The Libyan uprising

opinion guy

Just watched Obama's speech there. Dammit that man can make a speech

Overheal

opinion guy wrote: »

Just watched Obama's speech there. Dammit that man can make a speech

I'll have to watch the replay on youtube. What was the message?

opinion guy

Overheal wrote: »

I'll have to watch the replay on youtube. What was the message?

Blah blah ....save the world kind of thing. A bit like the big speech in Independence Day....with Obama and the word change alot.:D

Seriously thou there was a bit of America must show the way and save the world type stuff, but leaving that a side it was a very clear speech as to why they went in and what the aim is etc. Defended the decision to go in very well.

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

Defended the decision to go in very well.

Didn't say a whole lot about the decision to get out though. I'm still waiting to understand what, if anything, the grand plan is. He goes and calls gaddafi various un complimentary terms saying he

must go, we're bombing the heck out of his ground forces, supporting the most viable threat to his rule in forty years, and then says that regime change is not our goal. So if we don't care who wins, and gaddafi ends up in charge, things will be all hunky dory between Libya and the US? Somehow I don't see that happening.

He also got a jab in at iran, which I thought was a little out of place, but maybe that's just standard presidential operating procedure.

NTM

Black Swan

The Libyan adventure represents Obama's 2nd big mistake during his first term in office, the 1st being one-party forced Obamacare. During his 2008 campaign he was for the US pull-out of foreign wars, and now he engages in this police action (a Shakespearean thorny rose by another name) while still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several of his party members see the obvious contradiction, and are distancing themselves accordingly. The end game before the 2012 presidential election will reveal that he should have focused on the economic recovery, especially cuts to reduce the federal deficit (including 2 expensive and wasteful wars).

Offy

Black Swan wrote: »

The Libyan adventure represents Obama's 2nd big mistake during his first term in office, the 1st being one-party forced Obamacare. During his 2008 campaign he was for the US pull-out of foreign wars, and now he engages in this police action (a Shakespearean thorny rose by another name) while still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several of his party members see the obvious contradiction, and are distancing themselves accordingly. The end game before the 2012 presidential election will reveal that he should have focused on the economic recovery, especially cuts to reduce the federal deficit (including 2 expensive and wasteful wars).

+1 well said

Jonny7

Black Swan wrote: »

The Libyan adventure represents Obama's 2nd big mistake during his first term in office, the 1st being one-party forced Obamacare. During his 2008 campaign he was for the US pull-out of foreign wars, and now he engages in this police action (a Shakespearean thorny rose by another name) while still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several of his party members see the obvious contradiction, and are distancing themselves accordingly. The end game before the 2012 presidential election will reveal that he should have focused on the economic recovery, especially cuts to reduce the federal deficit (including 2 expensive and wasteful wars).

From a totally selfish political point of view, not even Sarah Palin/Putin/Reagan/anyone would've touched Libya with a bargepole, nothing to gain from it and everything to lose - a third war. Obama isn't stupid he knows this too.

Afghanistan was 'kick-ass', easy to pull off politically after 911. Iraq was a rushed botch job, strategically extremely desirable, with a few lies/propaganda they actually went in, beyond belief really, smoke and mirrors cold war style conflict right in front of our eyes, few fell for it - massive fallout

Why on freakin earth touch Libya then? for me it was a Yugoslavia moment, politicians were passionate about it, a dictator really going at his people with the pliers and the blowtorch as it were, disgusting, black and white evil -

I am still surprised they reacted - I think everyone is, including themselves. I had lost all faith in politicians/UN to actually have the balls to do anything - and I'm very much a peacenik myself.

It sends a very strong message - it also shows the scumbags they can't go to town on their own people just because Iraq was botched and we in the West are too terrified to stand up to anything.

Cameron and Sarkowzy (shudder) have done well with this so far, and Obama has done alright, however in the eyes of many in the US (not the world) Obama will never do anything right.

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Didn't say a whole lot about the decision to get out though. I'm still waiting to understand what, if anything, the grand plan is. He goes and calls gaddafi various un complimentary terms saying he must go, we're bombing the heck out of his ground forces, supporting the most viable threat to his rule in forty years, and then says that regime change is not our goal. So if we don't care who wins, and gaddafi ends up in charge, things will be all hunky dory between Libya and the US? Somehow I don't see that happening.

But weren't you listening? He was saying they are already out. They're handing off to Nato. I mean that was the point of this speech to say look we got in and now we are getting out in just days. and he's right too - they basically are out. Sure they'll fly some missions but less and less and they won't be getting involved on the ground.

He also got a jab in at iran, which I thought was a little out of place, but maybe that's just standard presidential operating procedure.

