Page 39 of 50 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 780 of 997

Thread: And Libya goes on...

  1. #761
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Indiscretion is our watchword...

    Pete:

    Long history of that; there were some minor complaints during Korea in which some European support was provided (but only by the British in any reasonable strength), many major screams from Europe about Viet Nam (far worse than the noise about Iraq...). France, a noted intervenor in former French Colonies complaining about Iraq causing much frothing about the French to include the abysmally stupid 'Freedom Fries.' That and Russia complaining about US meddling anywhere are some examples of the castigation bit. Western Europe in general for not handling the Bosnian and Kosovo operations. Note I said "some" criticism -- it's quite minor but present and waxes and wanes with the mood of the day...

    Dayuhan:
    A better measure of affordability would be the cost of these wars as a percentage of discretionary federal spending... along with, of course, a look at what's competing for slices of that pie.
    Basically true in one sense but I broadly disagree as I strongly believe the Federal Government's overarching problem is that it is trying to do too many things that are none of its business and therefor fails to do a decent job of the things it should be doing. I also have hangups with the phrases 'entitlements,' 'non-discretionary' or 'mandatory' spending. Affordability is really dictated not by those things but by funds available and the priority accorded a particular issue. In essence, that 'discretionary' spending bit is a political sham -- all the programs, including Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid exist as whims of Congress. The entire Federal budget other than interest on the National Debt is actually discretionary.

    However, in the interest of fairness, one can check this LINK and get a picture of all that. Note that about 25% of outlays are not Federal Business but Federal intrusions into State and Local business and are a mix of Federal expenditures (relatively small amounts) and grants and transfers to the States and Localities. Dumb way to do business but it gives the Federal government the ability to micromanage programs and people. Note also at the bottom of the page the amounts the Federal government disburses in the 'Mandatory' category on things also not its busness (IMO).

    All that said, it is reality and the net cost of the wars over the past 10 years has averaged a little less than $120B per year. As 'discretionary spending averages about a third of the budget (average for the period 2.4T) or around 800B per year so the 'war cost' is about 15% of Discretionary Spending, 20% of DoD spending -- which is at it's historic level of approximately 20% of Federal outlays -- it's hovered there in most of our peacetime years since 1945. Here's another chart with a reasonably accurate 10 year breakdown. (LINK).

    Any way you look at it, the costs of these wars in dollars has not been excessive as a fraction of expenditures.

  2. #762
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default A quick response, have to go...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    It is this national interest thing again. If there was any agreement within the US of what constitutes US national interest it would help outsiders understand what the US is doing and take the US seriously.
    Heh. If there were any agreement within the US publicly available about what constitutes US national interests we'd all be smarter -- but nobody really takes us seriously and so that's okay.
    Watching the US budget debate.. A truly bizarre spectacle.
    Yes it is. Been that way for 200 plus years. Our first big ship purchase in 1794 was six large frigates built in six shipyards in six different States. Madness. it's a minor miracle we'll still here.
    Ken, you would have noted that I often ask some of the serial offenders in the use of "we" who in so doing somewhat arrogantly purport to speak on behalf of the American people on what basis do they believe they are able to speak on behalf of the American people. Never had a straight answer.
    Those people -- me included -- are no more arrogant than you are. They are stating their opinion on an internet discussion board. They are stating their belief or sensing of the mood or issue. Most are probably reasonably accurate. With over 300M people from virtually every nation, total consensus is almost impossible so most people bounce back with responses that mirror their reading and conversations with others.
    Now you have used the term national interest in terms of how it guides US decision making.
    True -- and that obviously is my opinion, hopefully reasonably well informed and as I see the actions and reactions of whoever constitutes the current administration added to long term or habitual US predilections.
    I have noted that supposed US national interest seems to change with every change in Administration. This has not done US credibility much good in the third-world or anywhere. In the good old bad days this could have meant that what you did last year was OK but if you do that this year you could receive a visit from a few squadrons of B52s. All very confusing.
    It is confusing and it is not helpful; however it is a function of the governmental system we have and most of us are content with it-- while acknowledging that it does indeed cause problems in foreign policy. An added factor that many miss is that US domestic politics will always be a bigger driver of what occurs than most anything overseas. Always.
    I served with a fine ex-Marine officer in the 70s and asked him this question back then. His reply was something like this. The use of "national interest" is the fall back position for a person who has no sane and/or logical argument to support his position on normally some foreign policy issue. After that the argument degenerates into a "not it isn't", "yes it is" exchange where the merits of the various arguments are then lost.
    There's some truth in that but it isn't really that simple. There is also the problem that an item of national interest can be known to many but for many reasons cannot be discussed openly -- an example is Franklin Roosevelt deliberately goading the Japanese into war. Everyone knew it, no one in the US government could talk about it in an open forum. There are a couple of hot items nowadays but to discuss them in an open forum isn't a good idea.

