|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 08 2011 05:38 Pika Chu wrote:
I for one am against any kind of foreign intervention in Libya.
Right now it is a war in Libya, there aren't protests anymore, not a revolution anymore, just plain war. That's what happens when both sides are using arms. That's something we (people from the outside who are getting emotional reading a thread and seeing images) need to understand. We were all full of indignation when we saw peaceful protesters in Egypt being shot at and hit with rocks and etc, but this isn't the same situation.
I fail to understand your reasoning. Mubarak didn't send his fighter planes on his own people. It was peaceful protesting, until the Gaddafi decided he wanted to shoot all the protesters. And what is your definition of revolution? Was the American Revolutionary War not a revolution?
Revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
I'd consider Libya attempting to undergo a revolution as we speak.
|
On March 08 2011 05:38 Pika Chu wrote:
Right now it is a war in Libya, there aren't protests anymore, not a revolution anymore, just plain war. That's what happens when both sides are using arms. That's something we (people from the outside who are getting emotional reading a thread and seeing images) need to understand. We were all full of indignation when we saw peaceful protesters in Egypt being shot at and hit with rocks and etc, but this isn't the same situation.
It was exactly the same situation right up to the point Gaffadi tried shooting, then airstriking the protesters. Trying to imply some sort of false equivalence between the insurgents and Gaffadi is absurd.
I'd have no problems whatsoever with supplying arms to Libyan insurgents at this point, there's plenty of precedents for this kind of action, the US Revolutionary War included (the US would never have beaten Britain without French munitions). I do have problems with sending troops in directly because it would completely taint the insurgent movement, we're despised with good reason over there.
I'm divided over the no-fly zone. But if the revolutionaries absolutely require it, I'd probably support it.
|
Sorry i was thinking of peaceful revolution, kind of we seen in Tunisia or Egypt.
|
Any western interference is highly problematic. Whatever the US do might be seen as an attempt to extend their influence in the area, which will only support anti-western tendencies. The most that could reasonably be done is enforcing a no-fly zone without ever setting foot on Libyan soil, which serves to limit civilian casualties. But even that must be considered only with a mandate from both the UN and the Arab League. The safer choice is perhaps not to interfere at all and let the Arabs solve their problems themselves. Then again, with protests currently going on in many Arab countries, that may be too much to ask.
|
Pika Chu, the fight is quite uneven! The only reason the Rebels are winning is because it's a guerilla warfare and because they have some sort of coordination, supplying themselves in ammo and weapons (since many officers defected from the army to join the rebellion).
But still, they're armed with rocket-launchers, kalachnikovs and knives!
Ghadaffi, on the other hand, has something like 2500 tanks, MIGs and Mirage + helicopters, a few "elite" troops (how well trained they are, we do not know, this isn't Egypt) and a whole bunch of mercenaries!
Ghadaffi's troops never hesitate to shoot civilians, going as far as using ambulances to hide fighters and kill anyone they see, men, women and children!
Today, his troops blew a stock of medical equipment, for example; this isn't a war, it truly is a rebellion, since it's not a government against another.
If it was a war, then why would Ghadaffi's son state that his father needs to remain at the head of the country to avoid a civil war?
|
On March 08 2011 05:58 Pika Chu wrote:
Sorry i was thinking of peaceful revolution, kind of we seen in Tunisia or Egypt.
What happened in Tunisia and Egypt wasnt peaceful by any means..
|
10:21pm
A polticial activist told Al Jazeera that eight people were killed and more than 20 wounded in Az Zawiayh. He said today's attacks on the city were the fiercest so far. He said government forces cannot retake the city because the vast majority of the residents are supporting the rebels.
10:08pm
Reuters reports: Gulf states called for a no-fly zone to be imposed in Libya, and for an urgent Arab
League meeting to discuss the situation in the North African country, according to a statement released by their foreign ministers.
Also AJE is back up.
|
Apparently news is Breaking that Gaddafi has considered resigning:
Al Jazeera television reported on Monday that Muammar Gaddafi has proposed to Libyan rebels to hold a meeting of the country's parliament to pave the way for him to step down with certain guarantees.
I don't believe it for a second as this is a man who has been bombing and shooting civilians for several weeks now. Sounds like a trap.
|
On March 08 2011 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Apparently news is Breaking that Gaddafi has considered resigning: Show nested quote +
Al Jazeera television reported on Monday that Muammar Gaddafi has proposed to Libyan rebels to hold a meeting of the country's parliament to pave the way for him to step down with certain guarantees.
I don't believe it for a second as this is a man who has been bombing and shooting civilians for several weeks now. Sounds like a trap.
