The chances of anyone invading Libya: virtually nil


by Sunny
1st March, 2011 at 3:52 pm    

US warships are moving towards the region and the UK government is stepping up the rhetoric. But the chances of invasion? Virtually nil.

I’m not even sure why people are getting worked up about it. This is just grandstanding in the hope Gaddafi backs down from international pressure.

The UK will not go in alone and the USA has no money for an invasion anyway; it’s just about keeping White House from being shut down. I thought all this was obvious?! Please give Obama some credit people: he may have been crap on civil liberties but a neo-con he definitely is not.

Of course Cameron will say “we have to prepare for every eventuality” – to say anything is not only political suicide but incompetence. If Gaddafi started gassing Libyans enmasse would people still sit around saying there should be no invasion? Highly doubt it. The warships are there to remind Gaddafi what could happen if he even thought about it…

As far as I can see, the US and UK are taking the correct course of action.

Update: Surprise surprise, the Pentagon is not hot on it either.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East






41 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : The chances of anyone invading Libya – virtually nil http://bit.ly/fqr25a


  2. rahooligan

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : The chances of anyone invading Libya – virtually nil http://bit.ly/fqr25a


  3. Law Enforcement…? | Law Enforcement Articles

    [...] Pickled Politics » The chances of anyone invading Libya: virtually nil [...]




  1. Scudderite — on 1st March, 2011 at 3:56 pm  

    Aren’t you just sick of the aggressive language by the US/UK which makes them appear holier than thou, blameless and not guilty of any human rights abuses at all [not mentioning over a million innocent deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan since 2003, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airport, Abu Ghraib, arming fascists in South America, Bradley Manning’s treatment, arming despots throughout the world, invading a sovereign country by exploiting a fantasist, etc etc)?

    Well, I’m sick of it!

  2. cjcjc — on 1st March, 2011 at 4:07 pm  

    “As far as I can see, the US and UK are taking the correct course of action.”

    Yes.

  3. joanne — on 1st March, 2011 at 4:28 pm  

    Where were they when Israel was attacking the Palestinians or devastating villages in southern Lebanon?

  4. Scooby — on 1st March, 2011 at 4:40 pm  

    Is anyone proposing an invasion? All the talk I’ve seen is about possibly imposing a no-fly zone, and supplying arms to the rebels. Neither of which would break the bank or amount to stepping into a quagmire, and both of which have been requested by many of the rebels themselves and their Middle Eastern supporters. Why bother refuting a straw man?

  5. Scooby — on 1st March, 2011 at 4:42 pm  

    Scudderite I suspect hates anything that makes the Western countries look like good guys. Does he actually opposed Western intervention in support of the Libyan rebels, or would he prefer they be machine-gunned from the air if that’s the price to keep the “imperialists” at bay?

  6. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 4:42 pm  

    If I was ruthless, completely amoral, shameless then I would just march in. But if I was a hypocrite, I would do exactly what they are doing.

    It does say something when no one knows, but everyone hopes, that they are telling the truth.

  7. Scudderite — on 1st March, 2011 at 4:59 pm  

    @ Scooby, really? Good guys? Do you really think invading an oil rich country to “save its citizens” is such a humanitarian act? Why don’t they invade other countries with human rights abuses? Maybe oil is the factor, no? Are you naive or just a neocon? How come most of Gaddafi’s weapons are “made in the US or UK”? Real good guys!!! Crikey, talk about sticking your head in the sand.

    They should let the citizens resolve their conflict and self determine, and we should butt out! Plus stop their preaching rhetoric because they come across as stupid hypocrites.

  8. chairwoman — on 1st March, 2011 at 6:22 pm  

    “Where were they when Israel was attacking the Palestinians or devastating villages in southern Lebanon?”

    Exactly where they are today, condemning verbally, from afar.

    And that is exactly where the few British servicemen and women we have left should stay.

    I want neither another Afghanistan nor an Iraq.

  9. Scooby — on 1st March, 2011 at 6:47 pm  

    Do you really think invading an oil rich country to “save its citizens” is such a humanitarian act?

