|
US leaders have to be hesitant to throw clear support behind the protests because they have to consider two future possibilities: 1. What if a protest movement fails, after the US supported it? In that event, the US has just totally ruined its relationship and ability to engage in diplomacy with that regime, and all of that regime's friends (the various regimes in this region often have close ties with each other). It is a bad habit of ours to support stability out of economic interests while ignoring our supposedly inviolable stances on human rights and personal freedom; but, that habit is borne of genuine interest that cannot be dismissed out of hand. For example, our military bases. 2. What if a protest movement succeeds in toppling a government, but what replaces it is not what we would really like? It is too easy to feel solidarity with freedom-loving youths facing up against brutal dictators... but it is a mistake to be certain that what those young people want is a US-friendly, western-style democracy. In some cases many of them do... but remember that a majority of arabic people believe that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy. The government of egypt was essentially pro-Israel, at least in as much as they did not actively work against Israeli interests in the region. One of the reasons the US is OK with being blatantly anti-Iran is because Iran supports Hezbollah and its nuclear program is clearly aimed at countering nuclear-armed Israel. But we should not ignore the reality that whatever form the new government in Egypt will take, it is unlikely to be as cooperative with the US's pro-Israel stance as the former was. This is also true in many of the other countries engaging in protests. Leaving aside Israel, it is also a possibility that new governments turn out to be just as bad, or worse, than the old. The government we have installed in Afghanistan is horribly corrupt and I'm sure a lot of people are now regretting how heavily we supported Karzai. Aside from those two possibilities, I would hope that US leaders including Barack Obama have studied the history of US interventions in the middle east, and found that we pretty much always gently caress it up. Nevermind iraq and afghanistan, look back at what happened with Iran. Everyone in the middle east has learned some version of that sordid and terrible history, and it is one of the many reasons why the US remains unpopular. In fact I bet if you asked most of the protesters themselves would say they do not want US help or intervention. US backing of a revolt actually robs its legitimacy in the eyes of the arabic-speaking public. Personally I am very hopeful that the spirit of revolution spreads, purely out of an interest in oppressed people finding more freedom and dignity for themselves. But while I'm disappointed at the conflicting messages that have come out of the Obama administration, I'm very glad that, at least so far, there's been no evidence that we're actively interfering (CIA, illicit funding to rebels, etc.) and that the President has avoided statements that would give anti-protestors and dictatorial regimes the ammunition of US collusion to fight against. The US must not once again create the situation of it being the boogeyman that these dictators use as excuses for crushing dissent. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Feb 19, 2011 |
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Magellanicice9 posted:I know this was a few pages back, but this is awesome. Please do more. One major issue for China is Taiwan ("Chinese Taipei"). In a theoretical conflict over Taiwan, China does not want to legitimize in any way a UN doctrine of intervention. A secondary issue is the putting down of revolt. We all remember Tienanmen Square. China does not want to legitimize in any way the idea that the international community has a mandate to protect protesters from being run over by tanks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
Oil consumption is not very flexible. If prices rise by 5%, you don't see a 5% drop in consumption because of the higher prices. That's what contributes to sudden price spikes; if production drops by even a very small amount, buyers are all competing to try and get the same amount of oil as they were already using, so they rapidly bid up the price far in excess to the amount of the defecit until someone is finally "priced out" and accepts a lower quantity. Most oil is used for transportation and power plants, and most transporters and power-producers have a job to do. It's easier for them to pay 10% more for fuel, than it is for them to reduce how much they're using, especially on short notice. The futures market speculation is a big part of that too, but the markets are all aware of the inflexibility of demand and take it into account in their valuations. It's not totally speculative to predict a 10% rise in prices from a 1% drop in production.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
I doubt the mercenaries in question are glued to CNN or Twitter. They might not realize that they're on the losing side.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Finlander posted:And, due to a certain Soviet Russian crazy guy, absolute annihilation of political groups isn't considered genocide. I would support the UN changing its mandate to include being able to act against the wholesale murder of a group of people identified as a political organization rather than an ethnic group. However, that is not "genocide". It's something else (and something that is also horrible) but the word genocide does have an actual meaning. It refers to the attempt to eradicate a People, defined by an ethnicity or nationality. e. Yeah I'd say murdering hundreds of unarmed protesters is a crime against humanity. I'd buy that. I also think it's unrealistic to expect the UN to mobilize troops and organize an invasion in the space of week. That's the kind of thing few nations on earth are capable of, requiring enormous expense and resources, and which has a huge potential for spectacular and disastrous unforseen consequences. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Sivias posted:The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? There is a difference between "ok" and "something we agree we can respond with force against and can mobilize that force while being reasonably sure we won't just make things worse". Add in the fact that it's a multinational summit where numerous heads of state have to agree on action before it can take place, and I think it's just not reasonable to expect such an organization - even a putative replacement for the UN that was much more effective - to agree upon and mobilize an armed military intervention in the space of a week.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Finlander posted:Yeah, I suppose you're right. A new word is required. No reason not to do that, either. Crimes Against Humanity is a decent catch-all phrase (maybe too catch-all). It's good to remember though that any military intervention would include collateral damage. If people are imagining helicopters flying into Tripoli, with blue-helmeted UN commandoes dropping down on ropes and then gunning down the mercenaries, just remember that the mercenaries look a lot like the locals, to the extent that we saw today they were using civilian cars as decoys and then surprising people and shooting them. And of course you can't deploy troops without a supply chain to keep them armed, fed, and sheltered. You need command and control centers, fuel dumps, communications set up... all this takes personnel, which themselves have to be protected and organized. And leaders are surely remembering the botched hostage rescue attempt in Iran back in the 70s. Nobody wants to repeat that. So yeah, even if there was the political will and legal standing to use military force against Ghaddafi, it'd take more than three or four days to organize and the potential to backfire horribly is very real.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Sivias posted:I guess it's fine if Qaddafi bombs peaceful protesters and has the capability of dumping mustard gas on them. Oh, let's not forget he's hired international mercenaries to partake in this 'civil war'. There isn't a single person in this thread who has even remotely suggested that it's "fine" for innocent unarmed protesters to be murdered. There is no indication that the "international community" regards it as anything other than atrocious. The discussion was whether or not the UN, under its current laws, has a mandate to intervene. Your aggressive attitude towards someone who has bothered to read and understand the UN's charter and rules is unhelpful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
We should arm the Libyans with crates of cheap disposable digital cameras and sattelite phones with digital upload capabilities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia produces roughly 10% of the world's oil. Cutting it off abruptly would probably at least double the price of oil worldwide. Which would have immediate consequences, but in the short term, those consequences would largely fall on poor people in poor countries. The price of food would go up a lot, imported goods costs would rise, and so on. The US would tap its strategic oil reserve to help keep domestic supply from crashing. A long-term loss of 10% of production (and by long term, I mean 6 months or more) would be disastrous. However, it seems extremely unlikely to me. Here's a fact: Saudi Arabia produces basically nothing but oil. Without oil exports, nobody in Saudi Arabia will eat. A putative revolution would have to either succeed, or fail, long before six months had elapsed. Unless someone went all Saddam Hussein and set all the wells on fire or something, a revolution would either succeed and quickly start exporting oil again (so the people don't starve), or fail and see oil exports start up again (so the rich can stay rich). e. And setting oil wells on fire makes no sense for either side in a revolutionary struggle. Hussain set wells in Kuwait on fire as his forces retreated, but he didn't set Iraqi wells on fire. As long as he had hope of staying in power in Iraq, he needed the oil infrastructure intact - and by the time it was clearly over for him, he no longer had the power to do anything to them. Some folks have suggested that the US and perhaps many other countries would intervene militarily in Saudi Arabia to prevent, or help crush, a revolt. I'm not so sure. I'd guess that they'd intervene mainly to ensure no harm comes to the oil exporting infrastructure. It would be very difficult, politically, for any American leadership seen to be crushing democracy-seeking poor people in foreign lands. Sure, we've done it in the past, but not since CNN embedded reporters, much less Youtube broadcasting from anyone's cell phone. American leaders can and have justified military action to fight "terrorists", but it'd be difficult to label even highly-religious sectarian fighters in Saudi Arabia as being a terrorist threat. And even if we did, the first places the US commandos would secure, is the oil infrastructure. So a crisis in Saudi Arabia could put us back into recession, and would probably kill a million or so poor people in places like bangladesh and sub-saharan africa, and perhaps destabilize a few other countries with no oil reserves and already-shaky regimes... but I have a hard time picturing it triggering a global collapse of civilization. More importantly, I think my main point is that revolutions in countries that cannot feed themselves must succeed, or fail, in a timescale on the order of weeks, not months. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Mar 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
