Egyptian revolution gathers pace.

[Toonpack 9973]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

 

 

What you talking about ???

 

What it means is that it isn't "easy" and politically a difficult situation/decision.

[LeazesMag 0]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

 

 

What you talking about ???

 

What it means is that it isn't "easy" and politically a difficult situation/decision.

 

KSA answered you perfectly.

 

Why not clarify your view ? Fact is, civilian casualties are unavoidable in these situations. The point is, what does the world do about Gaddaffi ? Nothing, and allow him to kill his own people like Saddam did as people appear to have advocated, or something and if so, what ? Does there have to be another "illegal" action taken, if not, then what ?

[Toonpack 9973]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

 

 

What you talking about ???

 

What it means is that it isn't "easy" and politically a difficult situation/decision.

 

KSA answered you perfectly.

 

Why not clarify your view ? Fact is, civilian casualties are unavoidable in these situations. The point is, what does the world do about Gaddaffi ? Nothing, and allow him to kill his own people like Saddam did as people appear to have advocated, or something and if so, what ? Does there have to be another "illegal" action taken, if not, then what ?

 

No he didn't. Where'd I say it shouldn't happen ?

 

Just stating it's not an easy decision to make or an easy thing to do.

[Guest alex]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

Isn't that the opposite of what he's saying?

[LeazesMag 0]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

Isn't that the opposite of what he's saying?

 

I don't know Alex, that's why I asked further down.

 

There ARE many people who appear to have an idealistic view of this isn't there ?

 

Hindsight etc etc

[LeazesMag 0]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

 

 

What you talking about ???

 

What it means is that it isn't "easy" and politically a difficult situation/decision.

 

KSA answered you perfectly.

 

Why not clarify your view ? Fact is, civilian casualties are unavoidable in these situations. The point is, what does the world do about Gaddaffi ? Nothing, and allow him to kill his own people like Saddam did as people appear to have advocated, or something and if so, what ? Does there have to be another "illegal" action taken, if not, then what ?

 

No he didn't. Where'd I say it shouldn't happen ?

 

Just stating it's not an easy decision to make or an easy thing to do.

 

So what do you think they should do ? The same as with Saddam, or something else ?

[ChezGiven 0]

Dont think the way forward is that clear to anyone, a no fly zone wont do much if the rebels are being killed by land troops.

 

France and Britain want it, the rest of the UN is a bit sceptical. Not sure why. We engaged with Iraq after Kuwait because it was an invasion, not sure how international law works for civil war. A no fly zone would surely just be a political move and in this case, a good one as i doubt its going to encourage Gaddafi to kill even more of his people.

 

I think we cant let people die but what if its only a minority who are opposed to him? How do we assess that the rebel's represent a will of all the people? Do we know the number of fatalities in Libya yet?

[Toonpack 9973]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

 

 

What you talking about ???

 

What it means is that it isn't "easy" and politically a difficult situation/decision.

 

KSA answered you perfectly.

 

Why not clarify your view ? Fact is, civilian casualties are unavoidable in these situations. The point is, what does the world do about Gaddaffi ? Nothing, and allow him to kill his own people like Saddam did as people appear to have advocated, or something and if so, what ? Does there have to be another "illegal" action taken, if not, then what ?

 

No he didn't. Where'd I say it shouldn't happen ?

 

Just stating it's not an easy decision to make or an easy thing to do.

 

So what do you think they should do ? The same as with Saddam, or something else ?

 

Let them get on with it tbh.

[Renton 22007]

I strongly get the feeling the West has no political appetite for a war in North Africa and can't really afford it any way. What happens next will ultimately depend on western self interest as it always has though, nowt to do with 'liberating' people from a tyrannical dictator.

 

I'd admit I have no answers or strong opinions one way or another apart from to say I don't want us involved in another long-running war and all the implications that has. Doubt Bob will be going om Holiday to Tunisia this year mind.

[Guest alex]

It's a hard one to call for me and the likes of Saudi Arabia are sending troops and police to put down pro-democracy protests in the gulf states only further confuses the issue.

[ChezGiven 0]

I strongly get the feeling the West has no political appetite for a war in North Africa and can't really afford it any way. What happens next will ultimately depend on western self interest as it always has though, nowt to do with 'liberating' people from a tyrannical dictator.

 

I'd admit I have no answers or strong opinions one way or another apart from to say I don't want us involved in another long-running war and all the implications that has. Doubt Bob will be going om Holiday to Tunisia this year mind.

 

Aye, when it was a civil war in Rwanda, the french upped sticks and fucked off. I guess the oil contracts change the Libyan situation. 'We are right to act' moralising is patently bollocks if you look at historical willingness to engage in civil strife.

[Renton 22007]

Saudi is the big one like. If the troubles spread there, it really is the end of the world as we know it.

[LeazesMag 0]

A no fly zone is all well and good in theory, but to establish it you have to neutralise the air defences, which means attacking ground targets, which means "collateral" damage and dead civilians.

