Libya

[Chosen]

You misunderstand him Deebs, he is pointing out that the no-fly zone did not need to be country wide and it is infact not the norm.

I never said it didnt have to be country wide. This topic is about Libya and the resolution there. So my posts are about what is happening there, not what happened in Iraq many years back.

 

[cHodAX]

When the UN ruled for the no fly zone the bombings became inevitable because you cant leave their anti air radar emplacements if you want air superiority.

The bombings are primarily for operational reasons.

I am also suprised to see people dont think its a popular uprising - until the military were used to put it down it looked set to sweep the entire country.

AA cannot attack from 200 miles away, infact some strikes have been even further west than Tripoli, those forces are no direct threat to the rebels or allied air assets and there is no valid reason for us to be attacking them unless they are moved east.

 

[Deebs]

You misunderstand him Deebs, he is pointing out that the no-fly zone did not need to be country wide and it is infact not the norm.

Maybe so, but the point I am making is that is what the UN has requested. Therefore all my points about AA/Radar/CB are valid, ie, every single one is now a threat and therefore a target.

As you will notice in all of my posts I have not made any comments as to the merits of this resolution, only on what the resolution asks for and what it means.

 

[cHodAX]

I never said it didnt have to be country wide. This topic is about Libya and the resolution there. So my posts are about what is happening there, not what happened in Iraq many years back.

Ok, so why was it made countrywide, ask yourself that. If we just want to protect the civilans around the rebel strongholds in the east then it makes zero sense.

 

[cHodAX]

Maybe so, but the point I am making is that is what the UN has requested. Therefore all my points about AA/Radar/CB are valid, ie, every single one is now a threat and therefore a target.

As you will notice in all of my posts I have not made any comments as to the merits of this resolution, only on what the resolution asks for and what it means.

The U.N. requested? Surely you mean it was what the sponsors requested and was deliberately vague to the point where Russia, China and India all abstained due to concerns?

 

[Deebs]

The U.N. requested? Surely you mean it was what the sponsors requested and was deliberately vague to the point where Russia, China and India all abstained due to concerns?

To be honest I cannot answer that, the only thing I can think of is that those that requested a complete no-fly zone thought it was necessary. Still the majority of the states that voted were happy with that, as was the Arab League.

 

[Deebs]

Don't forget the UN is a democratic council made up of member states. Therefore the wording of the resolution would have to have been crafted to ensure that the majority voted in favour of passing it, which is what they accomplished.

 

[Chosen]

Ok, so why was it made countrywide, ask yourself that. If we just want to protect the civilans around the rebel strongholds in the east then it makes zero sense.

Because this is a revolution going on, and their purpose is not to only protect the civilians. but to force Gaddafi to come too a diplomatic term with his own people, and reelect a new leader, decided by the citizens.

And even tho that is the "rebel" stronghold doesnt mean it is the only city with "rebels" in it.

 

[Embattle]

Why is it so many people use the past to jusify an argument about the NFZ, even when the resolution isn't about a NFZ only. It was the short sighted media and lack knowledge of what is actually required for an NFZ even if it had been the sole reason for the resolution that is the problem.

A group of people trying to give the impression that some how those few countries that abstained didn't understand the scope of the resolution is rather insulting to those countries that did abstain.

 

[rynnor]

AA cannot attack from 200 miles away, infact some strikes have been even further west than Tripoli, those forces are no direct threat to the rebels or allied air assets and there is no valid reason for us to be attacking them unless they are moved east.

They take out the entire libyan anti aircraft radar network so that they can patrol the whole country to monitor whats going on. The skies above libya will be crawling with recon drones etc. once they are certain the anti air assets are smashed.

 

[cHodAX]

They take out the entire libyan anti aircraft radar network so that they can patrol the whole country to monitor whats going on. The skies above libya will be crawling with recon drones etc. once they are certain the anti air assets are smashed.

Thereby removing Libya's ability to defend itself which is well beyond the scope of the resolution, most likely why India/China/Russia abstained and have since voiced 'regret'.

