PDA

View Full Version : What happens if we fail in Libya?



FJV
18 Mar 11,, 20:26
Seems like we might get millitarily involved.

I'm not all that convinced that, even with the best of intentions, we will not fail.

After Khadaffi is gone the whole winning the peace thing can prove to be quite difficult.

This is not an automatic succes IMHO.

gunnut
18 Mar 11,, 20:34
Seems like we might get millitarily involved.

I'm not all that convinced that, even with the best of intentions, we will not fail.

After Khadaffi is gone the whole winning the peace thing can prove to be quite difficult.

This is not an automatic succes IMHO.

Nonsense! This is a good war. A just war. One without any national interest at all. We have the Obama to lead us. How can we possibly fail?

We get rid of a ruthless dictator, show the people how democracy works, they vote, and put a popular guy in charge who will leave office when the next election result tells him to. How simple is that?

Tzimisces
18 Mar 11,, 20:40
Let France expend blood and treasure. It's hard to see how getting involved is truly in our interest.

rj1
18 Mar 11,, 20:54
Define what failure is first.

Do you mean Gaddafi stays in power and the rebels are ultimately defeated and dispersed?
Do you mean in the long-term we have a stalemate creating a Cyprus-like situation where neither side wins nor loses?
Do you mean we overthrow Gaddafi like we did Saddam and afterwards the rebels all turn on one another to take control?
Do you mean the conflict grows wider and openly draws in neighboring countries as well for both sides and any hope of regional stability in the medium-term is gone that requires an extended presence for all states providing troops under the UN mandate?

T_igger_cs_30
19 Mar 11,, 00:09
Nonsense! This is a good war. A just war. One without any national interest at all. We have the Obama to lead us. How can we possibly fail?

We get rid of a ruthless dictator, show the people how democracy works, they vote, and put a popular guy in charge who will leave office when the next election result tells him to. How simple is that?

GN were you this sarcastic when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? ...Or has time taken its toll on you, and you want to deflect from history?...Nothing is written in stone!!!!........... I was not a member then and cannot be bothered to research past posts from such a bard and wit as yourself :tongue:


Let France expend blood and treasure. It's hard to see how getting involved is truly in our interest.

Great, anything intelligent to say?..if not just post jokes.


Define what failure is first.

Do you mean Gaddafi stays in power and the rebels are ultimately defeated and dispersed?
Do you mean in the long-term we have a stalemate creating a Cyprus-like situation where neither side wins nor loses?
Do you mean we overthrow Gaddafi like we did Saddam and afterwards the rebels all turn on one another to take control?
Do you mean the conflict grows wider and openly draws in neighboring countries as well for both sides and any hope of regional stability in the medium-term is gone that requires an extended presence for all states providing troops under the UN mandate?

All of the above......................

dave lukins
19 Mar 11,, 00:29
Just to clarify, the term "blood and treasure" is not a flippant remark: The phrase "blood and treasure" or "lives and treasure" has been used to refer to the human and monetary costs associated with various endeavours such as space exploration or as in this case..war.

troung
19 Mar 11,, 00:34
Great, anything intelligent to say?..if not just post jokes.

He has a point, the French President ran his mouth as did the English prime minster (who is cutting his military spending), they should be doing the NFZ along with those freedom loving GCC regimes which voted for the NFZ. America gains nothing by putting a bunch of Islamists and ex-Khaddfy loyalists in power. When the media falls out of love with the idea of Arab hipsters who play on face-book running a nation and realize that the new crop of people we are married to are no better then the bottom feeders we normally seem to attract it will be too late.

BHO should have kept the hell out of this mess.

T_igger_cs_30
19 Mar 11,, 00:41
He has a point, the French President ran his mouth as did the English prime minster (who is cutting his military spending), they should be doing the NFZ along with those freedom loving GCC regimes which voted for the NFZ. America gains nothing by putting a bunch of Islamists and ex-Khaddfy loyalists in power. BHO should have kept the hell out of this mess.

:eek: wow a comment and no paper written by someone else :biggrin:

He has a point I agree, everyone does who posts on here, however how you interpret the point is dependant on agreement.

Yep the UK and French Governments were very vocal in this matter, just as the US Government was vocal way back when they needed a coalition......... I get it Troung, you dont like it, well thats life we dont always get our own way do we :biggrin:

kato
19 Mar 11,, 02:31
they should be doing the NFZ along with those freedom loving GCC regimes which voted for the NFZ.
You mean Lebanon, the only Arab League member in the SC? ;)

What i find interesting is that all three active G4 members abstained, along with Russia and China as the only ones in the whole SC even. Somewhat interesting connection (active G4 = India, Brazil, Germany - the three that want a permanent seat).

