Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

Anudder Oik said:
Now then now then, careful with your keyboard warriorism, you might hurt your fingers...

What I am saying is that some posters have shown views that they think the intervention is going to be;

A. Clean and unmessy
B. Free of charge
C. humanitarian
D. everyone will live happily ever after in harmony.


Now find in history just one intervention like this that didn't end in shit, in divide and rule, in sectarian in fighting for decades after.
Click to expand...
how about you first find some examples of people making the statements you assign to them, as I've seen nobody saying anything like this.

Intervening in a civil war is always going to be messy, cost money, prone to potentially causing humanitarian problems as well as solving them, and probably not leading to everyone living happily ever after.

Doesn't mean the international community must always stand aside and let both sides fight it out, particularly when one side is led by a dictator intent on violently crushing dissent with an entire airforce, tank force and army at his disposal, and the other is fighting for freedom from oppression and democracy, started from peaceful protests and only took up arms after many unarmed protestors were shot dead, and is seriously ill equipped to defend itself against the dictators superior weaponry.
 
dylans said:
the 101 tomahawk missiles launched last night cost 45 million pounds. think that over when the next library closes
Click to expand...

Was thinking about the arms side of this today. Beauty of this war is the attackers have legal cover, moral cover and get to deplete Libya's weapon and will be well placed to be the ones to sell them replacements once the new regime comes in. Good little business investment eh?
 
According to the Mail, Britain has quite a lot of special forces on the ground in Libya working on locating Gaddafi military assets and targetting them for warplanes.
 
free spirit said:
....
Doesn't mean the international community must always stand aside and let both sides fight it out, particularly when one side is led by a dictator intent on violently crushing dissent with an entire airforce, tank force and army at his disposal, and the other is fighting for freedom from oppression and democracy, started from peaceful protests and only took up arms after many unarmed protestors were shot dead, and is seriously ill equipped to defend itself against the dictators superior weaponry.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. So, what about the international community standing aside over Israel's murderous incursions (350 of the victims were children) and Bahrain these days? It cannot be ignored as it is evidence of a certain agenda. If there's no oil, fuck em.

Do you still think this is about defending the democratic rights of the Lybian people? Someone just told me that even Cameron has admitted publicly it's about oil.
 
Anudder Oik said:
Here we go again. So, what about the international community standing aside over Israel's murderous incursions (350 of the victims were children) and Bahrain these days? It cannot be ignored as it is evidence of a certain agenda. If there's no oil, fuck em.

Do you still think this is about defending the democratic rights of the Lybian people? Someone just told me that even Cameron has admitted publicly it's about oil.
Click to expand...
and yet again the same illogical argument appears.

because we haven't done x in countries y & z, we must therefore never do x in any countries.

I'm well aware of the various agendas at play here, but that doesn't mean I should want the international community to stand by and allow another dictator to brutally suppress another popular uprising, and deny the people involved the support they're requesting.

it's not as if this is a western led military uprising, the west was perfectly happy dealing with Gaddafi, and already had all the access to his oil they could possibly want. This is a popular uprising that came from the Libyan people inspired by the actions of their neighbours, it's just that this time the dictator has managed to keep most of the armed forces with him, and the rebels are massively outgunned and requesting outside assistance to level the playing field up a bit.
 
I take it that you're accepting that you'd imagined the posters on this thread who thought this was going to be
A. Clean and unmessy
B. Free of charge
C. humanitarian
D. everyone will live happily ever after in harmony.
Click to expand...
 
Apparently yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that we are at war with Libya. My first thought was: 'Why the fuck are we at war with Libya?'
 
I say again: Libya is a member of OPEC, with its economy depending primarily upon revenues from the oil sector, which constitutes practically all of Libya's export earnings and makes it one of, if not the richest country in Africa.
 
Anyone wondering why the Arab league is so keen to endorse this war? Noone can seriously think this collection of regional despots is in anyway interested in democracy in Libya.Several of them are busy crushing their own democracy movements. Saudi has just invaded Bahrain. Bahrain and Saudi are drowning democracy protests in blood. Yemen has just shot its own demonstrators. So why are the Arab league suddenly so concerned about the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people?

The reason is that they are watching the regional events rolling across North Africa and they are watching what seems to be a diminishing role for the USA. The end of the US empire in the region in fact. Mubarak, America's man is gone. Saudi is facing unprecedented Shia protests in Bahrain and unrest in other border nations. The US is meant to be pulling out of Iraq next year and Iran is beginning to flex its regional muscles. In this context intervention in Libya is intended to tie the US back into the region and secure Saudi hegemony in the region against Iran.That's what this is about, creating an excuse for the USA to remain in the region in order to influence (read roll back) the wave of revolutions that threaten their regional interests. And what better way than installing a US puppet regime in Libya? Little wonder then that the Arab league are not only endorsing this adventure but are bankrolling it too with the UAE and Qatar promising to finance much of it
 
weltweit said:
I heard somewhere today that because the UN resolution is about defending civilians from attack, Gaddafi himself is not a target, his forces are. Possibly it would have been impossible to get so much diplomatic and military support if decapitation had been in the aims.

If you think about it though, one single weapon that killed just Gaddafi alone could be the greatest defence to civilians, could result in the fewest casualties of all options, collateral and otherwise, and could bring about an end to it all in one step.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
If that were true then Gaddafi wouldn't still be in charge. There's more than one man involved here whatever the media would have you think.
 
dylans said:
Anyone wondering why the Arab league is so keen to endorse this war? Noone can seriously think this collection of regional despots is in anyway interested in democracy in Libya.Several of them are busy crushing their own democracy movements. Saudi has just invaded Bahrain. Bahrain and Saudi are drowning democracy protests in blood. Yemen has just shot its own demonstrators. So why are the Arab league suddenly so concerned about the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people?

The reason is that they are watching the regional events rolling across North Africa and they are watching what seems to be a diminishing role for the USA. The end of the US empire in the region in fact. Mubarak, America's man is gone. Saudi is facing unprecedented Shia protests in Bahrain and unrest in other border nations. The US is meant to be pulling out of Iraq next year and Iran is beginning to flex its regional muscles. In this context intervention in Libya is intended to tie the US back into the region and secure Saudi hegemony in the region against Iran.That's what this is about, creating an excuse for the USA to remain in the region in order to influence (read roll back) the wave of revolutions that threaten their regional interests. And what better way than installing a US puppet regime in Libya? Little wonder then that the Arab league are not only endorsing this adventure but are bankrolling it too with the UAE and Qatar promising to finance much of it
Click to expand...
Actually the Arab League just criticized the intensity of the bombardment & said the military actions go beyond what the UN authorized. I doubt if this is a scheme by the US to install a puppet regime. The Europeans have been the ones chomping at the bit to start the bombs dropping. The US has clobbered the AA with cruise missiles & done some other air strikes, but they say they will soon leave the leadership role to others.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition — probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO — "in a matter of days."

In his first public remarks since the start of the bombings, Gates said President Barack Obama felt very strongly about limiting America's role in the operation, adding that the president is "more aware than almost anybody of the stress on the military."

"We agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of those capabilities at the front of this process, and then we expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others," Gates told reporters traveling with him to Russia. "We will continue to support the coalition, we will be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role."
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13180685&page=1
 
free spirit said:
and yet again the same illogical argument appears.

because we haven't done x in countries y & z, we must therefore never do x in any countries.

I'm well aware of the various agendas at play here, but that doesn't mean I should want the international community to stand by and allow another dictator to brutally suppress another popular uprising, and deny the people involved the support they're requesting.

it's not as if this is a western led military uprising, the west was perfectly happy dealing with Gaddafi, and already had all the access to his oil they could possibly want. This is a popular uprising that came from the Libyan people inspired by the actions of their neighbours, it's just that this time the dictator has managed to keep most of the armed forces with him, and the rebels are massively outgunned and requesting outside assistance to level the playing field up a bit.
Click to expand...

sorry but this is bollocks. The specific justification for this war is that it is to "protect civilians" It is therefore perfectly reasonable to question the humanitarian record of those claiming to be the upholders of humanitarian principles and that record is shockingly hypocritical.

If i claim to be a saintly moral person it is reasonable to examine my past record in this regard. If if it showed that i was a rapist and murderer in my past then we could expect people to point out that my behaviour is incompatible with my claim to saintliness
 
I think they days of traditional puppets are long gone look at iraq.
The goverment may be crap but in the OLD days the CIA would have chosen a goon and had him restore order regardless of body count.
with rolling news can't really do that these days.
So it will be pro western face it china did'nt offer any air support or iran. plus that oils got to be sold to somebody.
 
anyone pointed out that Qatar, currently enforcing the NFZ, is actually an autocracy, rated as less democratic than both Cuba and the PRC?
 
likesfish said:
bollocks a popular revoultion against somebody whos prepareed to use armour and artillery not happening.

tell you what you get a 1000 random urbanites with aks and anything else you can find in the armoury
I get sassfarnto and the other ex military urbs and you will lose and thats without getting fuchs to mix up nerve gas :)
Click to expand...

Within hours we'd have to set up a NFZ over the P&P forum to prevent the massacre of the Trots.
 
just wait till a US base or air craft carrier is attacked, the US will get more than a fingers bloodied in this fight with a guy they tried killing in '86.
 
This is interesting:

9.59am: Strictly unconfirmed, but two separate news organisations are reporting that one of Muammar Gaddafi's sons is critically ill after being injured when a rebel fighter jet crashed into Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia compound last week.

PressTV reported that an unnamed son – Gaddafi has seven – is "fighting death" in hospital. It quoted the al-Arabiya news channel.

Al-Manara media is reporting that Khamis Gaddafi died yesterday as a result of his injuries. Khamis is Gaddafi's youngest son, and commander of the Libyan military's elite Khamis Brigade.
Click to expand...

So it appears that last weeks reports of an air attack on Gadaffi did really happen
 
Whether true or not, the timing of 'free libya airforce' coming a few days before the no fly zone remains interesting to me.
 
For their contribution to humanitarian relief, is it too soon to nominate Prime Minister David Cameron and Presient Sarkozy jointly for the Nobel Peace Prize ?
 
Couldn't help but notice the American's have sent USS Ponce to lay off the coast of Libya - doesn't seen entirely inappropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Why Europe and NATO ignores Zelensky's requests and offers? [LOL Bot]
Replies
13
Views
739
editor
editor
A380
And now a French General election too (2024)
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
12K
yield
Y
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
krtek a houby
Reports of up to 6000 dead, 10,000 missing in Libya flooding
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
likesfish
likesfish
WhyLikeThis
Bread or Blood: Rising cost of food and global unrest
Replies
0
Views
491
WhyLikeThis
WhyLikeThis
Back
Top Bottom