That is, by the way, precisely why prices can rise far out of proportion to any actual or perceived shortage of supply; people will cut spending elsewhere to buy just as much gas as they always do, rather than responding to rising gas prices by buying less gas. Until we as a country have sufficient alternatives to oil and/or discover how to improve energy efficiency, we will continue to be held hostage to the global speculation on oil prices and experience radical jumps in price when even tiny reductions in supply occur. And yes, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "peak oil". It's due to inflexible demand (and speculators who are acutely aware that they can get rich off of our inflexible demand). e. Oh and asking "them" to remove oil from the commodity futures markets won't happen. Even if the US did it, you'd still be able to trade oil futures on foreign markets, and the price of oil is a global price.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Narmi posted:A NFZ seems like it would be a huge boost to the anti-Gaddafi side; while the airstrikes so far seem to miss their targets most of the time or do very little damage, they probably undermine morale considerably. Especially after losing Bin Jawad, where a lot of the men went home, this could be the boost they need to push forward. I suspect the first time a US plane misses an AA emplacement and hits a house full of orphans, the anti-Gaddafi side will realize that a no-fly zone is not everything they had hoped for. There will almost certainly be civilian casualties from enforcing a no-fly zone, and there may be friendly-fire incidents as well. It is not the panacea some folks seem to be advocating for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
The farther planes have to fly to get to Libyan airspace, the less time they can loiter to provide an effective no-fly zone. You need aircraft constantly loitering so that they can immediately fly to intercept a hostile takeoff in the zone; otherwise it's not effective. That means a lot of wear and tear on the active fighters, too. You need a base that you can conduct constant maintenance of your planes on, so just borrowing someone else's air base isn't as good as having your own aircraft carrier with on-board techs and supplies and parts and stuff. Probably the various non-US countries aren't excited about putting hundreds of flight hours onto their only carrier-capable planes just to interdict Libyan airspace, either. The US has a lot of planes, so it can afford to cycle through them and could put up a no-fly zone while still having planes to spare for its other missions worldwide. I would guess that unless the US provides most or all of the aircraft, a no-fly zone over Libya would either not happen at all, or be of limited duration and scope (a week or two, maybe?).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Petey posted:Read my post again.I agree with you. The problem is that the current spike is unrelated to a shift In either supply or demand. it is a function of commodities speculation. Well, to be fair, the commodities speculators are speculating that the price for the commodity will rise due to future drop in supply. Turmoil in the middle east threatens the regularity and quantity of oil deliveries from those countries, and any hint of turmoil within Saudi Arabia underlines those concerns. So while it does not seem to make sense for today's gas prices to be higher just because gas in the future might cost more, it does make sense for oil commodities futures to be rising. There is a relationship there. It's still frustrating to know that I'm paying more at the pump in California for gasoline made from oil that was pumped out of the ground weeks or months ago and refined days ago at local refineries in california that are not running low on supply by any means. But Chevron or Exxon or BP or whoever, are paying up front for actual future delivery of oil to their refineries. They are paying prices that are rising based on speculation that supply may drop, and as a result they're raising prices at the pump to compensate (and protect their gigantic obscene profits, of course). And that's how oil futures prices cause instant changes in at-the-pump gasoline prices.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
Narmi posted:Dumb question, but what happens to all the extra money they're making from raising prices if it turns out they're wrong? Do they have to re-invest it to lower future prices or something? Well, no - Chevron gets to keep its profits (and/or distribute them to its shareholders). But the "them" that are making money from futures speculation is mostly people who have brokerage accounts, institutional investors, and huge investment banks. Chevron has to actually pay for oil to be delivered, but $random_fatcat can speculate on the prices of oil delivery contracts without ever actually having oil delivered to his mansion or whatever. Which is what people (in the thread) are talking about shutting down; obviously oil companies still have to make contracts with oil sellers dictating how much they'll pay for a tanker of oil to be delivered to the Port of New Orleans 30 days from now. But, that commerce does not strictly require everyone else in the world to be allowed to buy and sell those contracts. Of course, then you get into a different kettle of fish, where without that large market, it becomes much easier for big oil companies and producers and etc. to engage in price-fixing. Or governments have to step in to fix prices, which leads to other pricing "inefficiencies" (read, either massive subsidies, or state-mandated massive profits). Plus that'd be Regulation and as we all know, Regulation Is Bad (according to the right). Free Markets are better! The odds of a serious political move to stop global speculation on oil right now are basically 0. The entrenched interests and international scope would make it all but impossible, and it's certainly politically impossible. You'd sooner see a government subsidy for poor people's heating oil or a reduction in federal gas taxes or something like that. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Petey posted:I don't think we know that necessarily. This wasn't the case at all just before the GFC, when oil was well over $100 / barrel with no supply shocks of any kind. That was entirely speculative. While we don't have any evidence one way or the other, I'm inclined to presume that this largely is too. Um, have you seen the headlines? Apparently there's some unrest going on in some of those sandy hot oil places. That's about all the evidence you'd need, to guess that oil prices are rising based on speculation that oil production might fall in the near future. e. Petey posted:Speculation is bad. Full stop. There is some reason to hedge occasionally. There were legitimate uses for interest rate swaps too. But that's not what any of this is. This is banks being casinos. That is, and I mean this with respect, utter nonsense. "Speculation is always bad" is brazenly ignorant of how the modern global economy has formed over the last 10,000 years from a beginnings in