|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 12 2011 01:04 Boblion wrote:
Another Sarkozy gaffe, he is in a terrible situation with the elections coming next year so he wants to look like a "leader" (lol)
The situation will be extremely ankward for France if the rebellion gets crushed.
I mean what the point of recognising the rebel interim council if they don't help them ?
Just stay away or help for real lol.
Damn, i should run for the next elections.
Can't believe they didn't it that coming, what a bunch of inefficient clowns.
|
On March 15 2011 20:25 NEWater wrote:
"The best revolutions are organic." - Obama
What the fuck is wrong with Americans and this scintillating display of ignorance? The American revolution wasn't won by the colonists alone. There were French ships floating off Yorktown in the American revolution, German funds for Lenin, Soviet arms for Mao, and if I'm not wrong, William III of the revolution in England was a Dutchman!
Go fuck yourself, Obama. Revolutions aren't a fucking product from fucking Whole Foods where you feel better about yourself just because you didn't let some chicken die painfully. If you don't want to help Libya, just say so.
I mostly agree with this article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011310143920573136.html
Give it a read.
|
Gaddafi says in an interview showed on german TV that he is happy with the politic of germany regarding lybia (since they do block the no-fly zone even tho france and UK wanted it).
Way to go germany! I'm proud!
|
It seems to be a matter of time until the rebels are defeated, city after city is falling and soon they will be upon Benghazi.
I really doubt a no-fly zone would have saved them from tanks and trained soldiers.
|
If Gaddafi manages to reclaim the power and control of the country it's gonna be hell for those who opposed him.
It would be so tragic if they lost now, after getting a taste of freedom. 
|
On March 16 2011 21:18 Holgerius wrote:If Gaddafi manages to reclaim the power and control of the country it's gonna be hell for those who opposed him. It would be so tragic if they lost now, after getting a taste of freedom.
It's not like if the rebels win it's not going to be hell for those who were with Gaddafi. It's who on who.
I think even with this revolution taken down, it's still going to have a very big positive (in the long run) impact on the country and way of rule.
|
On March 16 2011 21:23 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 21:18 Holgerius wrote:If Gaddafi manages to reclaim the power and control of the country it's gonna be hell for those who opposed him. It would be so tragic if they lost now, after getting a taste of freedom. It's not like if the rebels win it's not going to be hell for those who were with Gaddafi. It's who on who. I think even with this revolution taken down, it's still going to have a very big positive (in the long run) impact on the country and way of rule.
Eh, that's extremely unlikely. Most failed revolutions regress authoritarian governments rather than reform them.
|
Also, pro-Ghadaffi weren't reallt important in numbers. They were quite a few in Tripoli it seems, but they had to send undercover policement to make it look like there was more people than there actually is.
On the other hand, Benhgazi will be wiped out to resolve the problem.
A no fly zone would've helped the rebels to leave eastern positions witouht worrying about air strikes... it might not be that effective but the pyschological effect seems very high since we saw many reports of Libyans begging for such measures.
|
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-16
8:23pm
More on the fighting in Ajdabiyah, where Reuters reports that "weary" government soldiers returning from the front lines told journalists that they were meeting "renewed resistance" from the rebels.
The rebels, meanwhile, appear confident of turning the tide, warning of "surprises".
"The fighting is fierce. His supply lines are stretched so he can't push on from Ajdabiyah. We've got some surprises in store. We're going to fight on and we're going to win," said Mustafa Gheiriani, a rebel spokesman in Benghazi.
|
On March 17 2011 06:06 Ilfirin wrote:http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-16Show nested quote +8:23pm
More on the fighting in Ajdabiyah, where Reuters reports that "weary" government soldiers returning from the front lines told journalists that they were meeting "renewed resistance" from the rebels.
The rebels, meanwhile, appear confident of turning the tide, warning of "surprises".
"The fighting is fierce. His supply lines are stretched so he can't push on from Ajdabiyah. We've got some surprises in store. We're going to fight on and we're going to win," said Mustafa Gheiriani, a rebel spokesman in Benghazi.
AJA correspondent in Libya confirms the Independence flag of #Libya was raised from the building of an important conference hall in Sirte.
AJA: Todays attacks on Misrata could have been to pave the way for supplies from Tripoli to Sirte after last night rebellion #Libya #Feb17
|
WASHINGTON — The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.
