Why no diplomacy with Libya?

[preacherman76]

puh-lease!!! are tryin to equate the middle class attention seeking wannabe idiots at a G20 'protest' with the oppressed of the arab world who are simply demanding freedom?

MMM no.

[Black Red Devil]

indeed.

when he started strafing the protestors a few weeks ago i struggled to think of any other despot who has ever deliberately turned such lethal weapons of war on his own citizens..

however i must take issue with the implication that Blair murdered people...at the time i was against it but in retrospect the actions in Iraq were fully justified by the removal of the baathist regime. a lot of blood has been shed but ultimately the removal of saddam has directly led to the arab spring we are seeing today.

Sorry Dek, but I don't agree with our intervention in Iraq. We had/have no Right to invade, bomb, kill and/or destroy other countries under the pretense that we are there to save and protect civilians, get rid of despots and bring safety and justice. Considering also, as per Iraq, that our excuse for invading wasn't even based on legitimate reasons, WMD, which wasn't the only reason, but the main one, to justify the invasion.

Now take Libya for example, we're asked to intervene, to protect civilians with a no fly zone policy, with the full blessings of Arab countries, so what do we do, we end up bombing, destroying and killing. Result, flags burning in Pakistan, hatred towards the west etc..

We need to stop playing world cops and let these people work their way towards democracy. Let the course of history take its place. Similar to what happened behind the Iron Curtain. It's natural evolution, human beings in certain societies will catch up to others that are more advanced (technologically, socially).

What's happening in the ME is an example of this. They can see democracy is a better social system, not perfect, but better and many want a piece of it in their own backyard.

I highly doubt invading Iraq and Afghanistan were the deciding factors in this social change momentum.

[MichaelW]

Devil, the Arabs as allies are useless. One minute they love us and the next minute they hate us and want to kill our heathen children with stones. Plus no one in the Arab League could organize a conduct a military campaign to save themselves. Hence why they prefer for us to sit back and do their bidding for them.

[dekker87]

Sorry Dek, but I don't agree with our intervention in Iraq. We had/have no Right to invade, bomb, kill and/or destroy other countries under the pretense that we are there to save and protect civilians, get rid of despots and bring safety and justice. Considering also, as per Iraq, that our excuse for invading wasn't even based on legitimate reasons, WMD, which wasn't the only reason, but the main one, to justify the invasion.

we went into iraq to take on jihadis from around the middle east knowing that our weapons and military were more suited to that battlefield than the nominally more legitimate one in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda (i use this term to describe the loose affiliation of jihadis around the world) believe they brought down the Soviet 'empire' via the conflict in Afghanistan and wanted to do the same to America...they believed that a full invasion of Afghanistan would take place after 9/11 and so prepared themselves for the influx of 100's of 1000's of US troops...believing, with some justification, that such an invasion would unite the afghans against the US and it's allies. this is why the taliban / al-qaedas nearest local rival and afghan most likely to side with the US was assassinated a few days prior to 9/11 - ahmed shah masood. clearly a trap was set...yet one of the fundamental rules of war is 'choose your battlefield' and saddams iraq, where western troops had already demonstrated their prowess previously, where saddam was under heavy UN sanctions, where palestinian terrorists were funded and rewarded and where there was a population cowed by the use of chemical weapons, torture and the arbitrary murder of political opponents was chosen as the battlefield. i accept there were no direct links between al-qaeda and the baathists prior to the invasion but certainly post invasion the jidahis swarmed into iraq to take on the US and western forces...

this proxy battlefield scenario can be found throughout history...the soviets in afghanistan (facing american weapons in the hands of jihadis) and the americans in vietnam (facing soviet and chinese weapons in the hands of the NVA and the VC) are 2 recent examples.

i'm not justifying the invasion...i'm just breaking it down. personally i think the invasion was justified by the removal of the baathists from power...what happened after that was a huge balls up in post invasion planning.

Now take Libya for example, we're asked to intervene, to protect civilians with a no fly zone policy, with the full blessings of Arab countries, so what do we do, we end up bombing, destroying and killing. Result, flags burning in Pakistan, hatred towards the west etc..

to enfore a no fly zone you need to take out the enemies air defence capability. that's what we have been bombing. who cares what a few loons in pakistan think...i've friends and colleagues in pakistan and the images of drooling islamist fanatics is not truly representative of the whole country. rather than shy away and be fearful of offending this fringe of religious loons we should be full square behind those in pakistan demanding a secular constitution and the same basic human rights we enjoy in the west...it is the great moral failure of our time that we are more worried about offending those who shout loudest than about the human rights of those who simply wish to live their lives in peace, free from 6th century religious dogma and oppression.