humble agriculture that allowed human settlement to take place and people to start speculating on what the future will bring. "Speculation" is just a derogatory way of saying "investment". Speculation is buying a thing that you believe will go up in value. (Or selling a thing you believe will fall in value.) Oil futures contracts may seem quite divorced from the reality of oil tankers delivering oil, but they are intrinsically linked and the former arises from the latter being made a public marketplace. I invest in my 401(k) because I am speculating that stock prices will rise and I'll have more money when I retire than if I'd just stuffed it all in a mattress. And as a direct result of my "speculation", companies have operating capital to do things like make widgets and sell hamburgers and sell bombs to warmongers and lobby congress and pay corporate taxes and provide jobs and all the other horrible and great things that create the modern world that allows us to argue on the internet. Without "speculation" we'd still be hunter-gatherers. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
Petey I just wrote an edit up above for you to check out as well, but I'll just say this: it is not as clear cut as you would like to portray it. Because of inflexible demand, the loss of Libya's 2% contribution to global supply can easily lead to real prices rising 50%. And even two weeks ago, it was clear that unrest had spread beyond the original two countries, making it not at all unreasonable to think that it might spread further. Gamblers on the futures markets are indeed a problem. But there is no easy solution. Simply eliminating the public's access to futures markets is not a very good way to make things better. Public access was granted in the first place to get rid of price fixing and backroom deals and let "the market" find the "correct" price for commodities in a way that everyone could see and track and take part in. e. Let me try and be nicer and just say that the instantaneous nature of news, combined with computerized modern trading, makes it possible for massive moves in price to occur in seconds based on reports of any kind. That is true across all modern markets, for stocks as well as commodities and futures and options. It is a problem because there is an irresistible opportunity to make money by being the fastest on the uptake whenever change is occurring, and as a result, you can get volumes of trading and rapid price swings that could never have occurred 20 years ago. So unlike a real-estate bubble that takes years to form, commodities bubbles can form in hours. But nobody should realistically argue that this run up in oil prices is a bubble, yet, because there is a very real risk of serious and long-term interruption of oil production in the near future. And the near-future is precisely where oil futures are looking. The unfortunate thing isn't that oil futures exist, or that they're climbing rapidly; it's that (well aside from people dying and a struggle for freedom and evil dictators) gasoline and energy prices in general are so responsive to futures pricing. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Koine posted:Haha, really? Are you in economics class right now? I've never seen a more bizarre comparison than oil futures speculation and the origins of agriculture. The point, which I guess you missed - I blame myself for not being clear enough - is that someone arguing against "speculation" is using a definition for the word that basically means "just those kinds of investments that I disagree with" which is useless. If buying real estate in hopes of quick profit is speculation, then so is buying anything in hopes of profit. Where do you draw the line? Buying stocks is speculative. Deciding to pack your stuff into a wagon and Go West in hopes of free land and clean living is speculative. Taking your boat of goods to a foreign port in hopes you can make a profit is speculative. Deciding to settle down and trying to grow a crop instead of following your traditional nomadic route is speculative. Speculation just means taking a risk in hopes of a gain, financial or otherwise. If we want to have a useful conversation about bad behavior by investors, we need to move beyond the word "speculation" and talk about exactly why these markets exist. Commodities markets exist because, in theory, the more people participate in finding the appropriate market price for a commodity, the more accurately that price will reflect the current state of the world, in terms of supply, demand, and risks affecting supply and demand. That is an actually useful function, one that was a huge improvement on the situation before commodities markets were well-regulated and open to anyone to participate. Oil futures may provide an opportunity for people to gamble with their money, to the detriment of everyone who needs to buy oil... but that does not mean that they are inherently evil and wrong, and that there is no benefit to the existence of publicly-tradable oil futures contracts. I'll draw a different comparison: Libertarians (the really hardcore Rand Paul type) like to point out some of the problems that come along with fiat currency... including, especially, the ability of governments to simply print more money and then spend it. Their proposed solution - returning to a metals-based standard - is wildly ignorant of history and utterly unworkable for many practical reasons. Proposing that we close the public market for futures contracts because "speculation is bad" is equally ignorant. At least the proposal to tax it makes a little more sense, but as someone pointed out, simply blanket-taxing profits doesn't make people want them less (despite what Republicans like to claim when they argue the capital gains taxes need to stay low), but does add a liquidity "brake" to the entire marketplace which does not, it seems to me, do anything to control inflation of a bubble. There are enormous taxes and (especially) transactional costs on real estate, and yet, as we've seen, a disastrous real estate bubble formed anyway. I think this whole oil-futures speculation thing is barking up the wrong tree. If we want to stop experiencing sudden and disastrous rises in global energy prices, we need to find a way to make our economies less dependent on a single commodity for energy. If we could reduce consumption in response to falling supply or rising prices, then the prices wouldn't rise as quickly or (especially) as much. And that just means being able to drop consumption by like 5% or 10% when oil prices go up by 5% or 10%. Just as an example: in the US, if taking public transportation to work was even remotely available to most workers, even if it cost a little more or was a little less convenient than driving, a sudden spike in gas prices could prompt lots of people to switch to the public transportation to save money, which would reduce consumption of gasoline and put a brake on the price spike. But, of course, that would require a big infrastructure investment and that's something we haven't been doing well for, oh, 50 or 60 years now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
