Libya: should anything be done?

[Ian]

Sandi, did you actually READ my response? Apparently not!

I don't trust the public statements by the Obama administration one bit. I don't immediately think they're lies, either. If you can prove that they are, then by all means let's see it. Right now all anybody has is conjecture and assumptions, including me, including Warren and including you.

Unless... wait... are one of you guys actually an aide to the King of Bahrain? Have you been with him for the whole past week? Well don't leave us in the dark man, let's see some transcripts!

[Warren Dew]

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

But we're talking about is 1) what's being said publicly, and 2) what's being said in private.

Fantasy may be an understatement.

[egbert]

We in America should leave this alone.

The US of A is the force behind installing and maintaining the vast majority of the ruthless dictators on the planet.
Did you promote the same non-interference policy when the CIA helped Gadaffi put down several attempted coups?
The USA's "hands-off" policy is because they owe Gadaffi some favours for his help with their "rendition" program, torturing to death such individuals as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
After all, the club of world criminals has to engage in a lot of scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Perhaps someday when you're looking for someone human to help you, you too will experience utter betrayal, as the Kurds did, as the Iranians did, as the Rawandans did, as the Libyans now have.
America - that bastion of freedom and defender of democracy everywhere!

[Ian]

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

But what we're talking about is 1) what's being said publicly, and 2) what's being said in private.

Fantasy may be an understatement.

Glad you finally got it. I don't trust the politicians to mean what they say. Do you implicitly trust what the cynics have to say?

And it's just stupid that I'm having to defend myself here, considering I haven't even offered an opinion one way or the other as to whether or not Obama is privately supporting Bahrain's actions!

I spoke up because you said "the US is supporting a Saudi invasion of Bahrain." There might have been a private reassurance, though none of us knows about it. But publicly, officially, the opposite is true, and you left that part out. I thought it important to point out the distinction.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think we should send in the hovercrafts!

And unleash Chiang Kai-shek while we're at it!

[Ian]

All those hovercraft would be useless: they can be taken out by an ICBM.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

All those hovercraft would be useless: they can be taken out by an ICBM.

That's the problem with random four-letter acronyms, ain't it?

[Warren Dew]

The USA's "hands-off" policy is because they owe Gadaffi some favours for his help with their "rendition" program, torturing to death such individuals as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

The U.S. government is calling for Gadafi's ouster. The reason we're not getting involved militarily is because we don't really want our planes shot down - though frankly, I'm still happy Gadafi voluntarily abandoned his nuclear weapons program, unlike Israel or Iran.

Glad you finally got it.

You still don't get it, though. You talk about not trusting what the politicians say, but then fail to look at any information beyond what they say.

[Ian]

Glad you finally got it.

You still don't get it, though. You talk about not trusting what the politicians say, but then fail to look at any information beyond what they say.

Oh, there's plenty of information beyond what they say. I thought Sandi's article was interesting.

But... there's one critical piece of information missing, and nobody here has it: what was said in private between Bahrain's leaders and American diplomats a few days ago.

Because of that, you're only able to speculate. And because of that, I'm not even bothering to make a speculation as to whether or not I believe what the Obama administration privately supports what's happened there. Well, I could make a guess, but I'd have low confidence in whatever that assessment was. I'm not failing at anything, because I'm not even trying to guess about this. I have voiced no opinion to stand by. I'm just pointing out that what you said earlier (about the US "supporting" harsh Saudi intervention) was incorrect, and therefore a flaw in your reasoning. You shouldn't confuse reasonable assumptions with conclusions, especially when you're lacking such a vital piece of information. It's poor analysis.

Your logic goes something like this: "There's no proof for what I believe, but anyone with half a brain ought to be able to see that what's really going on here is the opposite of what we're hearing in the news." It's the cherished logic of conspiracy theorists everywhere.

Sometimes that logic is correct. You might be right about this, neither of us know. But you can't prove squat. That is my only opinion on this matter.

How about we move on to Libya?

[Gawd]

Ian, I can tell you exactly what Obama said:

Obama: You will still ship the oil?
Bahrain: Yeah, the supply is nice and tight.
Obama: Okay, do what you want. Need anyone tortured or killed?

The above has been standard American policy for the last 60 years.

[klr]

The UN Security Council has just passed a vote to allow air strikes against Gaddafi and Co. 10 for, 5 abstentions. Watch this space ...

[Ian]

[klr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi

The UN Security Council has backed a resolution on Libya that supports a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

Meeting in New York, the 15-member body agreed "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack".

It also supported a no-fly zone to help halt the advance of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

Reports suggest air strikes may begin within hours of the resolution passing.

The US, UK and France proposed the council resolution, backing action short of an invasion. It passed 10-0 with five abstentions.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, introducing the resolution, said: "In Libya, for a number of weeks the people's will has been shot down... by Colonel Gaddafi who is attacking his own people.

"We cannot let these warmongers do this, we cannot abandon civilians."

