Libya, Bradley Manning and Human Rights

[EwanSF]

Nobel Peace Prize my arse.

 

[Lostlover]

I heard Obama got pissed when one of his officials pointed out that Manning was being mistreated.

Well, Hillary fired him. And they never got along to begin with. Hence his absence from her international trips.

 

[BostonPirate]

this is the bottom line...

Do we believe a traitor and his lawyer, or a general and HIS lawyer.

Equating this as torture is ridiculous. He is not being waterboarded.

He gave up many rights when he swore an oath to the military to protect and defend.

he left america vulnerable and he assisted in an attack on it.

Corny, you seem very married to this whole wikileaks issue in general. What is your fascination with them?

 

[jayoTN]

I have never been a fan of Barack Obama (did not vote for him in the primaries and wrote in someone in Nov. 2008 ), but his dithering on Libya and other issues (i.e. Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, etc.) is now paying dividends...to the detriment of the country.

Witness the government muscle - backed up by foreign troops - of the government of Bahrain to disperse pro-democracy protesters in that small Arabic kingdom. The government is even accused to taking over hospitals and refusing to allow doctors to perform needed life saving duties on wounded protesters.

Pres. Obama put in a call to Bahrain's King Hamad when the protests started last month and urged him to show restraint...and King Hamad pulled back his armed forces. Now, flash forward to March and with the U.S. and Western powers doing nothing to help the rebels in Libya, King Hamad seems to feel as though he has carte blanche to deal with his own rebellious opposition. Obama has again called the king to urge restraint, but will Hamad be so willing to capitulate again when Gadhafi is doing much worse to his own people with impunity?

Bahrain's King Hamad may actually be worse than Gadhafi. The whole world knows what to expect from Gadhafi, but Hamad has cloaked himself in the sheep's clothing of a democratic monarch and is only now showing his true autocratic and dictatorial colors.

 

[BostonPirate]

The USA cannot fly a unilateral no fly zone over Libya. We cannot afford to appear more aggressive in the region. geopolitically and economically that is just a reality.

We will do it when another nation steps up and offers to spearhead it.

Any takers out there?

And why is Obama responsible for the entire world? I thought he was president of the USA.

 

[jayoTN]

This situation is different than Iraq and Afghanistan, the opposition National Libyan Council (which France has recognized as the "legitimate" government of Libya) has asked for a no-fly zone. The U.S. would not "unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, hence the attempt to get an organization - the (ineffective) UN or NATO - to authorize it.

As far as another nation being able to "step up and spear head" a no-fly zone...what nation other than the U.S. is capable to doing this. The world continues to look to the U.S. for leadership in crises such as Libya. Does France, Britain, Germany, or other former world powers command such a position? Doubtful.

That also answers your question about why is "Obama responsible for the entire world". Wasn't one of Obama's campaign themes about repairing the U.S.'s image around the world that had - in his opinion - been damaged by the Bush presidency? Obama may not be "responsible" for the whole world, but the U.S. is expected to take a stand in situations like those currently unfolding in Libya and Bahrain. Simple telling Gadhafi "to go" or Bahrain's King Hamad "to stop" doesn't quite meet those standards.

People may criticize George W. Bush, but at least he would make a decision...something that Barack Obama and his limp-wristed administration seem incapable of doing.

Barack Obama = Neville Chamberlain

 

[BostonPirate]

This situation is different than Iraq and Afghanistan, the opposition National Libyan Council (which France has recognized as the "legitimate" government of Libya) has asked for a no-fly zone. The U.S. would not "unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, hence the attempt to get an organization - the (ineffective) UN or NATO - to authorize it.

As far as another nation being able to "step up and spear head" a no-fly zone...what nation other than the U.S. is capable to doing this. The world continues to look to the U.S. for leadership in crises such as Libya. Does France, Britain, Germany, or other former world powers command such a position? Doubtful.