Win-win situation for Gaddafi really, either successful trap, or he looks good to some people if the rebels deny the request. Of course there's the random possibility that he is sincere... perhaps disagreement among his top backers?
|
|
|
Good article on why a no-fly zone is a huge undertaking
Gen. John P. Jumper, who served as Air Force chief of staff from 2001 to 2005 and commanded all Air Force missions in the Middle East from 1994 to 1996, said past flight-denial missions over Iraq proved that requirements reach far beyond the jet fighters and bombers that are the most obvious instruments of carrying out a presidential order.
The destruction of Libyan air-defense radars and missile batteries would be required, perhaps using missiles launched from submarines or warships. A vast fleet of tankers would be needed to refuel warplanes. Search-and-rescue teams trained in land and sea operations would be on hand in case a plane went down.
The fleet of aircraft needed for such a mission would easily reach into the hundreds. Given the size of such a mission, it would be expected that American and NATO bases in Europe would be used, and that an American aircraft carrier would be positioned off Libya.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?ref=world
|
Rebel advance has slowed at Bin Jawad.
Also off topic comment but AJE's Tony Birtley is an amazing reporter he is on the front line reporting while fighting goes on around him in Libya, not to mention he also reported from Sri Lanka in the last months of the Civil War there on the front lines as well which was extremely dangerous no other reporter dared to such a thing but he does.
|
Russian Federation76 Posts
I havent been following this thread but ive decided to throw in what ive seen on news and blogs n such.
Please assume this: America has a govermental system compared to that of lybia
One thing that everyone seems to have down as a concrete fact is that there are protests in libya
however from here facts start to diverge or get morphed by opinion i belive. i wana try and paint a hypothetical example in USA because that where i live and everyone here sprechens english.
Imagin civilians start to riot in cities all across the country with the goal of overthrowing the goverment and changing their leader.
Look at it from the goverments and loyal to goverments citizens posiition. people are standing up and threatening your way of life that you were content with. for the goverment these protestors are threatening stablity. As soon as this happens these people are treated as a threat. now im not talking about enemy combatant threat but a threat nontheless.
Since the protests of these people are very distracting and a huge problem they are not doing anything to further their cause of govermental change
the goverment wont use lethal force on its protesters. there will be riot police set up to protect key bridges building and people. there will be attempts to dispurse the crouds but nothing really will change.
Now put guns into the arms of the rioters. It doesnt matter if they recive them from aid, from captureing stockpiles or from defectors these rioters are armed and now they have a real threat to the govement and its people.
this is what has happened in libya.
These are no longer nice peaceful harmless civilians these are combatants by choice. they wear no regulare military atire and are represented by no one. they are terrorists. by geneva convention they are illigal and have no rights. execution and torture is acceptable.
So now back to scenerio. cities are ocupied by armed mobs. they fire on goverment buildings and police. they start to actually remove all govermental control. some military units probably defect to and this is a civil war. from the goverments point it is their duty to stop this upriseing and bring peace. this cant be done if the armed people dont want to stop and put down their weapons.
The goverment has no choice but to use force to remove these armed mobs from its cities and streats. if they dont put their weapons down they are a DIRECT threat and will be shot and killed. they will be bombed because this is no longer a friendly riot but a war.
these are my thoughts. I am Russian and am living in america. my english has greatly improved but i still have problems. sorry.
i am just frustrated that when you turn on cnn and u see civilians being bombs. they are not civilians when they pick up a gun against their goverment.
|
On March 08 2011 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Apparently news is Breaking that Gaddafi has considered resigning: Show nested quote +
Al Jazeera television reported on Monday that Muammar Gaddafi has proposed to Libyan rebels to hold a meeting of the country's parliament to pave the way for him to step down with certain guarantees.
I don't believe it for a second as this is a man who has been bombing and shooting civilians for several weeks now. Sounds like a trap.
The man is not stepping down.
This man freaking ruled absolutely for 40+ years. (Not to mention he is also insane)
No way in hell he is resigning or stepping down.
|
On March 08 2011 05:58 Pika Chu wrote:
Sorry i was thinking of peaceful revolution, kind of we seen in Tunisia or Egypt.
peaceful?
i am puzzled......
|
On March 08 2011 11:06 Mimic wrote:
I havent been following this thread but ive decided to throw in what ive seen on news and blogs n such.
Please assume this: America has a govermental system compared to that of lybia
One thing that everyone seems to have down as a concrete fact is that there are protests in libya
however from here facts start to diverge or get morphed by opinion i belive. i wana try and paint a hypothetical example in USA because that where i live and everyone here sprechens english.
Imagin civilians start to riot in cities all across the country with the goal of overthrowing the goverment and changing their leader.
