By: ogini
- 2nd March 2001 at 18:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Have faith!
I don't see Arafat with any F-16s on order man. Even though power block shifts do occur (like Egypt), Qaddafy has been satanized by the West in such a manner like Castro), that it will take a Revolution or a Democratic process before Libya is regarded as a desirable friend for the West. And it will be only without the Colonel.
I don't think that Libya is as important to the Middle East as Germany is to Europe. Iran is a powerhouse of course, but only as it is seen as an enemy or a balance to the Arab controlled oil production. I think the US would be quite happy to get a true democracy (or at least their definition of such) in Terán that will serve their interests, in a way the Shah did.
By: Arthur
- 2nd March 2001 at 21:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Lybian MiG-23MFin Maleme
Fantasma,
Since you're a lot closer to the fire than i am; would they happen to know the serial and/or construction number of that Flogger? It would be a very great help!
Regards,
Arthur
New
Posts: 794
By: Tom
- 3rd March 2001 at 08:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Have faith!
I hope you don't mind me mixing in this discussion, gents.
Basically, it's truth, that Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Khaddaffi/al-Qadaffi (however you like it) shouldn't be underestimated, but, he's sitting in Tripolis, which is in Libya, and Libya is - as we all know - in Northern Africa and in the Med (some sort it also under Middle East, but that is rather because majority of population is Arabic).
Why is that so important: well, because Soviet Union is something completely different, and Germany was - even more so - something completely different.
Col. al-Khaddaffi/al-Qadaffi is actually a very interesting person, whose ideology is rather based on - believe it or not - certain works of President Lincoln (at least, he run around always carrying one of Lincoln's books, and cited from it) than Marxism or Leninism.
Lets also clear one prejudice more: contrary to what is widely believed, neither Egypt under President Nasser, not Cuba under Fidel Castro, nor Libya under Khaddaffi were pro-Soviet states right from the start. This is not truth.
After coming to power, Nasser first asked the USA for help, both in economical and in military matters. After the USA refused to help finance the Asswan dam, he turned to Soviet Union. After the UK - repeatedly - refused to sell weapons ordered by Egyptians, he turned to Czechia for MiGs and T-34s. That - years later - some sort of socialistic economy management was introduced in Egypt is of no importance. Egypt was a Soviet ally only for one reason: because the USSR delivered weapons needed for the fight against Israel. As soon as Sadat came to power in 1970 and France was ready to deliver Mirages (1972), Egyptians were again connected to the West. The same was the case with Syrians, which - until today - use and buy Soviet/Russian weapons, but are by no means "communists" and have their own, independent, politics. In short: don't mix Soviet military and political influence when talking about Arabs.
Cuba was a similar case: after climbing to power, Castro - which was never a communist - asked Washington for help. This was refused by Washington, which protested because during the uprising most of US businesses on the Island were nationalized. Consequently, Soviets jumped in, and Castro - a lawyer - suddenly declared himself for "socialist/marxist"....
Khaddaffi came to power during a coup against King Idriz, supported (and partially organized) by the CIA and the British. That his ideas were different to those of the USA is - however - another story: he threw foreign troops out of Libya and joined Egypt, nationalizing the oil industry and being the first Arab leader which increased the oil price (thus, indirectly, starting what brught us today to USD 30,-- per barell). That was his "mistake", which subsequently lead to the such an antagonism with Washington. After that experience, and after exchanging such phrases like "Mad Dog" with President Reagan, massively smuggling terrorists and drugs around, I highly doubt, that he could ever become a "US-friend". Even France might be carefull to sell weapons to Libya again, especially after it had to fought against its own weapons in Libyan hands during the war in Chad.
In short: USA + Libya, dialogue = yes, friendship = no.
And finally, IMHO, the basic difference between Iran and Libya compared to other African/Middle East countries, most of which are US allies (and thus the reason for antagonism between the USA and Iran and Libya), is the completely independent politics of Tehran and Tripolis. Contrary to Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt, they don't let themselves being influenced by the USA. On the other side, whatever is widely believed about these two countries, they are still much more democratic than all the US allies in the area combined.
