The Libyan uprising

Dr. Greenthumb

[Jackass] wrote: »

Makes me hope North Korea & Iran get their act together and break up this alliance of the valliant.

Iran would have mass protests now IMO if the public weren't so sure that the government would put it down with brutal force. Iran is a different story and a major problem waiting to happen (already happening to some extent) in relation to human rights issues.

AlekSmart

Perhaps also of some interest is that fact that "We" (Western Infidels) have been here before.....

Let us not forget the many decades of very active involvement in Arab affairs by succesive British,French,Italian and German administrations.

OK,we can point to this involvement occuring during Imperialist phases of Western thinking,but the fact remains that in many ways Westerners are still attempting to get these exciteable Arabs to conform to our more compliant norms.

I`m minded of the wanderings of T.E Lawrence and of how his understanding of,and respect for,Arabic peoples and their customs eventually put him at odds with his own political and military masters.

Right now,the die is well cast and none of us on these boards has the remotest chance of altering the situation now.

We now read and hear of some new found imperative to pursue Ghadaffai,to "hunt him down" which,to me seems to be quite a substantial extension of the UN`s "Protect the Civilians" mandate.

It really is a truism to state that "In war,the first casualty is truth"

Dr. Greenthumb

And the reason Qatar are getting involved is that they have to. Qatar would be part of Saudi now if it weren't for the American intervention in the past. Also there is a major US base in Qatar.

Dr. Greenthumb

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

lol touché

http://www.casttv.com/video/2ghzjjl/yemen-massacre-change-square-18-march-uncut-video

it's more than I've seen from Libya

How do you know that video isn't made up?
Were you there?

Dr. Greenthumb

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know that video isn't made up?
Were you there?

I was, steady hand for the most part don't you think? :rolleyes:

Jonny7

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

lol touché

http://www.casttv.com/video/2ghzjjl/yemen-massacre-change-square-18-march-uncut-video

it's more than I've seen from Libya

Had to make sure

Its actually strange to be on this side of the argument, I am usually against Western interference.

Killer Pigeon

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps also of some interest is that fact that "We" (Glorious Crusaders) have been here before.....

FYP.

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps also of some interest is that fact that "We" (Western Infidels) have been here before.....

Let us not forget the many decades of very active involvement in Arab affairs by succesive British,French,Italian and German administrations.

OK,we can point to this involvement occuring during Imperialist phases of Western thinking,but the fact remains that in many ways Westerners are still attempting to get these exciteable Arabs to conform to our more compliant norms.

I`m minded of the wanderings of T.E Lawrence and of how his understanding of,and respect for,Arabic peoples and their customs eventually put him at odds with his own political and military masters.

Right now,the die is well cast and none of us on these boards has the remotest chance of altering the situation now.

We now read and hear of some new found imperative to pursue Ghadaffai,to "hunt him down" which,to me seems to be quite a substantial extension of the UN`s "Protect the Civilians" mandate.

It really is a truism to state that "In war,the first casualty is truth"

Bloody hell

You make it sound like its some mystical arab custom to be slaughtered by a dictator.

"We now read and hear of some new found imperative to pursue Ghadaffai,to "hunt him down" which,to me seems to be quite a substantial extension of the UN`s "Protect the Civilians" mandate."

We? what are you talking about.. show me one piece of reporting that in any way indicates that, or did you just make it up? unless your interpretation of the hitting of a command and control structure is some kind of decapitation strike? realistic, or psychological at most

Actually the Russians are grinding my gears at the moment - we are bad, but at least we seem to have some sort of a limit - Russians have been propping up and doing business with every single dictator and despot who'll pay them for their anti-air weapons without the slightest shred of condemnation of their actions for decades. Now they are preaching to the West about imperialism. What kind of absolute slaughter and genocide would it actually take to elicit a reaction from Russia internationally? Foreign intervention like the kind in Libya yields absolutely proportionally no benefits to those who are intervening - oil.. are you kidding me? 2% of world production? that was being sold anyway, Gaddafi was 'onside' already, playing ball - as I said not even Rumsfeld or Rove woulda wanted to touch this one, its genuine outrage and disgust at the slaughter that is the main driving force the international action.

