Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

I got to say, that the Obama Administration has been very impressive in my opinion, in the wake of recent developments in Egypt, and Libya.

Firstly, the US was very outspoken with its criticism of the Mubarak regime, whilst it endorsed a stable transition to full democracy for the Egyptian people. It just goes to show, that the American stance cannot, and is unwilling to deny the unquestionable rights of the people, despite the despotic regime meeting US interests as it also allowed a certain element of control within the region which provided a certain element of stability in a very volatile area.

In effect, the Americans supported the wishes of the Egyptian people knowing full well, that the outcome may not be in line with American interests in the area, and that potentially, there is a risk of Islamic radicalism which may increase tensions between Egypt and Israel. But the Egyptian people are now victorious, and have a great opportunity to take charge of their own future. I have a feeling, that Egypt will be fine in the long term, and I hope that I am right.

Now, we all agree that the Gadaffi regime is out of control, drunk on power and money at the expense of the Libyan people. Some 2,500 civilians and rebels have been killed over the last few weeks and the fall of Benghazi is imminent which will no doubt mean the reprisals against opposition supporters and groups will be draconian, if the world does not act. In fact, inaction has given much comfort to other regimes in the Middle East.

However, one feels a little sympathy with Obama, because many seem to think that it is America's responsibility to act as the UN's police force. It seems to me that, Obama, whilst recognizing the brutality of the Gaddafi regime, was a little disinterested in enforcing a no fly zone, as he has more than enough to contend with at present. And what about Bahrain and Yemen?

Also, Obama recognizes the fact that a no fly zone may result in some collateral damage (loss of innocent life) which will no doubt be very damaging to America and the Obama administration. But let's not forget, that doing nothing will result in the loss of many more innocent lives at the hands of the brutal Gadaffi regime. It is a bit of a catch 22 which America cannot win.

Also, there is very little a no fly zone can achieve other than protect rebel strongholds and the Libyan Liberation Movement from aerial attack. It cannot for instance topple the Gaddafi regime, and bring about some form of regime change. It cannot protect the Liberation Movement from Gadaffi's superior ground forces. That will require multinational troops and a full scale invasion with high intensity warfare with Gaddafi's Libyan Armed Forces. Very costly indeed, and not something that the US or its allies would want! So it should be no surprise to anyone that the West has cold feet about all this.

But again, what is impressive is the Obama's recognition that something needs to be done, for the sake of the Libyan people, despite some well founded reservations.

But let's be very fair. If the world expects the US to act as the world's police force, costing American lives and many Billions of dollars, for the greater good of the Libyan people, then please, put your money where your mouth is and be the first to do something about it.

America of course is in a no win situation. It will be damned if it does, and it will be damned if it doesn't.

[Tim Drayton]

The vast majority no doubt want a change , but thousands who are benefiting by the regime want him to stay , this is supported by Al Jazeera reporting direct from Libya. The likely outcome if the West stays out is that Gaddafi and his army will crush the rebellion , so far we have not witnessed any action by the army to indicate that it will support the rebellion , on the contrary the army so far has fully supported Gaddafi .

It is obviously a 'my word against yours situation', but if you say thousands, then yes, what I have heard ordinary Libyans refer to as 'Gaddafi's gang' certainly numbers in its thousands.

[Mikiko]

CONSISTENCY OF POLICIES AND NO DOUBLE STANDARDS require THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION of the west . What makes the "west" legal to intervene in Iraq and illegal in Libya ?

Either your apply your principles in practice everywhere and at any time or the west is a Hypocratite Union of nations. What was considered RIGHT to intervene in Iraq and Afganistan and for the sake of all thousands civilans who lost their lives at these wars it is the same RIGHT - Priciples that have been violated in Libya .

If the so called west does not intervene in Libya its because they at last realised the failure of their policies in Iraq and Afganistan .

[Paphitis]

Very simplistic views because this consistency should equally apply to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Cyprus ( THAT WOULD BE NICE! ) and the list goes on and on!

I personally don't believe it is America's responsibility. It is more to do with the UN Charter on Human Rights and the enforcement of UN Resolutions, with which American involvement may be an integral part and is almost expected and taken for granted by many nations. At the end of the day, others will need to involve themselves more and more.

The US is not your bitch!

Very simplistic and very selfish!

[NEVERSAYNEVER]

CONSISTENCY OF POLICIES AND NO DOUBLE STANDARDS require THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION of the west . What makes the "west" legal to intervene in Iraq and illegal in Libya ?

Either your apply your principles in practice everywhere and at any time or the west is a Hypocratite Union of nations. What was considered RIGHT to intervene in Iraq and Afganistan and for the sake of all thousands civilans who lost their lives at these wars it is the same RIGHT - Priciples that have been violated in Libya .