    Still, some are out and long standing. For example, one enduring US national interest that has drawn responses from the US for almost two centuries is that Europe doesn't need to play heavily in the Western Hemisphere. Another is free passage and open sea lanes. Those and a few others are pretty well embedded while many if not most change with the Administration and its priorities -- some, like Afghanistan and Iraq occur when others decide the US will not react to a provocation.
    So to my point. Who decides what is in the US national interest? How do those under possible threat of (nowadays) a drone strike find out what the Americans believe to be in their national interest before its too late?
    In theory, the Department of State and the National Security Council react to the President's desires in the are of foreign affairs. Presidents are people and they have beliefs and whims. They change every four or eight years. Some -- not much -- continuity is provided by DoD's excessive intrusion into the foreign affairs arena and by State but it still is the lead of the President that drives most things
    Last edited by Ken White; 04-16-2011 at 02:02 PM. Reason: Minor typos and a changr in italics

  3. #763
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    I know this is a sub-issue in this thread, mainly for our USA members and a few who live this side of the Atlantic - the perception that Europe is not paying it's way in European security and the USA is frustrated at this.
    Well maybe these same people with this perception have forgotten or choose to ignore that near bankrupt little Britain has been militarily overstretched in Afghanistan for the past five years in blind support of some US hair-brained scheme to prop up the certainly corrupt and probably criminal Karzai regime.

    This could be fixed overnight. Redeploy 3 Commando Brigade (newly deployed on Herrick 14) to secure Misrata to lift the siege and see off Gaddafi's forces while concurrently redeploying all Brit air assets from Afghanistan to Italian bases or even better to Bengazi airfields (if suitable).

    This is the best chance for the Brits to get out of Afghanistan... use it or lose it.
    Last edited by JMA; 04-16-2011 at 06:30 AM.

  4. #764
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    JMA:

    I saw a bit of footage by a British reporter and cameraman who were in Misrata. There was a shot of a tank taken through what was in effect a peephole. They said the tank was one of the dictator's and it was sitting there in what looked to be the middle of a street basking in the sunshine. It doesn't seem as if it would be too hard to find and hit.

    I did read that the Italians wanted NATO to lead rather than the French because the French would have been inclined to do something, NATO would be inclined to do nothing much.
    Italian is facing a big problem with Gaddafy. He owns 3% of Fiat and has lot of investments in many of the italian industries.
    Clearly, italian government, especially berluscony, is not willing to remove Gaddafy.
    For the French and the Brits, it's different, what ever the economical investments Gaddafy did in the country, there will be no problem to find new investors. But for Italia, this will be much more difficult.

  5. #765
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Well maybe these same people with this perception have forgotten or choose to ignore that near bankrupt little Britain has been militarily overstretched in Afghanistan for the past five years in blind support of some US hair-brained scheme to prop up the certainly corrupt and probably criminal Karzai regime.

    This could be fixed overnight. Redeploy 3 Commando Brigade (newly deployed on Herrick 14) to secure Misrata to lift the siege and see off Gaddafi's forces while concurrently redeploying all Brit air assets from Afghanistan to Italian bases or even better to Bengazi airfields (if suitable).