He added: "We should not arrive too late."

Russia and China - which often oppose the use of force against a sovereign country as they believe it sets a dangerous precedent - abstained rather than using their power of veto.

Earlier reports suggested that if the resolution was passed, air attacks on Col Gaddafi's forces by the British and French air forces could begin within hours.

t is not thought that the US would be involved in the first strikes, but the British and French are likely to get logistical backup from Arab allies.

Col Gaddafi's forces have recently retaken several towns seized by rebels during an uprising.

Earlier on Thursday, addressing the people of Benghazi, the rebels' main stronghold, Col Gaddafi said his troops were coming "tonight" and there would be "no mercy".

He told rebels to go home, adding that "whoever lays down his weapons" would be pardoned.

Rebel leaders replied by saying their forces would stand firm and not be deterred by Col Gaddafi's threats.

Late on Thursday, anti-aircraft fire and explosions were heard in Benghazi.

'Boots on the ground'

US Undersecretary of State William Burns had earlier said the administration supported international measures in Libya "short of boots on the ground".

The Libyan military has warned that any foreign operations against Libya will expose all maritime and air navigation in the Mediterranean Sea to danger, state TV reports.

"All civilian and military activities will be the target of a Libyan counter-attack. The Mediterranean Sea will be in serious danger not only in the short term but also in the long term," a screen caption said.

In other developments:

* Forces loyal to Col Gaddafi reportedly launched their first air attacks on Benghazi, targeting the airport at Benina
* Col Gaddafi's forces attacked the rebel-held town of Ajdabiya, a key objective before launching a ground assault on Benghazi, but rebels deployed tanks, artillery and a helicopter to repel the assault
* Libyan state television reported that the city of Misrata was almost entirely under government control, but rebels and residents in the city denied this
* Official Libyan news agency Jana reported that government forces would cease military operations from midnight on Sunday to give rebels the opportunity to hand over their weapons and "benefit from the decision on general amnesty"

Following the toppling of the long-time leaders of neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year, Libyan protesters started to demand that Col Gaddafi step down after 42 years of autocratic rule. They quickly seized much of eastern Libya.

Draft resolution

* Imposes "ban on all flights in Libyan airspace" except for aid planes
* Authorises member states to "take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack"
* Excludes occupation force
* Toughens arms embargo by calling on all member states to "inspect in their territory vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya"
* Widens asset freeze to include Libyan Investment Authority, Central Bank of Libya and Libyan National Oil Company among others

[Warren Dew]

Oh, there's plenty of information beyond what they say. I thought Sandi's article was interesting.

But... there's one critical piece of information missing, and nobody here has it: what was said in private between Bahrain's leaders and American diplomats a few days ago.

You still don't get it. Your "critical" piece of information is still just stuff people are saying. You're still failing to examine information beyond that, which is why you're only able to speculate when I can see the conclusion clearly.

The UN Security Council has just passed a vote to allow air strikes against Gaddafi and Co. 10 for, 5 abstentions. Watch this space ...

So, Ian, where's the resolution to put a no fly zone over Bahrain?

[Ian]

Oh, there's plenty of information beyond what they say. I thought Sandi's article was interesting.

But... there's one critical piece of information missing, and nobody here has it: what was said in private between Bahrain's leaders and American diplomats a few days ago.

You still don't get it. Your "critical" piece of information is still just stuff people are saying. You're still failing to examine information beyond that, which is why you're only able to speculate when I can see the conclusion clearly.

You're apparently not bothering to read what I write. Read it this time, because I can't spoon-feed it any simpler for you: I haven't been trying to examine any information beyond the public statements. In fact, I'm not trying to examine it at all on this thread. In other words, I'm not speculating anything. I've simply been taking issue with the fact that you said "the US is supporting a Saudi invasion of Bahrain." That is inaccurate because publicly, the US is doing no such thing. And if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll realize that your "conclusion" is nothing more than your own best guess. Your best guess does not equate to The Truth.

That's piss-poor analysis. A good analyst is plagued by doubts. You're convinced of your conclusion despite not having a vital piece of information.

Guess what? If you're going to press me for my own speculation, then I'll finally give it: it's about the same as yours!
IMO, the Obama administration did not privately request that Bahrain not crack down on protesters. US influence may be limited, but Obama probably gave a tacit go-ahead to get rid of the protesters. US interests there are for stability above all, but the Obama administration can't publicly advocate what Bahrain is doing, so it's not. But do I know for sure that the American envoy didn't privately request restraint? No, I don't know that for sure. And neither do you! Neither of us were there.

The UN Security Council has just passed a vote to allow air strikes against Gaddafi and Co. 10 for, 5 abstentions. Watch this space ...

So, Ian, where's the resolution to put a no fly zone over Bahrain?

Why are you asking me? Apparently it's because you had been thinking I was in favor of what Bahrain is doing. That ain't the case at all.