|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 19 2011 11:15 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 10:50 Disquiet wrote:On March 19 2011 08:54 Taguchi wrote:On March 19 2011 08:30 Pika Chu wrote:
Taguchi, oil is just one of the factors, and after some countries openly supported the rebbelion i doubt Gaddafi would sell them oil at the same decent price.
Anyway in a war there are much important places to make money. Rebuilding is why a war is so profitable, invading countries will get very big contracts on rebuilding the country after war... infrastructure and everything.
Do you see Iraq as an occupation? Do you also see it as a necessity? I see it as both. I don't want the same to Libya, ok we take down the dictator, but what do we do if we find out it's unstable (giving the tribe organization culture) and we need to sit around for decades to babysit them so it doesn't turn out in a civil war. You think we can leave if that happens? No we can't, unless it's very stable us leaving means very much blood on our hands, more than letting them sort it out themselves right now. i just see the intervention in libya as the morally correct thing to do and i dont see how on earth anyone can argue on this point, given what gaddafi has said and done in the last few weeks i also believe it took that long for the americans to decide to get involved precisely because they saw no great profit out of it france and england have far greater ties to the region and can thus profit the most from rebuilding etc (so they pushed for intervention more than the others) from a moral perspective, the libyan situation seems clear cut from an economic/political perspective its a bit more jumbled hopefully the westerners will decide that befriending the arab nations is be better than supporting oppressive dictators (or not, when u look at bahrain, or the time it took to ask for mubarak to step down, but this is an ongoing situation so there is still hope) the bottom line is never going to involve morality in international affairs, but when morality and the money trail coincide, why the hell argue? You really think the rebels will be any better than gaddafi? This is as much about tribe vs tribe as it is removing a corrupt dictator. I don't know if you know but in the past gaddafi was the one leading the rebellion to remove a dictator, and look how that turned out. Furthermore I don't expect peace to come to libya for a long time. There was a chance if gaddafi crushed the rebellion but if the rebels win... well lets just say there are a lot of gaddafi loyalists, who will no doubt continue to fight. All I see the UN having done is extend a long and bloody civil war by helping the losing side. so the preferable solution to a possibly long and bloody civil war (it still could turn out for the better) would be a short and bloody massacre (gaddafi expressly promised this to his rivals just a couple days ago)? we dont know how the rebels will turn out, its entirely possible they'll become the new taliban in a few decades' time (or they could grow to become a modern state, they sure have the money flow available to do that) we do know what gaddafi is, by word and deed, and its no good the UN is giving those people a chance, which is good we will see in the next few days/weeks how things will turn out
I agree that gaddafi cannot be allowed to win especially now that the west has acted against him he will surely sponsor as much terrorism as he can if he wins.
However I do hate the UNs hypocritical rhetoric of "save the civilians". They should have either stayed out of it or gone in with a full invasion and helped one side end the war as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. This no fly zone is a half measure which will not save the civilians but rather just even the battlefield, probably leading to a long bloody war, in which many many people will die. The rebels consist of many different disorganized factions and I wouldn't be surprised if they commit equal atrocities on civilians in cities loyal to gaddafi.
Besides if gaddafi still wins the west will probably have to invade anyway, I don't see the point of this no fly zone.
|
AFP reporting air strikes south-west of Benghazi #Libya, no detail on where report is from though.
|
On March 19 2011 14:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +AFP reporting air strikes south-west of Benghazi #Libya, no detail on where report is from though.
nato airstrikes?
|
On March 19 2011 14:47 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 14:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:AFP reporting air strikes south-west of Benghazi #Libya, no detail on where report is from though. nato airstrikes?
I would be surprised if it was. The meeting in Paris has not happened yet.
AFP report their journalists seeing a plane bomb area south-west of Benghazi & two columns of smoke in the area
|
I don't like US involvement in this. It is pretty much a no-win situation.
Gaddafi has promised "terrorist strikes" if foreign nations intervene.Which means that if we drop so much as one bomb, we're "all-in" - permanently invested in the rebels winning the civil war. We can't allow them to lose. Odds are the ultimate result will be either terrorist attacks sponsored by Gaddafi, or American boots on the ground because the rebels can't end the war.
We do not need another war. Afghanistan has no end in sight and we JUST got out of Iraq. As horrible as it sounds, Libya's problems are Libya's problems, and they have to sort them out themselves. The same people complaining that the US should do something today will be calling us imperialist dogs and foreign invaders a few months from now if shit gets real.
The last decade should have taught us something: we don't have the means or the moral authority to make everyone in the Middle East get along.
|
|
|
On March 19 2011 14:54 brain_ wrote:
I don't like US involvement in this. It is pretty much a no-win situation.
Gaddafi has promised "terrorist strikes" if foreign nations intervene.Which means that if we drop so much as one bomb, we're "all-in" - permanently invested in the rebels winning the civil war. We can't allow them to lose. Odds are the ultimate result will be either terrorist attacks sponsored by Gaddafi, or American boots on the ground because the rebels can't end the war.