That also answers your question about why is "Obama responsible for the entire world". Wasn't one of Obama's campaign themes about repairing the U.S.'s image around the world that had - in his opinion - been damaged by the Bush presidency? Obama may not be "responsible" for the whole world, but the U.S. is expected to take a stand in situations like those currently unfolding in Libya and Bahrain. Simple telling Gadhafi "to go" or Bahrain's King Hamad "to stop" doesn't quite meet those standards.

People may criticize George W. Bush, but at least he would make a decision...something that Barack Obama and his limp-wristed administration seem incapable of doing.

Barack Obama = Neville Chamberlain

Being a warmonger is not courage... it is cowardice, IMO.

Comparing Hitler to Whacky Ghadaffi or Bahrains ruling class is just silly. He has NOT threatened his neighbors. This is an internal issue of the Libyan nation and the Arab League. They have been telling us to get out for years and they voted for a no fly zone.... so where is it?

Obama: Libya no-fly zone still an option

Obama added: “I believe Gadhafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe the Libyan people are anxious for freedom. We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community” in an effort to pressure Gadhafi to leave.

Gadhafi has warned the U.S. and other Western powers not to intervene, saying thousands in his country would die and “we will turn Libya into another Vietnam.”

The republicans are the first to scream that the UN should be dissolved, and then turn around and demand that it validate military action.

Could you justify the two statements highlighted in red above? I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying.

The US has offered assisance and Sec of State has met with the Libyan resistance in Egypt. I doubt they talked about tea and scones.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/10/clinton-to-meet-with-libyan-rebels/

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday said she will meet next week with Libya’s rebel envoys, as France took the diplomatic lead among Western nations and recognized the provisional government seeking to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

Mrs. Clinton said at a House budget hearing that she will hold talks with members of the National Transitional Council when she travels to Egypt and Tunisia. It will be the highest-level contact between the Obama administration and the rebels since the uprising against the Libyan dictator erupted three weeks ago

That meeting took place yesterday as reported by CNN during their interview of her.

Obama promised to exhaust all diplomatic venues before putting american troops in harms way as candidate. I think his actions are consistent with what he stated his Int'l policy would be.

We are in a ten year war in afghanistan, and we have an economy ravaged by Bush's War in Iraq.

I think you want something complex to be simple. It is not and you can't just fix it with a few fly overs. What happens when Ghadaffi takes all of the nation and we control his air space? do ya think he will declare war or ask us over for a talk on furthering our oil leases?

 

[Kulindahr]

A commentator was saying last night that the Arab League has sufficient air assets to enforce a no-fly zone by themselves.


Whatever anyone is going to do, it had better be fast -- Ghadafi has announced "no mercy" when he assaults Benghazi, which he says will be tonight.

 

[jayoTN]

Boston Pirate...

there's no need to explain anything, because you're so drunk on the Obama kool-aid that there's nothing that I, or anyone, can say that will convince you otherwise.

For example, saying that the U.S. should do more in Libya is not being a warmonger. The National Libyan Council has specifically asked...begged even...for a no fly zone. What the Libyan rebels need is something tangible that they can point to as having an effect. The U.S. and international organizations can impose all the sanctions and freeze all the assets they want, but what impact has it had on the situation? It certainly hasn't stopped Gadhafi from being able to crush the rebels and knocking on their door in Benghazi. While I generally don't take anything Gadhafi or his family/associates say as fact, I do agree with Saif Gadhafi when he says that the rebellion could be squashed in "48 hours", because if Benghazi falls, the rebellion is - essentially - over.

I am not comparing Gadhafi or the Al-Khalifa's to Hitler, but I am saying that Obama's stance towards the world is no different than Neville "peace in our time" Chamberlain's efforts to appease Nazi Germany.

The Libyan rebels don't want meetings with Sec. Clinton, what they want and need is support, either monetary or military (i.e. training the rebels, not U.S. troops invading Libya). They need something that they can see working, and so far the response from the U.S. and Europe has been nothing short of nothing, which only seems to have emboldened Gadhafi.