    This is the best chance for the Brits to get out of Afghanistan... use it or lose it.
    Seems that the brits are the last chance as the french minister of defense is now back off. Personnaly I do not know how thy choose him. He is not what you would call a speciallist of the military questions and has been a desastrous minister in the past. But I get lost here.

  6. #766
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    Seems that the brits are the last chance as the french minister of defense is now back off. Personnaly I do not know how thy choose him. He is not what you would call a speciallist of the military questions and has been a desastrous minister in the past. But I get lost here.
    This whole thing has gone on too long. This is a US (political) screw-up.

    Obama admits on TV (SkyNews) last night that there is effectively a stalemate on the ground. It looks as if the US wanted that outcome as they could change that in a heart beat if they wanted to.

    Now we are told that the air strikes will continue until Gaddafi goes (the logic being that the civilians will continue to be at risk for as long as Gaddafi is there). Now the question is do you wait for him to decide when he needs to go or do you help him on his way?

    Where is Wikileaks when you need them? I would dearly love to know the breakdown of the political/military contribution to this Libyan screw-up.

  7. #767
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    This whole thing has gone on too long. This is a US (political) screw-up.
    Well, I do not see where it's a US screw up. It's rather a EU screw up.

    I never understood why Germany was so against it (at least Fuch). Except in an internal EU military point of view and an old fashion franco-german political battle.

    THe US are out of the game because it's an election year and they have different domestic issue, like the wrong perception their economy is bankcrupt because of small wars like Lybia, Ivory Coast or Somalia and not because of Irak and Astan. (debatable and arguable)

    I also wonder why powers as SA, Nigeria or Egypt do not get more involved. After all Gadaffi is a pain in their ass too.

    Getting Gaddafi out of the picture will allow other powers to rise in Northern Africa. The only problem is Sudan. US deceided that they can bargain South Sudan independance against no trial for Bashir. Now crazzy coocoo guys as Daffi believe they can kill who ever they want in their population and get along with it.
    There should be some consistancy in everybody foreign policy.

  8. #768
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,360

    Default On the ground reporter

    Mark Urban, a BBC reporter and ex-soldier has a film report on the situation amidst the rebels, which ends in the WW2 defences of Tobruk, alas I fear it will not be globally available:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_15_04_2011/

    His blog has a summary:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight..._more_eff.html

    Which ends well:
    Victory in that desert war required strategic patience and vision. The question now is whether the Libyan revolutionary forces and their Nato allies share those qualities.
    davidbfpo

  9. #769
    Council Member Graycap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    Italian is facing a big problem with Gaddafy. He owns 3% of Fiat and has lot of investments in many of the italian industries.
    Clearly, italian government, especially berluscony, is not willing to remove Gaddafy.
    For the French and the Brits, it's different, what ever the economical investments Gaddafy did in the country, there will be no problem to find new investors. But for Italia, this will be much more difficult.
    This is only a partial truth. Italy has specific interests in Libya too. Libya is a neighbour so for Itly to have some kind of a deal is NOT an option. One could argue about the specific personal style applied between Gheddafi and Berlusconi but don't be misled by these things.

    The big problem is not italian economic exchange (everything is frozen up and I don't see any real problem with it). The big problem is the anglo-french strategic ends that are very difficult to understand.
    In my opinion those ends are way above their means and they have no way to reach them. Now that their bluff has been called these two countries are in trouble. Anyone that could help them will ask for something. Italy has been very mistreated about the tunisian emigrants problem. And this is just a single problem. We could go on.

    Could you please explain which strategic advantage could Italy obtain in helping France without a solid agreement about post-war?

    Italy has no problem with the strategic acid-test: in this given situation time is on his side. Let France throw away a lot of money just to realize that is not able to reach the result. Let Gheddafi be weakened by the military presure, the sanctions etc...
    We have absolutely no military capability able to flip the balance. Why confuse ourselves with the other neoimperialist? Let's wait for the political opportunity to play a specific and relevant role.

    France and Great Britain has made a joke of EU common foreign policy. They have no legitimacy in judging italian and german choices.

