|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On April 17 2011 01:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Now they're looking for reasons to put boots on the ground?
What else can they do to in order to win? The main rebel military force is radical islamists, who gained their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they are few and even now, when the West started to give them weapons via Qatar, still cannot win.
UN Security Council Resolutions 1973 does not allow nor ground operation neither defines Gaddafi future.
So UK/US/France need a new resolution, that specifies that Gaddafi regime must be stopped.
The bloodier Gaddafi becomes, the better!
I guess this time Russia will apply veto for such resolution. I guess the BRICK states decided to slow down UK/US influence on the region with their "revolutions".
But, after all, it is just trying to be nice, UK/US/France can start the intervention without any resolution, like it was with Iraq. They are the strongest force in the world, they can do whatever they want. They already told that their final goal is to remove Gaddafi from power.
|
I am a long-time watcher of RT, and find it mildly palatable to my appetite for information about Russia.
As far as RT covers foreign events, its agenda is so obvious, that it does not need to be deconstructed by any conscious effort. It enjoys not-so-subtly harping on one side of a story, often not the side favoured by Western media, and that is why it is fun to watch in coordination with the news from our traditional sources.
|
On April 17 2011 04:42 Petruccio wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 01:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Now they're looking for reasons to put boots on the ground? What else can they do to in order to win? The main rebel military force is radical islamists, who gained their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. 1 But they are few and even now, when the West started to give them weapons via Qatar, still cannot win. UN Security Council Resolutions 1973 does not allow nor ground operation neither defines Gaddafi future. So UK/US/France need a new resolution, that specifies that Gaddafi regime must be stopped. The bloodier Gaddafi becomes, the better! I guess this time Russia will apply veto for such resolution. I guess the BRICK states decided to slow down UK/US influence on the region with their "revolutions". But, after all, it is just trying to be nice, UK/US/France can start the intervention without any resolution, like it was with Iraq.2 They are the strongest force in the world, they can do whatever they want. They already told that their final goal is to remove Gaddafi from power.
1. Says you. They don't want to put radical islamists in power, so why would they supply them with arms? Even better, why would they intervene at all if Gaddafi was winning against forces the west would like to see repressed? Please, for the love of god, realize that this makes no sense.
2. Why are you clumping up the US with the UK and France? They're not one nation. The US were the ones who invaded and waged war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Other nations only joined in to help stabilize the situation, meaning when the damage was already done they figured it'd be good if they could help out. Whether what they're doing is good or not is another question. Even now with the situation in Libya the nations have acted very differently, France being eager to get started for example, much more so than all the other nations involved. Break your tunnelvision.
|
On April 17 2011 05:58 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 04:42 Petruccio wrote:On April 17 2011 01:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Now they're looking for reasons to put boots on the ground? What else can they do to in order to win? The main rebel military force is radical islamists, who gained their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. 1 But they are few and even now, when the West started to give them weapons via Qatar, still cannot win. UN Security Council Resolutions 1973 does not allow nor ground operation neither defines Gaddafi future. So UK/US/France need a new resolution, that specifies that Gaddafi regime must be stopped. The bloodier Gaddafi becomes, the better! I guess this time Russia will apply veto for such resolution. I guess the BRICK states decided to slow down UK/US influence on the region with their "revolutions". But, after all, it is just trying to be nice, UK/US/France can start the intervention without any resolution, like it was with Iraq.2 They are the strongest force in the world, they can do whatever they want. They already told that their final goal is to remove Gaddafi from power. 1. Says you. They don't want to put radical islamists in power, so why would they supply them with arms? Even better, why would they intervene at all if Gaddafi was winning against forces the west would like to see repressed? Please, for the love of god, realize that this makes no sense. 2. Why are you clumping up the US with the UK and France? They're not one nation. The US were the ones who invaded and waged war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Other nations only joined in to help stabilize the situation, meaning when the damage was already done they figured it'd be good if they could help out. Whether what they're doing is good or not is another question. Even now with the situation in Libya the nations have acted very differently, France being eager to get started for example, much more so than all the other nations involved. Break your tunnelvision.
It's relatively easy to trace the broad outlines of our recent history. This was an public opinion intervention, with M. Sarkozy being the first and least subtle to seize on the opportunity. Public opinion was prepared for the intervention by the large and premature outpouring of sympathy for the anti-Mubarak and anti-Ben Ali "revolutions," to the extent that they were willing to generalize the situation as one of freedom fighters vs tyrants occurring across the whole of the Arab World. Libya was the easiest case for intervention, for Gaddafi already had a negative reputation in the West, and intervention against him required no U-turn in our foreign policy.
This intervention in Libya itself is not of immediately serious consequence, but a political addiction to Khaki elections can produce awful consequences in the long-run. Sarkozy seems to be repeating the antics of Charles X.
|
On April 17 2011 07:27 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 05:58 HellRoxYa wrote:On April 17 2011 04:42 Petruccio wrote:On April 17 2011 01:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Now they're looking for reasons to put boots on the ground? What else can they do to in order to win? The main rebel military force is radical islamists, who gained their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. 1 But they are few and even now, when the West started to give them weapons via Qatar, still cannot win. UN Security Council Resolutions 1973 does not allow nor ground operation neither defines Gaddafi future. So UK/US/France need a new resolution, that specifies that Gaddafi regime must be stopped. The bloodier Gaddafi becomes, the better! I guess this time Russia will apply veto for such resolution. I guess the BRICK states decided to slow down UK/US influence on the region with their "revolutions". But, after all, it is just trying to be nice, UK/US/France can start the intervention without any resolution, like it was with Iraq.2 They are the strongest force in the world, they can do whatever they want. They already told that their final goal is to remove Gaddafi from power. 1. Says you. They don't want to put radical islamists in power, so why would they supply them with arms? Even better, why would they intervene at all if Gaddafi was winning against forces the west would like to see repressed? Please, for the love of god, realize that this makes no sense. 2. Why are you clumping up the US with the UK and France? They're not one nation. The US were the ones who invaded and waged war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Other nations only joined in to help stabilize the situation, meaning when the damage was already done they figured it'd be good if they could help out. Whether what they're doing is good or not is another question. Even now with the situation in Libya the nations have acted very differently, France being eager to get started for example, much more so than all the other nations involved. Break your tunnelvision. It's relatively easy to trace the broad outlines of our recent history. This was an public opinion intervention, with M. Sarkozy being the first and least subtle to seize on the opportunity. Public opinion was prepared for the intervention by the large and premature outpouring of sympathy for the anti-Mubarak and anti-Ben Ali "revolutions," to the extent that they were willing to generalize the situation as one of freedom fighters vs tyrants occurring across the whole of the Arab World. Libya was the easiest case for intervention, for Gaddafi already had a negative reputation in the West, and intervention against him required no U-turn in our foreign policy. This intervention in Libya itself is not of immediately serious consequence, but a political addiction to Khaki elections can produce awful consequences in the long-run. Sarkozy seems to be repeating the antics of Charles X.
While I don't think you're wrong in anything you wrote I feel that I have to ask, why did you quote me to write it?
|
|
|
HellRoxYa,
1. Radical Islam is not that bad anymore, google "james clapper muslim brotherhood". Intelligence is collaborating with muslim brotherhood.
Radical Islam is on the East of Libya. They have war experience. Where do you think are they now? Even if you see some footage rebels fighting, they shoot and scream "allah akbar" all the time. No, ordinary Libyans do not do that.
Radical Islam is the strongest force in Libya after Gaddafi. They already have weapons and "rebels" label. I do not see how them not getting powers after Gaddafi.
Anyway, democracy is not possible in Libya. Tribal system, strong radical islam on east...
I believe, all these "revolutions" are started to give powers to radical Islam.
2. I do not understand exactly why France is with US/UK. Gaddafi fined french "Total" for half billion. Also I think that this time, after Afghanistan and Iraq, US does not want to look like aggressor again. "Why bark if you have a dog'
|
|
|
On April 17 2011 12:30 Petruccio wrote:
HellRoxYa,
1. Radical Islam is not that bad anymore, google "james clapper muslim brotherhood". Intelligence is collaborating with muslim brotherhood.
Radical Islam is on the East of Libya. They have war experience. Where do you think are they now? Even if you see some footage rebels fighting, they shoot and scream "allah akbar" all the time. No, ordinary Libyans do not do that.
Radical Islam is the strongest force in Libya after Gaddafi. They already have weapons and "rebels" label. I do not see how them not getting powers after Gaddafi.
Anyway, democracy is not possible in Libya. Tribal system, strong radical islam on east...
I believe, all these "revolutions" are started to give powers to radical Islam.
2. I do not understand exactly why France is with US/UK. Gaddafi fined french "Total" for half billion. Also I think that this time, after Afghanistan and Iraq, US does not want to look like aggressor again. "Why bark if you have a dog'
Yes, they do. All muslims do. Just view some footage from Egypt and Bahrain. Thank god you're backing up your conspiracy theories of giving power to radical islam with logic and facts. If anything the US (which, if I'm to understand your line of reasoning in this thread, run the show completely without any input from anyone else) would want less islamic influence in the world, not more. Solid stance you have there.
And yes, the US doesn't want to be the aggressor again, that doesn't mean the control France. They never did and hopefully they never will.
Funny, the article basically explains that action was taken (bombing) so the rebellion wouldn't fail. Was this news to you?
Edit: I should expand on this. Pressure on the governments mounted rapidly the more it looked like the rebellion was about to fail due to public oppinion that something should be done. It was about to be too late. This is super obvious to anyone and I have no idea how you could imagine this to be eyeopening for anyone anywhere.
More importantly, though, the article throughly overlooks the fact that the genocide would only happen once the country was solely back in Gaddafis control. It's quite hard to control information up until that point, and you wouldn't want mass genocide broadcasted, would you? Not only that, but the article somehow reinterprets Gaddafi as saying that he wouldn't kill a large amount of the Libyan population if they kept resisting him, only "the rebels", as if the whole city of Bhengazi wasn't seen as rebels. Good stuff. Keep up the good work Petruccio.
|
An interesting article regarding U.S. involvment in Syria. U.S. has funded Syrian opposition
Not very relevent to the thread, however, it will be interesting to see if this story does in fact turn out to be true and if information surfaces that the same has occured in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East.
|
On April 18 2011 18:28 Aurocaido wrote:An interesting article regarding U.S. involvment in Syria. U.S. has funded Syrian oppositionNot very relevent to the thread, however, it will be interesting to see if this story does in fact turn out to be true and if information surfaces that the same has occured in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East.
I love how mainstream media will alway quote head intelligence of a Middle Eastern country as saying "Western/Zionist forces are interfering in our affairs" and then paint that statement as ridiculous. Except that it's not and it further fuels the xenophobism, suspicion and fear in that region.
|
Just an update here. Tim Hetherington, co-director of Restrepo, was killed in Misrata, Libya.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.journalists/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
His last twitter entry read: "In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO."
Tim along with other reporters were victims of a RPG attack. It's unclear who launched the attack, but all evidence points to Gadhafi forces.
RIP Tim.
|
Well, he knew the risk and assumed it. Unlike thousands of innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of the government vs rebels fight and getting killed/injured as collateral damage and there's nothing they can do about it.
|
On April 21 2011 05:30 Pika Chu wrote:
Well, he knew the risk and assumed it. Unlike thousands of innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of the government vs rebels fight and getting killed/injured as collateral damage and there's nothing they can do about it.
Who's story you would not even know if it wasn't for journalists.
The death of journalists is important because it directly affects how free journalists are to do their jobs. It's not something to be shrugged off and said "he put himself there". If enough journalists get killed they will indeed stop going there and the only news you get would be Liybian state TV telling you that there are no citizens left in the city.
|
On April 21 2011 07:03 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 05:30 Pika Chu wrote:
Well, he knew the risk and assumed it. Unlike thousands of innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of the government vs rebels fight and getting killed/injured as collateral damage and there's nothing they can do about it. Who's story you would not even know if it wasn't for journalists. The death of journalists is important because it directly affects how free journalists are to do their jobs. It's not something to be shrugged off and said "he put himself there". If enough journalists get killed they will indeed stop going there and the only news you get would be Liybian state TV telling you that there are no citizens left in the city.
Honestly, I completely agree with Pika Chu and don't see your logic at all. He did put himself there, in the middle of a warzone. It doesn't sound at all as if they targeted him - he just got in the crossfire.
|
John McCain, of all people, has arrived in Benghazi.
|
On April 22 2011 15:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
John McCain, of all people, has arrived in Benghazi.
I find this hard to believe. he would not be safe there
|
On April 22 2011 21:24 frontliner2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2011 15:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
John McCain, of all people, has arrived in Benghazi. I find this hard to believe. he would not be safe there
He's pulling a Charlie Wilson but still:
BENGHAZI, Libya — U.S. Sen. John McCain, one of the strongest proponents in Congress of the American military intervention in Libya, said Friday that Libyan rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's troops are his heroes.
The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee made the remark after arriving in Benghazi, a city that has been the opposition capital in the rebel-held eastern Libya.
McCain said he was in Benghazi "to get an on the ground assessment of the situation" and planned to meet with the rebel National Transition Council, the de-facto government in the eastern half of the country, and members of the rebel military.
"They are my heroes," McCain said of the rebels as he walked out of a local hotel in Benghazi. He was traveling in an armored Mercedes jeep and had a security detail. A few Libyans waved American flags as his vehicle drove past.
Source
|
I remember seeing something similar in the early stages of the Libyan conflict. Some random french "philosopher" (read "a guy who goes on TV but who gets bashed by true philosophers and specialists") went to Libya to meet the rebels.
I remember seeing that with my GF and being quite astonished. WTF? It was like Lily Allen going there and "demanding justice" to the western authorities.
Some people are just attention whores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
