libya?

Personally would have been for, but now it's probably too late for it to achieve enough to justify the risks. Decision making by delay.

Torminalis - Member

Leave 'em to it I say, what right does any country have to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

Interesting question... First of all you have to consider whether the leadership is legitimate (no) and whether being a sovereign nation gives you the right to do whatever you want within your borders (no). After that, it's just a matter of degrees.

Spongebob - Member

We have no business interfering with this civil conflict!

The hardware being used wasn't made in Libya, so you could already say we (rest of world) interfered, by creating the current imbalance of power.

Considering that we always appear to be flogging warplanes to the arab league, you'd think they'd be 1st up to see if their toys work properly.
Surely it would make much more sense to get them to do all the flying, and then after some suitable bribes we could flog em some upgrades.

First of all you have to consider whether the leadership is legitimate (no)

Just because Gaddafi is not a democratically elected leader does not make him any less legitimate. It may fdo in your eyes but that means eff all in the grand scheme of things. He was the head of a popular revolution, has the support of the largest groups of tribes in the country and has been in the same position for 42 years. Certainly no one else who can claim more legitimacy as their leader, least of all us and our god given right to intervene when we choose. Where were we when Mugabe was bulldozing the opposition?

whether being a sovereign nation gives you the right to do whatever you want within your borders (no).

Errr, yeah it does. Do we have a world government? Nope. Who should hold him accountable? The UN, get real! Wasn't so long ago that the UN were lifting sanctions and allowing the likes of us to arm Gaddafi, I would be interested to hear all about this moral authority you allude to.

1238: Libya's Foreign Minister says his country is committed to accept the UN Security Council resolution, and so has decided an immediate ceasefire and the stopping of all military operations.

Seems to have done the trick.

seems gaddafi thought it was a bad idea for him .

He heard a Merlin engine...

Torminalis someone had a revolution and remains in control 42 years later you do know what a dictatorship is dont you?

What are you on about with your post that's sixth on the page, Lifer? I'm used to being misquoted on this forum but there I really haven't got a clue what you're on about.

My prediction the previous page about Gaddafi backing off in order to hold on to what power he has seems to have been right though.

Torminalis - Member

Certainly no one else who can claim more legitimacy as their leader

Genius. So he becomes legitimate because he's destroyed the opposition using executions, assasination and imprisonment.

Torminalis someone had a revolution and remains in control 42 years later you do know what a dictatorship is dont you?

A dictatorship, whilst undesirable to us morally superior westerners, is still a legitimate form of government.

I think you are somewhat missing the point, we have no moral authority to determine how another country governs itself. Why did we not all barge into Thailand during the uprising a couple of years ago? Why do we sponsor the ****stani military dictatorship? What about Mugabe who we left to systematically torture and abuse the opposition? China? Russia? Egypt? So many more...

Selective intervention with our own best interests in mind has been shown to morally fail more often than not. I can't think of one intervention we have made where our troops ever got to leave? Can you?

Genius. So he becomes legitimate because he's destroyed the opposition using executions, assasination and imprisonment.

Yes, that's exactly the case. Might has always won, even if it is not right. Your desire to set our weapons against the government of Libya is no more morally justified than Gaddafi's desire to set his weapons against the people he sees as opposing his rule and his sense of what is right. There is no moral absolute, despite what you feel in your heart to be right.

In this instance, I think that we have had distorted media coverage to justify the deployment of our forces into yet another oil rich area with a leader that won't always tow our line, in an region that has implications far beyond the borders of the country in question. Or should we just take over the whole world so that they all have to do exactly as we say?

I hope I never wake up and find I think like you.

"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is
weak."
"If the enemy is in superior strength, evade him."
(Sun Tzu Art of War)

Gadaffi is just playing the game and picking his battles.
The right to protect civilians should stretch beyond the right to protect sovereignty.

Ideally, the right to protect civilians should stretch beyond the right of sovereignty.

I agree.

I hope I never wake up and find I think like you.

If you did, you might see through many of the potential pitfalls in trying to implement the above.

I take the ceasefire with a massive dose of salt. It just buys him time, the 'allies' can't take out his SAM sites now and I wouldn't expect them to exactly be rushing the required logistical support now either. In the meantime he just regroups his forces for a final push on Bengahzi and by the time the world notices he's broken the ceasefire it will all be over.

A dictatorship, whilst undesirable to us morally superior westerners, is still a legitimate form of government

Edukator - Member
What are you on about with your post that's sixth on the page, Lifer? I'm used to being misquoted on this forum but there I really haven't got a clue what you're on about.

