ARAB LEAGUE CALLS FOR A NO-FLY ZONE IN LYBIA

I'm not trying to weasel out of anything, I just don't see any profit in repeating ourselves and have had my say. You are trying to goad me into continuing this and I see no profit in discussing this ad nauseum with you.

I'm not trying to goad you into anything. Once again, you assume an importance you don't have. You've been abusive since you arrived, and as long as you are calling me names, and making false accusations againtst me, i'm going to respond in kind. If that bothers you, too bad, so sad.

I just think it's stupid for us to sit here and repeat "your are a liar" over and over. My thoughts on that haven't changed, and neither have yours, so what do you want from me? To sit here with you and just repeat it like a couple of two-year olds? If your idea of fun is to make a fool out of yourself in public have at it, I will move on to something more edifying having had my share of foolishness.

You're the one who's making a childish fool of himself. You began by saying "**** you" to me, and claiming i "made" you respond. Since then, your argument is predicated upon a claim that we would have to declare war on Libya, and that that would entail a moral obligation to fight on the ground. Neither of those are true--once again, you are, apparently, unaware of the war powers act. I've tried to respond civilly, for which your response has been to call me names. You're still doing it.

Don't try to take a superior tone now, you came in slinging foul remarks, and now want to try to act as though you are above the fray--a fray which you started. You truly are pathetic.

Now that the UN has finally acted, i hope this is not too little, too late, although i fear it will prove to be so.

What does the UN intend? To partition Libya? Will the UN undertake to protect people from Kadaffi's vengeance indefinitely? From Kadaffi's point of view, he has won almost everything, because he obviously had never cared about the people of Libya, and he can now control the petroleum facilities with which he has paid for his military and his mercenaries.

This is a mess arising from a lack of prompt, resolute action on the part of the main players in international affairs.

Erm...I should probably stay out of this, but I believe that "**** you" was jocularly addressed to Nimh....that post was cut and pasted from a Facebook discussion Robert and Nimh were having, and Robert was protesting at conducting serious discussion on FB,

Which nations do you believe should have been more "prompt and resolute" ?

The Arab league (which itself has ample, nearby military capability, but took no action) didn't get around to calling for action by others until the moment for it had passed. The European Mediterranean nations did nothing. The EU did nothing. Russia and China urged non intervention, but have finally been persuaded to abstain from opposing the Security Council "resolution". Our president, mindful of his new policy of international cooperation and the avoidance of independent action, has urged restraint while condemning Ghadaffi's retaliation.

The UN doesn't propose to lead anything. Instead its resolution "allows" member nations, acting on their own, to intervene. The U.S. military is stretched rather thin right now. I believe this is a good moment for those who propose that we put our trust in the international community to demonstrate their reliabiltiy.

Agree! UN resolutions have no effect until acted upon, and we know the UN is impotent.

Subsequently calling me a liar, when he was dead wrong about the content of my posts, and was presenting a flawed argument, the flaws of which i had already, civilly, pointed out to him, makes that objection rather meaningless.

NATO, it's their back yard, and yet they continue spineless. Essentially, Europe shows itself to be selfish, self-interested and hypocritical about positively acting on the principles they claim to revere. If i'm not mistaken, France and the United Kingdom--both now with conservative dominated governments--pushed this UN resolution after the call for a no-fly zone by the Arab League. Where the hell were those clowns ten days ago when such an action would have had a real meaning?

The EU nations, perhaps influenced by Germany have resolutely opposed intervention in any form. France and the UK, however, appear to have actively supported the recent UN Security Council action and may actually be interested in doing something.

My opinion is that we ought to encourage the new government in Egypt, acting with the support of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tunis and Algeria - all members of the Arab League, which was the first international body to call for intervention in any form - to do the very thing they recommended. They alone have the nearby bases required to support such an operation, and they have available forces at least the equal of the Europeans (numerically anyway).

If Libya is in Europe's "backyard", it is certainly even closer to the other Arab states of North Africa and the Middle East.

It also shows that even with the Arab Leagues request to the UN, they are also impotent to act. I think they were hoping for some European countries to get involved in the military action so they can sit back and watch.

I hope that strategy fails; they can watch their own neighborhood destroyed to create more havoc in their home ground.

This is another falsehood. When I posted that I clearly said I was copying it from elsewhere and It had nothing to do with you, I was reposting my arguments against a reflexive no-fly zone and as dlowan points out the "**** you" was a joke directed at nimh, not you.



This is not exactly truthful either. I said I think we should be willing to if it were necessary. The Germans have said it best when they said we shouldn't enter a war ont he expectation of the quick and easy scenario and I agree, I think we should plan for the worst and not plan for the best.




I never ever said anything about a legal obligation there, what is it that you are claiming is untrue? That if we enter the war we will have some ownership of responsibility? That is my position about that and why I am wary of the moral hazards that we might get into.




