Lybia

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"One of the things that was very much on (U.S. President Barack Obama's) mind is the importance of a meaningful coalition, meaning other countries making serious military contributions so the United States isn't carrying the preeminent responsibility for an indefinite period of time," Gates said."

Wishfull thinking on the part of the Administration.

Gut feeling tells me we will end up, as usual, picking up most
of the military action and expense.

[Raven]

as used in the term FisherCAT

because it has a tail + climbs trees
my what big teeth you have
-the better to eat you with....

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The British, French and Italians are taking a major role in this effort. From reports, it seems that those three countries have been the major players of the aerial assault with the US providing support mostly with Tomahawk Missiles and the occasional Stealth Bomber.

I'm glad the US didn't jump into being the spearhead of this operation. Right now, the UN has the support of the Arab League. I highly doubt that would be the case if the US initiated the assault without full UN approval.

Hopefully all our involvement will be the part where we kick the door down; Command and control, Integrated Air Defenses, etc. Big difference in US capability versus the the other countries. I hope it works.

As for Arab League support, don't count on much, for long.

Originally Posted by justplugit

Wishfull thinking on the part of the Administration.

Gut feeling tells me we will end up, as usual, picking up most
of the military action and expense.

This is what I fear will happen.

Hopefully Col Q's military and Mercs flip on him. Of course at this stage of the game even if Q is gone and the rebels take over we'll have one of 3 things happen:

1) Rebels will go all fundamentalist anyway.

2) Rebels will fall under Iranian influence and follow the pattern somewhere along option one.

3) We might have some semblance of a modern democracy that remembers help from the west.

Don't expect the latter.

It dawned on me the other day when / where I do most of my philosophical thinking / reading, one great difference between the regions involved based on phrases is:

• Islam: the shout "Insh' Allah" If God Wills It.
• Christianity: "God helps those that help themselves"

No knocking, not going into great humor, but why did the (supposed) maturation of society / civilization seem to jump over large swaths of land between Morocco and western China?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnR

• Islam: the shout "Insh' Allah" If God Wills It.
• Christianity: "God helps those that help themselves"

No knocking, not going into great humor, but why did the (supposed) maturation of society / civilization seem to jump over large swaths of land between Morocco and western China?

My understanding of it was that Constantine became a Christian and it
spread under his influence in Rome and then Northward.
Why Northward? Maybe better communication, roads etc.
What always blows my mind is how quickly it spread through the
world by word of mouth as there was no formal communication
system, newspaper, radio or TV.

Just a guess on my part, but being there were so many different tribes with
their religious believes in the South, it wasn't fertile ground for conversion?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by justplugit

My understanding of it was that Constantine became a Christian and it
spread under his influence in Rome and then Northward.
Why Northward? Maybe better communication, roads etc.
What always blows my mind is how quickly it spread through the
world by word of mouth as there was no formal communication
system, newspaper, radio or TV.

Just a guess on my part, but being there were so many different tribes with
their religious believes in the South, it wasn't fertile ground for conversion?

My point - I didn't make clear enough, was the rapid transformation - mostly of the good - of the western and eastern parts of the world while largely leapfrogging Africa and the Middle East.

[justplugit]

News reports say 2 Tomahawks hit the compound by British submarine.

Seven more were scheduled to hit it also but because CNN and Reuters
reporters were invited in to view the damage they had to cancel.

Sounds like Gaddafi was smarter than the reporters.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by JohnR

No knocking, not going into great humor, but why did the (supposed) maturation of society / civilization seem to jump over large swaths of land between Morocco and western China?

A good friend always jokes: "Those people in the Middle East should be like the Jetsons by now. They had thousands of years of a head start over the rest of the world. The problem is that their religion is screwed up and they can't keep killing each other in the name of Allah."

There's definitely some truth to it.

In business, I've always felt "if we aren't moving forward, we're moving backwards." The Middle East hasn't moved forward in the last few thousand years.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

2) Rebels will fall under Iranian influence and follow the pattern somewhere along option one.

Why do you believe a bunch of Sunni Arabs would fall under Iranian influence?

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Why do you believe a bunch of Sunni Arabs would fall under Iranian influence?

-spence

Why would Iran try to expand its sphere of influence of Sunni Taliban in Afg? Why would Iran try to influence Sunnis in Turkey? Sunnis in Syria? Hamas?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Why would Iran try to expand its sphere of influence of Sunni Taliban in Afg? Why would Iran try to influence Sunnis in Turkey? Sunnis in Syria? Hamas?

