RE: Suck a fat one Gadaffi!
March 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm by Anomalocaris.)
I don't think it is really in American interest to take the lead to oust Kadaffi. In fact it is in our interest to give his continued dictatorship a limited degree of indirect assurance. The reason is very simple. To US a Libya that could have gone nuclear but didn't is of more benefit then a Libya that might possess a more cosmetically pleasing form of government. For the survival of himself and his rigime he gave up his nuclear program in a Faustian bargain with US. He could have tried to pull of Kim Jiongil on us. There are time when we need brutal dictators to deal with us rather than oppose us at all junctures because they think we will always be out to get them. So in the long run, we serve our own interests better by making it clear that we do in fact take our side of any international faustian bargain with a certain degree of seriousness, that we will not be the ones to break an international bargain in which we've already benefited just to score points with fickle domestic opinion or demonstrate charming swooning before high minded hot air.
If Kadaffi is going down anyway, we won't prop him up. But if he is surviving by himself, even though brutal repression, we should not take the lead to take him down because he did what we wanted in a faustian bargain with us on a thing we cared a lot about.
As to why Britain and France would be more eager, I think the reason is also simple. They, compared to the US, are relatively more minor and regional players. They have a much more limited international audience to which they must play their foreign policies. No aspiring nuclear power would condescend to give up their nuclear aspiration in any faustian bargain with the UK or France. This is why they can be more loudmouthed in this.
That does not add up. There is great animosity between the house of Saud and Kadaffi. Kadaffi underwrote more than one effort to overthrow the house of Saud. The house of Saud wants Kadaffi out. The house of Saud will be very happy to make up for any decrease in Libyan oil flow out of the reserve capacity from Saudi fields if that that would lessen qualms about efforts to overthrow Kahaffi.
If Kadaffi is going down anyway, we won't prop him up. But if he is surviving by himself, even though brutal repression, we should not take the lead to take him down because he did what we wanted in a faustian bargain with us on a thing we cared a lot about.
As to why Britain and France would be more eager, I think the reason is also simple. They, compared to the US, are relatively more minor and regional players. They have a much more limited international audience to which they must play their foreign policies. No aspiring nuclear power would condescend to give up their nuclear aspiration in any faustian bargain with the UK or France. This is why they can be more loudmouthed in this.
(March 18, 2011 at 2:34 pm)Ubermensch Wrote:(March 18, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(March 18, 2011 at 10:48 am)corndog36 Wrote: If the UN expects us, (America) to provide an leadership, they will be sadly disappointed, out president is a wimp. Hillary has got a pair, but Obama will insist on being able to blame Europe for forcing us into it, before he will turn her loose.
Kindly explain to me why it matters to the US which bunch of towel-heads rules fucking Libya?
Well for one, they're an oil exporter and you guys love your oil. For another, Gadaffi has been persona non grata to the American government for decades, so they'd love to get him out.
That does not add up. There is great animosity between the house of Saud and Kadaffi. Kadaffi underwrote more than one effort to overthrow the house of Saud. The house of Saud wants Kadaffi out. The house of Saud will be very happy to make up for any decrease in Libyan oil flow out of the reserve capacity from Saudi fields if that that would lessen qualms about efforts to overthrow Kahaffi.