Wasn't quoting you was asking a question. If Gadaffi is removed who's going to replace him? Especially with Cameron 'considering' arming the rebels, any intervention on one side or another we should be sure of their intentions. Abdul Fatah Younis (ex minister of the interior/general and now leader of the rebel armed forces) was considered Gadaffi's number 2, for example.

I am sure you can see the distinction.

I do see the distinction and I personally find it abhorrent that any leader would use force against large groups of their own population (or small groups for that matter).

it is not automatically wrong because it is ours is it?

We are one of 86 countries in the world considered to be 'free'. 114 are not. We actually seem to be in the minority of countries that believe the freedom of the individual trumps the states right do as they choose. Not saying it is right, but I certainly don't think it is as clear cut as saying that we have a duty to intervene.

If Gadaffi is removed who's going to replace him? ....... Abdul Fatah Younis (ex minister of the interior/general and now leader of the rebel armed forces) was considered Gadaffi's number 2, for example.

Firstly if Gadaffi is "removed" it won't be the end of the fighting imo. Recent events have shown that he still has huge support in much of Libya and I would be surprised if Tripoli readily accepts rule from Benghazi. There is nothing to suggest that Libya wouldn't be gripped into an endless civil war.

But maybe not .... who knows ? If a "Gadaffi free" Libya or part of Libya is established, it is of course quite possible that figures associated with the old regime will lose their influence. Who would replace them ? Well that again is pure speculation. Which probably helps to at least partly explain, why the US until a day or two ago, was so reluctant to intervene.

I reckon this geezer at least stands a chance though :

[img] [/img]

Abu Yahya al-Libi ......one of the most high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders in the world, a Libyan, and the leader of the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group ]Libyan Islamic Fighting Group[/url]

Whilst Gadaffi mercilessly clamped down on al-Qaeda activities in Libya and he was hugely successful in doing so - leaving them with very little influence and little power base in Libya, the situation has now changed.

I have no idea how successful al-Qaeda has been in re-organising itself in the parts of Libya that Gadaffi has lost control, and I don't suppose Western intelligence has either. The recent complete cock-up by British intelligence shows just how confused the situation is. But there is no doubt that al-Qaeda is actively exploiting the situation.

[url= http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201103131956-cro-ren1084-libya_al_qaeda_calls_on_rebels_to_strive_against_gaddafi ]LIBYA: AL QAEDA CALLS ON REBELS TO STRIVE AGAINST GADDAFI[/url]

Speculating what will happen in Libya amounts to no more than crystal ball gazing....no one knows. But history has shown us that the West tends to get things terribly wrong on such matters. Wishful thinking is not enough.

When we shoot down all the Libyan jets, blow up all their AA sites, destroy all their radar... there'll be a very nice sales opportunity once it all settles down again.

I'm all for it. Arms are one of our few exports.

I'm all for it. Arms are one of our few exports.

Subsidised by us!

Who would replace them ? Well that again is pure speculation.

Allow me to speculate. I'm totally unconvinced that the UN would be issuing resoloutions that would, by design, put someone in power that was too radically opposed to the western discourse.

Of course, by allowing a war to be waged against Lybia could always be the catalyst for inspiring a movement radically opposed to the western discourse.

You think the security services of UN member states have sound and reliable information on the matter trailmonkey ?

British intelligence is probably one of the most established and reliable in that part of the world :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8367824/Libya-MI6-officer-seized-in-SAS-mission-fiasco-was-carrying-letter-signed-by-David-Cameron.html ]Libya: MI6 officer seized in SAS mission fiasco[/url]

And we won't mention western intelligence catastrophic failures in pre-revolution Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Definitely for.

Gadaffi is using superior military hardware against civilians and a band of democracy-seeking rebels. We have a moral duty to intervene - we'll deal with the issue of setting a precedent later.

The fact that we (the West) have supported or supplied him in the past does not change the fact that he and his regime are murderous suppressors of democracy. Our past behaviour is our own problem, not the people of Libya's.

I'm delighted to see the UN take this stance - even if it is about 5 days late.

You think the security services of UN member states have sound and reliable information on the matter trailmonkey ?

Well, surely you've got to assume that if we're going ahead with the no fly zone, after the fiasco in your link, then the UK govt. are still sure that an opposition govt. in Lybia is likely to be one that they're happy with. Surely they're not that stupid ?

Ok, maybe they are.

You are suggesting some clear coherent strategic thinking on the part of the Western powers trailmonkey. And yet there isn't a lot of evidence to support that.