Thus, Ogini, would it be a "true democracy" - in Tehran or in Tripolis - just if "this would serve US interests"? Contrary to what is widely believed, a "true democracy" has nothing to do with being a US servant (regardless of the CNN automaticaly reporting when one oppositional in Iran is arrested, but ignoring similar "elements" being stoned by the mob in Ryadh, or Saudi internet and newspapers being closely controlled and censored)...
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
New
Posts: 507
By: mercurion
- 3rd March 2001 at 12:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still, have faith!
I think Tom is on the right track. It's important to remember that the U.S. view of the world is ONE of many, and just as fallible as any other. Just because the U.S. has the highest G.D.P. or the most powerful armed forces does not make them just or correct in their perception of world affairs.
Why do you make the point of saying Yasser has not ordered F-16's? Do you think he can afford them even if he wanted to?
The point I was trying to make is that a change in arms supplier usually comes AFTER a change in sentiment or political/economic priorities in a given nation. Just because the U.S. has written off the Colonel doesn't mean there is literally no chance of dealing with him. Don't be too short-sighted.
Probably the only person we could write off universally would be Saddam Hussein, but even he is regarded as a hero by some who admire the ability of someone who will not be dictated to by U.S. interests.
New
Posts: 794
By: Tom
- 3rd March 2001 at 14:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I don't have any...
The problem with "powers" and "super powers", Mercurion, is, that they tend to think, that they are always right, and that they tend to spread their political influence by selling arms. Additionally, they tend to see local conflicts in the light of their own conflicts, even if there is no trace of it. Actually, some times whole wars broke out, because somebody "needed" the "communist" or "imperialist" threat.
Thus, when Egyptians bought Soviet weapons in order to battle French - and later US - supplied Israelis, their fight became a part of the Cold War. Egyptians were never interested to antagonise Moscow and Washington or to become a factor in the Cold War, yet, this happened because both super powers "had" to intervene.
Basically, the situation changed completely these days, and from the "imperialism" vs. "communism" we have now struggles struggles for control of local markets, oil, water etc. The one who controls the oil sources, weapon buyers, cheap producers etc. is the one who'll be more successful in deploying (and retentioning) the own power.
The problem the West (but the "East" as well) has with such persons like S.H. or the Libyan leader is, that they don't let themselves be influenced by anybody: regardless weapons or oil, they care only about their own well being, and certainly not about foreign interests. Thus, there is no chance anything in relationships between Iraq, Libya or Palestinians and the USA (or anybody else) could change before certain leaders are away*.
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
*The example excludes the situation which would develop if one suddenly finds oil in areas controlled by Palestinians: I'm sure, "somebody" would initiate a "piecefull solution" one day after something similar would be found there.
New
Posts: 507
By: mercurion
- 3rd March 2001 at 15:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Politics
Funny how these aviation discussions always seem to revert back to politics....
New
Posts: 794
By: Tom
- 3rd March 2001 at 16:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
Yes, sorry, I'm actually trying to keep myself out of such discussions, but sometimes, I simply can't resist.
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
New
By: Anonymous
- 3rd March 2001 at 16:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
LAST EDITED ON 03-Mar-01 AT 04:20 PM (GMT)[p]Do I have to quote V. Clausewitz again? And repalce the word "war" with "airwar"? :)
elp
usa
New
Posts: 507
By: mercurion
- 3rd March 2001 at 16:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
No prob- alot of this forum seems to drift to politics. It seems Key Publishing have unwittingly opened the flood gates on alot of pent up opinions on world affairs that have been waiting for a suitable place to vent. Just hope they don't clamp down it- we need a place that presents alternative views to mainstream media.
New
Posts: 570
By: JJ
- 3rd March 2001 at 19:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
You can quote Von Clausewitz as many times as you want, but, according to Rabin at least, VCob Clausewitz is not applicable to the Middel East.
Posts: 219
By: ogini - 2nd March 2001 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Have faith!
