Is NATO going to help the rebels win in Lybia?

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

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

cannon wrote: Blacksword wrote: 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..   I would also say that technology has played a big part in the Arab Spring. No question the devalued $USD has been part of the reason why prices have sored on commodities but I think it's also the speculators on Wall St. The Commodity Future Trading Comission(CFTC) needs to get thier ass in gear and do something and limit the excessive speculation by Wall St. firms which has extreme volatility in both the agriculture and energy markets.   Hasn't anyone learned yet? Just amazing.

It was economic greed and malpractice that caused the banking crisis, which led to the Fed Reserve and the European central banks having to print trillions of dollars to bail these institutions out. It was this flooding of the system with cheap money which led to the devaluation, which has led to soaring commodity prices, and may ultimately lead to hyperinflation. It is truly a problem which has affected the whole world, including North Africa and the ME.

The role of technology has also been a key catalyst in these uprisings. You're quite right. We probably shouldn't overplay the role of the US state dept, in training thousands of young people from the ME, in the Bush years, in how best to use the internet to forment revolutionary movements, but I'm sure the west has played its part. Let's hope that we reap something positive from what we've helped to sow. Right now the situation looks pretty dicey to me.

Didn't make the pub BTW. My new Decemberists album got in the way..

^^^ They merely delayed the inevitable. I'm off out now!

Blacksword wrote: ^^^ They merely delayed the inevitable. I'm off out now!

 

Equality 7-2521 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! Lol @ Libya being humanitarian in nature. Humanely bomb the sh*t out of them for oil interest.

Being humanitarian or not, I believe that there are other political interests beyond oil.

I agree, but that's one of the primary ones.

Not sure if this is one of your agreements or another point of argument so I'm going to say
"Yeah"

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't think I was arguing. I don't know. Maybe I was?

Oh I never know with you, I was sincere in letting it go because I just can never read your responses accurately it seems.
For what it's worth there are few, if any, times the US or anyone has intervened for the "good" purpose. So you're right about that.

Or the flip side: I used to assume the UN was against the war in Iraq due to principle, but then I learned of the Oil for Food program...well it made even more sense after that.

CCVP wrote: When the UN is against a war, it is usually because they won't be getting any $$ with it.

Precisely my point!

The UN was giving food, plus various aid, to Iraq in exchange for allowing the country to sell its oil (curse that liquid!) so the UN had a very real interest to not see Iraq be toppled.