germany rules the eu, they can do whatever they like. nothing is going to happen to they.
|Forum||Europe Travel Guide||Facts & Trivia||Genetics||History||Linguistics|
|Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum|
Would this Libyan war become a big failure for German diplomacy and EU foreign policy?Because German isolation from traditional alliance.And because EU's unity on foreign and security policy broke AGAIN after Iraqi war.Your opinion,please?
germany rules the eu, they can do whatever they like. nothing is going to happen to they.
EU has to stick together in the global economy. Resent agreements have moved EU much closer together. The “war” in Lebanon is minor dispute compared to the common interests of the counties if EU countries want to maintain a sensible economy level in the future.
Don't you mean "Libya" not "Lebanon"?
LOL yes Libya dont know were Lebanon came from
It is important to mention first that we just had elections in two not so unimportant German states last sunday (Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-Würtemberg). In both states there are three parties (CDU,SPD,Grüne) struggling about on the same level, and the elections were fought around a very narrow victory in order to win the majority and enter the parliament. Even Merkel's (CDU) authority was to be questioned if her party lost in the end (and what it actually did btw).
It is very difficult to explain now to an outsider why going to war in general is extremely unpopular and absolutely out of question for most of the German public. In fact, dissolving the whole German army is an issue seriously discussed by two major parties (Linke and Grüne) from time to time. It is very complicated and I don't want to go too deep into it now. Anyways, it was unimaginable now that any party could come up with going to war just ahead of elections, which could result in an epic fail especially for the recent governmental party CDU.
In the end CDU lost it's majority, but due to something completely else: the nuclear plant disaster in Fukushima, which mobilized the masses to vote for Grüne, who's aim is to close all nuclear power plants in Germany within the next few years. In fact, the war in Libya didn't even make it into the head lines for many days, because of elections and Fukushima. Ironically it was Germany's ex-secretary of state Joschka Fischer (Grüne also) who was shocked by CDU's decision not to ally with France and UK.
And I do believe this decision brought some serious damage to the EU, as Germany lost it's role a true and reliable partner for years to come, at least in regard of politics. And I think EU will stagnate at this status-quo as it is now for many years to come, too.
I don't think there are major differences in public opinion between European countries themselves but rather between the political parties that are in power in each country. In every country there are people for the war, others against it, and others who don't care. The vast majority of the population doesn't hold very strong opinions about this war. It's not even a war, it's supporting an internal revolution.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter ----------------- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----------------- Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.
War, civil war, internal revolution, armed conflict... whatever it is called. In public opinion here it wouldn't get any support, I don't know how the relation of supporters and opposers is like in other European countries. I don't have a direct proof for it, but I am pretty sure elections played the major role in German government's decision not to intervene in Libya. Otherwise I think intervention would have also been in CDU's interest. Or how should it be explained that actually none of their politicians really is distressed by NATO's actions and they even offered to widen their tasks in Afghanistan to relieve the other nations?
In Ireland most people would have no view on the war in Libya. While it gets almost as much news coverage as the Japan earthquake, the majority of people would tend to pay the Japanese problem much more attention. It was reported on the news about Mekel's problems in Baden-Würtemberg.
In general most people here would view the wars in the middle east as pointless and a complete waste of human life at an extraodrinary monetary cost to the participants (1 tomahawk missle costs 1,000,000 dollars!!!) for very little gain.
Merkel had the most disgraceful record of Ami boot licking one could remember or imagine... even by BDR standards. But I guess the electoral preassure this time was too great.
I she were interested in that (I doubt it) she could capitalize that move boosting trade and German diplomacy with many decent members of the International Community that were dreaming for a true independent, assertive and moral attitude of Germany in the international arena.
I really don't know how a Chinese could come to gloat in a negative sense in this case.
Kgnju... are you sure you don't live in Taipei?
Besides that, maybe was even in favor of Geman interest no to enter the fray... because as we speak, the Rebels are being routed and flee in disorder...
During the last days, the Gaddafi forces have grown enormusly and now they are in advantage of 10 to 1 in men an material.