Because they''re trying to secure their borders for the most part. Hamas is certainly a marriage of convenience, but a proxy war with the Zionists is often good PR.

I'm not saying that Iran won't try to influence Libya, but I'm not sure the conditions really exist to get much in return.

-spence

[striperman36]

Well Iran doesn't have much oil. So takin Libya into a consolidated state would improve things.

Why doesn't the UN annex it and give it to the Palestinians?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Because they''re trying to secure their borders for the most part.
-spence

Secure their borders

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR ....This is what I fear will happen.

Hopefully Col Q's military and Mercs flip on him. Of course at this stage of the game even if Q is gone and the rebels take over we'll have one of 3 things happen:

1) Rebels will go all fundamentalist anyway.

2) Rebels will fall under Iranian influence and follow the pattern somewhere along option one.

3) We might have some semblance of a modern democracy that remembers help from the west.

Don't expect the latter.

Originally Posted by spence

Why do you believe a bunch of Sunni Arabs would fall under Iranian influence?

Huh?

Iran is most focused on neighboring states. Not sure where the joke is, unless you just took a long toke and need to giggle

-spence

-spence

I'M DOUBLE sHOCKED!!!


Clinton says Iran trying to hijack Mideast revolts

Apr 15, 4:11 PM (ET)

MATTHEW LEE

(AP) US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a press conference at the US Embassy in...

BERLIN (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday accused Iran of trying to hijack democratic revolutions around the Mideast and warned Arab nations not to permit intolerance against women and religious minorities.

Clinton said Iran was clearly trying to use uprisings around the region to further its own goals and foment broader unrest while at the same time cracking down on its own reform movement.

"I think that that everyone(EXCEPT SPENCE) is aware if its efforts to exploit and even hijack what are legitimate protests. But certainly in an era of instant communication we hope that people will not be fooled by their tactics."

[scottw]

Triple....

April 17, 2011
Syria Heading from Bad to Worse By Neil Snyder

Typical newspaper readers and those with untrained eyes probably read past the report on Monday that Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Riad Shaqfa declared support for anti-Assad protesters in Syria. Likewise, they probably failed to grasp the significance of a report on Tuesday that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said that the protests in Syria are the result of a plot by Americans and Zionists -- that's Jewish people in general and Israeli Jews in particular.


Syria is a Muslim country, but it's not an Islamist state. Bashar al-Assad, Syria's president, is a Muslim, but he's not a Sharia law aficionado. Even so, he has allowed Hamas, Hezb'allah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and other radical Islamist groups to set up field headquarters in Damascus, Syria's capital. Syria is a resource-poor country and a country that is still technically at war with Israel. Assad thinks that he's using these Islamist groups as leverage to maintain influence in Lebanon and to keep pressure on Israel, but the worm has turned. Iran has assumed the leadership position in the dark world of radical Islam, and Iran is using these and other Islamist groups to dislodge non-Islamist Arab leaders -- including Bashar al-Assad -- throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Under the best of circumstances, Islamists can't be trusted. Lying is as natural to them as breathing is to normal humans. They don't even trust each other, and if it were not for the fact that they view Israel as their common enemy, they would fight among themselves until the bitter end. Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, knows these things, and still he opened his arms to radical Islamists, believing as he does that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


Iran is a game changer. The Iranians came to the party with a strong military, oil, money to burn (and radical Islamists love money), and a lust for transforming the world into a caliphate under Sharia law. From the radical Islamist groups' perspective, it makes perfect sense to dump Assad and embrace Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


That explains what's happening in Syria, but what about the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman's remark about Americans and Zionists? Does he honestly believe that these groups are responsible for the unrest in Syria? The answer is a resounding "no." Why? It's because Iran is stoking the fires in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria. From Iran's perspective, Assad was a good partner as long as radical Islamist splinter groups were relatively weak, but when they became stronger and more beholden to Iran, ditching Assad was a no-brainer.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Wishfull thinking on the part of the Administration.

Gut feeling tells me we will end up, as usual, picking up most
of the military action and expense.

Personally, I don't think so. Gates has been pretty consistent in stating every day that the major US role will be only a few days long and then we will be handing the reins over to the other countries. After the initial destruction of the Libyan SAM sites by B2 Bombers, it seems that most missions, including active enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, are being carried out by other countries. This, I like.

As I said before, it's yet to be seen.