Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[North Suran]

They can fix the rift by handing control of the operation to either Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or the Arab League. This would deflate all criticisms by turning it into an Arab/Islamic operation to protect civilians, that happens to be supported by the US/Europe.

Let's hand over control of the operation to support the democratic Libyan revolution to Saudi Arabia, or the dictators' club that is the Arab League. After all, we know they're reliable.

Putting NATO in charge, while NATO has better stuff, is going to be a very bad idea.

NATO isn't in charge. This isn't a NATO mission.

How many times must this be said?

War is complicated and getting involved in one is especially complicated. As isthe information coming out. We won't know what's real or not until long after the conflict has ended.
All we have are biased statements by government representatives.

We know, for a fact, that the Libyan rebels asked for the West to intervene.

That is all I try to post, with my own intrepretation of those statements. Right or wrong.

Most definitely wrong, since your own 'interpretation' had no basis in reality.

[Laerod]

. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

Take that statement. Isn't that what they've been doing since yesterday?

Ghaddafi claims 48 killed and 150 wounded due to the missile attacks. Assuming for a moment that these are actually correct (which is unlikely), that's about 1.8 casualties per missile. As in for every missile fired, less than two civilians have been hurt or killed. The only way this could be the result of a gung-ho attitude is if they really, really didn't care where they were firing and launched most of them into unpopulated parts of the desert.

[Kruplyan]

It certainly doesn't help that the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya. Such a statement certainly makes it appear to be European Christian crusade against the Islamic world.
Course, if the coalition were to distance itself from the Vatican's statement..

Thats not what I heard...

[North Suran]

It certainly doesn't help that the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya. Such a statement certainly makes it appear to be European Christian crusade against the Islamic world.
Course, if the coalition were to distance itself from the Vatican's statement..

Thats not what I heard...

UnitedStatesOfAmerica-'s propaganda comments bear no resemblance to reality.

News at ten.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

I'm Scottish, for one thing.

The source says that Gaddafi could be targeted and that few tears would be shed if he died during the course of the conflict. Not only is that not saying "the British are targeting Gaddafi", but it doesn't even mention his family. You, of course, solidly claimed that one of Britain's goals was to "kill or assasinate Gaddafi and his entire family, including children".

I stand corrected. I'm not sure what I am since the white portion of my DNA is composed of several different west european nationalities: Irish, Scottish, French, German, Swedish, etc.

The statements about his family were in a link about 30 pages back.

[North Suran]

The statements about his family were in a link about 30 pages back.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that they didn't contain evidence of the British planning to assassinate the entirety of the Gaddafi family, including the children.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

They can fix the rift by handing control of the operation to either Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or the Arab League. This would deflate all criticisms by turning it into an Arab/Islamic operation to protect civilians, that happens to be supported by the US/Europe.

Let's hand over control of the operation to support the democratic Libyan revolution to Saudi Arabia, or the dictators' club that is the Arab League. After all, we know they're reliable.

Putting NATO in charge, while NATO has better stuff, is going to be a very bad idea.

NATO isn't in charge. This isn't a NATO mission.

How many times must this be said?

War is complicated and getting involved in one is especially complicated. As isthe information coming out. We won't know what's real or not until long after the conflict has ended.
All we have are biased statements by government representatives.

We know, for a fact, that the Libyan rebels asked for the West to intervene.

That is all I try to post, with my own intrepretation of those statements. Right or wrong.

Most definitely wrong, since your own 'interpretation' had no basis in reality.

You are not aware the US said it will soon hand over control either to NATO or to France?
It's not a NATO mission now, but if NATO takes over, it becomes a NATO misison.

There are lots of requests for western intervention. We don't get involved in all of them, nor should we.


Are you sure?

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

It certainly doesn't help that the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya. Such a statement certainly makes it appear to be European Christian crusade against the Islamic world.
Course, if the coalition were to distance itself from the Vatican's statement..

Thats not what I heard...

On Sunday, Avvenire, the influential newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops' conference, said the Libyan "war" was necessary and justified, "animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention."

In a front-page editorial, Avvenire praised the French for... taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean

[Laerod]

Are you sure?

Yes.

[North Suran]

-snip-

Again, how does "the Libyan 'war' was necessary and justified, 'animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention'" and "'taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of canceling out its past links to the dictators of the Maghreb and relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean'" equal "the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya"?

I don't know why you are intent on spreading false propaganda about the Libyan intervention, but I can only assume it has a partisan basis.

[Laerod]

Thats not what I heard...

On Sunday, Avvenire, the influential newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops' conference, said the Libyan "war" was necessary and justified, "animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention."

In a front-page editorial, Avvenire praised the French for... taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean

You're lying by omission:

On Sunday, Avvenire, the influential newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops' conference, said the Libyan "war" was necessary and justified, "animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention."

In a front-page editorial, Avvenire praised the French for having recognized the rebels diplomatically and "taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of cancelling out its past links to the dictators of the Maghreb and relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean."

[Mirkana]

You're lying by omission:

On Sunday, Avvenire, the influential newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops' conference, said the Libyan "war" was necessary and justified, "animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention."

In a front-page editorial, Avvenire praised the French for having recognized the rebels diplomatically and "taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of cancelling out its past links to the dictators of the Maghreb and relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean."

Gotcha.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric ... civil.war/

The lobbying came after Arab League officials complained earlier Sunday that the bombing by the U.S. military and other allies inside Libya exceeded the scope of merely instituting a no-fly zone.

"What we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians," Moussa said, adding that "military operations may not be needed in order to protect the civilians."

China's foreign ministry said Sunday that it did not agree with the use of force in international relations. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also denounced the military intervention

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/20/gates ... d-in-days/

The two key possibilities, he said, are a combined British-French command or the use of a NATO command. He acknowledged there is "some sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella."

Gates said Libyans must ultimately resolve matters themselves

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7165.story

Concerns over Western involvement and possible reigniting of Islamic radicalism complicate the Moammar Kadafi situation

with French warplanes and U.S. Tomahawk missiles streaking across the North African sky, the league is criticizing the air assault as Arab kings and presidents confront decades-old ironies, religious animosities and fears they will be blamed for siding with Western imperialism.

There are concerns that foreign intervention may reignite Islamic radicalism

The Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes the Sunni-led nations of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, condemned Kadafi's regime for killing dissidents even as Saudi troops assisted Bahrain security forces last week in a deadly crackdown against Shiite protesters.

Islamists, who have found scant traction in the region in recent years, have accused Arab leaders of confronting Kadafi to appease the West.

On Sunday, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, who a week ago led the call for military action, criticized the withering airstrikes on Kadafi's forces. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Vide ... ?id=213077

Earlier, Western forces pounded Libya's air defenses and patrolled its skies, but their day-old intervention hit a serious diplomatic setback as the Arab League chief condemned the "bombardment of civilians".

In comments carried by Egypt's official state news agency, Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting.

Withdrawal of that support would make it much harder to pursue what some defense analysts say could in any case be a difficult, open-ended campaign with an uncertain outcome.

Russia said there had been such casualties and called on Britain, France and the United States to halt the "non-selective use of force".

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

-snip-

Again, how does "the Libyan 'war' was necessary and justified, 'animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention'" and "'taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of canceling out its past links to the dictators of the Maghreb and relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean'" equal "the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya"?

I don't know why you are intent on spreading false propaganda about the Libyan intervention, but I can only assume it has a partisan basis.

What do you think the "relaunching of French grandeur" entails?

[Shofercia]

Cue Libyan State TV comparison to Mussolini...

Yeah, because Western Media would never, ever, ever call Saddam Hitler, or Putin - Stalin. Nah, that would just never happen...

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-01/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

Comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he would be pushing for Iraq's disarmament "irrespective of the position of America."

"If the Americans were not doing this, I would be pressuring them to do so," Blair told The Guardian newspaper in Britain just days after 121 Labour backbenchers rebelled against his stance in a parliamentary vote.

"It's worse than you think. I believe in it. I am truly committed to dealing with this, irrespective of the position of America," he said.

http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/24396

It is time to put aside fanciful hopes about Putin as Russia's democrat-in-chief. The best single-phrase description of Putin is "Stalin lite." Thus it was understandable that Putin would celebrate the ninetieth birthday of Yuri V. Andropov, the merciless head of the KGB.

If you're (Mass Media) going to be using a tactic, realize that it will be later used against you. And Berlusconi, although he's nowhere near Mussolini, is a mass media mogul, so if Libya's TV loyal to Khadaffi depicts him as Mussolini, hey, his buddies perpetuated similar lies. What goes around comes around.

They are, quite simply put, not involved. Neither de jure nor de facto. I dare you to prove otherwise. NATO countries being involved does not make this a NATO operation, just like the US and UK spearheading Iraq does not make that a NATO operation. It might eventually get involved, but as of this moment, this is a (more or less) coordinated action between nations that happen to be NATO members and not a NATO operation.

Before I forget: Single country involved (by sending four planes) that isn't a NATO country would be Qatar.

Oh right, Qatar sent their entire air force of four planes. Clear it's not a NATO operation

Look, it might not be dubbed as a NATO operation, but the countries doing the actual fighting will all be NATO members. That's why it's simpler for me to type "NATO", then to type "United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany..." Plus, if NATO countries are doing the majority of the fighting, to me it's a De Facto NATO operation, which is what I call it.

Most certainly not. The resolution unambiguously tells him to stop attacking civilians and allows for any form of intervention not involving an occupation force.

Rebels aren't civilian last time I checked. I don't think it's customary for civvies to carry around 81mm mortars. I don't think this guy qualifies for a civilian:

The Pope is speaking out favor of the war calling it, "holy and righteous."

Obama's picking up Bush's Crusader mantle! Yeeehaaa! Oh wait, Obama's Hawaiian, I meant "Waaahooo!"

A) We aren't firing cruise missiles at civilians.
B) There is no indication of a mass or majority rallying of civilians in Ghadaffi's favor.

Yeah, because the cruise missiles are always accurate, and never, ever, ever would misfire, or hit another target, riiiight. If you're going to use cruise missiles, without having eyes on the ground, you're going to be hitting civilians, that's just a simple fact. And the UN Resolution prevents eyes on the ground, remember? So you're depending on rebels to tell you the coordinates of Khadaffi, instead of say, their arch-rival tribe. And there were already 112 cruise missiles launched. http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comment ... siles.html

Not entirely sure if you know how a rebellion works, but usually in a rebellion, people have to rise against the leader. By not rising up against the leader, and letting the rebellion be crushed by the military, they are tacitly supporting the leader. And considering that they're fighting on the outskirts of the Rebel Stronghold... http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19 ... 113932449/

Wrong. Before calling for the no-fly zone or defining the no-fly zone, the resolution mandated the following:

Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

The only limits on this action is that an occupying force may not be used, i.e. a ground invasion. Other than that, the coalition forces are authorized to take force in the prevention of harm to civilians under threat of attack, without limitation as to what that threat is from. If Ghadaffi decides to use tanks against civilians, such as in Benghazi, coalition forces have the authority to destroy those tanks.

That's nice. Where exactly does it authorize airstrikes and cruise missiles? Also, if you're firing cruise missiles at Ghadaffi's tanks in Benghazi, odds are tat you're killing more civilians than tanks. Just pointing out the stupidity of the Gung-Ho interpretation of the resolution.

I am pretty sure that not only is the Rwandan genocide regretted, but that it really forces us to question the classical sovereignty of the nation-state, and the justification for its existence. I'm not going to say NATO is without fault, but at least they are learning. R2P has promise, and because it was botched in the past doesn't mean we should forget about it.

In Rwanda, you had accurate reports of at least 10,000 people a week being macheted to death, and you had that documented. If that was the case - intervene. I'm not seeing this in Lybia. So please, stop using your mistake for justifying another mistake. Also, there are numerous reports of people being oppressed, brutally oppressed, in Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia. Instead of focusing on fixing that, you'll simply be using flowery language to justify selective enforcement.

The only sources saying Libya is rallying around that murderous little Colonel are those obedient to him, or taking what his puppets say seriously.

Fine, it sucks that some people will die as a result of the strikes--but the cost will certainly be lower than that of Gaddhafi's purification of the country if he had succeeded.

"Murderous Little Colonel in Country X!"
"Take him down now!"
"Got him, yeeehaaa!"

