Why does everyone think we do everything for oil? I'm fairly sure it's much more expensive to invade than simply trade, proving that there's more to it than just oil.

__________________

I marched in the 2007 Rose Parade. YEAH, WOO!
Trumpets: The Instruments of Kings... The Kings of Instruments.

It's not only a few weapons, but there seem to have been very many. I think they were the catalyst. I mean, face it, such aggressive crowds occur now in many countries in the mid-east. What if they all were as heavily armed as the rebels in Libya? How would other leaders/governments tackle such 'protests'? Despite how 'crazy' Gaddafi might sound, it's just hard to believe that he would personally order attacks to his own nation - it's interesting how things developed though. Let's hope for as few civilian casualties as possible...

None of those countries are using gunships against their people
which is a 'relatively easy' thing to intervene against.
Qaddafi also has a history of sponsoring terrorism as it is. He's been behind several attacks
and plane bombings in the past. The location of Libya also makes it an easy target
so it's shorter distance than another terrorism hotbed like Yemen.

So where both Yemen and Libya are both terrorism sources, we can't strike both as quickly,
and there's current support for action against Libya due to its massive crime spree right now.
By all rights Qaddafi should have been removed from power probably decades ago.
It's not like he suddenly became a terrible dictator over night either.

Currently though, it seems everyone's expecting the US to take charge and remove Qaddafi.
Obama's response then "we've got enough on our hands... bye"
Where it's true, the US has a lot of things to deal with right now, people are still expecting
some kind of leadership from the US on the issue.

The whole region is going to hell it seems. So picking the fights is going to be a big problem.

__________________
"The good warrior knows when to fight, and when to withdraw."
- Sun Tzu

I'll smith anything up to 93 smithing if you have the material for me to make it with
My Story, Horrors of Myron County
RV's Drawing archive topic, post yours or comment on others

It's relatively easy but also carries a high risk of not being terribly effective. When it becomes clear the no-fly zone is insufficient to stop the fighting, what then? It's a lot easier to start a war than to end it.

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

I wasn't comparing the Muslim Brotherhood with Palestine even though Hamas was an offshoot of the MB. No, the point I was making is that both liberal country like Turkey (Fixed ), and relatively extreme organization like the Muslim Brotherhood are all supporting UN resolution 1973 in protecting civilians from Gaddafi.


And rightly so, I too disagree with the removal of Mohammed Mosaddeq as the Prime Minister back in 1953, but you can't blame USA for it. It all started when Mosaddeq kicked out British Petroleum (BP) from Iran, and then Winston Churchill lied to the Eisenhower Administration. He told USA that Mosaddeq was a communist, while in reality he was openly anti-communist. But after Korean War, America panicked and went along with the British plan to remove him from power, and gave Shah absolute power in Iran. Interestingly Tony Blair visited Gaddafi in 2004, the first western leader to do so since Lockerbie, guess who followed, yep executives from BP. Sometime I wonder why the world hates America, when it is the British you need to watch out for.


Half of the Yemeni army has joining the protesters, and the PM Saleh have changed his retirement date from 2013 to the end of this year. Few more weeks and Saleh will fall.
France and UN/AU are both currently in Côte d'Ivoire, Gbagbo's hold on power is only temporary.
Bahrain is however a concern, Saudis are pushing this too far IMO, and Al Khalifa should step down or at the least become a constitutional monarchy, And I don't think the Bahraini Shi'ite would turn to Iran, unless the west standby and do nothing while the government crack down on protesters. The sooner Gaddafi is hanging from the nearest lamppost, the sooner the world's attention can return to Bahrain.

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

Talk about enough on your hands, we're (the EU) dealing with bailing out our members from financial crises - currently Portugal getting into financial trouble and this after Iceland, Ireland and Greece.

EDIT: Not that I want to get off topic, but.. There is nothing like a Muslim country Turkey. Turkey is secular and is dominantly populated by Muslims. I hate the fact that media use terms like "Muslim country Turkey" or "Muslim Turkey", because the Muslims in Turkey will then think "what's the point in being secular, if they keep calling us that?". Turkish media don't refer to i.e. France as "Christian France" either because it's just discrimination.

