Civil War in Libya

[LeftEyeNine]

*Sleepless me double-posting*

[TinCow]

Sure. If that's to happen, let it be.

Why don't you believe in people's own transformation/evolving/demand ?

Without the aid of France, the United States would never have won their independence. Nations are not always capable of evolving on their own, outside support can be necessary in some situations.

[a completely inoffensive name]

[Ronin]

France on the push to war...the united states has to be more or less "dragged in" and Germany refuses to participate.
did anyone check to see if hell is frozen?

[ICantSpellDawg]

France on the push to war...the united states has to be more or less "dragged in" and Germany refuses to participate.
did anyone check to see if hell is frozen?

France has never been a baby when it comes to foreign intervention, they just need to be in the lead. They hated the war in Iraq because they did not have much of an economic interest in Iraq and the U.S. was taking the lead. From the Suez, Algeria to the ivory coast, France has been a hawkish country, subordinate of none. Their stance on Iraq was troubling because we required our allies to back us up for legitimacy, but we pushed the envelope and went beyond what many of our allies could support and payed the price politically. That was my regret in hindsight for Iraq, that we put some alliances in tatters.

I hope that we will see some other air forces assist in this, not because they are needed, but because I like the idea of everyone ponying up for Global security and the preservation of Freedoms. India and Brazil should be here with us on this.

[Louis VI the Fat]

France on the push to war...the united states has to be more or less "dragged in" and Germany refuses to participate.
did anyone check to see if hell is frozen?

Not so surpising, no?


Two reasons why it shouldn't come as a surprise:

Incidental events.
France botched up in Tunisia and Egypt. Especially Ben Ali was supported by France until the last minute. After a series of disastrous dealing by foreign minister Alliot-Marie, she had to resign. The new foreign minister, Juppé, has promised to side together with democratic Arabs, to support the Arab spring.

Also, Sarkozy is eyeing foreign policy to compensate for his horrendously low approval rate, based on domestic policy. Next year will see a presidential election. What better way to prop up his rating than with the image of French planes firing at a tyrant, while the world leaders are gathered in Paris. It is no coincidence that the French airforce got the first shots in, while European, American and Arab leaders were gathered in Paris. It is all pr.

When I die and go to heaven, there world leaders gather in Paris, as mere theatrical props, brought in to look on in awe at the sight of French Republican troops marching off to the ends of the universe to fight tyranny. That is just perfect pr. It makes the French patriotic heart swell with pride, as much as the English heart swells with joy at the lucrative foreign trade deal, and the Italian one over a politician caught with a prostitute of legal age.

If there is a surpise, it is that Gaddafi suited French interests just fine. Stability, plenty of lucrative arms contracts (We'll be shooting down French planes...), constructive cooperation in several instances. Not a problem at all.
I guess there were stronger incentives to fight. From a poll earlier this month that showed 81% of French thought France's role in the world was diminishing (what are those 19% smoking?), to the need to damage control France's standing in the Arab world after failing to initially support the Arab spring, to Sarko cashing in on his investment in excellent relations with David Cameron and with Washington.

Secondly, more structural impulses.
France is usually pushy about humanitarian intervention. You know the drill. It is always the same: The papers will write that 'We are all Georgians / Darfurians / Contaminated Japanese Citizens*'. Serial philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy** will travel to the disaster zone and write how France should go it alone if need be. Public opinion will grow restless. Opinion page articles appear that 'The Republic, she fights tyranny, or she is not'.

From the 1930s to Yugoslavia to Libya it is France that seeks war, and the United States which have to be dragged in. Also during in Iraq 1 and the bombing campaigns of the next decade France was an active and eager participant. France was only dismissed in 2003, for failing to subscribe to the lunacy of Cheney, for showing at the Security Council that America was lying trough its teeth about WMD. Then all hell broke lose and a character assissination on France was orchestrated from Washington and London.