Double Edge
19 Mar 11,, 12:24
Somewhat interesting connection (active G4 = India, Brazil, Germany - the three that want a permanent seat).
Perhaps a future indicator of things to come when they make it to the SC ?

BRIC + Germany abstained.

T_igger_cs_30
19 Mar 11,, 12:37
Perhaps a future indicator of things to come when they make it to the SC ?

BRIC + Germany abstained.

Well abstention is not veto........................ it went through so China and Russia re thought, DE. Abstention allows one to show ones principles, without backing them up.

Swift Sword
19 Mar 11,, 13:14
It looks as if we may have already failed in Libya: by supporting Sunni elements against a secular dictator while giving a pass to a theocratic regime and other autocrats to crush Shiite elements, the U.S. has clearly chosen sides in an often bloody, fourteen century old sectarian fight. Hardly looks like the beginning of a successful regional strategy (regional in terms of oil producing and/or Arab world).

William

T_igger_cs_30
19 Mar 11,, 13:42
fourteen century old sectarian fight

As was to be expected this is turning into quite the emotive topic, whilst I agree with you SW regarding the age of the disputes and conflicts in the ME, 100 years ago and prior give or take it was not a concern really as it did not impact on the west to any significance, today it does, in very big and many different ways.

Who has the right answer? I cannot believe after all the acts of terrorism that have occured some still believe it is best to leave it alone.


inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence.


Decisions taken now will define attitudes to us for a generation; they will also heavily influence the outcomes. They will have to be taken, as ever, with imperfect knowledge and the impossibility of accurate foresight

Both those quotes are by Tony Blair;
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article2952192.ece

(Now I will just wait for all the negative comments about Blair!)

I guess its the old chestnut hey, a consequence of the WoT.......... do we are or dont we?.............pro active or re active which to be ?

InExile
19 Mar 11,, 15:36
I am thinking about what are the criteria that justify intervention; and whether it can be done based on events that are always consistent, based on International law. Ofcourse; in reality this wont be the case, and politics, rivalries, alliances and relative power, all play a much larger part than simply law. Obviously no one will intervene in Russia or China for example, no matter how ruthlessly they oppress civilians if there were to be an uprising; hypothetically.

Afghanistan was easy to justify; as a matter of self defense and retaliation for 9/11. I still think intervening in Iraq was wrong, atleast in 2003; the absence of any real WMD programs and that Saddam had committed no new act of aggression at that time. On the other hand; intervening in 1991 to protect the Shia uprising would have been justified to prevent a massacre; something that is similar to the current uprising in Libya.

I am trying to think back to the campaign in Kosovo, though I was in my teens. I dont think that the crackdown by the Serbs in Kosovo initially was as bad as what Gaddafi is currently in Libya; though they did carry out large scale ethnic cleansing; but that was after the air campaign had begun.

Tzimisces
19 Mar 11,, 17:44
Great, anything intelligent to say?..if not just post jokes.
Perhaps I should have expanded a bit more. I think that overt US involvement in Libya would be a mistake. Since France was posturing (since, of course, have intervened), then they should bear the burden on this one. We already have two going, do we really need a third?
The Libyans will never love us. The chances of a happy, free, democratic Libya are slim, at best. Removing Kaddafi is a worthy goal, certainly, but I say let another country do it. Besides, any new government that owes it's existence to the US will be tainted as a tool of the Great Satan. Better for them if we stay out, as well.


inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence.
This is true, but a consequence can be positive or negative. Sometimes doing nothing is prudent and wise.

troung
19 Mar 11,, 18:15
The Libyans will never love us. The chances of a happy, free, democratic Libya are slim, at best. Removing Kaddafi is a worthy goal, certainly, but I say let another country do it. Besides, any new government that owes it's existence to the US will be tainted as a tool of the Great Satan. Better for them if we stay out, as well.

Looking at the Ivory Coast, France doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me to prevent Islamists or ex-Khaddfy loyalists from setting up shop.

S2
19 Mar 11,, 18:43
"...by supporting Sunni elements against a secular dictator while giving a pass to a theocratic regime and other autocrats to crush Shiite elements, the U.S. has clearly chosen sides in an often bloody, fourteen century old sectarian fight."

Not much we can do reference Iran that hasn't already been done. Next step is war and it won't be for that reason if so and war with Iran isn't apparently going to happen so long as this administration is in power.

As for the "...other autocrats...", not sure about Yemen but Bahrain, Jordan, and KSA have some semblance of legitimacy surrounding their kingdoms/emirates not found in Libya. As for Libya, not sure the U.S. has played an overwhelming hand there either.