Well, nobody likes policemen much.


I wouldn't be putting any money on Saleh keeping his position, but Gaddafi's revival should inspire caution in any definitive pronouncements.


What makes you think it is temporary? From what I've read, the country is fairly evenly divided, but, crucially, Gbagbo controls the military. UN peacekeepers are there, but how effective were they in Rwanda or Srebrenica?


Why wait that long? What's one more war after all?

Dark Paladin - to the extent that it shows that secularism and Islam are not inherently incompatible, calling Turkey a (predominantly) Muslim country seems fair enough.

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

Secularism is keeping politics and religion separate, putting all religious beliefs in the same level politically. It's an important rule in the politics of Turkey. The phrase "Muslim Turkey" that keeps being used is ambiguous and misleading, and could refer to anything, but most of the things it could mean are not true... in that case it is carelessness and discriminating (and might even be showing no recognition of the secularity in the country) Actually, in any case, ambiguity should be avoided... this is politics after all. And like I said, it is not being done the other way around either.

For Yemen I guess its not over until the fat lady sings, but I am hopeful.
For Côte d'Ivoire I trust the French to get their way on the subject, plus Both UN/AU and France have troop there already, just give them a mandate from the UN and game over.
As for Bahrain, I want it resolved days before Libya even started, but I can't control what Obama do, so even while I would prefer USA step in sooner, I don't think Obama would do much before Libya concludes.

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

Worst case scenario is the entire region is totally destabilized.
That would essentially cut the world's oil supply in half.

At that point it will be hard if not IMPOSSIBLE for people to ignore drilling and coal..
People get all worried about fuel prices when this crap happens,
but the truth of the matter is if we had been using our own resources to begin with,
it wouldn't even be an issue. Thanks EPA.

__________________
"The good warrior knows when to fight, and when to withdraw."
- Sun Tzu

I'll smith anything up to 93 smithing if you have the material for me to make it with
My Story, Horrors of Myron County
RV's Drawing archive topic, post yours or comment on others

http://www.euronews.net/2011/03/28/rasm ... for-libya/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-set-to-g ... rom=smh_sb

So, at the moment rebels are withdrawing back to the east-side of Libya and there is this huge debate whether the mission is accomplished or more actions need to be taken. Some nations like the US and UK are thinking of sending arms to the rebels to help them continue the war and fight back Gaddafi forces and 'liberate' the west from him. NATO, however, does not support those actions as their mission is only to protect the people from attacks.

I personally think that NATO has been as clear as it can be about its mission objectives, but that the US and UK haven't.

I don't think giving the pro-democratic forces weapon will solve anything, and might actually aid Gaddafi instead. Whoever is commanding Gaddafi's forces in Sirte is clearly very capable, twice has this person broke the momentum of the rebels, and this time done so in a way in which NATO planes are unable to help. Instead of counterattack with armor, small groups of mortar teams and infantry on pickup trucks, was able to again force the rebel back towards the East. rumor has it that oil town of Ras Lanuf, which is 200km east of Sirte was again in Gaddafi's hand. If United States give rebels weapon, there is a high chance some of it will fall into the hands of Gaddafi royalists. I think the most important thing now is military experts help to train the pro-democratic forces, the Military from Egypt and Tunisia have to play a role.

As for mission objective, NATO while have a clear aim, lacks exit strategy, without remove Gaddafi or waiting for political solutions between the warring parties, NATO is stuck in Libya, and it appears that stalemate is more likely than not now, can NATO last that long? As for United States and Britain, we say Gaddafi have to go, and yet we are not start a regime change operation, I don't know what is Obama hoping to happen, Gaddafi quit for no reason? because he can outlast any western politicians if current situation continues. If United States does not start a military action to remove Gaddafi, we might as well just let Gaddafi run his country.

