|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
Addressing journalists at an air base in southern Italy, from which Royal Air Force (RAF) warplanes have been operating, Air Vice Marshall Greg Bagwell said international coalition forces could operate with impunity over Libya.
"Effectively, [Libya's] air force no longer exists as a fighting force," said Bagwell. "And his [Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's] integrated air defence system and command and control networks are severely degraded to the point that we can operate over his airspace with impunity," he said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132316258646677.html
|
Gaddafi's the sort for man we can do business with even after this. Those are just declarations.
You know he's been bombed before right? West wanted to take him down long time ago, and in the last ten years we did great business with him. So i'm not really sure if it's a big problem if he stays on.
|
Khadaffi is trouble for who?
The west and the people of Libya.
As it stands the UN intervention has massively reduced the ammount of casualties in the Libyan civil war. Had the UN not stepped in then Benghazi would currently be in the process of getting purged, after wich a nation wide purge would follow.
To a degree we are lucky that Gaddafi's military advisors were too incompetent to realize they could have moved their forces into Benghazi, making the entire No-Fly zone pointless.
Allowing Gaddafi to regain control is simply not a situation that is desireable for the people of Libya or the west.
Personally i didn't care all too much and if it was my call i would not even have begun this no-fly zone, but the fact is we did. Logically i change my position given the new situation.
Once you step in, you go in all the way.
Gaddafi isn't a friend of the west and he certainly isn't going to be BFF's with us if he recaptures his power. This guy is a spitefull SOB and will murder enough western people untill he considers it even.
|
On March 24 2011 04:41 zalz wrote:The west and the people of Libya. As it stands the UN intervention has massively reduced the ammount of casualties in the Libyan civil war. Had the UN not stepped in then Benghazi would currently be in the process of getting purged, after wich a nation wide purge would follow. To a degree we are lucky that Gaddafi's military advisors were too incompetent to realize they could have moved their forces into Benghazi, making the entire No-Fly zone pointless. Allowing Gaddafi to regain control is simply not a situation that is desireable for the people of Libya or the west. Personally i didn't care all too much and if it was my call i would not even have begun this no-fly zone, but the fact is we did. Logically i change my position given the new situation. Once you step in, you go in all the way. Gaddafi isn't a friend of the west and he certainly isn't going to be BFF's with us if he recaptures his power. This guy is a spitefull SOB and will murder enough western people untill he considers it even.
He was a threat to the west before this intervention? or he is a threat to the west now?...
|
On March 24 2011 04:41 zalz wrote:
As it stands the UN intervention has massively reduced the ammount of casualties in the Libyan civil war.
You have no basis for saying that.
|
On March 24 2011 04:47 ImFromPortugal wrote:
He was a threat to the west before this intervention? or he is a threat to the west now?...
He probably wasn't a threat before the protesters were massacred and the full rebellion started. There is no way Europe could accept a mass exodus from right across the sea, as the refugee and immigration situation in greece and italy is already beyond severe.
As soon as Ghadafi started the massacres, he had made it impossible for us to accept him.
|
He was a threat to the west before this intervention? or he is a threat to the west now?...
He wasn't a threat before, he is a threat now if he would regain control.
You have no basis for saying that.
It is really not that hard to put 1 and 1 together.
He had the forces to take Benghazi, he promised to commit a massacre, looking at the history of Gaddafi we know he isn't the kind of guy that shakes it off and suggests to bury the hatchet.
You don't seem to realize how much of a vindictive peace of shit Gaddafi really is.
No basis? You are being dishonest by even suggesting anything of the sorts.
|
Im amazed how people can say they understand khadaffi and claim to have somekind of all seeying eye about international diplomacy and Libyan culture based on the numbers of headlines they read each day. It doesnt take much for people to accept bombing other countries in the name of peace and humanity. Ignorance strikes again
|
On March 24 2011 03:44 Pika Chu wrote:
I'm glad you know so well, you must've been there yourself. It's about tribes not individual choices. Some tribes are against Gadafi and this is more of a inter tribal fight.