Each issue, of course, brings unique qualities making difficult "a one size fits all" approach. I'm sure in any case those at foggy bottom will tell you they're in the process of developing carefully-calibrated responses tailored for each.:rolleyes:

Double Edge
19 Mar 11,, 19:32
It looks as if we may have already failed in Libya: by supporting Sunni elements against a secular dictator while giving a pass to a theocratic regime and other autocrats to crush Shiite elements
Bahrain isn't a theocratic regime its a monarchy. The only theocracy in the ME is Iran.

troung
19 Mar 11,, 19:50
Bahrain isn't a theocratic regime its a monarchy. The only theocracy in the ME is Iran.

Better to call them an apartheid state with an army made up of foreign mercenaries.

Double Edge
19 Mar 11,, 20:44
After that christof article, am gonna agree :frown:

It's funny how things work out isn't it, support the state against the opposition in one country and turn around and do the exact opposite in another.

There's no such thing as precedent in intl law.

Big K
19 Mar 11,, 21:56
France is the LAST country to come with a peace message to that region especially by using mirage's...

sorry guys, i never liked Kaddafi nor guys like him...but i simply dont believe that theres a simple "revolutionary" movement in there...

i dont believe in this UN decision also...and i really dont believe that those armies will manage to set a democratic regime in Libya...it will be a "Vichy France" at best...

Swift Sword
19 Mar 11,, 23:02
Officers and Gents,

Referring to KSA as theocratic was probably stretching it a bit, I suppose. A more accurate description would be a "theomonarchratic" state with an integrated "ecclesiacracy".

Given the idea that sovereignty is God's, the King is the defender of the Holy Places, the increasing integration of the Ulema with state apparatus over the second half of the last century, the place of the Sharia and associated courts at high levels as well as other factors, Saudi Arabia is clearly not a secular monarchy.

Regardless of whatever quibbling over verbage we may choose to engage in, siding with a Sunni theomonarchratic regime and its allied autocrats in a long standing religious civil war against whom those regimes consider apostate is a distinctly bad idea.

Given the demographic and geographic realities of the Middle East, the United States could easily end up on the losing side so the risk should have been considered unacceptable at a policy level and in a policy relevant time frame.

Regards,

William

Double Edge
19 Mar 11,, 23:22
Referring to KSA as theocratic was probably stretching it a bit, I suppose. A more accurate description would be a "theomonarchratic" state with an integrated "ecclesiacracy".


Given the idea that sovereignty is God's, the King is the defender of the Holy Places, the increasing integration of the Ulema with state apparatus over the second half of the last century, the place of the Sharia and associated courts at high levels as well as other factors, Saudi Arabia is clearly not a secular monarchy.
ok


Regardless of whatever quibbling over verbage we may choose to engage in, siding with a Sunni theomonarchratic regime and its allied autocrats in a long standing religious civil war against whom those regimes consider apostate is a distinctly bad idea.
This bit stumped me. It would appear you prefer to support the people should they revolt. Ergo you support the Libyan intervention. I'll leave it at that for you to confirm.

US hasn't chosen sides, its played both, where expedient. That is what gives a confusing message.

Swift Sword
20 Mar 11,, 18:40
This bit stumped me. It would appear you prefer to support the people should they revolt. Ergo you support the Libyan intervention. I'll leave it at that for you to confirm.


Double Edge,

It is not prudent to support people when you do not know what truths they hold to be self evident...especially when they are encouraging you to walk through the front door and shoot the other guy in the head. He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it.



US hasn't chosen sides, its played both, where expedient. That is what gives a confusing message.

It really looks as if the U.S. has chosen sides at this point. We may have tried to play both sides but ended up with a situation where one side can't be readily played and the other side may indeed be be playing us.

Regards,

William

Double Edge
20 Mar 11,, 20:04
It is not prudent to support people when you do not know what truths they hold to be self evident...especially when they are encouraging you to walk through the front door and shoot the other guy in the head. He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it.
Intriguing prose but i'm not folowing what you're trying to convey. Is is that Libya will turn out to be a bad decision. We will see.


It really looks as if the U.S. has chosen sides at this point. We may have tried to play both sides but ended up with a situation where one side can't be readily played and the other side may indeed be be playing us.
Meant to say, they support, by not protesting too loudly what happens in Bahrain but at the same time support the rebels in Libya.

They're playing both sides here, their position wrt to arab spring is ambigious, perhaps deliberately so. It takes a different shape in N.Africa compared to the Gulf. Otherwise they would never have got arab league support for Libya, especially not from the GCC.

