Libya: should anything be done?

Post Reply
User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by sandinista » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:54 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Inaction is shameful. The rebels are losing, and we in the West twiddle our thumbs. No strong leader is spearheading a push for coalition to assist the rebels.... by the time the UN gets done drafting its "strongly worded letter" the rebels will all be dead. Then Captain Hindsight will arrive with appropriate recriminations. And, nothing will be done.
So, tell us how you feel about Bahrain, where the U.S. is supporting a Saudi invasion - to help put down the protestors.
How the Tiny Kingdom of Bahrain Strong Armed the President of the United States

http://www.truth-out.org/how-tiny-kingd ... tates68484
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:30 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Inaction is shameful. The rebels are losing, and we in the West twiddle our thumbs. No strong leader is spearheading a push for coalition to assist the rebels.... by the time the UN gets done drafting its "strongly worded letter" the rebels will all be dead. Then Captain Hindsight will arrive with appropriate recriminations. And, nothing will be done.
So, tell us how you feel about Bahrain, where the U.S. is supporting a Saudi invasion - to help put down the protestors.
I don't like it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Ian » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:02 pm

sandinista wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Inaction is shameful. The rebels are losing, and we in the West twiddle our thumbs. No strong leader is spearheading a push for coalition to assist the rebels.... by the time the UN gets done drafting its "strongly worded letter" the rebels will all be dead. Then Captain Hindsight will arrive with appropriate recriminations. And, nothing will be done.
So, tell us how you feel about Bahrain, where the U.S. is supporting a Saudi invasion - to help put down the protestors.
How the Tiny Kingdom of Bahrain Strong Armed the President of the United States

http://www.truth-out.org/how-tiny-kingd ... tates68484
Another way of putting it would be to say that US influence is remarkably limited. A US envoy met with Yemen's King and urged restraint and non-lethal force against dissidents there only one hour before security forces opened fire against demonstrators. And the US has asked Saudi Arabia not to act harshly against demonstrators, much less get involved in Bahrain, lest the backlash turn into another Libya. Warren's overly-simple quote that "the US is supporting a Saudi invasion" isn't accurate at all. Mostly, the US is befuddled by all that's happening and scared of how things might explode if Washington were to take too strong a stance one way or the other. If Saudi Arabia were to go the way of Libya, the implications for Planet Earth, nevermind the US, would be enormous. And who is to say that the other side of the maelstrom would see a more democratic Arabian peninsula, or a more stable world energy market? The only possible answer is: nobody.

User avatar
egbert
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by egbert » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:56 pm

Crumple wrote:Now there's oil refinaries at stake watch what happens? :naughty:
Meh, Libya oil only goes to the Limeys and the Italian Mafiosi, so why intervene? Besides, the fortunate Japan earthquake and resulting tsunami and nuclear crisis have diverted media whores attention, so Gadaffi can slaughter to his heart's content without a worry. Meanwhile, NATO fiddles while Gaddafi kills - the NATO defense ministers enjoy a nice Brussels vacation with first class hotels and gourmet dinners, while waffling and playing indecision over "no fly zones." Shades of Kurd betrayal!
''The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.''
—Rush Limbaugh

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Ian » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:42 pm

egbert wrote:
Crumple wrote:Now there's oil refinaries at stake watch what happens? :naughty:
Meh, Libya oil only goes to the Limeys and the Italian Mafiosi, so why intervene? Besides, the fortunate Japan earthquake and resulting tsunami and nuclear crisis have diverted media whores attention, so Gadaffi can slaughter to his heart's content without a worry. Meanwhile, NATO fiddles while Gaddafi kills - the NATO defense ministers enjoy a nice Brussels vacation with first class hotels and gourmet dinners, while waffling and playing indecision over "no fly zones." Shades of Kurd betrayal!
Was this uprising incited by NATO? Has NATO promised support to anybody and then withdrawn it? Why are you even looking at NATO? Why not the Arab League or African Union as well? The US could surge large numbers of modern naval and air assets from the east coast to the Med area in a week's time... and so could India or Russia. Nobody's complaining about them fiddling while Qaddafi kills.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Warren Dew » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:03 am

Ian wrote:Warren's overly-simple quote that "the US is supporting a Saudi invasion" isn't accurate at all. Mostly, the US is befuddled by all that's happening and scared of how things might explode if Washington were to take too strong a stance one way or the other. If Saudi Arabia were to go the way of Libya, the implications for Planet Earth, nevermind the US, would be enormous.
If that were true, the Saudis would not have waited for the U.S. Secretary of Defense to visit Bahrain so they could consult him before their military intervention.

It's cute that you use "overly-simple" as a synonym for "straightforward and correct", though. You're definitely inside the beltway.
And who is to say that the other side of the maelstrom would see a more democratic Arabian peninsula, or a more stable world energy market? The only possible answer is: nobody.
That's just as true of Egypt and Libya as it is of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. So what's the excuse for siding with the protestors in the former cases, but with the ruling monarchy in the latter cases? Obama prefers hereditary autocrats to nonhereditary ones? Or just befuddlement?

