Libyan No-Fly Zone res. passed by UN

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Jim, whoever wrote that has it spot on. He can play the victim card now, and if his forces are caught still attacking then he'll either blame it on his supporters carrying on the fight ("I cannot control their love for their country.") or claim that the other guys broke the ceasefire first.

I have a feeling that this NFZ will go ahead anyway, ceasefire or not, but it'll make some of the more unsure members of it engage reverse, if not now then soon. I think the German government is getting cold feet already. The French seem to be taking the lead in a lot of it though, I guess Sarkozy needs to flex the old military muscle a bit to distract the French from trouble at home. Do the whole "We are still a respected and critical part of the international community" and all that.

I do believe you have interpreted the post well Jamie me old son.

Gaddafi up to now has been a 'survivor' and the only way I can see him being brought to book is if the Arab contingent take a leading role....but will that happen?

That is the $million question.

Originally Posted by Penguin

no more blitzkrieg...

I doubt the leading elements ie. France and the UK will wait whilst those that dither, pontificate and consider.

That was not meant in a disrespectful context to our friend and ally Germany either.

It would appear once the UN have sanctioned action the time for anything other than said action is over.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I doubt the leading elements ie. France and the UK will wait whilst those that dither, pontificate and consider.

That was not meant in a disrespectful context to our friend and ally Germany either.

It would appear once the UN have sanctioned action the time for anything other than said action is over.

It's fine by me to criticize the hesistant position of Germany. Hell, the UN decision was announced early enough, they could had found a decision earlier for the case of green light.
Especially when the whole opposition forces could be slaughtered within days - ok, old Gadi announced a truce, we should believe him, lol

However I'm still thinking that arab forces should do the work on the ground and the air strikes - of course under UN mandate - while the Nato should provide logistic and other suzpport.

[Catfish]

The first time Germany could do something for the people, instead of supporting dictators and selling them weapons, or pushing industy that also supports dictatorship, and my own governmnet (NOT ME GODDAM) refrains from actively trying to help Libya's people against this ******* Gaddafi just because of investments and upcoming elections

I am sure the NATO, the arabian nations and the rest of the world will remember this decision, and RIGHTLY so.

I do not want to be set equal with my government or its opinion, i am really ashamed

[joegrundman]

• All attacks against civilians must stop.

• Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on the rebel stronghold Benghazi, and pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya.

• Gaddafi must establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.

• Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

OK, hands up who's from a country that has never forcefully suppressed a rebellion?

anyway i was wrong - this is an ultimatum, and gaddafi is going to die, or at least be arrested. Since this ultimatum, if gaddafi is to keep his head, means the permanent independence, and thus a new micro-state, of the rebel cities (benghazi plus..?)

Unless he delivers a fait accomplis over night, there will be two libyas, or there is war.

Obama has to prove his cojones to the conservatives, and man-boy Cameron has to show he's "stern" and "purposeful" and "decisive" and all the other focus-group derived adjectives that are desirable in a modern british leader

It was interesting for a moment when i thought the US might not contribute, but now the us is in...

this is a mistake, i'm afraid, but hey, what's the middle east for?

In 1981, threats were made toward Egypt because of U.S. Troops doing Bright Star there.
This Nut Cake Massed Troops on the border and threatened invasion.
They got thier arses handed to them in Covert Actions/Engagements
that left massive amounts of equipment burning along with a high number of newly departed Souls.

Those Troops (What was left of them) ran like rabbits!
Very few returned fire and what was returned was no where near the engageing forces.

Later the U.S. decided to bomb that Nut Cake.
Some Countries decided We could not Fly over thier Air Space to do this.
(I'd have flown over them anyway and shot down anyone that screwed with me!)
So the flights went around thier sorry arse!

We managed to scare that Nut Cake so bad that he ducked and covered for years.

Now is the time for the 'Don't fly over me' Arses to do the job!
We probably would have got the Nut Cake back then if not for those limp wristed Arses!

We managed to scare that Nut Cake so bad that he ducked and covered for years.

That explains why the terrorist attacks and funding continued
In case you missed it he was still at it years after you had scared him so much he stopped.

Some Countries decided We could not Fly over thier Air Space to do this.
(I'd have flown over them anyway and shot down anyone that screwed with me!)

Those foolish countries which ridiculously believe they are nations eh

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

this is a mistake, i'm afraid, but hey, what's the middle east for?

The middle east? sigh....

