|
Yup. Nobody thinks that we're meddling for morale reasons alone but we're able to comprehend that even a selfish act is a good thing if at the end of the day it saves lives. It's like the people who bitch about celebrities taking credit for donating to charity, at the end of the day who cares? as long as a bunch of money gets given to a good cause.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
He's right that we shouldn't label EVERY person with a contrary opinion as a troll. I'd go with idiotic sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Zappatista posted:I hope I'm wrong, but part of me is still expecting the UN Security Council to be slow or lax in doing anything...I'm envisioning Benghazi burning for another day accompanied by pages' worth of posts like "Cmon your planes are right there bomb him already!" France has just announced that their jets are now over Benghazi. If shelling continues while the jets just orbit while awaiting orders, that would make France look monumentally bad. Sarkozy didn't send them there to make
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Either a) a troll, b) an idiot, c) a sociopath or d) a genuinely evil person. Look, removing Gaddafi from power is a good thing. However I take issue with how its being done, this revolution is being used as an excuse to do something the United States has been itching to do for ages. The security council and the US are looking after their own interests here, this has nothing to do with savings lives or bringing freedom to the Libyan people. This is about removing a thorn in their side. Remember nearly half a million people died in Darfur and Omar Bashir is still the president, this simply isn't about lives being saved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Thundarr posted:France has just announced that their jets are now over Benghazi. If shelling continues while the jets just orbit while awaiting orders, that would make France look monumentally bad. Sarkozy didn't send them there to make He announced that we had planes flying over Benghazi enforcing the NFZ and doing recon. There are other planes ready for strikes against ground troops if they do not obey the cease fire, but as far as we know, these are not currently over Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:02
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Look, removing Gaddafi from power is a good thing. However I take issue with how its being done How would you prefer it be done?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Look, removing Gaddafi from power is a good thing. However I take issue with how its being done, this revolution is being used as an excuse to do something the United States has been itching to do for ages. Nobody is claiming that there aren't cynical and self-interested reasons behind doing what they're doing. But they're saying that, regardless of the reason, it's a good thing that it's happening. Also, the US is relatively uninvolved in the current proceedings anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Either a) a troll, b) an idiot, c) a sociopath or d) a genuinely evil person. Don't be so loving naive. No nations does anything that is beyond their interest. Sometimes their actions may appear just and noble, sometimes hypocritical. They may push their allies to do something which isn't in their top priorities but in the end, their motives are different what the public hopes. They don't give a poo poo if Bahrain kills a few of their people when there is huge stakes to lose. They may issue a press release saying: "That's bad. It's very sad." They may react to the violence behind the scenes, reaching their influence to try stabilize the situation. But it is the stability in their interests, even if there are people being dying to achieve the stability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:How would you prefer it be done? 30 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
kalonji posted:30 years ago. Well, since that's not an option, what is an acceptable plan B to you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
What are the chances that - now that there is some precedent for doing so - the UN could implement similar orders to protect the citizens of Yemen? I note that Yemen is starting to look more and more like Libya; the government is firing on citizens more often (although they deny it, but come on). I wish the UN could do something to help the Bahrainis also, but as discussed, I suppose that isn't likely because of Saudi Arabia and because the USA wants to keep its base there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
kalonji posted:30 years ago. France, US and Italy tried to kill him in 1980 (and failed). Still, even if we had done it then it would not have been to protect the Libyan people. pylb fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
kalonji posted:30 years ago. So like Reagan tried to do but everyone bitched and moaned about it. OK then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
pylb posted:France tried to kill him in 1980 (and failed). So did the UK, i'm not talking about covert actions here. I'm talking about an actual open attack like the one taking place today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
DonT15 posted:What are the chances that - now that there is some precedent for doing so - the UN could implement similar orders to protect the citizens of Yemen? Yemen isn't on Europe's doorstep and there hasn't been as much news and video pouring out of it compared to Libya, so unfortunately there probably isn't the political will for intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
DonT15 posted:What are the chances that - now that there is some precedent for doing so - the UN could implement similar orders to protect the citizens of Yemen? The United States will never ever ever support action against the Yemeni government. They are the thin wall between Al Qaida and the rest of the world. If they destabilize the Yemeni government it would be catastrophic for the war on terror.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
