Argentina questions allied attacks on Gaddafi

[Guillo]

...Mistaken, yes. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Gaddafi

By 2004 George W. Bush had lifted the economic sanctions and official relations resumed with the United States. Libya opened a liaison office in Washington, and the United States opened an office in Tripoli. In January 2004, Congressman Tom Lantos led the first official Congressional delegation visit to Libya.[127]
The United States removed Gaddafi's regime, after 27 years, from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.[129]

Perhaps "supporting" was a bit of an overstatement, sorry for the mistake. The US is known for supporting dicators until it doesn't fit their goals anymore (like, you know, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Husein). They are also historically known for supporting coup d'état when they dont like the democratically chosen governments.

 

[Amargo]

Be prepared for more anti-american vibes coming from the muslim countries.

Those idiots...I mean, going voluntarily to war doesn't say much about the IQ of the soldiers, but how can this happened undetected by the officers?

 

[ptolemy]

Of course he was! he was holding hands with Condoleeza Rice not so long ago.

Here, decide for yourselves : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7599199.stm

 

[Johnno]

Never blame the soldier - he does his duty and follows orders - blame those in power who send soldiers into harm's way without a real reason for it. For me its fairly simple - if your country is under attack then you have a right (if you are the legitimate government of that country) to declare war and to respond militarily - but the last time I looked the Libyan military had not attacked the continental United States or Great Britain or France etc...

 

[tangobob]

You did miss the rather cruical point that the Libyans are revolting yes? .

Ah! the first useful comment.

The "West" isn't unilaterally attacking - they're protecting the Libyan citizens that are revolting against a dictator .

While this is is no doubt true, in a years time or even less, the Arab world will have forgotten how bad Gadaffi was and we (that is America Britain France) will have just another reason to be hated.
If you doubt this, just read some of the posts already on this site.

 

[ptolemy]

While this is is no doubt true, in a years time or even less, the Arab world will have forgotten how bad Gadaffi was and we (that is America Britain France) will have just another reason to be hated.
If you doubt this, just read some of the posts already on this site.

Well said,..and I might add other sites too.

 

[citygirl]

Perhaps "supporting" was a bit of an overstatement, sorry for the mistake. The US is known for supporting dicators until it doesn't fit their goals anymore (like, you know, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Husein). They are also historically known for supporting coup d'état when they dont like the democratically chosen governments.

So is every other global power. It's called realpolitik. The US is hardly alone in this.

Oh and Tangobob, I realize it already. Of course if the coalition hadn't invaded, somehow it would have been wrong as well I'm sure. Personally, I think the Middle East shouldn't be meddled with - it's as foolish as getting involved in a land war in Asia But while vilifying the coalition at least people could remember that this was a response to support an existing internal revolutionary movement.

 

[Amargo]

Citygirl, don't take it personally, it is your government's fault, not yours. I have no anti-american or anti-whoever feeling, it is just I strongly dislike what the so called developed countries are doing in Libya. The mandate was to secure a no-fly zone...why those heavy cruise missiles and all the otherwise brute bombings? Just let the fighters start and shot-down all libyan fighters.
Attacking on a wide front is going to cause much harm to innocent people...even today, after the American F-15 was shot down by the libyans and while the American were trying to rescue the pilots, 6 civilians were wounded by gunfire.
The support of the internal revolutionary movement is a nice artificial statement. There has been many romantic revolutionary movements who were left to their fate. In this case, once again, it is about securing oil supply.
And realpolitik has a subtle character which doesn't really match this clumsy behaviour shown by the West.

 

[citygirl]

Sigh.. I don't take it personally.

I wish those that criticize would accept this was a majority vote by the UN, not a US action. I wish that people would acknowledge this is a coalition action. I wish that that people would stop forgetting the fact that this is in support of an existing internal revolutionary movement, not an arbitrary invasion as I've read. I wish that people would read the facts, not immediately leap to conclusions that this is just another case of the Evil Empire flexing its muscles.

Again - THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL (please note the caps, it's there for a reason), let me say again UN Security Council, NOT the US authorized the resolution to enforce a no fly zone. 10 of the 15 voted in favor of it. 5 abstained. No one voted against it.

Is it about oil? Well, if it is, I hardly think the US would be the one pushing it. Seems like "it's about oil" is a convenient catch phrase. Do you really think that the US is so hard-pressed that they would engage in a military action on a 3rd front (b/c the first 2 are going so well) in hopes of securing more oil? If oil is the genesis, it would be far more correct to point out that the European community would benefit far more than the US.

 

[Guillo]

So is every other global power. It's called realpolitik. The US is hardly alone in this.

You might call it realpolitik, I call it hypocrisy. In any case, it gives a clear example of why the US has such a bad reputation around the world, specially when you go out with the "fighting for freedom" bullshit. Really, nobody believes that.