NTM

Yeah that was interesting. I don't think that was standard procedure. I think it was a deliberate message to Iran "you could be next". Remember the same public unrest and harsh response is going on in Iran. I think this statement was a veiled threat. not that I think they have any intention of going into Iran. I think its just to make ahmajimmjad (or whatever his name is) think twice before shooting a load of civilians.

Euroland

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

You still haven't given proof or any source.

Read my previous posts in this and in parallel topics.

Euroland

Manic Moran wrote: »

I hate to point out the obvious, here, but the root point still remains that a nuke only affords protection on the knowledge that they are posessed, and the presumption that they will be used.

It's a theory which has apparently worked for several decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Or, quoting an internationally acknowledged expert on the subject:
NTM

I just don’t understand what you are trying to say.

It is clear that if today Libya would have multiple nukes and multiple long-distance delivering capabilities the bunch of crooks (US, France, UK) won’t bother to attack it and bomb it. Do you agree?

So, I hope that one day all oil/gas rich independent countries (Libya, Venezuela, and Iran) would have the nukes and long distance delivering capabilities and would be able to protect themselves from US/British/French aggression.

Euroland

nacho libre wrote: »

Saif has been very quiet lately. Is there a split in the Gadaffi family?

The (ideological) split exists for many years, but that doesn’t mean that he would betray his father, especially now, when he needs support from his children.

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

1) As much as I hate to say it, they should open a path/back door for family members and those with close ties to Gaddafi to cut and run. This could result in a much quicker and less painful breakup of the regime.

2) If Saif isn't in front of a camera somewhere lying, then they definitely have problems.

1) Italy and Turkey already negotiating that, but I doubt that most of them would use it and leave Kaddafi behind

2) He didn’t lie. The opposite, he was the most honest person on TV. The main liars are the TV presenters falsifying every bit in their reports.

Euroland

Overheal wrote: »

What are you basing your theory off from the photos? I know Al Qaeda are experts at crashing planes, but that doesn't mean they crashed this one..

This jet belonged to “the rebels” (AKA Al-Qaeda terrorists), which they stole from the army base. There are only disagreements on who and why shot this jet. Some saying that it was shot by the French, believing that it was pro-Kaddafi, whereas the majority says that it was downed by “the rebels” themselves, on a purpose, to frame Libyan army and demand immediate application of no-fly/no drive/no walk zone.

Euroland

recedite wrote: »

I hereby advise the rebels to cordon off and bypass Sierte/Surt. Gadaffi's cousins there will feel honour bound not to let it fall before Tripoli.
If the rebels move on to relieve the rebel defenders of Misrata, they can combine forces and then move on to surround Tripoli, hopefully provoking an internal meltdown of the Gadaffi loyalists there.

Do you really believe that 5 thousand Al Qaeda terrorists and foreign mercenaries can take over Tripoli with 2 million inhabitants by themselves? :eek: Without massive air force support they were even unable to fight the tiny towns. Any move on Tripoli would require not only 1 thousand Special Forces commandos on the ground, but also massive regular ground force, counting at least tens of thousand soldiers. The truth is the French already mentioned that they are ready to quickly deploy several thousand soldiers, but that may not be enough for fighting Tripoli, even if Americans bring those 4 thousand Marines.

Euroland

AlekSmart wrote: »

I don`t believe the man will do any such thing.

He`s home,Libya,whether we like it or not is where he`s from and I suspect it`s where he will finish up.

He`s a Berber,of the desert,and infused with a certain lunacy of purpose which totally banjaxes refined westernized folk such as Mr Obama,M. Sarkozy Mr Cameron. Frau Merkel and the rest.....

If I were advising him.....ahem....I`s suggest he stage manage the biggest LIVE TV DESPOT SURRENDER !!! ever witnessed to date.

Give yourself up Muammar sez Alek,and force this self-righteous alliance of western leaders,supposedly saner than you,to live up to all their oul guff and put you on trial for the "Genocide" which some of the more lurid red-tops are now waffling on about.

The UN has made much of their ability to refer their allegations to the International Court,so lets see whether they have more than a crock of sh1tt to stand on here ?

I remember many years back reading an article about one Saadam Hussein,and his intention to drag Her Majesty`s Government through the International Court on the issue of Kuwait and specifically the Iraqi claim over it.

From memory,the article mentioned how the Iraqi Government had some very high profile western legal advisors who had crafted a seriously robust claim which might be somewhat difficult to refute legally.......all of course irrelevant now after Bush the elder decided to cut out all that ol legal hoo-hah and just barrell on in !!! :eek:

If Muammar Gadaffi is shrewd and well advised he might just get a result out of this...BUT...He`s going to need those SKY/Fox/BBC/Al Jazeera cameras there to ensure a fair trial !