Obama and the rebels had an opportunity as early as two weeks ago to oust Gadhafi, but for whatever reason hesitated in making a push to Tripoli. In my opinion, the window to overthrow Gadhafi has closed and the only way that he will cede power is to die, or be ousted by his own associates...as it stands now, the rebels cannot oust Gadhafi without foreign involvement of some sort.

Finally, saying the Libya or Bahrain do not threaten anyone but themselves shows your true ignorance (I would expect nothing less from an Obama-ite). A post-rebellion Libya could potentially destabilize Tunisia and Egypt as they attempt to craft new governments. Gadhafi's survival could also embolden Algeria's leaders to slow, or stop, the pace of recently introduced reforms. Bahrain has already welcomed foreign troops from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, all countries with a majority Sunni population. That move, plus the ensuing crackdown could further inflame the majority Shia population in Bahrain to try and overthrow the Sunni royals. There have already been protests in Iraq (which is largely Shia) over Bahrain's treatment of protesters, while Iran (also a majority Shia nation) and Bahrain have both recalled their respective ambassadors. The thought that the actions of one country do not have any effects outside its border is what is silly.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Good point that the West giving nothing more than words and accounting moves basically tells Ghadafi he can do as he pleases.

By now we could have at least given the opposition a hundred surface-to-air missiles to drop some places out of the air. That would have slowed the advance, allowing time fore dithering.

 

[BostonPirate]

UN vote on no fly zone apparently set for 6 Pm eastern. We shall see what the diplomats have been up to in the coming days.

Really guys?

This is the way Obama handles international affairs. He does the behind the scenes work before announcing that something is going to happen.

In otherwords, he is asking the other nations to help, not demanding as bush has done.

All the rest of the conservative falderall about coolaid is just nonsense.

People really need to think before they assume their partisan positions.

The UN will run this, not the USA, and that is what is vital for Israel and our other allies at this point.

 

[BostonPirate]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theen...-un-to-vote-at-6pm-on-libya-no-fly-resolution

France's new foreign minister Alain Juppe arrived in New York Thursday to advocate for passage of the measure, which was drafted by France and the United Kingdom and introduced by Lebanon. Five countries are expected to abstain on the measure, including two veto-wielding member nations Russia and China as well as Germany, India, and Brazil.

Diplomatic sources said the resolution calls for a cease-fire, a no-fly-zone to be imposed over the entire country, and additional sanctions. It will explicitly forbid an international ground occupation of the country. Implementation will take 24-48 hours to begin after the resolution is passed, a European diplomat said, adding it was his understanding that the no-fly-zone would first require air strikes to take out Libya's anti-aircraft defenses.

France and Britain may conduct the no-fly-zone alone if no other countries are willing to do so, diplomatic sources said. But earlier Tuesday, some Arab states, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, indicated that they might be willing to participate in the international military effort to carry out the no-fly-zone and associated other humanitarian missions.

So the world can make its way without america telling it what to do.

I know that may make the conservatives here have a pucker in their rump, but its time America stops thinking it has the moral high road of any sort to stand on regarding war after the Iraq travesty.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd love to see France, Britain, and the Arabs do the no-fly zone. The U.S. contribution could be a batch of cruise missiles to take out some coastal SAM sites.

Italy has already said it will allow use of its airfields if the effort is international.

 

[BostonPirate]

I'd love to see France, Britain, and the Arabs do the no-fly zone. The U.S. contribution could be a batch of cruise missiles to take out some coastal SAM sites.

Italy has already said it will allow use of its airfields if the effort is international.

Its notable that Sec Clinton stopped in France for a visit before going on to meet with the Libyan Rebels. She seems to be acting as a facilitator of some sort, while keeping americas military profile low.

We do have carriers offshore of Libya, don't we? I'd imagine we will be giving support to the attacks and flights via that platform without actually carrying out the flights ourselves.

This all depends on how well our ambasador to the UN does her job in these hours before the vote.

now we wait for the vote.

 

[jayoTN]

I'm not saying that I oppose diplomacy...I was a critic of George W. Bush's "go-it-alone" policy, but there is a time and a place for diplomacy.

