• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya

Wow, that took all of 24 hours. But I'm sure we'll be greeted with flowers and parades when we liberate the crap out of Libya. :roll:

At least no one in the administration is claiming such silliness. That was a Bush admiinstration thing. :coffeepap
 
Maybe its just me, but I have this sneaking suspicion that the Arab League is ok with it in secret, but not ok with it in public due to public relations concerns with their populations. Of course I have no evidence, its just a feeling.
 
Maybe its just me, but I have this sneaking suspicion that the Arab League is ok with it in secret, but not ok with it in public due to public relations concerns with their populations. Of course I have no evidence, its just a feeling.

Neither do I either way. But it would be a nice change if they supported action by someone to stop the killing.
 
No, they knew that, its just that the coalition is bombing Libyan tanks, see here as well.

The Arab League knew that the language of UNSC Res. 1973 was sufficiently broad to allow for such attacks. The Arab League did not object to the UN resolution. AFP reported:

"We are commmitted to UN Security Council Resolution 1973, we have no objection to this decision, particularly as it does not call for an invasion of Libyan territory," Mussa told a press conference with the UN chief.

The Arab League's current position is not a legitimate objection to an unexpected outcome. It is merely a position that reveals how hollow the Arab League's initial declaration was.

FWIW, a no fly zone was not my preference (I favored shipments of arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces) though a no fly zone is at the limit of what I would support. Having said that, when the UN adopted its broader resolution, I knew exactly what it entailed. Given its language, the targeting is no surprise whatsoever. It is entirely consistent with the broad mandate approved by the UN Security Council. The Arab League's complaints are not credible. It seeks credit for hollow declarations while being unwilling to accept accountability, much less risk, for its choices.
 
The whining is not coming from the entire league, but the Secretary of the Arab league, who is an Egyptian politician seeking election as the replacement President for the detested western-supported Mubarak. Could he be looking to capture some anti-western votes, ya think?
 
If the latest quotes from the Arab League Secretary General are representative, it appears that the Arab League may have backtracked on its earlier criticism. Haaretz reported:

Arab League chief Amr Moussa said on Monday that he respected a UN resolution that authorized military action on Libya, after earlier comments suggested he was concerned by actions taken by Western powers.

"The Arab League position on Libya was decisive and from the first moment we froze membership of Libya ... Then we asked the United Nations to implement a no-fly zone," he told a news conference with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.


A reversal of position is helpful. Of course, it does not change the basic facts concerning the Arab League's previously hollow gesture (a declaration not backed by actions) and baseless criticism following Western coalition efforts related to UNSC Res. 1973.
 
At least no one in the administration is claiming such silliness. That was a Bush admiinstration thing. :coffeepap



:roll: Oh brother! You should really seek help for that case of BDS you suffer from Joe.

j-mac
 
Nothing but anti-Muslim rhetoric right here.

The problem is, moderate Muslims don't police their own. When push comes to shove, the majority of the time they will side with a fellow Muslim, even if they say he's on the fringe. We get nominal support from them when they see their personal future as bleak.

I would have no problem if they would handle their nut jobs. But they won't. They leave them to us and make it our problem.

As far as I'm concerned, if they won't solve the problem, they ARE the problem.

Period
 
:roll: Oh brother! You should really seek help for that case of BDS you suffer from Joe.

j-mac

It took less than a page for this thread to become about Obama. Did you call people out for Obama Derangement Syndrome? Let me go recheck the thread to make sure...
 
:roll: Oh brother! You should really seek help for that case of BDS you suffer from Joe.

j-mac

I suffer from no such thing. It's merely a fact that no one in this administration amde such a silly claim. I suggest we see, recognize and know the differences. ;)
 
No, they knew that, its just that the coalition is bombing Libyan tanks, see here as well.

Edit: Although, this does bring up the hypocrisy of the US and its allies, how they are willing to aid Libyan rebels, but not protesters in Bahrain or Yemen.

I have to wonder if you understand the difference between rebels and protestors.
 
It took less than a page for this thread to become about Obama. Did you call people out for Obama Derangement Syndrome? Let me go recheck the thread to make sure...

the difference is that who is in power calling the shots right now. Let me ask you, 2 1/2 years ago would you have called me nuts if I told you that Obama would be taking us into yet a 3rd Muslim country with military force?

Boo Radley said:
I suffer from no such thing. It's merely a fact that no one in this administration amde such a silly claim. I suggest we see, recognize and know the differences.

I think we all know the differences. However, it is people like you that would get to the end of Obama's term and still be arguing that the piss poor job the partyer n chief has done is somehow Bush's fault.


j-mac
 
The whining is not coming from the entire league, but the Secretary of the Arab league, who is an Egyptian politician seeking election as the replacement President for the detested western-supported Mubarak. Could he be looking to capture some anti-western votes, ya think?

It would be very Islamic of him. When in doubt and when looking for a rallying cause, remind the people who they are supposed to hate.

So much between Libya and Pakistan are so related and common that it staggers me how people demand they all be a separate issues simply because they see borders on a map. It's funny how they all come down to oppression and brutality, the same radical religious angles, dictators, former Cold War issues still lingering, and the bitter Sunni tribe. The Western blinders are as black as ever. Looking at the situation through cultural lenses will make those impractical lines on a map dissapear. Then people in the West will begin looking at this like the Muslims in the MENA region do.
 
Last edited:
It is humiliating and holds very negative long term consequences that the Western democracies should be asking for permission from the Arab League or the UN as to what is best for the democracy, human rights, and the future of the world. These are the same despots who refuse to recognize women's rights. children's rights, human rights, religious rights, or basic human freedoms, and we have to ask them whether we can eliminate one of the world's most dangerous dictators, responsible for the deaths of thousands.