Lareous posted:EDIT: Bigger version. I absolutely love this photograph. The guy's got a bottle of water and they're wearing baseball caps and jeans and work boots. It's that sort of imagery that really helps people here in the US to identify with the Libyan people. Look at those guys: they could just as easily be in Texas as Libya. And, it really highlights their predicament and resourcefulness and the nature of the Libyan rebellion. Yes, they've got assault rifles, but they're shooting at aircraft with them. It tells you how outgunned they are, and yet, they seem enthusiastic. The guy with the water, that suggests he's in it for the long haul. He's gonna be shooting at airplanes for hours, better have something to stay hydrated with. It's impossible to look at that picture and not feel solidarity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:By the way, would now be a prudent time to open up an ask/tell thread on how to survive a societal breakdown? I'd be super-interested in such a thread... but only if you somehow found people who were experts on the subject. The reality is, you'll get a hundred goons from wealthy, safe Western countries spewing their opinions as-informed by movies, fantasy novels, computer games, and occasionally a boy scout merit badge or something. If there's someone around who's actually been in the thick of things during a societal collapse, though... yeah, that'd be an interesting ask/tell.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 09:49
|
|
|
From The GuardianThe Guardian posted:Nato was left paralysed as the US joined Germany in blocking the imposition of a no-fly zone supported by Britain and France. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels that contingency planning for a no-fly zone would continue, before adding "that's the extent of it". What the gently caress? I thought Obama had said "all options are on the table". Why is the US (and germany) blocking this? I mean, Gates' position seems to be clear - that imposing no-fly means airstrikes on ground-based anti-air defenses - but that's not the same thing as ruling out no-fly zones entirely, or blocking the English/French plan. And meanwhile (from the same article): The Guardian posted:The differences within the EU came as the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told Congress the rebels may face defeat because Gaddafi's forces are considerably better equipped. Clapper told the Senate's armed services committee the insurgents were in for a "tough roll" and in the longer term "the regime will prevail". He said: "We believe Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration." So here's a US official telling congress that Ghaddafi "will prevail". He's already calling it. And he went on to avoid questions from congressmen about whether that implies we need to hurry the gently caress up and help with a no-fly zone. I've been vocal previously about how a NFZ isn't all that easy to just do, but I think we're continuing to see a lot of uncoordinated statements between various US officials, in particular Obama, Clinton, Gates, and now Clapper. The president needs to get his people on the same loving page. This is embarrassing and massively harmful to the people in these countries who need to know whether they're going to get international support, or be hung out to dry, in both the short and long term.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:In somewhat related news, Clapper (the DNI) has been asked to resign by Senator Graham over statements that China (along with Russia) is our greatest strategic threat. The mind boggles. Watching the first video, I can understand Clapper's perspective: his job, day in and day out, is to assess the capabilities of other countries. And while (as he said) we have START with Russia, we have no such anti-proliferation treaty with China, who is of course a (massively) nuclear-armed country. But. But. You don't sit there in a loving publicly-broadcast, reported-around-the-world meeting with Congress and state, as a US military/intelligence official, that you thing China has the intent of attacking the US. You could see him kind of starting to backpedal a little at the end there, talking about how his job is to assess threat and he can't really say what a country's intent is (no kidding, for that matter most countries can't easily be said to have a singular "intent", since they're made up of people with different intentions and agendas that often compete with each other), but it doesn't matter. The soundbite that's going to be played all over the world, is going to go along with the headline "US Regards China Its Biggest Enemy". I hate to agree with Senator Graham, but that guy needs to be publicly and noisily fired by Obama, and his statements clearly and unambiguously repudiated. The last thing we need right now is to antagonize our most important trade partner and the largest holder of US debt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:I'd say that the US's previous success in destroying Iraqi air defenses without casualty is proof enough that modern stealth technology coupled with anti-radar missiles and smart bombs is enough to establish a NFZ with minimal risk. Of course that's only if the US fully commits, which given their position as of late is unlikely to happen. That's without coalition casualty. I'm sure lots of Iraqis were killed. Which is my concern, really. The first time we hit a building that's marked on our intelligence maps as being an anti-aircraft emplacement, but it turns out is in rebel hands and/or was being used as a temporary hospital for sick orphans or whatever, we'll have a problem. Which is of course part of the calculus of the whole thing. Not just "can we do it" but "can we do it without killing innocent Libyans". Along with (probably more important to US officials) "can we do it without giving real and significant political ammunition to other dictators regarding US interventionism/colonialism/imperialism". We do not want to help Libyan rebels in the short term by using methods that, say, wind up preventing an Iranian revolution down the line.