Only a couple of days or so ago the US was opposed to a no-fly zone over Libya, why ? The situation was no less critical then. US policy for the region has for last couple of months, been remarkably inconsistent - zig-zagging all over the place.

The US was much criticised for sending mixed messages and being inconsistent during the crises in Egypt. Some of it is simply a characteristic of the Obama administration, which publicly says it is supporting one side, whilst privately supporting the other side. That strategy was remarkably effective in Honduras where the Obama administration had a highly successful coup. But much of it was simply because they were not fully in control of the situation and didn't know what to do next.

The situation in the middle east and North Africa is out of control. Neither the West, the autocratic rulers, nor the demonstrators, have a clear plan and know what's going to happen next. All are reacting to events and are making decisions on a day to day basis. All will make mistakes.

Because of the terms of the no-fly zone it will not have a huge implication on the outcome of the current struggles in Libya. At least it won't be the decisive issue, other than it will probably stop Tripoli from gaining control of the whole country. It will not guarantee that the rebels will be successful in forming a government in Tripoli - despite the propaganda their support isn't that extensive. What it will probably guarantee though, is a stalemate and that the war will continue.

The purpose of the no-fly zone is not actually that apparent imo. It certainly isn't about saving lives though. Although the casualties figures to date are completely unknown, they are almost certainly not what rebel and western propaganda would like you to believe. There is no evidence that Libyan forces are deliberately targeting civilians other than rebel fighters.

Humanitarian agencies in one report claims the figure to be between 1000 and 200 dead :

[i]"Since protesters began rallying against Gadhafi's regime in mid-February, Libya has slipped into civil war, humanitarian organizations said. Heavily armed pro-Gadhafi forces have attacked rebel strongholds on land and by air. Rights organizations estimate 1,000 to 2,000 people have died."[/i]

[url= http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/17/Ex-British-air-force-head-wary-of-strikes/UPI-87601300379675/ ]Ex-British air force head wary of strikes[/url]

If those figures are correct, it is remarkably low considering the situation and it suggests a "killing rate" lower than Egypt's during their troubles. Bombing by the US will dramatically increase death - not reduce it, it's not about saving lives.

So the reason for the no-fly zone is debatable imo. Although I suspect that the Arab League was probably motivated in part at least, in calling for a no-fly zone as a way of drawing the US into a regional conflict. The autocratic rulers who make up the heads of states of Arab League countries have always relied in the United states to keep them in power. Right now, they are all being threaten. Right now they need the US.

Note that today Saudi Arabia which was the Arab League that most pushed most for a no-fly zone, has announced that it will not take part in its implementation.

[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-arabs-idUSTRE72H48R20110318?pageNumber=2 ]Arabs not eager to join military action in Libya[/url]

So it well be left to the US then. Handy for the Saudis.

Note too, that whilst the situation in Bahrain is highly critical and paid foreign mercenaries are being used by the government to suppress the opposition, the US is not calling for an immediate cessation of repressive operations. Hilary Clinton has merely urged "restraint on all sides".

'Restraint on all sides' suggests that the opposition is as guilty as the government - a ludicrous proposition. The US, if it wanted to, could pull the plug on the tyrannical regime in Bahrain instantly. The US has far more influence on events in Bahrain than it has in Libya. And yet it does nothing.

[img] [/img]

How dare they trying to intervene in Dear Leader's world.

😈

ernie_lynch - Member

[i]How would you resolve this?[/i]

Well it would have resolved itself in the next couple of days without interference. The UN sanctioned interference will now guarantee that it will not be resolved.

so sitting on the fence is a strategy, are you a civil servant?

Gaddafi has also offered an amnesty to rebels in Benghazi if they lay down their arms, scaring them increases the chances of that be successful.

One of the reasons why Gaddafi's forces have been so successful as they have swept through Libya, appears to be precisely because if rebels give themselves up they generally get to live - therefore many have surrendered without a fight.

history in the country shows that violent consequences always follow, remember revenge is a dish best served cold and not on 24hr rolling news channels, our dear leader certainly knows this

Recent events have shown that he still has huge support in much of Libya

I would be surprised if Tripoli readily accepts rule from Benghazi.

I have no idea how successful al-Qaeda has been in re-organising itself in the parts of Libya that Gadaffi has lost control, and I don't suppose Western intelligence has either.

Speculating what will happen in Libya amounts to no more than crystal ball gazing....no one knows. But history has shown us that the West tends to get things terribly wrong on such matters. Wishful thinking is not enough.

Thank you for your point by point rebuttal of my post Big and Daft. Your diligent attention to detail is impressive. And don't I look silly now.