We do not need another war. Afghanistan has no end in sight and we JUST got out of Iraq. As horrible as it sounds, Libya's problems are Libya's problems, and they have to sort them out themselves. The same people complaining that the US should do something today will be calling us imperialist dogs and foreign invaders a few months from now if shit gets real.
The last decade should have taught us something: we don't have the means or the moral authority to make everyone in the Middle East get along.
So the Iraq and Afghan wars was just to make people in the Middle East get along ? :/
|
Paris meeting is due to start at 13 GMT.
+ Show Spoiler +ugh... so tired won't be able to hear any breaking news about it.
|
Interesting article on UN intervention in Libya.
Article
|
On March 19 2011 15:14 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 14:54 brain_ wrote:
I don't like US involvement in this. It is pretty much a no-win situation.
Gaddafi has promised "terrorist strikes" if foreign nations intervene.Which means that if we drop so much as one bomb, we're "all-in" - permanently invested in the rebels winning the civil war. We can't allow them to lose. Odds are the ultimate result will be either terrorist attacks sponsored by Gaddafi, or American boots on the ground because the rebels can't end the war.
We do not need another war. Afghanistan has no end in sight and we JUST got out of Iraq. As horrible as it sounds, Libya's problems are Libya's problems, and they have to sort them out themselves. The same people complaining that the US should do something today will be calling us imperialist dogs and foreign invaders a few months from now if shit gets real.
The last decade should have taught us something: we don't have the means or the moral authority to make everyone in the Middle East get along. So the Iraq and Afghan wars was just to make people in the Middle East get along ? :/
No, they were started for different reasons (whatever those reasons were). But essentially our mission once we were there was to make everyone place nice and stop killing each other (and us). That proved much harder than anyone anticipated.
|
The meeting in Paris cannot dictate when to enforce the no fly zone as Benghazi is being shelled and bombed right now!
on roof of hotel. shelling towards the airport now, columns of smoke in the distance. Gaddafi's ceasefire a sham #libya #benghazi
#AlJazeera reporter says that there are now artillery attacks on Gamal Abdel Nasser street in central #Benghazi
#AJA #Breaking Forces loyal to #Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi enter rebel-held city of Benghazi
Reports from #AlJazeera reporter in #Benghazi that pro-#Gaddafi forces entered the suburbs of #Benghazi in #Libya
|
|
|
Khadafi said something about the Libyan Air Force being grounded, I guess he was right.
They need to get moving soon.
|
|
|
Liberalism. And not in a political sense. Whatever it takes
|
|
|
Well...if you're going to break international laws on warfare, you might as well break them big.
Hold the line!
|
On March 19 2011 15:21 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 15:14 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 19 2011 14:54 brain_ wrote:
I don't like US involvement in this. It is pretty much a no-win situation.
Gaddafi has promised "terrorist strikes" if foreign nations intervene.Which means that if we drop so much as one bomb, we're "all-in" - permanently invested in the rebels winning the civil war. We can't allow them to lose. Odds are the ultimate result will be either terrorist attacks sponsored by Gaddafi, or American boots on the ground because the rebels can't end the war.
We do not need another war. Afghanistan has no end in sight and we JUST got out of Iraq. As horrible as it sounds, Libya's problems are Libya's problems, and they have to sort them out themselves. The same people complaining that the US should do something today will be calling us imperialist dogs and foreign invaders a few months from now if shit gets real.
The last decade should have taught us something: we don't have the means or the moral authority to make everyone in the Middle East get along. So the Iraq and Afghan wars was just to make people in the Middle East get along ? :/ No, they were started for different reasons (whatever those reasons were). But essentially our mission once we were there was to make everyone place nice and stop killing each other (and us). That proved much harder than anyone anticipated.
One important difference with iraq and afganistan is that there are rebels actively fighting the regime and they have asked for help. However, i still agree that there should be no invasion by nato. If we level the playing field by taking out the airforce, missiles etc, then the majority of the people can make happen what they want to happen imho - so we should definately do that.
|
If Gaddafi can get his forces into Benghazi before the UN can repel them then the rebels are fucked.
Air strikes are utterly useless in an urban landscape, let alone the press if they start bombing Benghazi themselves.
|
On March 19 2011 18:36 zalz wrote:
If Gaddafi can get his forces into Benghazi before the UN can repel them then the rebels are fucked.
Air strikes are utterly useless in an urban landscape, let alone the press if they start bombing Benghazi themselves.
All armies need resupply. UN airstrikes could hit the inevitable supply train that will be, well, supplying Gadaffi's offensive.
But yeah, if they take the city before the UN steps in...that's not good news.
Does anyone know if the UN resolution allows for the supply of Libyan insurgents with weapons? I know it allows for airstrikes as well as no-fly, but I don't know about this. If so, the UN could simply drop in a couple hundred rocket launchers and let the situation take care of itself in a short manner. Tanks don't do so well in urban environments against modern AT weaponry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liaq4n1rSF1qccsavo1_500.jpg)