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Sivias posted:It's not just the current cost of instituting a no fly zone, it's the future prospects. What happens if the No Fly Zone happens and the Gadaffi forces begin to advance? We'll be forced to send in troops. I don't think there's any scenario here that would "force" the US to send in troops. However. What if we impose a NFZ and the libyan civil war grinds to a stalemate that lasts for months... or years? When do we call a halt? How much can we spend, in money, equipment, and political capital, before we draw a line and say we're taking down the NFZ? And here's another possibility. Suppose we help the rebels, they defeat Ghaddafi in glorious revolution... and then impose a new regime which we find repugnant? Like, some military leader that flipped to the rebels takes over, or they create a hardcore islamist state, or they are really regressive in regards to women's rights. There's a certain amount of "you broke it you bought it" that happens (certainly happened in afghanistan) and we have to seriously consider this stuff. It's too easy to get jubilant about huddled masses yearning to be free and their patriotic struggle for liberation in the face of a madman and his evil forces of darkness. Which I am. I am totally on the side of the libyan freedom-fighters. But I'm really glad I'm not in a position to have to face the consequences, if we intervene and things go wrong. I can commiserate with the people who are. I hope they do their soul-searching and decide that, despite the risks, we have to help, because I don't know if the libyan people can do it on their own at this point, and if they suffer ongoing losses, they might lose heart.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Well, my point was simply If A then B. Ah, I get you. We'd either have to escalate, or give up and admit defeat and go home. Either option would be political disaster for whichever president had to make that decision.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:The beauty if a NFZ is that you now have Air Superiority. We'd have no need for boots on the ground when the rebels could simply radio in enemy troop movements and fighter bombers could then decimate the enemy. Being unchallenged in the air is a hell of a thing. How do we establish secure, authenticated communications with the rebels on the ground? How do we make sure Ghaddafi forces don't call in posing as rebels and ordering airstrikes on orphanages and hospitals? The answer is with military coordinators trained in such operations, on the ground, embedded with rebel troops, and risking their lives. And support networks for them. Logistics. Communications. Etc. It's complex. I agree you can impose a simple no fly zone fairly unilaterally. But fighting a proxy war is difficult and messy. We fought one in afghanistan by arming and supporting the Northern Alliance, but we did not and could not have done it without US troops on the ground, although we did limit the scope and number of those troops for a long time (and the result was a ten-year afghanistani quagmire).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:Highly unlikely. That said it would be an interesting turn of events to see if the UN would then scramble to backup said country in their efforts. Not that it would happen (and it would open up some kind of can of worms) but I'd love to see Israel do it. Jesus wept. If Israel sent fighter planes into libya to make airstrikes and shoot down (arabic, muslim) fighters, I think it'd spark off a full-scale middle-eastern war. Short of deploying nuclear weapons, I can't think of a worse possible development.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:Yes yes, centuries in the making etc. What do you think the response would be if they approached the Libyan resistance counsel and offered their assistance? With their blessing do you think the same outcome would occur? I think that the Libyan resistance council would turn down offers of anything other than humanitarian aid from Israel. And maybe even turn down that, too. There might be a few people in Libya willing to accept Israeli military intervention, but I expect they'd be an extreme minority even among the rebellious disaffected youth that sparked the protests in the first place. As Narmi pointed out, Israel is already on the record as preferring Ghaddafi to another pro-Palestinian state emerging in the region, and I think regular Libyans are well aware of that fact and would regard any such offer from Israel as being highly, highly suspicious. That's all more of my not-very-well-informed opinion, though, since you asked.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
edit: /\/\/\ beatenDammit, journalists need to figure out that they should never use the phrase "tabled" in international press. It has opposite meanings in British English vs. American English. In British English, it means to raise a matter for discussion. In American English, it means to withdraw a matter from discussion. So that article is immediately confusing to anyone familiar with the American meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
I'm very glad. But also very apprehensive. And it's hard for me to cheer about a military escalation. I really really hope this turns out well. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
