"So if our policy since 1950 has been all about oil and israel. shouldnt we never have stood up to Kadhafi in the first place. Maybe offered to arbitrate differences or some weak attempts to stop the violence. But if all we wanted was oil and a swift end to turmoil, the US would never have gotten involved."

You keep repeating the same bullshit over and over and hoping people ignore the fact that this intervention was organized in February/early March.

"You think Gaddafi is Satan"

I don't I think the guy is a Loony Tune. I actually used to enjoy watching and reading about him before this, although the Pan Am bombing was always in my mind

"poor poor empire is so misunderstood"

Much like poor poor Gaddafi is misunderstood to you I guess.

"It can't possibly be about oil, or making France feel like a co-equal imperial power, it has to be something benign, because all US interventions are benign."

I said its not about oil, I very well think it could be about France being a co-equal imperial power (though id be interested about reading more about this first), and I said earlier that it was a way NATO could establish good will for its imperial project. And by no means do I feel all US interventions are benign.

"You keep repeating the same bullshit over and over and hoping people ignore the fact that this intervention was organized in February/early March."

Im repeating it because that fact is completely irrelevent. If it was all about oil, what did it matter when it was planned, the U.S. could have sat back and watched as one side crushed the other and sent a couple of gunships to finish them off. Or even if it was planned at a time where Ghaddafi looked weak, why were the powers committed to carrying it out when it became obvious intervention would only prolong the war?

"Im sorry, I was under the impression that in the context of the Arab spring, most of the Arab world was viewing the wanton slaughter of unarmed protesters unfavorably, I dont think the Arab world all of a sudden flipped a switch and was outraged after Feb 24. I was also under the impression that discussing intervention and intervening were completely different things."

"Unarmed protesters". Yep. those "unarmed protesters" lynched 50 Chadian "mercenaries" in al Bidya on February 18.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/libya-protests-massacres-reported

It is also amazing how "unarmed protesters" could demolish the reinforced concrete walls at the Benghazi army base, but maybe they destroyed them with Gandhi beams or Carebear Stares.

And yes, obviously the Arab populations were upset about firing on protesters, which is why they were overjoyed when the very same GCC countries who were firing on protesters in their own lands decided to call for a no-fly zone on Libya. Because it's all about human rights and caring about Arab popular opinion!

Does Santa want to tell me how the west would have been able to explain enforcing sanctions for 3 weeks and vilifying Gaddafi every single day for weeks and then turning around and helping Gaddafi against rebels on March 17th? Does that make a shred of sense?

" Or even if it was planned at a time where Ghaddafi looked weak, why were the powers committed to carrying it out when it became obvious intervention would only prolong the war?"

Except it wasn't obvious. Obvious in hindsight doesn't it make obvious. No one could have predicted the heroic resistance Libya has put against NATO warplanes and these well armed rebel thugs.

"Does Santa want to tell me how the west would have been able to explain enforcing sanctions for 3 weeks and vilifying Gaddafi every single day for weeks and then turning around and helping Gaddafi against rebels on March 17th? Does that make a shred of sense?"

Who cares, nobody cares about popular opinion! Its all about oil!

Oh God not all this again.

First off, I want to address Putin. I think most of us have seen your arguments against the rebels in other threads. Yes, they commit their own crimes and are racist little buggers. But they are the lesser of two evils here, and I think we can agree on that. I'd make a rough comparison of the relationship between them and Sub-Saharan Africans to the relationship between white rednecks in the USA and Mexican immigrants....just much more violent. Not to value one's life more than others, but thousands dead hits a little harder than hundreds dead. I am not justifying their actions, merely saying they're a notch down from Gadhaffi.

Now to address fulhamish.

I believe the reason that we didn't intervene in Syria is multilayered, and here are some of the reasons why
1) Syria has close relations with Iran, and the USA doesn't want to rumble in that jungle (or sand dune lol) Any action risking Iranian involvement is simply not worth it. If you notice, we let the Saudis take care of Bahrain for us for the exact same reasons.
2) Gadhaffi was viewed a a wild card in the Middle East, and many other leaders wanted to see him out of "the club" so there was support in an intervention there. No such support could be garnered for an ousting of Assad.
3)Parts of the US public had started getting upset over how much we were spending on Libya, and many viewed it unnecessary. And the Congressmen just heard the loudest voices.
4) Syria and the US have a much better history than Libya and the US. I know it sounds hard to believe, but Syria has helped on multiple occasions regarding terrorist incidents in the 1980s and 1990s (though they were a pain in the ass in Lebanon) and were on our side in the Gulf War. More recently, there hasn't been too much public cooperation, but Syria did take in thousands upon thousands of refugees from Iraq when the USA invaded in 2003, and didn't worsen the crisis like Turkey did after the Gulf War, when they wouldn't admit 1.5 million Kurdish refugees.

And finally, I think popular opinion in France and the UK (who have large North African populations) caused them to get involved first (its all about the votes) and then France and UK pressured the USA into it. I believe the government favored the intervention, but wouldn't have done anything until France and the UK pushed them. Then there was a tangible and immediate political benefit for us going to war

Oh and guess who exported fighters to kill Americans in Iraq? That's right, those lovable Libyan rebels.

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit

The main rebel commander freely admits his thugs are linked to Al Qaeda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

More jihadis (from the Benghazi corridor, the heartland of the rebellion) were exported from Libya per capita than any other country re: Iraq. The main organizer of these jihadists is

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/al-qaidas-foreign-fighters-in-iraq-a-first-look-at-the-sinjar-records

Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.

" I believe the government favored the intervention, but wouldn't have done anything until France and the UK pushed them. Then there was a tangible and immediate political benefit for us going to war"

There was an internal dispute within the US administration about this. Clinton wanted intervention, Gates did not (and said so many times). Samantha Power, not surprisingly, was the main cheerleader for intervention.

"nobody cares about popular opinion! Its all about oil!"

Yep.

Yeah, I do remember hearing that. The more and more I learn about Gates, the more I like him as SecDef

NATO is in Libya not Syria because they thought they thought they could do Libya cleanly, and there was also a greater chance of wholesale slaughter in Libya than in Syria. Syria is also right next to the Israel/Palestine awkwardness, it is also not a linear country, and its population is spread into centers all over. And sectarianism is also an issue.

I myself agree that there should be interventions consistently but I know realistically the world is not up to it. I am just glad they had to stones to go into Libya because it was sort of a perfect storm.

I can tell you one thing - it sure as hell isn't about oil, or how much we like Assad or Gadhafi. We dislike Syria as much as we did Libya, and the oil is basically inconsequential as had been proved I think. It's really more about "can we get it done without creating a huge fucking mess." There were more people saying "yes" with Libya than there are in Syria. Also Libya came first so there is that.

Again I'm not justifying this double standard, just explaining the rationale at work.

http://ap.onlineathens.com/pstories/world/20110714/857199277.shtml

Putin and I are on the same page again :)

Yeah it takes "stones" to bomb orphanages from high altitudes. It also takes stones to blatantly violate their bullshit no fly zone "mandate" and openly target people for assassination and openly brag about arming the rebels to the teeth. Oh so manly.

Libya's population is far more spread out than Syria's, which is why the rebellion was able to take hold in Benghazi to begin with. Libya is essentially three countries in one. And Libya is one of the most tribal societies in all of MENA. Yet one of Gaddafi's great accomplishments is that he has seemingly put an end to the tribalism in Libya, with 90% of the tribal groups backing the government over the Benghazi rats.

And how do you figure oil has been "proved inconsequential"?

The reason we're not in Syria is because we know we'll get our ass handed to us and we can't make up some nonsense about fake air strikes and claim we're imposing a "no fly zone" by which we mean offensive air strikes against civilian targets. That wouldn't fly in Syria. Syria has much more support in the Arab world than Libya. Not only that, Syria is strongly supported by Iran, who can seriously undermine US puppet states in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Putin, can you even entertain opinions that are not your own? I am rather inclined to agree with Thucy here.