 

[Chosen]

Thereby removing Libya's ability to defend itself which is well beyond the scope of the resolution, most likely why India/China/Russia abstained and have since voiced 'regret'.

Defend themself against what? The ones that needs defence down there is the civilians. And thats what they are getting right now.

 

[Embattle]

Thereby removing Libya's ability to defend itself which is well beyond the scope of the resolution, most likely why India/China/Russia abstained and have since voiced 'regret'.

In your opinion, although of course it couldn't be about the very same reason you claim the west is attacking Libya for with regards to oil...no no no.

 

[cHodAX]

Defend themself against what? The ones that needs defence down there is the civilians. And thats what they are getting right now.

You are taking away their sovereign right to bare arms as a nation in defence. Just because they have no neighbours banging at the door means that we in the west have the right to take away those arms and that is precisely what we are doing, not for the benefit of the Libyan people either, this is all about getting more of their oil on our terms. Only time is going to decide who was right in this argument but don't be suprised if this escalates and troops need to go in.

 

[cHodAX]

In your opinion, although of course it couldn't be about the very same reason you claim the west is attacking Libya for with regards to oil...no no no.

Oh you are back. Ready to answer why we have acted in Libya but didn't act in Sudan or Rwanda yet? Surely genocide is enough to make the U.N. act? lol

 

[Chosen]

You are taking away their sovereign right to bare arms as a nation in defence. Just because they have no neighbours banging at the door means that we in the west have the right to take away those arms and that is precisely what we are doing, not for the benefit of the Libyan people either, this is all about getting more of their oil on our terms. Only time is going to decide who was right in this argument but don't be suprised if this escalates and troops need to go in.

I cba to continue this anylonger, think whatever you want. This discussion is just going to be a big loop, where you continue to drag in the oil/gass arguements. Even though, it is not even proven to have a relevance to all this.

Anyway, just to say it. Once a country start to use military power to slaughter civilians, thats when they loose the right to have a military. A military is there to protect the country and its inhabitans, and kinda looses its purpose when used the way Gaddafi does right now.

If you think this to be true or not, is up to you.

 

[cHodAX]

I cba to continue this anylonger, think whatever you want. This discussion is just going to be a big loop, where you continue to drag in the oil/gass arguements. Even though, it is not even proven to have a relevance to all this.

Anyway, just to say it. Once a country start to use military power to slaughter civilians, thats when they loose the right to have a military. A military is there to protect the country and its inhabitans, and kinda looses its purpose when used the way Gaddafi does right now.

If you think this to be true or not, is up to you.

You won't convince me bud, I appreciate you trying though and at least you posted some sensible stuff instead of throwing insults.

 

[Embattle]

Oh you are back. Ready to answer why we have acted in Libya but didn't act in Sudan or Rwanda yet? Surely genocide is enough to make the U.N. act? lol

I've been back a while actually, must be that selective reading you suffer from I guess.

While I don't find genocide as funny as you, you seem to not realise that each case is different from every angle whether it be location, logistics, information, resources etc and even worse you seem to use an example of a lack of UN action that resulted in genocide as a reason to do so again which could well result in another genocide.

You won't convince me bud, I appreciate you trying though and at least you posted some sensible stuff instead of throwing insults.

Well that isn't exactly a shocker, nor is it worth doing much more.

 

[rynnor]

You are taking away their sovereign right to bare arms as a nation in defence.

Not really - they still have an army, missiles, fighter planes and tanks and surely the sovereign right is to defend yourself against external threats not against your own people.

The reality is that no civil war is ever free from external interference - even in our civil war had the french spanish and scots trying to help their chosen side out.

 

[cHodAX]

I've been back a while actually, must be that selective reading you suffer from I guess.

While I don't find genocide as funny as you, you seem to not realise that each case is different from every angle whether it be location, logistics, information, resources etc and even worse you seem to use an example of a lack of UN action that resulted in genocide as a reason to do so again which could well result in another genocide.



