Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Now are we going to clarify where ET is standing on this issue?

Formulating an "editorial line" has not traditionally been ET policy.

For myself, and keeping in mind that I hold no official position in the European Tribune organisation, I was in favour of knocking Qaddafi's air force out of the sky, because it presented an easy, relatively clean target (anything in the air that isn't a commercial jet or squawking your IFF goes on the ground - in one or more pieces, their choice). Of course, it should be pointed out at this juncture that an even more effective way of grounding Qaddafi's air force would have been to not sell him the planes in the first place.

I was opposed to escalating European involvement by offering the partisans tactical air support, for the same reason I was opposed to sending in ground troops or supplying the partisans with weapons: In order to know who to take orders from, you need to know who the different rebel factions are, who you like and who you don't like. We did not, and to a large extent still don't.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 at 05:11:41 AM EST
I was opposed to escalating European involvement by offering the partisans tactical air support, for the same reason I was opposed to sending in ground troops or supplying the partisans with weapons:

I am afraid once you bomb country's infrastructure in order to help rebels and that country is put in disarray you need to escalate involvement (and you will even more in future) except if you make a deal with dictator and the old structure of power stays in place (like in Milosevic's case all tho Serbia did not have rebels and deal with him had to be made).To put new structure of power in place will need much more involvement (in any sense).Look at Iraq. With "boots on the ground", puppet governments in place for 8 years and country and people's lives are nowhere near where they were prior to invasion. No security and no better life for people (if they manage to survive).What do they have? Country in ruins with flourishing corruption...But oil is finally flowing...
Where is the freedom? Where is prosperity ? It's not even in USA/EU, (except for some) ha-ha. It is going to take many decades for Iraq to come just where it was (if ever, with grub of oil money).
Just ask yourself how would you feel if your life is reduced to this for no matter how good cause? Not to mention irreparable loss of people, who were members of the families, disabled people by these wars etc.
Not to mention consequences on our own countries like described here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/01/the-empire-is-eating-itself/

It's not worth...

 

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 at 06:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was opposed to escalating European involvement by offering the partisans tactical air support

This means that if you've been in charge, Q's armoured column would have reached Benghazi intact, and the rebellion would have been crushed. Q would still be around and he would be very angry with us. Either we should have stayed out and kept our good relations with Q, or we should have gone all in. We did the latter and I don't regret it for a minute.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Mon Sep 5th, 2011 at 09:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series