Arming Libyan Rebels?

[McDowell's]

This reminds me of something. Can't remember exactly what it was called. Had something to do with Afghanistan back in the day. But now the UN is peripherally involved so it's gravy.


Also reminds me of something Bush Jr. once said: "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you...Fool me...twice............foolmecan'tgetfooledagain!"

 

[JBeukema]

Time will tell how this plays out

I won't be surprised if it bites us in the ass someday

 

[Sheldon]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

 

[High_Gravity]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

There is a difference, after the Soviets left Afghanistan we completely abandoned the people. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has nothing to offer, Libya has oil so nobody is going to abandon it, Libya will get alot more attention than Afghanistan did after the war is over.

 

[Sheldon]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

There is a difference, after the Soviets left Afghanistan we completely abandoned the people. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has nothing to offer, Libya has oil so nobody is going to abandon it, Libya will get alot more attention than Afghanistan did after the war is over.

That's a good point. Afghanistan was just a tool for our larger conflict with the Soviets. I'm not so much thinking Libya will collapse into an Islamofascist theocracy the way Afghanistan did. However I won't be surprised if conflict continues after Gadoofy's regime is gone.

So this begs the question of how long does the West continue this kind of soft military involvement with the country? If it turns out the rebels start some incestuous infighting, do we pick sides again and continue tossing Tomahawks inland?

 

[Claudette]

Yep. Your right. Everyone will be vying to help Libya. Of course it will be with an eye to its Oil richs. They sell about 70% of their oil in europe. No wonder Sarkozy was gung ho to save the day.

My questinn is much like Sheldons.

Who are these rebels? What will they do if Quadaffi is overthrone or killed or in exile?? Who supports them?? Who leads them??

Will Quadaffi be gone only to be replaced by someone worse?? Will they be our friend today and our enemy tomorrow??

Questions, questions, questions with no real answers.

 

[WillowTree]

Let Scotland arm them.

 

[High_Gravity]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

There is a difference, after the Soviets left Afghanistan we completely abandoned the people. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has nothing to offer, Libya has oil so nobody is going to abandon it, Libya will get alot more attention than Afghanistan did after the war is over.

That's a good point. Afghanistan was just a tool for our larger conflict with the Soviets. I'm not so much thinking Libya will collapse into an Islamofascist theocracy the way Afghanistan did. However I won't be surprised if conflict continues after Gadoofy's regime is gone.

So this begs the question of how long does the West continue this kind of soft military involvement with the country? If it turns out the rebels start some incestuous infighting, do we pick sides again and continue tossing Tomahawks inland?

I don't know how big of a commitment this administration will give to Libya, right now Libya dominates out breaking news and highlight stories. There are also many countries involved in this, France, the UK, the Saudis etc etc. Libya won't be left on its own to rot because it has oil thus it has value, if I'm not mistaken the Euros get alot of their oil from there plus the Euros can't afford a large refugee exodus from that country in the event of a civil war, Libya is not that far from Italy, refugees will be coming over by the shitload in boats if things get bad enough. Basically Libya will get the help it need if and when Ghaddafi leaves, Afghanistan was left to the mercy of the Talibs and Al Qaeda idiots because there was nothing in Afghanistan of any interest, so we basically ignored them after the Military campaign against the Russians was over.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

This is all neocolonialism, the former colonial powers and their new ally, the US military via NATO, simply can't keep themselves away from Africa's riches, or should I say control of Africa's resources, its what made them powerful in the 20th century anyways.

 

[High_Gravity]

This is all neocolonialism, the former colonial powers and their new ally, the US military via NATO, simply can't keep themselves away from Africa's riches, or should I say control of Africa's resources, its what made them powerful in the 20th century anyways.

Well I only see them in this for the oil, they could give a **** less about countries in Sub Saharan Africa like Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Liberia etc etc

 

[Sheldon]

This is all neocolonialism, the former colonial powers and their new ally, the US military via NATO, simply can't keep themselves away from Africa's riches, or should I say control of Africa's resources, its what made them powerful in the 20th century anyways.

The British East India Company.

Walmart and Goldman Sachs.



However it's China not the West that's actually got any interest in sub-Saharan Africa. Rwanda and south Sudan demonstrated that the Western powers don't really give a shit unless natural resources are at stake.

 

[gekaap]

EVERYTHING the US does to meddle in the affairs of other countries, comes back to bite us in the ass. WHY OH WHY, OH MOTHER ******* WHY is our government so stupid to continue to do these kinds of things!?!?

 

[High_Gravity]

David Cameron: Nations Can Arm Libyan Rebels If Necessary

LONDON — World powers clashed Wednesday over whether it is legal to supply weapons to Libya's badly equipped rebels as Moammar Gaddafi's troops beat back their advance on the ground.


Britain and the U.S. believe that existing U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya could allow for foreign governments to arm the rebels.

But NATO, which is in the process of taking over command of air and other military operations in Libya, rejected that theory, saying an arms embargo was in place. China, Russia and Germany were also against supplying weapons to the rebels, with Moscow warning of possible al-Qaida links to some rebels.