Apart from anything else, I blame 'Iraq' for having rewritten history, for having created an alternate reality. Sadly, Iraq happened just when the internet grew into the opinion machine it is today. The internet still reverberates with the echos of 2003, moreso than the traditional media and works of reference. The world speaks English, not French, so their imagery took hold. All sorts of assumptions took hold of the public consciousness which are nearly impossible to replace. With the result that the, possibly, most irresponsibly hawkish nation of the West in the global public imagination became a nation of war-averse surrender monkeys.

Au contraire. Me, I'd wish France was less agressive, not more. Not a day goes by without some French troops rotting away in some forsaken African or Indian Ocean backwater. Entire operations are fought completely invisible to the English press, to which only Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel exist. Unaware that French troops landed in Niger a few months ago. And in Chad before that. A French bombing campaign in the Central African Republic the year before that. And thousands of troops in the Ivory Coast since forever. Etcetera.

Not that much of it is about humanitarian intervention. That is but one impulse of French foreign policy. The usual reason to interfere is to prop up a dictator, not to depose one. French foreign policy is so 'succesful' that fully half of the world's peacekeeping troops are stationed in a French speaking territory. Just to clean up the mess after yet another botched French operation.




Germany is nearly the reverse. For reasons that should be obvious, German policy is completely averse to foreign intervention, except for humanitarian missions. Anything that can be considered an act of agressive foreign intervention is a big no-no to Berlin.
With Germany, you save the European currency. To fight wars, you cross the channel and speak to London. French diplomacy couldn't be simpler.


* Libération, 18 Mars.
**BHL travelled to Bosnia in the 90s, to Afghanistan in the 00s, and met with the Libyan rebels last week.

[Viking]

I'm all for West/UN/WhatevarCoalitionMadeUpAsAMeansOfTheBenefitsOfG8 getting out, leaving them be.

That means leaving Gaddafi be. The free Libyan people requested us, the outside world, to intervene. Did you not see the celebrations when the UN resolution was announced? We do not heed the wishes of a mad dictator who is willing to sacrifice his own people for his own sake - but rather we act at the request of the Libyan people.

The question is whether or not you think you yourself know better than the Libyan people what is right to do?






I don't think they would appreciate your knee-jerk responses in neither Benghazi nor Misurata, that is for sure.

[LeftEyeNine]

Without the aid of France, the United States would never have won their independence. Nations are not always capable of evolving on their own, outside support can be necessary in some situations.

If Middle East had no oil or other resources the giant ones wouldn't drool over, I could indeed be convinced of the good intentions you are advocating on behalf of them.

Sorry like your history apparently taught one, my history taught me that if France and UK walk into a bar, it's never safe there. UN/NATo or whatever, they are all failed organizations not to lack that warm feeling of helping humanity while they are commonly put into action justified so but rather defending or taking proactive measures for the giant one's needs & wants.

I wonder how history would write it had Srebrenitsa been a little Middle East well of black gold in the middle of Europe.

So, thanks but no thanks. West does not step in where actual benefits do not exist.

[rory_20_uk]

And nor should we be.

Enlightened self interest is the name of the game - helping others helps ourselves. If not, well, tough.

[LeftEyeNine]

I see, so they are apparently unaware of what kind of a hell USA turned Iraq into after their much-celebrated intervening.

Let me put it this way. Take the least geopolitically and economically important country as an example and let it boil up like that, if UN/NATO/YourFavoriteHumanitarianArmedForcesWithAbsolutelyNoIntentionOfExploit makes a full-fledged and decisive aid, then I was a death-to-usa-suicide-monger all along.

[LeftEyeNine]

And nor should we be.

Enlightened self interest is the name of the game - helping others helps ourselves. If not, well, tough.

"Actual benefits" was not meant like how you've taken it.

Other than that, I also agree that ♪♫ we are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving ♫

Didn't it always happen that way anyway ? ^^

[Sarmatian]

That means leaving Gaddafi be. The free Libyan people requested us, the outside world, to intervene. Did you not see the celebrations when the UN resolution was announced? We do not heed the wishes of a mad dictator who is willing to sacrifice his own people for his own sake - but rather we act at the request of the Libyan people.

The question is whether or not you think you yourself know better than the Libyan people what is right to do?


I don't think they would appreciate your knee-jerk responses in neither Benghazi nor Misurata, that is for sure.