    Er, yes. Why the quotes around “save its citizens”? Didn’t Saddam gas thousands of Kurds? Hasn’t Ghaddafi’s goons killed thousands of Libyans? That stuff isn’t made up, is it?

    Maybe oil is the factor, no?

    Was Ghaddafi threatening to cut off the West’s oil? No. Might a new regime do so? Maybe, who knows? So if oil was the key factor it would make sense to help keep a supposedly compliant dictator in place. That isn’t what is happening, is it? Which kind of refutes your silly theory about oil.

    Why don’t they invade other countries with human rights abuses?

    They can’t afford to? Because lefties shriek about how it’s all really a scam? Because the bones and blood of young British men in uniform are a precious resource not to be expended willy-nilly?

    They should let the citizens resolve their conflict and self determine, and we should butt out!

    Yes, Ghaddafi should have a free hand to bomb his population into submission while those with the power to stop it sit on their hands. Thanks for proving my point — you care nothing for the people of Libya and are entirely driven by hatred for the society you live within. It must really suck to be you.

  10. Awakening Tempest — on 1st March, 2011 at 7:04 pm  

    I see it in a different way – allow me to explain. Precisely because the USA have no money and are over stretched and because UK needs more oil options is exactly why the UK/USA will eventually build up a case to go into Libya. When an invasion takes place the cost of this will be involved to Libya – but because no stable government will be present the UK/USA will run the administration until a date of elections is selected. Until then all the oil, resources and construction contracts will be distributed amongst the western organisations (including Israel).

    UK/USA need to make money and Libya is a bank that hasn’t yet been robbed, right now the plans are being drawn as to how to rob it and cover up all the tracks.

  11. tan — on 1st March, 2011 at 7:46 pm  

    Gaddafi’s fall looks inevitable, its about organising/grooming the ‘right’ people to take over, rather than Libya falling into the ‘wrong’ hands.

  12. jamal — on 1st March, 2011 at 7:49 pm  

    fantastic brilliant talk of no fly zones, warships on the move what humanitarians.

    funny there was none of the above when israel bombed the crap out of gaza…………

    cameron doesn’t give a hoot about people of libya, all he cares about is losing the multi billion dollar contracts of BP and others.

  13. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 8:27 pm  

    Odds are they will be ‘reimbursed’ by Saudi Arabia.

    I believe that is the plan.

  14. Scooby — on 1st March, 2011 at 8:35 pm  

    Posters 10-13 claim certainty that plans to invade Libya are being drawn up at this very moment. Refresh even knows who the bill will be sent to. Talk about paranoid conspiracy mongering.

    Carefull, Sunny. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

  15. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 8:43 pm  

    “Odds are they will be ‘reimbursed’ by Saudi Arabia.”

    Shouldn’t that be “us” rather than “they?

    “funny there was none of the above when israel bombed the crap out of gaza”

    Yeah we should take out hezbollah and hamas – both are bonafide terrorist organisations.

    “Please give Obama some credit people: he may have been crap on civil liberties but a neo-con he definitely is not.”

    No one in their right mind except for the loony left call Obama a neo-con if he gives the go ahead to take out Gaddafi.

    And by ordering some sort of military action against someone who organised Lockerbie, he would force the republicans to forget the debt ceiling battle and his popularity within the US would surge. So the money would not be the problem in the short term and might even help his re-election.

    And there are no Bill Clinton’s in the Republican party which can take over the centrist voters – like Clinton did with George H.W. Bush.

    And Gaddafi is localised and there is clear intelligence where he and his cronies are in Tripoli – so he really does not need a massive invasion

    Btw, we did invade Libya two days ago – we sent in a C150 which is a big bloody plane and we also sent in special forces.

    So all those here who are saying that under no circumstances we should go in – what happens if he pulls a Saddam and refuses to go and orders mass killing which he already has. I guess its okay for Muslim leaders to shed muslim blood.

    Saddam was given 48 hours to leave the country and turn the country over to an interim government – he refused thinking Bush and Blair would not go in.

    If after all this Gaddafi says I am not going then what happens – we should just stand by.

    I guess all of you were supportive of us standing by in Kosovo as well.

  16. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 8:49 pm  

    I would love to be proven wrong.