Well that isn't exactly a shocker, nor is it worth doing much more.

And again you dodge it, instead making a weak remark that I enjoy genocide. Oh dear, your insults were bad enough but now made up lies as well.

The facts of history do no lie, we ignored Dafour and Rawana, East Timor too to an extent. Far worse was happening in those places than is happening in Libya and on a far greater scale. So, give me a decent answer as to why we could not justify going into those countries but we can with Libya.

Please, no weak assed insults, no feints like a polititian trying to manouvre out of a question or lies to try make it look like I said something that I clearly did not.

 

[cHodAX]

Not really - they still have an army, missiles, fighter planes and tanks and surely the sovereign right is to defend yourself against external threats not against your own people.

The reality is that no civil war is ever free from external interference - even in our civil war had the french spanish and scots trying to help their chosen side out.

Doesn't the U.N. convention protect a nations right to deal with internal affairs? Hasn't China hidden behind that for decades? How many died under Mao with 'The great leap forward' and 'The cultural revolution'? How many millions died, did the U.N. act? Impose sanctions? Sit scratching it's arse and thinking 'well China has nothing we need, leave them to it'?

It is pure hipocracy, we decide to act when it suits our interests, not because innocents are dying. Tony Blair had to blackmail the Yanks into stopping the Kosovo carnage, no one gave a shite until white babies starting dying.

 

[Punishment]

All i know is this kind of shit pisses me off, if Gaddafi is pulled down then let the people do it, place economic sancions(though these will only hurt the people) Team USA/UK has no right to invade, if the UN wants to send in peacekeepers then fine but i think the Iraq/Afghan wars have set a dangerous precedent

YouTube - 'Libya no-fly zone is insane'

 

[cHodAX]

All i know is this kind of shit pisses me off, if Gaddafi is pulled down then let the people do it, place economic sancions(though these will only hurt the people) Team USA/UK has no right to invade, if the UN wants to send in peacekeepers then fine but i think the Iraq/Afghan wars have set a dangerous precedent

YouTube - 'Libya no-fly zone is insane'

Nice vid Punishment, sums some of it up nicely, especially the Turkish prime ministers comment that this is nonsense and he won't allow NATO to be pulled into it.

 

[Embattle]

And again you dodge it, instead making a weak remark that I enjoy genocide. Oh dear, your insults were bad enough but now made up lies as well.

The facts of history do no lie, we ignored Dafour and Rawana, East Timor too to an extent. Far worse was happening in those places than is happening in Libya and on a far greater scale. So, give me a decent answer as to why we could not justify going into those countries but we can with Libya.

Please, no weak assed insults, no feints like a polititian trying to manouvre out of a question or lies to try make it look like I said something that I clearly did not.

It wasn't a dodge at all, again just your inability to read and the fact when you do you tend to do it in a selective method as per usual all naturally to suit your own opinion.

It is again quite tragic that in essence you don't see that you are implying doing nothing with regards to Libya, using previous events where the outside world did nothing but mass genocide was the result but then again I guess genocide on a small scale isn't important in your book.

It is only you that is trying to manouvre and use silly examples of a world that does nothing as long as it looks to you like a grab for oil.

 

[Job]

Even the press is starting to gag on this one and outside the usual shots of explosions (without casualties of course, don't want to upset Aunt Mildred) and fighter aircraft looking menacing on runways there are the shoots of dissent.
It has been called nothing but regime change, a 'personal' war.
I 'm the first to doubt the importance of oil in these wars, they're usually a lot more complicated than that, but this is quite simply nothing but the need to put a puppet regime in charge of of Libya's resources and influence and it is an afront to our intelligence to assume otherwise, luckily for them our collective IQ is about 6 once we get lashed a simplistic good guy, bad guy scenario, no matter how derived it is.
Now the Arab league are pulling out, let's see what happens.

 

[Embattle]

Well the media has had the best couple of weeks it could of had, from a disaster to a war all makes for good results from a perspective of viewing figures.