Any "victory" for the adversaries of Gaddafi in Europe will not come without a loses and a lot of resistance by the Libyan people.
Well.. I suppose Daffy is supported by the Mossad and the IDF.
The Israeli's have a big interest in causing havoc in the Arab world.
They have been pulling Daffies leg all the time.
The oooold recipe... Send weapons to both parties in the conflict.
The Greeks did it. The Romans did it.. The British did it. The Americans did it.
Why not the Israeli's?
Germany was wise not to interfere.
Remember the French president Sarkozy is a known agent of both the Mossad and the CIA.
If I want to read a real CPR symphatetic view, I go either to ATIMES.com...
Let me bomb you in peace
By Pepe Escobar
If former Pentagon supremo Donald "known unknown" Rumsfeld were still in business, he'd be grumbling that Libya presents no bombable targets - as in Afghanistan in 2001. As far as United States quagmires go, Libya is bigger than Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. But any possible "targets" concentrate in a few cities along the Mediterranean coast.
The Barack Obama-launched Tomahawking of Muammar Gaddafi's forces (and a few installations) is over; now it's up to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to impose the "kinetic military action" (White House newspeak) and thus force "regime change". And in perfect Tag Heuer time, disaster has set. NATO would love to bomb everything in sight shock and awe-style - but they can't. They can't even pinpoint Gaddafi's forces on their screens.
You don't remain in power over four decades in a developing country without learning a military trick or two from illustrious predecessors such as China's Mao Zedong and Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh - not to mention bunglers such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. After learning the lesson of having his tanks like sitting ducks in the desert bombed at will by the "coalition of the willing" (a few NATO members plus Qatar), Gaddafi is now fighting light-armor guerrilla style against the "rebels".
NATO's response has been more predictable than those everyday multilingual stalemates in Brussels; hurling accusations that Gaddafi is using human shields - as in his tanks in Misrata being "dispersed" across town and inside the perimeter. Translation: NATO's Tornado/Rafale air war is useless, unless you can bomb a tank column resplendent in the desert sun.
If NATO is angry, that motley crew known as the "rebels" is even angrier - accusing NATO of being incapable of carpet-bombing their own cities. This proves that the "rebels" themselves - who are practically begging for the West to do the dirty work - also don't give a damn about "collateral damage" among their own. One thing is certain; if NATO did what the "rebels" wanted it to do, collateral damage would be horrific. And European public opinion would pull the plug on this "kinetic" regime change action.
The circus is one more instance of how this war that is not a war is in fact a farce. The French and the British especially have bought their own hype that Gaddafi's regime is crumbling. They have also bought their own hype that this mixed bag of former Gaddafi loyalists, dodgy exiles, al-Qaeda-linked jihadis, business opportunists and true youthful revolutionaries have a political and militarily coherence, and are truly representative of the whole of Libya.
Religare Capital Markets in London gamed a few weeks ago that a stalemate in Libya had a 75% probability (with Brent crude reaching US$130 a barrel). Seems like Arab liberator French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his cohort British Prime Minister David Cameron are not on their reading list.
Thus the new, non-NATO-centric bright idea - former British special forces training the rebels to become a lean, mean, fighting machine, as if this could be accomplished in days or weeks, before there's a ceasefire.
The war that in fact no one wants except Sarko and Cameron is fizzling out like a ghastly remake of The Three Stooges (bidding is open for nominating the third stooge). That's what you get when you take sides in an African civil war where even the "good guys" are murkier than the waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration/Pentagon condominium has removed all its state-of-the-art hardware from the field. Mission creep is the name of the game.
At least in Serbia, NATO knew what it was doing. It supported a "liberation army" (UCK) infested with murderers and drug dealers; it even bombed state companies (not private), cluster bombs and depleted uranium included, so multinational corporations could step in; and had the Pentagon set up a huge military base (Camp Bondsteel) to police its protectorate.
United Nations resolution 1973 theoretically does not allow NATO to go that far. The Western members of this "coalition of the willing", the Brits and the French foremost, not to mention the Pentagon, pray there will be, at the end of the tunnel, plenty of oil and a strategic Africom/NATO base in northern Africa. But there's no guarantee.