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

I think the main problem is, that the United Nations are not against Gaddafi, but that part of the nations are. Can you explain why Gaddafi is the reason for the crisis? I've just heard some nations being against him, and calling him a dictator. But is there any factual data? I mean there must be a reason why the UN did not urge Gaddafi to step down, and instead just wanted him to stop the violence.

Gaddafi's crime are numerous, wikipedia would offer most, so I will not list here. As for UN not against Gaddafi, UN resolution 1970 adopted on Feb 26, 2011 condemned the use of lethal force by the regime of Muammar Gaddafi against protesters participating in the Libyan uprising, and imposed a series of international sanctions in response. Also this marked the first time a country was unanimously referred to the International Criminal Court by the council. all 15 members of the security council voted for this. Countries such as Russia, China, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, India, Germany, and the western allies. So all nations recognized that Gaddafi has a case to answer in the Hague. But when it comes to the implementation, views differed as the case of UN resolution 1973.

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

oh ok, so UN resolution 1970 is a court case at the ICC for Gaddafi and his 'inner circle' due to the Libyan uprising and resolution 1973 is a sanction to stop the violence in Libya, due to the uprising. Wikipedia does mention a lot of other issues with his regime and other countries in the past, but the sanctions for those seem to have been removed by the UN in 2003.

But still, they don't really want him to step down, they just assigned the ICC to investigate, so there is no official right to have any offensives against Gaddafi.. if that's the case the right thing to do would probably be to just go on with the no-fly-zone by NATO and somehow find a political resolution, make the two sides negotiate.

Arming rebels is probably the most economically favorable solution for the US, but it is a destructive thing to do... they're not professional and probably not even recognized individually - how can that even be an option?

The problem with UN is it made up of nations that all have individual interests that makes them supporting one nation over another. Plus the five permanent members most often look out for their own interests. For example no resolution will ever be passed if it is about Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza, or atrocities in the Caucasus. This is just fact, and to raise them is just waste of time. Plus UN doesn't have the right to call for a change of government of any nation, so even if all member states want to call for the removal of Gaddafi, UN regulation forbids it, not that they will anyway.
As for whether the rebel will be more favorable towards United States, this is not so clear cut, the fact is West is getting much of what they wanted from Gaddafi already, immigration control and oil rights. So Rebels can't offer anything new to the West, but that is not to say West will not gain from this. By remove Gaddafi, Obama have set a very high standard in which USA will interfere in the current revolution in the Arab world. This means regimes such as Bahrain and Jordan, which are American Allies and also facing protests are given a carte blanche. America can say the situation isn't at the level of Libya so we will not help the protesters, hence help maintain these regimes, without look like having a double standard.

p.s. US covert units are in Libya already, before UN resolution 1973, hence Obama can say the new resolution does not lead to boots on the ground for USA. Technicalities, love them.

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

Well, this was bound to happen... 40 civilians were allegedly killed by western air strikes in Tripoli - NATO will investigate which of those dozen organizations are responsible.

EDIT: Oh and I get what you mean Zizi, but I would still prefer an international organization deal with these rather than individual nations. Would at least be an international effort and I guess also prevent people from pointing fingers...

From what I'm reading, it would appear that NATO doesn't know what to do without the US leading the operation.

__________________

I marched in the 2007 Rose Parade. YEAH, WOO!
Trumpets: The Instruments of Kings... The Kings of Instruments.

NATO can't do anything right.

Just let Gaddafi stay in power.. *sigh*

__________________

Topic revival!
Here is the current Timeline

Rebels from the west make a surprise attack on Tripoli and the Rebels in Misruta attacked from the east and take Green Square and rename it Martyrs square.

Saif Al Islam, a son of Muommar Gaddafi was reported captured but was found in Rixos hotel, saying Gaddafi is still in control.

Tense fighting happens between forces loyal to Gaddafi "Loyalists" and the rebels however many loyalist positions do not put up a good resistance.

Gaddafi's compound falls to the rebels after little fighting, looting of guns and equipment are taken from the compound, Muommar Gaddafi nowhere to be found.

Thoughts?

__________________