|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
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 ?
That simply isn't the case. However this thread isn't the place to discuss this subject though. Maybe we should have a dedicated oil thread, but I dont see it being open very long, what with peoples strong opinions on the subject
Back to Libya:
Attacks have carried on throughout the night:
The first air strikes by Britsh, French and American forces took place last night. A British Trafalgar class submarine and US navy ships and submarines fired 112 Tomohawk missiles at 20 targets. Meanwhile David Cameron has confirmed that three RAF Tornado jets are returning on a 3,000 mile round trip after completing a successful air strike mission. Defence Secratary Liam Fox has said the mission is the longest range mission by RAF Forces since the Falklands
Stealth bombers have also been deployed:
Three B-2 stealth bombers from the United States also carried out air strikes against Gaddafi forces after they continued to attack civilians.
|
On March 20 2011 17:53 Ganondorf wrote:
Pika Chu, you should watch Reagan's speech when he bombed Libya. He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. The mission is to save civilians from being massacred, so they will be killing/disabling the pro-government military, which will save thousands of lifes, instead of not interfering and having all those people massacred at our doorstep. Oil is of course an important factor, but there are also security concerns and humanitarian concerns which combined with the small amount of forces Gheddafi has, brought this attack into action. I expect it to be over in a few days, with alot less casualties on not-so-innocent soldiers and of course collateral damage to a few civilians.
Save civilians from being massacred is what the media yells about because it sounds sensationalistic inspiring fear. In reality, there wouldn't be a massacre, or at least not one against the civilians but against the rebels, which is a bit of a different story. And even those rebels have been offered amnesty by the government if they cease their attacks.
The only divergence i see is you believe this will be over in a few days with few civilians killed. I expect this to carry on for weeks with a lot of civilians killed. It would be good if it would be like you're saying, but i have strong doubts.
|
An AFP correspondent said bombs have already been dropped earlier this morning near Bab al-Aziziyah, Gaddafi's Tripoli headquarters, prompting barrages of anti-aircraft fire from Libyan forces that lasted about 40 minutes.
State television showed footage of hundreds of Gaddafi supporters who it said had gathered earlier to serve as human shields at Bab al-Aziziyah and at the capital's international airport. A Libyan official told AFP at least 48 people had died and 150 were hurt - mainly women and children - in the assaults, which began with a strike at 1645 GMT Saturday by a French warplane on a vehicle the French military said belonged to pro-Gaddafi forces. The deaths have not been verified. State television is showing emotive images of those claimed to have been injured in attacks in hospital.
In a brief audio message broadcast on state television Gaddafi fiercely denounced the Coaltiion attacks as a "barbaric, unjustified Crusaders' aggression." He vowed retaliatory strikes on military and civilian targets in the Mediterranean, which he said had been turned into a "real battlefield." Gaddafi warned: Now the arms depots have been opened and all the Libyan people are being armed.
|
Russian Federation154 Posts
According to a source on russian military forum -
Quaddafi's SA-6's are in very bad shape, most not functioning, radars not maintained. Positions are not engineered. Some launch vehicles had their wheels and engines stolen, missiles are rusty. Crews are not trained properly...
Similar situation with the AF... there are a lot of none flying pilots. The MiG's were repaired through so called "wild brigades"(former russian AF repair facilities workers) and not through MiG corporation... He says the theft in military he's seen there is appaling.
|
Come now, Pika Chu's analysis is hardly brilliant, but it's clean, solid common sense, which is more than I can say for many of his critics.
He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this.
Have you ever wondered, whether when the other person only understands one language it's because we can only speak one language?
We don't understand either Gaddafi or the Libyans, and it's best to admit that upfront, before we assign our speculations more importance than they are worth.
|
Pro-Gaddafi snipers are positioned on the rooftops of rebel-held Misrata ready to fire on warplanes, AFP is reporting. A resident says:
Snipers are still stationed on three buildings in the main street of the town. They seem to be ready to fire at anything that moves ... Nobody dares pass through that street.
Armed men have detained the crew of an Italian ship in the Libyan port of Tripoli, the Italian news agency ANSA reports today. It says the crew comprised eight Italians, two Indians and one Ukrainian.
An account of an apparently successful attack on Gaddafi forces by Reuters. Burned out military vehicles lined a strategic road in east Libya to the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Sunday after Western air strikes on the area, a Reuters correspondent said. Dozens of vehicles littered the route Gaddafi's forces used to advance on Benghazi from the hard fought over town of Ajdabiyah. Some looked like wrecked trucks with multiple rocket launchers.
Denmark has four fighter planes ready to join military operations against Libya on Sunday and is waiting for instructions from the United States, Defence Minister Gitte Lillelund Bech said.
A Reuters correspondent saw rebels in several 4x4 pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns heading in the direction of the east Libyan town of Ajdabiyah today following Western air strikes. The correspondent reported seeing at least 14 dead bodies along the road.
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani has defended his country's participation in military operations in Libya, saying the aim was to "stop the bloodbath."
Gaddafi has just appeared on state television in the past few minutes describing Western air raids as akin to "terrorism". He says that his victory is inevitable and that all Libyans have now taken up arms.
|
On March 20 2011 18:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:Come now, Pika Chu's analysis is hardly brilliant, but it's clean, solid common sense, which is more than I can say for many of his critics. Show nested quote +He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. Have you ever wondered, whether when the other person only understands one language it's because we can only speak one language? We don't understand either Gaddafi or the Libyans, and it's best to admit that upfront, before we assign our speculations more importance than they are worth.
It's hard to understand gaddafi when he will listen to a movie star more then diplomats and claim that those opposing him are on drugs slipped into swismiss or w.e,
|
On March 20 2011 18:13 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 17:53 Ganondorf wrote:
Pika Chu, you should watch Reagan's speech when he bombed Libya. He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. The mission is to save civilians from being massacred, so they will be killing/disabling the pro-government military, which will save thousands of lifes, instead of not interfering and having all those people massacred at our doorstep. Oil is of course an important factor, but there are also security concerns and humanitarian concerns which combined with the small amount of forces Gheddafi has, brought this attack into action. I expect it to be over in a few days, with alot less casualties on not-so-innocent soldiers and of course collateral damage to a few civilians. Save civilians from being massacred is what the media yells about because it sounds sensationalistic inspiring fear. In reality, there wouldn't be a massacre, or at least not one against the civilians but against the rebels, which is a bit of a different story. And even those rebels have been offered amnesty by the government if they cease their attacks. The only divergence i see is you believe this will be over in a few days with few civilians killed. I expect this to carry on for weeks with a lot of civilians killed. It would be good if it would be like you're saying, but i have strong doubts.
Do you really think Gadaffi will seriously offer them amnesty? yeah he says he will but he also announced a 1 sided ceasefire from his side while shelling benghazi and the other city in the west of Lybia. Gadaffi has gone insane just look at the speeches he held since the rebellion started it amazes me that you actually think he will do what he says.
|
On March 20 2011 19:02 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 18:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:Come now, Pika Chu's analysis is hardly brilliant, but it's clean, solid common sense, which is more than I can say for many of his critics. He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. Have you ever wondered, whether when the other person only understands one language it's because we can only speak one language? We don't understand either Gaddafi or the Libyans, and it's best to admit that upfront, before we assign our speculations more importance than they are worth. It's hard to understand gaddafi when he will listen to a movie star more then diplomats and claim that those opposing him are on drugs slipped into swismiss or w.e,
But then Gaddafi is not a statesman in the orthodox sense, and he does not regard himself as such. It's probably more accurate to see him as somewhere between a populist nationalist leader and a tribal chieftain.
Eccentricity is not necessarily insanity either. Our former Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who led us through the Second World War, would consult his dog and his dead mother's spirit on policy decisions. Compared to that, claims that political opponents use drugs is rather sanguine.
|
oh moltke how could i ever oppose you and your large words and such. I shouldn't try posting this late anyways I'll either get mean or actually quite proper, seeing as this isn't all that eloquent i'll go with the former.
