On March 20 2011 06:53 Bleak wrote: Democracy is coming to Libya...
....with bombs falling from the sky.
I suspect this will make Libya another Iraq, a puppet of western powers waiting to suck it dry of its oil reserves.
I think the idea that western powers are capable of installing a puppet regime to steal resources has been largely discredited by the Iraq experience. No American wants anything to do with Libya other than to stop its crazy leader from shooting people that protest his rule.
Discredited? So you believe americans didn't do a good job (in terms of following their interest) in Iraq? Didn't very big american companies got 90% of the contracts to rebuild everything in the country?
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule. I hope this will calm down our fellow tl.netter DragoonPK from Bahrain.
On March 20 2011 06:27 Grettin wrote: "2125: A statement from Col Gaddafi is expected shortly on Libyan state television."
Lets see is Gaddafi really "joining al-qaida". Didn't he say something like that if Libya would get attacked.
What are you talking about? Al Quaida is directly or indirectly (that's something i don't know) supporting the rebels. They are hoping for the installation of a fundamental islamic republic in Libya.
I'm not sure if you're serious anymore...
As much as i disagree with what he has said in this thread, what you're quoting this time is true
Well, alright, it does make sense for Al Queda to support the revolution. I think I misinterpreted the "indirectly" part as "supplying weapons and supplies" rather than "hoping the revolution turns out alright", and thought Pika was declaring some conspiracy theory or someting. Apologies.
And dear god, Yahoo's comments could actually be worse than Youtube's.
I'd imagine that that would be a huge part of the reason why the U.S. is supporting the Libyan rebels. If Gaddafi forces the open rebellion into insurgency, with no support from western nations, it will inevitably turn into an Islamic insurgency thats forced to utilize terror tactics. By pouring money into the rebellion now, and then insuring there victory, we ensure that the proceeding government is secular and friendly, if not an outright ally.
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule... oh Bahrain?
How exactly do you propose we help Bahrain without waging a landwar against the Bahrain government.
"This aggression only makes the Libyan people more stronger, and consolidates its will." He says he will "open the arms depots to defend Libya, it's unity and sovereignty and might".
On March 20 2011 06:27 Grettin wrote: "2125: A statement from Col Gaddafi is expected shortly on Libyan state television."
Lets see is Gaddafi really "joining al-qaida". Didn't he say something like that if Libya would get attacked.
What are you talking about? Al Quaida is directly or indirectly (that's something i don't know) supporting the rebels. They are hoping for the installation of a fundamental islamic republic in Libya.
I'm not sure if you're serious anymore...
As much as i disagree with what he has said in this thread, what you're quoting this time is true
Well, alright, it does make sense for Al Queda to support the revolution. I think I misinterpreted the "indirectly" part as "supplying weapons and supplies" rather than "hoping the revolution turns out alright", and thought Pika was declaring some conspiracy theory or someting. Apologies.
And dear god, Yahoo's comments could actually be worse than Youtube's.
I'd imagine that that would be a huge part of the reason why the U.S. is supporting the Libyan rebels. If Gaddafi forces the open rebellion into insurgency, with no support from western nations, it will inevitably turn into an Islamic insurgency thats forced to utilize terror tactics. By pouring money into the rebellion now, and then insuring there victory, we ensure that the proceeding government is secular and friendly, if not an outright ally.
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule... oh Bahrain?
How exactly do you propose we help Bahrain without waging a landwar against the Bahrain government.
Wait, what? This is either a mistake you do by being uninformed either you really believe we will do in Libya will be to impose a no-fly zone? How far do you think we are from waging a landwar against the Libyan government?
There's no way the "people" of Libya are going to stand up for Ghadaffi. He was way too violent repressing protests, even in Tripoli. I fear human shields and disguised mercenaries!
On March 20 2011 07:13 Kukaracha wrote: There's no way the "people" of Libya are going to stand up for Ghadaffi. He was way too violent repressing protests, even in Tripoli. I fear human shields and disguised mercenaries!
I told that and will keep telling. They aren't going to stand up for Gaddafi, they are going to stand up for Libya. That's what happens when you find your country at war with foreign forces.
Discredited? So you believe americans didn't do a good job (in terms of following their interest) in Iraq? Didn't very big american companies got 90% of the contracts to rebuild everything in the country?
I'm pretty certain the cost of sustaining the war in Iraq is more than whatever profit companies recieve from the contracts.
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule. I hope this will calm down our fellow tl.netter DragoonPK from Bahrain.
Judging from Yahoo's comments, they aren't at all pleased.
On March 20 2011 07:13 Kukaracha wrote: There's no way the "people" of Libya are going to stand up for Ghadaffi. He was way too violent repressing protests, even in Tripoli. I fear human shields and disguised mercenaries!
You underestimate ones loyalty and faith which one can have in a single person. Not to mentiont h at Ghadaffi can easily give the people an option: Either you stand outside my palace and hope that you don't get killed, or we will see to it ourselves.
Discredited? So you believe americans didn't do a good job (in terms of following their interest) in Iraq? Didn't very big american companies got 90% of the contracts to rebuild everything in the country?
I'm pretty certain the cost of sustaining the war in Iraq is more than whatever profit companies recieve from the contracts.
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule. I hope this will calm down our fellow tl.netter DragoonPK from Bahrain.
Judging from Yahoo's comments, they aren't at all pleased.
The cost for a state war rests priimarily on the tax payer, not the corporations that recieved rebuilding contracts.
