delet... Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 the situation in libyia is more blatant, or so it would seem, considering all the coverage.. What's blatant about putting down US funded terror groups. i just mean in the sense that gaddafi is blatantly unhinged and slaughtering his own population in large numbers, and thats impelling the no fly zone. i dont want to downplay the situation in bahrain, but i dont get the impression that its as severe as libya. He is no more slaughtering innocents, than the US is, when it is 'putting down insurgent uptiks in helmand province' in afghanistan. Sure there will be civilian casualties in the course of operations. But that is a unavoidable consequence of any military action not fought in a simulator. Surely these terrorists, that unlike the peaceful egyptian demonstrators, instead took up arms against their government, are far more to blame for any casualties incurred than the government itself. Afterall should every government facing an armed terrorist insurrection just lie down and rollover. You can bet that no western power would. Take say spain facing it's separatist movement, or the UK in northern ireland or even the US during the civil war (the bad guys won that one. Would have been nice to have had the southern colonies in the commonwealth.). Further the case may be put that these armed groups were supported in hardware and intelligence by outside powers, further diminishing the legitimacy of the uprisings sponsors. -------- Now you might say, "Why dleetr, why do you always have to back the wrong horse. Why can't you go with the winners for once." Well i'll tell you why, it's cause i don't like cheating. I will never abide dirty, underhand, self serving tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 maybe im misunderstanding you, but has gaddafi not been firing on masses of unarmed civilians? egyptians werent subjected to anything near as extreme during the protests.. as far as your afghanistan equation is concerned, i certainly wont defend americas destructive military actions, but i dont think its an applicable comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The libyan rebels started an armed insurrection. It wasn't some hippy flower fest gone gone bad. Consequently they encountered a natural return of serve. ala what i said already. The main point being, that any casualties are on the conscience of the rebels, not the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The main point being, that any casualties are on the conscience of the rebels, not the government. the government knowingly ordered the deaths of scores of unarmed civilians. you dont fire on unarmed civilians.. armed rebels, sure, but you cant rationalize the slaughter of a funeral procession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The main point being, that any casualties are on the conscience of the rebels, not the government. the government knowingly ordered the deaths of scores of unarmed civilians. you dont fire on unarmed civilians.. armed rebels, sure, but you cant rationalize the slaughter of a funeral procession. It wasn't scores, and in bahrain the same thing happened, but we are 'torn' about that situation. remember. everywhere you turn, there's a counter to the counter. this argument is turning into like some giant department store. [sorry, now i'm past normal tired into supa tired ;-] ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 no i think it was scores but ill put this on hold until i do some further reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Depends who you read too yeah. In who's interests it is to tell us that it was scores. Plus not wanting to give ground, i remind you that bahrain killed v.many innocents, scores would be an understatement at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 granted, there are always vested interests, but (imo) with a few decent sources and some common sense, you can generally get a semi accurate picture of whats going on.. unless of course im naive, which i try not to discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yeah, well when you wash everything away from this. Despite it all, you see this as a good chance for libya to by rid of an offensive 20th century artifice. And i say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 He [Qaddafi] is no more slaughtering innocents, than the US is, when it is 'putting down insurgent uptiks in helmand province' in afghanistan. Sure there will be civilian casualties in the course of operations. But that is a unavoidable consequence of any military action not fought in a simulator. Surely these terrorists, that unlike the peaceful egyptian demonstrators, instead took up arms against their government, are far more to blame for any casualties incurred than the government itself. Afterall should every government facing an armed terrorist insurrection just lie down and rollover. You can bet that no western power would. Take say spain facing it's separatist movement, or the UK in northern ireland or even the US during the civil war (the bad guys won that one. Would have been nice to have had the southern colonies in the commonwealth.). Further the case may be put that these armed groups were supported in hardware and intelligence by outside powers, further diminishing the legitimacy of the uprisings sponsors. -------- Now you might say, "Why dleetr, why do you always have to back the wrong horse. Why can't you go with the winners for once." Well i'll tell you why, it's cause i don't like cheating. I will never abide dirty, underhand, self serving tactics. really? You're equating the US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan with Qaddafi maintaining his ever tenuous grasp on power? or equating the libyans fighting against a dictator who's been executing dissidents publicly for three decades with actual terrorists who committed crimes against civilians because they couldn't reach agreements with democratically elected governments? (yes I know the basque and IRA situations are more complicated than that - but the governments of those respective countries are democratically elected - the will of the people has to count for something) If you're going to argue that armed groups equipped by outside powers suffer from a loss of legitimacy, you shouldn't really bring up the IRA or basque separatists....especially not the IRA in the context of Libya (one of the biggest supporters of the IRA). You will never abide by dirty, underhanded, self-serving tactics then there's no possible way you could possibly support Qaddafi... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I have to say, this is pretty fucking freaky from a British prospective. We've now got a euro-skeptic right-wing government that's working with France in military operations. When we had a pro-european left-wing government we rode roughshod over whatever the EU though of military operations abroad. Admittedly, both France and the UK have a huge fucking incentive here, being as we armed Gaddafi with the weapons he's using to kill his population. But still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Parliament's been told we've sent over jets, surveillance and refueling planes. Never thought I'd see the day we actually did something like this with UN backing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 What happens now Gadaffi has apparently given up the fight on his own accord? Plus I'm getting the impression that quite a few people in the west of Libya do actually like Gadaffi (just Gadaffi's propaganda or a media spin perhaps?). Will we end up with a frozen conflict, an East and West Libya? I was slightly proud that Cameron was so involved with all this shit, actually. Despite the fact that I don't really like him. The media in Canada is perpetually full of this bollocks rhetoric that they're a global player, and yet Harper has said sod all about any kind of action and Canada couldn't even get its own citizens out of Libya when it all started, and had to rely on the RAF lol. [/brainfart] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 lol what's canada going to do? send a strongly worded letter and then apologize for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 He [Qaddafi] is no more slaughtering innocents, than the US is, when it is 'putting down insurgent uptiks in helmand province' in afghanistan. Sure there will be civilian casualties in the course of operations. But that is a unavoidable consequence of any military action not fought in a simulator. Surely these terrorists, that unlike the peaceful egyptian demonstrators, instead took up arms against their government, are far more to blame for any casualties incurred than the government itself. Afterall should every government facing an armed terrorist insurrection just lie down and rollover. You can bet that no western power would. Take say spain facing it's separatist movement, or the UK in northern ireland or even the US during the civil war (the bad guys won that one. Would have been nice to have had the southern colonies in the commonwealth.). Further the case may be put that these armed groups were supported in hardware and intelligence by outside powers, further diminishing the legitimacy of the uprisings sponsors. -------- Now you might say, "Why dleetr, why do you always have to back the wrong horse. Why can't you go with the winners for once." Well i'll tell you why, it's cause i don't like cheating. I will never abide dirty, underhand, self serving tactics. really? You're equating the US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan with Qaddafi maintaining his ever tenuous grasp on power? I wouldn't call winning all the cities back bar one which he would have bulldozed through this weekend, 'tenuous'. See that's what makes me so disappointed about this argument, language and tone is constantly warped to fit the underlying ideal of the contributor. My underlying ideal is that i don't like a yet another sovereign nation getting invaded (by proxy and now with our own assets) by the west yet again. If people want to rebel, fine. If they lose, fine. Anything we think about that should stop at the border. We shouldn't interfere militarily with internal disputes, it sets an hugely hypocritical (as i've stated) standard for the world that sickens me. The bottom line is that there are tons of countries in the world with governments of a similar nature to libya's. We aren't doing anything about them. Many we activity support. I know you like the concept of getting rid of one of these regimes no matter where it is. But in doing so we are both demonstrating horrible double standards and importantly the action will potentially kill many more people than if we hadn't stoked the fires of this flair up in the first place. And that blood won't be on my hands or in my name. Anyway, so this is potentially obama's yugoslavia, well if the libyan ceasefire hadn't come along or if it is discounted by the west or if it's an actual illusion. Remember back in the clinton era that the US was fomenting discontent through the KLA and others. Probably because coming out of the cold war era, germany didn't want to have a big rival in europe. And the US wouldn't have been comfortable with the close ties to russia. b00m, 'no fly zone', war, result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 And that's where we will have to disagree, because while there will always be differences of interest, I believe we have a duty to allow the people a chance at democracy. People's lives improve when democracy is allowed to flourish. Does the west make some fucked up policy decisions? Absolutely. Does that mean we shouldn't try to promote democracy? Not in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 the cunt is bombing and shelling Benghazi despite this supposed ceasefire. French jets apparently patrolling above the city already though. nice shots on BBC showing a Gadaffi plane shot down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The French have destroyed four of Gaddafi's tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 This shit is exciting. A fucking conflict the West is engaged in that I'm in favour of. Fucking strange feeling. If you forget we're destroying the military we sold to Gaddafi, it's almost like we're the good guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest the anonymous forumite Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GcUutnU2gk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 This shit is exciting. A fucking conflict the West is engaged in that I'm in favour of. Fucking strange feeling. If you forget we're destroying the military we sold to Gaddafi, it's almost like we're the good guys! lol! shit's getting hot - really fucking hope they are being careful firing those missiles. it will go totally tits-up if they kill any civilians. although Gadaffi will claim that civilians have died regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 He already has. The US have launched cruise missiles from the Mediterranean. UK, France, US and Italy make up the force, according to Al-Jazeera. There was also a bloke on, from New American Century or something like that, saying that there really needs to be fighter jets from the Arab league, or just Arab countries in general, to make this seem like more than Western imperialism. Who the fuck is going to send them though? Most countries in the Middle-East are either in disarray with protests or trying to rebuild after a revolution. I guess a symbolic display by Egypt or Tunisia could be arrived at. But if I were Egyptian/Tunisian I would be shitting myself if my military started showing any signs of force while the country is still in flux. Besides, as the outcome is unknown, I doubt either Egypt or Tunisia would really want to start aggressions against their neighbour while they're still fairly unstable themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Okay, Qatar and the UAE are apparently. Qatar and the UAE will be sending forces to the no-fly zone. AFP is reporting that the United Arab Emirates will be contributing 24 fighter jets – Mirage 2000-9s and F-16s – while Qatar will contribute between four and six Mirage 2000-5s, according to a French official. Ah, Qatar, my favourite benevolent dictatorship... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ezkerraldean Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Okay, Qatar and the UAE are apparently. Qatar and the UAE will be sending forces to the no-fly zone. AFP is reporting that the United Arab Emirates will be contributing 24 fighter jets – Mirage 2000-9s and F-16s – while Qatar will contribute between four and six Mirage 2000-5s, according to a French official. Ah, Qatar, my favourite benevolent dictatorship... that's fucked Qatar is currently putting down rebels in Bahrain. Hypocrites lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.