kalonji posted:So did the UK, i'm not talking about covert actions here. I'm talking about an actual open attack like the one taking place today. No one is attacking crazy Gaddafi yet. Also, United States doesn't equal the whole of Yemen. You really seem to be just railing on the United States in every post like it's our fault no other country steps up and takes a stand to what is happening in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Someone has an opinion that runs contrary to a thread they are automatically a troll. gently caress you, I guess we should just all agree to circlejerk. You know nothing about UN. It's not a monolithic body or a hive mind. It had Libya on Human Rights Committee for gently caress's sake. The reason why Gaddafi is being thrown under the bus by every world leader is because in addition to systematically killing civilians, he has Charlie Sheened himself by giving idiotic speeches, virtually making himself indefensible. Gaddafi's regime is toxic and there is no going back at this point. Even Ortega and Chavez have washed their hands. Above all, the international powerbrokers don't want to give rise to the perception that they've allowed another Darfur to take place. Failure to act would have resulted in a bloody civil war with an unstable regime coming out on top. This is just a temporary measure to force either a) armistice & partition or b) internal pressure on Gaddafi to be deposed by his own circle. Libya under Gaddafi has been confirmed to be involved in state sponsored terrorist acts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Look, removing Gaddafi from power is a good thing. However I take issue with how its being done, this revolution is being used as an excuse to do something the United States has been itching to do for ages. They'll be killing two birds with one stone for sure, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is bad. In a situation like this if the security council didn't take action it would cause the UN to look pretty drat impotent. Remember, the security council is very far from representing the interests of the United States. China and Russia have permanent seats and can veto anything it tries to pass. If cutting down Gadhafi was merely an opportunistic move by the United States, they would have used their veto powers... and if the situation wasn't as bad as it is they most likely would have. But the reality is that Gadhafi has clearly lost it and the no-fly zone has been passed by the security council and military action is being co-ordinated by several countries including Arab ones. You're a loving hopeless cynic if you think that this is just some American political move. It's in every country's best interest to have Gadhafi removed from power. The UN is functioning exactly as it should be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
In other news, military campaign against Gaddafi has begun: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/world-leaders-launch-military-action-against-gadhafis-forces-in-libya/2011/03/19/ABXdput_story.html " Top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world have launched immediate military action to protect civilians as Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s forces attacked the heart of the country’s rebel uprising. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said after an emergency summit in Paris on Saturday that French warplanes are already targeting Gadhafi’s forces."
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:It's very simple, intervening is less evil than not intervening. It would be even better if there was interference in Bahrain as well, but that is not likely. So helping Libya and not Bahrain is better than helping neither. I don't think the argument is that the Libyan rebels don't deserve our sympathy and possibly military support, the argument is that there is absolutely no way to justify military intervention in a morally coherent way while not advocating for intervention in a number of other dictatorships. You said, 'intervening is less evil than not intervening,' so after Libya I expect you to be screaming for intervention in Congo, Burma, Somalia, etc. Not to mention virtually every other Arab dictatorship which is allied for us but nevertheless engages in the torture and murder of civilians, i.e. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, etc. The sad fact is that there are dictatorships that we support, and there are far fewer dictatorships (and often democracies) that we scream bloody murder about because they don't do what we want them to do. You point this out yourself when you say "it would be even better if there was interference in Bahrain as well, but that is not likely." Everyone gets that Qaddaafi is an rear end in a top hat (probably sane though) who is slaughtering his own people on a huge scale, but that doesn't separate him morally from a number of other autocratic leaders who happen to do what we want them to, and thus we don't condemn them or call for their ouster. They put snipers on the roofs to murder protesters in Yemen after setting a trap for them and they killed 41 people. Frankly I would like to see Qaddaafi's tanks as burning shells, but that doesn't mean that I have to eat the bullshit of "liberals" who are now cheerleading for another military intervention in a Muslim country as though it's some kind of moral imperative, whereas intervention in countries whose dictators are allied with us or whom we don't give a poo poo about is not justified. And before you say, 'but Qaddaafi used AA guns on protesters,' this sadly isn't the first time that military hardware has been turned on unarmed civilians - remember the white phosphorous in Gaza?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:They'll be killing two birds with one stone for sure, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is bad. Yes because China and Russia didn't have a bad enough human rights reputation without condoning what Gaddafi is doing. They don't give a flying gently caress about civilian deaths, hell they vetoed ECONOMIC sanctions against Sudan. Gaddafi has been crazy for ages, the man sleeps in a bedouin tent and has an all female bodyguard contingent. Doesn't mean we should depose him while propping up the Saud family.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
Ramms+ein posted:
I agree with you in everyway. Hell firing anti aircraft guns horizontally was invented/perfected in Somalia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
Sorry if this has already been posted. Is there any info on that downed plane? I can't even find out who it belonged to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
enginedriver posted:Sorry if this has already been posted. Is there any info on that downed plane? I can't even find out who it belonged to. AJE said it was a rebel MiG who tried to take on Qaddaafi's jets. e: that's what their British reporter in Benghazi said anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
enginedriver posted:Sorry if this has already been posted. Is there any info on that downed plane? I can't even find out who it belonged to. If it belonged to the rebels it raises the question, who the hell is arming these guys? Fighter jets, anti aircraft guns, recoilless swedish rifles. This isn't stuff tribesmen keep in their houses to protect their villages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
kalonji posted:If it belonged to the rebels it raises the question, who the hell is arming these guys? Fighter jets, anti aircraft guns, recoilless swedish rifles. This isn't stuff tribesmen keep in their houses to protect their villages. There have been a lot of military defections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
kalonji posted:If it belonged to the rebels it raises the question, who the hell is arming these guys? Fighter jets, anti aircraft guns, recoilless swedish rifles. This isn't stuff tribesmen keep in their houses to protect their villages. The army bases and ammo dumps in the rebel held areas. Also, a large portion of the military defected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Yes because China and Russia didn't have a bad enough human rights reputation without condoning what Gaddafi is doing. They don't give a flying gently caress about civilian deaths, hell they vetoed ECONOMIC sanctions against Sudan. Your argument in a nutshell: Let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Western powers don't have the means to go around to every corner of the world and muzzle leaders who are standing in opposition to human rights and democracy. Be practical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Some bits of news:quote:Mirage and Rafale fighter jets are flying over Benghazi and could strike Libyan tanks, a French official tells AP. The official says the French operation could strike Libyan tanks later on Saturday. quote:Although Italy is currently only providing bases for the airborne operation against Libya, it could take part in raids if necessary, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is quoted as saying by news agency ANSA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Probably the unpopular opinion but i'm with Gaddafi on this one. Its an internal affair and certainly doesn't warrant international military action. This is just the United States removing an enemy from power. You are either trolling or horribly uninformed, or both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:You are either trolling or horribly uninformed, or both. Hey look over there, a dead horse! Lets beat it with a stick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Yes because China and Russia didn't have a bad enough human rights reputation without condoning what Gaddafi is doing. They don't give a flying gently caress about civilian deaths, hell they vetoed ECONOMIC sanctions against Sudan. China and Russia have been bastards in the past on the council, and you're right in asserting that they have pretty bad human rights records themselves and probably don't care about civilian deaths. That said, the fact that they didn't veto this latest vote is pretty symbolic of the fact that even they realize that this action is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
kalonji posted:Look, removing Gaddafi from power is a good thing. However I take issue with how its being done kalonji posted:Probably the unpopular opinion but i'm with Gaddafi on this one. Its an internal affair and certainly doesn't warrant international military action. You're giving off mixed messages here. I mean I get where you're coming from now but your first two sentences in this thread were either almost impossibly naive, designed to provoke or a gross miscommunication.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:China and Russia have been bastards in the past on the council, and you're right in asserting that they have pretty bad human rights records themselves and probably don't care about civilian deaths. I thought that historically Russia and China have only issued vetos in matters they considered to be directly within their spheres of influence? In other words, they probably don't passively approve of the action, they just don't want to have anything to do with it one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
From the Two Weeks Notice blog on Latin America:quote:TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011 http://www.avn.info.ve/taxonomy/term/94 Telesur's correspondent reports today on his twitter account that the Libyan government intercepts a shipment of drugs from Dubai, the Libyan people mobilize in support of national unity in Tripoli, and other gems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Thundarr posted:I thought that historically Russia and China have only issued vetos in matters they considered to be directly within their spheres of influence? In other words, they probably don't passively approve of the action, they just don't want to have anything to do with it one way or the other. Yes they only really use veto power as a 'not in my back yard' move, the rest of the time a positive vote with no other actions can be read as a more 'yea whatever you want dude' then proper support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Blue Demon posted:Sarkozy's speaking right now : For christ sake. I am feeling so much angst. This is like seeing a mother telling her son to stop poking his sister over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over and wanting to push the mother out of the way and smack the kid silly.  Don't cross this line! *crosses line* Don't cross THIS line! *crosses line* DON'T cross this line! *crosses line*At what point would it be feasible to flatten his stronghold and move on to diplomacy with someone there that is not batshit insane?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:For christ sake. I agree, knock the mom away and punch the kid right in the face, this is the correct metaphor to use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
A spokesman of the regime has read out a couple of letters Gaddafi wrote to addressed to Obama, and then to Cameron, Sarkozy and Ban Ki-Moon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794591 They're pretty crazy.  He still seems quite fond of Obama and calls him "my son," again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 16:59
|
|