Wow, this is huge. Complete shift in policy. Many are saying a no fly zone might come too late, but actual aerial bombing of tanks and heavy artillery, I presume, would do substantially more, coming on top of a no fly zone. The article continues to say that it wouldn't just be the U.S. but would have to be an international coalition, including Libya's neighbors, which I agree with 100%. No reason we should be the sole people intervening - it's not our job to be the one in my opinion that goes in and changes things, - but if something is going to happen, it should be a joint effort from the global community to all come together and recognize the situation in Libya.
Source: NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/africa/17diplomacy.html
|
On March 17 2011 11:23 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone. Wow, this is huge. Complete shift in policy. Many are saying a no fly zone might come too late, but actual aerial bombing of tanks and heavy artillery, I presume, would do substantially more, coming on top of a no fly zone. The article continues to say that it wouldn't just be the U.S. but would have to be an international coalition, including Libya's neighbors, which I agree with 100%. No reason we should be the sole people intervening - it's not our job to be the one in my opinion that goes in and changes things, - but if something is going to happen, it should be a joint effort from the global community to all come together and recognize the situation in Libya. Source: NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/africa/17diplomacy.html
Well, I guess we can sit through watching the popular media turn this into a black and white war movie cliche.
|
United States1629 Posts
Hmm, it's a nice move, but Obama knows any security resolution like this will be vetoed out of hand by Russia and China. Didn't stop NATO in Yugoslavia, but it's a different world now.
|
On March 17 2011 13:19 Elegy wrote:
Hmm, it's a nice move, but Obama knows any security resolution like this will be vetoed out of hand by Russia and China. Didn't stop NATO in Yugoslavia, but it's a different world now.
I know little about the issue, but do you think the support of the Arab league in intervening and even participating in the coalition could change their minds? Or are they less concerned about what other countries think about intervention and more concerned about the international community supporting rebellions against rulers that don't grant many personal freedoms (ie. it might give their own peoples reason to rebel?).
I still don't understand why we even granted China the position when they limit rights and have extensive censorship. It's not like the UN is, at least in intention or stated purpose, meant to be the force to regulate the world economy. It's more on bringing nations together for peace and development (according to what I just googled, haha), which I feel that China nor Russia are massive promoters on peace.
|
On March 17 2011 18:14 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 13:19 Elegy wrote:
Hmm, it's a nice move, but Obama knows any security resolution like this will be vetoed out of hand by Russia and China. Didn't stop NATO in Yugoslavia, but it's a different world now. I know little about the issue, but do you think the support of the Arab league in intervening and even participating in the coalition could change their minds? Or are they less concerned about what other countries think about intervention and more concerned about the international community supporting rebellions against rulers that don't grant many personal freedoms (ie. it might give their own peoples reason to rebel?). I still don't understand why we even granted China the position when they limit rights and have extensive censorship. It's not like the UN is, at least in intention or stated purpose, meant to be the force to regulate the world economy. It's more on bringing nations together for peace and development (according to what I just googled, haha), which I feel that China nor Russia are massive promoters on peace.
Both of those nations have as much legitimacy on the UNSC as the United States does. Peace and development has always been second to pursuing American interests.
It's unfortunate that nobody has the political will or capital to intervene... but non-intervention from the West is hardly without precedent.
|
On March 17 2011 19:02 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 18:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 17 2011 13:19 Elegy wrote:
Hmm, it's a nice move, but Obama knows any security resolution like this will be vetoed out of hand by Russia and China. Didn't stop NATO in Yugoslavia, but it's a different world now. I know little about the issue, but do you think the support of the Arab league in intervening and even participating in the coalition could change their minds? Or are they less concerned about what other countries think about intervention and more concerned about the international community supporting rebellions against rulers that don't grant many personal freedoms (ie. it might give their own peoples reason to rebel?). I still don't understand why we even granted China the position when they limit rights and have extensive censorship. It's not like the UN is, at least in intention or stated purpose, meant to be the force to regulate the world economy. It's more on bringing nations together for peace and development (according to what I just googled, haha), which I feel that China nor Russia are massive promoters on peace. Both of those nations have as much legitimacy on the UNSC as the United States does. Peace and development has always been second to pursuing American interests. It's unfortunate that nobody has the political will or capital to intervene... but non-intervention from the West is hardly without precedent.
