Libya

[Malcador]

Funny, when the US is jumping up and down for war everybody else is expected to ask Uncle Sam nicely "how high?"

 

Situation reverses....

 

Benefits of being a superpower I suppose, heh.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/06/...n20051134.shtml

 

Rebels sure are uppity about NATO being their attack dog, makes that "accidental" airstrike yesterday all the more funny.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm free next weekend, honestly I think I could turn this situation around if I were supplied with enough gold, alcohol and cigars. I've decided guns aren't necessary, there are already loads there to choose from.

[Gfted1]

Well, the Anglo-American two-headed monster wouldn't bomb the hell out of Lybia if their major export was brocoli.

 

 

Hey now, dont look at us. This is France and the UK jumping up and down for war.

 

Funny, when the US is jumping up and down for war everybody else is expected to ask Uncle Sam nicely "how high?"

 

Situation reverses....

 

 

Eh? I dont care that the UK engaged in warfare with Libya, I was just correcting Morgoth's "Anglo-American two-headed monster" comment.

[Gromnir]

Well, the Anglo-American two-headed monster wouldn't bomb the hell out of Lybia if their major export was brocoli.

 

 

Hey now, dont look at us. This is France and the UK jumping up and down for war.

 

Funny, when the US is jumping up and down for war everybody else is expected to ask Uncle Sam nicely "how high?"

 

Situation reverses....

 

actually, we thinks monte mischaracterizes greatly. when the US goes to war, the rest o' the world seems to thinks it gots a right to tell uncle sam, "how high". is understandable why the rest o' the world would do so, but we sympathize with American military commanders who gets the fuzzy end o' the lollipop as American politicians, at the request o' foreign powers, force ridiculous constraints on the commanders in the field.

 

is almost refreshing to sees montes "situation reverses" as nato bumbles and stumbles in libya while attempting to achieve military goals that seems opposed to political ones. even so, as there is no "good guys" in libya, we is content to watch this bit o' regional mayhem progress without an end in sight. bunch o' tribal factions with only one thing in common: they hate the US. let 'em beat each other into oblivion. let the other nato partners take some o' the heat for a change. as long as this stays a libyan conflict, let it burn so that whomever ends up in control will needs spend the next 20 years rebuilding infrastructure. and if the libyans start cursing the English Satan or French Devil with venom approaching what they reserve for the US, then we will shed few tears.

 

sounds horrible? good.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

[Gromnir]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

 

you is mostly correct. however, as is montes characterization o' uncle sam (sans the brits) that inspired our response, we is willing to follow his lead. you can't have it both ways.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Morgoth]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

Those "girlie" nations are the smart ones, as they don't waste tax payers money on playing a bit ol' Imperialism. Soon the US and UK will be bancrupt, and nobody will shed a tear. Good riddance.

[Monte Carlo]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

Those "girlie" nations are the smart ones, as they don't waste tax payers money on playing a bit ol' Imperialism. Soon the US and UK will be bancrupt, and nobody will shed a tear. Good riddance.

 

What short memories you have.

[Morgoth]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

Those "girlie" nations are the smart ones, as they don't waste tax payers money on playing a bit ol' Imperialism. Soon the US and UK will be bancrupt, and nobody will shed a tear. Good riddance.

 

What short memories you have.

Clarify.

[HoonDing]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

Far from me to defend my country, but both Lowlands are in Afghanistan and Belgian F-16s are playing in Libya as well.

[Malcador]

Those nations don't spend that much less than the UK. I wouldn't say Germany spends nothing on defense (7th highest). I'm pretty sure if Europe itself is threatened by some invading force, they'd pitch in. Libya-style situations aren't that.

 

Well I will shed tears if UK (hmm...ok, just Wales) and the US go bankrupt, I've fair amount of friends in both.

[Gromnir]

^ A bit unfair on the Brits, dontchya think? We're always there. The girlie nations, like the low countries, Germany, Italy, Spain etc who spend nothing on defence and shelter under the Anglo-US umbrella... this one should be down to them.

Those "girlie" nations are the smart ones, as they don't waste tax payers money on playing a bit ol' Imperialism. Soon the US and UK will be bancrupt, and nobody will shed a tear. Good riddance.

 

...

 

was gonna to respond, but this bit o' wishful thinking mixed with equal parts amnesia and insanity is too silly to bother with... but we will note that in the unlikely event o' the twin collapses o' uk and us economies, we expect that there would be considerable tear shedding in austria and the other girlie nations.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Morgoth]

Arrogance always comes before the fall. But I will send you guys some sweets out of pity, you'll need it.