Shock horror, is it so impossible to believe that senior figures and politicians are all like the Russians/Chinese whenever we see another Rwanda, or Saddam slaughter, or Yugoslavia about to happen..

What happened to US intervention in Somalia? why was that? what "imperialist" benefit was there for touching that place?

What did people really think Gaddafi was going to do to the East of the country? clip a few people on the ear? what part of cleansing house by house do people not really grasp.. as a deep interest in history and leaders, I know exactly what that means and exactly what was going to happen. So do most Western leaders. Some who have some balls actually pushed for action, well they got it now and all the second hand Iraq flak for it; and the oil argument from surprise surprise Russia, and so on and so forth, the whole picture is very predictable

There's a chance all this might fail, and if it does, what kind of message does that send to the world

nacho libre

johngalway wrote: »

Starting to think I've wandered into the Conspiracy forum...

I suspect the same comment was doing the rounds in 2003 in the lead up to the Iraq war. I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind these kind of comments. It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the motives of some western countries who have a chequered history in foreign policy matters.

opinion guy

nacho libre wrote: »

I suspect the same comment was doing the rounds in 2003 in the lead up to the Iraq war. I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind these kind of comments. It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the motives of some western countries who have a chequered history in foreign policy matters.

No I'm not doing it. I'm not writing the 6 volume essay needed to satisify people why 2011 is NOT 2003 Iraq.

i suspect this comment was made because of the bizarrely frequent paranoid conspiracy type posts in this thread.

Its this simple. Crazy man goes crazy. Others are stepping in to stop him.


Anyhow - interesting developments afoot in Russia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev has said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's description of the UN resolution on Libya is "unacceptable".

Is anyone else imaging the Putin will be bodyslamming Medvedev through his desk by the end of the day ?

Dr. Greenthumb

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

I was, steady hand for the most part don't you think? :rolleyes:

It might be photoshopped.
By your standards earlier,you weren't there so it's not prove able.
Tv isn't good enough you know.BBC reporters,the people they've talked to, shelled out ras lanuf etc,it could all be false.

Anybody know where where I can get an analysis of this stuff I'm breathing? I've no proof it's air.

Stev_o

Will the UN seek to bomb Yemen tanks stationed against Civilains?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12804552

Requests for that will have to join a queue.
Un proxy resources are a bit busy at the moment.

opinion guy

Stev_o wrote: »

Will the UN seek to bomb Yemen tanks stationed against Civilains?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12804552

just been watching the House of Commons debate on all this. Some good speeches. Milliband very good. Anyhow to address this point - just because we can't do everything, doesn't mean we shoudl do nothing.

nacho libre

opinion guy wrote: »

No I'm not doing it. I'm not writing the 6 volume essay needed to satisify people why 2011 is NOT 2003 Iraq.

i suspect this comment was made because of the bizarrely frequent paranoid conspiracy type posts in this thread.

Its this simple. Crazy man goes crazy. Others are stepping in to stop him.


Anyhow - interesting developments afoot in Russia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566

Robert Mugabe and a half dozen other African dictators are bat**** crazy, yet there has been no sense of urgency to step in and stop them slaughtering their own. I'd love to believe this is the west trying to atone for standing by while millions were slaughtered in places like Rwanda, the Congo and Darfur. Have you ever read Shake Hands with the Devil? It starkly demonstrates that interventions by the west seem to only occur where there are strategic interest at stake. I read a newspaper report a week ago that said oil companies operating in Libya were pressing for action to be taken against Gadaffi's armies. If such reports are true, it's doubtful they are concerned about protecting civilians

johngalway

nacho libre wrote: »

I suspect the same comment was doing the rounds in 2003 in the lead up to the Iraq war. I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind these kind of comments. It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the motives of some western countries who have a chequered history in foreign policy matters.

Whatever you think yourself. But, it's a bit rich to blame all the worlds ills on the Great Satan.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bloody hell

You make it sound like its some mystical arab custom to be slaughtered by a dictator.

