Expect more of this dog and pony. Libyan state TV will show dead people all of a sudden now, completely oblivious to the state's own murderous assault on people for the past few weeks.
Edit: In fact, I doubt we have civilian casualties this early from NATO missions. This is probably Colonel's own doing.
The wonders of modern techology, mid-air refueling.
One day down and probably 10 more years of enforcing the no-fly zone. Even w/o airplanes, rebels won't be able to defeat Gaddafi's tanks and heavy artillery, but either will the UN forces allow Gaddafi to wipe the rebels with them. Thus, it's going to be another decade long stalemate.
The wonders of modern techology, mid-air refueling.
One day down and probably 10 more years of enforcing the no-fly zone. Even w/o airplanes, rebels won't be able to defeat Gaddafi's tanks and heavy artillery, but either will the UN forces allow Gaddafi to wipe the rebels with them. Thus, it's going to be another decade long stalemate.
We Germans lost our minister of defense mere weeks ago and have elections coming up. The public won't accept any military involvement. The "problem" is that we pretty much are involved right now, as part of Operation Active Endeavour (roughly one third of the NATO E-3A staff and the current commander are German).
We Germans lost our minister of defense mere weeks ago and have elections coming up. The public won't accept any military involvement. The "problem" is that we pretty much are involved right now, as part of Operation Active Endeavour (roughly one third of the NATO E-3A staff and the current commander are German).
you have to ask yourself why is it that the west is always happy to "aid" with countries that have oil and do little for countires that are of less concern to them?
seems convienient that theres always a new dictator to overthrow when theres oil but countries that have little resources (and horrid dictators) seem to warrent no action.
feel free to counter this statement but im just refering to what i've seen on the news and with a bit of research.
ill back this up with sadam hussein and iraq (wealthy with regards to oil) and robert mugabe (zimbabwe)
i know thats not an extensive list to argue but it points out where im going with this.
you have to ask yourself why is it that the west is always happy to "aid" with countries that have oil and do little for countires that are of less concern to them?
seems convienient that theres always a new dictator to overthrow when theres oil but countries that have little resources (and horrid dictators) seem to warrent no action.
feel free to counter this statement but im just refering to what i've seen on the news and with a bit of research.
ill back this up with sadam hussein and iraq (wealthy with regards to oil) and robert mugabe (zimbabwe)
i know thats not an extensive list to argue but it points out where im going with this.
you have to ask yourself why is it that the west is always happy to "aid" with countries that have oil and do little for countires that are of less concern to them?
seems convienient that theres always a new dictator to overthrow when theres oil but countries that have little resources (and horrid dictators) seem to warrent no action.
feel free to counter this statement but im just refering to what i've seen on the news and with a bit of research.
ill back this up with sadam hussein and iraq (wealthy with regards to oil) and robert mugabe (zimbabwe)
i know thats not an extensive list to argue but it points out where im going with this.
you have to ask yourself why is it that the west is always happy to "aid" with countries that have oil and do little for countires that are of less concern to them?
seems convienient that theres always a new dictator to overthrow when theres oil but countries that have little resources (and horrid dictators) seem to warrent no action.
feel free to counter this statement but im just refering to what i've seen on the news and with a bit of research.
ill back this up with sadam hussein and iraq (wealthy with regards to oil) and robert mugabe (zimbabwe)
i know thats not an extensive list to argue but it points out where im going with this.
you have to ask yourself why is it that the west is always happy to "aid" with countries that have oil and do little for countires that are of less concern to them?
seems convienient that theres always a new dictator to overthrow when theres oil but countries that have little resources (and horrid dictators) seem to warrent no action.
feel free to counter this statement but im just refering to what i've seen on the news and with a bit of research.
ill back this up with sadam hussein and iraq (wealthy with regards to oil) and robert mugabe (zimbabwe)
i know thats not an extensive list to argue but it points out where im going with this.
According to Answers.com, Yugoslavia grows about 1/3 of the world's raspberries, despite its miniature size on the world scale. Yeah---now who looks like the fool?
you have to ask yourself why is it that the west is always happy to "aid" with countries that have oil and do little for countires that are of less concern to them?
seems convienient that theres always a new dictator to overthrow when theres oil but countries that have little resources (and horrid dictators) seem to warrent no action.
feel free to counter this statement but im just refering to what i've seen on the news and with a bit of research.
ill back this up with sadam hussein and iraq (wealthy with regards to oil) and robert mugabe (zimbabwe)
i know thats not an extensive list to argue but it points out where im going with this.
actually the flow of refugees from Kosovo was destabilizing and disrupting the economies of neighbouring countries. Everyone was fed up with Milosevic being such a disruption, smack in the middle of Europe. of course when the bombing started, the refugee flow increased and the mass killing increased too...but the end result was Milosevic being driven out of Kosovo and the refugees returning to their homes.
