Libya

Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight countries stopped short of agreeing to press the U.N. Security Council to back a no-fly zone to protect Libyan cities from aerial bombardment.

Instead, the G8 said Libyans have a right to democracy and warned Gadhafi he faced "dire consequences" if he ignored his people's rights. The G8 urged the Security Council to increase pressure on Gadhafi, including further economic measures.

Does anyone think threatening Gadhafi with "dire consequences" makes the G8 look anything less than pathetic? It might not be our fight, but what is the point of threatening him at all if we aren't going to do anything?

This is like Obama telling him that "Gadhafi must step down." And then doing nothing to help that happen. Either shut your mouth, or back up your talk, but this makes us look really weak, in my humble opinion. As many people are dying in Libya as died in Japan, and we have the power to stop this one.

Is a tough issue: I agree its not the US's war, but the world is seriously sitting back and letting another genocide happen while we wring or hands.
Thoughts?

It doesn't make us look weak because our reason for not jumping into Libya is for political reasons. It does, however, make us look like hypocrites.

It was Obama's speech at Cairo that told the Arab world to "seek democracy" and basically be more like us. I think they listened. They are now responding, and being systemically crushed. In Iran, they were crushed, in Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Saudia Arabia, they are being crushed.

People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

YouTube video

Well looks like the UN, the west and all are going to keep on waffling whilst Gadaffi takes back the country. Basically do nothing to help, and let the rebels get slaughtered.

Sad, very sad.

Originally posted by truejedi
People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

Unless a country's military supports the revolution. Happened all over Eastern Europe in 1989.

why is hillary clinton supporting democratic reform in egypt? seems like a double standard.

Originally posted by truejedi
People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42124388/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Well good. Do you think it's too late?

Well at least Britain and France still have a pair.

I can see them using this resolution to wipe Gadhafi´s army out from the air.

There was a news report the other week about British SAS soldiers being there, they were actualy aprehended by a bunch of rebels because of lack of communication with other rebels. So somethings going on, whether its weapons being supplied or just a recce who knows.

Originally posted by truejedi
People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

If a modern "American Civil War" occured, the technology on each side would be almost even as it was then. I do not think that would mean that you are wrong, though, because the conflict could still end in a few days, but that's unlikely.

so, now that there is no fly zone, does this mean the UN will be forced to act as Ghadaffi's ground and sea forces continue to slaughter civilians? the artillery and tanks are doing most of the carnage, not the air force, so the no fly zone isn't likely to have any much of an effect on the conflict or death, and the same justifications for a no fly zone almost necessitate further military intervention to stop Ghaddafi's ground troops. I mean, what is the difference between killing civilians from the air or killing them with artillery? If we think it is serious enough to stop one, we look like hypocrites if we don't stop the other.

Further, we are going to start an international military campaign in Libya and stay entirely neutral on the essential invasion of Bahrain by Saudi and UAE troops? So, in Libya, a popular uprising and government violence makes Ghaddafi an illigitimate ruler, but the same acts in Bahrain are fine, because the ruler is legitimate?

oh, and Greenwald on how Obama's commitment to the no-fly zone might fundamentally change the nature of how America goes to war:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html

he made the following statement recently that I just want to associate myself with:

(2) The retrospective view of Afghanistan as not worth fighting mirrors, of course, the longstanding view among Americans about the Iraq War. But both wars began with substantial support, which means -- logically -- that large numbers of Americans came to change their initial views and ultimately concluded that the very wars for which they cheered were not, in fact, worth fighting. One might think that this experience would teach them lessons about the dangers of cheering for unnecessary wars in foreign lands, but one would be wrong. The same poll cited above finds, depending on how the question is asked, substantial support for U.S. military involvement in imposing a no-fly zone in Libya (between 49-56%), and of those, a robust 72% still support such an action even when told that it "first requires bombing attacks on anti-aircraft positions, and then requires continuous air patrols" (similarly, most Americans say they would support a military attack on Iran to stop their nuclear program).

Obviously, a strong humanitarian appeal can be crafted in support of military intervention in Libya. Any decent human being would loathe Moammar Gadaffi and find his attacks on his unarmed population to be repulsive. But exactly the same could be said -- and was constantly said -- about the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. There's an obvious emotional appeal in vanquishing murderous tyrants out of power through the use of force. But even leaving aside the question of whether the U.S. can effectively shape outcomes in distant lands with complex foreign cultures -- even after a full decade, our confusion seems greater than ever in Afghanistan -- nations don't fight wars primarily with humanitarian aims; they fight them to advance their interests.

Humanitarianism is the pretty package in which every new war is wrapped. That's just the Manichean propaganda tactic needed to induce public support for killing human beings: it's justified because we're there to destroy Evil and do Good. Wars can sometimes incidentally produce humanitarian benefits, but that isn't the real aim of war. We can (perhaps) remove Gadaffi from power, but we'll then up defending and propping up (and thus be responsible for) whatever faction will heed our dictates and serve our interests regardless of their humanitarian impulses (see our good friends Nouri al-Malaki and Hamid Karzai as examples).