"We now read and hear of some new found imperative to pursue Ghadaffai,to "hunt him down" which,to me seems to be quite a substantial extension of the UN`s "Protect the Civilians" mandate."

We? what are you talking about.. show me one piece of reporting that in any way indicates that, or did you just make it up? unless your interpretation of the hitting of a command and control structure is some kind of decapitation strike? realistic, or psychological at most

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Military-Rule-Out-Gaddafi-Hit-Despite-Liam-Fox-Claiming-Its-Legitimate/Article/201103315956847?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15956847_Libya%3A_Military_Rule_Out_Gaddafi_Hit_Despite_Liam_Fox_Claiming_Its_Legitimate






Well,somebody,other than Boards posters,are arguing the toss about "Getting Gaddafi",although i`m sure tabloid tv networks do occasionally make stuff up too....

opinion guy

nacho libre wrote: »

Robert Mugabe and a half dozen other African dictators are bat**** crazy, yet there has been no sense of urgency to step in and stop them slaughtering their own. I'd love to believe this is the west trying to atone for standing by while millions were slaughtered in places like Rwanda, the Congo and Darfur. Have you ever read Shake Hands with the Devil? It starkly demonstrates that interventions by the west seem to only occur where there are strategic interest at stake. I read a newspaper report a week ago that said oil companies operating in Libya were pressing for action to be taken against Gadaffi's armies. If such reports are true, it's doubtful they are concerned about protecting civilians

THere is no internationl conscensus to go into Zimbabwe. THe opposition aren't callign for a no fly zone. THe african nations aren't asking for UN to go in. There is no UN mandate. Seriously not all situations are the same.

You should try and find Ed Millibands speech from the House of Commons today. Excellent argument on all of this.

Overheal

Stev_o wrote: »

Will the UN seek to bomb Yemen tanks stationed against Civilains?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12804552

Are the tanks opening fire on civilians and chasing after them if they retreat?

AlekSmart

Overheal wrote: »

Are the tanks opening fire on civilians and chasing after them if they retreat?

We don`t know whether they are or not,as the Yemeni cast of rulers do not have Gadaffai`s "Star" quality which might have merited the major media players getting stuck-in.

Interestingly,Yemen is also a case of deja-vu in some ways,given that Her Majesty`s Government was fully engaged in the place when it was a Crown Colony.

Overheal

AlekSmart wrote: »

We don`t know whether they are or not,as the Yemeni cast of rulers do not have Gadaffai`s "Star" quality which might have merited the major media players getting stuck-in.

So because of Schrodinger's Cat we should bomb them just in case they are massacring civilians, despite a clear lack of evidence?

Burnt

The west stand idly by, wrings it's collective hand and sighs, it's criticised for
not acting; the west acts collectively in the defense of innocent people, they
are criticised for imperialism.

Nobody is perfect and there have been plenty of mistakes in the past, but try looking past the cynicism for a bit?

Marbh le tae agus marbh gan é.

Dr. Greenthumb

Deleted User wrote: »

It might be photoshopped.
By your standards earlier,you weren't there so it's not prove able.
Tv isn't good enough you know.BBC reporters,the people they've talked to, shelled out ras lanuf etc,it could all be false.

Anybody know where where I can get an analysis of this stuff I'm breathing? I've no proof it's air.

I asked you previously to provide back up to your claims, is that unreasonable? Please show me earlier where I said actual footage of the atrocities wouldn't be acceptable. Also you never did back up any of your claims and I did say I was open to correction.

I did previously say that second hand information wasn't reliable. You are quick to condemn all the governments statements as lie but seem to believe everything the rebels say. Are they incapable of lying?

Anyway now there appears to be a better flow of information so hopefully it all becomes clear.

Don't know what you're breathing but I do know what you are talking

Stev_o

Burnt wrote: »

The west stand idly by, wrings it's collective hand and sighs, it's criticised for
not acting; the west acts collectively in the defense of innocent people, they
are criticised for imperialism.

Nobody is perfect and there have been plenty of mistakes in the past, but try looking past the cynicism for a bit?

Marbh le tae agus marbh gan é.

