:06:

The United States, among others, are participating in a U.N. operation at the request of the Arab League.

Regarding oil, it is always much cheaper to buy it then to fight for it.

Indeed.
And so I don't like to think WE're actually doing the housecleaning before you enter there to pump it out. But that's just me.

Who cares? He's a dictator, that's enough, he has to go. Who's next? :rock:

Lol, so true. :)


Good point. Hopefully, the UN will insist and guide for elections.

You talking about Shi'its protests against Suni opresion.
All aproved by the coalition.....

Yes, I do. We are way past a point in history where regions of people should be held hostage by a non-democratic dictator. Western powers should not allow it. Let the people decide, and if they elect another Hitler, we deal with that when the time comes.


Incidentally, what actually defines dictatorship in your opinion? Is any non-democratic system a dictatorship? Yes.

Or is a dictator only a generalissimo like Gaddafi rather than absolute hereditary monarchies? Absolute hereditary monarchies? Thise still exist? Remind me again what millenium this is? :) No region of people should be subject to a leader or govt that they had no say in setting up. That's an absolute.

Are democratically elected figures that hold an anti-US stance also dictators? No, just nations who are hostile to the US's interests. At least the people made their choice and can be accountable for the consequences.

it is true what you say

although the arab league i believe only supported the no fly zone. This may or may not turn out to cause issues

Problem is, you can't enforce a no-flyzone without addressing the AA problem in some way.

maybe, and i can understand the point, but are all those US-intervention-loving peoples of the Middle East going to see it that way, or are they going to see it as the US taking an opportunity to batter another muslim country prior to occupation? I hope the former!

For they are who count right? Because whether you like it or not, Libya is now part of the war on terror and the war for muslim hearts and minds.

So those are nice dictators who are our friends. That didn't help mubarak though did it, they said he had to go for doing exactly what the shieks are doing.
So some friendly loons are OK even if they shoot pro democracy protesters, but what about Syria? they are shooting protesters, they sponsor terrorists(just like the saudis) why no intervention there? what about Iran? they shoot protesters too.

While I recognize that there's certainly a bunch of contradictions and hipocrisy behind this, along with a very, very dubious endgame, at the end of the day I can't find a reason why lashing out at one nutty dictator is a bad thing even while ignoring a dozen others. Ultimately, I think something potentially very bad was about to happen in Benghazi, and I for one am glad that the coalition managed to step in just ahead of that. If you can't go after all of them, doesn't mean that stopping one of them can't be a good thing.


Also, in the second picture in this, am I correct that this is a periscope shot of a sub's own launches?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798183

In here, if anyone is open-minded enough to know what goal brought Sarko to power in his whole election campaign, it's you, Skybird. The little man didn't bring French people what he said, what they didn't dare to ask for, but still, what they needed, well, let's just say he's not considered any more a proper leader in here, especially since the h1n1 american crap. Therefore I'll just tell you we're noticing a certain rise of a certain political movement in here, whatever anyone thinks or does.
That doesn't mean I support it myself. I'll just say I understand why this political movement is qualified in advance for the second round of the next presidential elections.

I find it to be a too simple thinking coming from you, Sky.
Following the same way of thinking I could come to the conclusion that we should nuke China and Russia, cause we can't find any use to them, ROFL.

While I'll not dare to let you know who got the same way of thinking regarding the allowing of this kind of people to possess weapons ;), I completely agree with you. And I'll say that there are a certain amount of African nations that didn't have the chance to see an improvement of the condition of their society through the last decades, as a matter of fact.
And so that dictature is the only essential and viable political regime to keep this people under control. Maghreb is not ready to live our life, most definitely. Kill Khadafi now, and what's going to happen ? Though Khadafi got the status he got in Libya since Nixon got to be president somewhere else in the world, the Libyan people may suffer from the difference between their living conditions before and after this UN (international organization created by ? *cough*) takeover.
But well. Remember. Khadafi is a dictator !!!!!!!! So who cares ??????? We're omniscient !!!!!!!!! We're all-knowing !!!!!!!!! We could even say that we're all African countries, in fact !!!!!!! So what the hell is khadafi doing on our own continent ??????? He's a real embarassment to us !!!!!!!!!!!! So let's go and kill Khadafi now.



We're God. :)

It does look like a scope, but You can clearly see the ship (destroyer? AB class?) Launching them. It could be a good spotting scope with NV and camera attached. Course, I would think spotting scopes would also have horizontal markings too....

Let me get right to the nut with the issue.

Sovereignty, Justified or not we just violated it twice within a decade against powers that were no immediate threat to us. Under a pretense of slaughtered civilians this time. The media just keeps pounding that drum in every article and every story with nothing but speculation and accusation to back it up.

Now I thought the reason we fought the Nazi's in WWII and stonewalled the Communists in the cold war was that neither would respect countries sovereignty! Acts of war without a declaration of war, starting to sound familiar.

This German essay sheds some light on an interesting implication, and that is the reason why Moscow maintains this Russian-Lybian axis. It is not oil, it is gas. While the EU tries to become more independent from Russian gas, Norway is expected to reach peak oil for it'S fields in 2013, Moscow has little interest in letting the Europeans off the hook so easily. 30% of Germany's gas is from Russia, 50%-80% of Southern nations', and Eastern nations sometimes depend up to 100% on Russian gas. Moscow has sold military hardware worth many billions to Lybia, and while the latest deals are still not delivered because Gaddafi still has not payed, Moscow implemented deals for Gazprom that give it tremendous influence in using gas fields in Northern Africa and to install pipelines form there to Europe. So even when the EU tries to evade to North africa to become more independent from Russian supplies from the East, it again will need to deal with Gazprom, which tries to become a global player, and as an economical arm of Moscow's policy-making tries to strengthen it'S influence on the EU - by forcing it into a position where Europe can be politically blackmailed, and prices be dictated.

The demand for regime change and democracy in North africa, seen that way, is not just an idealistic adventure, but is about Europe'S independence form Russia and preventing to fall under growing influence by Moscow. What is a civil war and a fight for more Islamism or freedom in those places, indeed can be seen as energy independence wars from Europe'S perpsectioves. This gives these conflicts a very material, solid self-interest Europe has in al this.

And this is what makes the German position even more silly and shortsighted.

Seen that way, the wisdom of outsourcing European energy production by installing solar panel fields in Northafrican deserts, also is a silly project. It again makes Aurope vulnerable. Either from Russian influenc ein that region, or corrupt or Islamic regimes.

I think the comparisons there are a little extreme. Those two nations invaded, conquered, and absorbed the conquered. The US (and friends) are not absorbing or colonizing these countires in the same fashion. While there are interests left in place in the countries, they have been left to rule themselves.

But your point is still valid.

The US foreign policy over the last 50 years has seemed to be more like a big brother getting his nose into his siblings business, more than a country looking out for it's own interest's.