Since when is the minority that took up arms considered Free Libyan People? 600,000 people of Benghazi speak for the rest 6,000,000 people of Libya?

Who are those rebels, what are their aims, who are their leaders, where did they get their weapons, how are they organized, why were they showing old flags of Libya when it was protectorate of the west etc, etc...? We don't know anything about them except the fact that they are against Gadaffi.

It smells of another self-serving operation of the west in the most oil-rich African country, using a tried recipe that consist of deposing current regime and planting a puppet and having western companies in charge of oil and gas resources. China was already buying 11% of Libya oil and the percentage was growing, we can't have that, can we...

[Viking]

I see, so they are apparently unaware of what kind of a hell USA turned Iraq into after their much-celebrated intervening.

Let me put it this way. Take the least geopolitically and economically important country as an example and let it boil up like that, if UN/NATO/YourFavoriteHumanitarianArmedForcesWithAbsolutelyNoIntentionOfExploit makes a full-fledged and decisive aid, then I was a death-to-usa-suicide-monger all along.

Much-celebrated? What sort alternative reality do you live in? This is not Iraq, it is not Afghanistan - it is Libya. You elegantly dodged my questions like they were radioactive - probably because you do not have answers to them. You want to deny the Libyan people the help that they have asked for, and it is not you but them who would have to pay the price for it - in blood.

Since when is the minority that took up arms considered Free Libyan People? 600,000 people of Benghazi speak for the rest 6,000,000 people of Libya?

Who are those rebels, what are their aims, who are their leaders, where did they get their weapons, how are they organized, why were they showing old flags of Libya when it was protectorate of the west etc, etc...? We don't know anything about them except the fact that they are against Gadaffi.

It smells of another self-serving operation of the west in the most oil-rich African country, using a tried recipe that consist of deposing current regime and planting a puppet and having western companies in charge of oil and gas resources. China was already buying 11% of Libya oil and the percentage was growing, we can't have that, can we...

You could have answered those questions pretty easily yourself if you had been following this case a bit more closely - interviews with both rebel fighters and protesters in the streets can tell you very much indeed.

According to Wikipedia, the rebel controlled Cyrenaica region has 1.6 million inhabitants. Misrata adds another 500,000. It also looks like the majority of Tripoli's 1.2 million inhabitants are more or less sympathetic with the revolt - do not forget that Tripoli was "set on fire" in its early days - and that the rallies in support for Gaddafi are extraordinarily small for such a large city. Dicators tend to be unpopular anyway, it is not something that should surprise you..

As for the oil, we could suck up to Gaddafi if we wanted oil - with a dicatorship in place, we only need to worry about one man, not an entire population. Naturally, the reason why Norway participates is because we need more oil. We have plenty of oil for our vehicles, but we need swimming pools for each and everyone one of us filled up with oil.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Au contraire. Me, I'd wish France was less agressive, not more. Not a day goes by without some French troops rotting away in some forsaken African or Indian Ocean backwater. Entire operations are fought completely invisible to the English press, to which only Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel exist. Unaware that French troops landed in Niger a few months ago. And in Chad before that. A French bombing campaign in the Central African Republic the year before that. And thousands of troops in the Ivory Coast since forever. Etcetera.

Not that much of it is about humanitarian intervention. That is but one impulse of French foreign policy. The usual reason to interfere is to prop up a dictator, not to depose one. French foreign policy is so 'succesful' that fully half of the world's peacekeeping troops are stationed in a French speaking territory. Just to clean up the mess after yet another botched French operation.

.

Remember Vietnam?
I don't know why everyone is so hard-core against these types of wars. How many would die in Libya if this thing just dragged on? How many other despots would use the same tactics against their people if they weren't shown the consequences? Why isn't it our business to help them attain a representative government - especially after we've been asked? How many of you still believe in the inviolability of nation-states and why do you still believe that?