 

someone else who thinks this sort of thing works out perfectly, like a computer game or a Bond film.

 

 

What you talking about ???

 

What it means is that it isn't "easy" and politically a difficult situation/decision.

 

KSA answered you perfectly.

 

Why not clarify your view ? Fact is, civilian casualties are unavoidable in these situations. The point is, what does the world do about Gaddaffi ? Nothing, and allow him to kill his own people like Saddam did as people appear to have advocated, or something and if so, what ? Does there have to be another "illegal" action taken, if not, then what ?

 

No he didn't. Where'd I say it shouldn't happen ?

 

Just stating it's not an easy decision to make or an easy thing to do.

 

So what do you think they should do ? The same as with Saddam, or something else ?

 

Let them get on with it tbh.

 

it ?

[Rob W 0]

Saudi is the big one like. If the troubles spread there, it really is the end of the world as we know it.

 

 

nah - peopel will have to do without their cars for a few years that's all

[Renton 22007]

Saudi is the big one like. If the troubles spread there, it really is the end of the world as we know it.

 

 

nah - peopel will have to do without their cars for a few years that's all

 

That would be pretty much the end of the world as we know it. It's be more than cars too - what about buses, planes etc. Unimaginable.

[Happy Face 29]

Saudi is the big one like. If the troubles spread there, it really is the end of the world as we know it.

 

 

nah - peopel will have to do without their cars for a few years that's all

 

That would be pretty much the end of the world as we know it. It's be more than cars too - what about buses, planes etc. Unimaginable.

 

We'll just have to get back on the horse.

 

I'm alright, i've got an upstairs flat.

[Guest alex]

Saudi is the big one like. If the troubles spread there, it really is the end of the world as we know it.

 

 

nah - peopel will have to do without their cars for a few years that's all

 

That would be pretty much the end of the world as we know it. It's be more than cars too - what about buses, planes etc. Unimaginable.

In the old days Rob could've had a smooth career transition by becoming an usherette.

[Toonpack 9973]

it ?

 

Revolution/counter revolution, uprising/surpression etc etc

 

Arab problem, let them work it out themselves, unless it looks like the fundamentalist crazies are going to win, then we'd have to protect self interest.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

A no-fly zone wouldn't be just political Chez, it would start with the bombing of various military facilities (radar etc) and then be enforced. It would be a huge huge blow for Gaddafi that he would not recover from. It's an easy call for me on a moral level.

 

*edit

 

Just read this, Hitch is well in favor:

 

The stand of the "realist" school, and its objections to further or faster involvement in the Libya crisis, can be fairly summarized as follows:

 

1) Libya contains too many unknowns for us to be sure whom we would be supporting. We thus run the risk of breaching the principle of primo non nocere, or "first do no harm."

 

2) The relative calm of Tripoli, when contrasted with the upheaval in Benghazi, points to a historic east-west divide between the former provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, which predates the formation of the modern Libyan state and might itself be destabilizing. The West might inadvertently ignite a sectarian regionalism culminating in fragmentation or partition.

 

3) The U.N. Security Council will not legalize the means with which to remove Muammar Qaddafi.

 

4) The Arab world is highly dubious about Western intervention and quick to take offense at anything smacking of a revived colonialism.

 

5) A "no-fly zone" is less simple than it sounds, since it necessarily involves a confrontation with a Russian-built air-defense system and would almost certainly necessitate the next step, which would be boots-on-the-ground military action and perhaps a period of occupation, for which the portents are not encouraging.

 

6) Political change in Libya should, in any case, be the work—as with the precedents of Tunisia and Egypt—of home-grown social forces.

 

The first two points are quite strong ones, but they become less persuasive unless one assumes the persistence in power of the Qaddafi clan. The actual evidence, however, is that Qaddafi senior has reached his Ceausescu moment: a full-dress (in the literal sense) meltdown into paranoia, megalomania, and delusion. His recent speeches and appearances have shown him stinking with madness and hysteria. His age and condition, at any rate, set a very sharp limit to the duration of his regime. If that regime implodes while he is still "in place," then all the grim consequences foreseen by the realists will be incurred in any case. Weapons will get into the wrong hands; divide-and-rule tactics (already a stock in trade) will intensify; religious and tribal passions will be deliberately inflamed. The main difference will be that we merely watched this happen.

Advertisement

 

It might bear remembering that when, in 1989, Ceausescu did try to go to war with his own population, Secretary of State James Baker made the unprecedented public statement that the United States would not object to a Russian intervention to spare further chaos and misery in Romania. Are the Russians and the Chinese so wedded to the legal niceties, or so proud of their association with Qaddafi, that they would repudiate a speech from President Barack Obama in which he asked for reciprocation? We cannot know this if such a speech is never made or even contemplated.

