Best & worst case scenario's- best... rebels win, another arab state is created that will eventually get the **s with western intervention & exploitation.

Worst- Gaddafhi still wins, has a major hate on for everyone and a few ex-IRA mates (that he used to fund) not doing anything interesting so they decide to go blow some stuff up.

Rudd was by no means ahead of the pack here, Arab union had called for no-fly zone long before ruddy & government thought it'd make them look good. Sometimes it's best to stop sticking your nose into everyone else's business.

Btw it's Libya.

Credit due for democracy. It seems to be breaking out all over the Arab World.

Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Bahrain to name a few.

Is that a good thing log man or would you prefer a totalitarian communistic regime all over the world headed by an unelected committee of the UN?

"Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it."
All this talk about "democracy in the middle east" as though it will be like democracy in Australia. It won't be.
Most of those countries are too socially fragmented to maintain a stable democracy.
The two dominant religious sectors, Sunni & Shiite have been at each others throat for centuries. They probably will be for a lot longer.
The lid is kept on it by having some brutal power at the top who doesn't mind stepping in and kicking the excrement out of any who step out of line.
When you remove that power, the festering sore beneath is opened up and the result is a continual state of civil unrest which is for all intents and purposes, ungovernable.
That was the big mistake in Iraq. America thought that all they had to do was remove Sadam Hussein for peace and democracy to break out in Iraq.
For that reason they never planned anything much past "winning the war".
"Mission accomplished" George Dubbya said.
If the people had any capacity to pick up and run with democracy then that would have been true but sadly they didn't. They still haven't.
And while each side views their version of religion as being above the goals of a peacefull coexistence, they never will.
The same can be said for any country with a similar mix.
And any country with a government in continual chaos and failure is ripe for take over by the worst extremes, be it a Hitler, Sadam Hussein, Stalin, or the many despots who ran South American countries for 30 years around the 1970's, Argentina, Chile, etc.
I think G'daffy is a bullying self serving monster as was Hussein, but I don't think the country is going to do much better with whatever replaces him.

Whichever way the present conflict in Libya ends up, the inevitable strife and conflict which will occur in that country will now be blamed on the western world for interfering.
It should have been left to the arab countries to sort it out.

Will Rudd take the kudos if this proposed military intervention into this Libyan civil war drags it out for years and years? Seems like Ghaddafi's forces had just about won. Maybe it would have been better if they had and get the fighting over and done with. Too bad for the yanks and the west if the opposition won and turned the place into an Islamic republic. Wasn't that long ago when the mad colonel was on 'our' side in the war against 'terror'.

How is that war going? I checked the dictionary the other day and terror is still in there.

So what is a "No Fly Zone"? My understanding is that it is a green light to bomb the crap out of a country such that their airforce is incapable of flying, either because the planes have been destroyed or the airfields and infrastructure are destroyed. Seems to be a quaint political term for "We are going to bomb the crap out of you until you do as we want" which doesn't appear to be much different to the status quo of the forces of "good" against the forces of "evil" elsewhere in the arab world.
So yes congratulations to Rudd on suggesting we invade another Arab state!

pweedas said...

"Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it."
All this talk about "democracy in the middle east" as though it will be like democracy in Australia. It won't be.
Most of those countries are too socially fragmented to maintain a stable democracy.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....

IF YOU JUST TOOK SOME TIME TO STOP FOLLOWING WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS TOLD YOU AND THOUGHT FOR YOURSELF BY DONT TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T THINK ON THE INTERNETS BECAUSE INSIDERS THAT USED TO WORK THERE SAID THAT TOP SECRET WAKE UP INSIDE JOB AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M SAYING I JUST WANTED TO POST THIS VIDEO...

frant said...

So what is a "No Fly Zone"? My understanding is that it is a green light to bomb the crap out of a country such that their airforce is incapable of flying, either because the planes have been destroyed or the airfields and infrastructure are destroyed. Seems to be a quaint political term for "We are going to bomb the crap out of you until you do as we want" which doesn't appear to be much different to the status quo of the forces of "good" against the forces of "evil" elsewhere in the arab world.
So yes congratulations to Rudd on suggesting we invade another Arab state!

