Libyan Uprising - Page 80
Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
SpectralFremen
Australia386 Posts
| ||
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 21 2011 10:54 pookychoo wrote: Name a dictatorship that you (US) didn't support? That's kinda ironic that you unintentionally phrased it that way, given what happened with Saddam being supported and then becoming an enemy. And actually, you just reinforce my point that protecting civilians is just an excuse to get involved, and not a truthful objective. Are you saying that the US chose not to protect civilians in places like Rwanda, Zimbabwe or even more recently Bahrain because they don't have a "strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals"? Libya shouldn't even qualify based on that statement, it is heavily tribal and does not hold western ideals either. Nobody expects the US to be world police and take care of all the worlds problems, just don't bullshit about getting involved to "protect the civilians". The US is happy to let other countries sort out their own problems even with terrible loss of life if there's nothing in it for themselves. And let's not even get into the number of civilians who die as collateral damage when the US does decide to get involved. It ain't about protecting civilians and it's hypocritical to suggest that is the purpose. The US didn't intervene militarily to help civilians in places like Rwanda, etc. because the citizens in Rwanda were not being threatened with tanks and airplanes, they were being threatened with machetes. The US can stop tanks and planes easily... machetes or infantry/police inside cities not so much. (much more collateral damage) The reason there was an intervention by the West in Libya is 1. Armed opposition that West favors (currently) 2. easy ability to destroy enemy assets (terrain) 3. World public opinion somewhat favors intervention (because of other Arab revolutions, and the fact that it does destabilize the Oil situation to have a long ongoing rebellion) Basically, Libya allows intervention on the cheap. Any/most collateral damage can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The future of any government in Libya can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The rebels don't appear to be any worse off for western interests than the dictator. The rebels also don't appear to be any worse for the population than the dictator. When you have an armed opposition, that is the Perfect time to intervene in the way the West is doing it. Let the rebels do actual fighting, the West just handles the other issues. (asuming rebels > dictator) | ||
Ilfirin
United States102 Posts
On March 21 2011 12:34 Krikkitone wrote: The US didn't intervene militarily to help civilians in places like Rwanda, etc. because the citizens in Rwanda were not being threatened with tanks and airplanes, they were being threatened with machetes. The US can stop tanks and planes easily... machetes or infantry/police inside cities not so much. (much more collateral damage) The reason there was an intervention by the West in Libya is 1. Armed opposition that West favors (currently) 2. easy ability to destroy enemy assets (terrain) 3. World public opinion somewhat favors intervention (because of other Arab revolutions, and the fact that it does destabilize the Oil situation to have a long ongoing rebellion) Basically, Libya allows intervention on the cheap. Any/most collateral damage can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The future of any government in Libya can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The rebels don't appear to be any worse off for western interests than the dictator. The rebels also don't appear to be any worse for the population than the dictator. When you have an armed opposition, that is the Perfect time to intervene in the way the West is doing it. Let the rebels do actual fighting, the West just handles the other issues. (asuming rebels > dictator) Truth. I agree with everything here wholeheartedly. | ||
0x64
Finland4548 Posts
On March 21 2011 08:25 KunfO wrote: Well I didn't know George Bush's ideology was so popular in Finland but in response to your absolute mess of a post... I am sorry but you don't make sense in any of your posts | ||
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 21 2011 12:34 Krikkitone wrote: The US didn't intervene militarily to help civilians in places like Rwanda, etc. because the citizens in Rwanda were not being threatened with tanks and airplanes, they were being threatened with machetes. The US can stop tanks and planes easily... machetes or infantry/police inside cities not so much. (much more collateral damage) The reason there was an intervention by the West in Libya is 1. Armed opposition that West favors (currently) 2. easy ability to destroy enemy assets (terrain) 3. World public opinion somewhat favors intervention (because of other Arab revolutions, and the fact that it does destabilize the Oil situation to have a long ongoing rebellion) Basically, Libya allows intervention on the cheap. Any/most collateral damage can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The