If he's got no support, how come he's the one assaulting the rebel stronghold, instead of the rebels assaulting his stronghold? And how in the World do you know that change will be better for the people if Khadaffi is deposed? When the USSR fell apart, lifespan dropped by 5 years for Russians living in the ex-USSR. Georgia's gotten worse since Saakashvili. Iraq's gotten worse since Saddam's gone. Afghanistan is questionable. What makes Libya different?

I am shocked, shocked to find that Shofercia is towing the Russian party line on this issue.

Hey it's NSG's version of Glenn Beck, how ya been? Russian's fired their ambassador in Libya for making an argument that I'm making. In essence, I'm arguing against Russia's party line. If Russia's Paty line was similar to my argument, Russia could've just vetoed the UN Resolution authorising a no fly zone. Since you claim that I tow Russia's party line on this issue, lil' Glenn Beck, can you please link to Russia's Party line? Or are you just throwing around Ad Hominems like a jerk?

Can't NATO just leave other countries alone?

Why do people continually forget the crucial fact that the Libyan people invited Western intervention?

And NATO has shit all to do with this.

Libyan people? Please stop parroting Wall Street's party line lil' Beck. Did you poll the Libyan people? Who are these Libyan people? Former Khadaffi officials who have a history of backstabbing?

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

You're lying by omission:

On Sunday, Avvenire, the influential newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops' conference, said the Libyan "war" was necessary and justified, "animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention."

In a front-page editorial, Avvenire praised the French for having recognized the rebels diplomatically and "taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of cancelling out its past links to the dictators of the Maghreb and relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean."

It's about imposing the Christian culture of the west.

[Wamitoria]

You're lying by omission:

It's about imposing the Christian culture of the west.

No, it's so obviously not. The rebels asked for help. The US never implemented any Christian culture in the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, or the Gulf War, so it won't happen now.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

It is also incorrect to say the Libyan people want European style democracy, just because some of them are against Gaddafi.

The Gaddafi regime could be replaced with another regime. The only way to stop that is for Europe to annex Libya.

Look at Egypt. They got rid of Mubarak and had elections. But the military is still in charge now just as it was under Mubarak.

Same with Tunisia.

This is not a war for democracy. For the Arabs,this is awar against corruption.
Western governments are twisting things to support imperialism.

Why is that people always assume that uprisings equal pro democracy protests.

And why do people keep insisting that groups of people running around with machine guns, rocket launchers are civilians?

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

It's about imposing the Christian culture of the west.

No, it's so obviously not. The rebels asked for help. The US never implemented any Christian culture in the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, or the Gulf War, so it won't happen now.

Except, that this isn't an American operation. It's a European operation. You remember those guys? The ones who banned minarets, headscarves, and Korans?

America, fortunately, has not banned any symbols of Islam. That is why we didn't impose Christianity on those nations.

[Laerod]

They are, quite simply put, not involved. Neither de jure nor de facto. I dare you to prove otherwise. NATO countries being involved does not make this a NATO operation, just like the US and UK spearheading Iraq does not make that a NATO operation. It might eventually get involved, but as of this moment, this is a (more or less) coordinated action between nations that happen to be NATO members and not a NATO operation.

Before I forget: Single country involved (by sending four planes) that isn't a NATO country would be Qatar.

Oh right, Qatar sent their entire air force of four planes. Clear it's not a NATO operation :roll:

You asked for us to mention one country that wasn't involved. Learn to express yourself in the English language if that's not what you meant. Or quit moving your goalposts if you did and changed your mind after setting yourself up like that.

Look, it might not be dubbed as a NATO operation, but the countries doing the actual fighting will all be NATO members.

Which is irrelevant. We didn't refer to the Iraq war as a NATO operation either, despite NATO countries supplying just about all of the troops.

That's why it's simpler for me to type "NATO", then to type "United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany..." Plus, if NATO countries are doing the majority of the fighting, to me it's a De Facto NATO operation, which is what I call it.

Yes, lying and avoiding uncomfortable truths is simpler than admitting it. But here's some basic facts you conveniently forgot:
- "Coalition" is currently the accepted term for the group of nations enforcing the no-fly zone
- Germany is not one of them, so typing "Germany" when referring to them is either you being ignorant or you lying
- A de facto NATO operation is an operation de facto run by NATO; an operation de facto run by France is not a de facto NATO operation

Most certainly not. The resolution unambiguously tells him to stop attacking civilians and allows for any form of intervention not involving an occupation force.