I'm glad you know so well, you must've been there yourself!
; )
Also, an interview of the director of the Study and Research Centre for the Arab and Mediterranean World in Geneva, Hasni Abidi:
F24: What relationship do tribal chiefs have with Muammar Gaddafi?
Hasni Abidi: After his coup d’état against King Idris in 1969, Gaddafi wanted to reshape Libya into a nation-state modelled on the Western example. That effort entailed a full-blown attack on tribal chiefs. He took away all their political power, but did not succeed in stripping them of their strength and influence.
We see the result today: Gaddafi is reaping what he sowed forty years ago.
F24: Do the tribal chiefs have any influence in the current revolt in Libya? If so, what is it?
Hasni Abidi: The uprisings in Libya are popular, not tribal. But just like the army, tribal chiefs can have a crucial impact in this movement, even to the point of toppling the regime. They legitimise the anti-government movement and if they join it, they can considerably expand the movement’s reach. The tribal chiefs represent a sort of moral and social support, and a refuge, given the total absence of Libyan political institutions. The main Libyan tribe, Warfallah, counts nearly one million people and was the first tribe to support the current anti-government movement. It’s a very bad sign for Gaddafi’s regime. And the regime knows that.
Source
|
On March 24 2011 05:34 koveras wrote:
Im amazed how people can say they understand khadaffi and claim to have somekind of all seeying eye about international diplomacy and Libyan culture based on the numbers of headlines they read each day. It doesnt take much for people to accept bombing other countries in the name of peace and humanity. Ignorance strikes again
Don't try and make this out to be a choice between peace and war, there wasn't a choice.
If you want to occupy yourself with human suffering then begin by admitting that if the UN had stood back there would have been countless dead in Benghazi and the military would still be executing people today.
There wasn't a choice for peace, it was war or war.
Don't start talking about humanity after Gaddafi raped his own population for 40 years, violating every single human right that is out there. No it's not 40 years of brutal opppression that was the inhumane thing, it was the bombing by the coalition wich even by Gaddafi propeganda hasn't made more then a hundred deaths and in reality probably hasn't exceeded 10.
Don't pretend like Gaddafi is a humane alternative because that man is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands under his regime.
People take their hatred for the west to the extreme where they would rather bash the west then adress the evil that some dictators do. What's next? Gonna try and justify the North-Korean regime?
|
On March 24 2011 04:48 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 04:41 zalz wrote:
As it stands the UN intervention has massively reduced the ammount of casualties in the Libyan civil war. You have no basis for saying that.
I think there's obviously a pretty clear basis for saying that...the rebels are even complaining that the West did not intervene early enough and aren't doing enough.
The guy who was shot up by a helicopter gunship and almost lost his son in the same incident forgave the US immediately and still pledges his support for christ's sake, how often does that kind of thing happen to America/the West.
|
On March 24 2011 06:17 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 05:34 koveras wrote:
Im amazed how people can say they understand khadaffi and claim to have somekind of all seeying eye about international diplomacy and Libyan culture based on the numbers of headlines they read each day. It doesnt take much for people to accept bombing other countries in the name of peace and humanity. Ignorance strikes again Don't try and make this out to be a choice between peace and war, there wasn't a choice. If you want to occupy yourself with human suffering then begin by admitting that if the UN had stood back there would have been countless dead in Benghazi and the military would still be executing people today. There wasn't a choice for peace, it was war or war. Don't start talking about humanity after Gaddafi raped his own population for 40 years, violating every single human right that is out there. No it's not 40 years of brutal opppression that was the inhumane thing, it was the bombing by the coalition wich even by Gaddafi propeganda hasn't made more then a hundred deaths and in reality probably hasn't exceeded 10.
Don't pretend like Gaddafi is a humane alternative because that man is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands under his regime.People take their hatred for the west to the extreme where they would rather bash the west then adress the evil that some dictators do. What's next? Gonna try and justify the North-Korean regime?
