I am confused about where you stand on this issue. First you say, F*** the Arab League, just go in there and take him out, then you quote rocketsjudoka's post where he says backing by the Arab League (among others) is key and say QFT. Which one is it?
Just seperate the two. In an emotional sense, he's angry at the Arab League for condoning so much crap by brutal dictators but the reality of the world is that in order to help the Libyan people we need Arab League support. Unilateral intervention could turn into a disaster and the last thing the US needs is more resentment towards it from the Arab world.
I despise the Arab League, and also believe that the US should not be held solely responsible for helping Libya. I'm pretty sure rocketsjudoka was saying that the US is ready to provide assistance to a group of countries willing to intervence. The Arab League can not intervene millitarily in any case, they have none. Ignore the Arab League. All countries (who can) need to get together to help out Libya. I don't see why the US should be any more responsible than the UK or France or even Italy for that matter. I do differ with him though on the perception side. If the US is able to get over it's addiction of quasi-invading countries and subsequently generating massive revnues in rebuilding efforts, there is a genuine opportunity here. There is an opportunity to do a job (weaken Gaddafi) without establishing any real presence on the ground. Unfortunately, I don't know if they are capable of doing that right now due to millitary and economic restraints. Otherwise, it could have been a fantastic chance to improve their image in the region enough to garner genuine support for succesful relationships in the future based on appreciation. Having said that, things are so messy right now that I can't imagine there is a perfect solution. What I do know is that time is paramount, and time seems to be the only thing the international community is dishing out.
Not exactly. I am saying that any action needs a very broad based diplomatic backing and if possible a broad based backing of actual military resources rather than have this appear to be a US driven diplomatic effort with the US providing the bulk of the military resources. Chances are that the US will have to provide the bulk of military resources which makes it more critical that this isn't seen as a US driven diplomatically. I don't have the numbers off hand but I bet that the invasions and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the US much much more than any revenues in the rebuilding. I bet the cost are probably several times any revenues generated. There is no perfect solution and with a situation like this there rarely ever is.
In the latest news this morning. Saudi and other Arab troops are being deployed in Bahrain. Haven't seen a link yet but will post when I see one.
Here is a link for the Saudi and other Gulf State troops entering Bahrain. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42070773/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
1) I see what you're saying now. I'm confused as to why the US has to provide most of the military resources. Could you explain why? 2) I'm not claiming it's profitable. I'm claiming that it is wrong, IMO, to receive those revenues without oversight and with clear conflicts of interest. Also, we have to think about who bears the cost and who receives the revenue - I don't think those two groups overlap, as they would normally do on an income statement. 3) Agreed. Which is why time becomes more important IMO. This is taking way too long. 2 lives per hour.
Truly disgusting. What bothers me more is that these countries are labeling it as "aid" to Bahrain, when in reality they are strengthening efforts to quell protests. Things have taken a turn here. With the international media focused on Libya, there are so many videos showing outright vandalism by protesters and this is swaying public opinion towards support of Bahraini regime. I myself, as always, am incredibly skeptical of that.
And the massacres have already started in Bahrain! Very very graphic.. http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...586993356_195935867094828_607165_668264_n.jpg http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...46993160_195935867094828_607178_7371153_n.jpg What a disgrace! The so-called moderate states of the Gulf attacking unarmed people violently and ruthlessly.
Reports of genocide are emerging out of Bahrain: iReport — Bahrain - Breaking News: At least 6 protesters killed, hundreds injured in clashes across country. Eyewitnesses: Sitra Health Center in Bahrain is under siege. Mercenaries thugs and Bahraini security forces attack population in many areas of Bahrain (at least 5 Shia-populated villages) with live bullets, rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades. Saudi military intervention violates international conventions. Salmaniyah hospital attacked, machine guns targeting doctors. Pictures are of killed protester Ahmed Farhan. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-572774 http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=207702735911352&oid=203200448071&comments The video on facebook is very graphic.
I will admit to not even care or follow whats going on in Egypt. I do have a life after all. However let me get this straight, these "protestors" want freedom so they protest. Yet they hate america who has freedom? Hypocrits. Ive never understood why people are applauding facebook for causing this overthrow, egypt allowed it to happen. A few egypt troops with guns can blast away thousands of unemployed protesters and this "overthrow" would end real quick. So, egypt must not give a damn and lets these protesters run rampant. If I was president of egypt there would be no protesting. Id order my troops to shoot em all and then Id still be president. If they dont like my country or laws,move to Libia. Same goes for America, if you dont like the laws, you can "overthrow" obama only thing you can do is move to canada or mexico. And if millions tried to overthrow obama, obama would order the national guard to seize all rations of gas and food(presidency orders) and make us dependant on the government again. So if anything,there is more freedom in egypt than in america. Have a nice day.
Because for practical purposes there isn't another country with the resources that can rapidly provide military resources. As you note the Arab League countries can't and the NATO structure has hamstrung Europe from acting without US leadership. Keep in mind I am not advocating that the US provide the bulk of military resources only that where the world is at right now that is the case.
What's funny is that the Saudi forces that have entered into Bahrain are being described as "providing aid" by the governments and media of the West, which support both family dictatorships in Bahrain and Saudi, when in reality they're there to help ruthlessly put down these protests. Also, the Bahraini ruling family declared a 3-month state of emergency (without any criticism from the governments and media of the West), which gives them another form of cover to continue these atrocities. The tacit support for these measures by the West is indicative of their complicity in these human rights violations and massacres. Edit: Looks like it's more than tacit complicity with respect to the US, because Sec Def Gates was in Bahrain 36 hrs before Saudi troops deployed there. US officials also accused Bahraini protesters of instigating violence and said that the foreign troops are providing a "framework for dialogue and reform." Interesting to say the least.
