Why do we not learn from History ?

So we will have one more Bin Ladden in the making.

Apparently, President Barack Obama signed a secret order authorising covert US government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, according to government officials.

Mr Obama reportedly signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, four US government sources told Reuters.

The New York Times reported that the CIA has had clandestine operatives who have been gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with the rebels for several weeks.

Nic, that will change as soon as they got what they wanted...and the troops will stay.

britexpat,

We don't know much about many things.

What the media reports is often a tip of the iceberg.

I’ve seen Libyans cheering and waving American flags, which is something quite unusual in the world we live in.

I can only hope the Libyans get rid of their dictator and start paving their path towards a democracy.

I can understand and possibly go along with providing air cover - which was the main reason "given at the time" to protect the civilians.

However, then we moved on to attacking Libyan Troops and convoys.

We have also targeted Gaddafi's dwelling.

Today's papers said that British Advisors are meeting with the rebels - whomsoever they may be.

Now Obama is saying that he may consider arming the rebels and Cameron is saying that Gaddafi must stand trial.

Do you agree with the route this is going considering we don't know anything about the rebels ?

The Libyan’s “leader” was attacking his own people which triggered the Libyans to cry for help.

The World’s Order saw some sort of opportunity in providing that help and the rest is there to be seen.

I agree with you. So what in your opinion makes Libya a cause entering into and Myanmar, Dr. Congo, Chechnya and Ivory Coast not ?

britexpat,

Easy to command orders like that, when we are not in their positions! I don’t think Obama is less humanitarian than you but hey, guess what? He cannot action everything he wishes!

May I at this point urge Messrs Blair and Bush

Sorry Obama and Cameron to send troops to the Ivory Coast and DR. Congo where thousands are getting killed and theer is no need to arm the rebels.

LP,

We all do it at some point, in attempt to reach our own objectives.

Nic, but "cherry-picking" is exactly those people's strategy.

Polkadots,

We all know that, but that was Bush & Blair idiots, they're gone!

My advice would be try not to cherry pick the bad examples.

The world is controlled by humans you have seen the bad and the good and you'll see more of both.

tinker, they DID as for help from the West.

And now the West is giving it...their way. And the price for that help is NEVER cheap.

Nic, the support or the lack of it from the UN has never been as deciding factor for the US to proceed with it’s decided plan, a la going in to Iraq under the pretext of checking for WMDS, when the UN clearly discouraged any such moves as a team of UN investigators had not discovered any such devices prior to the occupation, but Mr. Bush just went ahead and took Saddam out any way. And how is the humanitarian service any different in helping a country ward off terrorists’ attacks versus getting rid of an unwanted ruler of a foreign country? If Saddam was murdering his own in hundreds, the US forces were doing it in thousands first to capture Saddam and then later just to survive there! Letting a country define it’s own boundaries and deciding the stance against it’s own terrorist is a Noble move but what makes the thousands dead in Iraq ,Bosnia even US[9/11] worthier of International Sympathy than the thousand being murdered in Kashmir, Mumbai, Gujarat,Delhi under various pretenses? India is even advised to exercise Humanitarian caution by the West after all such attacks, even after clearly identifying the same country time and again! And one 9/11 was sufficient to go after it’s assumed perpetuators [This was one of Bush’s many explanation of the occupations in Iraq] If the West finds it profitable for an intervention they will find reasons otherwise will come up with excuses.

We shall just have to see. I hope and pray that what ever comes out of this - the people of Libya get what they desire and deserve.

As I said, the language was left vague enough , so it could be interpreted as the major players wanted. Those minors who went along are now baulking at the reality.

At the end of the day, Obama and Cameron will get what they want because they wield a bigger stick.

coz history is just a history

Ordinary people or rebels should not be armed. There will be no accountability later on what they do with these arms! They may sell these to Al Qaeda or Taleban or other terrorists. They may terrorize other people themselves with their weapons. I agree the good ones will surrender the weapons after the revolution is over but a certain percentage of the people will have other ideas to use these weapons in one way or the other.

So if the UN resolves to fight against the despot Gaddafi they should send their own troops. Afterall that is the job of the security council.

Pilgram,

I am quite sure you know that decisions at an individual level are much easier than at a group, family, country or international’s level. The difficulty and complexity increases exponentially with the directly affected number of people, as many other factors (political, strategic, economical, etc, etc) are at stake.

What I mean by this is, it is so simple for us individual to preach logic on a neutral ground and role, however, I am quite sure that none of us would be able to bring the amount of justice to the world the way we see it necessary!