So it well be left to the US then. Handy for the Saudis.

Note too, that whilst the situation in Bahrain is highly critical and paid foreign mercenaries are being used by the government to suppress the opposition, the US is not calling for an immediate cessation of repressive operations. Hilary Clinton has merely urged "restraint on all sides".

'Restraint on all sides' suggests that the opposition is as guilty as the government - a ludicrous proposition. The US, if it wanted to, could pull the plug on the tyrannical regime in Bahrain instantly. The [b]US has far more influence on events in Bahrain than it has in Libya. And yet it does nothing[/b].

did they forget to copy you in on the strategy email and the conversations behind closed doors? not again surely? don't they know it would stop cockups happening if they asked you first? quick someone let Obama know Ernies not in the loop! 😉

Your diligent attention to detail is impressive

I am not in your league of googling/ wikipedia searching, think pub team to your premiership level pedantry 😉

This thread is fascinating!

People on this forum I thought of as pains in the backside are coming across quite credulous.

Where-as others I thought were 'alright' are coming across as Media believing fools.

Why has there been no UN intervention in countries where this 'supposedly' killing of civilians has been reported.

I'll ****in tell ye, "It is because they countries are too powerful, or have limited/little resources"

I am no media believing fool ... 😡

Fact. Everyone loves Dear Leader. Fact.

If you do not love Dear Leader you are a fool. Fool.

😈

Tiananmen Square?
Fool?

Well that's the first plane downed over a civilian area. Pictures are quite dramatic. Lets hope it didn't land on any occupied buildings.
(I'm assuming its a Libyan plane!!)

Just seen a Libyan "Government" (ie: Colonel Gadfly mouthpiece) spokesman saying "There is no attack on Benghazi" just as there are pictures of, yes, an attack on Benghazi.

Anybody remember "Comical Ali"? "We are slaughtering the Americans before the gates of Baghdad"! as right behind him - ooh look! - American troops and tanks advanced into the city.

Of course, this is all manipulation by the eviil Western media against the Dear Kind Leader. Isn't it.

Pfft. Hitler was a very nice man too, according to some here in the thirties...

It seems their descendants are active.

[img] [/img]

Mr Woppit - Member

Just seen a Libyan "Government" (ie: Colonel Gadfly mouthpiece) spokesman saying "There is no attack on Benghazi" just as there are pictures of, yes, an attack on Benghazi.

Anybody remember "Comical Ali"? "We are slaughtering the Americans before the gates of Baghdad"! as right behind him - ooh look! - American troops and tanks advanced into the city.

Of course, this is all manipulation by the eviil Western media against the Dear Kind Leader. Isn't it.

Pfft. Hitler was a very nice man too, according to some here in the thirties...

It seems their descendants are active.

You have a very selective memory Woppit. The rebels have been feeding the western media an endless stream of lies.

Firstly the rebels claimed that Gaddafi's army was refusing to fight and that he was having to rely on paid foreign mercenaries. The western media dutifully reported this in all their news bulletins. The rebels claimed that these african mercenaries could be identified by there dark skin and that they had captured several, again the western media dutifully reported this.

It was however a lie. Gaddafi's army is not refusing to fight, there are no foreign mercenaries, the rebels haven't captured any, and none have been presented to the media. The western media has very quietly completely dropped the allegation without bothering to admit that it was false.

The rebels claimed that Tripoli was gripped by anti-Gaddafi demonstrations, and yet despite the western media being in Tripoli, there is no evidence if any serious disturbances, and no evidence of the army being deployed in Tripoli at all.......it was a lie.

The rebels claimed that government war planes were relentlessly targeting civilians, and yet despite the presence of the western media in rebel controlled areas, not one single example of an air strike which has resulted in the substantial loss of civilian lives has been reported....it is a lie.

The rebels consistently claimed that they had either repelled attacks by Gaddafi forces, or recaptured towns which they had previously controlled. And yet they were in fact consistently losing ground......it was a lie.

The rebels are every bit as capable of telling lies as the Libyan government after all, the truth is always the first casualty of any war.

And yet you conveniently choose to believe the obvious lies told by the rebels, whilst rejecting the obvious lies told by Gaddafi's government. Why ? ......does deluding yourself that the rebels are incapable of telling lies somehow make you feel more comfortable ?

Is wading through the bullshit and looking at the situation from a realistic perspective too much like hard work for you ? You might well ridicule with references to "Comical Ali" Woppit, but it is you that's coming across as gullible imo. I don't pretend to know everything that is happening in Libya - no one can know that, but I am certainly not going to believe everything that one side tells me.