Oh get over yourself and your imaginary civility. I am just sick of your incessant intellectual dishonesty and if you don't like hearing about it that is of precious little concern to me and won't preclude me from saying it.



Those remarks weren't even directed at you and I can't be faulted if your reading comprehension is such that you can't tell the difference nor if your honesty is such that you are just willing to lie about it.

Although Egypt is certainly in the best position to react, there is no particular affinity between the Egyptian and the Libyan people. More than that, there really is no "new" government in Egypt. Although Egypt is the most modern in its practice of governance among Arab states, in practice it is little different from them. Hussein in Iraq was a law student who took over the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party from within, much as Lenin took over the Russian Workers' Party from within in 1903--although Hussein lacked the subtlety of Lenin, and was an agent for his tribe. He was able to rule as a minority tribal leader because he successfully courted the Sunnis of Iraq, who were themselves a minority.

The al-Assads of Syria, père et fils are minority tribal leaders, but once again, they took over from within the structure of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party (a different animal from the one in Iraq). They did not have the minority situation of Iraq, with the Sunnis outnumbered by the Shi'ites and by the Kurds, but Syria has Israel for its boogeyman, and the regime of the al-Assads has not offended the values or aspirations of the Syrian people.

Egypt, however, does not and hasn't had tribal minority leaders. Their government has been a military-corporate government since 1952. Naguib, a Sudanese who lead the coup, was removed from power, but not with prejudice, because he was not Egyptian, but the Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak succession had to do with a regular process of political advancement within the Free Officers movement. The main portfolios of government in Egypt have always been held by military men--foreign office, internal security, treasury, etc.--and effectively, the removal of Mubarak only represents the removal of the front man. Their government is essentially unchanged--there's nothing really new about it. Insular, cautious and at least mildly xenophobic, i don't see them as a likely candidate to be an Arab League standard bearer. I could be wrong, but personally, i wouldn't rely on them.

Tunis doesn't have much to offer. Algeria is just paying lip service, they have good reason not to encourage aspirations of self-determination, given that their military junta took over in a coup against the popularly elected government. Saudi Arabia is the most likely candidate for a standard bearer, but they would need Egyptian cooperation.

I need to learn more about the mechanics of the situation. Harper has said that Canadian F18s (or whatever they call them here) are on their way, and will join HMCS Charlottetown which is already in the Med. Three of the aircraft have already left for England, and three more are to join them soon. I don't know what provisions for basing are being made. (Charlottetown is a frigate, so i am bemused by the statement that the F18s will be joining her--but it's not like Harper is a military man, so i suspect he was reading from a script prepared by equally clueless staff.)

You're the one here indulging in intellectual dishonesty, and as it appears that your only intention it to coninue your puerile sniping, i see no reason to reply to another of your idiot subdivided responses. Get over yourself, you're not a nice guy, you're not as bright as you make yourself out to be, and you certainly are not as well-informed as you like to pose as being.

wondering out loud, can a no-fly program effect the outcome of Libya situation and if so would the result be an improvement for Libyians? side question, the rebels (freedom fighters-whatever) what actually is their agenda?

What a putz. I told you last night that I didn't see any profit in continuing this with you and you taunted me with accusations of wanting to "weasel out" and now you claim I am the one who just wants to continue insulting you while you beg off?

That is rich, if again deceitful, but whatever works. I still don't see any profit in continuing to discuss this with you either.

Those are good questions, Boss. That's why i asked earlier if the UN intended to partition Libya, or to undertake to protect Libyan citizens indefinitely. Ten days ago, such a no-fly zone would have had a very adverse effect of Kadaffi's regime, and might even have doomed him. It's a very different situation today.

The question of the agenda of the rebels is a very cogent question, and one for which i don't believe anyone (in the West at least) presently has an answer.

**************************************************

On the question of the military nuts and bolts, i'm so far unable to find anything. This Q & A at CNN has some intersting information on participation, and the scope of the authority for military action. It does not, however, address the pertinent questions of the military ways and means of enforcing the no-fly zone. As usual, journalists don't think about these matters, and likely won't until someone with a little sense points these matters out to them.

Corsica is near enough to be a base for enforcing a no-fly zone over Cyrenaica, and thereby protecting Bengazi--but it would involve keeping a lot of planes in the air for long periods of time, because by the time you fly from Corsica to Cyrenaica, you'd not have too much time in the air. Mid-air refueling would extend the operation time, but would entail a much greater expense. The Royal Navy and the French Navy, of course, have aircraft carriers. I think the issue of how it is proposed to do this is significant, especially from the point of view of how much it is going to cost.

So, facebook is used as a forum for political discussion?

I have pointed out to you that your entire thesis, based as it is on a declaration of war against Libya, is flawed because no declaration of war is needed. You won't address that. Why should i continue to engage with you when you are insufficiently intellectually honest to admit this compromising flaw in your argument? And, of course, you continue to call names. How charming--yeah, that's gonna make me want to continue.