And what Thucy meant by "linear" is that over 90% of the Libyan population lives within 100 miles of the coast. That gives you a horizontal line across the country where people live, not like Syria where population centers are more spread out.

And just stop it with Bosnia, ok? We get it, you think NATO is evil. They were just trying to do something right and end the *mass murder of civilians*

Plus, "we'll get our ass handed to us?" That made me laugh. NO army in the Mid-East can come close to kicking our ass in conventional warfare. We'd have their army torn to shreds in a month just by the air war. Hell, in the Gulf War most of the Iraqi Army surrendered rather than get killed.

I do agree though that Iran has been a huge factor in why we haven't gotten involved in Syria.

"Putin, can you even entertain opinions that are not your own?"

I'm entertaining them the same as you, goldfinger. Are we going to endlessly play this "I'm opinionated and don't agree but somehow that makes me more open minded than you" game?

"They were just trying to do something right and end the *mass murder of civilians*"

That might possibly be the most untrue statement that could ever be uttered. Anyway, look up the Cutliero plan of 1992. Look up who withdrew from it. Look up who fired the first shots in 1992 (Bosnians attacked a wedding). Look up Operation Storm. Look up videos of Bosnian mujahadeen grinning with the heads of their victims in their hands.

"And what Thucy meant by "linear" is that over 90% of the Libyan population lives within 100 miles of the coast. "

That line is 1,100 miles long. Syria is the size of North Dakota. Libya is larger than Alaska. Almost all of Syria's major population centers are in the western part of the country.

"NO army in the Mid-East can come close to kicking our ass in conventional warfare."

We're not fighting a conventional war in Libya. Libya has managed to shoot down several drones and choppers and they don't even have air defenses. Syria has a pretty robust air defense system. Plus a victory in these asymmetrical wars = stalemate. Syria is more than equipped for a long drawn out stalemate vs the US.


"Plus, "we'll get our ass handed to us?" That made me laugh. NO army in the Mid-East can come close to kicking our ass in conventional warfare. We'd have their army torn to shreds in a month just by the air war. Hell, in the Gulf War most of the Iraqi Army surrendered rather than get killed. "

Alright, I'm sorry I went there. Its just from your posts you've been all attack and haven't conceded anything. I've done a little perusing of the web, and I will admit a few things.

First of all, I understand what you're saying about Libya and Syria. Syria is physically smaller, but the point was that of the enormous area that is Libya, only a small percentage needs to be covered by aircraft. With Syria though, you are right. Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs are all on the western half. I stand corrected.

Also, I will admit that some aircraft have been lost in Libya. One fighter went down in march due to malfunctions, and a helicopter drone went down in June

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8590077/Libya-Nato-deny-Gaddafi-troops-shot-down-unmanned-drone.html

Other than that one plane, and that one drone, all other aircraft that have been shot down have been Libyan, at least as far as I could find.

And yes we are fighting a conventional war in Libya. A rough definition of unconventional warfare is subversive or guerilla actions. While I'll admit that we are doing PSYOPS campaigns, and subversion to some extent, a huge part of our role so far has been close air support. There is a clear-cut uniformed military that we are doing combat with. You may now mention various houses of Gadhaffi that were bombed as being unconventional, but electronic surveillance indicate they were command and control facilities as well.

While I agree that victory = stalemate, Syria cannot handle our air force. Iraq couldn't handle our air force in 1991 or 2003 and they had state-of-the-art Soviet and American missile launchers. In Desert Storm there was a radar floor of 50-100 feet, and our helicopter pilots flew in under that and knocked out their early warning systems. After the first few days, what planes Iraq had left wouldn't leave their airfields. I *just* finished a book on Desert Storm written by a 4 star from the theater, so I can cite these facts over and over for you.

