EPTGeneral: US may consider sending troops to Libya.
Libyan Uprising - Page 102
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
General: US may consider sending troops to Libya. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 07 2011 21:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: At least the benefits in Libya are far superior to most western nations if what that guy posted up a few posts back is correct.The point is Gadaffi does share a decent proportion of the oil wealth amongst his people and the nation , remove him and the average Libyan will be far worse off because the profits will all go offshore to mega-corporations and big banks. Well why was there unrest in the first place? Just one SIMPLE question to ask yourself, why did people die for? And also, NO, I live in France and it's not a better situation than Europe. The only thing is that Libya's GDP (and I already explained why GDP is a stupid number) is compared to Portugal's GDP. But still, wages are higher, there's a better distribution of goods and there's FREEDOM OF SPEECH (what, are you some kind of sado-machistic slave? You don't care about having your father raped by a dozen thugs just because he thinks differently from the government? No big deal?) About Portugal anyway, here's an example: I have a Portugese friend. He's poor? But back in Portugal, his family own a frigging castle! Why? Because the prices are so low. And because in the end the whole economy is far superior in France: better wages, bigger money flows, more products, and you actually even come to life with more money as it's been that way since 1643. You could have some silly loans to buy a car in Portugal, it wouldn't make a difference. Can't you question this information that comes FROM JUST AN E-MAIL? Am I the only one seeing a problem when someone trusts AN ANONYMOUS E-MAIL over international media? If I send you an e-mail saying: "newsflash, evolution is a false theory!" You'd simply buy it? Let's think a little. Just a little. Imagine you have a loan to buy a house. But you still have to pay that house. And if you don't pay back quickly enough the authorities "shake" you up a little - like every dictatorship behaves. Imagine you have to wait 10 years to actually obtain the loan. Imagine you can theoretically have it but in really, not really. I mean, even France has an excellent healthcare, but sometimes you find out that 5% of what you bouught is actually refunded. Did you know that in communist DDR you could get a really low price car - the famous Trabant? That's right! But you had to wait. Years and years. Like everything. I'm actually being quite surprised at how many east-Europeans seem to side with Ghadaffi. He IS a "social" leader in a "revolutionnary people's regime". It's like giving the finger to your grandparents saying "why did you fight, stupid? Why did your friends die in Prague in 1968? You should've STFU, you had a good life back then!" On April 07 2011 21:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: If Gadaffi is such a bad guy why are the rebels outnumbered 10 to one? It's like i said earlier , the size of the rebels has been blown out of proportion by the western media and also many have switched sides from the rebels back to Gadaffi due to concerns about western intervention and eventual takeover of the country and it's wealth. Read carefully. If you actually watched from day 1 and didn't wait for weeks to pass to tune in, you'd had seen that protests ocurred in most major cities - even Tripoli. There were very few pro-Ghadaffi protests. The movement declined first after Ghadaffi attacked the protesters with lethal force; but it didn't end here as Libya, like the US, is notoriously well-equipped in terms of guns. Then rebellion happened. But Ghadaffi gathered his troops, waiting to take control of western cities first (yes, he had lost many cities around Tripoli, but you probably didn't know that seeing your posts), then pushed back all the way to Benghazi with artillery, tanks, and aircraft. And naturally, many left once more. And in "conquered" western cities, rebellion naturally vanished as there was no way to fight back. Now, the only ones left are the ones almost sure to die anyway, desperate or suicidal (or you could say "braves"). Because Ghadaffi would've probably "cleaned" up Benghazi after entering. And now - and this is where we see that the UN never intended on helping civilians in the first place, or else they would've done it when the fire was burning - the West is going to fight for the rebels as Ghadaffi controls the country with a strong hand. But the thousands of protesters who originally created the movement didn't just disappear, and weren't just made up (it would need a total control of thousands of thousands of jobs related to information to create a such puppet-show - and don't compare this to Irak, NOBODY believe the missiles thing, actually NOBODY in Europe at least, and the media never said anything about anyone finding anything). I mean, what kind of crappy news do you watch? And why do you despise the BBC and suddenly you agree with them when they take some random number - 10 to 1, how do they know? - out of their sleeve. Seriously, I'm puzzled. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4315 Posts
On April 08 2011 10:43 Kukaracha wrote: About Portugal anyway, here's an example: I have a Portugese friend. He's poor? But back in Portugal, his family own a frigging castle! Why? Because the prices are so low. And because in the end the whole economy is far superior in France: better wages, bigger money flows, more products, and you actually even come to life with more money as it's been that way since 1643. You could have some silly loans to buy a car in Portugal, it wouldn't make a difference. Well France had a 6.6 billion Euros trade deficit last month so i wouldn't be going around claiming how great France is.Portugal just asked for a bailout with EU funny money as well , just speed up the printing presses and everything will be fine. Say what you want about Libya but they won't need a bailout and run a trade surplus unlike France.Why on earth did the rebels create a new central bank? Shouldn't they do this AFTER they win the war. When they do eventually take over the country through western help the wealth of the country will flow through this newly created offshore bank. As for the rest of your post you completely ignored what i have mentioned numerous times about Egypt ,how the new government has banned protests.The government replacing the one soon to be removed in Libya will be worse than Gadaffi , doesn't take Einstein to figure that out. Am I the only one seeing a problem when someone trusts AN ANONYMOUS E-MAIL over international media? As opposed to international media reporting on ONE WOMANS CLAIMS that she was raped by Gadaffis army? The same international media was reporting a month ago that Gadaffi had fled to Venezuela , how believable they are. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
And a huge debt is nothing. When the US had a big debt, morons were saying (and still say) "OMG we're poor!". But guess what? Nothing happened. First world power, still. It's not like owing ten bucks to your neighbour. There are ways around it, the tides change quickly and it lasts years and years before it can become dangerous. 2) Libyan rebels want a free economy. As simple as that. Ghadaffi's regime was quite similar to communist dictatorships (although no one ever achieve communism and the Colonel seems to have stopped midway too): planned economy, everything is public domain, the state is the main company. 3) Someone already replied about Egypt. There is Tunisia on one side, Egypt on the other. I wonder why you aknowledge the first and ignore the second? Egypt is a particular case as the power remained in hands of the US-backed and trained national army. Egypt's army is a notoriously strong institution, the backbone of every movement in the country. In Libya, part of Ghadaffi's army vanished as he was forced to hire mercenaries to contain the uprising! He still has many men but the army is very weak, since Ghadaffi always remained suspicious about the power held by army leaders (being hismelf a successful Colonel in the 60s). And even though the government in Egypt is banning protests, it doesn't mean it will be worse than the original government. It just means that they don't want to go as far as the protesters want. But as long as there are positive changes, there is progress - even a small one. I really don't know how you can even claim such things without any knowledge of egyptian law, economy policy and foreign affairs. 4) About the raped woman: - There is video footage - Hotel personnel behave violently - Government agents become even more violent, allegedly pulling out a gun and even attacking reporters trying to get the tape out - Woman is crying, and taken to an unknown place Now, if what the woman said was false, - Why would she sacrifice herself to lie? Because she's probably dead now. - Why did the government agents react in such a violent way instead of simply deying the claims? - Why did they threaten journalists? (And why, if Ghadaffi's side is fighting "for good" on their right mind, do they "fight" journalists, killing 2 near Ajdabya, ousting them from western cities and parking them in heavy-surveillance hotels? And the official version: In the al-Jazeera footage, the teary-eyed mother holds the Libyan opposition flag around her shoulders and says Obeidi is "a hostage, taken by the tyrants". She also pleads for help from the "youth of Tripoli". The mother says she received a phone call on Monday from an unidentified caller, purportedly from the Gaddafi camp, telling her Obeidi was at the Tripoli compound and asking her to instruct her daughter to change the rape claim in return for freedom and other benefits. "Whatever you ask for, you will get: build a new house or get the money," the mother said the caller offered. Moussa Ibrahim, a government spokesman, claimed on Sunday that Obeidi was a prostitute who had been released since her outburst at the Rixos hotel, and was staying with her sister in Tripoli. Source: The Guardian And the e-mail... it's just an anonymous e-mail. You could argue that the rape story was blown out of proportion but we're talking about believing a story or not. In this case, to favour one source over another is quite... odd, in my opinion. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
Are there mercenaries in the army of Gadaffi, most certainly like every modern army. However, the belief that his army is mostly comprised of mercenaries is ludicrous. And if it is just mercenaries, what happened to the rest of the army? If it went over to the rebels in its entirety this revolution would have succeeded long ago. So no, the rebels do not speak for the majority of Libyans and the belief that all Libyans strive for a society like we have in the West is folly. If the West was truely interested in saving the lives of innocent civilians it would have attempted to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict rather than jumping headlong into war; because that is what this intervention is plain and simple, an act of war. The answer to saving lives has never been to drop bombs. That entire line of thinking simply does not make sense. Edit: As well it seems the whole no boots on the ground clause in the UN resolution is being totally ignored. Just another lie shrowded by the same regurgitated rhetoric. | ||
KwarK
United States41963 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:51 Aurocaido wrote: A revolution is succesful because it has the support of the majority of the population. If the rebels truely constitute the vast majority of Libyan population as western media outlets seem to want us believe, why have the rebels been unable to oust Gadaffi This hasn't been true since the invention of automatic weapons. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
However Kwark pointed out a very good point in your naive conception of "revolution". Just check DragoonPK's thread about the massive protests in Bahrein. Nothing beats a shotgun in your face. As for the case of Libya, nothing beats 24h long shelling of your city and tank support. How the hell are you supposed to take tanks with swords and a few AK-47? Not to mention that the attackers were actually trained and well-equipped men who faced a partially somewhat organized group which collapsed after Ghadaffi's initial push. Also, no, Libyan army is not mainly composed of mercenaries (never saw such a statement anyway) but had to compensate heavy losses in the early stages: for example, the 6th batallion, which was supposed to secure the area in Benghazi, fled. This is what allowed the original rebellion movement on the 17th of february. Many other forces fled, but reporters noticed (much later though) that they were nowhere to be seen among the rebels; they most likely left the army but without intending to join the rebellion. I don't know where they went but probably just home, or hiding, or going with the emigration masses. If you don't want to suicide with the rebels but if you can't go back to Ghadaffi neither (it's treachery after all), I guess what you do is just stay away. It's the army, they do have a better treatment than the average Libyan, so they probably don't want Ghadaffi out even though they don't want to shoot their people neither. But I guess that the failure of the Prague Spring means that the people weren't supporting it, duh! Same for Bahrein, if they're gettin massacred, it's probably because it's the work of a few activists! If anyone was behind the idea of change, things would change, right? Riiight. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
- What about the events in 2007 in Birmania? People got massacred even though there was a general mobilization. - What about the Black Spring in Algeria? - What about Tiananmen? Sure not everyone was rioting, but we'll get back to this later. About Saudi troops in Bahrein, they aren't intervening that much since it's much easier to have the work done by the riot police and hired thugs. In the end, it's more a safety net to make sure nothing goes out of hand - the situation being quite exceptionnal, having 80%+ of the population strongly opposed to the government in a very small space. Perhaps the Spring of Prague was a bit toot complex given the way the USSR and the pact of Varsovia worked, I agree. To come back to the Tiananmen massacre, you're leaving aside an important part: state control. A rebellion only happens in certain conditions. And FYI, revolts are often achieved by powerful groups, not by the people. French revolution? Bourgeoise, intellectuals and merchants who simply took the power going with their economical influence. Khmers rouges? Done by a groupe of intellectuals who studied abroad - like Ho Chi Minh. And by the way, they encountered little resistance over the years of their reign; does this mean there was no opposition at all? Or does it just mean that oppression prevents rebellion - in this case having completely anhiliated any possibility by sheer cruelty and lethal force? Also, on "people making a revolution if they really want it"... This is the future. But in the present conflict we see that "people" can have a hard time fighting artillery and armored vehicles. Just saying. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
mstan
Romania17 Posts
| ||
|
mstan
Romania17 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + reminds me of Alex Crawford's report from Al Zawiya | ||
|
Petruccio
90 Posts
The problem is here that most of you receive information just from one side of the conflict. Don't be fooled by name, "al jazeera" represents Qatar and we know what side it is. You cannot even get neutral information, maybe just Russia Today. Even RT many consider as pro-gaddafi propaganda just because they let speak some people who does not agree with NATO aggression. It looks like it is absolutely forbidden to say something different than "official" point of view on Libya in the western media. I have advantage over many of you, I can read Russian and Ukrainian. Russian and Ukraine keep neutral position officially. Russia even benefits from higher prices on oil because of the conflict. Still on the mainstream media you will see what you see on western media. Just because they copy and paste. And love blood, as any media does. Even wikipedia article about Libya in Russian is so different from its English version. The Russian community does not believe in what English version says so they created their vision on the country, but not just translated. And they not have personal interest in Libya, instead the western would has. Also I can information directly from the people who lived and live in Libya now. And this information is of the highest credibility. There were about 3000 Ukrainian medics working in Libya. There is already "democracy" in the Ukraine, so unless you work in a private clinic in a big city, the pay for medics is ridiculously low, because the state clinics are not supported by the state enough. It is not a socialistic state anymore and a new effective system of medical care was not build. So Ukrainian medics have to leave their country and families and search for money. And Libya pays good. There is a web site where they have a forum. https://likarizacordonom.wordpress.com Tell me, why should I trust any media more than these people,.many of them are there for years and know what is going on better then any of us? They do not lie, because there is nobody who they can lie to, it is just them and some freaks like me read the forum. And for sure no one from the western world. And they say - western media lies. al jazeera lies. There were no rebellion of all Libyan people all over the country. There were no bombing of civilians. It is all organized from external. You think it is just impossible that western media can lie? Oh c'mon, it serves to whose who own it. Nobody cares about an abstract truth. You do not know what the life in Libya is. You do not know what Jamahiriya is. You do not know what is Libyan army, who is fighting against rebels and NATO. You do not know who are these rebels exactly. You do not know history of Libya. You do not know what are the Gaddafi's ideas. You did not read the "Green book". You do not know what an average Libyan thinks of Gaddafi. All you know is what western media told you. You did not do research, you do not collect information from completely different source of information. You simply do not have your own point of view, your point of view corresponds to the western "common" one. You do not know even what democracy is if you think that radical Islamists can build democracy. If you remove Gaddafi and NATO, radical Islamists will become the strongest force in the country with some support mostly on its east part. These guys do not build democracies. And, you know, most Libyans do not like islamists. Islamists do not like western world. Now they are allies just because they all want Gaddafi to leave so they can get control over the country. But only till that moment. There will be another war if everybody leave. So NATO forces have to stay and take control over the country. I have different sources then you, I have a different point of view. I can share it to the people who is limited just to the media of one side of the conflict. Why ban me again? | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:29 0mar wrote: No troops on the ground? What a joke. General: US may consider sending troops to Libya. Guess we'll never learn. And anything to keep trillions flowing into arms manufactures instead of helping our own people with health care, education and infrastructure we seem to be down with... | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
I thought bigger problem is we are bankrupt and our economy is falling apart but we have money to stuff in war makers and destruction pockets? Or that the way to prevent wars is only attack people who attack you. Anything else creates a nebulous alliance and motives as you seen now. Or sending off poor American kids who are under economic coercion to fight for what they don't even understand and not sending, say, Obama's daughters to get shot at. I bet he'd change his mind if he had skin in the game. Easy to send some poor dumb hick from Iowa or inner city kid from Detroit off to die. Not so much your own. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-harrington/2011/04/12/american-perceptions-of-the-world/ The paragraphs I think most worth considering: Sometime after World War II, the leaders of American universities decided that it was much more important to have people on their faculties with the ability to talk about foreign cultures than with the ability to talk to them or, better yet, with them. It is a change that coincided with the rise of departments of political science and strategic studies on our campuses. Under the new reality, one no longer needed to go through the long and often arduous process of becoming a “person in the foreign culture” in order to spout off in public as an expert about its core realities. No, now all one needed to do was to read a bunch of articles and books written in English by area-studies “theorists” and “strategic thinkers” who often had a tenuous or, in a surprisingly large number of cases, nonexistent (outside of guided and interpreted visits) dialogue with the language and culture of their alleged “area of expertise.” | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On April 14 2011 07:09 tdt wrote: Guess we'll never learn. And anything to keep trillions flowing into arms manufactures instead of helping our own people with health care, education and infrastructure we seem to be down with... I didn't bring this up previously but since you qouted it; The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday Basically, some random ex-army guy shared his thoughts on the war and suddenly it's as if Obama has said that the US might just put boots on the ground! It's as credible as if I were to state it. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On April 14 2011 07:33 MoltkeWarding wrote: Antiwar.com has a sensible article about our inability of our media or academia to provide any deeper insight into the issues of the day: http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-harrington/2011/04/12/american-perceptions-of-the-world/ The paragraphs I think most worth considering: American university graduates don't even speak more than English and can just barley write it. How can we understand foreign cultures with such poor education? My cousins in Germany read and write 3 languages at least. You know Bush the president and his advisers didnt even know about sectarian split in Iraq and chaos that would ensue without strong govt? Blind leading the blind. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On April 14 2011 07:42 HellRoxYa wrote: I didn't bring this up previously but since you qouted it; Basically, some random ex-army guy shared his thoughts on the war and suddenly it's as if Obama has said that the US might just put boots on the ground! It's as credible as if I were to state it. Fair enough but "mission creep" is not unheard of. | ||
| ||