Whether US is being played in Libya remains to be seen.

kato
20 Mar 11,, 20:24
The only theocracy in the ME is Iran.
Nominally also Morocco, since the king is also the religious figurehead there. Sorta the same deal as in the UK.

aeneasy
28 Mar 11,, 10:08
Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran,Libya.west soldiers travelled all over the Muslim land from east to west.

dave lukins
28 Mar 11,, 10:32
Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran,Libya.west soldiers travelled all over the Muslim land from east to west.

Do you agree or not agree?

Deltacamelately
28 Mar 11,, 13:02
Failing in Libya in what?

1. Failing to kill Col Gaddafi?
2. Failing to establish democracy?
3. Failing to prevent a stalemate?
4. Failing to stop the civil war?

Apart from point 1, all other warrant boots on the ground. Now its up to the Commanders involved to decide whether they prefer failing or committing blood and money to succeed in a venture, or rather adventure, mired in obscure uncertainty.

aeneasy
28 Mar 11,, 17:11
Do you agree or not agree?
they are not my country,so I had no opinion.I am doubt about the opinion of Muslim.maybe they admire Bin Laden more than Saladin now.

1979
28 Mar 11,, 17:38
First day here and you are already making derogatory comments about millions of people.
Out of curiosity, how many muslims have you talked to ?

Aryajet
29 Mar 11,, 04:39
they are not my country,so I had no opinion.I am doubt about the opinion of Muslim.maybe they admire Bin Laden more than Saladin now.
First post you had opinion, 2nd post you did no have an opion fllowing with another outlandish opinion. So which one is it? Do you have an opnion or not? When did "west soldiers traveled" all over Iran?

BTW: If you get proper travel credentials (i.e Visa) you can legally travel in any nation in the world. :biggrin:

aeneasy
31 Mar 11,, 06:32
Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran,Libya.west soldiers travelled all over the Muslim land from east to west.


First post you had opinion, 2nd post you did no have an opion fllowing with another outlandish opinion. So which one is it? Do you have an opnion or not? When did "west soldiers traveled" all over Iran?

BTW: If you get proper travel credentials (i.e Visa) you can legally travel in any nation in the world. :biggrin:

1,what I said in first post are fact,not opinion.I am just doubt about the opinion of Muslim,after all,many terrorist are muslim.why they choose that way?
2,When did "west soldiers traveled" all over Iran?
maybe next year,we all know US government want to announce Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as terroristic organization.
3,did those west soldiers come to muslim land with Visa in their hands?

dave lukins
31 Mar 11,, 10:53
1,what I said in first post are fact,not opinion.I am just doubt about the opinion of Muslim,after all,many terrorist are muslim.why they choose that way?
2,When did "west soldiers traveled" all over Iran?
maybe next year,we all know US government want to announce Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as terroristic organization.

3,did those west soldiers come to muslim land with Visa in their hands?

Their Government is their Visa. :)

Doktor
31 Mar 11,, 14:31
Their Government is their Visa. :)

Nope, they all have AmEx :biggrin:



I don't get one thing

When westerners intervened to help Bosnian and Kosovar muslims it was about protecting civilians, prevent ethnic cleansing and other "principles" it was OK.

When for the same or similar reason the same powers intervene in a country that happens to be muslim it is a problem.

Aryajet
31 Mar 11,, 19:18
1,what I said in first post are fact,not opinion.I am just doubt about the opinion of Muslim,after all,many terrorist are muslim.why they choose that way?
How else a man can find his way to heaven and put his hands on 72 permanent virgins so quick?:biggrin:




2,When did "west soldiers traveled" all over Iran?
maybe next year,
If it has not happened yet then you might consider modifying your list.


we all know US government want to announce Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as terroristic organization.
IRGC is already in USDoS terrorist organizations list. Canada and EU will follow soon.


3,did those west soldiers come to muslim land with Visa in their hands?

You might want to read Dave Lukins comment again.;)

gunnut
31 Mar 11,, 22:21
Nope, they all have AmEx :biggrin:



I don't get one thing

When westerners intervened to help Bosnian and Kosovar muslims it was about protecting civilians, prevent ethnic cleansing and other "principles" it was OK.

When for the same or similar reason the same powers intervene in a country that happens to be muslim it is a problem.

You nailed it.

Double Edge
31 Mar 11,, 23:04
You nailed it.
Third time in a decade..

