|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 20 2011 10:07 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
US and it's allies have killed at least 1,000,000 Iraqis since the start of the Iraq war.
Thats not including the number killed or injured through the USAs use of depleted uranium shells.
Where are the sanctions against the USA and others who participated in the illegal Iraq war? The reason givewn for attacking Iraq was to find the WMDs even though Hans Blix and his team could not find anything.
Where are the sanctions against Israel for invading Lebanon a couple years back?
UN and NATO are just arms of western imperialism , the world would be a better place without them.
User was warned for this post
Whether you agree with it or not, the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the UN. That's a war I marched against and spent two years of my life lobbying to have ended. I also know that saying 1 million were killed in Iraq by american forces is absolutely not true. Casualties...probably but not deaths. There's plenty of things that happened in that war that I'd love to see people in prison for, the use of depleted uranium being the least of which.
But this is not the same situation, we no longer have a president hell bent on getting revenge for his daddy. Libya is not Iraq, and nor will it be. I fail to see how stopping a massacre amounts to imperialism
|
|
|
|
|
Update on forces deployed
France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130
|
The passivity of the Arab nations is in all likelihood based on a more realistic perspective than the Western one. The Arab states know that it is easier in the Arab world to build negative coalitions than positive ones, especially in a society as artificial and tribally segregated as Libya. Assuming the best pro-West scenario, wherein the government of tribal patronage under Gaddafi is overthrown and replaced with a cosmopolitan urban elite, such a government will not for a moment withstand the legitimacy test in the eyes of ordinary Libyans, including to many factions which have temporarily rallied behind the rebel cause.
|
On March 20 2011 10:11 kamikami wrote:
The intervention is correct imo. That guy uses military force to attack/kill civilians, it's just natural that someone with a bigger gun step in and teach him a lession.
Anyone who still believes that this intervention is about saving lives is truly naive. That is simply the rhetoric used to justify th UN mandate, to serve the wests interests.
Europe doesn't really care about civilians dying. There have been civil wars raging for decades in Africa in which millions and millions die, they make Libyas uprising seem insignificant. And how many dissenters do you think are killed/tortured/imprisoned every year in places like china, burma and North Korea? Why aren't we bombing the military resources of these countries?
No, the west only cares about "saving civilians" when it serves their interests.
Its doubtful that this intervention will actually end up saving any lives at all with gaddafi using human shields. Now that the world has committed to attacking Libya gaddafi must lose, for if he were to win he could make al-qaeda seem like small fish.
|
On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed Show nested quote +France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130
sources please
|
On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed Show nested quote +France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130
So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined.
|
On March 20 2011 13:35 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130 So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined.
It is limited in the sense that (supposedly) there will be no ground forces deployed by the US military.
|
On March 20 2011 13:19 Disquiet wrote:
Its doubtful that this intervention will actually end up saving any lives at all with gaddafi using human shields. Now that the world has committed to attacking Libya gaddafi must lose, for if he were to win he could make al-qaeda seem like small fish.
How can Gaddafi win?
The real question is will he even bother to attack or will he just instantly surrender?
|
On March 20 2011 13:35 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130 So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined.
I know it's already been touched upon, but aside from the U.S. (supposedly) not sending in any ground troops, 42 F-16s is pretty limited considering the USAF has/had approximately 2,000 operational.
|
On March 20 2011 13:35 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130 So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined.
lol i know right, but hey america is america man they are way to OP
|
On March 20 2011 13:35 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130 So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined.
Well its because the US spends 10 times the military budget of most of those countries. Plus it doesnt state how many planes britain has committed, which I think is fairly sizeable. But really, the UN is armed and mostly funded through the US. So it doesnt suprise me at all.
That said, I dont think you read it properly, it says france committed almost 35 jets. + aircraft carrier and more ships.
|
On March 20 2011 14:04 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 13:35 red4ce wrote:On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130 So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined. Well its because the US spends 10 times the military budget of most of those countries. Plus it doesnt state how many planes britain has committed, which I think is fairly sizeable. But really, the UN is armed and mostly funded through the US. So it doesnt suprise me at all. That said, I dont think you read it properly, it says france committed almost 35 jets. + aircraft carrier
edit: nvm doesn't give specific numbers.
As much cynicism is floating around in this thread I think it is great what the west is doing here. While it is true there are more and bigger crimes against humanity than this occurring, imagine if you were a citizen of Libya and knowing you had the support of the world.
I wish them the best.
|
The average libyan will not be supported by this attack. He will likely just suffer more from the intervention than if there had been none.
NATO should have never gotten involved in this problem.
We've just should have watched from the sidelines and watch the events unfold. Our hearts and prayers are with the people suffering there.
|
On March 20 2011 14:06 Invol2ver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 14:04 Darpa wrote:On March 20 2011 13:35 red4ce wrote:On March 20 2011 10:58 Fruscainte wrote:Update on forces deployed France
20 Rafales and Mirage, 1 AWACS, 1 aircraft carrier+15 fighter jets, 6 C-135 refueling tankers, 3 frigates, 1 refueling ship, 2 airbases
USA
42 F-16s, drones, 2 destroyers, 2 amphibious warships, 1 command and control ship, 1 sub
Denmark
6 F-16s
Canada
6 F-18s, 1 frigate, 1 warship, 1 Polaris refueling tanker, 1 Orion surveillance plane
Britain
Typhoons, Tornados, 2 frigates, 3 subs
Italy
4 Tornados, F-16s, Eurofighters, 1 aircraft carrier+8 aircraft, other combat aircraft, 7 airbases
Spain
4 F-18s, 1 Boeing 707 refueling plane, 1 sub, 1 frigate, 1 surveillance plane, 2 airbases
Norway
6 F-16s, 1 surveillance plane, 1 C-130 So much for the America's 'limited' role. ROFL what a joke. The USA is sending almost as many fighter jets as the rest of the coalition combined. Well its because the US spends 10 times the military budget of most of those countries. Plus it doesnt state how many planes britain has committed, which I think is fairly sizeable. But really, the UN is armed and mostly funded through the US. So it doesnt suprise me at all. That said, I dont think you read it properly, it says france committed almost 35 jets. + aircraft carrier edit: nvm doesn't give specific numbers. As much cynicism is floating around in this thread I think it is great what the west is doing here. While it is true there are more and bigger crimes against humanity than this occurring, imagine if you were a citizen of Libya and knowing you had the support of the world. I wish them the best.
I'm hoping for the best, but honestly if I was a Libyan civilian right now, a mishmash of a bunch of countries raining destruction from above wouldn't be all that comforting. It's already hard enough for one country to avoid civilian deaths, now you've got this big clusterfuck of countries. It's like trying to run a three-legged race through a minefield.
Whatever, all we can do is hope it works out.
|
Doesn't anyone find it strange the USA and its European allies only care about dictators when those dictators run countries which have oil ?
|
Is Zintan a major city?
No, but it is the gateway to the mountainous region in western libya where the tribes have been fighting Gaddafi for the past weeks. I'd say the third major front after Ajdabia-Benghazi and Misrata.
|
On March 20 2011 14:26 angeleyes wrote:
Doesn't anyone find it strange the USA and its European allies only care about dictators when those dictators run countries which have oil ?
Doesn't anyone find it strange that the US government only cares about protecting it's interests and advancing its own populations goal, while uplifting its citizens quality of life?
The government's job is to protect domestic interests. The people of said country's job is to "care" about humanity. The government is not paid to feel, it is paid to protect it's citizens interest.
Disclaimer: my use of apostrophe is a catastrophe... I think...
Edit: I've been watching the news conferences and with the air taken it seems the rebels are in a much better position.
|
On March 20 2011 14:20 angeleyes wrote:
The average libyan will not be supported by this attack. He will likely just suffer more from the intervention than if there had been none.
NATO should have never gotten involved in this problem.
We've just should have watched from the sidelines and watch the events unfold. Our hearts and prayers are with the people suffering there.
Are you being serious? You're acknowledging that there is a problem and people are suffering (i.e. being killed by their dictatorial government) but you think that taking out one of the ways that people are being killed (the Libyan air force) is somehow going to make more people suffer? Where's the logic in that?
Also, hearts and prayers aren't going to do a damn thing when some innocent civilian is being shot at by mercenaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
