New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Libya

Zam-Zam

Senator
If our bombing of Libya was supposed to make things better, I humbly submit it isn't working out that way:


As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.




Complete text: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...as-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html


Ah, but we can't be bothered with worrying about that now. It's time to bomb Syria.
 
i dont think bombing libya was ever intended to "make things better" it was supposed to drive ghaddfi from power, and allow citiezns a greater degree of self determination.
 
Well then, mission accomplished. Hit and run.

im not saying i agree with this objective. its part of a distressing pattern of "fight to a draw" and "cruise missile diplomacy". neither of these has provided any long term benefits.

and its exactly what both obama and congressional hawks want in syria now
 
im not saying i agree with this objective. its part of a distressing pattern of "fight to a draw" and "cruise missile diplomacy". neither of these has provided any long term benefits.

and its exactly what both obama and congressional hawks want in syria now


Fighting a war by means of half-measures always leaves another war to fight down the road.
 
If our bombing of Libya was supposed to make things better, I humbly submit it isn't working out that way:


As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.




Complete text: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...as-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html


Ah, but we can't be bothered with worrying about that now. It's time to bomb Syria.
There are a few indisputable cases where the use of force resulted in a dramatic improvement for the people of a country. But, they're few and far between. Two of the more obvious cases are Germany and Japan, which ended up far better off a generation after we defeated them in WWII. But I think part of what happened there is that the fact Germany and Japan had been the aggressors, and then had been ignominiously defeated, helping to discredit the whole ideology of militarism and ultraconservatism in those countries. Similarly, the position of the US as a reluctant entrant into that war -- mostly on the sidelines until we were forcibly dragged in my a sneak attack by a member of their axis -- made it hard for any demagogues to even think about trying to blame their post-war woes on us. By comparison, when the US intervenes abroad with over-eagerness, it's awfully easy for people to blame us for the inevitable post-war ugliness, and awfully easy for people to get nostalgic for the old regime, or at least for the kinds of militarism and totalitarianism that the old regime used to enforce order. That's yet another reason to regard the use of force as a last resort -- when you do so, it's more likely that by the time you use the force, the scene will be set for it to have a clear positive long-term impact. Certainly use of force wasn't a last resort in Libya or Iraq, and wouldn't be in Syria.
 
There are a few indisputable cases where the use of force resulted in a dramatic improvement for the people of a country. But, they're few and far between. Two of the more obvious cases are Germany and Japan, which ended up far better off a generation after we defeated them in WWII. But I think part of what happened there is that the fact Germany and Japan had been the aggressors, and then had been ignominiously defeated, helping to discredit the whole ideology of militarism and ultraconservatism in those countries. Similarly, the position of the US as a reluctant entrant into that war -- mostly on the sidelines until we were forcibly dragged in my a sneak attack by a member of their axis -- made it hard for any demagogues to even think about trying to blame their post-war woes on us. By comparison, when the US intervenes abroad with over-eagerness, it's awfully easy for people to blame us for the inevitable post-war ugliness, and awfully easy for people to get nostalgic for the old regime, or at least for the kinds of militarism and totalitarianism that the old regime used to enforce order. That's yet another reason to regard the use of force as a last resort -- when you do so, it's more likely that by the time you use the force, the scene will be set for it to have a clear positive long-term impact. Certainly use of force wasn't a last resort in Libya or Iraq, and wouldn't be in Syria.



I'll buy that.

I don't think the President or his new-found friends in Congress will buy it though.

Bombs away.
 
Back
Top