What wimps we have become, and it will not serve us, or our children, well. We have apparently learned nothing from our fathers and grandfathers.
 
It would be very Islamic of him. When in doubt and when looking for a rallying cause, remind the people who they are supposed to hate.

So much between Libya and Pakistan are so related and common that it staggers me how people demand they all be a separate issues simply because they see borders on a map. It's funny how they all come down to oppression and brutality, the same radical religious angles, dictators, former Cold War issues still lingering, and the bitter Sunni tribe. The Western blinders are as black as ever. Looking at the situation through cultural lenses will make those impractical lines on a map dissapear. Then people in the West will begin looking at this like the Muslims in the MENA region do.

And these "borders on a map" were place there not by Muslims but willy nilly by the Western powers of the day. There is no reason why the people who had these borders imposed on the should respect them.
 
It is humiliating and holds very negative long term consequences that the Western democracies should be asking for permission from the Arab League or the UN as to what is best for the democracy, human rights, and the future of the world. These are the same despots who refuse to recognize women's rights. children's rights, human rights, religious rights, or basic human freedoms, and we have to ask them whether we can eliminate one of the world's most dangerous dictators, responsible for the deaths of thousands.

There are other human rights tragedies in the world. Some are on a far larger scale than Libya. Why don't we start with THOSE? Why are human rights abuses and civil wars only deemed important in places when Anderson Cooper reports on them? And why can't we focus on the places where our presence would actually be appreciated instead of resented?

Grant said:
What wimps we have become, and it will not serve us, or our children, well. We have apparently learned nothing from our fathers and grandfathers.

It does not serve us well to assume that any intervention will have exactly the consequences we intend, and no more. History would indicate that this is an extremely dubious assumption. Is it possible that the campaign will quickly sweep Gaddafi out of power and usher in a democratic government? I suppose, but that's the best case scenario and far from the most likely outcome.
 
Last edited:
I think we all know the differences. However, it is people like you that would get to the end of Obama's term and still be arguing that the piss poor job the partyer n chief has done is somehow Bush's fault.


j-mac

I wish you did J. I honestly do. But you're ignoring real differences to make a false point. Bush is responsible for Bush did. He oversold the Iraq war, and misled. He invaded on a pretext and recklessly spent US, coalition, and iraqi civilian lives.

Bush didn't have active killing going on. He didn't aid a movement already in progress. And it was his people who foolishly painted too positive a picture of a post invasion Iraq, all too often bought by those too willing to accept mindless crap over sound reasoning and foresight.
 
There are other human rights tragedies in the world. Some are on a far larger scale than Libya. Why don't we start with THOSE? Why are human rights abuses and civil wars only deemed important in places when Anderson Cooper reports on them?

There are already discussions on the Japanese tsunami, and people are probably saying there are other problems in the world besides that. Either contribute to subject at hand or you should move along to something which you find more interesting.


It does not serve us well to assume that any intervention will have exactly the consequences we intend, and no more. History would indicate that this is an extremely dubious assumption. Is it possible that the campaign will quickly sweep Gaddafi out of power and usher in a democratic government? I suppose, but that's the best case scenario and far from the most likely outcome.

Of course I never suggested that it would, and am far more skeptical than you siggest. That skepticism is due largely to the very weak leadership the democracies have right now and that they no long term planning. They are too easily duped.
 
I wish you did J. I honestly do. But you're ignoring real differences to make a false point. Bush is responsible for Bush did. He oversold the Iraq war, and misled. He invaded on a pretext and recklessly spent US, coalition, and iraqi civilian lives.

Bush didn't have active killing going on. He didn't aid a movement already in progress. And it was his people who foolishly painted too positive a picture of a post invasion Iraq, all too often bought by those too willing to accept mindless crap over sound reasoning and foresight.

My God! Can't you Leftists ever get over George Bush? It's a whole new world on with an entire new set of problems and you're still going on about George Bush??
 
My God! Can't you Leftists ever get over George Bush? It's a whole new world on with an entire new set of problems and you're still going on about George Bush??

You misread. When your side says this is the same thing, when it clearly isn't, it is your side brining up Bush. All I'm doing is answering. :coffeepap
 
There are already discussions on the Japanese tsunami, and people are probably saying there are other problems in the world besides that. Either contribute to subject at hand or you should move along to something which you find more interesting.

The point is that every soldier we commit to this is one soldier less that we could commit somewhere else. There are other places where there are human rights tragedies, where our help would actually be appreciated, and where we'd have a far higher chance of success. If we're going to get involved in military intervention for altruistic reasons, we could start with the high-priority places: South Sudan, Haiti, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.

Grant said:
Of course I never suggested that it would, and am far more skeptical than you siggest. That skepticism is due largely to the very weak leadership the democracies have right now and that they no long term planning. They are too easily duped.

Heck I'd be happy with even some short-term planning. I don't see any indication that any of the NATO commanders have given the slightest thought to what the mission is. None of them can bring themselves to say that their goal is to depose Gaddafi, even though it obviously is. The mission creep has already begun, with a no-fly zone turning into air strikes.

I agree about the long term planning though. In the long term, even if the campaign is successful, I see no reason to expect the successor government to be a huge improvement over Gaddafi. We have no idea who we're even allying with, and it's quite possible that we'll come to regret that decision a few years down the road.
 
Last edited:
You misread. When your side says this is the same thing, when it clearly isn't, it is your side brining up Bush. All I'm doing is answering. :coffeepap

"My side" has no interest in Bush. He is history. It's BHO now who is in charge and it's his policies which should be examined.
 
"My side" has no interest in Bush. He is history. It's BHO now who is in charge and it's his policies which should be examined.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But the comparison has been made, and I'm simply pointing out the differences. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom