Why, there are only 1-2-3 people on this photo as well? Please show me at last thousands pepolple in Beengazi, Tobruk etc. And as I said you can't be happy while being bombed.
AND I enjoyed comments under this one. Looks like there are French people who share my point of view.
I specifically took an anti-sarkosist newspaper. But since you read french you can see they speak about more than a few people and they have absolutly no reason to not tell the truth
So if Barack Obama took some hired guns and tried to overtake Bush he wouldn't have been killed? He'll be in Guantanamo, like many others. That's exactly what's going on in Lybia.
Actually you are all wrong, he would be put in jail and have a fair trial which would certainly result in a life emprisonment sentence. You can critisize US but their justice system is quite effective and much more independant than in France
I specifically took an antis-arkosist newspaper. But since you read french you can see they speak about more than a few people and they have absolutly no reason to not tell the truth
Please don't be stupid. Newspapers had absolutely now reasons to panic about deadly radiation from Japan yet they've been doing nothing but writing about it. That's the point of mass media - submit news in the "right" direction, to influence crowd's opinion. But amount of hypocrisy in this situation around Lybia is over 9000, peoples are not believing it anymore.
Actually you are all wrong, he would be put in jail and have a fair trial which would certainly result in a life emprisonment sentence. You can critisize US but their justice system is quite effective and much more independant than in France
LOL. I'm speechless. Do you really think you can put into jail over a hundred of armed and dangerous bandits? You'll have to kill them. Why are US forces killing people in Iraq? Why don't they just jail them?
Wouldn't such a scenario be considered treason though(as it does involve overthrowing a democratically selected president)? In that sense, capital punishment would be very likely for the most part. Then again, that is not my area so I could be way off....
I updated my previous link with a portfolio from another massmedia newspaper
As for the other point I answered to your question about Obama killing Bush and you avoid my answer by changing the subject
@kkck
Death peanalty and US is complicate, I don't know what happens for federal crimes, it would also probably be a special juridiction but the point is that there would be a trial and that is 100% sure
LOL. I'm speechless. Do you really think you can put into jail over a hundred of armed and dangerous bandits? You'll have to kill them. Why are US forces killing people in Iraq? Why don't they just jail them?
This is quite a petty coup even if hypothetical lol. It'd be easy to throw 100 people in jail, specially in USA. It'd be like a grain of salt in a beach lol. Things would be more complicated if the numbers were in the thousands however even for that the infrastructure would exist in USA. The issue however would be elsewhere. It depends on what extent they oppose arrest so to speak. If they surrender then they will be arrested an submitted to the trial (which could result in capital punishment, it depends on a lot of things though) but if they resist then they would be fought into either death or submission. I doubt things would go on with the scenarios you suggest though....
Wouldn't such a scenario be considered treason though(as it does involve overthrowing a democratically selected president)? In that sense, capital punishment would be very likely for the most part. Then again, that is not my area so I could be way off....
Then why are you blaming Gadaffi for doing the same thing? The rebels turned to be a bunch of armed unorganized bandits who are trying to overthrow the goverment using illegal methods. Gadaffi has all the rights to defend himself and his country.
As for the other point I answered to your question about Obama killing Bush and you avoid an answer by changing the subject
Your answers are kindergarten level at most. They are not answering anything. Besides, that was a rhetorical question and you are not asking anything from me.
Then why are you blaming Gadaffi for doing the same thing? The rebels turned to be a bunch of armed unorganized bandits who are trying to overthrow the goverment using illegal methods. Gadaffi has all the rights to defend himself and his country.
Well, for one thing Gadaffi cannot be call a legitimately selected leader. He was not elected at all. It's a joke to call a dictatorship like that part of the Libyan culture (specially if a significantly large segment of the population does not support him). For another thing, at the very least in the US the party who attempted this hypothetical coup would go through a proper trial which is not what would have happened with those who opposed Gadaffi. In this case Gadaffi himself would have been Judge, jury and executioner. The justice system in US might not be perfect but it is still lightyears ahead of what Libya has with Gadaffi's whims being the higher standard.
Also, it is not the same thing when it involves shooting civilians. Gadaffi did not even try to tone it down, he even seemed to take pride in being ready to cause rivers of blood and whatnot.
The thing is... I don't like those rebels. They keep chanting "Gadaffi is bad" but they are not providing any real alternatives. Didn't they know what were they doing when asked for UN's help? Countless civilian victims, anarchy, ruined country, doomed infrastructure, HUGE unpayable debt for UN... Lybia is going to be thrown back into the stone age.
I highly doubt they are patriots. Just some random people wanting some immediate money, not thinkig about tommorow.
Well, for one thing Gadaffi cannot be call a legitimately selected leader. He was not elected at all. It's a joke to call a dictatorship like that part of the Libyan culture (specially if a significantly large segment of the population does not support him). For another thing, at the very least in the US the party who attempted this hypothetical coup would go through a proper trial which is not what would have happened with those who opposed Gadaffi. In this case Gadaffi himself would have been Judge, jury and executioner. The justice system in US might not be perfect but it is still lightyears ahead of what Libya has with Gadaffi's whims being the higher standard.
Also, it is not the same thing when it involves shooting civilians. Gadaffi did not even try to tone it down, he even seemed to take pride in being ready to cause rivers of blood and whatnot.
You are talking like Lybia was always a democratic country, who's been suddenly suppressed by a complete stranger. As I already said - different country, different mentality, different people. You can't force them to be democratic in a few days. And that means UN have to use different methods, not take after Gadaffi.
How could have they provided real alternatives though? It's not like gadaffi would have allowed elections to take place. He would have ordered any potential candidates to be killed on the spot rather than such a thing. There were not really any options as far as that goes. Gadaffi would not have allowed anything else. I also doubt this debt you keep talking about will work out in the way you suggest. Obviously whatever government that follows should logically be friendly with the UN considering there should be ideological points in common but it is not like the UN will demand oil free oil in exchange for what just happened. I don't see how the rebels simply want some quick money either... The rebellion was organized by politicians which opposed Gadaffi however if the issue was about money it was faster and easier to simply support Gadaffi and let the oil dollars flow in. It is true that only time will tell whether the current events led to positive change but even then I would think chances are better with the rebels than with gadaffi.
You are talking like Lybia was always a democratic country, who's been suddenly suppressed by a complete stranger. As I already said - different country, different mentality, different people. You can't force them to be democratic in a few days. And that means UN have to use different methods, not take after Gadaffi.
I don't think Libya always had democracy, I know that is not the case but I do think a change towards that is necessary. It's not like all countries simply always had that, it was a necessary change which gradually came. That said, I also don't think a change to democracy will inevitably result in positive change. There are plenty of ruthless demagogues who have hidden themselves behind the power of the urns and use that same power to act in manners not so different from gadaffi. Even if democracy is that far from perfection, I would still think it is a better bet than gadaffi right now.
Of course they can't - they don't even have a leader. Gadaffii cannot rule over everything in his counry. He need ministers. he needs generals and other men for leading positions in his country. If rebels wanted to overtake him they would have forced some of their men's to this positions and after sometime they'll have gathered enough mass to overtake him. Isn't this how you do it civilized way?
UN will demand oil to be cheap for them, that's for sure. Every rocket US fires at Lybia costs a millions. The whole operation will cost at least a hundred of billions. UN is not a charitable organization, they will get their money back eventually.
The rebellion was organized by politicians which opposed Gadaffi
First I find myself obligated to declare that I'm against any foreign military interventions in a sovereign country under any pretenses mainly because it rarley brings up a good result and usually has ulterior motives rather than the declared one, It's usually misinformed and results in a lot of civilian casualities , even if it's done to overthrow a dictatorship like Taliban or Saddam Hussein , the results as we have seen is devastating to the country it brings division , a future that is not supported by the collective mind of the population and usually it brings upon a new dictator but this time is supporten by the foreign forces, So mainly I consider this kind of intervention as an act of agression.....