Fool me once...
Fool me twice...
Fool me a 3rd time :confused:

Blue
01 Apr 11,, 03:44
How else a man can find his way to heaven and put his hands on 72 permanent virgins so quick?:biggrin:
If it has not happened yet then you might consider modifying your list.
IRGC is already in USDoS terrorist organizations list. Canada and EU will follow soon.
You might want to read Dave Lukins comment again.;)

Three strikes, he's out and you hit the home run! Great reply buddy!

aeneasy
06 Apr 11,, 13:30
Nope, they all have AmEx :biggrin:



I don't get one thing

When westerners intervened to help Bosnian and Kosovar muslims it was about protecting civilians, prevent ethnic cleansing and other "principles" it was OK.

When for the same or similar reason the same powers intervene in a country that happens to be muslim it is a problem.
oh,what means " for the same or similar reason ".Are you going to label Muammar Gaddafi as " ethnic cleaner "?

if you have your problems ,I also have problem about these pictures
http://image.xinmin.cn/2011/04/06/20110406162602146098.jpg
http://image.xinmin.cn/2011/04/06/20110406162604245327.jpg
http://image.xinmin.cn/2011/04/06/20110406162605659131.jpg
http://image.xinmin.cn/2011/04/06/20110406162606137901.jpg
http://image.xinmin.cn/2011/04/06/20110406162607336160.jpg

you optimistic guys,I hear that Muammar Gaddafi said he regret abandoning research on nuclear weapons.and he had persuaded Kim Jong II abandon nuclear weapons,which make him look like a fool now.if there would be another leader in some area who were disliked by western countries in future,what would be his choice?

Officer of Engineers
06 Apr 11,, 13:50
Qaddafy abandonned his nuclear program because he did not have the expertise nor the equipment to make enriched uranium, not because he had became good.

Double Edge
06 Apr 11,, 16:20
Qaddafy abandonned his nuclear program because he did not have the expertise nor the equipment to make enriched uranium, not because he had became good.
Was that the primary reason or rather what happened to Saddam as a consequence ?

aeneasy
07 Apr 11,, 13:05
Qaddafy abandonned his nuclear program because he did not have the expertise nor the equipment to make enriched uranium, not because he had became good.
I never said Gaddafi is a good man or ever became good.
you'd better ask CIA to make sure your message.
And even if you were right,we all knows Gaddafi has a lot of gold.when he met Kim Jong II,why didn't he say:"I give you gold,you give me expertise and enriched uranium" instead of persuaded Kim Jong II abandon nuclear weapons.don't you think Kim Jong II didn't have those either? I remind you,north Korea is a very poor country,Kim Jong II need gold badly.

Officer of Engineers
07 Apr 11,, 13:57
1) Qaddafy did not have that much gold ... or oil.

2) The DPRK needed Chinese rice a hell of a lot more than Libyan gold.

3) KJI never abandoned the nuclear warhead program

4) Pakistan's AQ Khan offerred his expertise and his equipmentto Qaddafy. Qaddafy could not afford the price.

5) Qaddafy already bought a Chinese warhead blueprint from AQ Khan. His scientists could not make heads or tail.

6) You know a hell of a lot less than you pretend to know.

Aryajet
07 Apr 11,, 17:45
2 heads of States taking pix together or even signing a peace treaty don't mean jack.

These 2 took many pix together and signed a pact but not long after they were bombing the daylight out of each other.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/chamberlain-hitler.jpg

aeneasy
08 Apr 11,, 05:38
1) Qaddafy did not have that much gold ... or oil.

2) The DPRK needed Chinese rice a hell of a lot more than Libyan gold.

3) KJI never abandoned the nuclear warhead program

4) Pakistan's AQ Khan offerred his expertise and his equipmentto Qaddafy. Qaddafy could not afford the price.

5) Qaddafy already bought a Chinese warhead blueprint from AQ Khan. His scientists could not make heads or tail.

6) You know a hell of a lot less than you pretend to know.

I hear that Gaddafi has 143.8 tons of gold,how many do you supose he has?
a poor country like north Korea could develop nuclear weapons,so if Gaddafi make up his mind to get nuclear weapons,why he can't get it?
even if he can't get it?why he persuade Kim Jong II abandon nuclear weapons?
do you think Iran would make up mind to get nuclear weapons or not,after they see what happen on Sadam,Gaddafi and Kim Jong II?

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 11,, 05:44
You really do not know anything, do you?

1) Gold is a commoditty. The more you try to sell, the less valuable it becomes.

2) North Korea has NOT developed nuclear weapons. She did two nuclear tests that were DUDs.

3) Qaddafy could not afford AQ Khan who could only do one project at at time. At the time, Iran outbid Qaddafy and got AQ Khan's help.

