Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Farnhamia]

Were.

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

(Image)

Ah, no.

If this were a war for oil, the allies would be intervening on behalf of the Gaddhafi regime. France and Britain both have lucrative oil contracts with Gaddhafi, and maintenance of those ties would seem to be a more compelling oil advantage.

Ah, but those crafty French and British businessmen know that they can get even better deals from the new regime. They're not stupid, you know.

[Gauthier]

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

(Image)

You are, sadly, right. Oil is the only reason we are taking action.

And has been pointed out to you conspiracy theorists, if it had been about oil the coalition would have had a bigger payoff being buddy-buddy with Mo and crushing the rebellion.

[Laerod]

I don't need to post long arguments to say the obvious:

(Image)

You are, sadly, right. Oil is the only reason we are taking action.

Bullshit. Even if oil were a reason (which it isn't), Sarkozy is doing it in part to get reelected.

[Chumblywumbly]

I do not know anything about UK politics

There's broad support from political parties both in opposition and in government, with most of the dissenters coming from the old left.

Which would run contrary to your assertion, or suggest that folks from the US have fickle political convictions compared to the British.

---

You are, sadly, right. Oil is the only reason we are taking action.

Silliness.

Even though I disagree with Laerod in that I think economic concerns related to oil have something to do with the conflict, a brief look at the political climate surrounding Libya, along with various domestic concerns, would reveal all manner of reasons for the enforcement of the no fly zone.

[Andaluciae]

Were.


Ah, no.

If this were a war for oil, the allies would be intervening on behalf of the Gaddhafi regime. France and Britain both have lucrative oil contracts with Gaddhafi, and maintenance of those ties would seem to be a more compelling oil advantage.

Ah, but those crafty French and British businessmen know that they can get even better deals from the new regime. They're not stNeverupid, you know.

If that is what they are thinking, then they are far more stupid than you think. First, because the deal Gaddhafi gave them was actually very favorable--and second because the rebels are unpredictable. It's impossible to know what they will do.

[Farnhamia]

Ah, but those crafty French and British businessmen know that they can get even better deals from the new regime. They're not stNeverupid, you know.

If that is what they are thinking, then they are far more stupid than you think. First, because the deal Gaddhafi gave them was actually very favorable--and second because the rebels are unpredictable. It's impossible to know what they will do.

Yeah, I know. *hands you a coupon for a new sarcasm detector*

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

The US now says its goal is not protecting civilians but to protect armed rebels from losing the civil war.

U.S. fighter jets mounted attacks on Libyan soldiers advancing on the rebel-held city of Benghazi as part of a broader mission to protect the besieged opposition forces from being overrun, said a senior U.S. military official.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us- ... ory_1.html

Vladimir Putin says the attack on Libya resembles a European Christian crusade.

Russian Prime Minister Putin said the Western assault on Qaddafi's offensive capabilities resembles a medieval crusade

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will probably get an earful of Russia's objections to the United Nations-sanctioned military operation in Libya when he meets Tuesday with President Dmitry Medvedev.A taste of what he might expect was unleashed Monday by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who compared the Western assault against Muammar Qaddafi's offensive capabilities to a medieval crusade.

"The [UN resolution authorizing the action] is defective and flawed," Mr. Putin said during a visit to a Russian missile factory. "It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades."

And not just Russia. As noted yesterday, Africa has condemned the attack and now the BRIC is opposing it.

Experts say the similar doubt being publicly raised by all the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) suggests that the informal bloc of emerging economic tigers might be starting to coordinate their foreign policies to stage a collective pushback against the dominance of the old-line powers that are leading the charge in Libya.
Brazil, a nonvoting member of the Security Council, abstained from voting on the resolution after making clear that it opposed international militarization of the crisis in Libya.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2 ... n-on-Libya

Europe is beginning to fracture as some European nations begin questioning the motives behind the strike.

The prime minister of NATO member Turkey said Monday that Ankara has set several conditions for the alliance to participate in the military action. Speaking on a visit to Saudi Arabia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said a NATO operation must not turn into an occupation. He said NATO must ensure that "Libya belongs to the Libyans" and that the country's natural resources and wealth are not distributed to other nations.

This is likely a reference to France, which stated early on that one of its goals is the seizure of Libyan oil fields. The other coalition members, the UK and US have not said they oppose France's move to seize the Libyan oil fields.

Germany, defended its decision not to participate. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Monday that Berlin sees the operation as risky. He said criticism of the operation from Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa vindicates Germany's position.