If the so called west does not intervene in Libya its because they at last realised the failure of their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan .

The circumstances in both Iraq and Afghanistan were totally different from those currently appertaining to Libya. Afghanistan was considered as the training ground for terrorists and the home of Bin Laden , Iraq was perceived to pose a threat to the West .
Libya was accepted as a partner of the West , Tony Blair when visiting Libya in 2004 said " Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism. "
This is why I oppose any military action since I do not see Libya posing a threat to the West.
A humanitarian issue is the predominant factor here but it is an issue that the Arab nations ought to face and deal with.
Would you send your son to fight in Libya , that is the question.

[Mikiko]

At this specific time I dont believe that any country has the resources to embark on any military struggle against Libya or Syria or Iran or whatever other country. Of course it is not Americas resposninility and it should nt have to from the begining . It was US who assumed this role in the first place.

I dont think the ordinary people have the capacity to kick out Kadafi so they need assistance from outside . There is no proper democracy no opposition to replace Kadafi so he is a Dictator together with his sons.

[Mikiko]

CONSISTENCY OF POLICIES AND NO DOUBLE STANDARDS require THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION of the west . What makes the "west" legal to intervene in Iraq and illegal in Libya ?

Either your apply your principles in practice everywhere and at any time or the west is a Hypocratite Union of nations. What was considered RIGHT to intervene in Iraq and Afganistan and for the sake of all thousands civilans who lost their lives at these wars it is the same RIGHT - Priciples that have been violated in Libya .

If the so called west does not intervene in Libya its because they at last realised the failure of their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan .

The circumstances in both Iraq and Afghanistan were totally different from those currently appertaining to Libya. Afghanistan was considered as the training ground for terrorists and the home of Bin Laden , Iraq was perceived to pose a threat to the West .
Libya was accepted as a partner of the West , Tony Blair when visiting Libya in 2004 said " Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism. "
This is why I oppose any military action since I do not see Libya posing a threat to the West.
A humanitarian issue is the predominant factor here but it is an issue that the Arab nations ought to face and deal with.
Would you send your son to fight in Libya , that is the question.

Kadafi became a partner to the west only recently he was considered a threat long time ago but this threat was selectively ignored for many reasons . It is not easy to embark on a militarty struggle against any country no matter how small it is or how strong you are .

I can not find many difference between Sadam Hussein and Kadafi . They were both there for life and with no public votes. Are there evidences that Kadafi was not funding Al Queeda and Bin laden ? not sure

[Paphitis]

At this specific time I dont believe that any country has the resources to embark on any military struggle against Libya or Syria or Iran or whatever other country. Of course it is not Americas resposninility and it should nt have to from the begining . It was US who assumed this role in the first place.

I dont think the ordinary people have the capacity to kick out Kadafi so they need assistance from outside . There is no proper democracy no opposition to replace Kadafi so he is a Dictator together with his sons.

No, the US has been very disinterested!

Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Kevin 747 (a major dickhead if there ever was one), was one of the biggest advocates for a no fly zone, and spoke to the Americans about the prospect, and when an even bigger idiot and major embarrassment, Australia's Prime Minister visited and met Obama in Washington, it became apparent that Obama was very cold.

You see, if Australia wants to advocate a no fly zone, and public opinion also seems to endorse this view, then Australia should contribute Military resources, otherwise be very quiet and let anyone else who is willing to take the bull by the horns.

The US has the resources, and these resources are already deployed in the Mediterranean, but others need to play a more proactive role if action is desired. France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, Greece are also able to easily deploy air elements, and perhaps the Russians and Chinese need to as well!

It should never be a case of "what is the US going to do about it" but it should be a case where the entire world recognizes the injustice, resulting in many nations deploying resources in order to give the Libyans a fighting chance.

Naturally, if no one is willing to take charge of the situation, then the US will have no choice but to contribute Military resources and use any necessary means to enforce the UN backed no fly zone! Now, I don't believe that this is enough to save the Libyan rebels against Gadaffi's ground forces but at least it increases their chances ever so slightly. The only thing that will spare the Libyan people will be the deployment of a multinational ground force in Libya! Any takers?

But, it is high time nations stop demanding US action left right and centre! That is really unfair on the US and the American people!!!

Just leave them alone and let someone else play the good cop!

[Paphitis]

CONSISTENCY OF POLICIES AND NO DOUBLE STANDARDS require THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION of the west . What makes the "west" legal to intervene in Iraq and illegal in Libya ?

Either your apply your principles in practice everywhere and at any time or the west is a Hypocratite Union of nations. What was considered RIGHT to intervene in Iraq and Afganistan and for the sake of all thousands civilans who lost their lives at these wars it is the same RIGHT - Priciples that have been violated in Libya .