Well it's why I put emphasis on stated interest. Even if American interests take priority, there still exists a pressure for the United States to not prioritize their own interests and promote a better image of themselves (don't get me wrong, I know they've failed at it a lot of the time, pressure still exists) and NOT put their own interests first. China and Russia don't even try or even attempt to put the effort in to do that, I feel, so why should they even be part of? In other words, for the United States, being a member of something that states it promotes peace and development can at least force our hand or pressure us to do something - the same doesn't hold true for China/Russia.
Nonetheless I'd like to reiterate that I'm not the most well informed on this particular issue, so please don't respond saying "check your facts before posting nonsense" or something like that, but rather please just tell me nicely^^.
|
On March 17 2011 20:22 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 19:02 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 17 2011 18:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 17 2011 13:19 Elegy wrote:
Hmm, it's a nice move, but Obama knows any security resolution like this will be vetoed out of hand by Russia and China. Didn't stop NATO in Yugoslavia, but it's a different world now. I know little about the issue, but do you think the support of the Arab league in intervening and even participating in the coalition could change their minds? Or are they less concerned about what other countries think about intervention and more concerned about the international community supporting rebellions against rulers that don't grant many personal freedoms (ie. it might give their own peoples reason to rebel?). I still don't understand why we even granted China the position when they limit rights and have extensive censorship. It's not like the UN is, at least in intention or stated purpose, meant to be the force to regulate the world economy. It's more on bringing nations together for peace and development (according to what I just googled, haha), which I feel that China nor Russia are massive promoters on peace. Both of those nations have as much legitimacy on the UNSC as the United States does. Peace and development has always been second to pursuing American interests. It's unfortunate that nobody has the political will or capital to intervene... but non-intervention from the West is hardly without precedent. Well it's why I put emphasis on stated interest. Even if American interests take priority, there still exists a pressure for the United States to not prioritize their own interests and promote a better image of themselves (don't get me wrong, I know they've failed at it a lot of the time, pressure still exists) and NOT put their own interests first. China and Russia don't even try or even attempt to put the effort in to do that, I feel, so why should they even be part of? In other words, for the United States, being a member of something that states it promotes peace and development can at least force our hand or pressure us to do something - the same doesn't hold true for China/Russia. Nonetheless I'd like to reiterate that I'm not the most well informed on this particular issue, so please don't respond saying "check your facts before posting nonsense" or something like that, but rather please just tell me nicely^^.
The simple fact of the matter is that the US can't afford to take unilateral military action anymore. The nation has lost a lot of goodwill since the Iraq War. Eurasia (Russia and China) act as a counter-weight for US global influence. Many Middle-eastern countries are already turning toward the East for increased business and diplomatic, having long soured on the prospect of a genuine relationship with the US.
It's not good diplomacy to go around recklessly projecting one's military strength. You can bet that the US realizes that such actions alienate and agitate the rest of the world.
Despite it's current status as the world's sole military superpower, the US really can't afford to be without allies in the long run. Our military is already overextended and domestic issues dominate our politics.
Rest assured, despite what you may have been told, the US always puts its own interests first - like every sovereign nation.