The Wall Street Journal has just reported that Egypt has been, and continues to, arm Libyan rebels. quote:"We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can't be so visible," said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began. source e. the article says they're providing mostly small arms like machine guns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Greater good. If that what it takes. That right there is the banner under which every grotesque episode of tyrrany and genocide of the last thousand years has been perpetrated. Surely you can see that if you can justify attacking civilians that way, you can justify anything that way? Torture, WMD, oppression, ethnic cleansing... it all comes down to someone claiming they're doing it for the "greater good, if that's what it takes", and if a few innocents die along the way, it's sad but a necessary sacrifice? Even if you cannot see it that way, consider: if we "good guys" consider enemy media outlets as legitimate targets, then we must assume the "bad guys" will do the same, in which case, how can we expect Ghaddafi not to execute every foreign journalist he can lay his hands on within Libya?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Competition posted:Not once have I got angry because he hasn't answered all our prayers. You are arguing that Obama is conservative. That is not the same as "neo-con". The Neo-Conservative movement came out of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think-tank that had a strong influence on the Bush presidency. The think-tank itself is essentially defunct, having lost a great deal of the prestige and credibility it had in the late 90s and early 2000s. Guys like Bill Kristol and Richard Pearle were PNAC hardcore, and a number of other Bush officials were signatories, including Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and most importantly, Dick Cheney. The PNAC advocated a doctrine of American exceptionalism and proactive use of American military power to achieve American interests: specifically, spreading democracy and regime change through military means. This came to be known as "Neo-Conservative" and when people say "neocon" they are referring to this collection of policies. Importantly, neo-conservatism is a foreign policy. It has nothing to do with domestic politics. George W Bush was influenced by neo-cons, but he himself was not really a neo-con - or perhaps it would be better to say, that you cannot summarize Bush's politics as neo-conservative, because that can only encompass aspects of his foreign policy. To argue that Obama is a neo-con is ludicrous. It is obvious to everyone who knows what the term means, that you are misusing the term. The use of the term "neo-con" to just mean "conservative" robs it of its meaning. This thread is about what's going on in the Arabic countries experiencing turmoil and revolution in the Middle-East and North Africa. To the extent that the US has become involved, it's useful and interesting to discuss why and how, and what policy drives it, and in that respect, what Obama is doing, why, and perhaps what he ought to do instead, if you disagree with that. Babbling on about how he's a neo-con is both off-topic and makes you look stupid. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:The precedent for unauthorized suspension of Habeas Corpus also goes back a long way (at least to Lincoln), as do First Amendment violations (Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and Sedition Act of 1918) and Fourth Amendment violations. Are these and other violations made completely moral and legal simply because it's all been done before? US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: quote:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. The Constitution clearly allows suspension of HC (and is vague about which branch of government makes that determination). I won't argue with you on the Alien & Sedition act, because I'm in agreement with you on all counts (that the 1798 and 1918 acts were certainly immoral and probably illegal). As far as defending our actions in Libya, I'm wondering if the president could argue that, because the US is signatory to treaties re: the UN and NATO, article VI provides a constitutional justification for action? Article VI posted:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. I'm not a constitutional scholar so I really don't know if anyone's ever tried to use the "treaties = US law" as making an end-run around War Powers acts etc.?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Vague? I think its placement in Article 1, Sec. 9 makes it anything but, so I don't believe I'm question-begging here. I guess since Article 1 is all about congressional powers that means it must be a prohibition on congressional suspension of habeas corpus except under certain circumstances. Which does imply the president can't do it all. Hmm. Like I said, while I've read the constitution thoroughly, I'm not a scholar and haven't read much constitutional analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
1mpper's ranting makes perfect sense if you begin with the inviolable assumption that having a business-friendly environment is bad. I actually agree with him on the point that we have not really seen evidence that the people of Libya support the TNC as their legitimate representatives. But we wouldn't, and couldn't, without an election. Until Libya has free elections, they need some kind of identifiable government with which the international community can negotiate and interface. The TNC is certainly the only option we have right now, and we haven't seen any reports of other Libyans, even in rebel areas, repudiating them. Libya has exactly one export, oil. Without exports of oil, everyone in Libya will starve. Arguing that it's somehow a sign of corruption that the TNC has made attempts to sell oil is to suggest that the proper course of action is for every libyan not under Ghaddafi's rule should rely entirely on free humanitarian aid, for food, medicine, shelter, etc. That there should be no attempt to restart economic activity in any rebel-held areas. That essentially we'd be better off with a nation of refugees. Ridiculous on its face. Of course the rebels need to sell oil.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
