thebigpicture Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I can't work this one out at all? they seem to have a seemingly lack of interest in the Libyan crisis compared to their recent history in such matters, almost like they are being told "keep your nose out"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I can't work this one out at all? they seem to have a seemingly lack of interest in the Libyan crisis compared to their recent history in such matters, almost like they are being told "keep your nose out"? They probably realise just how pear shaped it's all going.Dave and Nick have piled in but someone I know who has information at quite a high level tells me that Gaddafi's claims of Al Quaida involvement on the rebel side is now being taken quite seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blobloblob Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 They want to wait and see which side wins first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebigpicture Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 They probably realise just how pear shaped it's all going.Dave and Nick have piled in but someone I know who has information at quite a high level tells me that Gaddafi's claims of Al Quaida involvement on the rebel side is now being taken quite seriously. Yes, who are these rebels? Al Quaida mix etc etc, I'm amazed how much fire power they actually have today? its not like a peoples uprising with pitch forks and knives is it? Is someone actually telling them to keep out of it? is China or Russia? the US can ill afford a huge spat with either today. Send in the Brits and French instead, it did make me chuckle a little seeing the Arab League moaning on the first day when the bombs started dropping, what the hell did they think would happen?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffneck Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I can't work this one out at all? they seem to have a seemingly lack of interest in the Libyan crisis compared to their recent history in such matters, almost like they are being told "keep your nose out"? It's a UN/NATO led operation , the US is just one part of the global military industrial complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebigpicture Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 It's a UN/NATO led operation , the US is just one part of the global military industrial complex. Been a fair while since the US has ever taken any interest in anyone else's opinions, especially in a conflict so important as this one? I simply can't see yet why they are so quiet over this? very odd indeed. Maybe one of the reasons might be if Saudi kicks off? if they are heavily involved in Libya at the drop of a hat and Saudi goes the same way, there's no way in hell the US will have anything to do with it. A good kick off there would more than likely see the US bombing the rebels within 12 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffneck Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Been a fair while since the US has ever taken any interest in anyone else's opinions, especially in a conflict so important as this one? I simply can't see yet why they are so quiet over this? very odd indeed. Maybe one of the reasons might be if Saudi kicks off? if they are heavily involved in Libya at the drop of a hat and Saudi goes the same way, there's no way in hell the US will have anything to do with it. A good kick off there would more than likely see the US bombing the rebels within 12 hours. That depends if you believe what Lindsay Williams has been sating about Saudi Arabia or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebigpicture Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 That depends if you believe what Lindsay Williams has been sating about Saudi Arabia or not. I'll take a look at that then Ruffneck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Martin Hutchinson has an interesting take here: In spite of George W. Bush’s call during the 2000 campaign for a “modest” foreign policy, the violations of Westphalian principles have continued. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was not one of them; the United States had suffered deadly attack by terrorists sheltered by the ruling Taliban government of Afghanistan (though the continued U.S. military presence once a new government had been established is less justifiable). The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a much more doubtful case; if considered as a very belated completion of the Gulf War, or if the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been found, it would have been justified under Westphalian principles. In the event, the justification became the removal of Saddam Hussein, which had no such Westphalian foundation. Finally, we have the attack on Libya, which is as anti-Westphalian as was the 2008 Russian assault on Georgia. In Georgia, the Russians took advantage of a rebellion against an internationally recognized government. In Libya, the invading forces have done the same, the difference being that there is more of an international consensus about the unpleasantness of Col. Gaddafi than there was about the benign, reforming and democratically elected Saakashvili government of Georgia. The change in the world’s practices is indicated in the fact that there was a much better case for Libyan intervention in 1969, when the brutal Gaddafi overturned by force the benign and pro-Western King Idris, yet no such intervention took place or was even seriously proposed. http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/thebearslairview?art_id=10519 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Martin Hutchinson has an interesting take here: 'In Georgia, the Russians took advantage of a rebellion against an internationally recognized government' You must be joking. Rewrite history if you want, but that's not how it happened. It was Saakashvili's little bid for glory by bashing some local peasants. And this also brings us back to the thread title/question. The US really didn't want to get that involved in Georgia, beyond fermenting some aggro with their old Cold War adversaries. Ultimately, they sent Georgia some dollars ('nice try' money) and a navy boatload of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and similar humanitarian goodies. But never fired a shot on their behalf. At least Obama has learned that you can't win wars of intervention any more, whatever John McCain may say. The penny has finally dropped. And even if you do, as in Korea, you only get bad press for killing swathes of the population. That quote by the US General about napalming Vietnam until it would 'fit into a car ashtray' was rather cute too. Foreigners don't forget those kinda things. The US has realised it's not good at nation building either. More than 30% of American income comes from overseas. The Bush admin - and Iraq particularly - made Americans some of the most unpopular people and products anywhere, especially in emerging markets. It cost America zillions. The token gesture was all they could afford . . . and maybe not even that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pauly_Boy Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Q. Why Is The Us Being So Standoffish About Libya A. ...because no matter what they do, someone will be acusing them of not helping X, attacking Y, murdering Z. They just can't win so they're staying out. Wish we did the same tbh, let them all kill each other. Better the devil you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I think it's mainly pragmatic. The US is already fighting one full-scale war (Afghanistan) and heavily committed to policing another country (Iraq). Neither conflict won anybody any votes, and the last thing Obama wants is more body bags arriving from a conflict, the US involvement in which he started, especially with an election next year. Furthermore, the amount of oil in Libya is not very great and before the conflict, almost all of it was being bought by Italy and Ireland, meaning that the energy security implications for the US are almost non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 You must be joking. Rewrite history if you want, but that's not how it happened. It was Saakashvili's little bid for glory by bashing some local peasants. And this also brings us back to the thread title/question. The US really didn't want to get that involved in Georgia, beyond fermenting some aggro with their old Cold War adversaries. Ultimately, they sent Georgia some dollars ('nice try' money) and a navy boatload of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and similar humanitarian goodies. But never fired a shot on their behalf. Oh right. Who's that in your avatar? I thought so. Empire building is always the same. The Muscovites have been at it for 1000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Q. Why Is The Us Being So Standoffish About Libya A. ...because no matter what they do, someone will be acusing them of not helping X, attacking Y, murdering Z. They just can't win so they're staying out. Wish we did the same tbh, let them all kill each other. Better the devil you know. Whether your answer is the right one as regards the US and Gadaffi-land, it's the only one that makes sense for any Western nation when contemplating getting involved in a third world shit storm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.