Libya, U.S. boots on the ground and Islamic government. Wow who could have predicted.

WillDAQ said:
UK & FRENCH BOOTS ON GROUND SHOCKER
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14934352

Mr Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are on a visit to Tripoli
Click to expand...

They aren't military personnel.

GraemeH said:
They're working with the government and military.

Gadaffi isn't part of any recognized government any more, and his "military" are just a bunch of hired guns from other African nations.
Click to expand...

The article implies there were troops on the ground before the pro Islamic law based democracy TNC took over.
 
argatoga said:
Like Iran?
Click to expand...
Or Indonesia.

narf said:
Pakistan? Yemen?
Click to expand...
We're involved in lots of places to some extent or another. Somalia and Sudan come to mind as well.

warden said:
Are the US flying the bombing raids over Libya?

I thought it was a UN action, which I guess means US provides the muscle?
Click to expand...
It's a NATO operation, sanctioned by the UN. The US did a lot of work early on (makes sense given the size and capabilities of our military). But as narf said, there are dozens of countries there. For instance, tiny little Qatar was actually pivotal in training rebel leaders in small unit tactics. The forces they trained were the ones who assaulted Tripoli.

Cold Fussion said:
Unless these four people are Gurkhas, then this is by no means a land invasion.
Click to expand...
:lol: That would be the breaking point for Gaddafi. Rebels? Pfft. NATO airstrikes? Whatever. Crazy ass knife-wielding Nepalese? Fuck that, I'm done.

GraemeH said:
Didn't the SAS already perform ground operations in Libya? I recall reports of them botching a mission and being asked by the NTC to leave. That action was far more militaristic than this. The CIA, too (wikipedia).
Click to expand...
Probably one of the few times where the CIA managed to keep a lower profile than British forces. :?

argatoga said:
They still didn't give us the total number.
Click to expand...
Four. Says it right there in the article you posted. And if guys like Jalil stick to their reputation and rhetoric, the "new" Libya will be a much more democratic, humane state than Gaddafi's Libya ever was. And Gaddafi's Libya was hardly secular.

argatoga said:
The biggest issue is that our war of good intentions is looking like it is backfiring with the establishing of an Iran like state. So we have reverted to the mistakes of the Cold War. Does Obama have Rumsfeld on speed dial?
Click to expand...
Libya and Iran, and our involvement in each, could not be more different. Of course Libya will rely, at least somewhat, on Islamic law. Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
 

Attachments

  • 800px-Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png
    800px-Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png
    99.4 KB · Views: 39
The Pentagon has acknowledged only once before that American service members were inside Libya during the uprising ? in March, when Marines rescued an American pilot who had ejected over the country while participating in a NATO airstrike. There has been speculation that intelligence personnel were on the ground helping to target airstrikes. The White House said no ground troops would be deployed during the NATO action.
Click to expand...

Where does it say only four total were used and no more at all?

I am weary of Islamic Law being applied to a state that just overthrew a government. Especially considering the things happening in Egypt now.

State and religion are a dangerous match.
 
Last edited:
argatoga said:
I am weary of Islamic Law being applied to a state that just overthrew a government. Especially considering the things happening in Egypt now.

State and religion are a dangerous match.
Click to expand...

That only applies to Christianity and first world countries. If they are poor, brown, Islamic and have exploitable resources than it is OK with whities on the internet.
 
I find it amusing that people from a nation that has "In GOD we trust" on it's bank notes think think that a government based on religion has to be a bad/extremist/undemocratic one just because the religion in question is another one, especially since other sources (I am on mobile internet right now, will provide links tomorrow if needed) said that Islamic law (sharia) shall be one among several sources for the new Libyan constitution/laws.

Both catholic and lutheran/evangelical churches have been in bed with Nazis, Fascists and military juntas/dictators.

Don't get me wrong, if the argument would be "NO religion should be the basis of ANY government", I'd be with you. But this OMG ISLAM rhetoric is double standards at it's best.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Grip said:
I find it amusing that people form a nation that has "In GOD we trust" on it's bank notes think think that a government based on religion has to be a bad/extremist/undemocratic one just because the religion in question is another one.

Both catholic and lutheran/evangelical churches have been in bed with Nazis, Fascists and Military dictators.

Don't get me wrong, if the argument would be "NO religion should be the basis of ANY government", I'd be with you. But this OMG ISLAM rhetoric is double standards at it's best.
Click to expand...

My stance is that no religion should ever be involved in government. A radical Christian state would be horrendous as well, but what are the chances of Libya having one of those?
 
Why does it have to be an extremist islamic government? To be perfectly honest, even though a seperation of church and state is paramount for any liberal (in the political theory meaning of the word, not the "OMG Obama" meaning), democratic government, it is a necessary requirement for the government being accepted by the people that its rules are connected to the people's moral values.
These values, in most if not all societies, have been shaped by religion over the course of centuries. Even Richard Dawkins can't argue that.

