Activity in Libya

[stanier]

Is the current escapade just another case of the west trying to protect the oil interests in the east of Libya? Where were these nations to protect the millions in Zimbabwe from their dictator. Oh, I forgot there is no oil in Zimbabwe.

Of course it gives the west a chance to dispose of their weapons with their use by date on them and much needed practice in using them. A secondary benefit is when the Libyans get their freedom they can replace their destroyed weapons from British Aerospace, Rockwell, Northrop etc.

http://military.einnews.com/category/weapon-manufacturers

Dont get me wrong I am not necessariy against the action but it is selctive when Africa has its dictators and no one seems to care.

"Sharing knowledge is the way to immortality"
His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/

 

[KENAT]

"when Africa has its dictators and no one seems to care."

Um, isn't Libya in Africa? I thought it was us yanks were meant to be bad at geography not you Austrians?;-)

Plus, be fair, they're being inconsistent even within the middle east.

As to Libya buying stuff when it's all done & settled, well they'd already signed up for a bunch of Augusta-Westland products hadn't they?

Most governments are at best pragmatic when deciding which sticky foreign situation to get involved with and which to ignore waiting for them to go away. There are many factors involved, the 'right' or 'wrong' of the situation being relatively low on the list.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[stanier]

Kenat,

Austria is not Australia (LOL).

"Sharing knowledge is the way to immortality"
His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/

 

[msquared48]

Raelly? [bigsmile}

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[IRstuff]

What this (US) and other countries calculate is cost/benefit and whether there are strategic or national interests. For the majority of African nations in turmoil, there's no mechanized army, which means there's nothing to do be send in troops to slog it out toe-to-toe. Lots of cost for little benefit. Even with oil, if the situation is too messy, as in the case of Nigeria, we stay out.

As for Libya, being an Arab nation, the US is unwilling to do anything without at least overt approval from at least Saudi Arabia, to blunt any argument of imperialism, blah, blah...

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[stanier]

Guess that's why we didnt see the USA in East Timor, Fiji,PNG and the Solomons. They cant be everywhere.

But I am confused. Why go into Afghanistan when the Russians could win in 10 years? Also, Vietnam when the French gave it up as a bad joke ? Somalia was even worse!

The theory is that the unrest is being stirred up by Iran in northern Africa. So why go in on their side? Is it a Sir Humphrey Appleby moment where he declared of the UK joining the EU " You cannot possibly destroy something like that from the outside, you have to be part of it to make it self destruct".

My take is from "follow the money" syndrome. The arms industry needs a kick start. So what better way than use up one's arsenal, and the oppositions. Then production can start again in replenishment. Also the nervous nellies in the region will want to re equip. The natural enemies in Europe and the East will do likewise. Mining companies start digging up more uranimum, titanium, aluminium etc etc. World economy takes off. Economic news is taken off the front page. Pollies are in line to survive the next election as no one wants a change of leadership in the middle of a crisis. Stock exchange bounces around like a skunk on heat so Warren and crew can make a fortune from the masses and pay a little back to the government to pay for the arms etc.

"Sharing knowledge is the way to immortality"
His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/

 

[IRstuff]

Afghanistan was because of 9/11. If not for that, we would have let that country rot with the Taliban, as we had been doing for more than decade prior.

Seems to me that the US was dragged kicking and screaming into the Libyan affair. As for replenishment, there's already a budget busting amount from Irag and Afghanistan.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[patprimmer]

It might be a coincidence but both Afghanistan and Vietnam have or had strong links to opium production or as transport hubs.

It was JFK who got the USA involved in Vietnam and his family is reputed to have had some organized crime connections.

East Timor was ignored for years until Australia saw an opportunity to move the territorial waters boundary to include oil from East Timor. To me it seems like it was a lot easier to intimidate the Government we just installed with military support than it would have been to take the territory from Indonesia. We ALL have selective moral outrage. I believe that Israel and major oil suppliers both compete to influence the US policy. There is at least some cause for moral outrage against both sides in some conflicts.

For instance, I saw a documentary recently about the treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Jewish settlers just evicting and even shooting unarmed people as they are evicted from their homes because "GOD" gave Israel the land. An alarming number of these Jewish religious fundamentalists had American accents. Part of the justification was to protect "Sacred" sites. It all has a familiar ring to it. I would not be at all surprised that those who where forcefully evicted would soon become terrorists.



Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[KENAT]

Gee stanier, you're blowing all the Aussie stereo types now - I though you guys prided yourselves on your keen sense of humor.

A major factor in deciding to intervene can also be if the leadership thinks it will get them elected for another term or get some political favor that helps with that.

Unless things change drastically, the Libyan intervention will be a blip on the radar in terms of spending compared to Iraq & Afghanistan. So while it may be a factor, I'm not convinced the military industrial complex is entirely to blame right now.

Then again, I'm biased, I used to work for a defence company and I liked it.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[patprimmer]

I bet Obama is thinking a quick popular result in Libya will get him reelected.

It worked for Maggy Thatcher in the Falklands.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[KENAT]

Pat, Maggy/Falklands would the obvious example from recent history.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[johnhors]

I bet Obama is thinking a quick popular result in Libya will get him reelected.

"On Monday US President Barack Obama said the US would soon cede control of operations in Libya - "in a matter of days and not in a matter of weeks".

Mr Gates has said the mission could come under French-British or Nato control."

-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12816226

http://www.Roshaz.com

quality, cost effective FEA solutions

 

[zdas04]

Remember George Bush Senior? His leadership in the Desert Storm victory did a bunch for his re-election. The electorate won't even remember that there was a war in Libia in 2 years.

David

 

[ScottyUK]

Something I read elsewhere:

- The UK government is motivated by guilt, after it let the terrorist who blew up Pan-Am 103 go free.

- The US is motivated by vengeance for the same incident.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[francesca]

There are comparisons of Libya to Zimbabwe, but they don't go far. There are also far-reaching consequences to having let Gadafi keep attacking his citizens.

Robert Mugabe is a despot and the world will be better once he's gone. He is corrupt and is slowly starving his people. But he isn't conducting air assaults or advancing on them with tanks, indiscriminately murdering them. It's almost unfortunate, because if he were he probably would be removed. Zimbabwe was a great country for the first decade of his leadership and can hold its head up high for having nothing even approaching South Africa's AIDS infection rate despite abject poverty. There is a future for Zim after Mugabe goes.

As for Gadafi, he had to be stopped. If the west had let him carry on, it sent a terrible message to Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. "If you have oil and you murder your own citizens, nobody cares. Have fun and have some more dollars $$$$$$$$$$$$." Libya is in a dangerous situation if Gadafi does leave power. Unlike Egypt, where there is a legitimate and benevolent army to seize power, Libya would have a power vacuum and no functioning government or even society (all wealth was centralized). There's not much more welcoming than that for Al Qaeda, etc. and Libya is very conveniently placed for pot shots at Europe. I suspect that Gadafi will remain in power, after signing a cease fire with terms that require international monitoring, freedom of association, drafting a new constitution, and a slow path towards democracy/commerce that will let political parties form and society start to function.

 

[BJC]

"It was JFK who got the USA involved in Vietnam"
wewere in before that. Eisenhower committed aid in the 50s. We were trying to help France and Michelin keep the rubber plantations.

 

[IRstuff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dien_bien_phu

"The Western fear of a Communist extension in Southeast Asia, named the Domino Theory by Dwight D. Eisenhower during the Dien Bien Phu siege and the departure of the French from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, was a factor leading to the direct American intervention in South Vietnam."

Not precisely Eisenhower, but his advisors, which included the knuckleheads that deposed the duly-elected socialist Iranian president and installed the Shah, whose dictatorship led to the Iranian revolution and the current Islamic republic. Which, in turn, led to our tacit support of Saudi Arabian support of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, to counter the Iranian influence. Which, in turn, led to his invasion of Kuwait and our eventual war with him.

One has to wonder what the Middle East might look like if not for our continual meddling in their affairs.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[francesca]

Who knows IR? It was pretty stuffed after England were done in 1948, though.

 

[KENAT]

Well if we're assigning blame then France and the USA deserve their fair share for what was or wasn't included in the various WWI & post WWI treaties & deals; and if we're handing out blame why not to the Ottomans, Byzantines, Romans, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians...

If you're willing to go back far enough you can find someone to blame for all your troubles, in this case perhaps coming full circle.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ScottyUK]

Yes, blame France for aiding our upstart colony back in the 1770's...


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!