|
The US representative is speaking now, let's see what they'll actually commit to...
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:I hope the UN takes out any military they can find regardless of what that piece of poo poo says or how he tries to stall. The question is how easy will it be to identify his troops. Gaddafi already has a massive notice of what's coming. That's kind of unfortunate because he's known to stoop to any level of ruse already. They'll probably be dressed as nuns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:This is a really messy situation. The UN waited waaaaayyyyy too long to act. Well they need to check their intel more than a few times next. It's not like any of these countries involved have hung out in Libya in the past decades. Sure the situation is uncomfortable but not as bad as 'whoops the UN-led force just blew up civilians.'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
French, British, Canadian, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco... tiny countries to the rescue! Except for Canada, but that's an honorary tiny country.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
kalonji posted:This is not about the Libyan people its about Gadaffi. Pure and simple. You're trolling hard, so I'll try not to feed you much but... not about the Libyan people? They only went balls out revolution to the point they'll all be massacred if Gadaffi wins. It's a pretty serious situation. And who's to say other dictatorships won't fall? They're on a roll, but it takes patience, this is not the easiest thing in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
KingColliwog posted:I think he's trolling Obama. I'm not american, but do you guys think Republicans and tea party will use this against Obama? Not really a question, they use everything against Obama regardless of what it is. Healthcare? NOT IN MY COUNTRY, rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:This is nothing like any war in memory really. This is like the feel-good war of the year. Yeah it changes everything when the people of the country are the reason it's happening. This is like witnessing the birth of legitimate democracy in these places. It's pretty cool and nothing like the crazy proxy wars of superpower nations of the last century.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Today I learned that most of the public paid no attention to what happened in Libya so far, or the UN discussion of the no-fly zone, and now thinks this is another Iraq lead by US aggression. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tarnek posted:Important report from AJE in Tripoli: Libyan State TV has been showing civilian casualties during the day. Correspondent points out that all the bodies appeared to be completely intact, which seems strange after air strikes and cruise missiles. There have been suspicions before the strikes began that bodies would be "borrowed" from previous battlezones. Someone needs to make a mashup of all the crazy poo poo Gaddafi has said on Libyan state TV to help others understand what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Baddog posted:I don't know much about Libya, but there are quite a few people saying that this is basically tribal warfare, not some sort of democratic uprising against an autocratic dictator. Who knows what it will be, but the fact is it did start as a democratic uprising against an autocratic dictator in the spirit of Tunisia and Egypt. Which is about the best drat situation you can hope for for reform in the Middle East, driven by the natives.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
sweeptheleg posted:Its so easy to spot the people who haven't been following this thing since its start. Its pretty easy to hear middle east war and instantly think iraq, but unless your only qualifiers are brown people, and sand this is a pretty different situation. Yeah, that and conservatives seem to be taking a similar line of of "Oh look at this liberals, Obama is starting an oil war aren't you red in the face" when the argument makes no sense. This is not about the US or WMD's or unilateral action in defiance of the UN.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
The Angry Bum posted:Also loving the Arab League ready to pull the 180 and bail out on this. Just to show how much of this war is complete Western farce. Yes, the West is a total farce, unlike a bunch of dictatorships that murder people like they don't matter if they so much as have a protest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Yemen's leader says he'll resign this year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207275/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Somebody needs to get the message to the Libyan people to stay the hell indoors. I mean I've read of a few incidents already of people celebrating near places that are extremely likely to be bombed or a combat zone... what the hell are they thinking. Yeah there's planes in the air to support you but they also see everything moving as a potential enemy right now. On the flipside Obama should be hanging anyone by the balls who gets trigger happy over there. We've had enough of that over the years, it's time to clamp down on exactly what soldiers pull in "self-defense" without knowing who they're shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I'd rather see a "soft" takedown, where you jam the television signal and replace it with your own broadcasts or international news. While this is a very good point, it isn't going to happen without a huge military reform. All they know how to do is blow stuff up, and I wish that was hyperbole.