I don't see Arafat with any F-16s on order man. Even though power block shifts do occur (like Egypt), Qaddafy has been satanized by the West in such a manner like Castro), that it will take a Revolution or a Democratic process before Libya is regarded as a desirable friend for the West. And it will be only without the Colonel.
I don't think that Libya is as important to the Middle East as Germany is to Europe. Iran is a powerhouse of course, but only as it is seen as an enemy or a balance to the Arab controlled oil production. I think the US would be quite happy to get a true democracy (or at least their definition of such) in Terán that will serve their interests, in a way the Shah did.
Posts: 904
By: fantasma_337 - 2nd March 2001 at 19:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Lybian MiG-23MFin Maleme
Today I received an e-mail from the Maleme Aero-Club that says the Flogger was loaded inside an E(PA) C-130H and was returned to Lybia.
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 2nd March 2001 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Lybian MiG-23MFin Maleme
Fantasma,
Since you're a lot closer to the fire than i am; would they happen to know the serial and/or construction number of that Flogger? It would be a very great help!
Regards,
Arthur
Posts: 794
By: Tom - 3rd March 2001 at 08:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Have faith!
I hope you don't mind me mixing in this discussion, gents.
Basically, it's truth, that Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Khaddaffi/al-Qadaffi (however you like it) shouldn't be underestimated, but, he's sitting in Tripolis, which is in Libya, and Libya is - as we all know - in Northern Africa and in the Med (some sort it also under Middle East, but that is rather because majority of population is Arabic).
Why is that so important: well, because Soviet Union is something completely different, and Germany was - even more so - something completely different.
Col. al-Khaddaffi/al-Qadaffi is actually a very interesting person, whose ideology is rather based on - believe it or not - certain works of President Lincoln (at least, he run around always carrying one of Lincoln's books, and cited from it) than Marxism or Leninism.
Lets also clear one prejudice more: contrary to what is widely believed, neither Egypt under President Nasser, not Cuba under Fidel Castro, nor Libya under Khaddaffi were pro-Soviet states right from the start. This is not truth.
After coming to power, Nasser first asked the USA for help, both in economical and in military matters. After the USA refused to help finance the Asswan dam, he turned to Soviet Union. After the UK - repeatedly - refused to sell weapons ordered by Egyptians, he turned to Czechia for MiGs and T-34s. That - years later - some sort of socialistic economy management was introduced in Egypt is of no importance. Egypt was a Soviet ally only for one reason: because the USSR delivered weapons needed for the fight against Israel. As soon as Sadat came to power in 1970 and France was ready to deliver Mirages (1972), Egyptians were again connected to the West. The same was the case with Syrians, which - until today - use and buy Soviet/Russian weapons, but are by no means "communists" and have their own, independent, politics. In short: don't mix Soviet military and political influence when talking about Arabs.
Cuba was a similar case: after climbing to power, Castro - which was never a communist - asked Washington for help. This was refused by Washington, which protested because during the uprising most of US businesses on the Island were nationalized. Consequently, Soviets jumped in, and Castro - a lawyer - suddenly declared himself for "socialist/marxist"....
Khaddaffi came to power during a coup against King Idriz, supported (and partially organized) by the CIA and the British. That his ideas were different to those of the USA is - however - another story: he threw foreign troops out of Libya and joined Egypt, nationalizing the oil industry and being the first Arab leader which increased the oil price (thus, indirectly, starting what brught us today to USD 30,-- per barell). That was his "mistake", which subsequently lead to the such an antagonism with Washington. After that experience, and after exchanging such phrases like "Mad Dog" with President Reagan, massively smuggling terrorists and drugs around, I highly doubt, that he could ever become a "US-friend". Even France might be carefull to sell weapons to Libya again, especially after it had to fought against its own weapons in Libyan hands during the war in Chad.
In short: USA + Libya, dialogue = yes, friendship = no.