User avatar
Santa_Claus
Your Imaginary Friend
Posts: 1985
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:06 pm
About me: Ho! Ho! Ho!
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Santa_Claus » Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:30 pm

US doesn't have the cash to intervene. even if it wanted to.

EU doesn't have the will - nor any real strategic interests to defend. whoever wins will still pump the oil. They just might not get a Xmas card.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I am Leader of all The Atheists in the world - FACT.

Come look inside Santa's Hole :ninja:

You want to hear the truth about Santa Claus???.....you couldn't handle the truth about Santa Claus!!!

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Ian » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:31 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:Warren's overly-simple quote that "the US is supporting a Saudi invasion" isn't accurate at all. Mostly, the US is befuddled by all that's happening and scared of how things might explode if Washington were to take too strong a stance one way or the other. If Saudi Arabia were to go the way of Libya, the implications for Planet Earth, nevermind the US, would be enormous.
If that were true, the Saudis would not have waited for the U.S. Secretary of Defense to visit Bahrain so they could consult him before their military intervention.

It's cute that you use "overly-simple" as a synonym for "straightforward and correct", though. You're definitely inside the beltway.
And who is to say that the other side of the maelstrom would see a more democratic Arabian peninsula, or a more stable world energy market? The only possible answer is: nobody.
That's just as true of Egypt and Libya as it is of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. So what's the excuse for siding with the protestors in the former cases, but with the ruling monarchy in the latter cases? Obama prefers hereditary autocrats to nonhereditary ones? Or just befuddlement?
:what:
Are you not actually reading the news or something? The US isn't putting any support behind what's happening in Bahrain.
Bahrain crushes protests, draws U.S. criticism
By Lin Noueihed

MANAMA | Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:07pm EDT

MANAMA (Reuters) - Bahraini forces used tanks and helicopters to drive protesters from the streets on Wednesday clearing a camp that had become a symbol of the Shi'ite Muslim uprising and drawing rare criticism from their U.S. allies.

Three police and three protesters were killed in the violence that has transformed a crisis between the island's majority Shi'ites and minority Sunnis into a regional standoff between Sunni Gulf Arab states and non-Arab Shi'ite power Iran.

President Barack Obama called the kings of Saudi Arabia, a strategic ally of Washington in the Middle East, and of Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, to urge restraint. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Bahrain and Gulf allies who sent in troops to back the Sunni royals were on the wrong track.

"We find what's happening in Bahrain alarming. We think that there is no security answer to the aspirations and demands of the demonstrators," she told CBS. "They are on the wrong track."

The assault began less than 24 hours after Bahrain declared martial law to quell sectarian unrest that has sucked in troops from fellow Sunni-ruled neighbors Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates .

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jeff Feltman has been in Bahrain since Monday to push for talks to resolve the crisis.
Bahrain violence presents U.S. with fresh dilemma
(Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday Bahrain was "on the wrong track," but the United States may have little leverage as the Gulf kingdom presses a deadly security crackdown.

The United States has responded cautiously to the turmoil in Bahrain, saying this week it understood why the country's Sunni Muslim rulers called in reinforcements from Saudi Arabia as they face spreading anti-government protests by the country's Shi'ite Muslim majority.

But Clinton's tougher comments, made in TV interviews in Cairo while on a trip to the region, reflected what analysts said was growing U.S. concern that the situation could boil over into a full-blown confrontation between Sunni Gulf Arab states and Shi'ite-ruled Iran.

"We find what's happening in Bahrain alarming. We think that there is no security answer to the aspirations and demands of the demonstrators," Clinton told CBS, urging Bahrain to negotiate a political agreement with demonstrators.

"They're on the wrong track and we think that the wrong track is going to really affect adversely the ability of the Bahraini government to bring about the political reform that everyone says is needed," she told NBC.

Clinton spoke after Bahraini security forces drove protesters from the streets in an assault in which as many as six people were killed.

U.S. President Barack Obama called the kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on Wednesday to urge them to exercise "maximum restraint" and pursue a political solution to the crisis, the White House said.

Bahrain's hardline stance, backed by Saudi Arabia, comes despite repeated U.S. pleas for dialogue in the country, which hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and has long been seen as an important bulwark against Iranian influence in the region.
And how do you know what's true of Libya? For that matter, how do we even know what's going to be true of Egypt a year from now? We're hopeful, that's all. Obama's looking at Arab unrest on a country-by-country basis because he can't afford a grand, absolutist stance for the entire region, one way or the other.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Warren Dew » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:12 am

Ian wrote:Are you not actually reading the news or something?
It appears that you're the one that's not reading. From sandinista's link:
In the end, the Arab lobby ensured that, when it came to Bahrain, the White House wouldn’t support “regime change,” as in Egypt or Tunisia, but a strategy of theoretical future reform some diplomats are now calling “regime alteration.”
In other words, Obama advocated removing Mubarek, but is just wringing his hands for how in Bahrain, something that would be easily gathered by unbiased anlysis of other news sources as well.
Ian wrote:Obama's looking at Arab unrest on a country-by-country basis because he can't afford a grand, absolutist stance for the entire region, one way or the other.
Translation: the U.S. has a big military base in Bahrain and a lot of oil investments in Saudi Arabia.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Ian » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:23 am

