Libya no fly zone

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

16th March 2011, 12:24
Rudy Tamasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

The EU is an economic entity and not a military one. NATO which is the supra-national military alliance also includes the US and Canada. Also, because of the Berlin Plus agreement the EU would only act if NATO doesn't.

Your question should be "why isn't the US blowing up Gaddafi?" because in practice the US probably contributes 54% of NATO nation's spending by itself.
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...utput/milex_15

Really there isn't anything to be gained by interfering in what amounts to a Civil War. If you remove Gaddafi it creates a political vacuum, this then causes a state of anarchy which doesn't make anything better.

The thing is the current regime has been violating human right for decades and then used military force against its own citizens. EU countries long advocated in favor of military interventions in case of humanitarian disaster caused by a tyrannical regime's crackdown on its own population. Bosnia and Kosovo were the precedents. Lybia is very similar.

I am not speaking pro or contra a military intervention. What I'm saying is that EU must be consistent. It should either state it's Lybia's internal affair and let Lybians fight it out, or it should effectively help those standing for the cause of freedom, championed by the EU. Trying to take some middle ground will make Europeans look like fools they already are.
16th March 2011, 12:43
Mark

Of course the military involvement in Kosovo was NATO, not EU. Although the EU did and does play a large role in the reconstruction and stabilisation of the former Yugoslav states.
16th March 2011, 15:50
Rudy Tamasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Of course the military involvement in Kosovo was NATO, not EU. Although the EU did and does play a large role in the reconstruction and stabilisation of the former Yugoslav states.

Formally, yes. Substantially, though, NATO neither could nor would have done anything in Yugoslavia, had EU opposed the action. NATO and EU do overlap a lot.
16th March 2011, 18:12
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

The thing is the current regime has been violating human right for decades and then used military force against its own citizens. EU countries long advocated in favor of military interventions in case of humanitarian disaster caused by a tyrannical regime's crackdown on its own population. Bosnia and Kosovo were the precedents. Lybia is very similar.

I am not speaking pro or contra a military intervention. What I'm saying is that EU must be consistent. It should either state it's Lybia's internal affair and let Lybians fight it out, or it should effectively help those standing for the cause of freedom, championed by the EU. Trying to take some middle ground will make Europeans look like fools they already are.

In which case, we should presumably have intervened in Zimbabwe as well. And why just the EU?
16th March 2011, 20:03
Hondo

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In which case, we should presumably have intervened in Zimbabwe as well. And why just the EU?

We did. It was known as Rhodesia and fed itself. Now, with the world's insistance upon majority rule, it is known as Zimbabwe and survives on handouts. Lets not forget the great job Idi Amin did in Uganda.

Majority rule government does not always present the best option or solution. The west is learning this now that the generations they have been feeding and growing on the dole, have become sizeable political voting blocks wanting better dole.

The USA needs to continue to let Lvbia be to handle it's own problems. The world won't like what follows Gaddafi.
16th March 2011, 20:33
Tazio

I'm still holding out hope that some government (preferably one that still has a hair left on their @ss) at least attempt a surgical extraction. It's not likely, and I don't blame anyone for this mess. But please do not try to justify not acting because this is Al Qaeda masquerading as repressed citizens of a tyrannical demented leader.
16th March 2011, 20:41
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

I'm still holding out hope that some government (preferably one that still has a hair left on their @ss) at least attempt a surgical extraction. It's not likely, and I don't blame anyone for this mess. But please do not try to justify not acting because this is Al Qaeda masquerading as repressed citizens of a tyrannical demented leader.

A notion for which no proof has been presented at all, except by Gaddafi himself, and I would have thought his demented ramblings are worth little credence.
16th March 2011, 20:45
Tazio

Yet menbers of the American posse have!
16th March 2011, 20:46
Hondo

You are way, way overblowing my opinion. I am not saying, and have never said that al_Qaeda is behind all of this completely. I'm saying al-Qaeda has an interest in any activity that brings instability to a sitting government whether they are the cause of it or not. If this was strictly a popular revolution, al-Qaeda will still be in there, poking away, trying to set themselves up as the new government.
16th March 2011, 20:50
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondo

You are way, way overblowing my opinion. I am not saying, and have never said that al_Qaeda is behind all of this completely. I'm saying al-Qaeda has an interest in any activity that brings instability to a sitting government whether they are the cause of it or not. If this was strictly a popular revolution, al-Qaeda will still be in there, poking away, trying to set themselves up as the new government.

I have my doubts as to whether the Libyan rebels would countenance this for one moment, were it happening, which is extremely doubtful.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page