It is actually a choice between peace and war. Moltke already expressed a very good point of view. Gaddafi has never been presented more than two options:
1. The protests and rebellion have said to not stop until he quits power. So the option is him quitting power and probably getting judged and hanged by the new anti-Gaddafi government. So this option is death.
2. Try to stop the rebellion at any costs which means that profiteers like France/UK/USA will jump in with a good excuse in the face of the public opinion and take over Libya and its resources. So this indirectly means death for him too as that's the ultimate purpose of the war.
Look at it from the eyes of Gaddafi and tell me honestly, what have you chosen. And keep in mind Gaddafi is not alone, there's his family, friends, acolytes and tribe who would get to suffer in both options. Please tell me what would you do if you were Gaddafi.
And now for the bolded part. Where did you get your info from? Media? Because you're wrong, plain wrong. Tell me which freedoms libyans did not have outside the freedom of choosing its leaders and free speech in media. They could get out of the country, they could watch foreign TV on their tvs, they have internet, they can find in their shops and buy things we can buy over here. Tell me what did he do so bad that you're even comparing him to Kim Jong Il. Libya isn't poor and i gave proofs that the libyans HDR is very good, better than most other countries so people aren't dieing of hunger. Really, i can't even see how someone can even compare Gaddafi to Kim Jong Il or Libya to North Korea.
Hatred for the west, evil dictators? The west has always been supporting evil dictators they like and bashing the ones they don't. Are the evil dictators supported by the west better than the evil dictators bashed by the west?
Im amazed how people can say they understand khadaffi and claim to have somekind of all seeying eye about international diplomacy and Libyan culture based on the numbers of headlines they read each day. It doesnt take much for people to accept bombing other countries in the name of peace and humanity. Ignorance strikes again
It's not ignorance and neither stupidity. Call me dumb but i believe people here on tl.net support the war because of good faith, it's a deceit but they don't get it. Good faith coped with the lack of information on this topic. They are simply emotional unable to think outside the paradigm the western media brought them in: dictator = very bad person who is insane and has no respect for human life and slaugthers its own people; rebbel = someone very cool who fights for the high ideals of human rights and freedom, represents the force of good fighting the evil (let's not forget, jim raynor was a rebel after all and we loved him didn't we?) democracy = the only good system, anything else is bad.
People can only understand this situation if they detach themselves emotionally from the situation and do a a rational analysis of what is going on, with rational arguments. You need to be able to see the situation from other paradigms to understand it. And you need to be able to calculate the outcome possibilities, and not just short term.
To my shame i have also been initially caught in an anti-Gaddafi emotion when these protests started to happen.
I think there's obviously a pretty clear basis for saying that...the rebels are even complaining that the West did not intervene early enough and aren't doing enough.
The guy who was shot up by a helicopter gunship and almost lost his son in the same incident forgave the US immediately and still pledges his support for christ's sake, how often does that kind of thing happen to America/the West.
See, just what i was saying? Has any of what this guy said have any ration behind? Nope, just feelings, it's an emotional argument not a rational one.
|
Took a week to get logistics to crete and command structure in order, but our planes finally joined.
|
I am not really sure what to think about the military intervention in Libya, but it is unquestionable that Gaddafi has a long track record of murders and other crimes, Pika Chu. For that alone he should not be supported ever again. He clearly uses his power for personal gains, like when his son was arrested in Switzerland. Do you really think someone like him and his clan are fit to rule a country?
Only recently the Spiegel reported that in the 80s he threatened to take Germans working in Libya hostage, if fugitive opposition leaders wouldn't be extradited - alternatively he wanted to be allowed to assassinate them in Germany. This is likely the way he treated any opposition in his country.
|
The attack on benghazi was probably all the justification that was needed. The french put a large military column out of action during the first hours of flying.
|
I must be missing something because this intervention makes little to no sense. The very idea that Gaddafi would have murdered every man, woman and child in benghazi is funny. Actually, the idea that we are saving civilian lives by extending a civil war in a country is also rather laughable.
What would have happened if we didn't act before he went into benghazi? Easy, Gaddafi forces would have marched into the town, the rebels would disband and this rebellion would already be over.
Would rebel leaders be held accountable? Of course. That is the risk they take upon rebelling. Civilians would be killed. But surely no more than will certainly die from the continued military action.
|
On March 24 2011 21:15 Maenander wrote:
I am not really sure what to think about the military intervention in Libya, but it is unquestionable that Gaddafi has a long track record of murders and other crimes, Pika Chu. For that alone he should not be supported ever again. He clearly uses his power for personal gains, like when his son was arrested in Switzerland. Do you really think someone like him and his clan are fit to rule a country?
Only recently the Spiegel reported that in the 80s he threatened to take Germans working in Libya hostage, if fugitive opposition leaders wouldn't be extradited - alternatively he wanted to be allowed to assassinate them in Germany. This is likely the way he treated any opposition in his country.
Yeah that's unquestionable and i'm not denying that and i'm not defending Gaddafi for what he did, i'm simply stating that there are horrible exaggerations of what he did wrong. I mean killing an individual is very wrong but it's still different from killing a thousand.
About him being fit to rule a country, depends who you're comparing him to  . Still for the tenth time i need to remind you that Libya isn't poor, the citizens aren't doing bad, and the country did develop quite much in the last decade. Now compare that to our democratic elected president who's a dictator wannabe and brought our country to such bad conditions and over 80 billion $ foreign debt.
|
French warplanes have shot down a Libyan plane in the first incident of its kind since enforcement of the UN no-fly zone began, a US official said.
The incident happened near the besieged western city of Misrata, reports said.
Dozens of coalition missiles have already hit military bases, with the aim of ending Col Muammar Gaddafi's ability to launch air attacks.
UK officials said on Wednesday that Libya's air force no longer existed as a fighting force.
Coalition forces have pounded Libyan targets for a fifth consecutive night
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12850975
|
On March 25 2011 00:46 Pika Chu wrote:Yeah that's unquestionable and i'm not denying that and i'm not defending Gaddafi for what he did, i'm simply stating that there are horrible exaggerations of what he did wrong. I mean killing an individual is very wrong but it's still different from killing a thousand. About him being fit to rule a country, depends who you're comparing him to . Still for the tenth time i need to remind you that Libya isn't poor, the citizens aren't doing bad, and the country did develop quite much in the last decade. Now compare that to our democratic elected president who's a dictator wannabe and brought our country to such bad conditions and over 80 billion $ foreign debt.
It's about potential. They might have an OK-life but they can have much better; read the links I provided earlier.
His tribe wouldn't have had any troubles if Ghadaffi had left. In fact, thanks to him, they're all over the government. And he could've left with his family like Mubarak and Ben Ali did, and spend the rest of his life on a sunny beach. How could've people killed him if he had left the country? International justice? "Lol".
His abuse is also notorious and played a great role in the uprising. Libya was his playground.
He has models as bodyguards, a harem.
His sons, violent and greedy individuals, can do whatever they want. Saif Al-Islam was the most moderate. At some point, two of them fought about a new Coca-Cola company, in 2005.
What did they do? They both attacked and sacked the place, wounded one of the workers, with groups of armed men. They both wanted control over it. Behaving like kids or international thugs. The company was then victim of extortion from both sides.
There are many stories like these. Ghadaffi's clan is composed of notorious outlaws - that is, the law doesn't concern them. They extort money from libyan institutions carelessly.
You can say that we are wrong all you want, but we're not "fooled" or anything like it. We just disagree my good sir.
Did you read what I posted about tribes? Because the ignorant, in this case, was you.
|
On March 25 2011 00:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
French warplanes have shot down a Libyan plane in the first incident of its kind since enforcement of the UN no-fly zone began, a US official said.
In fact, they used a bomb to destroy it just when it landed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