A group protesting in support of Libyan leader Gadhafi converged on Ban as he tried to leave a Cairo

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Div ... 73244.html

[Kharuyan]

Each country alone will use up more monetary value in oil just in keeping fighters airborne to enforce the no-fly zone than they could hope to recap in some sort of Libyan oil supply. There isn't enough under Libya for it to be about Oil.

As they say, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Only Congress can declare war. It's not just the War Powers Act, its the constitution. Anything involving US military forces engaging in aggressive action against a nation not at war with the US, or which has not attacked the US, requires the approval of the United States Senate.

Libya has not attacked the US, nor are we currently at war with Libya.

Where does the Constitution vest war declarations in the Senate, and Senate alone?

Why does the War Powers Act not allow the president, with congressional approval, to act beyond 60 days? Especially considering it specifically says he can should he secure that congressional approval, he does not need a declaration of war.

Again, there has not been a declaration of war in the US since World War II.

I said Senate, I did not say "only the Senate"

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Actually...he does. Truman was the only president to get away with that, using that justification for not needing congressional approval for the Korean War. That and the unpopularity of Vietnam were the cause of the introduction of the War Powers Act. Prior treaties aren't an exception. That said, "UnitedStatesOfAmerica-" doesn't seem to understand how the War Powers Act works, and that Obama hasn't violated it.

Enforcing an article doesn't need Senate approval. The Gulf War was started by a UNSC Resolution- it was however, funded by Congress.

Not that Congress will refuse to fund a few Tomahawk missiles though, to keep the Right from yelling "Why do you hate teh freedomz!" myself included.

Congress actually did refuse to fund the war, during Clinton's illegal attack on Kosovo.

[Hydesland]

The US now says its goal is not protecting civilians but to protect armed rebels from losing the civil war.

Jesus Christ stop being such a spin doctor, you're worse than Beck.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

It's the fact that Saudis and Guineans are providing oil to the US. So Libya gets hit, while the other two do not. Pure and simple.

Just can it already, ok? Ghaddafi did the one thing you don't do as a dictator: he upset the order of things in the middle east, he managed to get the Arab League against him as well as the Europeans. Together they proposed, and the UN approved, a mission authorising the use of military force to stop further attacks by his army and mercenaries against the civilian populace. The European countries involved in setting up this mission are now enforcing it, and the US is helping out with the capabilities that the European and Arab militaries do not have, in line with the text and spirit of the UN resolution, which calls on UN member states to do what they can. No more and no less. I cannot recall a time during my life or before where the US has been less of a driving force behind a situation as this.

Incorrect. As noted earlierby the Arab League and a large number nations around the world from Russia and China to India, Brazil, and most of Africa, what the US/UK/France are doing clearly goes beyond the resolution.

The French are trying to seize oil, but according to article I linked to earlier, the US is attacking Libyan forces, not to protect civilians, but to assist the armed rebels trying to overthrow Gaddafi. The latter is especially a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 which specifically prohibits actions targeted at overthrowing Gaddafi.

The US and UK are providing air cover for armed rebels, in blatant violation of the resolution's clear limitations on what the coalition is allowed to do and in violation of international laws.

[Andaluciae]

If that is what they are thinking, then they are far more stupid than you think. First, because the deal Gaddhafi gave them was actually very favorable--and second because the rebels are unpredictable. It's impossible to know what they will do.

Yeah, I know. *hands you a coupon for a new sarcasm detector*

Haha...mine's not particularly finely tuned in the first place, and is degraded by being on the phone as my surfing device

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

My apologies for being unclear. I am trying to say that no one joined our side without us asking for their help. We asked the French for help but Libya did not ask for American aid. They want us out of their war.

Actually the rebels did. But being this is the 21st century, we can't have nations barging into other nations internal affairs anymore. This isn't the 18th century as some in Europe seem to think it is.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

My apologies for being unclear. I am trying to say that no one joined our side without us asking for their help. We asked the French for help but Libya did not ask for American aid. They want us out of their war.

On the contrary, the Libyans practically begged for a no-fly zone. Unless, of course, you believe that Gaddafi speaks for Libya.

Correction. Armed rebels begged for a no fly zone.

[Gauthier]

On the contrary, the Libyans practically begged for a no-fly zone. Unless, of course, you believe that Gaddafi speaks for Libya.

Correction. Armed rebels begged for a no fly zone.

So when we invade a repressive dictatorship under a Republican flag (Iraq) it's a patriotic duty, but setting up a no fly zone under a Democratic flag (Libya) is a violation of sovereignty.

Got it.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

Even if one were convinced that the coalition action in enforcing a NFZ and French action in striking a military convoy was imperialist aggression, why on Earth would one then support an authoritarian leader who is highly aggressive towards his own people?