I like dimperium analysis a lot may be because i agree with it, so I will bring it in my post again because i think it deserves another read...
Firstly I don’t think this resolution is altruism in any sense of the word. There seems a misconception in most people’s minds that states are like people and they carry out acts out of compassion.
Nobody not France, nor Britain nor America is going out there out of compassion for the populace. It's a combination of commercial interest, the hope of political gains at home (Sarkozy and Cameron) and also I think the main issue with the European powers, is they need to be seen as able to project power and stabilise their borders after the debacle they had with Bosnia, and that's probably why they were the driving forces behind this move (the two strongest military forces in Europe in any case).
I dont think its the right to do, nor is it the right time to do it. My main problems with the no-fly zone are:
1. The air strikes will kill civilians. “Collateral damage” it’s already being stated as. Whats the difference between Gadaffis collateral damage and the France and Britain’s? Nothing, its both killings.
2. His ground forces are the real danger to the revolution, and the only way to effectively stop them is with putting in ground forces yourself, someone no is willing to do so effect of the no-fly zone will not be immediately felt.
3. The revolt is now permanently indebted to foreign powers. Which is different from what happened with Tunisia and Egypt, will the interests of the Libyans be put above the commercial interests of foreigner states? Now, I doubt that to be the case. The debt will be called if Gadaffi falls.
Gadaffi is a psycho, we all know that. However other states should not be militarily involving itself in an internal revolution. It is not a humanitarian crisis yet. So the UN shouldn’t be involved yet. Saleh in Yemen is a psychos as well, so is the Al-assad family in Syria as are the gulf royalty. Is no one going to intervene to help the protests in Bahrain or the killings in Yemen? Will we see the UN militarily taking sides in the Ivory Coast stand off? The problem with supporting an armed uprising against a state no matter how brutal that state is, that it sets a moral precedent to do it in other countries as well, not only when commercial interests regarding oil are threatened.
In a completely Machiavellian sense, while I fully support the revolution if it fails, so be it. Revolts have come and gone. The Bahraini revolt is failing, no is saying a word. There will be more arrests, more torture, more killings in that secluded paradise. The same with the crazy situation in yemen, no is saying a word about the fall of Saleh and his authoritarian and corrupt regime. Gadaffi because of his reputation and his anti-western stance,
Another thing to note is, the revolt against Gadaffi is not a peaceful one. Its not the same as Egypt nor Tunisia. He is not shooting at people who are just walking down the streets like before, that side has already lost. He is shooting at people who are shooting back. When guns are picked up, both sides are equally reprehensible (i.e. I doubt the revolters are being kind to innocent civilian gadaffi supporters...yes he has them).
In any case, since it has already begun, I hope it helps the revolution against Gadaffi. And hopefully whatever succeeds him will help the people of Libya more.
Edit: Another problem i think is Saudi Arabia. Token support from its satellite states will not do. Egypt has its own problems to take care of, the other regional power are the Saudi’s. So having their support is crucial for any sort of arab legitimacy, but it seems they are not about to give it (naturally they do not want to set a precedent of overthrowing arab leaders). And how willing will the Saudi’s be to pick of up the oil slack if the libyan pipes are closed? The world’s economic recovery could hinge on that.
But with that said sometimes military intervention is required to save a lot of lives and that's why UN existed in the first place, sure there are a lot of flaws in its actions but it is still needed , I remind you that UN didn't support the american war against Iraq because there is no valid reason for it and we discovered that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, so was overthrowing Saddam deserves all those killings on both sides? No it didn't because the desire and means to overthrow him came from the outside and not from the inside.....
I mean compare it to the situation of Cuba which is right next to USA where a very known dictator lives till now and is named Castro and while his presence represented a direct threat to USA national security and it tried to overthrow him in an indirect way and failed , and there was only the pig's bay incident , USA didn't find a reason to invoke a wide military operation in Cuba even with the direct threat castro represented.
Sure someone would say that Petrol in Iraq, afghanian region , Libya is the main reason for the western countries to act against dictatorships and sometimes even the UN ensures the required cover for this acts of agression and ulterior motives, but in many cases this isn't always true.
Since the conversation now is whether Gaddaffi is a tyrant and dictator or not and whether his people views him as a tyrant or not, i have to make a recap about what happened in libya:
-First the libyans started protests and demonstrations it started peacefully ispired by the Tunisian and Egyptian events.
-Since normal institutes is absent in libya (due to Gaddaffi's action that emptied libya from any means to be a normal state) it was easy for some regions in libya to declare independence without much fuss.
-Gaddaffi ( who was the only leader that i know off to directly attack what happened in Tunisia and Egypt and defended Mubarak and Bin ALi a lot) responded back very violently , he used mercenaries and some of his loyal army officers to attack people and kill them some of the refused and flee outside of libya asking political asylum since they knew their refusal mean death, Gaddafi used Airforce against libyans and actually accused Tunisian an egyptians who lived in libya to be behind this attacks (there are at least a million egyptian that lives and works in libya they are normal people that came to libya for a chance of work, and they have no reason to do so and the same for the tunisians though i don't know the estimate of their number of people their) this resulted in attacks against tunisians and egyptians living there and many of them flee back home and the stories they tell are horrible and still a large number remain there and can't get back.
-Many libyan officials infront of Gaddaffi insane attempts to preserve his ruling have joined the opposition forces the most interesting case their was Abd EL-Fattah Younis his minister of interior affairs whom the gaddaffi announce that the repels kidnapped and killed him but Younis denied that and declared that he has joined the people thus gaddaffi had to say that Younis is pressured to say so since he is "kidnapped".
-Gaddaffi escalating violence and and his attacks on the regions that declared independence lead them to defend themsleves and thus the arms started to become the language their and the hopes of a peaceful overthrow of gaddaffi has faded
-Now gaddaffi is doing everything to remain in his position and invoking a civil war is one of the methods even using the UN last actions for his favour to increase fis popularity and to scare the opposition against him , but his main way to do that is by killing a lot of people and i can assure you that if gaddaffi regained his control back , a random killing spree will happen just to plant fear again in the libyans.
But how gaddaffi the tyrant was formed since he started his reign by coup d'etat against the last king of libya? he was 27 years old when he started ruling libya and his first years was inspirational to his people (really i could compare him to Castro' case , but Castro is less violent than him and not as insane) so what happened ?
Basically what happened to any other person who starts to believe that his country revolves around him and can't do without him , and that people are his property and he can do with them as he pleases because they should be thankful to him , if you saw gaddaffi last speeches you will find that he talks about himself more than he talks about libya he said that people of libya loves him and would die defending him to the last woman and child , but he didn't mention that he is the one supposed to die defending them and libya, he even put people around his residence to act as human shields (this could be forcefully or voluteerly by some of his supporters because he still has some even Hitler had his supporters).
but where does his supporters come from:
Mainly from two sources:
the people that really supports him without realizing his flaws and wrong methods, again many people doesn't realize that Gaddaffi spent a lot of time and money to brainwash his people by his false theories and revolutionary ideas that destroyed the concept of state in libya (I have watched one of his funny videos that describes the meaning of democracy where he used a similar sounding arabic words (dohamaa=riffraff, and korsy=chair) so the genious one deduced that democracy is an arabic word means riffraff on chairs so it is a bad word, and that's actually how thinks)so some people either less educated or less cultured, actually believes and supports him.
the other source of his supporters is people that benefits from him , corrupt people that augments his ego and his belief that Libya and libyans can't do without him and agrees with every crazy theory he comes up with , those people mainly were the reasons for any revolt to happen in any place because it starts to grow to large of corruption and starts to bother people even when their wa of living is so simple and don't ask for much but it starts to take that from them too but in case of Libya gaddaffi's methods of running the country was the main reason for this revolution because he destroyed the state and with it any hope of real progress even with a natural resource like petrol is present which ensures a lot of money entering libya but nobody knows where does it really go.