future of any government in Libya can be blamed on the rebels themselves. The rebels don't appear to be any worse off for western interests than the dictator. The rebels also don't appear to be any worse for the population than the dictator. When you have an armed opposition, that is the Perfect time to intervene in the way the West is doing it. Let the rebels do actual fighting, the West just handles the other issues. (asuming rebels > dictator) To say a war is helping the civilians in Libya is stupid and has no sustain. It's helping the rebels, that yes. And i believe it would've been easier to stop the massacre in Rwanda, you didn't need to bomb the country for it. The rest of the argumentation is valid. But because it's in the interest of some countries doesn't mean it's in the interest of the population. For arguments on this please view my previous posts, i gave enough. So the libyans now have free access to arms, provided by Gaddafi. What will we do if this gets to a civil war between pro-gadafi and anti-gadafi civilians? | ||
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
| ||
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
| ||
pylonsalad
Canada649 Posts
| ||
DorN
Germany90 Posts
On March 21 2011 19:13 Ghad wrote: Do you really think Khadafi is arming the populace? Get real. He once wanted the UN to abolish switzerland and divide it between its neighbors. Arming the populace would be his smallest madness. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10686 Posts
![]() I just hope they bomb Mr. Ghadaffi into oblivion.. He seems to be totally nuts... | ||
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 21 2011 19:13 Ghad wrote: Do you really think Khadafi is arming the populace? Get real. Will you at least have a decent attitude instead of telling me to get real? How do we know he isn't? I don't know any more than you guys do, so we're just working on assumptions. Neither of us is/has lived in Libya but i am sure there are more important things than freedom (at least to the most) for them. Like how they are living, and to be honest (and after hearing people who been there) they aren't doing that bad, during the last decade their conditions grew, and have all the basic necessities satisfied. They aren't cheap poor (sure there may be some but i speak for most) that they need to make much worries about what will they eat. Dictator or not, Libya did (to be honest i didn't check for stats but many said this so i'm taking it for granted hoping they know what they talk) develop the life condition of its people in the last decade. And trust me when it comes to it, the need for food beats the need for free speech by far. That's the reason why not so much people as you may expect are against Gaddafi. I'll tell you, in Romania which isn't Libya, over 40% of the population regret the times we were under Ceausescu. You think it's because they loved him or his methods? Nope, it's because they are cheap poor living in bad conditions always worrying about what will they eat the next day. | ||
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
I remain aprenhensive about bombing of Tripoli though. This conflict is turning into a civil war and there clearly is some surport for Gaddafi which makes it much harder to use the arguement that we are defending the people from a ruthless dictator. I guess the difference is that largely the army on one side of the civil war is just regualr people that have armed themselves to try and stand up against a dictator. Anyway I felt pride to see destroyed tanks and burning armoured vechile out side Bengazi because these where the same armour that had been pictured days if not just hours earyier been used aginst unarmed/lightly armed people. edit: Do you really think Khadafi is arming the populace? Get real. Its getting harder and harder to get facts out of triploi. this is the kind of thing we're gonna have trouble finding out. Like how much surport is there really for Gaddafi | ||
stalking.d00m
213 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + When I gave my jacket to the drycleaners in Cairo today, it still smelt of cordite. It had been three days and over 1,000-km of road travel since the fall of Ras Lanuf, but my jacket still smelt of rocket smoke. I reported on the fall of the town for Headlines Today, but I haven't had the time to write about it. I need to. It'll be much of what you've already seen in my report. But I need to write about this to get it out of my system. Anyone who's seen death smile will probably know what I mean. Anyway, here's what happened on March 10. It was afternoon on March 9 and our car was doing 140-km/h on the highway between Aj Dabiyah and Ras Lanuf, an oil town roughly halfway between rebel stronghold Benghazi and Libya's capital, Tripoli. As we drove -- Headlines Today's Gaurav Sawant and I and British photojournalist James Wardell -- Libyan air force jets bombed an oil containment vessel on the outskirts of Ras Lanuf, sending two huge plumes of smoke skyward. When we pulled into the town, there was chaos in the main square. Guns were being fired everywhere. Hopped up rebels emptied their