No, it doesn’t work like that, look at Milosevic, when they (in Hague) realized that there is not enough evidence for a legal trial, they simply killed him with a lethal injection. The same happened to many Milosevic Serbian colleagues who also suddenly died during investigation process (they also were killed due to the lack of evidence against them). The same would happen to Kaddafi if he goes for trial, as there is not enough evidence against him.

opinion guy

Euroland wrote: »

So, I hope that one day all oil/gas rich independent countries (Libya, Venezuela, and Iran) would have the nukes and long distance delivering capabilities and would be able to protect themselves from US/British/French aggression.

....:eek:.........LMAO

Thats some quality trolling right there

Euroland

opinion guy wrote: »

Just watched Obama's speech there. Dammit that man can make a speech

Blah-Blah, he can talk, but most of said is lie. :mad:

K-9

Euroland wrote: »

This jet belonged to “the rebels” (AKA Al-Qaeda terrorists), which they stole from the army base. There are only disagreements on who and why shot this jet. Some saying that it was shot by the French, believing that it was pro-Kaddafi, whereas the majority says that it was downed by “the rebels” themselves, on a purpose, to frame Libyan army and demand immediate application of no-fly/no drive/no walk zone.

What majority is this?

Overheal

Euroland wrote: »

This jet belonged to “the rebels” (AKA Al-Qaeda terrorists), which they stole from the army base. There are only disagreements on who and why shot this jet. Some saying that it was shot by the French, believing that it was pro-Kaddafi, whereas the majority says that it was downed by “the rebels” themselves, on a purpose, to frame Libyan army and demand immediate application of no-fly/no drive/no walk zone.

Ah..

So it wasn't the AQAF that operated these planes it was the Opposition Force; whom you claim are really all just being run by Al-Qaeda. Do you have some indication that Al Qaeda is running the show, or makes up the majority of the Opposition Forces?

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

It sends a very strong message - it also shows the scumbags they can't go to town on their own people just because Iraq was botched and we in the West are too terrified to stand up to anything.

Cameron and Sarkowzy (shudder) have done well with this so far, and Obama has done alright, however in the eyes of many in the US (not the world) Obama will never do anything right.

When you say “scumbags”, who do you mean, Sarkozy, Cameron or Obama?

Euroland

opinion guy wrote: »

But weren't you listening? He was saying they are already out. They're handing off to Nato. I mean that was the point of this speech to say look we got in and now we are getting out in just days. and he's right too - they basically are out. Sure they'll fly some missions but less and less and they won't be getting involved on the ground.

It doesn’t change much as the US is a part of NATO.

Euroland

opinion guy wrote: »

Yeah that was interesting. I don't think that was standard procedure. I think it was a deliberate message to Iran "you could be next". Remember the same public unrest and harsh response is going on in Iran. I think this statement was a veiled threat. not that I think they have any intention of going into Iran. I think its just to make ahmajimmjad (or whatever his name is) think twice before shooting a load of civilians.

Yes, Obama’s message was simple: Iran, give us your Oil and Gas or we take it forcefully.

Euroland

K-9 wrote: »

What majority is this?

What do you mean?

Euroland

Overheal wrote: »

Ah..

So it wasn't the AQAF that operated these planes it was the Opposition Force; whom you claim are really all just being run by Al-Qaeda. Do you have some indication that Al Qaeda is running the show, or makes up the majority of the Opposition Forces?

“The rebels” mainly ruled by Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists and bribed defectors from Kaddafi elite, of course under the US supervision.

spank_inferno

Euroland wrote: »

“The rebels” mainly ruled by Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists and bribed defectors from Kaddafi elite, of course under the US supervision.

Sure about this??

anways.....The Guardian are saying AC-130s are being deployed in theatre.

accept no substitutes

Euroland

spank_inferno wrote: »

Sure about this??

Yes

Overheal

Euroland wrote: »

Yes

So you have proof?

edit: oh and here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58594061&postcount=2

Euroland

spank_inferno wrote: »

anways.....The Guardian are saying AC-130s are being deployed in theatre.

accept no substitutes

With arrival of these machines we should expect civilian casualties skyrocketing through the roof, followed by the ground invasion.

Euroland

Overheal wrote: »

So you have proof?

Yes, just re-read my previous posts in this and in parallel threads. I’m tired to provide proof separately to everyone.

Overheal

Euroland wrote: »

Yes, just re-read my previous posts in this and in parallel threads. I’m tired to provide proof separately to everyone.

I have, and in none of them do I find any evidence which proves that the Rebels are Ruled by Al Qaeda Terrorist and bribed Ghadaffi Elites. You'll have to help me out here.