SO while military intervention is usually bad and deosn't ensure freedom , gaddaffi reign is bad and he is now a source of a great danger to his people , I really hope that UN had took another way to prevent more innocent killing , i really hoped that the opposition forces would find anothe way rather than gun violence to use , but that's the situation now regretfully and the world has to deal with it in the best way to avoid the destruction of Libya and the death of libyans.
THe situation in Libya is very bad and the future seems gloomy specially that gaddaffi sons are worst than him.
I wanted to talk about the incidents in syria and yemen and bahrain but that will be in another post since this was un expectedly very long, and sorry for the typos I seem to be in a half asleep state so i'm sure there are a lot of typos in my post.
I really find it very contradicting that Poetin is calling this intervention a medieval crusade while that same person ordered a visit in Georgia and does some inhuman practices in provinces like Dagestan and Chechnya. I find it really contradicting that China is constantly talking about the violation of the territorial sovereignty while it respected the territorial sovereignty of Tibet.
I also find it very surprising that an overwhelming majority is suddenly forgetting the unanimously voted resolution 1970 in which it was demanded that the violence in Libya should be stopped immediately and the situation was to bed directed to the ICC (International Criminal Court). Resolution 1973 was voted with 10 pros, 5 abstinences and NO contra votes. If Russia and China are criticising this intervention then they should have voted against the resolution. It is very easy and cheap to keep out your responsibility but meanwhile criticising action taken in progress of two resolutions.
Anti-Gadaffi opponents cried for help, the Arabic League approved a no fly zone and Qatar is part of the military operation (as an avoidance of a singular western side of the story). The bombings are done against military facilities and people in Benghazi praise the help. BUT yeah, now you'll see the dirty side: Gadaffi is going to use civilians/supporters as a human shield.
If there wouldn't have been an intervention then a genocide would have been a fact. I think that it is very good that things as Darfur are avoided. The single threat of a genocide only exceeds that so loved, so much claimed territorial sovereignty
I really find it very contradicting that Poetin is calling this intervention a medieval crusade while that same person ordered a visit in Georgia and does some inhuman practices in provinces like Dagestan and Chechnya. I find it really contradicting that China is constantly talking about the violation of the territorial sovereignty while it respected the territorial sovereignty of Tibet.
Then why are you blaming Gadaffi for doing the same thing? The rebels turned to be a bunch of armed unorganized bandits who are trying to overthrow the goverment using illegal methods. Gadaffi has all the rights to defend himself and his country.
Your answers are kindergarten level at most. They are not answering anything. Besides, that was a rhetorical question and you are not asking anything from me.
I don't consider myself a geopolitic professional nor a specialist in north africa but what level of idea is calling all media in the world massmedia bullshit ? What level is it to request videos and images for proof and ignore all testimony as if they had less values.
You're right I didn't ask a question but you answered to a post by saying it was bulshit with an argument completely irrelated.
As for Khadaffi, he has the right to defend himself but I'm not sure that bombing his population is that legal wrt international treaties. Whereas the UN resolution is perfectly legal, also I understand one may not like it.
And I don't understand your arguments about Lybia needing to give back money to UN. It's not as if UN was a bank. Does Irak and Afghanistan have to pay back all the bombs and missiles US has spent there ?
I don't consider myself a geopolitic professional nor a specialist in north africa but what level of idea is calling all media in the world massmedia bullshit ? What level is it to request videos and images for proof and ignore all testimony as if they had less values.
I don't call all media in the world bullshit. But don't you think it's stupid to use media examples from the country-agressor? France is the main force bombing the Lybia, do you really expect French newspapers to write about "How wrong our country is?". For the truth's sake it's better to use some independent observers' reviews.
As for Khadaffi, he has the right to defend himself but I'm not sure that bombing his population is that legal wrt international treaties. Whereas the UN resolution is perfectly legal, also I understand one may not like it.