4) Iran got the technology from AQ Khan and only now has enough uranium for one gun type uranium nuclear weapon (read it up exactly what that means). She has yet to do the testing needed to make more complex weapons.

5) We know Iran bought both Chinese and Pakistani nuclear weapons blueprints from AQ Khan. However, they`ve done no testing that would be needed to make nuclear weapons.

aeneasy
08 Apr 11,, 05:48
2 heads of States taking pix together or even signing a peace treaty don't mean jack.

These 2 took many pix together and signed a pact but not long after they were bombing the daylight out of each other.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/chamberlain-hitler.jpg

so,who act like Hitler now?Nicolas Sarkozy or Muammar Gaddafi?pretend to be friend to the other a few month before,and then surpriseattack him.

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 11,, 05:51
so,who act like Hitler now?Nicolas Sarkozy or Muammar Gaddafi?pretend to be friend to the other a few month before,and then surpriseattack him.Oh really,

Berlin Discoteque, PM AM flights, Chad, ... who surprised attacked whom

aeneasy
08 Apr 11,, 06:00
You really do not know anything, do you?

1) Gold is a commoditty. The more you try to sell, the less valuable it becomes.

2) North Korea has NOT developed nuclear weapons. She did two nuclear tests that were DUDs.

3) Qaddafy could not afford AQ Khan who could only do one project at at time. At the time, Iran outbid Qaddafy and got AQ Khan's help.

4) Iran got the technology from AQ Khan and only now has enough uranium for one gun type uranium nuclear weapon (read it up exactly what that means). She has yet to do the testing needed to make more complex weapons.

5) We know Iran bought both Chinese and Pakistani nuclear weapons blueprints from AQ Khan. However, they`ve done no testing that would be needed to make nuclear weapons.

1)yes,the price of gold would fall if somebody sell a lot,but it still can buy a lot of things,it is not waste paper.now Gaddafi use his gold to pay mercenary army,why not use gold buy nuclear technique before,is gold price didn't fall when he spent on mercenary army?
2) North Korea did two nuclear tests.Iran got the technology from AQ Khan and only now has enough uranium for one gun type uranium nuclear weapon. She has yet to do the testing needed to make more complex weapons.
and what next after a few years?these two countries make up their mind,isn't it?

aeneasy
08 Apr 11,, 06:05
Oh really,

Berlin Discoteque, PM AM flights, Chad, ... who surprised attacked whom
yes,but when?and when did those picture of Nicolas Sarkozy and Muammar Gaddafi taken?why not attack Gaddafi before?but let him be leader for 42 years?

citanon
08 Apr 11,, 06:45
yes,but when?and when did those picture of Nicolas Sarkozy and Muammar Gaddafi taken?why not attack Gaddafi before?but let him be leader for 42 years?

It was inconvenient.

Double Edge
08 Apr 11,, 11:21
1) Qaddafy did not have that much gold ... or oil.

4) Pakistan's AQ Khan offerred his expertise and his equipmentto Qaddafy. Qaddafy could not afford the price.

5) Qaddafy already bought a Chinese warhead blueprint from AQ Khan. His scientists could not make heads or tail.

3) Qaddafy could not afford AQ Khan who could only do one project at at time. At the time, Iran outbid Qaddafy and got AQ Khan's help.

4) Iran got the technology from AQ Khan and only now has enough uranium for one gun type uranium nuclear weapon (read it up exactly what that means). She has yet to do the testing needed to make more complex weapons.

5) We know Iran bought both Chinese and Pakistani nuclear weapons blueprints from AQ Khan. However, they`ve done no testing that would be needed to make nuclear weapons.
$30billion of the regimes assets were seized in the US alone. So cost cannot be a signficant factor.

Lack of skills & expertise is a bigger obstacle to contend with. Libya has a population of ~5million, Iran has 70 million and Pakistan 170 million. Not having the right personnel will cause severe problems for this project given one cannot buy nukes off the shelf at any price. N.Korea was lucky here to have had more Chinese help for other reasons.

Now, to actually give up the project altogether means either the threat went away or a better alternative presented itself. If Gaddafi was convinced that he would not make any progress even if he stuck at it for a cpl of decades longer then improvments his economy stood to make without sanctions would be worth it.

From this pov, attacking Iraq might have given a further incentive not to pursue this path. He was not a threat until he became more proficient in this tech and if that happened he'd be easier to topple than Saddam.

It also poses the question that if Iran plods on for yet another ten years without making too much progress then does a point come where they too will decide it isn't worth pursuing nukes either. Debatable.

cyppok
08 Apr 11,, 12:01
we already failed in Libya it was wrong to go in and intervene. Considering the rebels are worse than Qad for us long term and the instability it created in the oil markets that is getting priced in right now... wrong decision, and wrong execution of the wrong decision.