No the problem everyone has is the west conveniently picks when to fight it's wars under the banner of "Upstanding the right of the Free People " of country X.

Should we really compile a list of atrocities that have gone unpunished up until this UN resolution? What has suddenly changed in the past month which has made the UN to decide to force a regime change in Libya.

Manic Moran

Got this from another forum. Rather sums it up, I think.

Great, so we dithered and f'ed off until the rebels had most of their strongholds and power-centers destroyed and now when they're effectively shattered we sweep in as the cavalry. Gosh, if we were going to commit ourselves to the rebels maybe it would have been smarter to make a f**king decision while they were still in a position to win and advance our supposed interests. No wait, here's a better idea, let's wait til the chances of success are close to zero and then try and take a stand!

Anyway...

I completely disagree with you here. They went in to Iraq under the manufactured pretext of destroying WMD's. WMD's that didn't exist and were essentially manufactured to justify Bush finishing the job his Daddy started.

Maybe. But the end state was also perfectly clear: The removal of Saddam, the installation of a caretaker administration, and the replacement by an elected Iraqi government. There were no limitations imposed on this, when the Coalition went in, you knew that they weren't going to stop until that happened, and all the countries involved were in lockstep with this idea. WMDs were a goal.

In this case there is a very clear mandate to protect the citizens by any means necessary from Gadaffi and his forces. If gadaffi and his cronies were to step down/ be defeated then job done.

And if not?

"Protect the citizens" is not a desired end-state. It's a wishy-washy feel-good idea which sounds fantastic in the PR circles, is a supportable intermediate goal, but finishes nothing. OK, fine, the citizens are protected. Then what? What are we actually looking for in, say, two months from now? Is what the French are looking for (Presumably the rebel government in Beghazi which they have recognised being in national control) the same as what the Norwegians are looking for? As Slimjimmc points out:

For example, it doesn't mean the UN forces can assist the rebels in their political aims nor can they assist in an assault on Qadhafi's forces where Qadhafi is not targeting civilians.

Can the French even get what they're looking for?

I don't understand how mere rebels could get there hand on a MiG fighter jet in the first place and where is it's airbase?

Benina airbase near Benghazi in in Rebel hands, has at least 5 Floggers on it as of the last Google Earth pass. I've also seen a Hind in rebel colours. A Koni Frigate, Nanuchka corvette and a minesweeper are in rebel hands, but are moored. They likely don't have sufficient rebel crew to conduct operations.

Doesnt the arab world between Egypt and Saudi have enough military power to do this?

Yes and no. Some countries such as Qatar and UAE are directly participating, the Egyptians are keeping a slightly lower profile. The problem is that they're equipped for conventional warfare, this poncing about at high altitude trying to tank plink without getting shot down is something that most nations can't do without NATO involvement.

What particularly interests me is the swashbuckling Tornado waving being carried on by our Imperial neighbours when,just over a month ago they were embarking upon one of the largest demilitarization campaigns ever instituted.

The comment has been made that "Gee, Ark Royal and a few Harriers would be damned useful right about now," as opposed to doing an El-Dorado Canyon re-enactment of flying Typhoons on a 3,000 miles return trip from the UK. Pretty much everyone in the UK military could see the writing on the walls of this one, but were overruled by their civilian masters.

People, including the American media wanted to impeach Bush for going to war without Congressional approval.

Eh?
Desert Storm, HRJ 77, passed 12JAN91
Enduring Freedom, SJR 23 passed 14SEP01
Iraqi Freedom, HJR 114, passed 03MAR03

Or did you mean a different war from the above?

Interesting facts floating around that might interest people:

Each Tomahawk cruise missile carries 3 kg of depleted uranium (DU) in its warhead

That's one of those myths that won't die. There is no Tomahawk warhead which uses DU. It all started when someone mis-read a document from the 1980s noting that that DU was used as ballast in the flight tests and it took off from there.

Gaddafi could have, if he wanted, blown the crap out of these people weeks ago but didn't. He has shown some restraint considering the arms at his disposal.