    Past experience is not good. Better to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. See here

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-oceans-of-blood-and-profits-for-the-mongers-of-war-2145037.html

    ‘Robert Fisk: Oceans of blood and profits for the mongers of war’

    And I don’t believe Sunny is actually saying it is not a possibility. He says that other factors would hold the urge-to-invade back.

  17. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 8:58 pm  

    Yeah I understand all that – and there is no need for a full blown invasion either. And my question is what happens if Gaddafi refuses to go and keeps on killing with his mercenaries.

    What then? We should look the other way.

  18. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:01 pm  

    I don’t have much beef with Sunny’s piece but I think he is wrong when he says there’s no money as I pointed out – and Obama is no way a neo con and he wouldn’t be one if he decides to go in and take Gaddafi out.

    And only the loonies would call him so – and as always loonies don’t ever make much of a difference in electoral politics either here or there.

  19. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:09 pm  

    ‘Shouldn’t that be “us” rather than “they?’

    Perhaps, but it depends if they are acting in your name or not.

    The problem with this sabre-rattling is that it strengthens Gaddafi’s hand (the foreigners after the Libyan’s oil) and weakens the protesters (portrayed as useful idiots).

    I would rather hope he, without delay announces acceptance of the protesters demands and steps aside formally handing over to a committee put together by the people. And he throws himself at their mercy.

  20. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:15 pm  

    “I would rather hope he, without delay announces acceptance of the protesters demands and steps aside formally handing over to a committee put together by the people. And he throws himself at their mercy.”

    Now that is as delusional as his proclamation yesterday that his people all love him and would die for him and he is like a constitutional monarch.

  21. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:25 pm  

    Maybe not quite as gracious a gesture as that but I am pretty sure there is a form of negotiation underway – they just happen to involve pops, bangs and whistles.

    I suspect he will attempt to achieve a ‘constitutional monarch’ role for himself.

  22. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:36 pm  

    ‘ I guess its okay for Muslim leaders to shed muslim blood.’

    Of course not. This is the problem, all the other muslim countries are in so deep with their own autocratic ways that all they can think about is what they can learn from what Gaddafi manages to pull off, should the unrest keep rolling their way. Which is precisely why these popular movements need to succeed.

  23. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:37 pm  

    on their own.

  24. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:49 pm  

    But not every army is like the Egyptian army – remember the Serbian army – and they did need intervention from outside infact this is exactly what the UN is supposed to stop. Isn’t it? Or do we wait for many many thousands more to die/

    In fact the UN never gave clearence for the Kosovo no fly zone or the boots on the ground.

  25. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 9:56 pm  

    That is the problem with the UNSC, those five have their own clients they want to protect. Democratic reform is essential. Tony Benn speaks on the subject quite eloquently.

    With regards to Libya, we have unanimity for a change. One would hope that allows UN peacekeepers to be inserted. And it would be insufficient for that unanimity to be broken should they need to act in other parts of the ME.

  26. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 10:01 pm  

    Damn but I agree with Refresh not with the point he makes but also the thinking behind -

  27. jamal — on 1st March, 2011 at 10:01 pm  

    shamit

    why does 90% of your posts contain the phrase hezbollah and hamas?

    I like the spin you excuse israel completely from the point why is that?

  28. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 10:09 pm  

    first of all 90% of my posts do not contain Hamas and Hezbollah.

    And I do not excuse Israel either – I think the yahoo crew is definitely against having any sort of sustainable peace. But I do have a lot of respect for Rabin and some others –

    On the other hand I loathe Hamas and Hezbollah because while they claim to be loved and wanted by their people – both are oppressive and seek glory in shedding the blood of those who they supposedly protect.

    Also, pushing the debate 50 years and refusing to accept the existence of Israel is just dumb and idiotic and they do it to please their Iranian masters – and I don’t find them credible either.

    Israel has a habit of going way beyond proportionate response and some of the laws proposed by this current Israeli government is an abomination and I have no love for this government or its laws or its tactics.

    But I think the very presence of Hamas and Hezbollah and their tactics and rhetoric make life 10 times harder for the Palestinians as well as the Lebanese. And their refusal to accept Israel’s existence compounds the problem also undermines democratic right of both the people in Gaza and Lebanon. In fact, protests supporting the Egyptian revolution was attacked by Hamas thugs and so called police and brutally suppressed.