The Nation State is a remnant of the past and no dictator will be able to hide behind his people as they have. I am happy to see less economically motivated wars and more wars motivated on leveling the playing field in favor of those who have responsible, representative government in mind. Yemen can burn in hell because those protesters want a base to act against their own people and train terrorists. Nobody has a humanitarian interest in Yemen at this point because there are no good guys in that fight. Libya is different, further onslaughts by Gaddafi and months of war will drag international islamists who are seasoned fighters into the mix. It was only a matter of time before the opposition became more radicalized - people make deals with the devil when they are in a tough spot and that's the last thing anybody needs.

Here we have those forum members who are usually skeptical of foreign intervention begin skeptical of foreign intervention. It is my hope that you guys see evolving actions in the interests of the people being policed. I have my opinion and it is based on humanitarian concern.

We also have the usual suspects who support dictators and primitive states wherever they may be. Thank you for giving us the high sign to disagree with you. Many on this board wouldn't know what to think if it weren't for Sarmatian and his ilk showing us exactly the worst position to hold on this issue.

[TinCow]

If Middle East had no oil or other resources the giant ones wouldn't drool over, I could indeed be convinced of the good intentions you are advocating on behalf of them.

Sorry like your history apparently taught one, my history taught me that if France and UK walk into a bar, it's never safe there. UN/NATo or whatever, they are all failed organizations not to lack that warm feeling of helping humanity while they are commonly put into action justified so but rather defending or taking proactive measures for the giant one's needs & wants.

I wonder how history would write it had Srebrenitsa been a little Middle East well of black gold in the middle of Europe.

So, thanks but no thanks. West does not step in where actual benefits do not exist.

It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.

Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.

Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.

Or, if the man was helping the homeless for the selfish reason of wanting the homeless to get jobs and later contribute to the economy and his income by renting out some of his apartments themselves.


Edit: Ed Milliband supports the action wholeheartedly
...and so does Nick Clegg

This was a great opportunity for them to act in their own political interests and stand athwart action, but it sounds like they might have the ability to be serious and not just oppose the decision in order to be difficult, with no real or substantial agenda behind them.

[LeftEyeNine]

@Viking

I thought I had answered them ? I checked again and apparently missed something, what is it ?

Yeah I deny what Libyan people asked for because I mimic USA/France/UK/. I want to gendarme the whole world and intervene as I see fit.

It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers would have asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^

[LeftEyeNine]

And, eventually, anyway, we'll see how things shape up when it all ends.

I'm itching to turn out to be wrong and misled about our guardian angels' intentions.

Please remind me how ill-mannered I was by then, so that I could take steps to get rid of my prejudices.

[ICantSpellDawg]

@Viking


It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^

In Iraq, the lie about oil holds can be made to the average gullible person, but how is Afghanistan a benefit to us? As a police action monger, I was really pissed when we were forced to go into Afghanistan. Terrible terrain for our forces and technology, bad track record with invasion, ignorant as hell population, next to Pakistan with all of its failures to control its own population, and a massive expense. Sure, we have managed to create some unexpected benefits, such as advancing our technology and troop capabilities further and gained a land border with Western China that our military occupies, but that was destined to be a thankless action. I am equally reluctant to do anything against Iran due to their terrain.

There is assisting an oppressed people in a flat, desert terrain - I'm all for it.
Then there is assisting an oppressed people in mountainous terrain, which I would be hard pressed to support for anything other than core national interests.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And, eventually, anyway, we'll see how things shape up when it all ends.

I'm itching to turn out to be wrong and misled about our guardian angels' intentions.

Please remind me how ill-mannered I was by then, so that I could take steps to get rid of my prejudices.

Lobby Turkey to come into the next one with us. You can keep your eyes on developments and make sure we stay honest.

[LeftEyeNine]

It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.

Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.

The logic is in itself vulnerable and that's why I'm not buying it.

"I'll do something but you can't know why I do".

No.

[LeftEyeNine]

Lobby Turkey to come into the next one with us. You can keep your eyes on developments and make sure we stay honest.

Sure I will.

