|
Polaron posted:I honestly can't believe some of the things Venezuela TV has been saying about this Libyan situation. I mean, I knew Chavez didn't like the US or our allies, but I guess I didn't really realize the extent of it. When Chavez abolished term limits on the presidency and made himself president for life back in 2009, that sort of cemented what kind of guy he is in my mind. Formally, he still needs to be re-elected, but it opened the door to staying in power just by rigging elections a bit. Taking Gaddafi into asylum would be a very bad idea for any dictatorship, in my opinion. Any dictator taking Gaddafi in, would highlight their own similarity to him, and perhaps accelerate a domestic uprising. He's a hot potato. In contrast, a liberal democratic country would not be destabilized by taking him, but they would be more likely to hand him over to the international criminal court. Gaddafi most likely would need to negotiate his asylum as part of a surrender. cioxx posted:They should have bombed the TV station. That's all. Please, no. It's ever so entertaining.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Russia has mounted their high horse and is calling on the USA, UK and France to stop their 'non-selective' attacks on Libya. I thought the attacks were about as selective as they could possibly be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
cioxx posted:They should have bombed the TV station. That's all. You monster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:Russia has mounted their high horse and is calling on the USA, UK and France to stop their 'non-selective' attacks on Libya. I thought the attacks were about as selective as they could possibly be. I'm not sure how representative pravda.ru is, but: http://english.pravda.ru/world/ quote:I do not know what will become of Libya in the coming hours. I deeply regret that pusillanimous governments sitting on the UN Security Council have given in to pressure from France, England and the United States by adopting a resolution that allows all, including military intervention, to the delight of the Western decadent and shameless "men" of arms. I actually had to look up pusillanimous (cowardly and weak). Someone over at Pravda loves their thesaurus a bit too much. But then again, another news item on the site explains how the Supermoon will postpone the 2012 doomsday.  I haven't been able to dig up any other russian news in English.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
Pravda is no longer an official Russian government spokeshole, and Pravda.ru and the new Pravda newspaper are not the same thing either. A more representative Russian viewpoint can probably found on Russia Today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:Russia has mounted their high horse and is calling on the USA, UK and France to stop their 'non-selective' attacks on Libya. I thought the attacks were about as selective as they could possibly be. I think they are going above and beyond enforcing a no fly zone. Stopping indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers is one thing, preventing CQ, who after all is the recognised leader of Libya, from trying to reclaim his country is another. As I said previously, as long as the rebels continue to hide in civilian areas, civilians will be killed by CQ. It seems that the UN are setting double standards, as they stood by while the Saudi's shot up unarmed civilians in Bahrain, yet decide to intervene in Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
Good news: Jordan charges 15 men with attacking anti-government protesters (Edit: Charged for prosecution - not charged with the task. Hehe.) Shows that Jordan is serious about not being a crazy dictatorship. Vir fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
Jut posted:I think they are going above and beyond enforcing a no fly zone. Stopping indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers is one thing, preventing CQ, who after all is the recognised leader of Libya, from trying to reclaim his country is another. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
Flayer posted:I'm glad we've got someone batting for the guy who uses anti-aircraft guns on peaceful protesters and utilizes a scorched earth policy against cities that don't agree with his politics Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved. The UN have effectively enacted a "get out" clause, instead of a no fly zone. Where were the UN last summer when the Iranians were revolting? They can go after Bahrain next yes? then Yemen, oh and why not Russia, and China. I guess they will also go in and gently caress up Israel due to their violence on a civilian population. Jut fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
Vir posted:Pravda is no longer an official Russian government spokeshole, and Pravda.ru and the new Pravda newspaper are not the same thing either. True, Pravda.ru is Fox on steroids. But do they represent some part of the Russian population, like Fox in the US and the Sun in the UK? RT seems to be on the line with AJ and western news for moment. In other news, AJ reports from a hospital in Bahrain were loyalist forces attacked and severely beat staff that were helping people hurt in a crackdown on protesters. After the beat-down, military ambulances took the wounded staff away to an undisclosed location.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Rumor going around that Saudi tanks entered Yemen, although it's impossible to verify. Where did you hear this? This is... perhaps a smidgen concerning if true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