|
On March 20 2011 19:11 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 18:13 Pika Chu wrote:On March 20 2011 17:53 Ganondorf wrote:
Pika Chu, you should watch Reagan's speech when he bombed Libya. He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. The mission is to save civilians from being massacred, so they will be killing/disabling the pro-government military, which will save thousands of lifes, instead of not interfering and having all those people massacred at our doorstep. Oil is of course an important factor, but there are also security concerns and humanitarian concerns which combined with the small amount of forces Gheddafi has, brought this attack into action. I expect it to be over in a few days, with alot less casualties on not-so-innocent soldiers and of course collateral damage to a few civilians. Save civilians from being massacred is what the media yells about because it sounds sensationalistic inspiring fear. In reality, there wouldn't be a massacre, or at least not one against the civilians but against the rebels, which is a bit of a different story. And even those rebels have been offered amnesty by the government if they cease their attacks. The only divergence i see is you believe this will be over in a few days with few civilians killed. I expect this to carry on for weeks with a lot of civilians killed. It would be good if it would be like you're saying, but i have strong doubts. Do you really think Gadaffi will seriously offer them amnesty? yeah he says he will but he also announced a 1 sided ceasefire from his side while shelling benghazi and the other city in the west of Lybia. Gadaffi has gone insane just look at the speeches he held since the rebellion started it amazes me that you actually think he will do what he says.
Yeah i think he will do it because he's cornered and it would be his best option. Gadafi has always had insane speeches, just as some politicians do. The part with the ceasefire is strange, i don't understand what his motives would be to announce a ceasefire and then break it. He might be a bit insane but he's not dumb. The ceasefire and everything happened too fast, i think it's hard to understand exactly what went on at the moment.
|
On March 20 2011 18:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Have you ever wondered, whether when the other person only understands one language it's because we can only speak one language?
What is this supposed to mean? It sounds so deep.
Reagan meant Ghaddaffi is a thug who only responds to force, not reason or sanctions or negotiations, and we can clearly see that is true. No Pika's argument does not make sense. This is not western imperialism when Arab states support this too. This is the most justified action the UN has ever taken.
|
On March 20 2011 16:31 Pika Chu wrote:
Let's put this another way.
Right now, we aren't fighting against Gadafi but we are fighting against Libya. Libyans live in Libya. We are fighting against a part of the libyans therefore (considering a part is welcoming this war).
We have no clue (from a rational not emotional point of view) how much of the population is against the regime. Then again we have no clue how much of the population who is against the regime also wants this war because they realize they live in a country that's going to be in deep shit for a longer while because of it. If 50% percent of the population is actively/passively against the libyan regime, we are fighting 50% of the libyan population.
The military involvement will be full-scaled, a no-fly zone doesn't mean much, which means there will have to be a serious land war to be had with a complete invasion of Libya. More civilians are going to die at the hand of invaders (by mistake, because it's impossible not to) than Gadafi managed to kill in all his life directly or indirectly. The lives of so many will be ruined, war conditions are truly harsh and it may affect you for life.
Then, we will conquer the country judge and hang Gadafi. There will be a constant turmoil for a couple of years which we will need to babysit around to protect the population (is why we need to stay in iraq for so long actually) and given the libyan culture and organization of having a tribal system i can see big problems with organizing a democratic regime and putting a government that isn't a puppet of the west and is viewed as legitimate by libyans.
Next, there will still be supporters of Gadafi, people with money who supported him, money will go to terrorist organizations. There will be libyans who had their lives destroyed by this war. They will always hate us for it, some will dedicate to revenge. Years later we see big news "Paris subway suicide attack kills hundreds of people". We cry and regret it blaming people who do such actions. Could we have avoided it? Yes we could have. Is it a direct consequence of our actions? Yes it is.
So what are we actually accomplishing now? Nothing than bringing more pain, both to libyans and to us.
You forgot the part about freedom. Fredom of speech and thought. Freedom for the Libyan people to choose their own leader, or perhaps more importantly, to choose who should NOT be their leader. Or better yet, to choose someone to represent them, rather than lead them. Other than that, I pretty much agree with your analysis. It might just well turn out to be another military and economical quagmire for years to come, with civilian losses occurring a decade from now as a direct consequence of what we do today, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. And the people will hate us and blame us, but still, they'll be able to do it by their own volition and not because their leader tells them to. Moreover, it will be possible for people to think and say that perhaps, even though lots of civilians had to die, it was all worth it in the end, for freedom from Gaddafi. Such a line of thought may not have been legal in a future Libya, had we done nothing and Gaddafi would have crushed the rebellion.