Kalashnikov magazines uselessly into the air, while air-defence positions fired blankly into a purply firmament. I'd gotten used to seeing this sort of thing. Agreeing that it was probably a bad idea to hang around gun positions at twilight, we headed to the Ras Lanuf hospital. The names of the dead were scrawled on pieces of paper and taped to a side-window at the main foyer. Doctors and nurses in their greens mixed with rebels holding their weapons -- assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 9mm pistols tucked into belts. A lot of the rebels were smoking inside the hospital, but nobody told them not to. A back of fresh dates sat at the reception ("Reception" was written, slightly disturbingly, in a children's party font). Doctors were running around attending to the wounded. We were asked to wait, and the ushered into the intensive care room, where a soldier was being resuscitated. Half of his head was blown away, now bandaged with blood-soaked cloth. His body shuddered with siezures, a piece of cloth jammed in his mouth to keep him from biting his tongue. His head had been shattered by shrapnel. It didn't look like he would make it. But as soon as his vitals were set, he was gurneyed off into an ambulance and zipped away to Aj Dabiyah, where a more equipped hospital would do everything it could to keep him alive. We don't know what happened to him, but he probably didn't make it. You should have seen his head. Dr Suheil Altarash, the director of the hospital, asked us to stay the night at the hospital, since any other part of Ras Lanuf was liable to either be bombed or ambushed. We decided to drive through the main square before turning in. Outside, we were approached by a rebel soldier Rawad, who gave us fizzy apple juice and got his friends to show us their weapons. One of them was stoned and kept dropping his 9mm in front of us. When we told Rawad that we were sleeping at the hospital, he would hear none of it. He said the rebel army had captured Ras Lanuf's only luxury hotel, the Fadeel, and that he would arrange for us to stay there. Without a good excuse not to, we took Rawad and headed to the hotel, a seriously fancy place bang on the Mediterranean. Inside the Fadeel, there were rebel soldiers everywhere, all of them with guns. One had a machete. The hotel's staff had long been packed off. The rebels had the whole hotel to themselves. Rawad set about finding us a room. As we walked the corridors of this weird, smashed up deluxe hotel, we noticed that every room had been slept in, sheets ripped up, furniture tossed around, trash everywhere, cigarette butts stubbed into walls and carpets and curtains. Every room had become a dump. A soldier with a light machine gun took us to a room, and before entering, he ordered another (he had two 9mms in his belt) to spray the room with air freshener. We entered. It was a good room. More rebel soldiers entered the room to find out what was going on. Every single television had been removed from the hotel. Gaurav, James and I decided this was probably the most dangerous place to spend the night at. We decided to leave, but needed to do so without offending Rawad and at least a dozen stoned, boisterous, volatile rebel soldiers, who'd just spent the last few days being bombed senseless by Gaddafi's air force. We told them we'd go to the hospital and come back later in the night. Luckily, they didn't seem to care. A vat of pene pasta rotted in one corner of the lobby. The reception was stripped of everything. Every single room key was gone. Everything in the hotel that was worth anything had been removed and probably sent off to be sold. Our driver, Imraja, helped himself to a package of A4 paper and a Swedish thriller lying on the counter. On the way back, our driver stopped at the make-shift rebel canteen to get us food. He came back with a large bag full of assorted things. Flat bread, tins of tuna, date bars, biscuits and grape juice. We parked outside the hospital and ate gratefully. It was bitterly cold that night. While rebel ack-acks continued to fire sporadically through the night, the whipping Mediterranean wind would make it one of our more uncomfortable nights. We drove back to the hospital, and asked Dr Altarash if he was sure he could accommodate us, since we didn't want to stay at the hotel. "Don't even think of staying at the hotel. That's the most dangerous place around here. Stay the night here with us. You can eat what we eat, sleep where we sleep. If we have to die, we die together. We are family," he said. And he really meant it. In Dr Altarash's tone, there was exhaustion, fear, anger, pride and despair all at once. His assistants gave us a room with two matresses and two stretchers, and offered us packs of juice. The only other food available was that bag of dates at the reception. None of us had any idea what would happen the next day. At 9.30am on March 10, Gaurav, James and I drove down to the main square. We had arrived right in the middle of an air-raid. It was no drill. Looking up, I quickly scoped a swing-wing fighter -- probably a MiG-23 -- with its wings in mid-position, banking sharply right over where we were. Two separate anti-aircraft gun positions opened fire, slamming shells into the sky with their little puffs of black smoke. The jet pulled up and disappeared into a wisp of cloud, levelled out and shot off in the direction of the sun. I cannot adequately describe the noise levels at the square. Three gun positions, located in a triangle, continued to fire after the jet was well out of range, while a rebel soldier perched on a compound wall screamed "Allahu Akbar" continuously through a megaphone, a phrase that the rebels would chant in rising screams during air attacks. As the chants subsided, the Libyan fighter jet returned, this time at higher altitude, its wings still in mid-position. There was a sudden scramble for cover. We dove behind a concrete wall, waiting for an explosion that didn't come. The rebels continued to fire, while others prepared more chains of ammunition. Then, in the distance, we heard what sounded like the rapid dull detonation report of a cluster bomb, and sure enough saw the plumes. As we stood in the middle of that square, recording the event and reporting what we saw, we heard more thuds, this time much nearer. The bombing had begun. Rebels at the square told us that the fighters were now circuiting over Ben Jawwad, a town not far from Ras Lanuf, and that was where the real fighting was happening. Eager to see the actual frontline, the real border between the rebels and Gaddafi's advancing forces, we decided to follow a rebel convoy. Rawad, the young rebel soldier we had met the previous evening, was with us in our vehicle. One soldier told us a couple of journalists had been passed through an hour before, and therefore we could go through. We drove, and all along the way in the distance, we could see the bombing. Big blasts of smoke popped intermittently from behind dunes, trees and rocks. On the way, we picked up a French journalist who had been pulled out of a rebel vehicle and sent back walking. The four of us and our driver stopped about a kilometer from the frontline, where a congregation of air-defence positions continued to fire into the sky. There was a light breeze blowing, and we were in the middle of a shrubby desert area, with the Mediterranean sea off to our right. On our left was a large clump of trees. We got out of the car and waited. We were told we couldn't go any further. The journalists who had been passed through until that point were there too, an Italian journalist, Lucia, and her cameraman. We got out of our vehicle and stood by the side of the road, squinting into the distance at the fighting that was on a kilometer down the road. Three rebel soldiers stood near our vehicle, one of them with a machine gun and the other two with AKs. Our driver took the machine gun and posed for photographs. Rawad was with us. He had gone silent, because like us, he had noticed that the convoy we had followed to the frontline, had turned around and zoomed back to Ras Lanuf in a cloud of brown dust. And we didn't know why. Five minutes later, it began. From the side of the road, we felt an impact and a large plume of smoke rise from behind the clump of trees off to our left. The impact was near, and our vehicle shook. The next salvo of rockets landed perhaps 70-feet from our vehicle. The big thud of the rockets threw us, as we ducked for cover. James ran to our right, over the desert sand towards the sea, reaching about 40 feet from where we were, he continued to scream to us to move away. On my knees, I peeped behind our vehicle to see three more rockets slam onto a patch of grass on the side of the road. I felt my hair fly, and the vehicle rocked. As I took cover quickly, I heard pieces of shrapnel whack the side of our vehicle and another parked a few meters behind us. A third salvo was fired, this one slightly behind and to the left of our vehicle, closer still. The Italian crew, not knowing where their vehicle was rushed to ours, as we all spread out flat on the ground, hoping that the slight depression in the side of the road would save us from what we knew by then would be a rocket that landed closer still. Our vehicle absorbed the thudding vibrations of the next rocket that landed. And since the rockets were impacting behind us -- flying over our heads, effectively -- we were perfectly situated both, within range, and within the kill-zones of the weapons that were being launched in our direction. I was flat on the ground, Gaurav and Lucia in front of me, everyone yelling. Off to our right, I saw James in the distance, and for a moment thought I would move off to the left to put more distance between us and the rocket salvos. In a few seconds, we decided to clamber into the car, and James sprinted towards us to pile in last. We U-turned through a haze of smoke and zoomed back towards Ras Lanuf. All the while, we hoped that there wasn't a fifth rocket, corrected perfectly to smash into our mini-van. There wasn't. But as we breathed in the rocket smoke, and emerged into clearer desert air, our van fish-tailed back to Ras Lanuf, where rebel positions were still emptying their magazines into the sky. The air raid wasn't over. We quickly found our bearings, caught our breaths, and left. Three hours later, Ras Lanuf fell to Gaddafi's advancing forces. And the hospital was overrun. Source livefist.blogspot.com | ||
MrBadMan
93 Posts
I just know a couple hard facts about the Ghaddafi regime: he nationalized the oil ressources 1969, taking them away from british and US oil companies; and under Ghaddafi, Lybia was transformed into the richest African nation, with a standard of living that rivals Portugal. I also predict: if the current aggression succeeds in removing the Ghaddafi regime, his successor will be a Lybian who has studied in Oxford/Harvard/Yale and has spent the last 10+ years in the USA or in Europe. The first thing he will do is privatize the oil, with bids going to US and British companies. After 10 years, Lybia will be among the poorest countries of Africa again. I bet the kind of "freedom" those rebels are fighting for is the freedom to privatize the oil ressources, aka "neoliberalism". The Lybians would be crazy if they'd allow this to happen. | ||
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
MrBadMan
93 Posts
| ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
I'm not really seeing it , seems exactly the same as the last puppet to me. Another warmonger in the white house determined to bankrupt the U.S.A. | ||
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On March 21 2011 21:02 MrBadMan wrote: Oil is the most profitable trade product in the world. The USA and GB dont want the oil itself, they want the insane profits that come with selling said oil. Right now, those profits go to the Lybian people. I guarantee, after this is over, those profits will go into the pockets of US/GB companies. It's exactly the same thing that happened in Iraq. BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp run the oil fields in Iraq now. They will be running the oil fields in Lybia before long, and the Lybian society will fall back to poverty. If u think the Libyan ppl are profiting from the oil and not just Gaddafi and his clan you are delusional. On March 21 2011 21:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The change Barack Obama was talking about... I'm not really seeing it , seems exactly the same as the last puppet to me. Another warmonger in the white house determined to bankrupt the U.S.A. a Warmonger wouldn't have waited for the U.N. ala Bush. | ||
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
On March 21 2011 21:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The change Barack Obama was talking about... I'm not really seeing it , seems exactly the same as the last puppet to me. Another warmonger in the white house determined to bankrupt the U.S.A. except the people of Libyia stood up to thier government, the goverment replied using military force and the allied forces are stepping into defend them. Theres no gain in this for U.S.A because Libyia was giving the west what it wanted anyway. The U.S.A didn't lead the push towards taking action. Theres so many reasons why this is different to Iraq or any previously instances that might be refurred to as warmongering. edit: O.K thats falling into the argueing back and forth that we are warned not to do so I will cease making any further contribution to this thread before I get myself in trouble | ||
Krehlmar
Sweden1149 Posts
On March 21 2011 20:30 MrBadMan wrote: No one knows who the rebel leaders are, what their goals are, and what they are actually protesting against. It would not surprise me if CIA/SAS/MI6 are heavily involved with those "rebels". I just know a couple hard facts about the Ghaddafi regime: he nationalized the oil ressources 1969, taking them away from british and US oil companies; and under Ghaddafi, Lybia was transformed into the richest African nation, with a standard of living that rivals Portugal. I also predict: if the current aggression succeeds in removing the Ghaddafi regime, his successor will be a Lybian who has studied in Oxford/Harvard/Yale and has spent the last 10+ years in the USA or in Europe. The first thing he will do is privatize the oil, with bids going to US and British companies. After 10 years, Lybia will be among the poorest countries of Africa again. I bet the kind of "freedom" those rebels are fighting for is the freedom to privatize the oil ressources, aka "neoliberalism". The Lybians would be crazy if they'd allow this to happen. I'm all for the bombings and western meddeling but this man right here actually hit the spot. What he is saying is 90% correct, if you don't believe him then read up on why Tunisians even revolted in the first place: Ben Ali sold out half the country to private interests from the west, a large reason why nobody gave a shit before the revolution because everyone in the west was ganing from it. It's not conspiracy, it's just facts. My father's tunisian I know this as a fact, my cuisins brother was the minister of the country bank... he overseered the entire sellout (which he couldn't stop sadly). Yes there are to many "OMFG OIL USA CAREFACE" posts but there is ofcourse a huge reason to why the US and West are bombing Libya, but not Baharein or Jemen. | ||
| ||