It's not just Saudi forces. It's the GCC Shield, which comprises members from all GCC country, obviously mostly from Saudi. Also, they are said to be going there to put Bahrain back into a "State of Safety". Joke. It's not even the US officials fault. They have their own interests to protect, and this was done without consulting them. Also, I have heard that this is illegal under international law, though I can't verify that claim.
It looks like the Libyan rebels are going to be defeated while the rest of the world dithers. I wouldn't normally take the word of Gaddafi's son but given the progress his forces have made against the rebels he may well be right. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42105311/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/ Gadhafi son: 'Everything will be over in 48 hours' Forces loyal to the Libyan leader continued their attack as decisive battle in the uprising looms AJDABIYA, Libya — The Libyan army told people in Benghazi to lay down their arms on Wednesday as its troops advanced closer to the rebel stronghold for what could be the decisive battle in the uprising against Moammar Gadhafi. Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam, speaking to French-based TV channel Euronews, said his troops were near Benghazi and "everything will be over in 48 hours." The town of Ajdabiya, 90 miles south of Benghazi, was firmly in government hands after most of its rebel defenders retreated under fire from a withering artillery barrage on Tuesday. Those who stayed had now handed over their guns, a rebel officer said. The breakdown of rebel defenses in Ajdabiya, 480 miles southeast of Tripoli, threatened to open the gateway to the long stretch of eastern Libya that has been in the control of the opposition throughout the monthlong uprising. Its fall would allow regime forces to bombard Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and the de facto capital of the opposition, by air, sea and land. Gadhafi's forces continued shelling the city of 140,000 people overnight and throughout the morning with relentless artillery fire and little resistance from the rebels. An activist hiding out in the city said the rebels were lightly armed but still managed to ambush a group of regime troops marching into the city on foot late Tuesday, but the victory was short lived. Artillery shelling was ongoing, he said. "The rebels set a trap and managed to take over four tanks, but now I see none of them," Abdel-Bari Zwei said when reached by telephone. "Ajdabiya is witnessing unprecedented destruction. This is the end of the city." 'Under attack' Residents in Ajdabiya fled either to tents set up outside the city or 140 miles northeast to Benghazi. "The shelling hasn't stopped since last night. The residential areas are under attack," Zwei said, adding that the hospital had been overwhelmed and many of the injured had to be taken to Benghazi. The city was besieged from the west, where Gadhafi's brigades were deployed from his stronghold of Sirte, and from the north with a warship in the Mediterranean Sea. "The city is sealed off from the south, from the west and the northern Zwitina port by a warship," he said. In Benghazi, seat of the insurgents' provisional national council, the mood was a mixture of defiance and nervousness, with some citizens predicting a bloodbath and others confident the rebels would still snatch victory against the government offensive. Forces loyal to Gadhafi have retaken a string of coastal towns in the past 11 days, reversing gains made by the rebel army early in the uprising against his 41-year-rule of the North African country. Important oil industry facilities are now mostly back under government control. An artillery bombardment on the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of the Libyan capital, killed at least five people and wounded 11, a doctor at Misrata hospital told Reuters by telephone on Wednesday. "We have received five bodies so far. We know more people have been killed though. Most of the casualties are coming from the eastern and the southern parts of Misrata," said the doctor, who gave his name as Muftah. Government forces began shelling the city earlier in the day, residents said. 'People are fed up' "People are fed up. They are waiting impatiently for an international move," said Saadoun al-Misrati, a rebel spokesman in the city of Misrata, the last rebel-held city in the west, which came under heavy shelling Wednesday. "What Gadhafi is doing, he is exploiting delays by international community. People are very angry that no action is being taken against Gadhafi's weaponry." An armed forces statement read on state television described the offensive as a humanitarian operation to save the people of "beloved Benhgazi" and said troops would not take revenge on them if they surrendered. "Advise your duped sons to hand over their weapons to the armed forces or the People's Leadership and they will be covered by an amnesty requested by the Commander (Gadhafi), which will be valid for any person who hands over his weapon to the armed forces and refrains from resistance and subversion," it said. Benghazi residents said they had found leaflets scattered in the streets also telling them they would not be punished if they gave up the fight. Repeating assertions by Gadhafi, the leaflets said the rebels were linked to al-Qaida militants or high on drugs. Diplomatic measures Europe and the United States, meanwhile, were tossing back and forth the question of whether to impose a no-fly zone that the opposition has pleaded for. On Tuesday, top diplomats from some of the world's biggest powers deferred to the U.N. Security Council to take action against Libya, as France and Britain failed to win support for a no-fly zone in the face of German opposition and U.S. reluctance. France said the Group of Eight agreed that a new U.N. resolution should be adopted by week's end with measures to help Libyan rebels. Asked by Euronews about discussions among world powers to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam replied: "The military operations are finished. In 48 hours everything will be over. Our forces are close to Benghazi. Whatever decision is taken, it will be too late." A U.N. resolution introduced Tuesday includes no-fly provisions. It also calls for increased enforcement of an arms embargo and freezing more Libyan assets, according to U.N. diplomats said who spoke on condition of anonymity because the text has not been released. One diplomat said the Security Council will be looking to see whether members of the Arab League, which is pressing for the no-fly zone, are ready to seriously participate in the establishment and operation of a zone. The U.S. added sanctions Tuesday, banning business with Libya's foreign minister and 16 companies it owns or controls.
I don't know all the details yet but my understanding of international law is that the Bahraini Royal Family is still the recognized government of Bahrain and if they invited foreign troops in then it is legal. Not saying I support it but at the moment I am not sure that this move violates international law.
Again, I know very little about the subject, but what I read (an email forward) said that it is illegal because Bahrain is officially not at war, there is no official request for assistance and the appropriate government body has not approved it.