[heartc]

With regards to Catfish's post -

The thing is this: The decision of Germany to abstain was much more motivated on domestic political grounds than on anything else. You see, many Germans domesticly even have a problem with our effort in Afghanistan. They simply drew the wrong lecture from WWI and WWII. That is, that there should be "No more wars". Ever, anywhere. That sounds good, but it is simplistic, ignorant and unreal. The real lesson should have been that there ought to be FREEDOM, that there ought to be no dictatorship, that there ought to be free elections, that there ought to be human rights, that there ought to be CITIZENS, not SERVANTS.

On the other hand, even the Germans who believe in these positive viewpoints I described above, most of them are still very much interested in STABILITY, more than anything else. This might be directly related to our recent past, in which we were on the frontline of the Cold War, i.e. on the frontline of a possible World War III. Most people here think that it was stability and the balance of power between East and West which saved us from nuclear armageddon. And indeed, the last time Germans were "adventurous", it brought great devastation to this country, and during the Cold War, it was indeed that stability which saved us. So now that Germany has peace with the world, Germany does not want to lose even a tiny bit of it by engaging in "adventures", but instead values nothing more than that "stability" - even if it's just imagined - in the hope that this will exempt us from sending German soldiers overseas, possibly causing more instability abroad or domesticly. Stability is everything. Now, this believe has already been undercut by the Afghanistan mission. To let it be undercut by another mission would have probably been unacceptable to most of the electorate, especially when it is as aprubt as on the Libyan issue, and without long or even middle term analysis at hand. If the German ambassador to the UN would have voted "Yes" yesterday, the foreign ministry would probably be looking for a new boss today.

So, this was my attempt to explain the German UN vote, if anyone was interested / wondering.

My own opinion is that Catfish is right. To abstain from the vote was a great failure of German foreign politics.

Especially in light of what many people and pundits here have been harping on since the Iraq Invasion 2003: How you cannot really introduce democracy and freedom from the outside - even though this assumption is at least occasionally contradicted by historic proof - hint: Berlin...hint...HINT! -, but now that some societies in the Arab world are indeed standing up against their dictatorhips from within, we would now rather sit by idly and watch them and their effort get slaughtered??? Just for the sake of "stability", because we might not know every future implication of it?

Well, I think we know one DEFINITE implication of what is going to happen if we (the "world communtiy") don't act. That is Gaddafi butchering a great many more people who stand up against a decades long brutal suppression, against being taken hostage for all those years. That should be enough to come up with a "Yes" vote, especially when pretty much everybody else, including Arabs, is for it, no??? And I don't think we would be supporting radical Islamists with that effort. Instead, I believe that it is those dictatorhips, which are robbing all hope and freedom from their people and then blame all their own failures that come with this on the West and on Israel, that are the breeding grounds for youngsters to get caught up in idiotic Jihadist suicidal teachings. If those people had a fair chance at it, they wouldn't be contemplating to blow themselves up for the manic teachings of some old delusional sickos. Because contrary to what Skybird would have you believe, this kind of **** is not in the Qur'an, and it is not in the "nature" of the people, either! People DO want to LIVE. THAT is their nature, and it is UNIVERSAL.


So, what about this "Stability"? A graveyard is a very stable place, too. Hell, it is even peaceful. Is that the kind of outlook though we wish unto our fellow humans?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That explains why the terrorist attacks and funding continued
In case you missed it he was still at it years after you had scared him so much he stopped.



Those foolish countries which ridiculously believe they are nations eh

One Country We saved what? 2 Times?
(Maybe they would be better off as a German Territory?)
And they never paid thier War Dues back?
So it's a Nation. Does that excuse them?
You know, I was all ready to join the Foreign Legion after my time in the 82nd.
That no fly crap stopped me.
So I went Mercenary for a few years.
And maybe he did fund stuff a bit since we bombed him.
They all do.
Even our so called Allies in that area are still makeing us talk like Dolphins.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

The first time Germany could do something for the people, instead of supporting dictators and selling them weapons, or pushing industy that also supports dictatorship, and my own governmnet (NOT ME GODDAM) refrains from actively trying to help Libya's people against this ******* Gaddafi just because of investments and upcoming elections

I am sure the NATO, the arabian nations and the rest of the world will remember this decision, and RIGHTLY so.

I do not want to be set equal with my government or its opinion, i am really ashamed

You must not, you cannot be ashamed of other people's behavior and choices - just about your own's. Like me, you have said clearly you disagree with the German politicians. That's what separates you/us from them. Their failure is not yours/ours.