|
On March 17 2011 20:51 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 20:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 17 2011 19:02 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 17 2011 18:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 17 2011 13:19 Elegy wrote:
Hmm, it's a nice move, but Obama knows any security resolution like this will be vetoed out of hand by Russia and China. Didn't stop NATO in Yugoslavia, but it's a different world now. I know little about the issue, but do you think the support of the Arab league in intervening and even participating in the coalition could change their minds? Or are they less concerned about what other countries think about intervention and more concerned about the international community supporting rebellions against rulers that don't grant many personal freedoms (ie. it might give their own peoples reason to rebel?). I still don't understand why we even granted China the position when they limit rights and have extensive censorship. It's not like the UN is, at least in intention or stated purpose, meant to be the force to regulate the world economy. It's more on bringing nations together for peace and development (according to what I just googled, haha), which I feel that China nor Russia are massive promoters on peace. Both of those nations have as much legitimacy on the UNSC as the United States does. Peace and development has always been second to pursuing American interests. It's unfortunate that nobody has the political will or capital to intervene... but non-intervention from the West is hardly without precedent. Well it's why I put emphasis on stated interest. Even if American interests take priority, there still exists a pressure for the United States to not prioritize their own interests and promote a better image of themselves (don't get me wrong, I know they've failed at it a lot of the time, pressure still exists) and NOT put their own interests first. China and Russia don't even try or even attempt to put the effort in to do that, I feel, so why should they even be part of? In other words, for the United States, being a member of something that states it promotes peace and development can at least force our hand or pressure us to do something - the same doesn't hold true for China/Russia. Nonetheless I'd like to reiterate that I'm not the most well informed on this particular issue, so please don't respond saying "check your facts before posting nonsense" or something like that, but rather please just tell me nicely^^. The simple fact of the matter is that the US can't afford to take unilateral military action anymore. The nation has lost a lot of goodwill since the Iraq War. Eurasia (Russia and China) act as a counter-weight for US global influence. Many Middle-eastern countries are already turning toward the East for increased business and diplomatic, having long soured on the prospect of a genuine relationship with the US. It's not good diplomacy to go around recklessly projecting one's military strength. You can bet that the US realizes that such actions alienate and agitate the rest of the world. Despite it's current status as the world's sole military superpower, the US really can't afford to be without allies in the long run. Our military is already overextended and domestic issues dominate our politics. Rest assured, despite what you may have been told, the US always puts its own interests first - like every sovereign nation.
I never said it was good diplomacy to go "recklessly" projecting one's military strength, but is it not a different situation if it is not just the U.S., but rather an internationally led coalition that collective will take responsibility for the actions, and that include neighboring states? I agree that the U.S. shouldn't intervene alone, but I highlighted in the article that clearly the Obama administration has the same mentality, so I don't understand why it's exactly relevant.
The US always puts its own interests first, but my point was that the a lot of the time it is within the US's best interest to do the "right" thing in terms of public image even if it at an economical cost. In other words, the pressure to promote global peace/human rights is severe enough on the United States in some situations that it becomes in the best interest of the United States to take possible economic hits to [attempt to] keep a positive public image, or whatever else. (For example, intervening in Libya from an economical standpoint to the U.S. seems stupid as we aren't invested significantly in the region, but as a touted promoter of democracy and human rights, we are pressured into intervening, lest we look hypocritical and lose prestige/public image, etc.).
China doesn't even state that they support all the peace/rights we do - thus without making those claims they can't be held accountable to the actions, there's no pressure for them, no "audience costs," etc. Why the fuck are they on it? Economic reasons, which I don't believe is supposed to play a role (but as I've constantly stated, it's 100% assumption)?
TL;dr: Yes every sovereign country acts in it's own best interest. However, the U.S. is more deserving of a spot because it has pressures to promote peace/human rights, and highly values its image on the global scene (sounds like a joke, true nonetheless). China has never touted itself as a promoter of human rights/democracy/etc. and thus has no pressure to vote certain ways out of fear of being called hypocrites.
|
What Consolidate said, just because the US dresses their interest in a beautiful white coat while Russia or China just won't put some make-up on it doesn't mean any of them is better.
And if you think public opinion can only push (a bit or more) US's interest what are your arguments? Russia's public opinion can push it just as well. And let's not forget the media (which is finally making that public opinion) can be used by governments for it's purpose. How come in this century we still believe in mass-media protecting our interests and being fair and wanting to do good.
What i see here and dislike is a certain double standard case, public opinion is first angered about the gulf states intervening in Bahrain but then same public opinion calls for intervention in Libya. Ok i understand the difference of intervening on the side of the government (in bahrain) against the rebels and vice versa in Libya, but the principle is a big problem and we shouldn't be as hasty with the relativity of ethics.
|
United States1629 Posts
While I don't really have time to comment on all of the above points, suffice it to say that the Security Council is not, nor was it ever truly intended, to be a force for humanitarian ideals or anything like that. It's meant to provide a forum for the world's major powers to stop conflict and give an "executive" arm for the (ostensible) purpose of preventing warfare, and by extension it necessarily involves itself in related matters. For the United Nations Security Council to not include the, by far, dominant power of an entire continent and a major player in the world power system would mean the (and I hesitate to use this language) highest form of international authority and law would be nothing more than a collection of former colonizers and their American backer.
edit: Directed at BFME PRO Fabled lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