And then again, people can say that if I think we do this for freedom, I'm the most naïve person on the face of the Earth, and they'd probably be right. But for whatever reason we're doing this, be it oil, stability, economical investment, whatever, I still support it, because I see the possibility of freedom arising from our intervention. It's like doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
So the question we have to ask ourselves is, what is an acceptable price for freedom? All of us who lived in countries that had to go through a war to become free or to stay free, would we have wanted that our ancestors had done nothing, to minimize civilian losses, rather than fighting the oppressors for the right to choose for themselves? In the end, it's not for us to choose, but for the Libyan people. We're not forcing them to fight Gaddafi and they started it themselves, probably meaning that they thought it was worth it. If at any point, they think the cost has become or will become too high, they just have to throw down their weapons and surrender to Gaddafi. The rebel leaders and the Arab League can then ask us to stop whatever intervention we're still doing and we should pull out, admitting that freedom came at too high a cost. However, that's an entirely different situation. Let's hope we never get to it.
|
On March 20 2011 19:26 Pika Chu wrote:
Yeah i think he will do it because he's cornered and it would be his best option. Gadafi has always had insane speeches, just as some politicians do. The part with the ceasefire is strange, i don't understand what his motives would be to announce a ceasefire and then break it. He might be a bit insane but he's not dumb. The ceasefire and everything happened too fast, i think it's hard to understand exactly what went on at the moment.
You give Ghaddaffi way too much credit. If he stays in power you can expect kidnappings and assassinations shortly after if the rebels surrender.
|
On March 20 2011 18:13 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 17:53 Ganondorf wrote:
Pika Chu, you should watch Reagan's speech when he bombed Libya. He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. The mission is to save civilians from being massacred, so they will be killing/disabling the pro-government military, which will save thousands of lifes, instead of not interfering and having all those people massacred at our doorstep. Oil is of course an important factor, but there are also security concerns and humanitarian concerns which combined with the small amount of forces Gheddafi has, brought this attack into action. I expect it to be over in a few days, with alot less casualties on not-so-innocent soldiers and of course collateral damage to a few civilians. And even those rebels have been offered amnesty by the government if they cease their attacks. .
They've been offered amnesty if they choose to high-tail it out of there.
In all honesty, do you really believe Khadaffi to be a man of mercy? He's not the only dictator in the arabian world, but he's by far the most inconsistent. The saoudi's are pretty dependable when it comes to oil delivery to the west, Khadaffi seems to act whichever way he sees fit.
This attack isn't about the libyan people, it's about the resources in the area. The whole world has condemned Khadaffi and now they realize he's actually winning this little civil war. He needs to go, simple as that. Libyan oil supply to the EU must be secured.
I really hope that the US stays out of this though. In the past 50 years they've only shown us how to NOT win a war (both Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were -and still are- disasters).
|
On March 20 2011 17:11 furymonkey wrote:
Nah Pika Chu is right, we should approach all murders with open arms, we will use our heart and passion to win them over.
Edit: Lets modify all the guns to shoot out flowers instead of bullets. Drop bombs made out of cream filled chocolate on top of enemy position, only then, the violence will stop! On March 20 2011 17:37 furymonkey wrote:
I am merely pointing out the fact that sometimes, violence can be used to stop more violence.
Whichever the case here, it is really a personal opinion, especially we are still yet to see the outcome. And it might take years before we can even decide.
The key difference between regular murder and State ordered murder is that the latter can never gotten rid of. You think the would be rebel regime would not use violence against an uprising challenging their power?
|
More from Gaddafi's latest telephone address via Libyan state television. He is promising "a long war" against the international military forces that have targeted his troops with airstrikes and dozens of cruise missiles saying he will not let up on the rebellion in the country's east.
He said he has opened up the weapons depots to Libyans, and said everyone is armed with "automatic weapons, mortars, bombs."
"We promise you a long war," he said in the address.
Following claims from Libyan officials and state television that air strikes have led to the death of civilians George Osborne has stressed that "every precaution" has been taken to keep civilian bloodshed to a minimum. He told the BBC:
We should treat with some caution some of the things we see on Libyan state television. Because I know that our military planners are taking absolutely every precaution to try and avoid civilian casualities. The targets last night were very specifically military targets connected with the Libyan air defence system.
In an interview with BBC1's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Osborne was asked about the possibility of "mission creep", which might see Gaddafi hold onto power and pressure grow for ground troops to be sent in.
We are not considering ground forces at the moment. We are undertaking operations from our Navy, through the submarine-launched cruise missiles and the RAF and the Tornado planes that flew missions last night.
Libyan rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani in Tobruk tells the BBC that Benghazi is "fairly safe", having taken a heavy pounding from pro-Gaddafi forces on Saturday. He says:
There's a few remnants of Gaddafi's embedded cells operating but for the most part they've been eliminated
India has expressed regret over the multinational air strikes on Libya, appealing in a foreign ministry statement for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. A statement said:
India views with grave concern the continuing violence, strife and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya. It regrets the air strikes that are taking place. The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.
Death toll. Does not make clear whether rebels and civilian were killed by libyan or USA/uk/etc:
94 people were killed in Saturday's air strikes in Benghazi, AFP reports. This follows a count of bodies in the city's morgue. At least 24 of those were rebel fighters and civilians.
|
On March 20 2011 19:31 pylonsalad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 18:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Have you ever wondered, whether when the other person only understands one language it's because we can only speak one language?
What is this supposed to mean? It sounds so deep. Reagan meant Ghaddaffi is a thug who only responds to force, not reason or sanctions or negotiations, and we can clearly see that is true. No Pika's argument does not make sense. This is not western imperialism when Arab states support this too. This is the most justified action the UN has ever taken.
Declarative sentences don't provide us with much general insight into your reasoning. Gaddafi is no more a thug than any tin-pot dictator, and even if that makes him a thug, it does not follow that he does not respond to reason, sanctions or negotiations. That we can clearly see that is true is not true, as Gaddafi has been in power for 40 years, during which time he has been negotiated his way out of 20 year-long sanctions only eight years ago.
That he only understands the language of force, yes, but that has been a platitude which has been said about everyone from the Soviet Union to Saddam Hussein. Broadly speaking, every nation and every person except Martyrs is sensitive to the language of "force." It's generally the first principle of diplomacy. It's also true that Libyans as a race, so recently emerged from Bedouin nomadism, understands it with particular potency. But why labour the point? Even a man like Gaddafi is sensitive to arguments of self-interest of a particular degree. However, there was never a point where he was presented with more than two options. He was forced into accepting one of two choices: either accepting his own overthrow, or war. That he chose the latter does not convey any abnormal fluency in the language of force. It's quite normal.
|
This resolution by the UN has restored some of my faith in it. Hopefully the rebels can now take control of the country and take down Ghaddafi
|
On March 20 2011 19:42 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 18:13 Pika Chu wrote:On March 20 2011 17:53 Ganondorf wrote:
Pika Chu, you should watch Reagan's speech when he bombed Libya. He said violence is the only language Gheddafi can understand, and you can't disagree on this. The mission is to save civilians from being massacred, so they will be killing/disabling the pro-government military, which will save thousands of lifes, instead of not interfering and having all those people massacred at our doorstep. Oil is of course an important factor, but there are also security concerns and humanitarian concerns which combined with the small amount of forces Gheddafi has, brought this attack into action. I expect it to be over in a few days, with alot less casualties on not-so-innocent soldiers and of course collateral damage to a few civilians. And even those rebels have been offered amnesty by the government if they cease their attacks. . They've been offered amnesty if they choose to high-tail it out of there. In all honesty, do you really believe Khadaffi to be a man of mercy? He's not the only dictator in the arabian world, but he's by far the most inconsistent. The saoudi's are pretty dependable when it comes to oil delivery to the west, Khadaffi seems to act whichever way he sees fit. This attack isn't about the libyan people, it's about the resources in the area. The whole world has condemned Khadaffi and now they realize he's actually winning this little civil war. He needs to go, simple as that. Libyan oil supply to the EU must be secured. I really hope that the US stays out of this though. In the past 50 years they've only shown us how to NOT win a war (both Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were -and still are- disasters).
I understand the importance of securing the resources in the area, which wouldn't have been a problem no matter who won if Sarkozy didn't want to increase his lowering popularity (his chances of being elected again are quite grim from what i red).
My problem is that we will destroy libya (simply the course of life for libyans changes to something bad) and hurt the libyans more than they actually are. That we will have to babysit Libya for a long while after Gadafi so the tribes won't blindly fight for power (democracy can't work over night) while the libyans will be live worse than before and have a worse life. And not last, i do have a problem with the consequences that may come out of this like acts of terrorism in europe.
iMAniaC, i never forgot the freedom of speech part, but just as you said it is a matter of costs. I believe the costs are too much to pay, and no the rebels will never surrender now, they think more about their chance to get in power than think about what civilians will have to endure.
Many times it has been showed that democracy can't be imposed with force. Most countries which have a democracy now came to it peacefully or through revolution but without a war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s46.radikal.ru/i113/1103/5b/7ac3a333b257.jpg)
