Is NATO going to help the rebels win in Lybia?

cannon wrote: Blacksword wrote: NATO is already 'helping' the rebels, by simply being there. If you mean is NATO going to start arming the rebels, or putting troops on the ground, then yes probably. But this is messy. We know there are Islamic militants among those rebels. Do we really want to put additional power in their hands? The west often seems bemused at why the Arab/Muslim world hates us so much, but I don't think the explanation is really not that complicated. Gadaffi has been portrayed as a 'brutal dictator' and a 'Hitler' figure' among other predictable labels the west applies to despots it inexplicably supports and arms for decades before waging war on them. Gadaffi is no saint, but this war - and it is a war, not a 'limited kinetic military operation' - doesn't stack up for the reasons given to us. Yes, he's a despot, but he was our despot. He had ditched his WMD program, to much western applause. He is ideologically opposed to Islamic militancy, just as we are, and yet here we are running the significant risk of arming militants, to overthrow him. Interestingly Gadaffi's government had been moving towards ceasing trading it's oil to Europe in dollars, replacing it with a new gold based currency. He also refused to sign up to the wests Africom project. This may have more bearing on why we're bombing Libya and not Yemen or Syria, but whatever the reason, I don't buy the official line. Sorry.   All good points. I tend to agree with you on most of what you stated.   I think the Arab world has finally woken up to the fact that the US and the west are not the infidels but that it is thier own authoritarian governments.

Indeed, they are waking up. I'm sure if you asked the people of any nation, regardless of the predominant religion and culture there, they would choose freedom over dictatorship any day.

We should however, remember what it has taken to get to this point. Libyans tolerated Gadaffi for 40 years. Egyptians tolerated Mubarak for over 30 years. It's come to a head, right across the region at this time, for two reasons, in my opinion. Firstly, the success of the Tunisian uprising was a great inspiration to those who wanted change in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. But, each revolution has as many individual traits, as they have they have things in common with each other. Different regimes manage the revolutions differently. In Egypt the army stood down. In Libya, Syria and Yemen the army is with the leadership not the revolutionaries. The second reason it's all kicking off now is the soaring cost of living, and record levels of youth unemployment in these countries.

Egypt has an ever growing young class of university educated people, emerging from college and having to survive on less than $10 a day, and that is those who are lucky enough to find work. People are struggling to pay their way and to put food on the table. That's why why we're seeing revolution. In relatively good times, people will tolerate bad government, if they can feed their families and have some money in the pocket. Why has living become so expensive in these countries? Largely because the food commodities they import are traded globally in $USD which has been significantly devalued in recent years, driving those prices up. The same goes for the price of oil, compounded by the growing instability of the whole region. If things kick off in Saudi to the extent they have in other countries, we'll see $200 per barrel in no time. Dollar devaluation may have been the principle reason a number of oil producing countries have been seeking an alternative to trade their oil in. Iraq springs to mind, although I don't think this was the main reason we invaded.

Sorry, waffling!! I'll go to the pub now..

Edited by Blacksword - May 28 2011 at 08:23

Of course every country/alliance has it's own agenda. There has to be self interests for any campaign.

I would say No. Moreover, I don't think the NATO give a damn for the rebels; they just have their own agenda.

Edited by someone_else - May 28 2011 at 02:56

cannon wrote: JJLehto wrote: No idea, but glad it's happening. Only way I support use of military is for "humanitarian" reasons and if done by a multinational effort. Given his recent actions, I'd say his removal via force is acceptable and would always prefer it be done by the UN rather than unilaterally As for it taking longer or not, I can't even venture a guess. But the US can't lead the effort. The world is tired of that and I hope we let them deal with some problems for once grant their wish!   I agree. I think US foriegn policy makers have finally seen the light.

Oh boy I wouldn't be nearly that optimistic but time will tell
Besides my political belief, there is a tad of bitterness as well If the US government does continue on a good path, would other governments be able to handle it? Because it goes both ways, I'll leave ya be... but can't come asking for my help! Well, at least you can't just expect it from me.


Edited by JJLehto - May 27 2011 at 23:05

JJLehto wrote: NOT ENGLISH! : O And don't tell me to get back to the SR polo. YOU DONT OWN ME

Edited by Polo - May 27 2011 at 19:38

NOT ENGLISH! : O

And don't tell me to get back to the SR polo. YOU DONT OWN ME

Polo wrote: Volta pra SR cara, tá faltando mais derpage lá.

Dos pontos os quais pretendo participar neste sítio da internê, aquele não será um deles. Lamento.

Até porque, estando longe fiz-me notar quanto tempo perdia vendo pessoas meramente lamentar de sua mísera e desimportante existência terrena e o que lá nada ganho além de inércia mental. Se posso oferecer-te uma sugestão, saia tembém. 

JJLehto wrote: Caio, the invisible police are coming for you! : O Nah, even if they did care can't do much (efficiently) until they had a real military.

OMFG, conspiracy theories!

And the UN is a joke, really. Not that it isn't important, but it can't do anything in case it really needs to. For starters, it is basically the same thing as the League of Nations, just with one thing different: in case somebody offends the security council there will be thousands of nukes ready to react instead of mere sanctions (which was basically all the League of Nations did against the facists, nazis and commies, and look at how well that worked out!).

But I guess that sanctions + nukes work better. . .

Caio, the invisible police are coming for you! : O

Nah, even if they did care can't do much (efficiently) until they had a real military. 


Edited by JJLehto - May 27 2011 at 19:17

Well I meant more like "anti americanism" what a way to re-enter
But yes, thrash to Sepultura until the rage is gone!

Back on topic, I would kind of hope a UN action would be quicker, since they could deploy more troops to the situation. I have no clue though how it all works so I just have to wait and see.



Edited by JJLehto - May 27 2011 at 19:08