  10. #770
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Obama admits on TV (SkyNews) last night that there is effectively a stalemate on the ground. It looks as if the US wanted that outcome as they could change that in a heart beat if they wanted to.

    Now we are told that the air strikes will continue until Gaddafi goes (the logic being that the civilians will continue to be at risk for as long as Gaddafi is there). Now the question is do you wait for him to decide when he needs to go or do you help him on his way?
    The US would love to see MG gone but they don't want to be the ones to remove him. Simple enough, and not unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    THe US are out of the game because it's an election year and they have different domestic issue, like the wrong perception their economy is bankcrupt because of small wars like Lybia, Ivory Coast or Somalia and not because of Irak and Astan. (debatable and arguable)
    I don't think there's a widespread perception that the US is bankrupt because of small wars like Libya, Ivory Coast or Somalia or because of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a fairly widespread and not unreasonable belief that a nation in real financial straits should not be taking on additional burdens abroad, especially in places where we have no vital interest (or any interest at all) at stake.

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    There should be some consistancy in everybody foreign policy.
    Policies will be consistent when perceived interests are consistent... which is not likely to happen often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Graycap View Post
    Could you please explain which strategic advantage could Italy obtain in helping France without a solid agreement about post-war?
    I'm not sure anyone's in a position to commit to a solid agreement on postwar dispositions, given that neither of the contesting parties is likely to be able to govern Libya postwar and none of the intervening parties have shown any desire to govern Libya.

  11. #771
    Council Member Graycap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    given that neither of the contesting parties is likely to be able to govern Libya postwar and none of the intervening parties have shown any desire to govern Libya.

    Absolutely. This is the problem to solve an this problem really needs time and political maneuver not more bombs. European countries can't bomb a solution out. This is the cornerstone of the italian position. We don't have to creae anew complete failed state in the Mediterrean. Libya was a pseudo-state and this "insurgency" should be leveraged towards a better end-state. A long controlled evolution is more promising than a "jawbreaker" replay. In this framewrk force could have a role.

    We have to create a situation where no one can "win" and where everybody will have to search for a political solution. Italy, in my opinion, is working in this direction.

    And, if we think about the regional turmoil, it could be the most promising one.
    Last edited by Graycap; 04-16-2011 at 12:41 PM. Reason: Typos...

  12. #772
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graycap View Post
    Absolutely. This is the problem to solve an this problem really needs time and political maneuver not more bombs. European countries can't bomb a solution out. This is the cornerstone of the italian position. We don't have to creae anew complete failed state in the Mediterrean. Libya was a pseudo-state and this "insurgency" should be leveraged towards a better end-state. A long controlled evolution is more promising than a "jawbreaker" replay. In this framewrk force could have a role.

    We have to create a situation where no one can "win" and where everybody will have to search for a political solution. Italy, in my opinion, is working in this direction.

    And, if we think about the regional turmoil, it could be the most promising one.
    I personnaly think that EU has been too quick to rehabilitate Lybia and Itali in the first place. This in the name of populaist domestic politic over immigration.

    Lybia was a fake state, a failed state is something you can start to work with.

  13. #773
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default "Glorious Glosters"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Long history of that; there were some minor complaints during Korea in which some European support was provided (but only by the British in any reasonable strength ...
    If I recall correctly the Gloustershire Regiment received a Presidential Unit Citation for an epic stand it made in Korea. A retired U.S. Army field grade told me that the Brit battalions on his flank in Korea were solid as a rock.

  14. #774
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    If I recall correctly the Gloustershire Regiment received a Presidential Unit Citation for an epic stand it made in Korea. A retired U.S. Army field grade told me that the Brit battalions on his flank in Korea were solid as a rock.
    They were -- and so were the Australians and Canadians (who also had units that got DUCs -- or PUCS as they now are, 3/RAR and 2/PPCLI. Some other nations elms also received one) and which Regiment or Battalion it was made little difference. The French varied, unit dependent. The Colombians were pretty good and so were the Turks -- both at times tactically suspect but brave and bold in all things...

    There were more, those were all I worked with...

