Libya

[Embattle]

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.

Technically it was done exactly how the rules require it to be done in terms of the vote, whether the UN works is another subject and personally I feel it doesn't.

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.

I was all for considering more action in such situations, unlike you that seems to want to do nothing in Libya and allow another one to happen however small but nice counter dodge again.

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.

Wow more insight in to what other countries think, regarding Turkey they seem to be sitting more on the fence but I guess again it is that specialist subject you seem best at...selective reading/reasoning.

 

[cHodAX]

Technically it was done exactly how the rules require it to be done in terms of the vote, whether the UN works is another subject and personally I feel it doesn't.



I was all for considering more action in such situations, unlike you that seems to want to do nothing in Libya and allow another one to happen however small....but nice counter dodge again.

Technically what was done? A vote to intervene in Sudan or Rwanda was never brought before the UN or UNSC because none of the full members sponsored such a proposal. As I said before, black faces, no oil = no care. What I, you or George Clooney wanted to happen doesn't matter, the powers that be didn't give a shit beyond a few plane loads of food.

Embattle, let us get this straight ok, I disagree with you but I don't hate you and I am not trying to misrepresent what you are saying, would be nice if you did the same in kind. At no point have I been asked what I would have done and I can tell you that I would have no issue with a properly formulated no-fly zone that didn't require massive attacks against AA assets hundreds of miles from the conflict. A mandate that didn't leave open the possibilty of a ground invasion. Those are the reasons Russia/China/India abstained and why Turkey is blocking NATO action, there is no real plan, rules of engagement nor clearly defined goals. It has been left wide open for boots on the ground should Ghadaffi shoot down hostiles attacking Tripoli.

The whole situation is fucked up, just how the vested interests of the west wanted it.

 

[Chosen]

Is this discussion still going on ? I don't see the point in a loop discussion!

My mom is a man!

 

[cHodAX]

Is this discussion still going on ? I don't see the point in a loop discussion!

My mom is a man!

How big are her balls?

 

[Chosen]

How big are her balls?

The moon is circling around the earth, because of the gravity the size of her balls are creating!

 

[cHodAX]

The moon is circling around the earth, because of the gravity the size of her balls are creating!

Awesome, I think your mom deserves a nod at the next Nobel prize show.

 

[tierk]

The moon is circling around the earth, because of the gravity the size of her balls are creating!

No mate those arent her balls but Cho's as he tries to fill her black hole!!

 

[Embattle]

Technically what was done? A vote to intervene in Sudan or Rwanda was never brought before the UN or UNSC because none of the full members sponsored such a proposal. As I said before, black faces, no oil = no care. What I, you or George Clooney wanted to happen doesn't matter, the powers that be didn't give a shit beyond a few plane loads of food.

Embattle, let us get this straight ok, I disagree with you but I don't hate you and I am not trying to misrepresent what you are saying, would be nice if you did the same in kind. At no point have I been asked what I would have done and I can tell you that I would have no issue with a properly formulated no-fly zone that didn't require massive attacks against AA assets hundreds of miles from the conflict. A mandate that didn't leave open the possibilty of a ground invasion. Those are the reasons Russia/China/India abstained and why Turkey is blocking NATO action, there is no real plan, rules of engagement nor clearly defined goals. It has been left wide open for boots on the ground should Ghadaffi shoot down hostiles attacking Tripoli.

The whole situation is fucked up, just how the vested interests of the west wanted it.

No oil wasn't the reason they did nothing nor was the colour of skin, there was just not enough care or realisation of what was happening in the case of Rwanda which I admit because of no oil meant it wasn't on the radar.

The reason those countries are media protesting is simple, it makes good PR for them to do so but at the same time it is because they can be accused of doing much the same against people inside their spheres of power. Most countries have a lot of self interest in a situation whether one way or the other. I personally stated my problems with the lack of what seemed like an end game and the sheer amount of time it has taken to act means it is only going to be harder than it would of been.

Yes it is fucked up but in the long term I don't buy it as some sort of vested interest for the west to be that way in the long run.

PS Yes we will have to agree to disagree.

No mate those arent her balls but Cho's as he tries to fill her black hole!!

Hope that blackhole is small.

 

[rynnor]

The reality is that Gadaffi has simply pissed off everyone even the Arab league. Once the world came out against him and on the side of the rebels the die was pretty much cast - they couldnt then afford to leave him in power to destabilise the region.

I think even in the 11th hour if he hadnt broken the ceasefire he proposed then it would have been very difficult for the west to do much but he made a big mistake then.

 

[ilaya]

Gaddafi is a fucking nutcase, there is no telling what he would have done. I mean look at his latest so called ceasefire. BOLLOCKS.

And he's calling on his supporters (erm.. including his army) to have a peaceful march to Benghazi so they can chat to the rebels (or Al Qaida as he called them the other day)

Im sure his march will be blown to fucking smithereens and rightly so. Entire point is to keep the fucking fruitloop away from that city.