Jut posted:Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved. So the UN got out of its pathetic rut and you're complaining about the past? Sorry, that can't be fixed without a time machine, but at least doing this one thing right could set a precedent of being on the side of humanitarian responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:So the UN got out of its pathetic rut and you're complaining about the past? Sorry, that can't be fixed without a time machine, but at least doing this one thing right could set a precedent of being on the side of humanitarian responsibility. Bahrain is not the past, Neither is Yemen or Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Jut posted:Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved. It's better to have a double standard where you do some good things than a single standard of none.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Jut posted:Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved. It does seem like a double standard but think about this. How many of those countries you mentioned have an organized opposition movement made up of community leaders and former government and military officials? How many have experienced the true "massacre" level of violence against civilians that Libya has? How many had regular people and people in authority asking and in some cases begging for international help to stop the killing? The Libya situation is far different than Egypt, Tunisia or any of the countries above. It's not a double standard really. It's not a standard at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
Xandu posted:List of all the Yemeni officials that have resigned so far. (I thought al-Hitar was fired, not resigned?) Still, quite a list. Yeah, while the likes of Ali Muhammad al-Huthi can be easily replaced, losing Abdullah al-Qubati is a big blow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:02
|
|
|
That (rebel) pilot did eject, but far too late to save him/herself... rip
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Jut posted:Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved. You're trolling, but can't we just say this situation is unique? It's Gaddafi, who wouldn't want to get rid of him? He over reacted and massacred people just for protesting, way worse than any recent uprising in the M.E. including Iran. Nobody in the west wants to put boots on the ground in a new war. This is unique because there are rebels already taking over cities, getting arms, fighting back and getting more equipment from retreating forces, soldiers defecting to the rebels with more weapons and leadership. BANG, problems solved, no western boots on ground required to oust the dictator hated throughout most of the world. It's a unique situation compared to any other uprising recently. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
You gotta love posters that try to be edgy snowflakes by posting that the American military should intervene in every country with problems, as if it's remotely possible or desirable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
At this point the coalition is relying on a collapse in moral among the Gaddafi forces to lead to desertion and defections among the Gaddafi forces, which along with air support would allow the rebels to secure more and more of the country. Also remember that the resolution doesn't allow foreign occupation, but it doesn't say anything about boots on the ground, so you could still see a foreign army helping out the rebels if things don't go as planned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Hang on, when did this 'no-fly' zone expand to be a 'no tanks or armoured vehicles' zone..? The truth of the matter is, Western governments were delighted when the anti-Gaddafi revolt broke out. Ideally, they'd have wanted the rebellion to succeed by itself (Ok, without too much visible Western support) but, when the regime began to turn the tables on the rebels, they realised that they had no choice but to step in, if the rebellion were to succeed. Besides, after the things that Western leaders have said about Gadaffi over the last few weeks, can you imagine how awkward it would have been to have to meet him at future international summits and stuff? If I was in that situation, I'd probably prefer to start a war myself. So, there'll now be a delicate balancing act, where the West has to intervene sufficiently forcefully to break down the regime's military capabilities but, at the same time, keep enough of a distance so that, when the rebels plant their flag on the roof of the Presidential Palace or whatever, this can plausibly be announced as 'The victory of the Libyan People'. I imagine that there're various groups of Special Forces types discreetly advising the rebels already. (Although probably not the SAS, who must still be sulking over the outcome of their previous mission in Libya.) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
Jut posted:I think they are going above and beyond enforcing a no fly zone. Stopping indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers is one thing, preventing CQ, who after all is the recognised leader of Libya, from trying to reclaim his country is another. Oh good, you're back. You still haven't acknowledged that the National Transition Council has been recognized by multiple EU nations as the legitimate government in Libya. The French have even sent an ambassador to Benghazi, and the NTC requested support from the UN. This isn't a bunch of western nations going "oh hey that looks bad, let us come help" while ignoring other countries. This is the UN responding to a request from a fledgling government. When the Bahraini protesters manage to take control of half the country and begin establishing diplomatic relations with other nations then you can compare the two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:Hang on, when did this 'no-fly' zone expand to be a 'no tanks or armoured vehicles' zone..? The resolution wasn't for a no-fly zone, it was for the use of force (without specification except the ban on an occupation) to protect civilians (and implicitly, though not explicitly, the rebels). Everyone recognized it was too late for a no-fly zone to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Caller-in on AJE reporting that Gaddafi forces are more or less trying to destroy Misarata, that they are using cluster bombs and targeting civil buildings. They've been doing it since early morning and it's possible that the destructions is being done in order to later blame it on air strikes by the coalition. Gaddafi really has no moral what so ever, I'm 100 percent behind the decision to enforce the UN resolution by all means possible. It's a shame so many countries are backtracking already in order to cover their backs, cowards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
AJ interview buy phone with a rebel spokesperson from within Misrata. He claims the loyalists are using clusterbombs and weapons he have never seen before that releases white smoke (possibly white phosphorous, my notation). He says that if they are not relieved, the loyalists may raze the city to the ground.
Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:At this point the coalition is relying on a collapse in moral among the Gaddafi forces to lead to desertion and defections among the Gaddafi forces, which along with air support would allow the rebels to secure more and more of the country. Umiapik posted:So, there'll now be a delicate balancing act, where the West has to intervene sufficiently forcefully to break down the regime's military capabilities but, at the same time, keep enough of a distance so that, when the rebels plant their flag on the roof of the Presidential Palace or whatever, this can plausibly be announced as 'The victory of the Libyan People'. Easy to attack from the air certain known assets and bases when the rebels are on the oposite side of the country. But the rebels have already in part earned the victory by holding off the government troops for so long, but regime change can't be done from the air alone, and they are going to have to be in close engagment alone against government soldiers in the city streets to finish the job. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Tarnek posted:Caller-in on AJE reporting that Gaddafi forces are more or less trying to destroy Misarata, that they are using cluster bombs and targeting civil buildings. They've been doing it since early morning and it's possible that the destructions is being done in order to later blame it on air strikes by the coalition. At this point, you should be very careful indeed about any claims that you see reported in the media. Both sides will be lying though their teeth: the West will be playing the usual psyops games that they play in these situations and the Gadaffi regime will be going into overdrive to push the line that evil western Crusaders are bombing yet another group of innocent Muslims into oblivion. So, in the Western media, expect to see plenty of stories along the lines of: "Gadaffi blowing up orphanages to make the West look bad (say our sources)" And from the Gadaffi regime: "USA carpet bombing schools, hospitals and mosques: Libyan population holding firm under the protection of their Dear Leader."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
I'm not often on the side of military interventions in foreign countries. However, before this most recent operation, the playing field in Libya was heavily sloped in Gah-Daffy's favor. "You can't fight artillery with a Kalashnikov," in the words of one wise Libyan rebel officer. Now, though, what with the missiles and jets causing pivotal explosions, it seems that there is now more room for a respectable civil war instead of just constant massacre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:At this point, you should be very careful indeed about any claims that you see reported in the media. Both sides will be lying though their teeth: the West will be playing the usual psyops games that they play in these situations and the Gadaffi regime will be going into overdrive to push the line that evil western Crusaders are bombing yet another group of innocent Muslims into oblivion. Of course. Sticking to reporting it as I hear it, analysis can be saved for later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:At this point, you should be very careful indeed about any claims that you see reported in the media. Both sides will be lying though their teeth: the West will be playing the usual psyops games that they play in these situations and the Gadaffi regime will be going into overdrive to push the line that evil western Crusaders are bombing yet another group of innocent Muslims into oblivion. Good point, we've already seen a lot of rumours by rebels over twitter and the like that seemed to have no basis in reality and used for pure propaganda measures. But Gaddafi has still proven himself to be a murderous madman and seems to be capable of almost anything, and has already claimed that air strikes by the coalition have killed scores of civilians. I hope all of his forces are stopped, because it's likely to believe they've been causing tremendous civilian casualties already by the use of artillery and air strikes, and this latest battle seems to be an all out assault on the city. But we'll have to wait and see. Tarnek fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Jut posted:Never said I agree with him. I don't like the double standards involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
CheechLizard posted:In simple military terms Russia and China and North Korea would kick our loving asses. NK couldn't do poo poo. The problem there is what they can do is level Seoul.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Jut posted:Bahrain is not the past, Neither is Yemen or Israel. Oh Christ. Israel is not Bahrain, nor is it Yemen. You are a horrible individual for lumping them in with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is protecting people from slaughter really a war of aggression? Yes, bombing a sovereign nation that for fighting a rebellions within its own borders is an act of aggression. It can arguably be justified aggression, but there is no question that we are the ones attacking Lybia when they have done nothing to us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Let's solve everything with violence. Hell, we be on a roll now. Why stop (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's better to have a double standard where you do some good things than a single standard of none. Agree entirely. I cannot believe the number of people of the mindset "well, you shouldn't help here, because you didn't help THERE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Oh Christ. Israel pursues a sustained policy of ethnic cleansing against a cultural/religious minority. Calling any of those countries the same situation as Libya is stupid, but Israel is a pretty horrible country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:53
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Yes, bombing a sovereign nation that for fighting a rebellions within its own borders is an act of aggression. It can arguably be justified aggression, but there is no question that we are the ones attacking Lybia when they have done nothing to us. This is kind of muddled by the fact that the rebel government in Benghazi has been recognized by the countries that are intervening by its request.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Israel pursues a sustained policy of ethnic cleansing against a cultural/religious minority. Isreal does lovely things to the Palestinians, but calling it Ethnic Cleansing is a little much, The situation is israel is not close to mass genocide atm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Ticonderoguy posted:Isreal does lovely things to the Palestinians, but calling it Ethnic Cleansing is a little much, The situation is israel is not close to mass genocide atm. Ethnic cleaning means trying to rid the country of a minority, not necessarily by killing them. Anyway, an I/P derail would be a bad thing for this thread, so I'll stop here. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 15:56
|
|