In Iraq, the lie about oil holds can be made to the average gullible person, but how is Afghanistan a benefit to us? As a police action monger, I was really pissed when we were forced to go into Afghanistan. Terrible terrain for our forces and technology, bad track record with invasion, ignorant as hell population, next to Pakistan with all of its failures to control its own population, and a massive expense. Sure, we have managed to create some unexpected benefits, such as advancing our technology and troop capabilities further and gained a land border with Western China that our military occupies, but that was destined to be a thankless action. I am equally reluctant to do anything against Iran due to their terrain.

Still doesn't make sense why USA has armed forces stationed there.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sure I will.



Still doesn't make sense why USA has armed forces stationed there.

So you reject our mission in Afghanistan as well? Even Germany and Turkey are fighting in Afghanistan. Are you kidding? Now we can't even defend ourselves against the hostile actions of a sovereign state?

[Sarmatian]

You could have answered those questions pretty easily yourself if you had been following this case a bit more closely - interviews with both rebel fighters and protesters in the streets can tell you very much indeed.

Indeed, 1.5 million protesters were interviewed and... Wait, they weren't, only a few them were. I'm gonna interview 25 people and together we will prove there's life on Mars. Later I'm gonna prove the Earth is flat and who knows where my thirst for knowledge will take me then.

Since I obviously haven't been paying attention like you, then you must be able to tell me who the leaders of the rebellion are and point me to numerous interviews they made.

According to Wikipedia, the rebel controlled Cyrenaica region has 1.6 million inhabitants. Misrata adds another 500,000. It also looks like the majority of Tripoli's 1.2 million inhabitants are more or less sympathetic with the revolt - do not forget that Tripoli was "set on fire" in its early days - and that the rallies in support for Gaddafi are extraordinarily small for such a large city. Dicators tend to be unpopular anyway, it is not something that should surprise you..

And we are assuming that each and every person is supporter of the rebels there? Even if that's true, it's still much less than 50% of the population.

As for the oil, we could suck up to Gaddafi if we wanted oil - with a dicatorship in place, we only need to worry about one man, not an entire population. Naturally, the reason why Norway participates is because we need more oil. We have plenty of oil for our vehicles, but we need swimming pools for each and everyone one of us filled up with oil.

If Norwegian "participation" accounts for more than 1% of the total, I'll eat my shorts. And Chinese pay better these days

So you reject our mission in Afghanistan as well? Even Germany and Turkey are fighting in Afghanistan. Are you kidding? Now we can't even defend ourselves against the hostile actions of a sovereign state?

A terrorist organization based in Middle East, funded and organized mostly from Saudi Arabia fly a plane into a building in America and the US invades a central Asian country? It makes as much sense as invading Peru...

[Viking]

@Viking

I thought I had answered them ? I checked again and apparently missed something, what is it ?

Yeah I deny what Libyan people asked for because I mimic USA/France/UK/. I want to gendarme the whole world and intervene as I see fit.

It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers would have asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^

Q1: Whose side are you on? Gaddafi or the rebels? Neither?
Q2: Do you know better than the Libyans what is best for them? Yes? No?

I see no direct answers to these questions. By wanting to deny the rebels and the civilians the help they are asking for, you are indeed intervening - hypocrisy on your part. Inaction is action, it is just so much easier to defend.

There are no internal affairs of a country here - there are the affairs of a mad dictator, for whom the outside world should not shred a single tear; and the affairs of the civilian population/the rebels.

There is not action because of the calls for help in themselves, but because of the unique situation in the country. Mind you, either way, Arab countries will most likely take part in military operation and thus become a part of this terrible Western conspiracy against...Óðinn knows who. All that is good?

About benefits: Aghanistan is from an economical perspective a big hole in which the participating nations throws the lives of their soldiers money into. No profit there. In Iraq, the operations have also been really expensive. I want to see the numbers proving that the Western powers will have come out with a sensible amount profit before Iraq runs out of oil. Furthermore, last time I checked, the Chinese are also cashing in on Iraqi oil:

China's state-owned oil firm CNPC has agreed a $3bn (£1.63bn) oil services contract with the government of Iraq.

The two parties renegotiated a 1997 deal to pump oil from the Ahdab oilfield, the Iraqi oil minister said.

Under the new deal, output from the oilfield will be 110,000 barrels per day, up from the 90,000 barrels forecast in the original deal.

