Discussion: North Africa & Southwest Asia Regional Issues II

[Paradoxium]

NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya

Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.

The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months

The fail train keeps getting better.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

We would never do that to you!

Probably

Then you probably are great

 

[Paradoxium]

Radial Islamist groups gaining stranglehold in Egypt

The military-led government already faces accusations that it is bowing to the surge in support for the Muslim movements, something that David Cameron warned of in February when he said Egyptian democracy would be strongly Islamic.

Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, last week predicted the group’s candidates would win 75 per cent of the seats it contested.

Fundamentalist factions have also emerged as parties. Gamaa al-Islamiya, an al-Qaeda linked group that promotes Salafist traditions has used its mosques as a political base for the first time since the 1970s.

Maybe I can start quoting the people cheering for this a month or two ago. Moderate secular movement my ass.

BTW the Copts:

As hardliners compete for street power, Egypt's Christians – who make up 10 per cent of the population – are emigrating in growing numbers.

Al-Masry al-Youm, an Egyptian newspaper, reported last week that the Canadian embassy had been swamped by visa requests from Coptic Christians.

 

[Paradoxium]

Due to the nature I can't post the videos. But there are now footage of rebels committing violent and graphic atrocities on par with Qaddafi. Do a search and you will find them: "LIBYAN REBEL WAR CRIMES".

Remember tax dollars are being funneled to them. Despite the current deficit.

 

[Fading]

I see that as two part. On one hand those who do things like that are no better than Qaddafi. On the other, they don't represent all the oppressed and murdered ppl over there.

You have a group of untrained rebels, who even if we supplied them with tons of new weaponry, they still wouldn't be able to use it properly. Who is made up of not just oppressed citizens, but random Al-Queda amongst others. We're just randomly dropping bombs, and not organizing, let alone getting to know who these rebels are. In order o organize them, or discipline the guys doing awful war crimes, we'd have to get more involved.


In defense on the other side tho, the part of me that values human life so incredibly far above money that it's not even in the same solar system, thinks getting involved was the right call. Qaddafi said he was going to exterminate them like germs, and has killed his own ppl, and even American's before. Plus, unlike Iraq, we had others wanting to jump in and fight. I mean I try to imagine setting in my home, with government snipers setting on the rooftops, and troops about to barge into my home, waiting to slaughter my family for no reason, and then think what it would be like if the world just said "meh" and ignored it.

I don't begrudge the ppl there afraid of dying and begging for our help because some of the rebels are awful ppl. I do however wish all of the international partners that put this together with us would shoulder more of the financial burden, and that we had thought exactly how far we would have to get involved ahead of time before we did. Once we started dropping bombs, there was no pulling out until Qaddafi was gone or he'd just continue to do what he was doing with increased bravado saying he beat the world back. We also can't afford a regime change and rebuild like we did in Iraq. Our goal should have been more clear than, "We'll bomb stuff, and if he doesn't give up we'll wing it from there".

 

[Paradoxium]

Saudis give up on US, instigate direct Gulf action against Iran

Two US emissaries sent to intercede with Saudi King Abdullah – US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on April 6 and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who arrived in Riyadh six days later – were told that Saudi Arabia had reached a parting-of-the ways with Washington, followed actively by Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman.

Abdullah said he could not forgive the Americans for throwing former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to the wolves in Cairo and for the unrest they were promoting against Arab regimes.

Saudi Arabia was therefore determined to lead the Gulf region on the road to a confrontation with Iran – up to and including military action if necessary – to defend the oil emirates against Iranian conspiracies in the pursuit of which the king accused US-led diplomacy of giving Tehran a clear field.

 

[Alex The Great]

More war? Hooray!

 

[LOBO3315a]

But it isn't war created by the United States. Somehow I'm sure we'll be blamed, though.

 

[Alex The Great]

If the Saudis were to lead some sort of war on Iran, what would America do? Stay out? Choose a side? There's no doubt that America and Iran don't like each other, but America doesn't want to fight Iran apparently, so if someone else were to do it for them, I guess the US would be okay-ish about it?

