Argentina questions allied attacks on Gaddafi

[Hache]

Of course for those of you on the other side of the fence:

We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.
Neville Chamberlain

Of course you can Wiki Neville Chamberlain to see how that worked out for him....*spoiler alert*...(not so great...)

It looks like he learned from William Burke's wise words. He didn't stay passive. Things went astray and war couldn't be avoided, but he did the right thing if he tried to prevent it.

 

[John.St]

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.

And get your own aircraft shot down.

In order to maintain a no-fly zone you must hit the opponents anti-aircraft capability, including radar and command or you'll pay dearly. Lesson learned.

 

[John.St]

... Of course if the coalition hadn't invaded, somehow it would have been wrong as well I'm sure.

Absolutely.

Al Jazeera's senior political analyst: "West overzealous on Libya"
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011318132217965513.html
- damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The real problem is, what comes next. "Gates calls for Syrian forces to move aside" + "The White House signalled it was preparing for a change in power in Yemen, where it has been allied with the government of Ali Abdullah Saleh, president." in Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4197d9c-5622-11e0-8de9-00144feab49a.html (subscription or registration needed to read)

 

[John.St]

Its a shame that the only real issue here is the only real issue that hasn't been discussed - its whether or not ANY superpower or gang of superpowers has the right to attack/invade/interfere in the affairs of another sovereign state - just because they dislike what is going on within its borders...

A couple of quick questions:
Was the west blamed for not intervening in Rwanda and Darfur?
Are they now to be blamed for intervening in Libya?
Would they be blamed if they hadn't?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

- and let's also blame NATO for the decline of the Roman Empire.

 

[Johnno]

Although there is a lot of reading involved this initial policy document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm - and all the subsequent ones produced based on it - actually outline years in advance - what the agenda is - and where it is heading - and its not exactly rocket science to understand - obviously Iraq features prominently - and where specific nations aren't always named its easy to fill in the dots...

The only thing that Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention in this article is that like most US foreign policy documents this one also originated in Israel (although it is hinted at) - originally put together by Norm Podherotz when he was still working for ''Bibi'' Netanyahu - but no surprise there lol

The question raised above of ''what comes next?'' is in fact the REAL worry - because I think we all know there are quite a few countries that will logically be on the list (especially when we recognize who is really driving US foreign policy) - and I don't think we need to be too smart to realize where the whole dog's breakfast will end up taking us in the long run - somewhere we DEFINITELY do not want to go...

Oh well - I think this is why the Gods invented alcohol - knowing something but not being able to do anything about it is quite frustrating - but fortunately the local booze in Argentina is pretty good and pretty cheap - you've always got to try and look on the bright side I guess

 

[Johnno]

It kind of reminds me of the wise words of my grandad, the captain - he always said, ''you don't need to go looking for trouble - it will find you without you having to do anything'' lol

 

[Amargo]

And get your own aircraft shot down.

In order to maintain a no-fly zone you must hit the opponents anti-aircraft capability, including radar and command or you'll pay dearly. Lesson learned.

A building can also be very dangerous to aircraft! :-D
No one is condemning intervention, but only the clumsy manner. You expect the West to be much more selective when picking targets, as they have very complex weaponry, we are made to believe.
It only demonstrates that the Western governments have learned nothing from previous mistakes. Do you think the acceptance rate of the US et al. in islamic countries has increased or decreased after the attacks?

What I find incredible is that the US is a developed country, with high income...I don't understand why people believe that all the wars the government starts are really because they are angels who want to help some poor folk somewhere. And keep financing wars and purchase of weapons with their tax. Why isn't there massive demonstrations against that? Instead of investing in education, health and development of those countries (or their own, if needed).
Violence causes violence, it doesn't matter how well meant.

 

[marksoc]

The U.S. could not stand by while Qaddafi was murdering his own citizens. WOMEN AND CHILDREN included.

I have a bridge to sell you in Nigeria.

Really? You really believe that the US acts according to ethical beliefs? You are starting to sound like O´Reilly and those people. Be realistic, I don´t care if you are a Republican, but don´t insult the intelligence of adults.

But please, vote for Palin, I want to see that country autodestruct, I will be watching from the fence with Mexico with a notebook and a pencil.

 

[dr__dawggy]

A building can also be very dangerous to aircraft! :-D
No one is condemning intervention, but only the clumsy manner. You expect the West to be much more selective when picking targets, as they have very complex weaponry, we are made to believe.
It only demonstrates that the Western governments have learned nothing from previous mistakes. Do you think the acceptance rate of the US et al. in islamic countries has increased or decreased after the attacks?

What I find incredible is that the US is a developed country, with high income...I don't understand why people believe that all the wars the government starts are really because they are angels who want to help some poor folk somewhere. And keep financing wars and purchase of weapons with their tax. Why isn't there massive demonstrations against that? Instead of investing in education, health and development of those countries (or their own, if needed).
Violence causes violence, it doesn't matter how well meant.

Several points:

First, regarding the clumsiness of warfare. Unfortunately, no weapon system no matter how sophisticated can ensure there will not be unintended casualties. These casualties sometimes come from the ranks of the civilian population and sometimes from one's own fellow soldiers (so called "friendly fire"). I wish it weren't so, but this is a reality of war.


Second, re: your statement that "I don't understand why people believe that all the wars the government starts are really because they are angels who want to help some poor folk somewhere." There are several inaccuracies here....our government has not started a war in Lybia. We have acted in concert with others and with the support of much of the world community, to impose a no-fly zone to protect against the slaughter of civilians....and we waited until there was a clear UN mandate before taking any action at all....

And many of us distinguish motives for intervention we undertake in other countries. I, for example, supported intervention in Afghanistan and opposed the war in Iraq. The Taliban government in Afghanistan openly supported and provided a base of operations for Osama Bin Laden's group, which had attacked the United States. Our intervention there was a result of provocation and we asserted our right to defend ourselves. The War in Iraq was justified by Bush based on the so-called Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attacks on enemies who might cause us harm in the future. Many US citizens opposed this war...in fact the majority of us would like to find a way out that would not leave Iraq in a state of anarchy...The same applies to Afghanistan...the key is finding a way out that will not result in anarchy or a return of the Taliban to power.

 

[jaredwb]

I have a bridge to sell you in Nigeria.

Really? You really believe that the US acts according to ethical beliefs? You are starting to sound like O´Reilly and those people. Be realistic, I don´t care if you are a Republican, but don´t insult the intelligence of adults.

But please, vote for Palin, I want to see that country autodestruct, I will be watching from the fence with Mexico with a notebook and a pencil.

Yeah, like you are the voice of reason and intelligence. Please! I'd like you to post for everyone to see how wise you are that NO women or children were being killed.