[Gromnir]

Arrogance always comes before the fall. But I will send you guys some sweets out of pity, you'll need it.

 

*chuckle*

 

the irony is sweeter than the candy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

www.stratfor.com

 

Two unrelated global crises are benefitting one regional power: Russia. The rise in energy prices due to the Middle East unrest is obviously benefiting Russia as an oil exporter. Furthermore, as a primary natural gas exporter to Europe, Russia stands to benefit from the souring of nuclear power in Germany and Italy due to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.

 

The unrest in the Middle East is a very straightforward story for Russia. It has increased energy prices about 20 percent, and because of the way that Moscow taxes oil profits, most of this increase in prices going straight into the government coffers. On March 18, the Russian government currency reserves have climbed over $500 billion for first time in two and half years.

[213374U]

as long as this stays a libyan conflict, let it burn so that whomever ends up in control will needs spend the next 20 years rebuilding infrastructure.

Quick as you are to suggest wishful thinking from others, this really stands out - especially in light of Qaddafi's history with terrorism. If you bomb someone's country -twice- and make every possible commitment -except for the one that matters- to make sure he's ousted, expecting him to just sit on his hands rebuilding infrastructure for the next decades is... not terribly realistic. Not that this is necessarily the scenario you were predicting.

 

But maybe in fifteen years we'll get a repetition of the Afghan mujahideen-9/11 "chain", and then public opinion will be more receptive to the idea of a land intervention in Libya, for humanitarian reasons of course. That is assuming the US economy can afford it by then, which connects to the other point I was considering. By all accounts, the US economy is doing badly. And from a layman's perspective, it doesn't look like Barry is up to the task of turning it around. It's not wishful thinking either to imagine that dwindling economic power will translate into a loss of weight and influence in the international arena, in favor of players like Brazil and Russia, but mostly China. The fall of the USSR is still fresh in the memories of many people but that wasn't "normal", and that's not how great powers usually lose their status. The (western) Roman empire didn't fall overnight, either.

[Walsingham]

Bombing Libya into the stone age, even if that were possible, is hardly going to prevent it playing a role in terrorism. Because lo I say unto you: terrorism is really ****ing simple.

 

Terror cells run on a few thousand a year plus a few odds and ends of explosives training, maybe a few false documents, and some tradecraft. The Taliban managed to play host to terror with a few yards of facial hair and (literally) a hole in the ground. Admittedly maybe Ghaddafi and Sons (funeral services ltd.) won't be donating tonnes of high explosives and thousands of rifles (as they did with the IRA in the 1980s). But how hard do you think we would have to hit them in order to suck up enough money to prevent them affording a few dozen kilos of semtex, and a couple cases of rifles? More importantly do you not think such a campaign of reduction would constitute a war crime or two?

 

For ****'s sake. The whole point of democracy - the very thing those poor bastards are dying for* - is that what ordinary people think matters. You are ordinary. Switch the brain ON. Think. Matter.

 

*Probably.

[Morgoth]

People don't really care whether they live in a democracy or a dictatorship, as long as the money flows to main street.

[213374U]

Bombing Libya into the stone age, even if that were possible, is hardly going to prevent it playing a role in terrorism. Because lo I say unto you: terrorism is really ****ing simple.

 

[...]

 

But how hard do you think we would have to hit them in order to suck up enough money to prevent them affording a few dozen kilos of semtex, and a couple cases of rifles? More importantly do you not think such a campaign of reduction would constitute a war crime or two?

This -and the rest of your argument- only makes sense if we tacitly accept the assumption that Qaddafi was, before the civil war, as active a terrorist sponsor as he used to be a few decades ago. That may or may not be true, but the airstrikes have almost certainly ensured he will (continue to) be in the future.

 

I think even you will agree that the ability to come and go freely and act with state support -even if it's in a covert fashion- represents a qualitative difference for any would-be international terrorist seeking to establish a framework for operations. And with Egypt's state security apparatus being dismantled as we speak, things are only going to get easier for insurgents, guerrilla fighters and "terrorists" seeking to operate on or simply move through the region. Did you read that STRATFOR piece on Libyan arms depots being ransacked by god-knows-who, and the probable destinations for stolen hardware ranging from artillery explosives to MANPADS? Maybe you linked it here yourself, I don't really remember.

 

 

For ****'s sake. The whole point of democracy - the very thing those poor bastards are dying for* - is that what ordinary people think matters. You are ordinary. Switch the brain ON. Think. Matter.

1. What ordinary people think doesn't matter. The development of the use of mass media into a science have ensured that, or rather, have ensured that ordinary people can be made to think whatever the interests that control the media want.