Two points...1) it is nearly impossible to engage a despot like Gadhafi with diplomacy...one might as well talk to a statue, and 2) look at the time that has been wasted. The U.S. and Europe only get a sense of urgency when Gadhafi's forces are closing in on the rebel capital.

Whatever the UN decides to do could well be too little too late.

Furthermore, the world doesn't really want the U.S. to "tell it what to do", but simply devise a plan to follow. The U.S. should be on the forefront calling for a no-fly zone - whether it is conducted by the French, British, the Arab League, or the African Union is of no consequence - as well as letting the Libyan rebels know that the U.S. government supports there efforts and stand ready to contribute to their cause in any way.

Lastly, what the hell does Israel have to do with any of this? Why should the U.S. have to consult with Israel before it decides on a plan of action in Libya? Personally, the U.S. needs to stop its double-speak in regards to Israel and hold it accountable just as much as any other ally. The U.S. would not tolerate any other ally (i.e. Britain, France, Germany, etc.) if they did half the things that Israel has done while the U.S. casts a blind eye.

 

[BostonPirate]

The world is not interested in the USA devising a plan of action everytime an international event takes place. Thats silly.

As for engaging Ghadaffi directly, it would seem Sec Clinton understands that diplomacy isn't bilatteral, and that she has done better by advocating for libya through our allies and trade partners.

China, Germany and Russia are offering to abstain from the vote... that is not accidental.

Libya is being diplomatically dealt with and this time WE aren't dying or holding our guns to some other nations head.

How is this bad?

 

[jayoTN]

This is not Iraq and Afghanistan...how hard is that to get a handle on? Iraq did not ask to be invaded. Afghanistan did not ask to be invaded. The Libyan rebels, while not asking to be invaded, is asking for a no-fly zone. Can you tell the difference in the situations, or are you still confused?

The reason that China, Germany, and Russia have offered to abstain is mostly likely for public relations. China and Russia hold vetoes in the Security Council and any resolution would need either their support or abstention. Therefore, if a resolution is not passed, blame could be placed on China and Russia. This way, the resolution can pass and if things get ugly, they can always fall back on the "I didn't vote for the resolution" excuse.

Exactly how is Gadhafi being "dealt with" diplomatically. Frozen assets and sanctions are all any nation/organization has done...and that has worked out so well for the rebels so far, hasn't it? The U.S. has never advocated "boots on the ground" and the draft UN resolution - crafted by the U.S. - specifically calls for any and all action BUT "boots on the ground".

{Text removed by moderator}

 

[BostonPirate]

your world view is archaic. The Gov't of Libya did NOT ask us to do a no fly zone, the rebels did.

That is complicated diplomatically. The Sec of state and the UN are working on this fix. If you can't see that then you are ever tied to unilatteral gun barrel diplomacy.

you seem to think that the world needs to see the USA as a star on the stage or we aren't doing anything. That is NOT a conservative value.

You don't know me, so don't make assumptions about who I am and what my personal philosophy is.

It would seem that you are incorrect this time.

 

[Kulindahr]

That would be Sixth Fleet territory. These days Sixth Fleet consists of whatever's in the Mediterranean' I don't recall what that is at the moment.

Diplomacy means very little to a delusional leader like Gadafi. So long as he's getting money from oil to pay his military, he really doesn't care.

On the other side, the British were turned away by the rebels, seemingly for being too close to the U.S. So too much U.S. involvement could sour any deal.

An ally has recognized the rebels as the legitimate government, so an invitation from them has some substance.

And if some Stingers or whatever showed up on the docks in Benghazi, I doubt they'd be thrown in the harbor.

 

[pat grimshaw]

…You don't know me, so don't make assumptions about who I am and what my personal philosophy is.…

Perhaps you could publish your Credo on your blog page.

I'm a newbie and still trying to comprehend why the CE&P Snakepit seems so thuggish.

I and Donny have our own pic on our avatar. Everyone else seems to be hidden behind movie pictures