|
bringer posted:So a situation where government backed militias slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people can't compared to a situation where government troops and mercenaries are presently attacking civilian population centres...why? Stopping the killing of civilians is a priority, helping the rebels overthrow CQ takes things too far. The best case scenario would be for the UN to bring both sides to the table and hammer out an acceptable truce.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
breaklaw posted:A dictator killing civilians happens all the time, there aren't enough UN resolutions to deal with them all. When there are, it's mostly just sanctions. Do you believe that in these instances, the mass murder of civilians, the international community should protect those that are in danger? Especially who's only crime is speaking out against their repressive government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
How long do you think that the participants in this setting could act without having to force a change? a) Gaddafi government? Are they able to export any oil and gas from their western oil fields currently? If not, how long will it take before people in Tripoli will start needing foreign food aid? b) The rebels? Are they capable of producing oil and gas for export? How long will they stand on their own until they become reliant on foreign food aid? c) Foreign governments? How big effect does the Libyan situation have on oil prices, and how long will it allowed to continue until something must be done? Or how long will the western airforces be able to afford these operations if nothing changes -> at what point would it become altogether cheaper to invade in force rather than wait for revolution to become complete?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:How long do you think that the participants in this setting could act without having to force a change? It is almost as if it would be beneficial for both the Libyan people and the rest of the world if Libya was ruled by a free and democratic society rather than leaving Gaddafi in power
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Lagtastic posted:Do you believe that in these instances, the mass murder of civilians, the international community should protect those that are in danger? Especially who's only crime is speaking out against their repressive government? I do and so do most of the world leaders but where do you draw the line? Here, pretty much everyone agreed that air strikes on a peaceful protest was over the line. Here you had the Libyan ambassador to the UN and a bunch of the foreign diplomats resigning and condemning the government. Still, you can't set a precedent that killing civilians equals justification for international intervention. Especially with the likes of Russia and China holding so much sway. A lot of countries want to reserve the right to do that poo poo themselves if need be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Jut posted:We've been over this before. There is no Genocide in Libya. Genocide has a precise definition. The resolution doesn't support one side or the other, it is to prevent the killing of civilians, by default it is going to help the rebellion. Why would Gaddaffi honour any international agreement without the threat of international force?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:Still, you can't set a precedent that killing civilians equals justification for international intervention. Especially with the likes of Russia and China holding so much sway. A lot of countries want to reserve the right to do that poo poo themselves if need be. "mass murder of civilians is okay, that bigger boy did it"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Jut posted:We've been over this before. There is no Genocide in Libya. Genocide has a precise definition. Oh, so the Libyan tribes aren't racially distinct enough to classify this as genocide? How do you propose the UN bring Gaddafi to the table? You know what, forget that. Just answer this: Why do you persist on thinking that the rebels are classified as civilians and will be given UN air support, rather than taking the mandate for what it is: the authorization to take necessary steps to protect civilian population centres from collective punishment.* They have their own flag. They have what appears to be a ruling council. European nations have recognized them as legitimate. None of these facts represent the armed rebels as civilians. *which, by the way, is a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Competition posted:Peaceful revolutions rose up and a mad dictator responsible for propping up half the worlds terrorist organisations over past 40 years decided to put them down violently and indiscriminately. Until the world is one big happy democracy, dictators are always going to rule based on the threat of and (if pushed) use of force against their populace. The difference is that this time the dictator is someone we don't like, and his country is embarrassingly close to Europe. Coincidentally, he's also not strong enough to really threaten any of our interests if we attack him. The free world has a moral obligation to act when it's convenient and painless. Again, I'm not sure that's wrong. It's probably better than never acting anyway. Let's just not pretend the forces of freedom are stamping out injustice around the world here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
^^^ I'm not pretending that they are, they should be though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:Still, you can't set a precedent that killing civilians equals justification for international intervention. Especially with the likes of Russia and China holding so much sway. A lot of countries want to reserve the right to do that poo poo themselves if need be. We can't set a precedent for military action where flagrant war crimes are being committed because we may offend other countries whose dubious humanitarian track records will go down in international history as the greatest shame of the past century? We must reserve the right to offend our allies to ensure that this great injustice does not continue. Sinteres posted:Until the world is one big happy democracy, dictators are always going to rule based on the threat of and (if pushed) use of force against their populace. The difference is that this time the dictator is someone we don't like, and his country is embarrassingly close to Europe. Coincidentally, he's also not strong enough to really threaten any of our interests if we attack him. Why can't we make Libya a better place for those who have stood up peacefully for their rights only to be SHOT and BOMBED. Lagtastic fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Obama's speaking right now, check the AlJ English stream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Obama's speaking right now on Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Jut posted:We've been over this before. There is no Genocide in Libya. Genocide has a precise definition. dictionary.com or wikipedia posted:Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. One could very easily argue that the Libyan rebels are a national group? e. Unless you're arguing it's not systematic, in which case I encourage you to become a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Obama telling us that the UN and US have moved swiftly. Which err... Okay, relative to doing nothing I suppose that's true. Edit: Obama is really damned stuttery today
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
No brainer to take the U.S. as the 1 overall seed over the 16 seed Libya here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Love the AJE speech and speech reaction split screen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