The last hope for sanity in all this mess is Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has proposed his version of a roadmap for peace - calling for humanitarian aid corridors and steps toward democracy. Turkey is talking equally to both sides - and is not openly preaching regime change. The road map will be discussed by a few Europeans, the US, a few US client states in the Middle East and a few international bodies next Wednesday in Qatar - which, as we reported, is deeply involved in guiding the "transition" in Libya.
Let's wait. As it stands, any road map will beat bombed-out NATO.
... or I go directly to "People's Daily"...
The United States, the United Kingdom, France and their allies began air strikes on Libya on March 19, which is the largest international military intervention in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq. According to the Libyan government, the air strikes that have lasted for more than 10 days have caused serious civilian casualties, and the majority of victims are women and children.
Before Western countries launched the air strikes, many people had thought that Muammar Gaddafi's regime was on the verge of collapse, and once the air strikes began, his regime would fall apart immediately. However, contrary to these expectations, the existing Libyan government has not collapsed despite the massive bombing.
When the rebels tried to capture Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte, Gaddafi armed the tribes loyal to him with weapons, and the rebel forces were repelled in the end. Tribal forces are very strong in that area, say experts familiar with the Libyan situation. Obviously, Libya is descending into a civil war, which presents a dilemma to certain Western countries: are they really determined to intervene in Libya's civil war?Code:http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90780/index.html
The Libya story is very clear.. Oil.
The sons of Daffy want their old man out, so they can take over the power, and do business with lots of oil companies. It has a high "Bilderberg" scale. 5 At least.. Means.. It stinks.
Going to 6.. False Flag operation.
It's sad that The US defeats one enemy and just selects another. Weren't they just in Iraq? Then Afganistan? Why don't they (sorry, we, I'm American) quit for a while.
This is going to come and bite us in the butt one day.
I think good for Germany for staying out. Everyone should.
Hmm.. What enemy did the USA defeat? I guess the last enemy the USA defeated were the Japanese. And that was back in 1945 after two "faul play" atomic bombs.
From then on, the foreign policy of the USA was always a disaster. Henry Kissinger was the Prince of Darkness all those years.
The problem with Europeans and Americans that wish they were is that they're all looking for an argument. "Enemy", "what the US considers to be an enemy"... I think my point was clear and someone's got to hang on my every word.
As a whole, the situation in northern Africa and the Arab world in general is a huge embarrassment for the EU, whose pundits have, as usual, not seen anything coming. As the champion of democracy and a close neighbour, the EU had to walk the walk about promoting democracy in helping "removing the tyran". That became an emergency after pictures showing rebels using belgian-made FN weapons, while the EU was supposedly neutral and not meddling into the affair. Some other things that have to be kept in mind: France was dying to go there, as north Africa is still to some extent into their influence zone (or so do they like to think in Paris), Lybia is a massive energy producer (that might help many EU members to cut on their Russian imports), London never forgot the Lockerbie massacre, and Gaddafi has been a massive problem across European governments for the last 20 years. Ask Switzerland and the Paris cops about his sons, you'll have very few people that will shed a tear over his corpse. Because his petromoney has been used to corrupt, sorry, to convince many European politicians from a wide array of parties to bend rules and sign contracts, it took a while for the EU to figure out how they would deal with The Leader. In panic, they decided to intervene within NATO rules of engagement when it was clear the US would not intervene until the dust would be settled. Another Kosovo was not tolerable. Is it a failure for the EU? My opinion is that the EU has been branded weak, old, balls-free and useless so many times that it had to step on at some stage, in order not to lose even more credibility. Time will tell if it was a good idea, but as the reconstruction contracts will normally be awarded to EU companies, along with a nice stretch of Mediterranean coast to develop, I am pretty confident the long-term benefits will be juicy for some. I am personally sad that Hermann did not take the opportunity to claim a more dynamic role for the EU politics to play in the matter. But that surely will reopen the delicate matter of a Pan-European intervention Force...
At this stage, it's just a big funfair with plenty of freebies for the politicians that are not suitable for a government job at home or about to retire...