The deal is the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the US-led war in Iraq, reports say.

The Chinese are probably also a part of the grand conspiracy, I reckon.

[tibilicus]

@Viking

I thought I had answered them ? I checked again and apparently missed something, what is it ?

Yeah I deny what Libyan people asked for because I mimic USA/France/UK/. I want to gendarme the whole world and intervene as I see fit.

It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers would have asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^

Ok, lets put a different spin on the situation. Imagine this was happening in the country where you live. A violent and suppressive government is refusing to relinquish power and his armored columns stand outside your city gates. This dictator has promised "no mercy" to those inside and you see no apparent hope of a successful defense, what do you do? Do you throw down your arms and accept your inevitable fate? Or do you plea for any help, from anyone, to stop a mad man killing you and your loved ones?

It saddens me that when the West doesn't act, its doing too little and when it does act its doing too much. I guess because you disapprove of the Wests actions in terms of foreign policy your eagerly awaiting the day China and India take the crown and for there foreign policies to become doctrine. News flash, they wont be any kinder or nicer either, they to will subscribe to the realities of the world.

Some people see Iraq as an argument against liberal intervention, I just see it as an argument about what happens when intervention is done wrong. I don't see it that why. If we can make the world a better place, even if it is an afterthought of our interests and we have the capacity to achieve it, why shouldn't we?

[Viking]

Indeed, 1.5 million protesters were interviewed and... Wait, they weren't, only a few them were. I'm gonna interview 25 people and together we will prove there's life on Mars. Later I'm gonna prove the Earth is flat and who knows where my thirst for knowledge will take me then.

Since I obviously haven't been paying attention like you, then you must be able to tell me who the leaders of the rebellion are and point me to numerous interviews they made.

You know what the fighters think, you know what the street protesters think. By your logic, do you really know what your own government is up to? Have you seen lengthy interviews with each and every member of the parlament? Are you worried about this?

I have seen interviews with rebel leaders embracing democracy on the BBC (I believe they used that exact word), in the early days of the revolt. I cannot link to it as it is not easy to find it. You will, though, probably find interviews of a newer date where they express the same ideas.

And we are assuming that each and every person is supporter of the rebels there? Even if that's true, it's still much less than 50% of the population.

Given the unrest there as well as the small rallies in the capital (these kind of rallies are safe, remember?), do you honestly think the reality is much different? And what makes you think the situation in other cities is so much more different? What makes Tripoli, Zawiya and Misrata so special? Benghazi and Tobruk? Bayda? The list goes on - and nothing indicates that any of these cities are special cases.

If Norwegian "participation" accounts for more than 1% of the total, I'll eat my shorts. And Chinese pay better these days

This might all be true, but what you are doing is essentially cowardly sniping. It takes little to put forward ideas, what is harder is to actually back them up. I could just suggest that Serbia is a part of some grand conspiracy in Libya or elsewhere, a role which will not unfold before it is too late. Can you defend yourself against such a suggestion? Don't think so.

Anyway, are the govts of Iraq and Afghanistan actually "Western puppets"? Doesn't really look like it.

[Sarmatian]

You know what the fighters think, you know what the street protesters think. By your logic, do you really know what your own government is up to? Have you seen lengthy interviews with each and every member of the parlament? Are you worried about this?

No, but I have read and listened to lenghty interviews with most of the members of the government, president and most important opposition leaders. Quite a few of them, actually.

I have seen interviews with rebel leaders embracing democracy on the BBC (I believe they used that exact word), in the early days of the revolt. I cannot link to it as it is not easy to find it. You will, though, probably find interviews of a newer date where they express the same ideas.

I've seen Hashim Thaci embracing democracy after he dropped off another contingent of people to have their kidneys forcibly removed, but I digress. So, naming one of them shouldn't be too hard, should it? Know who your friends are, isn't that the plan? Shouldn't we be sure we aren't supporting some Saddam-wanna-a-be?

