|
Title: Interesting question... Post by: MontyB on 19 March 2011, 22:06:31 Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?
By Andrew North BBC News, Washington What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain? All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests. But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response. Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action. On one level the answer is obvious. Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not. Read More... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a fairly valid question, I am all for assisting in the removal of nutters like Qaddafi but should we be sitting on our hands regarding other states in the middle east facing similar situations even if they are our "friends". Title: Re: Interesting question... Post by: Rattler on 20 March 2011, 00:05:43 And then, the response of the governments is different: Ghadafi bombing his own people is a different attitude to react to than police firing at demonstrators.
Rattler Title: Re: Interesting question... Post by: MontyB on 20 March 2011, 00:17:45 Dead is still dead, doesn't matter whether it is from a government owned 2000 pound bomb, 155mm shell or a 7.62mm round.
I accept that Libya is the worst scenario we currently have but none the less the Yemeni and Bahrain governments are still killing their own people to hold onto power. Title: Re: Interesting question... Post by: Koen on 20 March 2011, 12:53:39 Quote Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen? Saudi-Arabia? Title: Re: Interesting question... Post by: Alan65 on 20 March 2011, 18:05:35 As an American, I find the manner in which the question is phrased interesting. (why is the BBC not asking 'Why is France/UK/etc. backing. . . ')
The US isn't seen as the 'leader' of this action in the US. There is no wide acceptance of the no-fly zone/use of force for any other country at this point. There has been armed conflict in one country for weeks; when Libya was at the 'protest stage', there was no use of force authorization. Why is there international acceptance of force in one case but not the other? They're two different situations (from an international politics viewpoint) at this time. Title: Re: Interesting question... Post by: Tanker on 11 May 2011, 18:06:22 That is an interesting question Alan65.
Title: Re: Interesting question... Post by: MontyB on 11 May 2011, 22:33:13 As an American, I find the manner in which the question is phrased interesting. (why is the BBC not asking 'Why is France/UK/etc. backing. . . ') The US isn't seen as the 'leader' of this action in the US. There is no wide acceptance of the no-fly zone/use of force for any other country at this point. There has been armed conflict in one country for weeks; when Libya was at the 'protest stage', there was no use of force authorization. Why is there international acceptance of force in one case but not the other? They're two different situations (from an international politics viewpoint) at this time. I think the big difference is that Gaddafi made the cardinal sin of declaring he was going to wipe out the opposition and anyone else in the area at that point the world really had to step in and stop him, Syria may well see some sort of action as well but I will bet that it will not come until the people there take up arms against the government (currently it is "just" peaceful protesters being shot), Yemen and Bahrain are pretty much the same. Seems the west as a whole is not prepared to help peaceful protesters but might come to the aid of rebellions. |