Rebels aren't civilian last time I checked. I don't think it's customary for civvies to carry around 81mm mortars. I don't think this guy qualifies for a civilian:

Here's some reading material for you:

Libya's insurgent leader warned that any delay in imposing a no-fly zone could let Gaddafi regain control.

"We ask the international community to shoulder their responsibilities," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Libyan Council, told the BBC.

"The Libyans are being cleansed by Gaddafi's air force. We asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed from day one, we also want a sea embargo," he said.

Wrong. Before calling for the no-fly zone or defining the no-fly zone, the resolution mandated the following:

The only limits on this action is that an occupying force may not be used, i.e. a ground invasion. Other than that, the coalition forces are authorized to take force in the prevention of harm to civilians under threat of attack, without limitation as to what that threat is from. If Ghadaffi decides to use tanks against civilians, such as in Benghazi, coalition forces have the authority to destroy those tanks.

That's nice. Where exactly does it authorize airstrikes and cruise missiles? Also, if you're firing cruise missiles at Ghadaffi's tanks in Benghazi, odds are tat you're killing more civilians than tanks. Just pointing out the stupidity of the Gung-Ho interpretation of the resolution.

Right here. I bolded it for you, since you failed to read it:

Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Also, if you're firing cruise missiles at Ghadaffi's tanks in Benghazi, odds are tat you're killing more civilians than tanks. Just pointing out the stupidity of the Gung-Ho interpretation of the resolution.

Who's firing cruise missiles at Gaddafi's tanks anywhere?

[Andaluciae]

Shoferica: Fuck your amalgamated posts. Not only are they hard to read, but those of us who are operating on phones or tablets are.faced with a daunting task just to respond. Cut it out.

They are out of form with generally accepted practice on this forum, and don't even start trying to sat that it's necessary to communicate the complexity of the topic. That's bullshit. Address each poster in turn--not all at once.

I know I'm not the only one who is irritated by your insane style.

As for content: We had forewarning of the genocide in Rwanda--the rhetoric of the Hutu power radio was no different from Colonel Gaddhafi's proclamations. There is something for us to carry over from Rwanda to Libya. That if we move fast w can stop unparalleled bloodshed

[EnragedMaldivians]

No, it's so obviously not. The rebels asked for help. The US never implemented any Christian culture in the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, or the Gulf War, so it won't happen now.

Except, that this isn't an American operation. It's a European operation. You remember those guys? The ones who banned minarets, headscarves, and Korans?

America, fortunately, has not banned any symbols of Islam. That is why we didn't impose Christianity on those nations.

Your'e worse than my Wahhabi relatives! Your claims are absurd!

The West wants to convert Libya to Christianity - so that...?

But you have a point, that a democracy is not necessarily what we might get in Libya.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

the Danish and Canadians are willing to fight...

nuff said.

[Laerod]

It is also incorrect to say the Libyan people want European style democracy, just because some of them are against Gaddafi.

Who here actually said that?

The Gaddafi regime could be replaced with another regime. The only way to stop that is for Europe to annex Libya.

No.

Look at Egypt. They got rid of Mubarak and had elections. But the military is still in charge now just as it was under Mubarak.
Same with Tunisia.

They had a referendum on constitutional changes, not elections. No one that knows what they're talking about believes that democracy is guaranteed or that if it does happen, it will do so over night.

This is not a war for democracy. For the Arabs,this is awar against corruption.
Western governments are twisting things to support imperialism.

Why is that people always assume that uprisings equal pro democracy protests.

They are first and foremost rejections of undemocratic regimes. Those Arabs that have managed to throw out their dictators have been very keen on, at the very least, aspects of Western democracies (freedom of speech or press, freedom of assembly, etc.). These things should be fostered by the very powers that have been advocating them; anything else would be shameful.

And why do people keep insisting that groups of people running around with machine guns, rocket launchers are civilians?

Why do people keep insisting that people keep insisting that groups of people running around with machine guns, rocket launchers are civilians?