Look at it from the goverments and loyal to goverments citizens posiition. people are standing up and threatening your way of life that you were content with. for the goverment these protestors are threatening stablity. As soon as this happens these people are treated as a threat. now im not talking about enemy combatant threat but a threat nontheless.
Since the protests of these people are very distracting and a huge problem they are not doing anything to further their cause of govermental change
the goverment wont use lethal force on its protesters. there will be riot police set up to protect key bridges building and people. there will be attempts to dispurse the crouds but nothing really will change.
Now put guns into the arms of the rioters. It doesnt matter if they recive them from aid, from captureing stockpiles or from defectors these rioters are armed and now they have a real threat to the govement and its people.
this is what has happened in libya.
These are no longer nice peaceful harmless civilians these are combatants by choice. they wear no regulare military atire and are represented by no one. they are terrorists. by geneva convention they are illigal and have no rights. execution and torture is acceptable.
So now back to scenerio. cities are ocupied by armed mobs. they fire on goverment buildings and police. they start to actually remove all govermental control. some military units probably defect to and this is a civil war. from the goverments point it is their duty to stop this upriseing and bring peace. this cant be done if the armed people dont want to stop and put down their weapons.
The goverment has no choice but to use force to remove these armed mobs from its cities and streats. if they dont put their weapons down they are a DIRECT threat and will be shot and killed. they will be bombed because this is no longer a friendly riot but a war.
these are my thoughts. I am Russian and am living in america. my english has greatly improved but i still have problems. sorry.
i am just frustrated that when you turn on cnn and u see civilians being bombs. they are not civilians when they pick up a gun against their goverment.
I respect your post here and your point of view. However, I strongly disagree with you. I mean, I could not disagree with you more. Victor Hugo once said "When despotism is a fact, revolution becomes a right." These people have a natural right to criticize, protest and revolt! This is right given to them by social contract, by God or nature. To call them terrorist and a mob is to mock their sacrifice and to belittle the horrors of their conditions.
|
Russian Federation76 Posts
On March 08 2011 11:16 slyboogie wrote:
I respect your post here and your point of view. However, I strongly disagree with you. I mean, I could not disagree with you more. Victor Hugo once said "When despotism is a fact, revolution becomes a right." These people have a natural right to criticize, protest and revolt! This is right given to them by social contract, by God or nature. To call them terrorist and a mob is to mock their sacrifice and to belittle the horrors of their conditions.
all people have a right to chnage their govement but not to do so by putting other people in danger.
As soon as they become anything more then a protesting mob unarmed that is when they become a danger and that is when they are made to sacrafice so that the rest can live in peace
|
On March 08 2011 11:22 Mimic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 11:16 slyboogie wrote:
I respect your post here and your point of view. However, I strongly disagree with you. I mean, I could not disagree with you more. Victor Hugo once said "When despotism is a fact, revolution becomes a right." These people have a natural right to criticize, protest and revolt! This is right given to them by social contract, by God or nature. To call them terrorist and a mob is to mock their sacrifice and to belittle the horrors of their conditions. all people have a right to chnage their govement but not to do so by putting other people in danger.
What about when the government is putting people in danger by gunning down innocents?
|
On March 08 2011 11:06 Mimic wrote:
i am just frustrated that when you turn on cnn and u see civilians being bombs. they are not civilians when they pick up a gun against their goverment.
True they are no longer civilians. But they are a military force fighting a war. And as such it is reasonable for the military forces of other nations to get involved if the war is deemed as justifiable.
Quite frankly, I'm glad that Frace meddled in England's internal affairs ~230 years ago.
If if it justifiable for country A to defend itself against aggression from Country B, then it is also justifiable for Country C to help Country A.
As you mentioned, the rebels are no longer civilians they are the military forces of one government defending themselves against the military forces of another.
|
On March 08 2011 11:06 Mimic wrote:
Since the protests of these people are very distracting and a huge problem they are not doing anything to further their cause of govermental change
The only way for protests to cause government change is to be distracting.
A non-distracting protest can easily be ignored.
the goverment wont use lethal force on its protesters. there will be riot police set up to protect key bridges building and people. there will be attempts to dispurse the crouds but nothing really will change.
This government started out by firing at protestors. With live ammunition. Once a government resorts to that, it completely loses legitimacy.
As a Russian, I am surprised that your position perfectly tries to justify repressions similar to those performed by the communists throughout Warsaw Pact states in the previous century.
Libya isn't a democracy. You can't vote a despot out of power. His power does not come from popular support, but from the use of force. Force is the only thing a despot recognises. There is no other alternative for those people for regime change. Unlike, say, there is in the United States.
When no alternative (Other then continuing to be the victims of repression) exists, you can't condemn people for violent protest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