That's why I think making laws that have no roots in sharia at all would be unwise. That does not mean I want anyone stoned or anyone's hands cut off, but justifying the Texan way of treating murderers by sharia law would be a way to legitimize the law before the people that live under it.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Grip said:
Why does it have to be an extremist islamic government? To be perfectly honest, even though a seperation of church and state is paramount for any liberal (in the political theory meaning of the word, not the "OMG Obama" meaning), democratic government, it is a necessary requirement for the government being accepted by the people that it's rules are connected to the people's moral values.
These values, in most if not all societies, are shaped by religion. Even Richard Dawkins can't argue that.

That's why I think making laws that have no roots in sharia at all would be unwise.
Click to expand...

Yes any connection between between religion and the state, radical or not is bad.

When he says "root in Sharia law" I believe he means more than don't kill your neighbor.
 
Interrobang said:
Thing is, maybe we should let the people of Lybia take it from here and see what they make of it and not try to condem it before they?ve actually have had a shot at it ...
Click to expand...

We should have done that before attacking the country.

EDIT: To restate my personnel beliefs: war should only be commenced when absolutely necessary. Yes attacking another nation is war. During the Cold War good intentions like that done in Libya backfired, and backfired, and backfired. I see no reason why this doesn't have the same potential.
 
Last edited:
argatoga said:
Where does it say only four total were used and no more at all?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry the article wasn't written to specifically dispel conspiracy theories. Just because I don't say "two plus two is four and not five" doesn't mean that it could potentially be five.

And if we're going to be citing speculation as fact, then I'm not sure I can give a retort to any of it. If that's what's going on here, you're just believing whatever you want to believe, and fuck whatever anyone else says.
 
Dogbert said:
I'm sorry the article wasn't written to specifically dispel conspiracy theories. Just because I don't say "two plus two is four and not five" doesn't mean that it could potentially be five.

And if we're going to be citing speculation as fact, then I'm not sure I can give a retort to any of it. If that's what's going on here, you're just believing whatever you want to believe, and fuck whatever anyone else says.
Click to expand...

I cede you that point. Looking back I am conjecturing a bit much from it.

The issue with the religious government is the big problem.
 
argatoga said:
During the Cold War good intentions like that done in Libya backfired, and backfired, and backfired. I see no reason why this doesn't have the same potential.
Click to expand...
How about these?

The Cold War is over, there is no USSR left that Libya could align with like other nations in the Middle East had done.
or
The Iranian regime, which you refer to as a blueprint for Libya's future government, has come under attack in the very same Arab Spring that toppled Ghaddafi.
or
The Taleban, al-Qaeda, Islamic Courts Union etc. have proven their unwillingness and incapabiity of providing any improvements to the populations they tyrannise - why exactly would the Libyans want to join that club?
or
The very article you quoted states: "Many Libyans say they are hungry for foreign advice and help; some road signs even display the flags of the United States and other Western countries and thank them for their assistance ? a rare sight in this part of the world." That is a very far cry from e.g. toppling a US-supported Shah of Persia.

The World has changed fundamentally and very quickly since the end of the Cold War.

At the moment, Libyans have a chance to start anew and build the nation they can agree on. The result of that process is very much unknown, so it is definitely not determined to be an extremist Islamic theocracy as you did imply, argatoga. Various Arab nations have tried different kinds of government in the past decades, this time it might be something new again for Libya - and if they request assistance, they should get it.

argatoga said:
The issue with the religious government is the big problem.
Click to expand...
Why is it? How do you know it to be?

One of the two largest political parties in Germany is called "Christian Democrats", and while I am not a supporter, they are not a threat to our democratic system of government. In fact, nationalism can very easily become a much bigger problem than religion - just look at all the wars that have been fought over the expansion of one nation state at the cost of another!
 
Last edited:
argatoga said:
Where does it say only four total were used and no more at all?

I am weary of Islamic Law being applied to a state that just overthrew a government. Especially considering the things happening in Egypt now.

State and religion are a dangerous match.
Click to expand...

Yah, but I think you can't really complain about that, because imo the USA isn't so far behind Iran on that matter. Honestly, I can't see a real difference between some Tea Party guys and Ahmadinejad. The only issue is, that Ahmadinejad is actually in power and that these Tea Party guys progress of undermining the political power hasn't been finished but is still going on.

Too be honest, I'm not informed too good about this matter because I don't care too much. But somehow I miss some general outrage about extremists of any kind. Somehow people seem to be blind, that they see one extrem as "good" and the other as bad.

Especially here in Germany when we're talking about the Left Extremists vs. "Neo Nazi" scene. When these two groups come together it's usually the left wing that start riot and somehow the general public things, the lefties are "good" because they are against the Nazis.
 
Last edited:
I bring up the Cold War as a good example of how going out killing and conquering people for the "right reasons" can lead to a horrible mess. If you want you can change Cold War to Western Imperialism. Same thing in this regard. Toppling a regime and assuming things will work out isn't a good plan. That the head of the TNC wants a non secular government isn't a good sign.
 
download.jpg

I'm Scorpion. :p

argatoga said:
The issue with the religious government is the big problem.
Click to expand...
I'll give you that. Jalil may be a moderate with the best of intentions, but it could only take one nutcase fundamentalist to ruin the whole idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top