EPTLibyan Uprising - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
| ||
|
SpiritAshura
United States1271 Posts
| ||
|
ChrisXIV
Austria3553 Posts
On February 22 2011 05:12 MangoTango wrote: The Arab world is coming apart at the seams. Here's to democracy, with the minimum (none, hopefully) of bloodshed. No bloodshed - too late for that. al-Gaddafi may or may have not left the country already, but his troops are still fighting the protesters. The only hope I have right know is that it ends fast, before it escalates even more. | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
Seriously that guy is crack! | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On February 22 2011 05:06 Rflcrx wrote: Why isn't anybody reacting? Doesn't the US or UK airbases/carriers nearby? What are they waiting for? Blow any libyan military plane out of the sky..I really don't see what they are waiting for, it drives me mad. Because starting a war with Libya might not be such a good idea. Not to mention that I don't think the Arabian countries want ANY western influences whatsoever right now(can't blame them really) | ||
|
BeJe77
United States377 Posts
1). How far Gaddafi takes the bloodshed. As he has already authorized the ground troops to shoot the protesters, has airplanes do bombing runs in his capital and have the navy open fire on people. You'd guess it, that man wants to create so much bloodshed/fear that the people would be subdued. If the people go back to their homes, there will be a lot of future problems for them, probably more control and harsher penalties. 2). The people continue to protest, even more rise up due to the bloodshed and we might have a civil war in the country for the next 5-10 years. I'm pretty sure Gaddafi will pull out as much money/assets as he can and chill in some country living the good life, while supporting his supporters in Libya to continue to fight/cause havoc.... | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On February 22 2011 05:29 BeJe77 wrote: Well, this uprising just depends on a few things. 1). How far Gaddafi takes the bloodshed. As he has already authorized the ground troops to shoot the protesters, has airplanes do bombing runs in his capital and have the navy open fire on people. You'd guess it, that man wants to create so much bloodshed/fear that the people would be subdued. If the people go back to their homes, there will be a lot of future problems for them, probably more control and harsher penalties. 2). The people continue to protest, even more rise up due to the bloodshed and we might have a civil war in the country for the next 5-10 years. I'm pretty sure Gaddafi will pull out as much money/assets as he can and chill in some country living the good life, while supporting his supporters in Libya to continue to fight/cause havoc.... Well #1 is NOT how far Gaddafi takes the bloodshed... as you mentioned he has already authorized complete use of military force... it is how far the Military/Police take the bloodshed | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
If senior Gaddafi has left for Venezuela then it's ending, he's the only one who had authority, i don't believe the army will listen to his sons. | ||
|
ziggymondais
United States238 Posts
Tunisia and Egypt are putting together hospitals on the borders to take care of people. The big deal with the fighter jets landing in Malta is that it gives the UN the green light to get involved since planes flying out of Libya make the revolution an international issue instead of a domestic issue. | ||
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
On February 22 2011 05:28 Kipsate wrote: Because starting a war with Libya might not be such a good idea. Not to mention that I don't think the Arabian countries want ANY western influences whatsoever right now(can't blame them really) Who said anything about starting a war? Just enforce a no fly zone. The libyan airforce should be no match for Nato-forces. I don't think anybody in any arabian country or in any country in the world can protest/be against shooting down planes that bombard civilians. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22260 Posts
On February 22 2011 06:04 Rflcrx wrote: Who said anything about starting a war? Just enforce a no fly zone. The libyan airforce should be no match for Nato-forces. I don't think anybody in any arabian country or in any country in the world can protest/be against shooting down planes that bombard civilians. Yeah... I can see the US or any other country officially staying out of it, but the UN should be all over this. | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
On February 22 2011 06:04 Rflcrx wrote: Who said anything about starting a war? Just enforce a no fly zone. The libyan airforce should be no match for Nato-forces. I don't think anybody in any arabian country or in any country in the world can protest/be against shooting down planes that bombard civilians. The danger with the west getting involved at all is these are currently pro-west dictatorships that are being challenged. If we meddle in any way with another revolution there's a very good chance it all gets rejected as just another bid for pro-western absolute power. We want to be "on the side" of the people without pissing them all off and avoid reminding them that we helped cement their troubles in the first place. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On February 22 2011 05:50 ziggymondais wrote: The twitter feed from @SultanAlQassemi is just amazing in regards to what Al Qaradawi is saying about Libya. Tunisia and Egypt are putting together hospitals on the borders to take care of people. The big deal with the fighter jets landing in Malta is that it gives the UN the green light to get involved since planes flying out of Libya make the revolution an international issue instead of a domestic issue. Are you positive on that? I wouldn't think that causes it to become an international issue, but what would I know... seems nonsensical to me, seeing as it's only two isolated incidences. Anyways, not much new from the previous article, with the exception that apparently even more ambassadors are claiming to not support Gadhafi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41700027/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001 On February 22 2011 06:08 andrewlt wrote: How far has it spread? When last I heard a week or so ago, the protesters were mainly from the eastern part of the country, where the religious crazies that nobody should hesitate to bomb are. Gaddafi's support comes mainly from the western part of the country so if those people are protesting, he's good as gone. Some of the stuff I've read seem to indicate that he's losing the western part of the country as well. What? Because they all deserve to be bombed, right? Just lump em into one big category? | ||
|
stork4ever
United States1036 Posts
Obama is being smart staying out of this cluster#)$*@($ but when its time to act we need to be swift and get the hell out. Don't be like his predecessor who was swift and stuck around to admire his handy work. | ||
|
Hieros
United States83 Posts
On February 22 2011 06:06 EvilTeletubby wrote: Yeah... I can see the US or any other country officially staying out of it, but the UN should be all over this. In an ideal world that's what would happen, but that would be outside the scope of the Charter, namely 2(7): "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". It would be very uncharacteristic for the UN to intervene in an internal matter like this, even though it may seem to bend the plain meaning of "domestic jurisdiction" (the unravelling of a gov't, i.e.). | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On February 22 2011 06:14 stork4ever wrote: Any UN/NATO action will involve mainly US troops. If we do get involved it will embolden others, are we ready to commit to a multi continental "peace-keeping" beat down of dictators? What will we do about Bahrain? They are home to a carrier fleet, will we need to throw them under the bus? Obama is being smart staying out of this cluster#)$*@($ but when its time to act we need to be swift and get the hell out. Don't be like his predecessor who was swift and stuck around to admire his handy work. But I don't think its possible to simply take a swift operation and get the hell out like you say. Even considering what we have learned in Iraq, supporting a new government is always fraught with many different risks (and often just falls back into a dictatorship). The US should definitely wait things out for the time being because nobody has any idea of how long these protests will last and how widespread they will be. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On February 22 2011 06:06 EvilTeletubby wrote: Yeah... I can see the US or any other country officially staying out of it, but the UN should be all over this. If no outside nation has any interest at stake, then the UN has nothing at stake. | ||
| ||