Sandinista's link is itself biased. It's not straightforward news, it's an opinion piece based on select information. What you posted is a conclusion the article draws for itself based on what they see. Maybe that's the way it really is, maybe not. What I posted was public statements from the Obama administration. Maybe, behind closed doors in Manama, the US is telling the King "Yeah, go ahead and go for it, crush those protesters any way you have to. We'll have to make statements against it in public, though." That could be the case, I don't know. Neither do you.
Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:Obama's looking at Arab unrest on a country-by-country basis because he can't afford a grand, absolutist stance for the entire region, one way or the other.
Translation: the U.S. has a big military base in Bahrain and a lot of oil investments in Saudi Arabia.
Seems like some understandable reasons to neither support nor outright condemn what Bahrain is doing. Country A having a friendly relationship with Country B does not mean that Country A implicitly endorses everything that Country B does. And no leader can possibly approach all countries exactly the same. The situations there are not the same, and the interests we have in each is not the same. Pragmatism is ruling the day in Obama's White House.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Warren Dew » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:02 am

Ian wrote:That could be the case, I don't know. Neither do you.
Nice try. Fact is, just because you aren't able to draw the correct conclusions from the data doesn't mean I can't.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Ian » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:14 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:That could be the case, I don't know. Neither do you.
Nice try. Fact is, just because you aren't able to draw the correct conclusions from the data doesn't mean I can't.
Ah good, make it nice and unfalsifiable. Do you have any spy cameras in the room with the King of Bahrain? "The news says one thing, but the deeper truth is obvious to me. There's not enough fact to prove me right, but you can't prove me wrong."
That's a Russell's Teapot. :roll:

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Warren Dew » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:21 am

Ian wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:That could be the case, I don't know. Neither do you.
Nice try. Fact is, just because you aren't able to draw the correct conclusions from the data doesn't mean I can't.
Ah good, make it nice and unfalsifiable. Do you have any spy cameras in the room with the King of Bahrain? "The news says one thing, but the deeper truth is obvious to me. There's not enough fact to prove me right, but you can't prove me wrong."
That's a Russell's Teapot. :roll:
Nah. The news says exactly what sandinista's post says. It just takes a bit of rational thinking to figure it out.

You seem to be going with trusting politicians to mean what they say, which is a serious fantasy.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by Ian » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:32 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:That could be the case, I don't know. Neither do you.
Nice try. Fact is, just because you aren't able to draw the correct conclusions from the data doesn't mean I can't.
Ah good, make it nice and unfalsifiable. Do you have any spy cameras in the room with the King of Bahrain? "The news says one thing, but the deeper truth is obvious to me. There's not enough fact to prove me right, but you can't prove me wrong."
That's a Russell's Teapot. :roll:
Nah. The news says exactly what sandinista's post says. It just takes a bit of rational thinking to figure it out.

You seem to be going with trusting politicians to mean what they say, which is a serious fantasy.
Sandinista's post wasn't a news article. Maybe it's a simple as what it contends, maybe not. But it's just one way of looking at things; nobody can say whether it's "correct" or not. If you think it's the most rational way of seeing things, then fine. But the idea that there is only one "correct" interpretation of events is foolish when none of us have all the information necessary to make an assumption into a conclusion.

One thing I know for sure: our idea of rational action is not necessarily what's going on in the heads of Bahrain's government. The notion that governments always act in their rational best interests is a holdover from economic theories. There are plenty of examples where other forces weigh on political decisionmaking, and poor decisions are often made.

I am NOT implicitly trusting what politicians have to say about it. I'm just explaining what's actually being said about this, since you wrote "the US is supporting a Saudi invasion of Bahrain." You don't know that for sure. You're assuming it to be true, and you have your reasons why it might be. But we're talking about is 1) what's being said publicly, and 2) what's being said in private. What's being said publicly is the news. What's been said privately between Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the US is completely unknown to me and it's completely unknown to you. You have an opinion about what #2 must be, but you can't prove it to be true any more than I can prove it to be false.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Libya: should anything be done?

Post by sandinista » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:08 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:That could be the case, I don't know. Neither do you.
Nice try. Fact is, just because you aren't able to draw the correct conclusions from the data doesn't mean I can't.
Ah good, make it nice and unfalsifiable. Do you have any spy cameras in the room with the King of Bahrain? "The news says one thing, but the deeper truth is obvious to me. There's not enough fact to prove me right, but you can't prove me wrong."
That's a Russell's Teapot. :roll:
Nah. The news says exactly what sandinista's post says. It just takes a bit of rational thinking to figure it out.

You seem to be going with trusting politicians to mean what they say, which is a serious fantasy.
Fantasy may be an understatement.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests