|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On May 07 2011 20:04 zalz wrote:
This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes. When such a humans right violation is about to happen, we were right to step in and prevent it.
Based on this: which regimes in the world do you think we currently should be at war with?
|
On May 07 2011 20:04 zalz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You start off by talking about human rights. Well let me tell you something about guantanamo and abo ghreib and water boarding. Torture is way worse than straight up execution. Not saying that from a lesser of the two evils point of view, regardless of the fact that your claim about Gaddaffi is pretty much hearsay. Pretty much hearsay? You people will really go to extreme lengths to defend Gaddaff or paint the west as the villain. This "hearsay" came from Gaddaffis mouth. He said it himself. Stop trying to twist reality to serve your agenda. Gaddaffi made his promise and given history we also know it was very likely that he was going to carry through on it. Professional armies don't get involved in politics (see Syria/Bahrain) they stay on the side (see Tunisia/Egypt/Yemen). Professional armies don't defect and lead operations against the political system (See Libya). Proffessional armies isn't a term used in any way that you seem to think. It simply refers to their combat effectiveness. The difference between machete wielding mobs and a well organised army with a modern command structure. Talking about organized opposition to TOPPLE a government and the system, by force or otherwise, is the bomb of your post. This is a coup de etat, and should be dealt with as such. Syria Yemen Tunisia and Egypt were/are peoples revolution with no political agenda behind it other than "enough is enough now we want change". If the people of Zimbabwe decided to overthrow Mugabe, i would support them fully. For some strange reason you seem to make government out to always be justified. Horrid governments that get overthrown are a good thing in my book. You can believe that government may defend itself at all costs, i disagree completly. 1.) becuase they are clearly failing to end the libyan conflict in a timely manner, and Gaddaffi will be gone in a month or two. Mark my words. Syria. Iran. Sri Lanka. Rwanda. Congo. Some of those are indeed good examples of where we should have stepped in. The fact that we did not doesn't make it alright to continue those mistakes. Do I agree that it's probably good that Gadaffi leaves power? Yes. But I think it should have been left up to the Libyan people to make it happen. I don't see it as our responsibility to force a regime change, based on what had happened before we decided that was what we should do. We have allowed, and do allow, much worse crimes to go unpunished. The people did want to make it happen. The blowback was the threat of mass murder on everyone that stood in the governments way. We live in a modern world where it does not take many people to supress a lot of unarmed people. A single person with a good position and enough ammo can kill thousands of others. We don't live in a world where majority will instantly equalls results. This government made the public promise that it was going to kill thousands of people. We stepped in and protected a public uprising. This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes. When such a humans right violation is about to happen, we were right to step in and prevent it.
You replied to half of my post but that's ok. It's as if you are taking what I said out of context.
Now you start with "you people" "twist reality" "agenda". Again read the post as a whole.
Actually professional army is used in the way I just explained. An army is an army it must have tanks etc etc. Now in regards to you comparing them to machete holding mobs, the "professional army" was facing professional rebels with tanks guns etc etc.
Being for or against toppling a regime is not the point we are discussing. We are discussing the situation we are currently in. Is what NATO is doing interfering in internal matters, yes.
If the Libyan people can't handle a revolution they should not start one, if they cant handle a war they should not instigate one.
Going back to you saying "coming for Gaddafi's mouth. Well, didn't he also call for talks, a ceasefire (2 or 3 times)? Do you not believe him now and believe him when he is saying "I WILL MURDER YOU ALL"
You people will twist and turn a blind eye to facts just to twist reality to fit your own agenda. Back to you.
|
Nothing in your post hints at him (or me, or anyone else who are basically not you or Petruccio in this thread) twisting reality to fit his/our purposes.
Noone's trusting Gaddafi's talks of peace because yes, he announced that he would kill people, lots of people. He also told the people of the country to turn on eachother. When he announced his first ceasefire his army regrouped and kept attacking. Gaddafi sure seems like a man of his word. There's basically no valid reason to trust him when he makes foolish offers like that, the only thing it does is to turn people like you against the west because "Gaddafi wants to work it out!". He only wants to work it out if he remains in power and the people bow to his will and they wont. It is most likely lethal for any rebel should they accept a ceasefire and surrender arms to Gaddafi.
Then there's this:
If the Libyan people can't handle a revolution they should not start one, if they cant handle a war they should not instigate one.
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die. I mean shit, zalz already pointed out how wrong this statement is when he said "This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes". And he's right.
So the question isn't whether the Libyans were right to start their revolution or not (they were. A leadership needs the support of its people, it needs legitimacy and Gaddafi lost his). The question is whether helping them out or not was the right thing to do. Now, since both you and Petruccio like to turn a blind eye to things, I'll just assume that this next sentence goes right over your head but: There was a lot of pressure from both the media and the populations of the countries that are involved now that something had to be done. A lot more so than there have been for other conflicts. Furthermore the Arabian Council welcomed it and the rebels asked for it (the Arabian Council later withdrew their support but that was after the operation had started). If the countries and their governments, on the whole, think that it was the right thing to do then it probably was. I certainly believe it is.
And lastly, as zalz also pointed out, not helping in other cases does not equal that you should never help.
|
On May 07 2011 23:54 HellRoxYa wrote:
And lastly, as zalz also pointed out, not helping in other cases does not equal that you should never help.
We are supposedly helping because they are breaking international law.
So you are saying we shouldn't treat people equally according to law?
|
On May 08 2011 01:19 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 23:54 HellRoxYa wrote:
And lastly, as zalz also pointed out, not helping in other cases does not equal that you should never help. We are supposedly helping because they are breaking international law. So you are saying we shouldn't treat people equally according to law?
Did you direct this question at me? D:
|
On May 07 2011 23:54 HellRoxYa wrote:
Then there's this:
If the Libyan people can't handle a revolution they should not start one, if they cant handle a war they should not instigate one.
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die. I mean shit, zalz already pointed out how wrong this statement is when he said "This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes". And he's right.
You are putting words into my mouth.
Then you quote zalz, the only thing I get from that statement is "Libyans don't deserve freedom because they can't create it for themselves."
Libyans ATTACKED ARMY BARRACKS to get weapons in response to security forces shooting at peaceful protestors. Shootings took place in the whole Arab world but attacking army barracks to obtain weapons didn't.
WHO STARTED THIS WAR? Being shot is something inevitable, they knew it, you knew it, the whole world knew it. Peaceful protestors becoming rebels was not expected. The NATO pounced at the opportunity. Because there is beef with Gaddafi not because they want to help spread peace in the world.
And yes if you do the right thing selectively is called being biased. Are we on the same page here?
Please don't put words into my mouth.
Edit: if equality in injustice is justice, then most certainly inequality in justice is injustice.
note: I said justice not "correct/wrong"
EDIT2: We are supposedly helping because they are breaking international law.
So you are saying we shouldn't treat people equally according to law?
I would like an answer to that question as well. You cannot in any respectable court of law, dismiss a plea based on someones presumed intentions.
|
On May 07 2011 20:30 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 20:04 zalz wrote:
The people did want to make it happen. The blowback was the threat of mass murder on everyone that stood in the governments way.
This government made the public promise that it was going to kill thousands of people. We stepped in and protected a public uprising. The rebels are a couple of thousand or so people. They are not the majority of the people - even though I do believe the people overall don't support Gadaffi, quite a few do. What we are doing now is protecting the rebels, and forcing a regime change. We are not limiting ourselves to protecting civilians, we are actively engaging Gadaffi's forces where we can identify them, taking the position that no peace treaty can be allowed that leave him in power. As a result, more people will die than if we had done nothing. My view at least. In essence, we are using our military to take sides in a civil war, where we don't have regional control or clear foreign interests (unlike, say, former Yugoslavia). To me, this should not our responsibility, and by taking sides, and trying to enforce a regime change, we are in essence responsible for whatever happens in the civil war - since our military power is so many times stronger than the forces on either side in Libya. We could take out Gadaffi in a week if we so chose to. Right now we are just doing it half way. You are saying Gadaffi will be gone in a month or two: I hope you are right. I just don't believe it to be more than 25% chance of happening. Unless we chose to change our mission parameters. One of the general principles of western society is that we are all equal under the law. My premise is that this clearly shows that U.N. and NATO aren't treating people & regimes equally under the law, but picking and choosing where we would like to be involved based on different things. Why would we not wish to do anything in Sri Lanka and Syria compared to Libya, to pick two recent conflicts? Why would we chose such a different response in the Ivory Coast? Why was suddenly Gadaffi such an important example to pick? Well ... because he looked weak, and easy to get rid of, and he has been a force to reckon with in Africa, working against France, the UK, and the USA foreign interests? Some decades ago, was a big supporter of terrorism...pPerhaps all of those ... In my eyes, humanitarian interests, protecting civilians, moral responsibility ... isn't really the main reason why, since this conflict isn't really worse - and in many ways, much less worse, than other conflicts in the world. Where we don't do much at all.
People/regimes may be equal under the law, but district attornies Choose which cases to prosecute, police Choose which cases to pursue, based on their ability to do so.
A Lot of regimes worldwide could justifiably be changed. However, our ability to do so is Extremely limited.
|
On May 08 2011 03:16 Fattah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 23:54 HellRoxYa wrote:
Then there's this:
If the Libyan people can't handle a revolution they should not start one, if they cant handle a war they should not instigate one.
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die. I mean shit, zalz already pointed out how wrong this statement is when he said "This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes". And he's right.
You are putting words into my mouth. Then you quote zalz, the only thing I get from that statement is "Libyans don't deserve freedom because they can't create it for themselves." Libyans ATTACKED ARMY BARRACKS to get weapons in response to security forces shooting at peaceful protestors. Shootings took place in the whole Arab world but attacking army barracks to obtain weapons didn't. WHO STARTED THIS WAR? Being shot is something inevitable, they knew it, you knew it, the whole world knew it. Peaceful protestors becoming rebels was not expected. The NATO pounced at the opportunity. Because there is beef with Gaddafi not because they want to help spread peace in the world. And yes if you do the right thing selectively is called being biased. Are we on the same page here? Please don't put words into my mouth. Edit: if equality in injustice is justice, then most certainly inequality in justice is injustice. note: I said justice not "correct/wrong" EDIT2: We are supposedly helping because they are breaking international law.
So you are saying we shouldn't treat people equally according to law? I would like an answer to that question as well. You cannot in any respectable court of law, dismiss a plea based on someones presumed intentions.
What the fuck are you talking about, those are your direct words.
And it's funny, you're still trying to argue that we should do everything or nothing?
Look, it doesn't actually matter why they chose Libya and not other places as far as it being right or wrong. It doesn't become less good to do something good just because you gain more from doing it. It does, however, make it more likely for international players to actually get involved and invest in something.
Oh, and by "biased" I believe you're trying to say that countries have an agenda with their foreign policy? ... Why yes, yes they do.
|
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die.
This is what the fuck I am talking about.
And yes, "you" should do everything or nothing.This is a paid for military exercise. Don't give the whole fiasco a humanitarian cover. It's bullshit. Don't say you are protecting innocent people when you are in it for the cash. That is not right, quite the fucking opposite. This is the equivalent of "Jizyah" in 7th century Arabia.
And you are agreeing with me that the whole invasion is biased.
Please reply to all what my post contains and don't be selective.(not biased)
|
On May 07 2011 20:30 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 20:04 zalz wrote:
This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes. When such a humans right violation is about to happen, we were right to step in and prevent it. Based on this: which regimes in the world do you think we currently should be at war with?
Are you asking about who Norway should be invading specifically?
|
On May 08 2011 11:25 Fattah wrote:
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die.
This is what the fuck I am talking about.
And yes, "you" should do everything or nothing.This is a paid for military exercise. Don't give the whole fiasco a humanitarian cover. It's bullshit. Don't say you are protecting innocent people when you are in it for the cash. That is not right, quite the fucking opposite. This is the equivalent of "Jizyah" in 7th century Arabia.
And you are agreeing with me that the whole invasion is biased.
Please reply to all what my post contains and don't be selective.(not biased)
Everything or Nothing is the cry of the ultimate fool or the ultimate coward.
Jizyah was a tax on a particular subgroup. It was not Justice for only one subgroup.
Justice by human being is always partitioned out selectively. A homicide cop in New York doesn't try and solve every crime in the world. He might not disagree with those crimes being solved in principle, but he isn't going to do it himself.
Also, you should try and avoid talking about the motivations of groups. The intervention in Libya is not the act of a single individual with a single set of motives. There are multiple people with multiple motives, some of them good, some of them bad.
If you think the actions are good ends but use bad means, you can complain about that.
But trying to say "motives aren't pure" for condemning the action of a group of people is ridiculous.
You should Always assume ALL actions by people you aren't personally knowledgable of have bad motives. Then judge them on what they do, or you to believe they will do based on their other actions. Relying on the motivations of someone you don't know is dangerous and a road to dictatorship.
|
On May 08 2011 13:36 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 11:25 Fattah wrote:
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die.
This is what the fuck I am talking about.
And yes, "you" should do everything or nothing.This is a paid for military exercise. Don't give the whole fiasco a humanitarian cover. It's bullshit. Don't say you are protecting innocent people when you are in it for the cash. That is not right, quite the fucking opposite. This is the equivalent of "Jizyah" in 7th century Arabia.
And you are agreeing with me that the whole invasion is biased.
Please reply to all what my post contains and don't be selective.(not biased) Everything or Nothing is the cry of the ultimate fool or the ultimate coward. Jizyah was a tax on a particular subgroup. It was not Justice for only one subgroup. Justice by human being is always partitioned out selectively. A homicide cop in New York doesn't try and solve every crime in the world. He might not disagree with those crimes being solved in principle, but he isn't going to do it himself. Also, you should try and avoid talking about the motivations of groups. The intervention in Libya is not the act of a single individual with a single set of motives. There are multiple people with multiple motives, some of them good, some of them bad. If you think the actions are good ends but use bad means, you can complain about that. But trying to say "motives aren't pure" for condemning the action of a group of people is ridiculous. You should Always assume ALL actions by people you aren't personally knowledgable of have bad motives. Then judge them on what they do, or you to believe they will do based on their other actions. Relying on the motivations of someone you don't know is dangerous and a road to dictatorship.
I don't agree with you on your opening statement.
Jizyah was tax on a particular subgroup in exchange for protection, complete your sentence.
You are giving an example of an individual then continuing your post talking about a collective. What I say "homicide division in New york tries to solve all the homicide cases in its area of jurisdiction." NATO is a defense organization not an offense one, at least that's what I think.
OK, disregarding the west's previous interventions in other countries must mean you will disregard Gaddafi's previous false promises and agree to sit down for peace talks with him. When I say Gaddafi I think everyone understands that it is not him alone taking the decisions. There were 3 calls for ceasefire but NATO and rebels refused to even listen. In the same sense all the calls for protecting civilians by NATO should be laughed at given Afghanistan and Iraq (USA) most recently.
What they are doing now is not peacekeeping, which was the original intention. They now took a side in a civil war. Bombing only Gaddafi targets, because the rebels "say" they are killing civilians.
Freezing the assets of Gaddafi/Libyan government was like an on/off switch, boom done. While for Egypt and Tunisia its like, meh give me evidence or something.
If someone wants to be the one where people go to seeking help, it should not be "what can you offer in return". Help is help.
|
TRIPOLI, Libya – Pressing to break a two-month siege, rebels in the port city of Misrata said Wednesday they had captured the local airport and pushed Moammar Gadhafi's forces ever further from the city's western outskirts.
The reported advances were the latest in a recent flurry of accounts of rebel victories, coinciding with intensified NATO airstrikes on Gadhafi's forces in several areas of Libya. In all, NATO said Wednesday, the alliance has carried out more than 2,400 airstrikes since March 31 as part of the effort to assist the rebels and pressure Gadhafi to end his 42-year authoritarian rule.
According to the Libyan state news agency, JANA, one of latest sites hit by NATO was the North Korean Embassy in the capital, Tripoli. JANA said the mission was badly damaged by fragments of a NATO missile fired Monday.
Even though some of the recent reports of ground combat are difficult to confirm, they seem to represent a major boost for the rebels' military prospects after weeks of stalemate on several fronts.
Source
|
You keep going rebels, i would like my claim of 2 months till victory to be accurate.
|
And then... massacre.
Yes, I believe it too zalz.
On May 08 2011 22:09 Fattah wrote:
What they are doing now is not peacekeeping, which was the original intention. They now took a side in a civil war. Bombing only Gaddafi targets, because the rebels "say" they are killing civilians.
Freezing the assets of Gaddafi/Libyan government was like an on/off switch, boom done. While for Egypt and Tunisia its like, meh give me evidence or something.
If someone wants to be the one where people go to seeking help, it should not be "what can you offer in return". Help is help.
Oh look I shortened your post again. You know why? Because the rest of it is irrelevant to what I'm about to say.
First of all, there's been plenty of evidence. I've been following this thread from the start. Maybe you should read it through? Yes, there's been a lot of hearsay, and some exaggeration, as well but not only as you imply. Gaddafi's son constantly and firmly denying everything repeatedly doesn't mean it never happened.
Secondly, I'm not knowledgeable on Tunisia but they did freeze Mubarak's assets. And that was without any kind of military intervention ever even being discussed alongside it. I'm not sure what kind of other evidence you believe there was for the case of Egypt vs. the case of Libya. Both governments have lost the legitimacy of their populations. The latter has also resulted in a war.
And lastly, that's not how international politics work. Maybe you think they should work differently, and that's fine, but it's not how it works. It never has been and it probably never will be. Unless there is something to gain (be it an ideological cause, resources or national safety or a combination thereof) there is no reason to get involved. Most of the time stepping in to a country could be seen as too costly, especially if it's only for ideological reasons ("We're going to stop the killings" or "We're going to maintain peace"). When the ideological cause is combined with, say, resources, though, there's suddenly much more incentive to act. There's always costs involved and the costs for helping everyone are too high.
|
On May 08 2011 22:09 Fattah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 13:36 Krikkitone wrote:On May 08 2011 11:25 Fattah wrote:
No, you're right, they should just lay down and die.
This is what the fuck I am talking about.
And yes, "you" should do everything or nothing.This is a paid for military exercise. Don't give the whole fiasco a humanitarian cover. It's bullshit. Don't say you are protecting innocent people when you are in it for the cash. That is not right, quite the fucking opposite. This is the equivalent of "Jizyah" in 7th century Arabia.
And you are agreeing with me that the whole invasion is biased.
Please reply to all what my post contains and don't be selective.(not biased) Everything or Nothing is the cry of the ultimate fool or the ultimate coward. Jizyah was a tax on a particular subgroup. It was not Justice for only one subgroup. Justice by human being is always partitioned out selectively. A homicide cop in New York doesn't try and solve every crime in the world. He might not disagree with those crimes being solved in principle, but he isn't going to do it himself. Also, you should try and avoid talking about the motivations of groups. The intervention in Libya is not the act of a single individual with a single set of motives. There are multiple people with multiple motives, some of them good, some of them bad. If you think the actions are good ends but use bad means, you can complain about that. But trying to say "motives aren't pure" for condemning the action of a group of people is ridiculous. You should Always assume ALL actions by people you aren't personally knowledgable of have bad motives. Then judge them on what they do, or you to believe they will do based on their other actions. Relying on the motivations of someone you don't know is dangerous and a road to dictatorship. I don't agree with you on your opening statement. Jizyah was tax on a particular subgroup in exchange for protection, complete your sentence. You are giving an example of an individual then continuing your post talking about a collective. What I say "homicide division in New york tries to solve all the homicide cases in its area of jurisdiction." NATO is a defense organization not an offense one, at least that's what I think. OK, disregarding the west's previous interventions in other countries must mean you will disregard Gaddafi's previous false promises and agree to sit down for peace talks with him. When I say Gaddafi I think everyone understands that it is not him alone taking the decisions. There were 3 calls for ceasefire but NATO and rebels refused to even listen. In the same sense all the calls for protecting civilians by NATO should be laughed at given Afghanistan and Iraq (USA) most recently. What they are doing now is not peacekeeping, which was the original intention. They now took a side in a civil war. Bombing only Gaddafi targets, because the rebels "say" they are killing civilians. Freezing the assets of Gaddafi/Libyan government was like an on/off switch, boom done. While for Egypt and Tunisia its like, meh give me evidence or something. If someone wants to be the one where people go to seeking help, it should not be "what can you offer in return". Help is help.
Peacekeeping was the original Justification/Mission statement, etc. The Intention was individual to every decision maker involved.
And there is no human individual OR organization that does not limit what help they give out. (do you have to wait to see a doctor in a hospital, or maybe you just have to pay... trust me you do one of the two, probably both)
Do Everything= only the fool will say that
Do Everything or Do Nothing=unless a fool, only the coward will say that (to provide an excuse for doing nothing)
Also I'm pretty sure NATO/the US doesn't Want to be "the one where people go seeking help" and have those people all expect to get it.
Yes, the US/NATO got involved in a civil war. It is possible for them to have Good reasons/justifications/intentions for getting involved in one, and still not get involved in different civil war with the same Good reasons available.
|
Sorry for the late reply:
HellRoxYa:
I think you don't understand why I don't like selecting few parts of my post and only replying to them. The post as a whole goes in chronological order with links between each line and the next. Just like a sentence, don't choose an excerpt and quote it out of context. I was not saying that to imply you are evading answers (well..) but because you take a part of the post and reply to it out of context.
Yes there was evidence of killing from Gaddafi, there is also evidence of killing from the rebels as well. Did you hear about that? Did you read about that in this thread? In Misurata (I believe) they captured a few of the Gaddafi "militia" as prisoners of war, and what do these freedom fighters do to their Libyan brethren? Military like executions, face the wall, ak-47 rounds. Don't tell me this is a war all is justified, lots of counter examples to your argument. Gaddafi's son denying anything happened is normal and to be expected. But, if you are going to take eyewitness testimonials as empirical evidence then you should take ALL of them as evidence, for and against your belief. That's justice.
Yea they froze Mubarak's assets only on the condition that the new government specifically requests that, while being backed up with documents as evidence that it is in fact his money. And yes both governments have lost legitimacy but one had a new established government while the other did not. Who are they talking to about the freezing of assets and what is going to be done next with those assets and who is going to benefit from them? (more below)
Your last paragraph makes me "sad". We all know how international politics work. It is fucked up, corrupt, this for that horseshit. It makes me sad that you as an American say that. You say things will never change. The whole Arab world thought the same just a few months ago and look where we are now. You let these kind of politics and this way of thinking beat you down. This is an American forum where I can write freely, and this is what I read coming from Americans? "whats my interest in this?" "how will this benefit me?" You know this is wrong and you don't like it, yet you like it when you thing it is being done for good cause? The end justifies the means?
That was a little bit off-topic, sorry mods. (will edit if looks like it will stir more off-topic)
Krikkitone:
What kind of peacekeeping mission is this? You are shooting at one side of a civil war. Giving tactical advantages to one side over the other. Financing one side, sending military advisors. This is not a peace keeping mission. This is a CIA-esque type mission to topple a regime ala South America.
Your second paragraph, I don't understand very well. But, assuming NATO/US is a humanitarians organization, giving help where help is needed. Gaddafi called for a ceasefire 3 times already, they are being selective in giving aid here. What the fuck? Did I understand you correctly?
If not:
Assuming NATO/US is a humanitarian organization, selectively giving help. What are the criteria one must meet to be eligible? Not be a dictator.
In a war there is no right or wrong. Only a winner.
So what are the criteria a country or a struggle must meet to be eligible for "aid" from US/NATO? Money? People must pay for the muscle? Isn't this border line mercenary work? Giving a good intention cover doesn't change the truth if you think about it.
Your last paragraph, I think I replied to it earlier in my response to HellRoxYa.
zalz:
How money do you have on the rebels team? Steroids are banned you know.
NEWS:
"Libya: White House dashes rebel hopes of recognition"
The statement comes after the first visit to the White House by a senior member of the rebel council, which is pushing for international support.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi taunted Nato troops in an audio message on state TV, saying he was in a place where they "cannot reach" him.
State media says 11 Muslim clerics have been killed in a Nato air strike.
Mahmoud Jibril, deputy leader of the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC), met officials at the White House on Friday, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
'You can't kill me'
In a statement, the White House said Mr Donilon had told Mr Jibril that the US viewed the council as "a legitimate and credible interlocutor of the Libyan people".
The US and Britain have not recognised the NTC as the true government of Libya - in contrast to France, Italy and Qatar.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Thursday that such a step would be "premature".
Col Muammar Gaddafi (8 March 2011) A Libyan government spokesman said Col Gaddafi was in very good health and high spirits
The US has said it is up to the Libyans to decide their government, not foreign powers.
There was some encouragement on Friday, however, for rebel hopes of accessing seized Libyan regime assets.
Mr Carney said the US was working with Congress to unblock some of the more than $30bn (£18.5bn) in frozen funds, so it could be used to aid the rebels.
Six large blasts - believed to have been Nato air strikes - were heard in the Libyan capital Tripoli late on Friday and early on Saturday morning.
They followed Libyan state TV's broadcast of an audio message by Col Gaddafi, pouring scorn on the alliance.
The Libyan leader thanked those outside Libya who had "expressed deep and strong concern, enthusiasm and love for me by carrying out all these contacts to enquire about my safety after hearing about the crusader, cowardly and treacherous missile attack".
"I say to the crusader cowards that I live in a place that you cannot reach and kill me in it because I live in the hearts of the millions," he added.
"Immortality is for the martyrs, and death, infamy and disgrace are for the treacherous agents and their cowardly masters."
Italy's foreign minister said earlier on Friday that Col Gaddafi had probably been wounded in Thursday's air strike on his Bab al-Aziziya compound and had fled Tripoli.
Earlier on Friday, state TV reported a Nato strike hit a boarding house in the eastern city of Brega, killing 11 imams and wounding 45 people.
A government spokesman said the victims were part of a larger group who had travelled to the government-held town from across Libya seeking peace talks in rebel-held Benghazi.
But rebel officials in Benghazi insisted there were no civilians at all in Brega, while a Nato spokesman said he did not know anything about an attack in Brega.
Source.
I think this is a +1 from me to the American administration for not recognizing the NTC. The government is taking a prudent approach and I fully agree with that.
However, the talk about funds being unblocked to aid rebels is a bit sketchy. What is aid? That is a very broad term and terms like these are never used in businesses unless there's a catch.
To give you an example: the aid that the US gives to Egypt as per the peace treaty with Israel (not "i love you aid") is estimated at 1.3b$ a year. What is that aid you ask? not money, not exchange of professional experiences, not exchange in education. NOPE. It is basically military equipment spare parts at ridiculous price mark up.
So I ask you, what if the aid is arming the rebels (which you of course agree with). What do you think will happen after Gaddafi is over? The rebels are just gonna give up arms? Or will there be armed political parties (hezbollah). Egypt is still facing daily protests with some becoming deadly clashes. Don't you think this might happen in Libya? What if that happens and these people are armed? Will the peace keeping mission be extended? Who supplied these weapons? Don't think for a second that US/NATO don't know that! They do, look at your daily news to know. They have experience in that that is still not over. I would advise against any blanket aid statements and I really think you should think a lot about what I just said before replying to this part in particular.
Lastly I want to end with this:
"If a national opposition movement is unable to topple an oppressive regime in it country, then it is wrong to say that it can rule the country"
|
On May 14 2011 12:53 Fattah wrote:
Sorry for the late reply:
HellRoxYa:
I think you don't understand why I don't like selecting few parts of my post and only replying to them. The post as a whole goes in chronological order with links between each line and the next. Just like a sentence, don't choose an excerpt and quote it out of context. I was not saying that to imply you are evading answers (well..) but because you take a part of the post and reply to it out of context.
Yes there was evidence of killing from Gaddafi, there is also evidence of killing from the rebels as well. Did you hear about that? Did you read about that in this thread? In Misurata (I believe) they captured a few of the Gaddafi "militia" as prisoners of war, and what do these freedom fighters do to their Libyan brethren? Military like executions, face the wall, ak-47 rounds. Don't tell me this is a war all is justified, lots of counter examples to your argument. Gaddafi's son denying anything happened is normal and to be expected. But, if you are going to take eyewitness testimonials as empirical evidence then you should take ALL of them as evidence, for and against your belief. That's justice.
Yea they froze Mubarak's assets only on the condition that the new government specifically requests that, while being backed up with documents as evidence that it is in fact his money. And yes both governments have lost legitimacy but one had a new established government while the other did not. Who are they talking to about the freezing of assets and what is going to be done next with those assets and who is going to benefit from them? (more below)
Your last paragraph makes me "sad". We all know how international politics work. It is fucked up, corrupt, this for that horseshit. It makes me sad that you as an American say that. You say things will never change. The whole Arab world thought the same just a few months ago and look where we are now. You let these kind of politics and this way of thinking beat you down. This is an American forum where I can write freely, and this is what I read coming from Americans? "whats my interest in this?" "how will this benefit me?" You know this is wrong and you don't like it, yet you like it when you thing it is being done for good cause? The end justifies the means?
That was a little bit off-topic, sorry mods. (will edit if looks like it will stir more off-topic)
First of all I never take anything out of context. If the context matters then I include it. Otherwise it's more likely a case of where you think context changes things when it in fact doesn't.
Why do you think I would need to justify summary executions? It's a tragedy, but it's also somewhat irrelevant. If both sides want to have a dirty war then they'll have a dirty war. And yes that's kind of how it works, you look at all sides in a conflict and then concider which side seems more likely to be telling the truth. And in conflicts like this one the truth is usually somewhere in between. The important thing when it comes to Libya here, though, is that the rebels, concidering all sides, are the ones which I (and apparently all the nations involved in the no-fly zone/peacekeeping mission) agree with and support. Oh and listening to all sides of a story isn't about justice, it's about fair reporting and, for the individual, about trying to form a picture of reality and not just confirm your preconcieved image of what that reality might be.
Not going to comment on the assets because, honestly, I don't care. We'll see what happens to it in the end though.
And now, lastly... I'm not American. I'm Swedish... I also have nothing to gain from Libya personally. At least not that I'm aware of. Furthermore there was no personal opinion about how it should be or if it's right, it was just an illustration to try and paint a picture of how international politics work. It's fine if you don't think it's desireable or morally correct to act only if there's something to gain for yourself (yourself meaning the country here) however you're going to have to convince all the states on earth on how to act instead and that this way is better first. Until then it'll keep working like this, no matter what I or anyone else thinks about it. And that's why I don't really even comment on what I myself think about the matter, because it doesn't matter...
I'll just leave the rest of your post for others to respond to. Good luck.
|
Let me start off with an apology to the mistake I made in my earlier post. I should have double checked before I posted, this is my mistake an there was no bad intention in it. I on the other hand have a lot to loose from Libya, a neighboring country with a "high ground" advantage on its border with my country. Libya becoming a second Iraq is a major concern for me. The point of the paragraph still stands, though. That point boils down to ethics. There should be no gray when it comes to war/aid/peacekeeping/research what have you.
The point of my argument about taking both sides into account, was to say if US/NATO are on a peacekeeping mission, they should be doing just that. Not taking sides in a war, only shooting as a counter-measure not as an offensive one. I have no preconceived images about any side of the war, all I know is I want it to end FOR the people, but I do care how. Not like this. Not with US/NATO extending the peace keeping mission to include ground forces. Egypt getting surrounded by US/NATO from the west and Israel from the East is not something to casually talk about.
This is all I have for the time being until new developments occur.
|
On May 14 2011 12:53 Fattah wrote:Sorry for the late reply: HellRoxYa:I think you don't understand why I don't like selecting few parts of my post and only replying to them. The post as a whole goes in chronological order with links between each line and the next. Just like a sentence, don't choose an excerpt and quote it out of context. I was not saying that to imply you are evading answers (well..) but because you take a part of the post and reply to it out of context. Yes there was evidence of killing from Gaddafi, there is also evidence of killing from the rebels as well. Did you hear about that? Did you read about that in this thread? In Misurata (I believe) they captured a few of the Gaddafi "militia" as prisoners of war, and what do these freedom fighters do to their Libyan brethren? Military like executions, face the wall, ak-47 rounds. Don't tell me this is a war all is justified, lots of counter examples to your argument. Gaddafi's son denying anything happened is normal and to be expected. But, if you are going to take eyewitness testimonials as empirical evidence then you should take ALL of them as evidence, for and against your belief. That's justice. Yea they froze Mubarak's assets only on the condition that the new government specifically requests that, while being backed up with documents as evidence that it is in fact his money. And yes both governments have lost legitimacy but one had a new established government while the other did not. Who are they talking to about the freezing of assets and what is going to be done next with those assets and who is going to benefit from them? (more below) Your last paragraph makes me "sad". We all know how international politics work. It is fucked up, corrupt, this for that horseshit. It makes me sad that you as an American say that. You say things will never change. The whole Arab world thought the same just a few months ago and look where we are now. You let these kind of politics and this way of thinking beat you down. This is an American forum where I can write freely, and this is what I read coming from Americans? "whats my interest in this?" "how will this benefit me?" You know this is wrong and you don't like it, yet you like it when you thing it is being done for good cause? The end justifies the means? That was a little bit off-topic, sorry mods. (will edit if looks like it will stir more off-topic) Krikkitone:What kind of peacekeeping mission is this? You are shooting at one side of a civil war. Giving tactical advantages to one side over the other. Financing one side, sending military advisors. This is not a peace keeping mission. This is a CIA-esque type mission to topple a regime ala South America. Your second paragraph, I don't understand very well. But, assuming NATO/US is a humanitarians organization, giving help where help is needed. Gaddafi called for a ceasefire 3 times already, they are being selective in giving aid here. What the fuck? Did I understand you correctly? If not: Assuming NATO/US is a humanitarian organization, selectively giving help. What are the criteria one must meet to be eligible? Not be a dictator. In a war there is no right or wrong. Only a winner. So what are the criteria a country or a struggle must meet to be eligible for "aid" from US/NATO? Money? People must pay for the muscle? Isn't this border line mercenary work? Giving a good intention cover doesn't change the truth if you think about it. Your last paragraph, I think I replied to it earlier in my response to HellRoxYa. zalz:How money do you have on the rebels team? Steroids are banned you know. NEWS: Show nested quote +
"Libya: White House dashes rebel hopes of recognition"
The statement comes after the first visit to the White House by a senior member of the rebel council, which is pushing for international support.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi taunted Nato troops in an audio message on state TV, saying he was in a place where they "cannot reach" him.
State media says 11 Muslim clerics have been killed in a Nato air strike.
Mahmoud Jibril, deputy leader of the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC), met officials at the White House on Friday, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
'You can't kill me'
In a statement, the White House said Mr Donilon had told Mr Jibril that the US viewed the council as "a legitimate and credible interlocutor of the Libyan people".
The US and Britain have not recognised the NTC as the true government of Libya - in contrast to France, Italy and Qatar.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Thursday that such a step would be "premature".
Col Muammar Gaddafi (8 March 2011) A Libyan government spokesman said Col Gaddafi was in very good health and high spirits
The US has said it is up to the Libyans to decide their government, not foreign powers.
There was some encouragement on Friday, however, for rebel hopes of accessing seized Libyan regime assets.
Mr Carney said the US was working with Congress to unblock some of the more than $30bn (£18.5bn) in frozen funds, so it could be used to aid the rebels.
Six large blasts - believed to have been Nato air strikes - were heard in the Libyan capital Tripoli late on Friday and early on Saturday morning.
They followed Libyan state TV's broadcast of an audio message by Col Gaddafi, pouring scorn on the alliance.
The Libyan leader thanked those outside Libya who had "expressed deep and strong concern, enthusiasm and love for me by carrying out all these contacts to enquire about my safety after hearing about the crusader, cowardly and treacherous missile attack".
"I say to the crusader cowards that I live in a place that you cannot reach and kill me in it because I live in the hearts of the millions," he added.
"Immortality is for the martyrs, and death, infamy and disgrace are for the treacherous agents and their cowardly masters."
Italy's foreign minister said earlier on Friday that Col Gaddafi had probably been wounded in Thursday's air strike on his Bab al-Aziziya compound and had fled Tripoli.
Earlier on Friday, state TV reported a Nato strike hit a boarding house in the eastern city of Brega, killing 11 imams and wounding 45 people.
A government spokesman said the victims were part of a larger group who had travelled to the government-held town from across Libya seeking peace talks in rebel-held Benghazi.
But rebel officials in Benghazi insisted there were no civilians at all in Brega, while a Nato spokesman said he did not know anything about an attack in Brega.
Source.I think this is a +1 from me to the American administration for not recognizing the NTC. The government is taking a prudent approach and I fully agree with that. However, the talk about funds being unblocked to aid rebels is a bit sketchy. What is aid? That is a very broad term and terms like these are never used in businesses unless there's a catch. To give you an example: the aid that the US gives to Egypt as per the peace treaty with Israel (not "i love you aid") is estimated at 1.3b$ a year. What is that aid you ask? not money, not exchange of professional experiences, not exchange in education. NOPE. It is basically military equipment spare parts at ridiculous price mark up. So I ask you, what if the aid is arming the rebels (which you of course agree with). What do you think will happen after Gaddafi is over? The rebels are just gonna give up arms? Or will there be armed political parties (hezbollah). Egypt is still facing daily protests with some becoming deadly clashes. Don't you think this might happen in Libya? What if that happens and these people are armed? Will the peace keeping mission be extended? Who supplied these weapons? Don't think for a second that US/NATO don't know that! They do, look at your daily news to know. They have experience in that that is still not over. I would advise against any blanket aid statements and I really think you should think a lot about what I just said before replying to this part in particular. Lastly I want to end with this: "If a national opposition movement is unable to topple an oppressive regime in it country, then it is wrong to say that it can rule the country"
As for your last quote... what defines "its" country. The rebels were able to topple Tripoli's power in several different cities. Should we therefore partition it? (and prevent the rebel forces in one city from aiding neighboring cities?)
And I will counter with the US-French example, you might be able to say that the US was not able to govern the territory (Civil War ~80 years later) but we would not have toppled the 'local oppressive regme without foreign intervention.
Perhaps I should counter with
"If a government is unable to defend itself from foreign aggression, then it is wrong to say it can rule the country"[not saying I'd totally agree with that statement, but It is just as good as your quote]
And as for your mercenary comment, it is possible to be a principled mercenary. How many soldiers in the Egyptian(or any) army would fight without pay?
Do you think if Any country was invaded that the army might not pull some of their forces back from towns that it might not be able to defend successfully, so as to more successfully defend others?
Basically Group A is getting involved in a dispute between Groups B and C. instead of between groups D and E.
Members of group A could have MULTIPLE reasons for choosing one and not the other.
The fact that one involvent is apparently easier to get involved in (costs them less) the fact that in one dispute they are less neutral about the result (either because they in principle support one side more OR stand to gain more from one side) OR because they believe they can have a bigger imapct on the result.
All of those factors come into play.
As for armed political parties... that is good, as long as they are not using those arms. Unless those arms Need to be used to get a better government.
"If a government cannot secure the peaceful support of an armed populace, then it is wrong to say it can rule the country" [not saying I'd totally agree with that statement, but It is just as good as your quote]
Changes in government really stink... but that is a subdivision of the rule that ALL change is bad, the only benefit is that you can't have something better without change.
However, I definitely agree that extending the degree of involvement to ground troops in Libya would be a BAD idea (partition Might be Far better..ironically given his suggestion for Switzerland).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