They also had jets and bombs, so I think it's pretty ok to him to use whatever he has. But the UN's resolution is illegal. This is Lybia's internal affair no country by no means can interfere.
And I don't understand your arguments about Lybia needing to give back money to UN. It's not as if UN was a bank. Does Irak and Afghanistan have to pay back all the bombs and missiles US has spent there ?
http://top.rbc.ru/politics/21/03/2011/563403.shtml
Here, the former Russia's ambassador in Lybia and the director of Arabian countries research institute explains how the UN will get their money back. First of all, they wanted him to allow privatization of National Oil Corporation but he refused. So, they couldn't buy Lybian's property. Gadaffi spends the money from National Oil Corporation for the sake of his country, he is not robbing his people(you can always seee wiki for statistics if you want to prove otherwise).
Right now, the western oil companies get 52% of the oil they produce in Lybia, but Gaddafi decided to cut their share to 20% (that's ok because other companies are happy even with 10,5%). Moreover, he started to favor eastern companies, which is bad for Europe.
Finally, he charged french oil companies to pay him some "debts". We don't know what was that about, but "Total S.A." payd him back 500$ millions.
Apparently the UN is going to discuss the Libyan invasion again. It seems they are having trouble because so far they are using only airplanes which makes it difficult to distinguish rebels, gadaffi's forces and civilians. I guess they will decide whether to send infantry or not. Just having airplanes is making it difficult to achieve their objectives and since they are already there is would be kinda dumb to not make the decision though. More interesting developments....
Anyways, how long do people here this conflict is gonna last? Would taking gadaffi out take weeks, months or years? I guess it depends on what kind of forces gadaffi has at his disposal and his capacity to buy weapons and make weapons....
well, since the mission is not yet to bring gaddafi down, but to establish a no-fly-zone and protection of citizens, it naturally has to get rid of all the flaks and command centers, but also bombs tanks.
that's a very ambigous point in that whole resolution how far that protection of civilians can go, military-experts here said it could be drawn out even to murdering the tyrant if anyone wanted to.
anyway, since you asked about the length, I think it will take another 3-4 days until the initial phase with US involvement is over and the aerial defence is destroyed entirely (they said they were halfway today), after that, planes can fly and survey, including the ones from qatar and uae - and that will take as long as the civilwar is ended whether or not the UN decides to intervene in another resolution - who knows
Anyways, how long do people here this conflict is gonna last? Would taking gadaffi out take weeks, months or years? I guess it depends on what kind of forces gadaffi has at his disposal and his capacity to buy weapons and make weapons....
well, since the mission is not yet to bring gaddafi down, but to establish a no-fly-zone and protection of citizens, it naturally has to get rid of all the flaks and command centers, but also bombs tanks.
that's a very ambigous point in that whole resolution how far that protection of civilians can go, military-experts here said it could be drawn out even to murdering the tyrant if anyone wanted to.
anyway, since you asked about the length, I think it will take another 3-4 days until the initial phase with US involvement is over and the aerial defence is destroyed entirely (they said they were halfway today), after that, planes can fly and survey, including the ones from qatar and uae - and that will take as long as the civilwar is ended whether or not the UN decides to intervene in another resolution - who knows
Ahhh, that makes sense. This also helped me get a better picture of what exactly they are trying to achieve here... I was just under the impression the actual mission was to outright take gadaffi out through the no fly zone.
I guess a no fly zone would even things out for the rebels but I doubt they have a chance in the long run without UN intervention considering gadaffi is the one with the resources (and wars usually end up about being who has more resources). Or do the rebels have resources? I haven't heard anything about that.
I guess a no fly zone would even things out for the rebels but I doubt they have a chance in the long run without UN intervention considering gadaffi is the one with the resources (and wars usually end up about being who has more resources). Or do the rebels have resources? I haven't heard anything about that.
Depends on what you mean by "resources". Gadaffi certainly has more manpower, but rebels are better equipped and they are working together with British grounded forces. I think Gadaffi is going to hide somewhere and start another guerilla warfare like in Somali.