How much control over the mercenaries does Gaddafi have? Have they already been paid? Are they expecting payment after the UN kicks his rear end? Or are they getting paid via plundering - in which case combat will not stop. I feel like this speech is a bit canned. Sounds exactly like Bush talking about invading Iraq, except this actually feels more tangible. It helps when the rest of the world mostly agrees, as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
gently caress yeah Obama do a fat kid body slam on this douchebag Gaddafi
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Good on Obama and Clinton to call bullshit on the "cease fire"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Meanwhile in Bahrain... quote:On the morning of March 18, 2011, the government tore down the Pearl Monument, announcing on state broadcaster BTV that the monument had been "violated" and "desecrated" by the "vile" anti-government protesters, and had to be "cleansed." It's so petty it's hilarious. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Competition posted:The resolution doesn't support one side or the other, it is to prevent the killing of civilians, by default it is going to help the rebellion. It most certainly does. 1970 sanctioned Gaddafi and referred him to the ICC. It's advocating regime change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
Averrences posted:Meanwhile in Bahrain... This really saddens me. I've been there so many times. driven around it a hundred times when it was still a roundabout. This is kind of a big deal. This was a major symbol of the country. It's printed on some of the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Averrences posted:Meanwhile in Bahrain... No, see, it was to improve traffic in the area so it was a totally legit move. quote:The government said the demolition was "out of the government's keenness to optimize services and improve the infrastructure" and that it would "boost flow of traffic in this vital area of the capital," according to the state-run Bahrain News Agency. source Really though, destroying a symbol is not the same as destroying an idea. Do they expect anyone would believe this was anything less than a weak attempt to keep people from protesting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
davebo posted:Shows what you know. Men don't even have libyans. In my defense, I was educated in the United States and we don't even TALK about those things because it might lead to teenagers having sex. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Reports coming in of an attack on Benghazi
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Couple of updates:quote:BBC reporter near RAF Mahram base has reported that two Squardons might be departing from this air base. Squadron 9 which is specialised in taking out SAM sites (Surface to Air Missles) and Squadron 32 (aka. Storm Shadow) which specialised in targeted bombing of tanks and artillery quote:Al Jazeera Arabic has just reported that Gaddafi’s ground troops, tanks and heavy artillery are only 50km away from Benghazi and making headway to the city right now quote:BREAKING Al Jazeera Arabic reporting the following from Benghazi
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
Please let those departing plane rumors from BBC be true. The rebels obviously need help badly and it would be nice to see Western powers actually helping support a popular democratic uprising in the Arab world instead of crushing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Gaddafi forces advancing on Benghazi now, seems like he wants to finish this before the no-fly zone can be put into effect. He won't be able to take the city tonight, but he doesn't have to, plan is probably to surround it and isolate the rebels in pockets then slowly starve them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Sounds like air strikes are going to be some skin-of-the-teeth last second poo poo if they happen at all. I hope they hit the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Freigeist posted:Gaddafi forces advancing on Benghazi now, seems like he wants to finish this before the no-fly zone can be put into effect. Dammit, this empties out the hope and  pride I had from:twitter posted:globaltvnews Canada's sending #fighter jets to help enforce a no-fly zone over #Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:Sounds like air strikes are going to be some skin-of-the-teeth last second poo poo if they happen at all. I hope they hit the bad guys. If they go in, they'll hit their targets. The bigger problem will be the still-hostile air space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Freigeist posted:Gaddafi forces advancing on Benghazi now, seems like he wants to finish this before the no-fly zone can be put into effect. I imagine airdropping food and supplies would be legal under the UN resolution, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Freigeist posted:Gaddafi forces advancing on Benghazi now, seems like he wants to finish this before the no-fly zone can be put into effect. If Misrata is anything to go by his plan is to pound the poo poo out of Benghazi and kill as many people as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Tarnek posted:State of emergency has been declared in Yemen, according to AJE. From here, this basically means: 1. Restrictions on public gatherings and a curfew. 2. Government will be censoring newspapers and all other means of speech 3.Gives the government the ability to seize real estate 4. Prohibits weapons carrying and allows government to take back all weapons licenses. 5. Restriction on the freedom of movement (likely to stop people from entering Sana'a). This comes after 31 people were killed today by snipers. Obama has condemned the massacre, although refrained from taking any further action. State of emergency doesn't change much, not like Saleh paid attention to the law before, but it sets the stage for further killings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
I'll just repost these, useful sources for updates: Live Blogs 18th March LibyaFeb17 Guardian AJE BBC Twitter accounts to watch http://twitter.com/bungdan http://twitter.com/shabablibya http://twitter.com/LibyanDictator http://twitter.com/evanchill http://twitter.com/Liberty4Libya http://twitter.com/BaghdadBrian http://twitter.com/LibyanFrontier http://twitter.com/AlmanaraMedia http://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi http://twitter.com/ChangeInLibya
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
I like how in the Middle-East the term 'president' has slowly morphed to mean 'king'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:If Misrata is anything to go by his plan is to pound the poo poo out of Benghazi and kill as many people as possible. He'll have to be quick about it, though. The No Fly Zone we'll go into effect soon, and if he takes as long as he did in Misrata, his troops will be hosed. Hell, aren't Gaddafi's forces still bombing Misrata?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Obama posted:The US is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal: specifically the protection of civilians in Libya. Thank goodness he is telling Gaddafi exactly what we are not going to do. I guess that whole " Gaddafi must leave" thing didn't mean much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Indi86 posted:If they go in, they'll hit their targets. The bigger problem will be the still-hostile air space. It's a problem that people should be concerned about, but Libya's anti-air capabilities are laughable compared to more recent invasions the West has carried out. Also, his air force is loving old. I mean there's old, and then there's Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:19
|
|