Supporting autocrats due to their opposition of Western states is idiotic, and of no benefit to a better world.

It serves the purpose of opposing continued European American hedgemony over non europeans.

[Laerod]

The US now says its goal is not protecting civilians but to protect armed rebels from losing the civil war.

You lie. Protecting civilians and protecting the rebel held areas from being taken by Gaddafi are inseperable. It is impossible not to do one without doing the other.

And not just Russia. As noted yesterday, Africa has condemned the attack and now the BRIC is opposing it.

Got a source for the BRIC opposing it rather than voicing doubts?

Europe is beginning to fracture as some European nations begin questioning the motives behind the strike.

Turkey is not "some European nations".

This is likely a reference to France, which stated early on that one of its goals is the seizure of Libyan oil fields. The other coalition members, the UK and US have not said they oppose France's move to seize the Libyan oil fields.

Germany, defended its decision not to participate. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Monday that Berlin sees the operation as risky. He said criticism of the operation from Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa vindicates Germany's position.

Do you have a source for France saying anything of the sort? Also, you seem to be confused about the German position. Germany is currently fully in support of it short of actively participating. The Arab League is also fully in support of it.

[Laerod]

My apologies for being unclear. I am trying to say that no one joined our side without us asking for their help. We asked the French for help but Libya did not ask for American aid. They want us out of their war.

Actually the rebels did. But being this is the 21st century, we can't have nations barging into other nations internal affairs anymore. This isn't the 18th century as some in Europe seem to think it is.

Which is why we have an international body called the United Nations Security Council that's required to authorize this kind of stuff.

[Laerod]

On the contrary, the Libyans practically begged for a no-fly zone. Unless, of course, you believe that Gaddafi speaks for Libya.

Correction. Armed rebels begged for a no fly zone.

No, you've been shown that the representatives of the rebels have asked for a no-fly zone.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

which idiot thinks the invasion is good? only stupid, anti-Muslim morons. The invasion on libya is an attempt by the global zionist + anti-islamic european alliance to control oil. The move will kill countless innocent citizens which the hypocritical NATO + allied forces are trying to "protect." these greedy bastards dont care about any lives (think about half a million iraqi children + hundreds of thousands innocent iraqi civilians who died because of UN sanctions NATO attacks? These imperialists are the real terrorists; they along with their jewish lobby and israel terrorise Muslims. When Israel bombarded Gaza and massacred thousands of innocent palestinians, these hypocrites didnt do anything. Innocent people are dying in Bahrain and other countries but they dont attack bahrain or other muslim nations with anti-government protests or rebels. Nato + Allies have a hidden agenda: greed for oil, attacking muslims and undermining them, etc

Well, no. It's more of an, a bit late, attempt to keep the entire population of Libya of being slaughtered.

No it isn't. It's about helping armed rebels overthrow Gaddafi in direct defiance of international laws while hiding behind a UN resolution on civilians, to do so.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

You are, sadly, right. Oil is the only reason we are taking action.

And has been pointed out to you conspiracy theorists, if it had been about oil the coalition would have had a bigger payoff being buddy-buddy with Mo and crushing the rebellion.

One thing you missed. If France seizes the oil fields, it means that Europe, not the Libyans, decide what price of oil will be.

[Laerod]

Well, no. It's more of an, a bit late, attempt to keep the entire population of Libya of being slaughtered.

No it isn't. It's about helping armed rebels overthrow Gaddafi in direct defiance of international laws while hiding behind a UN resolution on civilians, to do so.

What do you think a UNSC resolution is?

[Farnhamia]

Well, no. It's more of an, a bit late, attempt to keep the entire population of Libya of being slaughtered.

No it isn't. It's about helping armed rebels overthrow Gaddafi in direct defiance of international laws while hiding behind a UN resolution on civilians, to do so.

If the rebels were in direct defiance of international laws, wouldn't the UN have passed a resolution calling on them to lay down their arms and negotiate with the government? Instead they authorized military action to stop the government from killing its own people.

Anyway, why defend Qaddafi? It isn't as if he's such a stalwart defender of democracy, you know. Did you support Mubarak in Egypt or the government in Tunisia? Do you support the efforts of the governments of Bahrain and Yemen to suppress their people?

[Laerod]

And has been pointed out to you conspiracy theorists, if it had been about oil the coalition would have had a bigger payoff being buddy-buddy with Mo and crushing the rebellion.

One thing you missed. If France seizes the oil fields, it means that Europe, not the Libyans, decide what price of oil will be.

And if Mars seizes them, it will be the Martians deciding the price.