As I said earlier and without all this BS that is going on between me and cHodAX, I don't like the way the west seems to get in to bed too often with complete scumbags until the bed becomes far too uncomfortable so suddenly everyone wants out. The whole thing seems to lack precise goals, it wouldn't of been so bad if they didn't take so long before actually doing anything but now it is probably going to be a rather long war because the goals set out can't easily be achieved.

The only recent opperation I can say I 100% supported was probably to do with Sierra Leone and the results of Operation Palliser, it lacked the media scrum and BS of all the recent opperations and in the end worked well.

 

[Punishment]

If the U.N. vote on it send in a peacekeeping force, if not don't until a stage where they have to take action, bottom line the US/UK need to respect the right of a nation to sort out its own issues be it morally sound or not and procedures need to be adhered to.

The people shouting for action at the moment are fuelled by the media or feel they have something to gain from a leadership change and some are the same people who will be bleating "OMG ILLEGAL WAR MEIGHTS" afew months in when things get messy and expensive.

The U.N. is a great tool and if it gets ignored because the power bloc countries want to go on peraonal crusades to justify military spending well then the world is headed in a dark direction.

 

[cHodAX]

It wasn't a dodge at all, again just your inability to read and the fact when you do you tend to do it in a selective method as per usual all naturally to suit your own opinion.

It is again quite tragic that in essence you don't see that you are implying doing nothing with regards to Libya, using previous events where the outside world did nothing but mass genocide was the result but then again I guess genocide on a small scale isn't important in your book.

It is only you that is trying to manouvre and use silly examples of a world that does nothing as long as it looks to you like a grab for oil.

And yet again you dodge it. A large genocide happens, we do nothing, a rebellion happens and alot of rebels die but and here is the important bit no mass killing of civilians despite the crap right wing media are reporting. Yet we send in the planes and the missiles. I am sure those poor fuckers in Dafour would love you to stop ignoring their plight and send in the planes Embattle. But then of course they have black faces and no oil so they don't really count when it comes to the west giving a shit.

 

[tierk]

TBH its about time the guy was kicked out and although i do not agree with the principle of outside intervention in any country, i think in this case it is warranted.

Now i understand that the country has been considered stable and yes the people have been at the very least well fed and looked after - in comparision to some of their neighbours.

However, forty years seems an awefully long time and quite frankly the man got rid of one monarchy but seems, for all intends and purposes to be trying to start a new royal familly, with his children taking over where the father left off.

I am not one to pay much attention to media spin as it is just that, spin i just cant help feeling a sense of deja-vous. It all seems to be a re-run of Iraq after the First Gulf War and the refusal of the Allies to destroy Saddam when the Iraqi Shia's rose up in open rebellion and a point blank refusal to support them until it was too late.

I just wish that for once we would have politicians that would actually come out openly and admit what /why they are going to bomb the living shit out of a country for, instead of playing these useless games and lying.

It would be so refreshing and i would imagine create a positive impression of politicians instead of the total disbelief in anything coming out of their collective mouths.

 

[cHodAX]

Even the press is starting to gag on this one and outside the usual shots of explosions (without casualties of course, don't want to upset Aunt Mildred) and fighter aircraft looking menacing on runways there are the shoots of dissent.
It has been called nothing but regime change, a 'personal' war.
I 'm the first to doubt the importance of oil in these wars, they're usually a lot more complicated than that, but this is quite simply nothing but the need to put a puppet regime in charge of of Libya's resources and influence and it is an afront to our intelligence to assume otherwise, luckily for them our collective IQ is about 6 once we get lashed a simplistic good guy, bad guy scenario, no matter how derived it is.
Now the Arab league are pulling out, let's see what happens.

It is a coalition that deserves to crumble, those nations and the U.N. were lied to by western governments with an agenda. Thank fuck a few countries are starting wake up and see the wood for the trees, even our own NATO ally Turkey wants nothing to do with this because it is blatently obvious to all but the closeminded why the west is getting involved.