We need to stop playing world cops and let these people work their way towards democracy. Let the course of history take its place. Similar to what happened behind the Iron Curtain.

then we should above all offer the oppressed the idealology of freedom! that's how we won the cold war of ideas...not thru guns...thru being morally correct at a very basic level. this is what we shy away from with regards to the islamist issue...we are apparently too scared to promote our secular philosophy.

It's natural evolution, human beings in certain societies will catch up to others that are more advanced (technologically, socially).

you're correct. but you've just basically said that western society is more advanced than that of the middle east. is that what you wanted to say?

What's happening in the ME is an example of this. They can see democracy is a better social system, not perfect, but better and many want a piece of it in their own backyard.

and they deserve it...so shouldnt we, as the free countries of the world, do all we can to assist them in their struggle? NOT assisting them is what led to the gaddafis, the saddams, the mubaraks etc etc etc...THIS is another factor in why Bush invaded Irag..

the prevailing neo-con philosophy at the time of the iraq invasion held that the despots and dictators we've in the past supported because of our desire for oil and stability outweighed our human rights concerns should all be brought down...and the 'liberation' of iraq from the baathists was the first action of this idealologically driven paradigm.

I highly doubt invading Iraq and Afghanistan were the deciding factors in this social change momentum.

maybe...maybe not...my thoughts on this are in the embryonic stage but it's a fact that the neo-con agenda foresaw the removal of saddam from iraq, the foundation of democracy in iraq as the fire that would light desire for democracy around the middle east.

[clearasmud]

I'm a little confused by the total lack of diplomacy in relation to the escalating crisis. I thought it was the first step in any conflict resolution but it seems like from the very start Cameron in particular had no desire to get the two sides to talk and was more than happy to side with the rebels in what is a civil war.

On TV today he made comparisons with the Balkans in the 90s. This was very different to the present situation imo because that was a war based on sectarian violence where the present situation revolves around oil and money.

What right have any country got to draw in their forces into a war that could be resolved through diplomacy. I find it a bit of a disgrace that we are willing to make mistakes so soon after Iraq and Afghanistaan and potentially threaten the lives of honourable servicemen fighting for their country and not oil corporations like BP.

The final concern I have is that we have passed the point of no return now with diplomacy not being considered. Therefore if Gaddafi is not removed he will surely begin launching terrorist attacks on countries who oppose his regime. This is a scary prospect in a world with increasingly high tech weaponry including bio weapons and dirty bombs.

The current approach has been foolhardy and ill conceived but is it too late for diplomacy or like Iraq was this was innevitable because of it's oil reserves?

Should we use the same diplomacy he used over lockerbie. should we turn our heads when he murders innocents, do you see him as a man who can be changed from the heartless murdering b****** he is. Give him what he understands, hate, pain and death.

[acidhead]

Should we use the same diplomacy he used over lockerbie. should we turn our heads when he murders innocents, do you see him as a man who can be changed from the heartless murdering b****** he is. Give him what he understands, hate, pain and death.

calling for death and destruction isn't going to solve anything

Edited March 25, 2011 by acidhead

[AI Construct]

indeed.

when he started strafing the protestors a few weeks ago i struggled to think of any other despot who has ever deliberately turned such lethal weapons of war on his own citizens..

however i must take issue with the implication that Blair murdered people...at the time i was against it but in retrospect the actions in Iraq were fully justified by the removal of the baathist regime. a lot of blood has been shed but ultimately the removal of saddam has directly led to the arab spring we are seeing today.

Do you actually have any proof of this other than media propaganda. I was watching the BBC news the other day and they were showing video footage of the rebels surrounding a crashed F15 and one of the rebels turned his back to the camera and walked away and he had the star of david on his back. Lets face it, most of these rebels are not native to Libya, they are mercenaries from other countries who have been paid to come and cause trouble and therefore deserved to be carpet bombed, because they are nothing more than terrorists. As for Libyan civilians being bombed, show me the evidence, because I have not seen it and don't have much faith in western media sources.

Here's an interesting video of Gaddafi talking about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uJ4u-v-PJbs

Edited March 26, 2011 by AI Construct

[H.H. Holmes]

Pro-Gadaffi forces have massacred civilians during a funeral, atleast fifteen dead and many more injured. I don't care what anyone says, those people were not foreign mercenaries, but civilians.

Innocent Libyan civilians are the ones who are getting carpet bombed and killed in the streets. This is a rebel movement started by the people, which has gained alot of support from other countries. Even if there are mercenary forces mixed in with the regular Libyan citizens that is no reason to justify indiscriminate bombing.

My link