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 11,, 12:19
1)yes,the price of gold would fall if somebody sell a lot,but it still can buy a lot of things,it is not waste paper.now Gaddafi use his gold to pay mercenary army,why not use gold buy nuclear technique before,is gold price didn't fall when he spent on mercenary army?Are you just lazy? Iran OUTBID Libya. For AQ Khan, it was first come, first served.


2) North Korea did two nuclear tests.North Korea FAILED two nuclear tests.


Iran got the technology from AQ Khan and only now has enough uranium for one gun type uranium nuclear weapon. She has yet to do the testing needed to make more complex weapons.
and what next after a few years?these two countries make up their mind,isn't it?Nothing. North Korea demonstrated she does not have the know how for an implosion device, let alone more complex devices. Iran needs to test since all she had were Pakistani duds designs.


yes,but when?and when did those picture of Nicolas Sarkozy and Muammar Gaddafi taken?why not attack Gaddafi before?but let him be leader for 42 years?So what? Your question was who attacked whom first. It was NOT Sarkozy.

And we did attack Qaddafy - three times.


$30billion of the regimes assets were seized in the US alone. So cost cannot be a signficant factor.

Lack of skills & expertise is a bigger obstacle to contend with. Libya has a population of ~5million, Iran has 70 million and Pakistan 170 million. Not having the right personnel will cause severe problems for this project given one cannot buy nukes off the shelf at any price. N.Korea was lucky here to have had more Chinese help for other reasons.

Now, to actually give up the project altogether means either the threat went away or a better alternative presented itself. If Gaddafi was convinced that he would not make any progress even if he stuck at it for a cpl of decades longer then improvments his economy stood to make without sanctions would be worth it.

From this pov, attacking Iraq might have given a further incentive not to pursue this path. He was not a threat until he became more proficient in this tech and if that happened he'd be easier to topple than Saddam.

It also poses the question that if Iran plods on for yet another ten years without making too much progress then does a point come where they too will decide it isn't worth pursuing nukes either. Debatable.

1) AQ Khan's help was limited. Except for the CICH-4 warhead, the Pakistani blueprints were duds. Without access to Pakistani data or testing, it would be debateable that Iran can deduced what went wrong simply by looking at the designs.

2) AQ Khan can only do one project at a time. He could export only so many centerfudges. Dividing them between two customers was not going to make anyone happy. Thus, a bidding war. Libya was not going to win that one.

3) North Korea has no nuclear weapons knowledge. She knows how to make duds, not bombs.

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 11,, 12:21
we already failed in Libya it was wrong to go in and intervene. Considering the rebels are worse than Qad for us long term and the instability it created in the oil markets that is getting priced in right now... wrong decision, and wrong execution of the wrong decision.Libya is divided. Whomever wins will need decades to get their act together. That is a hell of a lot better than a single dictator doing Lockerbies around the world.

aeneasy
08 Apr 11,, 15:41
Are you just lazy? Iran OUTBID Libya. For AQ Khan, it was first come, first served.
haha,what means that?that means Gaddafi should Regret didn't outbid Iran before.it is said 50billion of Gaddafi assets outside Libya had been blocked since the outbreak of war,he must be very repentant for not having used those money buy something important before this year,don't you think so?


North Korea FAILED two nuclear tests.
Nothing. North Korea demonstrated she does not have the know how for an implosion device, let alone more complex devices. Iran needs to test since all she had were Pakistani duds designs.
I know that,my point is not the suceed or fail,but the will.you may pray North Korea failed again and again,the third time,the fourth time......


So what? Your question was who attacked whom first. It was NOT Sarkozy.
my question is not who attacked whom first,my question is what happen after the latest compromise.


And we did attack Qaddafy - three times.
yes,when he was a lunatic,you just give him some punishment,when he just act more like a normal guy,you try to overthrow him.

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 11,, 16:48
haha,what means that?that means Gaddafi should Regret didn't outbid Iran before.it is said 50billion of Gaddafi assets outside Libya had been blocked since the outbreak of war,he must be very repentant for not having used those money buy something important before this year,don't you think so?And look where Iran is today - still without a bomb.


I know that,my point is not the suceed or fail,but the will.you may pray North Korea failed again and again,the third time,the fourth time......I don't have to pray. They've used up all their testing plutonium. They test one more and even if it's a success, they got one bomb. As of right now, theyv'e got enough for 2 and not one single design that works.

