Questions that NATO intervention in Libiya raise.

[rkjindal91]

US may hand over op to France or UK
22 Mar, 2011 0730hrs IST PTI
WASHINGTON: US defence secretary Robert
Gates on Monday said that his country
expects to hand over the leadership of the
military operations against Libyan regime to
a coalition likely to be headed by either
French, British or Nato “in a matter of
days” .
“I think that there are a couple of
possibilities : one is British and French
leadership , another is the use of the Nato
machinery and I think we just have to work
out the command and control that is most
accommodating to all of the members of the
coalition, ” Gates said.


The big question are:
1) How Britain; who a few months ago declared that it may not have enough resouces even to defend its borders will manage to attack or lead the attack on Libiya?

2) UN charter does not allow foreign intervention in civil wars. Yet NATO forces are under the guise of protecting the civilians trying to assassinate Gaddafi? So that a friendly government is established.

3) Are these interventions aimed at controling rich oil wells of Libiya?(Most people know the answer to this question)


4) Is India just another ally of U.S. which it will use to counter rather fight china?

U.S. has a notorious history of engaging a war and once its main objective are achieved leaving it for its ally present in its vicinity to fight their life long.

5) In a very statergic way middle east and arab world is being tranformed into supply centre for U.S. one country at a time.

 

[alphamale]

U.S policies are hypocritical, on one side they attack Libya on basis of democracy & on other side many dictators have full support of U.S

 

[rkjindal91]

U.S policies are hypocritical, on one side they attack Libya on basis of democracy & on other side many dictators have full support of U.S

They don't care about dictatorship or democracy. All they care about is who serves their intrest. They supported Mubarak in Egypt, but are oppose to one party system of People's Republic of China.
So the buck stops at the achievment of their target no matter how.

 

[sancho]

The big question are:
1) How Britain; who a few months ago declared that it may not have enough resouces even to defend its borders will manage to attack or lead the attack on Libiya?

Britain will not lead in this war and will try to have a combined NATO mission, but France and Sarkozy are the leading force behind this attack besides the US, which is a problem for the NATO.

2) UN charter does not allow foreign intervention in civil wars. Yet NATO forces are under the guise of protecting the civilians trying to assassinate Gaddafi? So that a friendly government is established.

That is the main problem here I think, because this war is a civil war and the argument of pretecting civilians is rather lame, because these civilians are armed and not comparable to those in Egypt.
Sarkozy has his own reasons to push this war, even if that means that he has to do it with the US and UK, while their aim is getting rid of a dictator that was not under their control.

3) Are these interventions aimed at controling rich oil wells of Libiya?(Most people know the answer to this question)

Oil is not the prime aim here, but Gaddafi! You have to see the cruicial difference to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, because here, the forces on the ground which will face the highest risks are not US, or NATO forces, but Libyans! That means for these countries, this war is a low risk war, they only have to provide air support and weapons for the rebels.

4) Is India just another ally of U.S. which it will use to counter rather fight china?

That's the main strategic aim of course! Chinas power is rising and the US can't protect S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan in the east, while fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and protecting the Gulf countries and the oil routes.
A strong and friendly India would pose a 2nd threat to China at their western borders, while the strategic location of India in the Indian ocean and the strong navy could be a big problem for them in a war scenario with the US.

Besides these points, a closer relation to India with it's rising economic importance, is also needed for the US and their economy. They have the biggest defense industry and India is the biggest defense market now. No matter how close they are to Pakistan, it is in there interest to get closer relations to us as well. That's why they try to balance the situation between us and Pakistan.

5) In a very statergic way middle east and arab world is being tranformed into supply centre for U.S. one country at a time.

No doubt about that, both Iraq wars and the one in Afghanistan was mainly aimed on secure oil supplies, but other countries are trying the same, with different policies. China for example is pushing hard in several African and South American countries, just like India is pushing their relations on Africa, the Gulf as well. The race to secure the natural resources has already started and the super powers (US and China) are clearly in front, in the one, or the other way.

 

[BATMAN]

UN charter does not even allow NATO to be in Afghanistan.
What is the problem now?

US overlooks regular genocides in India and how Indian army has been violating human rights in Kashmir from years...


Kashmir agenda is the longest standing issue in UN, shouldn't NATO go bomb Dehli first?

 

[perplexed]

yeah if they have balls to do so ^^^. Now shut d fcuk up.

 

[rkjindal91]

UN charter does not even allow NATO to be in Afghanistan.
What is the problem now?

US overlooks regular genocides in India and how Indian army has been violating human rights in Kashmir from years...


Kashmir agenda is the longest standing issue in UN, shouldn't NATO go bomb Dehli first?

So what you are trying to say is that you can bomb world's largest democracy, with a trillion dollar economy, 4th largest army, 7th larget by territorial area and a population of a billion under the guise of transformation of Kashmir??
Wake up man its 2011, the world is looking towards India, asking for a help from us to help revive their dying economies.
Imagine B52 bombing delhi and Sukhois are having their cup of tea. What a comedy...

 

[rkjindal91]

Britain will not lead in this war and will try to have a combined NATO mission, but France and Sarkozy are the leading force behind this attack besides the US, which is a problem for the NATO.

True they just wanna control everything.

That is the main problem here I think, because this war is a civil war and the argument of pretecting civilians is rather lame, because these civilians are armed and not comparable to those in Egypt.
Sarkozy has his own reasons to push this war, even if that means that he has to do it with the US and UK, while their aim is getting rid of a dictator that was not under their control.

That is why I feel NATO has no right to intervene in an armed rebellion. Its just that they(NATO) feel its now or never.

Oil is not the prime aim here, but Gaddafi! You have to see the cruicial difference to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, because here, the forces on the ground which will face the highest risks are not US, or NATO forces, but Libyans! That means for these countries, this war is a low risk war, they only have to provide air support and weapons for the rebels.

What after Gaddafi is assassinated? He was not supporting any terrorism against US or NATO. So the prime aim is securing the rich oil wells.

That's the main strategic aim of course! Chinas power is rising and the US can't protect S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan in the east, while fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and protecting the Gulf countries and the oil routes.
A strong and friendly India would pose a 2nd threat to China at their western borders, while the strategic location of India in the Indian ocean and the strong navy could be a big problem for them in a war scenario with the US.

Besides these points, a closer relation to India with it's rising economic importance, is also needed for the US and their economy. They have the biggest defense industry and India is the biggest defense market now. No matter how close they are to Pakistan, it is in there interest to get closer relations to us as well. That's why they try to balance the situation between us and Pakistan.




No doubt about that, both Iraq wars and the one in Afghanistan was mainly aimed on secure oil supplies, but other countries are trying the same, with different policies. China for example is pushing hard in several African and South American countries, just like India is pushing their relations on Africa, the Gulf as well. The race to secure the natural resources has already started and the super powers (US and China) are clearly in front, in the one, or the other way.

But what I feel is the strong arab world union is being dismantalled block by block.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

UN charter does not even allow NATO to be in Afghanistan.
What is the problem now?

US overlooks regular genocides in India and how Indian army has been violating human rights in Kashmir from years...


Kashmir agenda is the longest standing issue in UN, shouldn't NATO go bomb Dehli first?

Are you Mistaking India as Pakistan ??
........