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Yeah I give those tanks a couple hours before they're wiped out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Say what you will about Bush's wars, he at least had more concrete/clear objectives. You just said Bush had clear goals in the Middle East without any sense of irony. Amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:They both have the same objective 'gently caress up the country and throw a puppet in', Except if Obama had a policy like that he would have protected Mubarak, a major US puppet. If anything he seems not to want to maintain any US control like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:It's funny that it took so long for me to lose faith in Michael Moore/Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich and see them as the loving attentionwhoring assholes who have no connection to the common people that they are. All it took was the slaughter of thousands of Libyans. At least I lost faith in Hugo Chavez ages ago. Moore is the worst. Kucinich and Nader I think have a somewhat more principled approach to the world even if it's extreme. Moore just lobs PR bombs to get limelight and then runs away to the next issue. I mean just a couple weeks ago he was talking about a US middle class revolution because of Wisconsin... how did he follow that up... he didn't of course he ran to the next thing he could use for a limelight because the notion of backing up any of his words is far outside of his actual interests.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
Lareous posted:This is the dilemma of war journalism. Despite your moral objections or obligations, if you interfere, you are choosing a side and throwing away any journalistic integrity you have. Even if you know the man you are reporting on committed atrocities, when you start actively helping the oppressed people you are throwing your lot in with them; then your reporting will just be seen as propaganda by the regime and you'll be killed or captured. It sounds cold but moral objectivity in a warzone is paramount to both information and safety. If that woman's story hadn't left the room because the journalists all went to jail for 'aiding the rebels', we'd never know about it. God I just got around to reading the news. This whole thing is so chilling http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/26/libya.beaten.woman/index.html?hpt=T1 Trust me these reporters are getting traumatized at not being able to do anything, and being inches away from getting killed themselves, but at least they're exposing the lies of Gaddafi's journalist "minders" and state TV.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Narmi posted:What's wrong with Time's reporting both sides of an issue? Is it the way they do it? Unless they're biased towards one side, this is usually a good thing since it can expose the flaws of one (or both) side(s). The reporters in Libya interviewing Gaddafi and his family are what showed the world how crazy he is, and probably helped drum up support for the rebels. I think he means more like how most of the media will run reams of statements from Gaddafi or Libyan state TV and don't even bother to put a constant disclaimer, "Oh, by the way, these are the same people who said the revolution started because Al Queda was drugging Nescafe and the youth were drinking it. There's also been horrific violence documented in Libya which they daily claim is not happening and has never happened, but reality is begging to differ. They've also claimed multiple times to be abiding by a ceasefire, while quite provably shelling towns with tanks, and sniping cities." It might help to qualify the coverage just a bit when one of the sides you're covering is that crazy and lying through their teeth. It's unfortunate but I guarantee some Americans are not paying any attention and believe Gaddafi is an innocent victim of colonialism right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Gaddafi is loving delusional if he thinks the rebels will accept that. Screw him and his megalomaniac family. I hope any talk of a "deal" is just a trick to get him in custody, which he fully deserves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been posted twice now, and twice it's been debunked because that person in the article (the rebel leader) doesn't exist. Also the telegraph is retarded. And even if it were true, this whole series of events is really nothing but a net positive towards shutting down Al Qaeda. I mean it's the dawn of new, modern countries over there... the youth has something in their lives to be excited about and live for. They didn't have that 10 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
hypern posted:Now here's the question what is going on in the Libyan Army's HQ for them to retreat from key towns? Any takers? Try to turn Tripoli into a deathtrap? That's about it for options, but it does kind of seem like we're reaching a spiral into defeat for Gaddafi after the NATO attacks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