 

[Paradoxium]

Based on the Administration past actions, probably side with Iran, denounce and impose economic sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

 

[Franklin Richards]

********.


We are in Saudi Arabia's pocket. Despite them sending a plane into the WTC.

 

[Kelly]

We should have been watching Iran all along anyway....NOT Iraq, NOT Egypt, NOT Libya....

 

[Fading]

I have to toss my hat in the, let's not touch this one with a 10 foot pole, lot. We're waaaay over committed as is, and there's no impending humanitarian crisis. We can try to talk them out of it if we can, but not get directly, and militarily involved.

Though, Iran vs. the Saudi's (amongst whoever else they get to go along), we would probably get dragged in eventually anyway. I can already see politicians dragging the mushroom cloud speeches back out. Ugh...this isn't an over reaction as I'm hoping and thinking it won't come to blows anyway...but another Mid East war/crisis...I think I'm warred out for this life time from this last decade alone. The world should just go on vacation for the next 100 years and pick things back up then when I've already died from old age.

 

[Kelly]

Oh, don't get me wrong....I'm not saying we need to get into it NOW....what I'm saying is we should have never tossed our hats into Iraq or Libya. Unfortunately because we are in those...we will probably be stretched to breaking in Iran.

 

[Fading]

We should have been watching Iran all along anyway....NOT Iraq, NOT Egypt, NOT Libya....

Just want to say that even tho I said we shouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole, I do agree with this. Iran should have easily been on our list before Iraq. It's just that in our current state with everything else going on, I'd rather we not go into another conflict if we can help it.

 

[Kelly]

I agree...

 

[Fading]

Heh, I think this is one thing everyone in the political section agrees on. I knew you didn't mean you wanted to go in there now, I just didn't clarify enough.

 

[Kelly]

Well, actually to be honest, I don't think we should be going in ANYWHERE....I don't think we should have gone into Afghanistan, BUT I can understand why we did...I just didn't like that we did.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

********.


We are in Saudi Arabia's pocket. Despite them sending a plane into the WTC.

You shouldn't blame a whole country based on the actions of a few individuals, that's wrong
The guy in blame was banished from KSA before 2k1

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You shouldn't blame a whole country based on the actions of a few individuals, that's wrong
The guy in blame was banished from KSA before 2k1

But the Saudi government has done very little to stem the tide of home-grown fundamentalism in their country. They're doing a bit better now, but until about 2004 or 2005 (when they were hit with a rash of terrorist attacks) they denied Al Qaeda even had a presence in Saudi Arabia. That was not only stupid, it was dangerously irresponsible and they only admitted they had a problem when it became pretty damn impossible to deny.

 

[Paradoxium]

Shameful U.S. inaction on Syria’s massacres

According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.

Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.

In a nutshell, Syria is massacring it's people. The same reason why Obama took on Qaddafi.

 

[terry78]

Qadaffi's son was killed in an airstrike, along with three of his grandchildren, but he escaped. Don't know where this is gonna lead, but harming somebody's family is like the biggest middle finger to give.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_libya

 

[8wid]

Is anyone conflicted like I am in that this war should not be happening, especially because the U.S. seems hypocritical in this conduct in the Middle East, but also it could be true that Obama is a unique president who should be complimented for creating international military involvement in a situation that might turn into genocide when his predecessors rarely have?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Is anyone conflicted like I am in that this war should not be happening, especially because the U.S. seems hypocritical in this conduct in the Middle East, but also it could be true that Obama is a unique president who should be complimented for creating international military involvement in a situation that might turn into genocide when his predecessors rarely have?

Yep. Pretty much what you said. If Clinton had acted in Rwanda he might have prevented a genocide. On the other hand, I only support intervening to a certain extent and on humanitarian grounds and get a bit uneasy when I hear stuff about regime-change and assassination attempts. If this ever becomes boots-on-the-ground then it would lose my support.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Qadaffi's son was killed in an airstrike, along with three of his grandchildren, but he escaped. Don't know where this is gonna lead, but harming somebody's family is like the biggest middle finger to give.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_libya

Exactly. Qadaffi wont just sit back and let this pass. We better hope we remove him or kill him, otherwise we are just setting ourselves up for terrorist retaliation strikes.