He must think people are just as fucking stupid as he is if he thinks for 1 second anyone is buying any of his horseshit.

 

[cHodAX]

The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the bombardment.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

Arab League support was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move.

Probably why Qatar are sending planes, they don't trust the west just to police the skies and keep the rebel strongholds from being attacked.

 

[cHodAX]

Coalition air strikes see waning support from Arabs, China and Russia | World news | The Guardian

The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, appeared to wobble just over a week after his organisation, which represents 23 Arab states, voted in favour of a no-fly zone. Pictures of charred bodies led to not only the Arab League but Russia and China expressing regret over the violence. Moscow claimed the US-led coalition was going beyond its UN mandate to protect civilians and called for an end to the "indiscriminate use of force".

 

[Embattle]

Just a rehash of what has already been said, still doesn't mean much.

 

[Embattle]

I think even in the 11th hour if he hadnt broken the ceasefire he proposed then it would have been very difficult for the west to do much but he made a big mistake then.

It was a gamble, he hoped to get in to Benghazi before anything happened and it nearly worked. Each mile he headed East gave him a bigger advantage in the situation and made a mission even more problematic.

 

[cHodAX]

A former Director-General in the Ministry of Defence says that there there appears to be no cohesive plan for the military operations which began yesterday.

Rear-Admiral Chris Parry writes in an analysis for The Times (paywall) that the intervention has been initiated without an identifiable end-state or joined-up strategy for delivery having been agreed upon.

Perhaps even more strikingly, he also warns that any strategy needs to recognise that some form of intervention on the ground could be required if major loss of life is be avoided.

Citing his experience from Bosnia and Iraq, he says that no-fly zones can only achieve limited objectives within a broader campaign, adding that dictators can still "kill with impunity" even if a "perfectly good" no-fly zone is enforced.

It remains uncertain whether the coalition of countries involved in the intervention, or Nato, has a mature strategy for deciding on what happens next in Libya, he warns.

Any strategy needs to recognise that some form of intervention on the ground could be required — and soon — if serious bloodshed is to be avoided.

This is danger of turning into a clusterfuck.

 

[Embattle]

In reality this isn't a NFZ, it is more of a no drive zone and was always going to be with the limited Libyan air power. I suspect tonight and tomorrow might see some more static targets hit but then I suspect it'll be a case of monitoring the situation and enforcing more of a no drive zone type of campaign, which could cause a rather long stalemate if nothing else happens which isn't a proper endgame solution.

 

[Septima]

Just for info east timor got a lot of oil but no one invaded it... The problem was solved via diplomatic ways and the UN did a great job.

This is not Irak and no western troops will be deployed, wait and see before making of conspiracy theories.

 

[Helme]

Yeah the UN did a great job after the majority of the population died in a genocide the west ignored for years. Way to go UN.

 

[tierk]

so they can chat to the rebels (or Al Qaida as he called them the other day)

Read this article and you will understand what he means about Al-Qaida elements being involved in the uprising in Libya.

Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect

To highlight the main points for you

Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

And

Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge" of young men eager to kill Americans.

It is also important to remember that when the West was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan via proxies, Libya was sending people to fight in that conflict also and surprise surprise, they pretty much all came from Eastern Libya. So when he is saying its Al Qaida people rebelling against him he is not actually so ridiculous as the media like to paint him.

 

[cHodAX]

Just for info east timor got a lot of oil but no one invaded it... The problem was solved via diplomatic ways and the UN did a great job.

This is not Irak and no western troops will be deployed, wait and see before making of conspiracy theories.

As Helme said, the UN got involved after years of genocide. As for no western troops, let us just wait and see if the Arab League follow through because it is already looking shakey.

 

[cHodAX]

Read this article and you will understand what he means about Al-Qaida elements being involved in the uprising in Libya.

Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect

To highlight the main points for you



And



It is also important to remember that when the West was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan via proxies, Libya was sending people to fight in that conflict also and surprise surprise, they pretty much all came from Eastern Libya. So when he is saying its Al Qaida people rebelling against him he is not actually so ridiculous as the media like to paint him.

Spot on, eastern Libya has been very anti-Ghaddafi for generations but also very anti-americian and anti-british dating all the way back to the 1950's and beyond. It is gonna end like Afganhistan, we train them and support them, they get rid of their enemies and then turn on the people who helped them. We are probably going to end up being better off with Ghaddafi, 40 years of relative stability and an end to support of terrorists plus the opening up of the oil reserves to international companies.

 

[cHodAX]

The condemnation is starting to gather pace...

(Reuters) - China's top newspaper on Monday stepped up Beijing's opposition to Western air attacks on Libya, accusing countries backing the strikes of violating international rules and risking fresh turmoil in the Middle East.

China's strongest condemnation yet of Western air assaults on the forces of Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi appeared in the People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, and it showed how the military conflict could become a fresh front of contention between Beijing and Washington.

The paper used barely veiled words to accuse the United States and its allies of violating international rules, although China refrained from blocking the United Nations Security Council resolution that effectively authorized the air attacks.

The paper likened the assault on Libyan sites to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and suggested it followed a pattern of Western overreaching in other countries' affairs.

"The blood-soaked tempests that Iraq has undergone for eight years and the unspeakable suffering of its people are a mirror and a warning," said the commentary in the People's Daily.

"The military attacks on Libya are, following on the Afghan and Iraq wars, the third time that some countries have launched armed action against sovereign countries," it said in a reference to the United States and its allies.

 

[Embattle]

The condemnation is starting to gather pace...

Not really, same old stuff in a slightly different format.

It is like last night I heard a member of the Arab league basically stating they still supported the action but were concerned about possible civilian casualties, which is only natural since the yippie ki-yay handling of some previous attacks.

 

[cHodAX]

The lies are starting to unfold...

The Guardian's political editor Patrick Wintour has filed on the increasing confusion over the legitimacy of targeting Muammar Gaddafi within the context of UN security council resolution 1973.

Patrick Wintour byline picture

Number 10 has appeared to side with the Defence Secretary Liam Fox against the chief of the defence staff Sir David Richards by saying the removal of Colonel Gaddafi through military targeting is lawful under the UN security council resolution - if Gaddafi is threatening civilian lives.

Downing Street stressed that it will not provide a running commentary on targets, but the prime minister's spokesman's remarks suggest the government believes it has legal authority to target Colonel Gaddafi.

Earlier Sir David Richards, attending a meeting of the ad hoc war cabinet in Downing Street, had said Gaddafi "is absolutely not a target".

The PM's spokesman said: "The security council resolution provides for a wide range of action - all necessary measures - but that action must be in the pursuit of the objectives that are set out, and obviously we will act according to that security council resolution and any action we take and any targets will be legitimate targets. One of the objectives of the resolution is the protection of civilians".

He stressed the resolution did not give legal authority to bring about Gaddafi's removal of power by military means. The stated objective is a no-fly zone and protection of civilians.

He added: "Our targets will be chosen to meet those objectives - prevent attacks on civilians and achieve a no fly zone - but we will not be giving a running commentary on those targets."

The dispute over the interpretation of the security council resolution goes beyond an argument inside the British government and has implications for the breadth of Arab and international support. The US defence secretary Robert Gates had said it is unwise to describe Gaddafi as a legitimate target, and many Arabs fear the west may be going beyond establishing a no-fly zone and is instead making regime change an objective of the current coalition military offensive, rather than a broad policy aspiration of the government.

6.00pm: Here's a summary:

• The Commons debate on the situation in Libya is ongoing. David Cameron told MPs coalition forces have largely neutralised Libyan air defences. He said action had come "in the nick of time". Cameron said that Britain thought Libya would be better off without Colonel Gaddafi, but that it was only intervening militarily to enforce the UN resolution and that the Libyans would have to decide Gaddafi's fate. Andrew Sparrow's full coverage of the debate continues here.

• The question of action to target Gaddafi remains a main focus of discussion. Downing Street has briefed that while removing the Libyan leaders is not an aim of the UN resolution, were it to be necessary to do so in order to fulfil the resolution's aim of protecting civilians, it would be legal. That briefing came after Cameron in the Commons played down targeting Gaddafi, the US Army's General Carter Ham said attacking the Libyan leader was not part of his mission and Britain's General Sir David Richards, said Gaddafi was "absolutely not" a target and "it is not allowed under the UN resolution".

 

[rynnor]

The condemnation is starting to gather pace...

I thought the reverse - the silence is deafening - where are the demo's on the streets or the condemnation from the Arab league - its damn quiet.

 

[Ch3tan]

Hardly condemning Cho; China could have vetoed, they choose not too, it's just posturing after the fact now.

 

[Embattle]

The Arab League's Secretary General Amr Moussa - who had criticised the coalition bombarding Libya - has made the following statement after a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron: "We are commmitted to UN Security Council Resolution 1973, we have no objection to this decision, particularly as it does not call for an invasion of Libyan territory,"

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev has said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's description of the UN resolution on Libya is "unacceptable".

See we can all post quotes that favour certain views, the reality is most of us don't because it more or less transparent to the other members of the forums and never really tells the whole story selecting a few titbits from various places.

 

[cHodAX]

Hardly condemning Cho; China could have vetoed, they choose not too, it's just posturing after the fact now.

They could have vetoed 4 days ago, you are saying they could still veto when that is not the case, the resolution passed. We have been lied too, even the British generals are not happy by the resolution mentions nothing of regeime change but by targeting Ghaddfi directly that is what we are trying to achieve, Obama and Hague have said as much. The whole thing is a clusterfuck, the military don't believe we have the legal right and the politicians are massageing the situation to try and force regeime change.

 

[Ch3tan]

No, you've misread my point. As for targeting gaddaffi that's been denied, ao as embattle said, it depends whose soundbitea you believe.

 

[old.user4556]

Whatever let's me fill my tank for cheap gets my vote.