On March 20 2011 05:33 Hans-Titan wrote: From Denmark: Parliament had unanimous consent to send planes and troops to aid the UN's mission in Lybia. Unanimity has never before occurred when dealing with military questions in Denmark, but the government made promises regarding Lybian sovereignty and oil reserves that made the far left wing support it. Total force deployed is 6 F-16 fighters, 1 military transport aircraft and a crew for each, 7 in total. If the conflict escalates into a ground war it is very likely that more troops will be committed, especially seeing as the sitting NATO Sec.Gen. is a former Danish PM, who is still popular in Denmark. Usually military action by Denmark is met with calls to protest, but everything is quiet. A wide majority of the population seems to support the action taken. Calls to 'party for democracy' - throwing street parties in front of the embassies of middle-eastern dictatorships - are widely circulating however.
A military intervention I support - didn't think I'd live to see the day.
Also, thanks to {CC}StealthBlue: I don't now how many conflict/political threads you've been doing live updating for, but I really appreciate it.
Are you saying that if Libya became something of a ground war Denmark would consider sending ground troops?
Word is 'we won't leave the option out', which is Politician for 'if it comes to it, yes', especially considering Denmark's close ties to both the US and NATO. Commentators have also speculated that the sitting government has an interest in engaging Denmark in a military engagement that has broad public support after the failings in Iraq. I wrote unanimous consent before, but the DPP (Social Conservative Party of Denmark) has backtracked somewhat, saying that the interpretation of the UN resolution is too 'broad' and that Danish troops should not be fighting 'an African civil war'. I won't go into great detail, but let's just say that hypocrisy in that statement from that party is mindblowing.
On March 20 2011 06:27 Grettin wrote: "2125: A statement from Col Gaddafi is expected shortly on Libyan state television."
Lets see is Gaddafi really "joining al-qaida". Didn't he say something like that if Libya would get attacked.
What are you talking about? Al Quaida is directly or indirectly (that's something i don't know) supporting the rebels. They are hoping for the installation of a fundamental islamic republic in Libya.
I'm not sure if you're serious anymore...
As much as i disagree with what he has said in this thread, what you're quoting this time is true
Well, alright, it does make sense for Al Queda to support the revolution. I think I misinterpreted the "indirectly" part as "supplying weapons and supplies" rather than "hoping the revolution turns out alright", and thought Pika was declaring some conspiracy theory or someting. Apologies.
And dear god, Yahoo's comments could actually be worse than Youtube's.
I'd imagine that that would be a huge part of the reason why the U.S. is supporting the Libyan rebels. If Gaddafi forces the open rebellion into insurgency, with no support from western nations, it will inevitably turn into an Islamic insurgency thats forced to utilize terror tactics. By pouring money into the rebellion now, and then insuring there victory, we ensure that the proceeding government is secular and friendly, if not an outright ally.
On March 20 2011 04:25 Pika Chu wrote: This is stupid, Gaddafi isn't fighting civilians, he's fighting rebels. So from that point of view the participants on the summit of Paris are wrong, they say Gaddafi attacks civilians which isn't the case.
Good thing Russia's sane at least, they should put an end to this, but i doubt they care that much, i'm sure they got a fair deal by french/americans to allow this. This reminds me of Serbia when they got a shitload of money to keep yelling but doing nothing.
*sigh*
Is he fighting rebels. Yes.
Is he also killing civilians. Yes.
Massacring civilians on purpose is a completely stupid thing to do, i couldnt fathom the reason for him doing it. It loses his ideological support, gives it to opponents, weakens the morale of the marginal state - the guys with the guns
Discredited? So you believe americans didn't do a good job (in terms of following their interest) in Iraq? Didn't very big american companies got 90% of the contracts to rebuild everything in the country?
I'm pretty certain the cost of sustaining the war in Iraq is more than whatever profit companies recieve from the contracts.
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule. I hope this will calm down our fellow tl.netter DragoonPK from Bahrain.
Judging from Yahoo's comments, they aren't at all pleased.
Excuse me but when i said americans i was thinking of US government not the american citizens.
On March 20 2011 04:25 Pika Chu wrote: This is stupid, Gaddafi isn't fighting civilians, he's fighting rebels. So from that point of view the participants on the summit of Paris are wrong, they say Gaddafi attacks civilians which isn't the case.
Good thing Russia's sane at least, they should put an end to this, but i doubt they care that much, i'm sure they got a fair deal by french/americans to allow this. This reminds me of Serbia when they got a shitload of money to keep yelling but doing nothing.
*sigh*
Is he fighting rebels. Yes.
Is he also killing civilians. Yes.
Massacring civilians on purpose is a completely stupid thing to do, i couldnt fathom the reason for him doing it. It loses his ideological support, gives it to opponents, weakens the morale of the marginal state - the guys with the guns
Fear (And lies) are a good way to keep people in line.
The guy's also off his rocker. You can find some pretty conclusive evidence for that in this thread. Direct quotes of him, no less.
Discredited? So you believe americans didn't do a good job (in terms of following their interest) in Iraq? Didn't very big american companies got 90% of the contracts to rebuild everything in the country?
I'm pretty certain the cost of sustaining the war in Iraq is more than whatever profit companies recieve from the contracts.
I'm glad americans are so compassionate and want to stop crazy leaders from shooting people that protest his rule. I hope this will calm down our fellow tl.netter DragoonPK from Bahrain.
Judging from Yahoo's comments, they aren't at all pleased.
The cost for a state war rests priimarily on the tax payer, not the corporations that recieved rebuilding contracts.
Why not just take taxpayer dollars and subsidize contracts in foriegn/developing countries? It'd cost billions less and wouldn't involve executing and sustaining a large scale military operation in a region that holds animosity toward Americans even before the intervention.
EPT