farraday posted:will undoubtedly call the Obama doctrine. And it's basically all anyone could ask for in the US supporting self-determined democratic change in the Middle East/Africa. Pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Saddam deserved to go, sure, but doing in such a way that Iraqis weren't inspired about democracy and so we just dug in our heels to generate new terrorists and kill them was a beyond horrible way to approach it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Times posted:If we waited long enough it's very likely what is happening now would have happened there is the thing. True that. To be completely fair though nobody saw this coming. If it wasn't for the spontaneous momentum of the pro-democracy protests, these people could have had dictators indefinitely. I think Bush was right in that people *deserve* democracy, he was just wrong in rushing in before the people realized that themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Boy I wish I could be naive too. Yes, we are in libya because of all the attrocities going on. Its not anything to do with exploiting the natural resources of a soverign nation again. I'm not advocating what gaddafi has done, but the rebels just setup the fastest national bank in the history of the world. Except we're not talking about Bush and Cheney here with disturbing ties to the oil industry or helpful "construction" firms that rebuild everything in Iraq. Obama has no stake in the Middle East besides trying to do better than decades of bad policy, and considering the mess he's left to deal with, he's actually doing decent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I feel terribly naive for being suckered into the 'the rebels have it totally figured out' propaganda from 1-2 weeks ago. I don't honestly think they're in that much trouble when they've got massive world interest in Gaddafi being deposed by whatever means necessary. Worst case scenario is foreign boots are going to hit the ground and do it with them. I think everyone is thinking of Saddam and not leaving this situation in limbo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Xandu posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgwLuk9A4Xg Yeah makes about as much sense as their usual Soros disjointed rambling. I wish we knew what Rupert Murdoch's real beef with him is. Soros probably called him a dick at some hoighty toighty upper crust party once or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Good news everyone, now Americans can set foot in Libya and perform super non-secret American missions secretly. I love the sensationalism. In what world wouldn't the President authorize some covert actions in a combat situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
"Koussa was known as Gadhafi’s “envoy of death” during the 1980s, when his intelligence service was working with other terrorist groups — including Abu Nidal and the Irish Republican Army — and engaging in assassination attempts against Libyan dissidents around the world, some of which were successful. The British Foreign Office expelled him from the Libyan embassy in London in 1980 after he approved the killing of two U.K.-based dissidents. But in later years, as Libya turned back toward the West, he was seen as having been been instrumental in helping the CIA fight al-Qaida and unravel the A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network." Wow, that guy has quite a past. Quite risky for him to defect, so it might say something about how worrying Gaddafi's position is to his insiders.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Ugh, isn't this like double-dog daring the Republicans to try something? You know what I'd kind of like to see them muck about more with this. Then Obama can call out this Congress as a bunch of phonies jockeying for reelection and never accomplishing anything. I'm sure their approval ratings are way worse than the President's to begin with and they wouldn't want the negative attention tossed back on them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:Not taking sides? Are you a retard? And they already bombed a few civilians and rebels. And Libyans were the first to forgive them because they need the help, and believe in revolution. That's a pretty significant difference between say Afghanistan we're you're just going to get more terrorists for trying to help.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Slave posted:The NATO argument is that he (part of the command and control infrastructure) is ordering civilians to be killed and killing him protects them. Seems reasonable to me. It's also plain as day assassination though. That's never a good thing for political ramifications. China for example is such a goddamn X factor should they decide enough is enough in terms of Western advancement of values. Yes, hopefully we can get rid of Gaddafi ASAP, but if NATO has to personally shove a bomb up his rear end then it's a bit of a nasty political cost.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Good news for one of Gaddafi's victims: This made me happy. I know it's smaller scale news but you can't make everything right in the world. At least one woman got away from that garbage with her life.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
That's a major split in the army in Libya. Awesome news.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:One can't deny that the intention of NATO should be under scrutiny. Why are they acting in this conflict but not in Yemen or Syria? Non-combatant protesters are under attack in those countries, but there hasn't been an US-led intervention to protect those civilians? It's just a logistical reality, the UN and the democracies of the world aren't remotely prepared to blow up the armies in every country the Arab Spring is effecting. Gaddafi escalated things to humanitarian crisis so fast (snipers, ambushing crowds, rapes, using AA guns on people, kidnapping even US journalists) that he sealed the deal in drawing all the intervention upon himself.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:Apparently, the House of Representatives have called off a vote that would force Obama to pull U.S. military forces out of Libya. The Republicans are asking for more time and debating their options. About all the US Congress is good for is sitting on their thumbs and spinning. Sadly enough Obama is going to have to use the same dictatorial Bush methods on all his military decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 17:28
|
|