Given the unrest there as well as the small rallies in the capital (these kind of rallies are safe, remember?), do you honestly think the reality is much different? And what makes you think the situation in other cities is so much more different? What makes Tripoli, Zawiya and Misrata so special? Benghazi and Tobruk? Bayda? The list goes on - and nothing indicates that any of these cities are special cases.

I don't know but you seem to do. You're freely explaining the will of the Lybian people here based on a few words from random rebel fighters. Interestingly, there's quite a few CNN/BBC articles and news reports which source is "unnamed rebel".

This might all be true, but what you are doing is essentially cowardly sniping. It takes little to put forward ideas, what is harder is to actually back them up. I could just suggest that Serbia is a part of some grand conspiracy in Libya or elsewhere, a role which will not unfold before it is too late. Can you defend yourself against such a suggestion? Don't think so.

You might, but Serbia doesn't have a record of intervening in countries around the world, especially those strategically located or rich with mineral resources and energy. Additionally, unlike countries involved in Libyan intervention, Serbia doesn't have a history of colonial expansion, invading and regime changes in all four corners of the globe and most importantly, Serbia doesn't have the manpower, military and economic capabilities to pull it off.

Anyway, are the govts of Iraq and Afghanistan actually "Western puppets"? Doesn't really look like it.

Iraq is holding up better than expected, true, but Afghanistan can't take a leak without checking with Uncle Sam first.

[tibilicus]

Arab league now criticizes the actions of the US and others. Get a grip, what did they expect? For our planes to hover over gently and do sweet bugger all? The bombardment only hit military installations and were within the parameters of Resolution 1973. They shouldn't ask for our help and the distance themselves, this intervention exists because of them, there's no backing out now.

[PanzerJaeger]

I see, so they are apparently unaware of what kind of a hell USA turned Iraq into after their much-celebrated intervening.

Point of order. The Iraqis plunged Iraq into hell. America drug them out of it kicking and screaming.

Arab league now criticizes the actions of the US and others. Get a grip, what did they expect?

What did you expect? This is not atypical behavior from the Arab League. This will become so distorted that by the end of it the average man on the arab street will hate the West even more. It's already happening.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Amr Moussa said, announcing an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss Libya.

The overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and Tunisia's Zine al Abidine bin Ali -- as well as mass protests against leaders in Yemen and Bahrain -- have restored a dormant Arab pride which was crushed by decades of autocracy and foreign intervention.

But many people in the Arab world, while anxious to see the end of Gaddafi's rule, felt that the resort to Western military action has tarnished Libya's revolution.

"Who will accept that foreign countries attack an Arab country? This is something shameful," said Yemeni rights activist Bashir Othman.

Support for military action was also muted by deep-seated suspicions that the West is more concerned with securing access to Arab oil supplies than supporting Arab aspirations.

"They are hitting Libya because of the oil, not to protect the Libyans," said Ali al-Jassem, 53, in the village of Sitra in Bahrain, where protests by the Shi'ite Muslim majority against the Sunni ruling Al-Khalifa family have triggered military reinforcement by neighbouring Gulf Arab forces.

In other news, yay for interminable conflict! As I said, the UN resolution doesn't say what a lot of people here think it says. If Qaddafi wants to stay in power, there is little we can do to stop him, and now we're committed to the indefinite protection of a failed insurgency.

After French jets destroyed four Libyan tanks outside the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi on Saturday, according to French defense sources, Qaddafi promised to attack Mediterranean targets. His defiance of UN Resolution 1973 comes as European and American leaders back off calls for the strongman's ouster.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe Sunday said coalition military “operations will continue in the days to come, until the Libyan regime accepts the UN resolution,” but he added that the ouster of the 41-year-ruler was not the signal purpose.

Qaddafi staying in power is "certainly potentially one outcome," Admiral Mullen told NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the UN-approved airstrikes "are limited and it isn't about seeing him go."

Pentagon officials and the White House are at pains to describe the UN-sanctioned venture as a European-led operation to save the lives of Libyans.

Speaking from Brazil on Saturday night, President Obama described the attacks as a “limited military action” employing a “broad coalition” that is European led, and that the decision to go ahead “is not an outcome we sought… But we can’t stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”