    Israel at least does not kill its own people – something you cannot say about either Hamas or Hezbollah.

  29. Refresh — on 1st March, 2011 at 10:57 pm  

    Movements come and go and they are of their time and consequence.

    If you go all the way back to the 1982 Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, names like Walid Jumblat, General Ayoun, Sharon, the Maronites, Falangists, Amal, the South Lebanon Army will all resonate. Follow the sequence of events from there and you will see how Hezbollah came to be.

    There is a wing of the Israeli elite which survives and thrives on conflict, and for them to stay relevant they need to continue to stoke the fire. An over-reaction here, a hellfire missile there is all part of the scheme.

    Using dubious religious edicts to move people to act irrationally is a crime. This was Sharon at work when he mobilised the settler community, subsequently backing off once he had got what he thought he wanted.

    It was Sharon who trumped Netanyahu by being more audacious when they sought to bring down Oslo in the race to be PM.

    And I’ve rarely understood the argument that you are the lowest of the low if you kill your own people, when there is one step below that, mobilising people to kill others because you need to pick up a few votes at the ballot box. On the whole though they are all cut from the same cloth.

  30. Shamit — on 1st March, 2011 at 11:12 pm  

    Again I do not disagree Refresh.

  31. fugstar — on 2nd March, 2011 at 8:34 am  

    What on earth does this have to do with the Occupation? I guess there arent too many libyans commenting here. …

    The fact that there is the possibility of western military involvement is troublesome.

    The rebels have clearly stated that they dont want military involvement from others, thats exactly the kind of approach (running off into the arms of the enemies) that brings an even more murderous approach from paranoid state. They arent that desperate yet, they have their dignity.

    On the dark side. Lynch mobs hunting suspected black african mercenaries are taking it out on any black african foreign workers. british forces got a ‘sorry’ for being shot at, what about these guys?

  32. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 10:20 am  

    It did occur to me that Egypt might provide military assistance to the rebels. There was talk at one time of Libya and Egypt joining together in some sort of pan arab state, was there not?

  33. jamal — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:02 pm  

    reports are trickling out slowly that the rebels are in contact with “military advisers” from britian, us and france who are establishing bases in libya.

    this is not far fetched as it seems, especially when cameron confirmed earlier last week special forces went in and out of libya with relative ease.

  34. Refresh — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:10 pm  

    ‘reports are trickling out slowly that the rebels are in contact with “military advisers” from britian, us and france who are establishing bases in libya.’

    Not far-fetched at all. Its what is known as preparing for all eventualities. Here is an interesting read:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/intervention-libya-poison-arab-revolution

    ‘Intervention in Libya would poison the Arab revolution. Western military action against Gaddafi risks spreading the conflict and undermining the democratic movement’

  35. damon — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:10 pm  

    That’s a pretty rubbish article by Seumas Milne.
    He seems to be getting way ahead of himself.

    There is no desire by western countries to get involved militarily at this stage. They don’t even want to operate a no fly zone as that would involve a lot of bombing of air defences.

  36. jamal — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:56 pm  

    damon

    war is full of deceit and lies, i don’t expect william hague or the french foreign minister to come on to sky news, and admit their forces are on the ground plotting with the anti ghaddafi forces.

    But to dismiss it is as nonsense is naive, the brits, french or US have history in this they are not called imperialist nations for nothing.

  37. Shamit — on 3rd March, 2011 at 2:01 pm  

    Yeah we should accept Seamus Milne’s world view – that would be the day. He is loony of the highest order – please please do not take him seriously.

  38. chetk — on 6th March, 2011 at 3:39 pm  

    Shamit -

    ‘Yeah we should accept Seamus Milne’s world view – that would be the day. He is loony of the highest order – please please do not take him seriously..’

    Did it ever occur to you that pople take Seamus Milne seriously because he has been proven right far more often over the last decade than any of his critics?

    Do you really think the support for Gaddafi over the last decade doesn’t have anything to do with Lybia’s oil resouces?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.