There is a difference isn't there? The UN sanctioned the no fly, I don't think they did in the other conflicts. I'm pretty sure that if one of the cruise missiles landed on Gadaffi then the whole thing would be done. None of the NATO countries would be vaguely interested in invading, just stopping the killing of the Libyan people by their own leader. Hopefully the intervention in Libya will tip the balance and the Libyan people will escape a fate that none of us want to see. I say, thank you UN and thank you Rudd for pushing the diplomatic buttons that supported the decision by the UN

I wonder how many UN countries would give a rats a$$ if Libya didn't have the 9th largest oil reserves in the world.

Did we bomb Aceh before the Tsunami? Nobody cared, what about East Timor, different story huh? Why? If we helped their independence from Indonesia we could alter the maritime boundaries so that the oil fields were now the property of Australia.

I am no expert on the rule of Tyrant dictators or mass genocide but it seems that that we only care if there's something in it for us...... It's obvious to me, it's also obvious why so many people hate the West when you think of it from this way.

P.S Yes I am a socialistic capitalist.

No I'm not happy for any state to be harming its citizens or subjects. I'm also not happy for any state to harming the citizens or subjects of another state. Its all the same in the end if a Libyan or French bomb lands on your head. So if Ghaddafi's forces win they will arrest and punish their enemies. If the opposition win they will arrest and punish their enemies. One bunch of bastards lording it over the others.

Why does the west get involved? If you believe its to stop the Libyan government from killing Libyan people then why isn't the west involved in the conflicts in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia between the Shi-ites people and the Sunni governments. Its this double standards that pisses people off.

So now we can add warmonger and neo-colonialist to the rest of labels that have been attached to Rudd.

Mobydisc said...

No I'm not happy for any state to be harming its citizens or subjects. I'm also not happy for any state to harming the citizens or subjects of another state. Its all the same in the end if a Libyan or French bomb lands on your head. So if Ghaddafi's forces win they will arrest and punish their enemies. If the opposition win they will arrest and punish their enemies. One bunch of bastards lording it over the others.

Why does the west get involved? If you believe its to stop the Libyan government from killing Libyan people then why isn't the west involved in the conflicts in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia between the Shi-ites people and the Sunni governments. Its this double standards that pisses people off.

So now we can add warmonger and neo-colonialist to the rest of labels that have been attached to Rudd.

Mobydisc, surely there is "right" on the side of the uprising. I cant believe that we can sit back and watch a massacre. Gadaffi will only stop when he runs out of bullets. Rudd could only be accused of being neo- colonialist if we,(Australia,NATO) then occuipied the country, and no one is interested in that. The members of the uprising pleaded with the west to institute the no fly zone and thankfully the UN agreed, no one has asked for a no fly in Bahrain or Saudi and there's no way the UN would sanction it. Calling Rudd a warmonger seems a bit silly to me. PS, it's OK to just say Kevin Rudd is an ex labour leader and Prime minister and therefore I hate his guts and everything he has done or will ever do is crap, perfectly reasonable.

nebbian said...

My God............ do you mean???? [}:)] Troy Busswel is our next prime minister????

Seld defeating really. This should fill the boats up with a few more refugees.

Some of these analogies are not relevant at all. There is no invasion of Libya, there is a No fly zone. The reason the UN acted is because Gadaffi was using his own army and airforce to kill Libyan people,civilians. Somehow I just can't see Sarkozy using the french military to attack the people of Lyon. It's just not relevant. But anyway what would YOU do, sit back and watch while that crazy ****er massacred his own people, then say well we let that happen because there was a possibility that Lybia could have turned into an "Islamic state"?

Got to agree with you on this one, Moby. Can't see why it's our business if the Libyans want to fight amongst themselves. Or if the Libyans are genuinely our business, why aren't all the other similar battles. The Sri Lankans fought like this for years... how many of them were killed? What did we do about it?

Call me cynical but the coalition force is going to help the fall of Kaddafi and put a few Muslim clerics in power in Libya! We had some control over Kaddafi but we will be at the mercy of the next rulers of Libya! History repeats itself!!! Remember Iran??? The Ayatollah that came in power after the dictator was outed had been cradled in France under political asylum!