Those are the reasons why Khadafi is only being chased out now and not before!

applaud

nice and brief speech, U must be feeling well after this.

Since the UN Resolution 1973 was first drafted there has been misunderstanding between different nations with regards helping the rebels fight their own battles, i.e. arming them.

The problem with this – at the moment they don’t know if it legal to do that. It is just not down to the UK and the USA – the whole of the UN and the Arab League will have to agree with it.

Only because Obama says he has not ruled out arming them – it is just not up to him. NATO has made it very clear they are there to protect people not arm them.

The conference in London – was to iron out any haziness with regards this.

Qatar has been charged with the responsibility of the oil and the legal division of it.

What a lot are forgetting is – the Libyan people asked the world to help. This is different to Iraq and Afghanistan. That was an illegal war and should never have been started.

I think as a ‘global village’ we cannot morally sit back and watch this man do this to his own people any longer.

The rebels were empowered by what they saw happening in other countries and backed by coalition forces had the courage to take on this despotic ruler.

The problem I see is this – they need arms to continue their fight. If they don’t have the arms; and are unable to continue in this uprising – will they be left in a worse state then before?

If we do arm them – they must use them in the right way and NOT attack anybody else but Gadhafi’s troops.

What we are hearing now also is that Gadhafi’s men are being helped by Al Qaida - if that is true; surely the time has come; if it is legal - to fight fire with fire and help those rebels.

Was the world right to go on in? I still think they were.

Kashmir is a disputed territory between two democracies.

UN hasn’t deliberated any foreigner interference. Why should any other nation, rather than the 2 directly involved, interfere?

On the other hand, the "west" has also helped oil-less nations in need (Bosnian War as an example). Although the "assets" makes the world move around but there is also a humanitarian side that shouldn’t be neglected or despised.

genetic problem with few western nations, who think they have to play a role of a Policeman.

Yeah yeah support the rebellion in Libya because Libyan's are under attack by their own leadership, but don't support Palestine and support Israel to continue cleansing.

Its still fight of interest and luckily the rebellion is an excuse.

So why wait 30 years to attempt to oust him LP? Why complain now?

With the oil fields in Libya the US is ready to look up on them as children[@LP], In India we are having a problem with occupation in Kashmir and many terrorist groups targeting the citizens left, right and center, India has been refusing all kinds of western interference to solve these issues and the mass murders at the hands of terrorists continues, I don't see one F....ng "mother"' country ready to intervene in spite of not being welcomed....So much for not having the right "assets":(

My real concern is that our politicians get the buy in of the people through vaguely worded UN resolutions and then "interpret" them to further their agendas - always using the UN as an excuse.

IMHO, We should not be interfering in Libya. If we want to arrest Gaddafi, then there are easier ways to do that.

They 'allowed' it? I guess, Ghaddafi used appropriate force to 'convince' them.

It's that kind of attitude that's gets us embroiled in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan LP. They aren't children. These countries allowed people like Gaddafi to take power and it's up to them to oust him. Not us.

No Nic, but it would like to be.

Pilgram,

Is Qatar now part of "the west"?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iuF0st-1pnG1ye_b2miw0SvaVBlQ?docId=16f27808e3cb4be897239027dec00c90

I see gaddafi getting killed in the end like saddam and they taking over Lycian oil fields

Hahahaha same stupid game and ppl getting fooled every time

You also 'interfere' when you see that your children are going the 'wrong' way, pilgram. No matter if they thank you or want it. Look at all these countries as 'children'. They don't know what is good for them. They are infants.

The question LP is whether or not we're going to be blamed for our interference. I see nothing but more bitching and complaining about the West and our "interference" coming out of Libya, unlike Japan who will be grateful for our assistance. Why help people who don't want our help?

The question, pilgram, is, do we feel responsible for the humans or not? The methods may differ. If we say, we are all humans, then we have to interfere. If we say, we are Americans, then we have nothing to do in Libya, nor in Iraq, neither in the Gulf, or elsewhere.

Sending money to a country that's been devastated by a disaster is very different then bombing the crap out of a sovereign country.

I am personally happy with the intervention so far. But my current thinking is that I would not like anything above and beyond this. Having watched the news today, it is probable that without increased intervention the rebels will be defeated. That would be a shame, but I would prefer that to getting involved further. Brit has a valid point; all our politicians need to do is look at recent history for assistance with their decision making.

I reserve the right to change my mind though ;)

Yeah, and why is the West sending money to countries hit by disasters? Let them sort it out by themselves! Nobody told them to live there, it was their choice.

Why is the West getting involved in Libya? Why not let them sort themselves out. It's their issue.