And finally, IMHO, the basic difference between Iran and Libya compared to other African/Middle East countries, most of which are US allies (and thus the reason for antagonism between the USA and Iran and Libya), is the completely independent politics of Tehran and Tripolis. Contrary to Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt, they don't let themselves being influenced by the USA. On the other side, whatever is widely believed about these two countries, they are still much more democratic than all the US allies in the area combined.
Thus, Ogini, would it be a "true democracy" - in Tehran or in Tripolis - just if "this would serve US interests"? Contrary to what is widely believed, a "true democracy" has nothing to do with being a US servant (regardless of the CNN automaticaly reporting when one oppositional in Iran is arrested, but ignoring similar "elements" being stoned by the mob in Ryadh, or Saudi internet and newspapers being closely controlled and censored)...
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
Posts: 507
By: mercurion - 3rd March 2001 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still, have faith!
I think Tom is on the right track. It's important to remember that the U.S. view of the world is ONE of many, and just as fallible as any other. Just because the U.S. has the highest G.D.P. or the most powerful armed forces does not make them just or correct in their perception of world affairs.
Why do you make the point of saying Yasser has not ordered F-16's? Do you think he can afford them even if he wanted to?
The point I was trying to make is that a change in arms supplier usually comes AFTER a change in sentiment or political/economic priorities in a given nation. Just because the U.S. has written off the Colonel doesn't mean there is literally no chance of dealing with him. Don't be too short-sighted.
Probably the only person we could write off universally would be Saddam Hussein, but even he is regarded as a hero by some who admire the ability of someone who will not be dictated to by U.S. interests.
Posts: 794
By: Tom - 3rd March 2001 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I don't have any...
The problem with "powers" and "super powers", Mercurion, is, that they tend to think, that they are always right, and that they tend to spread their political influence by selling arms. Additionally, they tend to see local conflicts in the light of their own conflicts, even if there is no trace of it. Actually, some times whole wars broke out, because somebody "needed" the "communist" or "imperialist" threat.
Thus, when Egyptians bought Soviet weapons in order to battle French - and later US - supplied Israelis, their fight became a part of the Cold War. Egyptians were never interested to antagonise Moscow and Washington or to become a factor in the Cold War, yet, this happened because both super powers "had" to intervene.
Basically, the situation changed completely these days, and from the "imperialism" vs. "communism" we have now struggles struggles for control of local markets, oil, water etc. The one who controls the oil sources, weapon buyers, cheap producers etc. is the one who'll be more successful in deploying (and retentioning) the own power.
The problem the West (but the "East" as well) has with such persons like S.H. or the Libyan leader is, that they don't let themselves be influenced by anybody: regardless weapons or oil, they care only about their own well being, and certainly not about foreign interests. Thus, there is no chance anything in relationships between Iraq, Libya or Palestinians and the USA (or anybody else) could change before certain leaders are away*.
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
*The example excludes the situation which would develop if one suddenly finds oil in areas controlled by Palestinians: I'm sure, "somebody" would initiate a "piecefull solution" one day after something similar would be found there.
Posts: 507
By: mercurion - 3rd March 2001 at 15:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Politics
Funny how these aviation discussions always seem to revert back to politics....
Posts: 794
By: Tom - 3rd March 2001 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
Yes, sorry, I'm actually trying to keep myself out of such discussions, but sometimes, I simply can't resist.
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
By: Anonymous - 3rd March 2001 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
LAST EDITED ON 03-Mar-01 AT 04:20 PM (GMT)[p]Do I have to quote V. Clausewitz again? And repalce the word "war" with "airwar"? :)
elp
usa
Posts: 507
By: mercurion - 3rd March 2001 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
No prob- alot of this forum seems to drift to politics. It seems Key Publishing have unwittingly opened the flood gates on alot of pent up opinions on world affairs that have been waiting for a suitable place to vent. Just hope they don't clamp down it- we need a place that presents alternative views to mainstream media.
Posts: 570
By: JJ - 3rd March 2001 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Politics
You can quote Von Clausewitz as many times as you want, but, according to Rabin at least, VCob Clausewitz is not applicable to the Middel East.