If the so called west does not intervene in Libya its because they at last realised the failure of their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan .

The circumstances in both Iraq and Afghanistan were totally different from those currently appertaining to Libya. Afghanistan was considered as the training ground for terrorists and the home of Bin Laden , Iraq was perceived to pose a threat to the West .
Libya was accepted as a partner of the West , Tony Blair when visiting Libya in 2004 said " Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism. "
This is why I oppose any military action since I do not see Libya posing a threat to the West.
A humanitarian issue is the predominant factor here but it is an issue that the Arab nations ought to face and deal with.
Would you send your son to fight in Libya , that is the question.

Kadafi became a partner to the west only recently he was considered a threat long time ago but this threat was selectively ignored for many reasons . It is not easy to embark on a militarty struggle against any country no matter how small it is or how strong you are .

I can not find many difference between Sadam Hussein and Kadafi . They were both there for life and with no public votes. Are there evidences that Kadafi was not funding Al Queeda and Bin laden ? not sure

I think there is a very clear cut humanitarian issue in Libya and the world needs to take some action. No doubt, the US and UK will play a major role!

Since there is widespread injustice and crimes against the Libyan people, then what else could be a better reason to put an end to it if possible? There are very good reasons for action, which will be costly no doubt, but why should everyone expect the US to be the spearhead? Yes, the US is a superpower, has the rsources to achieve all Military objectives if it wanted to, but why not Russia, China, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Greece, or Italy? Others need to be proactive, and the US will no doubt be there to assist!

Look, there is no doubt in my mind, that this no fly zone could turn into another high intensity land battle, and that is something the US and its allies are not overly kean about! Australia's stupid Foreign Affairs Minister was silly enough to overlook this obvious fact, probably because he is such a big stupid idiot who has absolutely no idea about Military matters. He should in future seek expert advice from the ADF and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute!

[Mikiko]

CONSISTENCY OF POLICIES AND NO DOUBLE STANDARDS require THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION of the west . What makes the "west" legal to intervene in Iraq and illegal in Libya ?

Either your apply your principles in practice everywhere and at any time or the west is a Hypocratite Union of nations. What was considered RIGHT to intervene in Iraq and Afganistan and for the sake of all thousands civilans who lost their lives at these wars it is the same RIGHT - Priciples that have been violated in Libya .

If the so called west does not intervene in Libya its because they at last realised the failure of their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan .

The circumstances in both Iraq and Afghanistan were totally different from those currently appertaining to Libya. Afghanistan was considered as the training ground for terrorists and the home of Bin Laden , Iraq was perceived to pose a threat to the West .
Libya was accepted as a partner of the West , Tony Blair when visiting Libya in 2004 said " Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism. "
This is why I oppose any military action since I do not see Libya posing a threat to the West.
A humanitarian issue is the predominant factor here but it is an issue that the Arab nations ought to face and deal with.
Would you send your son to fight in Libya , that is the question.

Kadafi became a partner to the west only recently he was considered a threat long time ago but this threat was selectively ignored for many reasons . It is not easy to embark on a militarty struggle against any country no matter how small it is or how strong you are .

I can not find many difference between Sadam Hussein and Kadafi . They were both there for life and with no public votes. Are there evidences that Kadafi was not funding Al Queeda and Bin laden ? not sure

I think there is a very clear cut humanitarian issue in Libya and the world needs to take some action. No doubt, the US and UK will play a major role!

Since there is widespread injustice and crimes against the Libyan people, then what else could be a better reason to put an end to it if possible? There are very good reasons for action, which will be costly no doubt, but why should everyone expect the US to be the spearhead? Yes, the US is a superpower, has the rsources to achieve all Military objectives if it wanted to, but why not Russia, China, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Greece, or Italy? Others need to be proactive, and the US will no doubt be there to assist!

Look, there is no doubt in my mind, that this no fly zone could turn into another high intensity land battle, and that is something the US and its allies are not overly kean about! Australia's stupid Foreign Affairs Minister was silly enough to overlook this obvious fact, probably because he is such a big stupid idiot who has absolutely no idea about Military matters. He should in future seek expert advice from the ADF and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute!

Of course collective action is always more effective . But there are countries who are egocentrik like the ones you refer and think what is best for them and not for what is best for Libya or for the world so this leads to a deadlock.

If the disaster that hit japan is faced collectively by all countries it will be easier to overcome than leaving Japan alone to deal with the problem . This affects directly the whole world and has an effect on markets worldwide and affect individual countries too . But most countries see it as outside of their jurisdiction but It is not as these events has an effect on their local markets too.