As a national actor, Germany deserves to feel negative consequences for this messed up decision, though.

On the other hand, the Frnech and Utalians just short while ago exchnaged handshakes as often as possible, and wanted to sell him ATGMs and nuclear powerplants, or even did. The Scots showed true naivety when believing opportunistic words about the detoriating health of the Lockerby bomber, and releasing him. The brits mentioned that it is time to open a new chapter with the regime in past years. The EU played ball when Gaddafi repeatedly blackmailed them and treated EU members like dogs. The Chinese and Russians negotiate weapons deliveries to Lybia. The US in the past couple of years repeatedly found appreciating words about the regime. So, Germany is not alone in failing over Lybia. It really is in prominent company.

[Bakkels]

Wow Heartc, that's quite a good argument / post you wrote there. I just disagree with one thing; you mentioned Berlin as an example of the theory that you CAN force democracy. But you can't really compare that to the countries in the Middle East and North Africa imo. Berlin and the rest of the DDR were separated from West Germany after the war, but still felt 'connected' (for lack of a better word) with their fellow Germans west of the Wall / Iron Curtain. 45 years of cold war semi-dictatorship doesn't break that bond.
Now I don't mean to pretend to know more about Germany then you of course, since it is your homeland, but what I'm trying to say is that Berlin evolved the last few centuries just like the rest of Europe (going through the Enlightenment, being part of a republic and all that) and were only seperated from the rest of Western Europe for 45 years.
The countries the Western World tries to 'force' democracy on, don't have that experience. Democracy isn't just something you can do, it also has to 'grow on people' (again, for lack of a better word). It is a state of mind and a system that takes practice; of trial and error. It takes decades if not centuries to develop a real democracy.
That being said, I do think we should intervene, help the people in Libia, make sure Khadaffi will stand down but after that get out of there.
Beside that, I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said there.
Very well spoken

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

The middle east? sigh....

north africa/middle east..whatevaaa pedant

[joegrundman]

Since it's now goodbye gadaffi, how bad was he really?

Apart from being a bit odd, (which Privateer of all people seems to think is a bad thing!), how bad is he? Massacres? Torture (not that that's a bad thing anymore)? Restriction of travel? Forced collectivization? Please tell me!

And a non-democratic leader like a whole bunch of others in the region that we have no intention of forcing the topple of - eg. kuwait, saudi arabia, all the gulf states, syria (ok we'd topple syria), jordan

And how popular was the rebellion - i man this rebellion wasn't a bunch of flower wavers was it? they had weapons, inc. heavy weapons and at least 1 plane. But not the majority of the weapons, so most of the military remained loyal. The rebels also took a few towns, but most towns remained loyal.

Well, I don't care all that much about Libya, but really, the West, and the UN has been meddling too much in the affairs of that region. If you want the region to grow up, you have to let them do it themselves, or else we are continuing in the whole infantilizing-of-the-muslim-world-micro-managing-nation-building that has stood us so well in the last 10 years

But of course it makes no difference. Cameron has to prove he's as tough as Blair. It's domestic politics by other means! I just hope it all goes according to plan and it's over in time for the summer holidays, and Libya turns smoothly into a happy, lawful and democratic country and Cameron gets to enjoy his frisson

One Country We saved what? 2 Times?

Is that the country you owe your countries existance to or was it any one of the other countries that did the same?
If you want to rake up the past thats fine, your nation has past debts too so pay up.

So it's a Nation. Does that excuse them?

A nation is a nation, they can do what they like and don't have to bow like a servant at your whim.

You know, I was all ready to join the Foreign Legion after my time in the 82nd.
That no fly crap stopped me.

Really?????

So I went Mercenary for a few years

Hey Daffy has been hiring , are you after a job ? dictators are always interested in hired guns. what's your price for a killing?
Can you explain in simple terms why hired killers who are in it just for the cash and thrill get such a bad reputation? it really is beyond my ken how anyone could think badly of hired guns.

And maybe he did fund stuff a bit since we bombed him.

Ah the real point. .
No maybe about it, he did. That is why your point was untrue in the first place. All that gung ho flag waving nonsense might be OK if it had been based on truth, but it wasn't was it.

Even our so called Allies in that area are still makeing us talk like Dolphins.

I see the problem there.
You want lap-dogs not allies.

Originally Posted by joegrundman

Since it's now goodbye gadaffi, how bad was he really?................

That is one fine post, it covers nearly every angle and is firmly fixed in rerality.