Analysts, however, suggested the only hope of avoiding a lengthy stalemate in the conflict would be to provide anti-tank weapons and shoulder-launched missiles to the rebels, allowing them to take on Gaddafi's military hardware.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said he supported U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's assessment that nations could legally supply weapons to Libyan rebels, despite an arms embargo being in place. Cameron told the House of Commons that U.N. Security Council resolutions "would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances."

"We do not rule it out, but we have not taken any decision" on whether to supply weapons, he told lawmakers.

Obama said in television interviews Tuesday the U.S. also did not rule out providing arms to rebels, while Clinton said in London that such a move would be legally permitted – read as a signal the policy is under consideration.

NATO insists the U.N. resolutions prohibit the supply of weapons into Libya, while Russia and China expressed concern that some allies were overstepping the mark. In Germany, Foreign Ministry spokesman Stefan Bredohl said the relevant resolutions included a "comprehensive arms embargo."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Western nations against supplying weapons to Gaddafi's opponents and said Moscow feared that some rebels could be allied with al-Qaida.

David Cameron: Nations Can Arm Libyan Rebels If Necessary

 

[McDowell's]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

There is a difference, after the Soviets left Afghanistan we completely abandoned the people. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has nothing to offer, Libya has oil so nobody is going to abandon it, Libya will get alot more attention than Afghanistan did after the war is over.

Even if that's the case, why should we provide arms to groups which are outside our sphere of influence. We have no way of ensuring that any munitions provided will be used solely by and for the newly established government. Like Sheldon said, there is the very real possibility that separate factions will take the munitions we provide, and - once the fighting in Libya is over - driving over to Iraq/Afghanistan to keep playing soldier.

If you want to provide more direct support, then providing weapons without controls is not the way to do it. The only way to maintain control over the weapons provided is to have direct oversight, troops in country. Is that something anyone wants? I don't. But the alternative is like busting open a pinata at a party. There's no telling who will grab what. ******* fat kids always stealing my kit kats

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

There is a difference, after the Soviets left Afghanistan we completely abandoned the people. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has nothing to offer, Libya has oil so nobody is going to abandon it, Libya will get alot more attention than Afghanistan did after the war is over.

That's a good point. Afghanistan was just a tool for our larger conflict with the Soviets. I'm not so much thinking Libya will collapse into an Islamofascist theocracy the way Afghanistan did. However I won't be surprised if conflict continues after Gadoofy's regime is gone.

So this begs the question of how long does the West continue this kind of soft military involvement with the country? If it turns out the rebels start some incestuous infighting, do we pick sides again and continue tossing Tomahawks inland?

Shortly after this whole trip started, I remember hearing how opposition reps were already conferring with the powers-that-be, within the oil-industry.​

 

[JBeukema]

America has fully embraced the English Free Trade system

the Republic is dead

 

[CaféAuLait]

Breaking CNN: US will send weapons for rebels.

 

[High_Gravity]

It does seem like history is repeating itself. The Taliban used to be the good guys fighting against the evil Soviet empire.

Gadoofy and company can get "taken care of" easily. What's not so easy is knowing who exactly these rebels are and what they will turn out to be. They seem to be amorphous, perhaps different groups with different sub-goals that are at the moment united under an umbrella goal: overthrowing Gadoofus.

But once that goal is accomplished, what then? Do they then turn on each other, in which case the most uncompromising and barbaric sect wins out? I think those are valid concerns.

There is a difference, after the Soviets left Afghanistan we completely abandoned the people. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has nothing to offer, Libya has oil so nobody is going to abandon it, Libya will get alot more attention than Afghanistan did after the war is over.

Even if that's the case, why should we provide arms to groups which are outside our sphere of influence. We have no way of ensuring that any munitions provided will be used solely by and for the newly established government. Like Sheldon said, there is the very real possibility that separate factions will take the munitions we provide, and - once the fighting in Libya is over - driving over to Iraq/Afghanistan to keep playing soldier.

If you want to provide more direct support, then providing weapons without controls is not the way to do it. The only way to maintain control over the weapons provided is to have direct oversight, troops in country. Is that something anyone wants? I don't. But the alternative is like busting open a pinata at a party. There's no telling who will grab what. ******* fat kids always stealing my kit kats

What you are saying is pretty much correct, I watched an interview with an ex CIA Agent who worked with the Libyans in the past and he pretty much said everything you just posted. Once you put weapons in the hands of an unorganized rebel force like this one in Libya, there is no way to track where the weapons go and who uses them, plus most of the rebels in Libya are civilians with no Military training. You cant just give them rockets and surface to air missiles with instruction manuals and be on your way, training a rebel force to be disciplined and how to use all these high tech gadgets can take 6 months, are we ready for that kind of commitment? I know Libya is all over the news and there is alot of cheerleading going on now, but if you look back it was the same way when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. People in the West have a short attention span, and I doubt very many have the will to commit to the Libyans like this.