As our other good friends Saudi Arabia and Bahrain collaborate on attacking civilian protesters, there are no calls for U.S. intervention there -- even though that's arguably more serious than what's happening in Libya -- because those governments serve our interests. Nor is there much anger among Americans (as opposed to Egyptians) over our decades-long support for the dictator of Egypt (and most of the other tyrants now suddenly being vilified). That's because our conduct in the Middle East isn't driven by humanitarian objectives no matter how manipulatively that flag is waved. It's driven by a desire to advance our perceived interests regardless of humanitarian outcomes, and exactly the same would be true for any intervention in Libya. Even if we were capable of fostering humanitarian outcomes in that nation -- and that's highly doubtful -- that wouldn't be our mission.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/16/various_matters/index.html

from STRATFOR:

Libya Crisis: Implications of the Cease-Fire

Summary
Libya’s government announced an immediate cease-fire on March 18, a day after the U.N. Security Council approved a no-fly zone over the North African country. The move complicates European efforts to spearhead a campaign against Libyan government troops. Assuming Tripoli follows through on its declaration, the affect on operations against the Libyan rebels remains in question.

Analysis
RELATED SPECIAL TOPIC PAGE
Libya Unrest: Full Coverage
Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said March 18 that Libya would positively respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. The statement was soon followed by a declaration by Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa of an immediate unilateral cease-fire and halt to all military operations. Tripoli added that it was ready to open “all dialogue channels with everyone interested in the territorial unity of Libya,” that it wanted to protect Libyan civilians, and that it was inviting the international community to send government and nongovernmental organization representatives “to check the facts on the ground by sending fact-finding missions so that they can take the right decision.”

The Libyan declaration comes as members of the NATO military alliance were ramping up for airstrikes authorized by the United Nations against troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi. French diplomatic sources have been quoted as saying airstrikes could start “within hours.” Libya’s move potentially throws a wrench in plans to establish and enforce a no-fly zone — and take additional military action — against the Gadhafi government.

France and the United Kingdom have led the international community in its push to intervene in Libya. Washington had signaled that it would let the European nations lead. Italy, formerly a strong Gadhafi supporter, announced March 18 that it would consider supplying aircraft to the intervention, as did Norway, Denmark and Belgium.

By offering a cease-fire and inviting nongovernmental groups to conduct fact-finding missions, however, Gadhafi is betting that the European nations will lose the political justification for an attack and that political disagreements over military action within European nations can further weaken their already weak resolve. Europeans in general are war-weary from their involvement in NATO’s operations in Afghanistan. They only will support an intervention in Libya if Gadhafi clearly is committing gross violations of human rights. It will be difficult for Paris and London to prove that Gadhafi is indeed committing such acts or to ignore the cease-fire announcement or the invitation to verify it. The immediate reply from France was that it would deal with the cease-fire declaration with caution and that the threat on the ground was unchanged. But the backlash at home against an intervention in light of Gadhafi’s comments is not something European governments can overlook easily, especially since the most powerful EU member state, Germany, already has buckled under the domestic political strain and expressed skepticism toward a military operation.

Assuming Gadhafi follows through with the cease-fire, how it will affect his operations against the rebels remains in question. Gadhafi may feel the rebels have been suppressed such that he can mop up the remainder through police actions in urban settings. Alternatively, he may feel the rebels are so thoroughly entrenched in their stronghold of Benghazi that he cannot dislodge them under the threat of Western airstrikes — and is therefore cutting his losses and preserving the integrity of his forces from potential Franco-British-American air attacks. Ultimately, the cease-fire could be a delaying action while Gadhafi builds a stronger position around Benghazi. This would not be without risks, however, as it will give French and British air assets time to deploy in air bases in the Mediterranean, better positioning them to enforce a no-fly zone.

That said, the Security Council has authorized a no-fly zone, which means that while assaulting Gadhafi’s ground forces directly may be stalled by the cease-fire statement, establishing a no-fly zone is not. It is also likely that Europeans will respond to the statement with further demands on Gadhafi, such as that he must resign as leader of the country or that he must withdraw his troops from eastern Libya and possibly even other cities in the west that have seen fierce resistance, like Misurata and Zawiya. Both of these demands would be difficult for Gadhafi to accept. The establishment and enforcement of the no-fly zone may still go ahead, but attacking Gadhafi’s forces directly will become difficult in the immediate term.

A bit of hypocracy going on here when you think about it. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are basically doing a similar thing (but on a lower scale for now) to their MAJORITY protestors (shiites), no action is going to be taken there because these countries are considered "friends".

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Well looks like the UN, the west and all are going to keep on waffling whilst Gadaffi takes back the country. Basically do nothing to help, and let the rebels get slaughtered.

Sad, very sad.

The US can't get involved first without the world phagging out over it.

^Basically. The moment the US gets involved and wins the war for a side is the moment that regime becomes plagued by constant terrorists and sectarian violence.

I am flamboyant.

I will start talks with the rebels once the drugs have worn off.

hmmm, so now do we attack despite the ceasefire? And I agree: The UN is kinda committing itself to intervene not only in Libya, but in Tunisia, Saudia Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen as well. Same circumstance, only there they have completely unarmed protestors.

the UN doesn't have an army