Hmm.. Not much. I think the government offensive was about as quick as could be expected considering the circumstances. He's been slow and methodical, and proven to be much more successful than the headlong rebel rush which preceeded his advance.

NTM

AlekSmart

Overheal wrote: »

So because of Schrodinger's Cat we should bomb them just in case they are massacring civilians, despite a clear lack of evidence?

In a way,perhaps yes.

There is still that same lack of actual evidence that Ghadaffi`s forces have actually massacred large numbers of unarmed Libyan civilians.

We have had ample footage of armed insurgent elements milling around and of large numbers of civilians fleeing hot-zones such as Benghazi in advance of expected Government retaliation.

If we had hard evidence of such actual atrocities against civilians then fair enough,Tomohawk away.

What the eventual outcome of this adventure will be is anybody`s guess,however I`d not be surprised if large numbers of the "wrong type" of Libyan (ie: Gadaffi supporters) end up dead in order to validate the intervention.

Stev_o

AlekSmart wrote: »

In a way,perhaps yes.

There is still that same lack of actual evidence that Ghadaffi`s forces have actually massacred large numbers of unarmed Libyan civilians.

We have had ample footage of armed insurgent elements milling around and of large numbers of civilians fleeing hot-zones such as Benghazi in advance of expected Government retaliation.

If we had hard evidence of such actual atrocities against civilians then fair enough,Tomohawk away.

What the eventual outcome of this adventure will be is anybody`s guess,however I`d not be surprised if large numbers of the "wrong type" of Libyan (ie: Gadaffi supporters) end up dead in order to validate the intervention.

I think this is a glaring problem that people are by passing.

A Libyan Rebel is person with a gun.

Without the gun they are civilain.

Said rebel gets killed and his gun is carted off.

The action is labelled as killing a civilain.

Genuine question is there any footage of the artillery and air strikes on civilain targets? Iv heard Sky News at nausea go on about it but any footage from them iv seen is just a single building that's on fire.

ISAW

greendom wrote: »

In total or on a per year basis ?

I guess atheistic communism in particular and atheistic regimes both in terms of per year and in total killed way more than Nazism.

Stev_o

One thing i find slightly odd just looking at that the whole thing is how fast a protest turned into a civil invasion to capture the country.


Manic you'd know better then most about military manoeuvres. Do you find it impressive how quick the rebels went form demonstrating to organising a military force to make a charge for Tripoli?

Now obviously it would explain how quickly it was crushed and routed by a professional force. But how exactly do you go from "Here lads lets let our voices be heard" to "Hop in this truck with me and take this AK we are going to make a march on the capital".

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote: »

Got this from another forum. Rather sums it up, I think...
But the end state was also perfectly clear: The removal of Saddam, the installation of a caretaker administration, and the replacement by an elected Iraqi government.

Hmmm? Not really a Republican principle or policy given Saddam was supported by the Regan administration who clandestinely sold him weapons and stood by while "our man" Saddam used chemical weapons. and Saddam wasn't the only regime supported. remember the MuJIHADeen whom the US supported in Afghanistan when the US extended their franchise there? If you don't remember just watch the Rambo III Movie

And the Us have been in over 100 military actions in the last century excluding WWI WWII and Korea. Almost all of these were for economic reasons. So in the case of Libya it seems when Ghadaffi was there or whoever replaces him it will be a case3 of "drill baby drill" as Sarah Palin is wont to say.

There were no limitations imposed on this, when the Coalition went in, you knew that they weren't going to stop until that happened, and all the countries involved were in lockstep with this idea.

Nope. In fact most of the world was not involved in Iraq II Unlike the Iraq I/ Kuwait coalition of Bush senior. Ther were token members but the coalition was basically 98 per cent US one and a half per cent UK and half a per cent were twenty odd other countries who all pulled out eventually leaving only the US/UK.

WMDs were a goal.

A fictitious one cooked up to use fear to get people to act.

"Protect the citizens" is not a desired end-state. It's a wishy-washy feel-good idea which sounds fantastic in the PR circles,

a bit like "save us from WMD"? Or as Condi suggested imminent "mushroom clouds"