And with the Cutliero plan, you're right. It is quite a *coincidence* that the Bosnians withdrew shortly after seeing Ambassador Zimmerman. I wasn't even referring to the beginning part of the conflict when I mentioned Bosnia though. I was referring to Operation Deliberate Force, which effectively ended the war. Also, I don't see what's wrong with Operation Storm. The Serbians were the aggressors trying to expand their state, and we helped the Croats stop it. I mean to me, its a sign that all peace treaties in the Balkans don't have be like the Treaty of Lausanne and divide everything up by ethnicity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9mMf4vflpk

And yeah you're not convincing me that Syria is viable geographically like Libya. Libya is uniquely suited to this air war.

Putin33 never met a vaguely left-wing dictator he didn't like.

"Also, I don't see what's wrong with Operation Storm. The Serbians were the aggressors trying to expand their state, and we helped the Croats stop it. I mean to me, its a sign that all peace treaties in the Balkans don't have be like the Treaty of Lausanne and divide everything up by ethnicity"

The Serbs had lived in these areas of Croatia for hundreds of years. This wasn't "expansion", this was defense of their own homes. It was Croat expansion plain and simple. They had an excuse to kick out non-Croats and create an ethnically pure state, and they wanted to annex HerzegoviYou see nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing? Then stop pretending you're some human rights advocate. You celebrate ethnic cleansing so long as it's the ethnicity that had the misfortune of being on NATO's bad side. Tudjman said, there would have been no war had Croatia not wanted war. Mesic said that the Croats succeeded in their goal of destroying Yugoslavia. He also laughed about the Serbian civilians being forced to flee because they "didn't even have time to collect their knickers". We have a Serb from Croatia on here, Dejan. He could tell you better than I about the longstanding residency of Serbs in Croatia, and their treatment at the hands of America's Ustasha inspired Croat friends. He could also probably tell you about how the Croats wrote the Serbs out of their constitution in 1990 and reestablished old Fascist iconography - the old uniforms, the old coins, the old salutes, the old flag. He could tell you about how Croat paramilitaries had armed themselves to the teeth (with German arms) years prior to the breakout of hostilities. He could tell you how *not a single Serbian paramilitary existed in Croatia until they came under assault from Tudjman*, etc.

And I failed to mention that the Slovene and Croat secessions were illegal (not to mention the Bosnian, which did not have approval of one of the three constituent peoples of Bosnia), so this idea that the Serbs were the aggressors is utter bullshit through and through.

"ou may now mention various houses of Gadhaffi that were bombed as being unconventional, but electronic surveillance indicate they were command and control facilities as well. "

Really for as skeptical as you claim to be the fact that you accept Gates's claim that suburban homes were "command & control centers" and thus this justifies the murder of Gaddafi's grandchildren is pretty ridiculous. Just like the Sudanese drug factory that they bombed in the late 1990s was a "chemical weapons factory" right?

"ns, and subversion to some extent, a huge part of our role so far has been close air support. There is a clear-cut uniformed military that we are doing combat with."

Right, Libya has a clear-cut uniformed military. NATO's campaign however is nothing but terrorism from the sky. A conventional war is when two sides face each other in combat. High altitude bombing is not warfare. It's like Cheney claiming that driving around in an SUV and shooting fenced-in quail is "quail hunting".

"Putin33 never met a vaguely left-wing dictator he didn't like."

Invictus never met an act of western military aggression he didn't approve of.

And yes, I will say that Gaddafi has been good to the people of Libya. But of course human development doesn't matter much to the so-called "realists", so that's ignored. I will also say that Gaddafi's military, despite the fact that NATO and the murderous rebels show absolutely no regard for civilians, have scrupulously avoided attacking civilians in this conflict (contrary to the propaganda that we're being fed).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hlOhymEY7c

I mean we have videos by rebels of their lynchings of people in public squares, setting fire to police stations, breaking into jails and releasing Al Qaeda and criminals, but you people here continue to parrot the NATO line.



Here's a good summation of the propaganda we're being fed about Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hlOhymEY7c