10 reasons to say no to western intervention in Libya

Post Reply New Topic

1.Intervention will violate Libya’s sovereignty. This is not just a legalistic point – although the importance of observing international law should not be discounted if the big powers in the world are not to be given the green light run amok. As soon as NATO starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.

2.Intervention can only prolong, not end the civil war. “No-fly zones” will not be able to halt the conflict and will lead to more bloodshed, not less.

3. Intervention will lead to escalation. Because the measures being advocated today cannot bring an end to the civil war, the next demand will be for a full-scale armed presence in Libya, as in Iraq – and meeting the same continuing resistance. That way lies decades of conflict.

4.This is not Spain in 1936, when non-intervention meant helping the fascist side which, if victorious in the conflict, would only encourage the instigators of a wider war – as it did. Here, the powers clamouring for military action are the ones already fighting a wider war across the Middle East and looking to preserve their power even as they lose their autocratic allies. Respecting Libya’s sovereignty is the cause of peace, not it's enemy.

5. It is more like Iraq in the 1990s, after the First Gulf War. Then, the US, Britain and France imposed no-fly zones which did not lead to peace – the two parties in protected Iraqi Kurdistan fought a bitter civil war under the protection of the no-fly zone – and did prepare the ground for the invasion of 2003. Intervention may partition Libya and institutionalise conflict for decades.

6. Or it is more like the situation in Kosovo and Bosnia. NATO interference has not lead to peace, reconciliation or genuine freedom in the Balkans, just to endless corrupt occupations.

7.Yes, it is about oil. Why the talk of intervening in Libya, but not the Congo, for example? Ask BP.

8.It is also about pressure on Egyptian revolution – the biggest threat to imperial interests in the region. A NATO garrison next door would be a base for pressure at least, and intervention at worst, if Egyptian freedom flowers to the point where it challenges western interests in the region.

9.The hypocrisy gives the game away. When the people of Bahrain rose against their US-backed monarchy and were cut down in the streets, there was no talk of action, even though the US sixth fleet is based there and could doubtless have imposed a solution in short order. As top US republican Senator Lindsey Graham observed last month “there are regimes we want to change, and those we don’t”. NATO will only ever intervene to strangle genuine social revolution, never to support it.

10.Military aggression in Libya – to give it the righty name – will be used to revive the blood-soaked policy of ‘liberal interventionism’. That beast cannot be allowed to rise from the graves of Iraq and Afghanistan.

stopthewar

Food for thought. I must admit i'm not sure what the correct policy is.

and what happens when the rebellion is quelled by sustained bombardment?
do you think that the civvilian populace is gonna be happier?
what about the eventual help they would need?
wouldnt it be a lot better to make a compromise, like the no fly zone, where no ground forces are needed on their soil?

Western bombing would allow Gaddafi to paint the Rebels as tools of outside forces. So that has it's downside to it in that it might sway the the impartial streel level Libyan observer behind Gaddafi for Nationalistic reasons. Invasion would be even worse as apparently Gaddafi is able to call on Loyal armed men who would then melt into society Iraq style and carry out an asymmetrical conflict against western backed troops. As soon as one Western plane is shot down we''ll have people on the ground for sure. That SAS team just got caught a few weeks back inside Libya. Theres probably special forces teams on the ground helping with weapons targeting as we speak. A no fly zone may have a small chance to keeping Gaddafi out of Benghazi. Once he's in Benghazi you cant really do much with Jets because it's a built up area.

gaddafi needs to go

The UN passed a no-fly zone over Libya. I think if the world decides together on a answer like that, then I'm for it. What Gaddafi is doing to his citizens is horrible.

all true, but i dont think a no fly zone will have that effect, only bad thing in my eyes is that it didnt pass sooner, then the rebellion would have had a far greater chance of overthrowing gadaffi.
i think most of the people behind gadaffi are the people that have direct buisness relationships with him, meaning the people that depend on him directly for monetary income.

Couldn't they have just planted a bunch a bombs to his(evil Carlos Santana) private house and ended this? Or is that information too hard to obtain.

Even Saddam Hussain had a political following. I'd hate for this to turn into another bloodbath Iraq style. I think Gaddafi will rout Benghazi tommorow morning and by that time only ground forces will stop it.

By "citizens" do you mean armed rebels or unarmed civilians? If you mean armed rebels, then any country/government would want to fight off any elements trying to overthrow their regime.

Plenty of unarmed citizens died when Gaddafi initially put down peaceful protests. I think ultimately the west doesn't have the man power to invade every dictatorship. I'd suggest they just quit arming them in the first place and send any aid money to the democractic opponents of autocratic regimes instead of the regimes themselves.

now that would be a brilliant solution to a lot of problems, only real problem i see is how to make sure they keep the money, receiving them is only part of the problem.

and yes unfortunately i think the rebellion will have to disband completely and regroup in hiding if they want to succeed at this point.

as for the idealogical following of a dictator, what are peoples opinion of this?
i think they have the right to follow anyone they desire, however i also think that any human being can be judged by their actions,
in my eyes these ideological followers helps opress the rest of the inhabitants in giving gadaffi some sort of legitimacy, not that they should be punished as such, i just dont think their opinion of what should happen actually matters untill gadaffi is gone, then they might become a problem or they might try to work constructively with themselves, when he is gone i think a lot of them will start to open their eyes.

The globalist war drum keeps beating. Since the faux people’s revolution could not topple the crazed Libyan dictator, the U.N. voted to institute a no fly zone. That report was immediately updated and the no fly zone turned into a British and French bombing campaign which is scheduled to start on Friday (3-18-2011).

UPDATE 5:45 pm: I guess when you go to war against someone, you have to demonize them, and it was so today with Secretary of State Clinton, who called Muammar Qaddafi a “creature,” while admitting that an NFZ over Libya would mean bombing the country. Said Clinton:

“A no-fly zone requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems.… Qaddafi must go. [He is] a ruthless dictator that has no conscience and will destroy anyone or anything in his way. If Qaddafi does not go, he will just make trouble. That is just his nature. There are some creatures that are like that.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12770467

"The UN resolution rules out a foreign occupation force in any part of Libya."

"The resolution would permit air strikes on Libyan ground troops or allow attacks on Libyan war ships if they were attacking civilians, the BBC's Barbara Plett at the UN said."


So this is as far as they can go legally. I am coming around to the idea of supporting this.

i really dont disagree with hindering a mass murderer in killing using these methods.

now i know i come across as a pro war person at the moment,
but i dont see this as an invasion but a humanitarian act that has a very small economic impact compared to a full blown war like iraq and afghanistan.

I just noticed a distinction in what Ms Plett said that the resolution only allows UN attacks to protect civilians. Therefore if Gaddafi attacks only combatants then it could technically be illegal to counter him

true, but then again how will the un distinquish combatants from civillians, this is why iraq turned into what it is today
and the way gadaffi counter attacks ie. bombs and heavy artillery really doesnt leave them with much choice but to assume civilians will be caught in the crossfire, he really is a monster