In order for them to test more, they have to build more Pu and they're just rebuilding the factories to do so ... and failing. The equipment is rusted through.

You really don't know anything.


my question is not who attacked whom first,my question is what happen after the latest compromise.Your question was who surprised attack whom. Sarkozy gave plenty of warning. There was no surprise attack. You're failing and failing bad.


yes,when he was a lunatic,you just give him some punishment,when he just act more like a normal guy,you try to overthrow him.No, his people are trying to overthrow him. We've just chosen sides.

You're a bad failure at strategy 101.

aeneasy
10 Apr 11,, 05:57
And look where Iran is today - still without a bomb.

I don't have to pray. They've used up all their testing plutonium. They test one more and even if it's a success, they got one bomb. As of right now, theyv'e got enough for 2 and not one single design that works.

In order for them to test more, they have to build more Pu and they're just rebuilding the factories to do so ... and failing. The equipment is rusted through.
so,for the same reason,you absolutely know Sadam can never develop nuclear bomb.but still you attack Iraq on the excuse of that,and found no WMD after the Iraq war.


You really don't know anything.
it's not about knowledge,it's about rationality.look, I can't use English as fluently as you,and I am common people doing a job with nothing to do with military or relevant aspect.but even you know more in some aspect than me,you can't make your rightness.every evidence you offered will agaist yourself.in fact,Hitler was more knowledgeble than most of people in the world,but was him right?


Your question was who surprised attack whom. Sarkozy gave plenty of warning. There was no surprise attack. You're failing and failing bad.
when you compromise with someone,and then you attack him,that's surprised attack.what kind of warning?expert


No, his people are trying to overthrow him. We've just chosen sides.

You're a bad failure at strategy 101.
chosen side by air force bombing,and annihilate severl tank squadrons,what a big chosen.go to hell your strategy 101.hegemonism

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 11,, 06:14
so,for the same reason,you absolutely know Sadam can never develop nuclear bomb.but still you attack Iraq on the excuse of that,and found no WMD after the Iraq war.You are a freaking idiot. Or at least a lazy one. Saddam's WMD program was chemical. He had aspiration of nuclear which was dormant but his chemical program was live and well. Ask the Kurds.


it's not about knowledge,it's about rationality.look, I can't use English as fluently as you,and I am common people doing a job with nothing to do with military or relevant aspect.but even you know more in some aspect than me,you can't make your rightness.every evidence you offered will agaist yourself.in fact,Hitler was more knowledgeble than most of people in the world,but was him right?I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say here. All you're saying is that you're not good in English. Ok, nothing wrong with that. You are not military. Again, nothing wrong with that. I know more than you. Fine, nothing more than that. But Hitler knowing more than me? Not a chance in hell. First of all, I live way beyond him and 2nd, he lost.


when you compromise with someone,and then you attack him,that's surprised attack.what kind of warning?expertOh, I don't know. How about 30 FREAKING DAYS! 30 Days! An entire month. Qaddafy knew he was about to be attaced for 30 days. That is NOT A SUPRISE ATTACK BY ANY DEFINITION. However, the PAM Flights, Chad, Berlin Discoteque. These were all terrorist attacks, by definition, surprise attacks. No warning. You really don't know anything.


chosen side by air force bombing,and annihilate severl tank squadrons,what a big chosen.go to hell your strategy 101.hegemonismFine. WAB is not the place for you, fan boy.

Double Edge
10 Apr 11,, 10:54
1) AQ Khan's help was limited. Except for the CICH-4 warhead, the Pakistani blueprints were duds. Without access to Pakistani data or testing, it would be debateable that Iran can deduced what went wrong simply by looking at the designs.

2) AQ Khan can only do one project at a time. He could export only so many centerfudges. Dividing them between two customers was not going to make anyone happy. Thus, a bidding war. Libya was not going to win that one.
Ok, so he lost his bid. But two things happened as a result.

He gave up his nuke program but also ended up betraying the AQ Khan network.

The first bit i can understand given it was a bridge too far to cross but the second consequence is harder to understand. Was that by design on his part or did we get lucky with intercepting a ship that had the parts and therefore evidence leading back to AQ Khan.

For now chance seems a little bit too much, nobody allows this to happen. So losing the bid must have created enough bad blood between Gaddafi & AQ Khan to the point he did not have any qualms exposing him. If Gaddafi cannot get nukes then no other wannabes should have them either.

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 11,, 13:39
Look at the timing. Saddam just lost the war and the US was looking for a new enemy. BTW, the US knew of Libyan nuclear intentions. Coming clean was Qaddafy's survival mechanism kicking into gear.