 

Further, to points (3) and (4): The Arab League has now itself broken with decades of torpor, declared the Qaddafi regime illegitimate, and called for the imposition of a no-fly zone. This unprecedented resolution, which is not contradicted by any measurable pro-Qaddafi opinion in the legendary "Arab street," seems to draw much of the sting from the realist concern about regional opinion. The Shiite population has not forgotten Qaddafi's role in the disappearance and presumed murder of Imam Musa Sadr; Saudi officials have been targeted by his death squads; many other states have cause to resent his criminal meddling over the years.

 

Qaddafi is also particularly disliked in Egypt, whose armed forces we have been sustaining at a high level of sophistication (and expense) for several decades. Should the Obama administration not now be pressing Egypt to give point to its Arab League vote and to take a share of responsibility for local law enforcement? It would be a great baptism of the new Egyptian republic. But, again, one hears only the sound of shuffling.

 

As to the feasibility of a no-fly zone, I pointed out several weeks ago what I couldn't avoid noticing on two brief visits to Libya: The entire country is in effect a long strip of coastline, with a vast hinterland of desert, bordering a sea, where the strongest force by far is the Sixth Fleet. This elementary point has been taken up and elaborated in a very considered—one might almost call it realist—Wall Street Journal article by James Thomas and Zachary Cooper. These two experts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments emphasize that "nlike in the Balkans and Iraq, Libya's most populated cities and airbases are situated near its coastline, with most situated less than 10 miles from the shore" (my italics). This sheer geographical fact gives us the option of using ship- and aircraft-based missiles without sending any planes into Libyan airspace, what the authors call a "stand-off no-fly zone."

 

There are a number of other low-cost tactics that could affect the odds, such as jamming Qaddafi's airwaves. But what principally strikes the eye is not the absence of resources—or, indeed, options—but the absence of preparedness. When the Libyan crisis began, and for some time afterward, the Sixth Fleet did not even have a carrier in the Mediterranean. What could be less "realistic" than that? Given our long and nasty history with Qaddafi and the many signs of an impending rebellion, this seems to argue an unusual level of insouciance.

 

If the other side in this argument is correct, or even to the extent that it is correct, then we are being warned that a maimed and traumatized Libya is in our future, no matter what. That being the case, a piecemeal and improvised policy is the least pragmatic one. Even if Qaddafi temporarily turns the tide, as seems thinkable, and covers us all with shame for doing so, we will still have it all to do again. Let us at least hope that certain excuses will not be available next time.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2288214/

Edited March 15, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[LeazesMag 0]

it ?

 

Revolution/counter revolution, uprising/surpression etc etc

 

Arab problem, let them work it out themselves, unless it looks like the fundamentalist crazies are going to win, then we'd have to protect self interest.

 

on the other hand, we can allow the general population to escape to the west instead of being murdered where they will be forever grateful and seek to integrate into our societies...

 

oh, wait

[Park Life 71]

Saudi is the big one like. If the troubles spread there, it really is the end of the world as we know it.

 

It's the big one and the most tyranical one. Ultimately on borrowed time IMO.

[Billy Castell 0]

Once the oil runs out, then pop go the Saudis. To bereplaced by either a democracy, or a bunch of wahabbist 'Mad Mullahs' who are fans of Osama Bin Laden. IT'll be at that time the yanks will move to Iraq from Saudi Arabia.

[Neville Neville Neville 0]

Hmmmm... interesting

 

So 'we' go in 'there' to stop 'them' from coming 'here.'

 

Presumably some soldiers' lives will be lost. Just help me out with the equation here, what's the acceptable ratio of soldier's lives lost to potential immigrants halted. Am curious. Is 1 person's life worth stopping 1000 immigrants coming here? 100 immigrants? 10 immigrants? 1 poppy-burning immigrant? Am not an expert in life:immigration trading, so apologies if I've got the numbers all wrong.

 

Given your issues with the poppy burning, I'm surprised that you would put British soldiers' lives on the line to stop immigrants. Pah, why bother going to the hassle of putting troops on hostile ground, why not just get our troops on the border (pick a border, any border), arm them up real nice, and let them halt the immigrants. Almost like, to you, its more important that a stupid muslim is punished for burning a poppy, than the life lost that the poppy stands for.

 

 

it ?

 

Revolution/counter revolution, uprising/surpression etc etc

 

Arab problem, let them work it out themselves, unless it looks like the fundamentalist crazies are going to win, then we'd have to protect self interest.

 

on the other hand, we can allow the general population to escape to the west instead of being murdered where they will be forever grateful and seek to integrate into our societies...

 

oh, wait

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Got fuck all to do with immigration tbh.

[spongebob toonpants 4148]

Camerons grandstanding on Egypt and democracy shown up to be the hypocritical sham it was now pro democracy protests in Bahrain and Saudi start. No surprise to anyone obviously.

I have no idea what to do in this situation, unless we bite the bullet, and the get the whole of the west to unite and bomb the fuck out of the lot of them. At least we would get cheap oil for the next 30 years