  15. #775
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    The US would love to see MG gone but they don't want to be the ones to remove him. Simple enough, and not unreasonable.
    Sorry, don't buy that spin.

    And for this the US administration is prepared to trade the lives of hundreds (probably thousands) of Libyans?

    The US has a fundamental problem.

    It has a packaged President almost right out of the 1972 movie The Candidate - which should be required viewing by every American in every election year.

    The Administration's policy is shaped by political consultants, lawyers, PR consultants, party hacks, assorted spin doctors etc etc - all of whom are more concerned with appearances than substance.

    I can just imagine how this cluster of clowns freaked out at the thought of the Libyan rebels carrying out retribution on Gaddafi's kith and kin in Sirte as they followed on the coattails of the US/French/British air strikes westward. Then the last straw was the Russian criticism about supposed civilian casualties and there followed a collective bowel movement. The result? The US pulled out of the air action and effectively hamstrung the efforts to protect the Libyan civilians and the world saw the rebels rolled back to the gates of Benghazi with the people of Misrata being sacrificed on the alter of political expediency and "good" appearances.

    How many Libyans have died as a result? Who cares right? As long as the US can't be seen to topple Gaddafi.
    Last edited by JMA; 04-17-2011 at 08:35 AM.

  16. #776
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I can just imagine how this cluster of clowns freaked out at the thought of the Libyan rebels carrying out retribution on Gaddafi's kith and kin in Sirte as they followed on the coattails of the US/French/British air strikes westward. Then the last straw was the Russian criticism about supposed civilian casualties and there followed a collective bowel movement. The result? The US pulled out of the air action and effectively hamstrung the efforts to protect the Libyan civilians and the world saw the rebels rolled back to the gates of Benghazi with the people of Misrata being sacrificed on the alter of political expediency and "good" appearances.

    How many Libyans have died as a result? Who cares right? As long as the US can't be seen to topple Gaddafi.
    I don't buy your spin either. The US said from the start that it intended to hand over command to NATO and phase down its own actions as soon as possible. There was never any suggestion that the US intended an extended commitment and there was never any commitment to remove MG. All of this was established well before the rebels advanced on Sirte and well before the Russians said anything. You're welcome to see what it pleases you to see but I see very little evidence to support that view. The US simply did what it said it was going to do from the start.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 04-17-2011 at 09:41 AM.

  17. #777
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graycap View Post
    We have to create a situation where no one can "win" and where everybody will have to search for a political solution. Italy, in my opinion, is working in this direction.
    Out of curiosity, what sort of political solution are the Italians working toward, and what are they doing to get there?

  18. #778
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    They were -- and so were the Australians and Canadians (who also had units that got DUCs -- or PUCS as they now are, 3/RAR and 2/PPCLI. Some other nations elms also received one) and which Regiment or Battalion it was made little difference. The French varied, unit dependent. The Colombians were pretty good and so were the Turks -- both at times tactically suspect but brave and bold in all things...

    There were more, those were all I worked with...
    What about the "The Flying Cheetahs" may I ask?



    2 Squadron SAAF (South Africa Air Force) were awarded the DUC/PUC for:

    During the war the squadron flew a total of 12,067 sorties, most being dangerous ground attack missions, accounting for the loss of 34 pilots and 2 other ranks. 74 of the 94 P-51 Mustangs and 4 out of the 22 F-86 Sabres were lost.
    Pilots and men of the squadron received a total of 797 medals including 2 Silver Stars - the highest award to non-American nationals - 3 Legions of Merit, 55 Distinguished Flying Crosses and 40 Bronze Stars. 8 pilots became POWs.

    More important than the political recognition is the following recognition from the then Officer Commanding 18th Fighter Bomber Wing - which is understood to be honoured to this day:

    “In memory of our gallant South African comrades, it is hereby established, as a new policy, that all Retreat Ceremonies held by this Wing, the playing of our National Anthem shall be preceded by playing the introductory bard of the South African Anthem, “Die Stem van Suid Afrika”. All personnel of this Wing, will render the same honours to this anthem as our own”.