Clinton was attempting to save his presidency and marriage, obviously. Haven't you ever seen Wag the Dog? As I was saying in the previous thread, one can always see venality in an action if one is always looking for ulterior motives.
whiteknight: This is an honest question, but I would like to hear a coherent explanation for the operation's relationship to oil, beyond some vague connection. I'm willing to entertain a good argument. But high oil prices are partly a product of turmoil in the Middle East, and in the short term we are adding to the chaos, with the risk of permanent chaos in the long term. Unless this is a brilliant strategy to raise oil prices to make clean energy more attractive.
Proctor: All right, heres your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter
I'm all for "doing the right thing" when it also aligns with our interests, but something about this operation just rubs me the wrong way the more I think about it. I hope for everybody involved that things move quickly.
I'm all for "doing the right thing" when it also aligns with our interests, but something about this operation just rubs me the wrong way the more I think about it. I hope for everybody involved that things move quickly.
God damn.... Removing emergency blood from blood banks? And forcing children to protest at gun point? Extremely horrible, but not surprised considering Gaddafi's brutality. However, there is something interesting about that tweet. It seems to indicate Gaddafi thinks large violence in Tripoli might occur again. It seems the coalition boming/no-fly zone is already showing huge results in destroying Gaddafi's strength.
I'm usually not big on meddling with other countries, but I think if there's consensus between other nations we should secretly plan to assassinate Gaddafi. If what we're hearing is true, he's killing tens of thousands of innocents.
I'm not sure what's best after that. Supply the rebels with arms on certain conditions? Certainly not putting our troops in there.
NullPointer said:
I wish there was a coherent exit strategy.
I'm all for "doing the right thing" when it also aligns with our interests, but something about this operation just rubs me the wrong way the more I think about it. I hope for everybody involved that things move quickly.
Yeah, this is true too. After Iraq/Iran, I'm hesitant to believe in our motivations for attacking another country. This time it seems a bit more legit as there's videos online of Libyan forces driving around and shooting people, lots of alleged callers saying that Gaddafi is killing people, and European countries are way more involved. With Iraq it was the US insisting that Iraq was an axis of evil.
I'm usually not big on meddling with other countries, but I think if there's consensus between other nations we should secretly plan to assassinate Gaddafi. If what we're hearing is true, he's killing tens of thousands of innocents.
I'm not sure what's best after that. Supply the rebels with arms on certain conditions? Certainly not putting our troops in there.
I'm glad that my country has backed up it's words with action.
I was just expecting this intervention to be dragged on and on by UN/NATO negotiations until the rebels in Libya had been totally crushed. And then hearing Cameron on the TV with his crocodile tears saying that "We tried our best."
Now finish the job and give these people freedom.
It makes me really conflicted to be saying this after all the opposition I gave to the Iraq invasion. Meh, apples and oranges I guess.
speedpop said:
Diplomatic reasonings. Germany are the last country to want to get caught up in a military operation at the moment since the recent Defence Minister Guttenberg had to resign a few weeks ago, and I imagine Russia want to be as neutral as possible to this situation (that really shouldn't involve any foreign power). China, Brazil and India are pretty much status quo as well since they are emerging political powers with their own various reasons for not attending.
The German government doesn't want to get involved in any non-defensive military operations because of the rather obvious political connotations.
Russia won't get involved because they sell guns to Africa and because if they take a stand to protect rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters in another country it provides an ample double standard to their own troubles in Dagestan, Chechyna, etc.
China and India are just like Russia. China sees massive potential for money-making and empire building in Africa and they don't want to rock the boat. India have their own domestic troubles like Russia.
Or are you pointing out the ridiculous-ness of it being okay to cruise missile a country to pieces but killing one crazy dictator is off limits? Not to mention what we're doing in Pakistan is pretty obscene...
4.31am: A report from the BBC that Gaddafi's forces have been up to their now-familiar body snatching tricks, previously used to try and conceal the death toll among protesters.
Abdel, a doctor in the town of Misrata, Libya, about 200km east of Tripoli, tells BBC World television that Gaddafi loyalists have been moving the bodies of people killed in clashes between rebels and government forces to sites that have been bombed by the coalition to make it appear they have died in the strikes.
4.26am: The Chinese government has expressed regret at the American and European attack on Libya. Beijing was one of five governments that abstained from the security council vote authorising military action.
Here's a brief report from AP:
Foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said China "consistently disagrees with the use of force in international relations" and expressed "regret" over the Saturday attacks.
In a statement posted on the ministry's website, Jiang said China "hopes the situation in Libya resumes stability as soon as possible" in order to avoid escalation of a military conflict.