2. If ordinary people really desired a "democratic" revolution and a change of the status quo in Libya, maybe the rebels wouldn't be losing so bad, mass defections would have occurred as has been the case in C

Edited April 15, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I apologise for not being clear. By deriding the notion of bombing Libya flat I wasn't claiming that bombing it lumpy was better. I don't think I've ever said that. If I did then I shall go back in time and stamp on my own instep.

 

~~

 

I don't think there's any evidence that the media control public opinion any more than a man with a plate full of meat controls a hungry bear. They can influence somehwat but ultimately the bear is obeying its own simple agendas. The man isn't going to be able to get the bear to do anything complex, nor can the man prevent the bear from doing anything.*

 

My point is not that we can achieve democratic wonderland by switching our brains on. I am simply observing that unless we do we may as well forget it right now. It's a sore oint for me because w're about to embark on a course of constitutional reform aimed specifically at making government more sensitive to the people, and I very much doubt that the Great British Public are fit to be listened on any complex issue.**

 

WRT the defections, I think the absence of defections may have more to do with simple geography than anything else. Defectors from the armed forces switched sides weeks ago, and civilians can only do so by high-tailing into the desert. I know I wouldn't do that with only confused reports of where the rebels were on any given day.

 

*This analogy is getting a bit complicated. I'm going to stop it.

** I believe they are still fit to throw out governments periodically, hence I'm still supporting Democracy.

[Walsingham]

According to one story I read, the Italians are refusing to commit active forces to the air campaign. At the same time ENI, "the Italian oil company" is preparing to begin shipping oil from Ghaddafi controlled terminals.

 

So much for Europe.

[obyknven]

 

 

All the time west is talking about repression , repression , repression in other countries who are not white and Christian. when you repeat a lie ten times it becomes the truth I guess. who gave them the democratic authority to bomb other countries, be the drug dealer, posses nuclear bomb and at the same time accuse others of being the terrorist? the truth of the matter is western citizens do not like to see others progress and leave peacefully in their homeland. that

[Gromnir]

as long as this stays a libyan conflict, let it burn so that whomever ends up in control will needs spend the next 20 years rebuilding infrastructure.

Quick as you are to suggest wishful thinking from others, this really stands out - especially in light of Qaddafi's history with terrorism. If you bomb someone's country -twice- and make every possible commitment -except for the one that matters- to make sure he's ousted, expecting him to just sit on his hands rebuilding infrastructure for the next decades is... not terribly realistic. Not that this is necessarily the scenario you were predicting.

 

 

funny stuff. sorry we didn't see sooner. # ignores that this is, for the most part, an internal libyan conflict. is not gonna resolve itself over night, and whomever wrests control is gonna be dealing with Internal conflict for some time. add to the libyan's problems with libya, nato (not the US for a change) will have destroyed a good portion o' the northern african nation's infrastructure by the time somebody finally takes political control o' the nation. sssssoooooo, how exactly is the situation gonna be worse for the US? let the libyans rage 'gainst libyans. let libyans rage 'gainst nato partners. war is not funny. people being killed is not funny. even so, listen to clinton berate qaddafi for attacking civilians is... funny.

 

as for your observations 'bout the us economy... eh? am not certain o' the relevance. morgoth made some patently stoopid and general comments 'bout the pansy nations sitting this fracas out, as if those nations as a whole is experiencing some kinda economic renaissance. somebody wanna check the number o' euro nations who has needed economic bailout in recent years? am not recalling where Gromnir boasted o' the grand power and stability o' US economic power, but the notion o' some kinda imminent cataclysmic US economic collapse is not only based wishful thinking, it is myopic in the extreme. the only folks in europe who is looking forward to US economic collapse is undereducated, middle-class socialist brats with no awareness o' the repercussions o' such an eventuality. bah. argue that China is quickly becoming a threat to US economic supremacy is a far different thing that suggesting that the US economy is 'bout to collapse and that euros will laugh when it happens. oh, and as China's economy is a few decades behind the curve, focused on manufacture and natural resources, it ain't as worrisome a threat as it has been portrayed in the media.... but that is a complete different topic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

the only folks in europe who is looking forward to US economic collapse is undereducated, middle-class socialist brats with no awareness o' the repercussions o' such an eventuality.

 

OVER educated. Not under educated.

[Morgoth]

the only folks in europe who is looking forward to US economic collapse is undereducated, middle-class socialist brats with no awareness o' the repercussions o' such an eventuality.

The only thing the US exports nowadays are debt and Hollywood movies. I'm sure the rest of the world can handle these "repercussions".