We don't have to determine that the NTC is great. We only have to determine that it's better than Ghaddafi, in order to pick a side. Not picking a side is unconscionable, given the slaughter that was (and still threatens to) take place. That we have done the unconscionable thing many times before and still are doing it in many other places does not argue against doing it now, in Libya. That picking a side has backfired many times in the past does not mean it is certain that it will backfire this time, because history is not a series of repeatable, controlled experiments. The UN determined that intervention was appropriate. The UN is not perfect but it is the best international body for making these kinds of decisions that we have. The US elected to cooperate with the effort to implement the UN's decision. Obama has obviously tried very hard to tread the right line between ensuring the UN's decision is implemented at all (because the US has unique military capability that was obviously critical to full and effective implementation) and ensuring that the US cannot be used as a scapegoat if this turns out badly, limiting the degree to which the expense falls disproportionately on the US, and limiting the degree to which detractors can characterize the intervention as a US intervention. I really do think the people in the thread who are being critical have some legitimate fears. Many of them are realistic fears. They do not, individually or collectively, amount to a convincing argument that the US ought not to have gotten involved at all, or that we ought not to be cooperating with whatever rebel organizations we can contact. This thread is at its best when people are posting new information about the conflicts, the people involved, maps, details, basically being more informative than any single media outlet manages to be. It is at its worst when it descends into bickering and (often stunningly uninformed) pointless debate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Jenzar El posted:Dear Obama, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut down all congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? Congressional Pay pre:Date House salary Senate salary January 2001 $145,100 $145,100 January 2002 $150,000 $150,000 January 2003 $154,700 $154,700 January 2004 $158,100 $158,100 January 2005 $162,100 $162,100 January 2006 $165,200 $165,200 January 2007 $165,200 $165,200 January 2008 $169,300 $169,300 January 2009 $174,000 $174,000 January 2010 $174,000 $174,000 January 2011 $174,000 $174,000 The president has been paid $400,000 since 2001, when it was raised from $200,000. Salary increases for congress are voted on by congress, but do not take effect until the following term. The congress sets the president's salary as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
I think it makes sense that some folks in Libya will be frustrated. We have to always remember that unlike us, they are not watching CNN or often even Al Jazeera, most of them are not reading twitter or debating the efficacy of no-fly zones. They're just guys on the ground, failing to make headway because Ghaddafi's forces keep shelling them. If they are frustrated that airstrikes often don't materialize to take out those tanks and artillery, that's understandable. It's important to realize that they are talking about a perceived change in airstrikes since NATO took over; they are not complaining about the overall imposition of a no-fly or the doctrine of attacking Ghaddafi forces that threaten population centers. They're seeing that their momentum has been totally lost the last few days, it coincides with the NATO takeover, and maybe NATO's ability to rapidly dispatch airstrikes is not as good as when it was just the US, France and the UK coordinating everything directly. As to arming the rebels; frankly I don't think what they need is weapons. Or rather, weapons is a secondary need. What the rebels really need is effective command and control, organization, communication, and to adopt tactics that have a chance at being successful. They need to act as units, identify priorities and deploy units in a way that attacks those priorities, dig in when on the defensive rather than retreating, and so forth. I suspect that if they were able to actually apply force in a sustained way, that the Ghaddafi forces would tend to fold; their morale is probably fairly poor, their supplies are probably suffering, and a lot of them are probably looking for any reasonable chance to defect or surrender without having a senior officer shoot them in the back of the head. Of course, getting the rebels into a cohesive fighting force is a massively difficult job. I have no idea if it can be done, and if so, how quickly or by whom. It may be as simple as having a few of the already defected officers take control and hand out radios and start managing the war; or it may be impossible without extensive outside training and help. One thing that may be a factor soon is the isolation of Tripoli. It's eventually going to run out of food and fuel, with no sales of oil happening and no imports happening. The rebels can resupply, at least in theory, and that's one thing the no-fly zone can help with: surely protecting shipments of food and medical supplies is well within the purview of the UN resolution. We may see a humanitarian crisis develop in Tripoli that forces the people to overcome their fear of Ghaddafi's regime forces and start to riot or attack the police, which rebels outside the city could take advantage of as an opportunity to push in. Or it may be that that ship has sailed, and we really are going to see a long-term stalemate. I hope not, and I think the people saying that such a stalemate is now "certain" are being very premature, but it's a distinct and ugly possibility.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Why do people keep talking about what Obama wants to do? The US is no longer in charge here. We're not even bombing any more. I think what Sarkozy wants to do, and can convince the English to support, will be more important. Obama's not going to re-escalate US involvement after pulling out, it'd look like a huge flip-flop and he knows it. The US will continue to supply NATO with non-combat support - probably AWACS, etc, and the use of US bases and maybe supply, etc. Obama isn't going to need to ask congress for support because he's going to be able to couch US military involvement as non-combat. He'll only need congress to actually pay for that, which they will, because it is politically nonviable to defund the troops.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 02:01
|
|