  19. #779
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I don't buy your spin either. The US said from the start that it intended to hand over command to NATO and phase down its own actions as soon as possible. There was never any suggestion that the US intended an extended commitment and there was never any commitment to remove MG. All of this was established well before the rebels advanced on Sirte and well before the Russians said anything. You're welcome to see what it pleases you to see but I see very little evidence to support that view. The US simply did what it said it was going to do from the start.
    If you are going to put up a counter argument then please at least be truthful.

    It is the disgraceful failure to implement UNSC resolution 1973 (which they asked for) that is at issue here. Specifically:

    ...demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
    In my comments I have erred on the side of kindness towards the Obama Administration in saying that they did not wait until the mass graves were filling. But even apart from in Misrata, Zintan and the towns between Sirte and Benghazi what has happened to the people in Tripoli itself who had taken to the streets in the early stages of the uprising? Any still alive?

    The betrayal of the Hungarians in 1956 can be used as an illustration of how little has changed.

    There is a parallel in the betrayal of the Hungarians as there is in the betrayal of the Libyans in the West of the country.

    The CIA's incompetence is paralleled. "A CIA paper concluded in June, 1956, that 'there really is no underground movement' in Hungary at all." No doubt with the assistance of Wikileaks we will find out that the CIA said the same about Libya in 2010.

    Eisenhower continued the tradition of not having the courage to stand up to the Soviet Union but now it is even worse in that with the fear of what might be thought of the US on the Arab Street seems instill the same level of abject and craven fear.

    GWB said in his Proclamation 8072 of October 18, 2006 on the 50th Anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution:

    The United States is grateful for the warm relationship between our countries...
    What it should have been was how amazed and grateful he was that any self respecting Hungarian would give any American even the time of day after the betrayal that left them under the Soviet jackboot for a further 33 years.

    ...and he did not apologise for the leading them to believe through repeated broadcasts on Radio Free Europe that for example in November 1956 to keep fighting as:

    'the pressure upon the government of the US to send military help to the freedom fighters will become irresistible'
    Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.

  20. #780
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    It is the disgraceful failure to implement UNSC resolution 1973 (which they asked for) that is at issue here.
    Since when is the enforcement of UN resolutions the specific and exclusive responsibility of the United States? The US has no more responsibility than any or every other member of the UN. Any given state in any given case decides what they are willing to contribute to an enforcement effort. The US contribution in this case has been significant, but the US never signed on as the sole party responsible for enforcement, nor is there any reason to impose such responsibility on the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    In my comments I have erred on the side of kindness towards the Obama Administration in saying that they did not wait until the mass graves were filling. But even apart from in Misrata, Zintan and the towns between Sirte and Benghazi what has happened to the people in Tripoli itself who had taken to the streets in the early stages of the uprising? Any still alive?
    How is that the responsibility of the Obama administration or the United States? Has the US been appointed sole saviour of anyone who rebels against a government they can't overthrow? When? By whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The betrayal of the Hungarians in 1956 can be used as an illustration of how little has changed.

    There is a parallel in the betrayal of the Hungarians as there is in the betrayal of the Libyans in the West of the country.
    I see no "betrayal" in either case? How can you "betray" someone to whom you have no responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The CIA's incompetence is paralleled. "A CIA paper concluded in June, 1956, that 'there really is no underground movement' in Hungary at all." No doubt with the assistance of Wikileaks we will find out that the CIA said the same about Libya in 2010.
    The level of disorganization among the rebels suggests that there probably wasn't much of an organized "underground movement" in Libya prior to the Tunisian uprising. What's going on now looks less like an underground movement coming into the open than like a frantic attempt to bring some kind of organization to what was largely a spontaneous rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.
    Did the US ever promise to hold the baby when the going got tough? The US provided what it said it would provide. Why should it be obligated to do more?

Similar Threads

  1. Gaddafi's sub-Saharan mercenaries
    By AdamG in forum Africa
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 06:45 PM
  2. Coupla Questions From a Newbie
    By kwillcox in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 07:32 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •