|
Libyan Military have the right to defend itself?
At what point does the Libyan Military have the right to defend itself?
Obama said he wasn?t targeting Gadhafi, well I mean he said he isn?t after he said he was. When does this turn from ?protecting? innocent civilians, to backing a regime change? Are we protecting the Protesters or the Rebels? http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1 |
They have the right to defend themselves at all times.
But as long as they keep attacking the civilians, they will be attacked by NATO. They are welcome to defend themselves. Its more fun if they try to defend themselves. |
If this was really about protecting civilains why does NATO not also bomb the Al-Qaeda supported rebels? The rebels are killing people, the rebels are bombing people, the rebels are killing civilians...so why is it ok for the rebels to kill people? FACT...this has nothing to do with protecting civilians, this is about Obama installing an Al-Qaeda led regime in Libya.
|
Hold a Sign = Civilians
Hold a gun = Rebel I think several are playing both rolls, depending on if the tanks or cameras are coming. We all know the true answer, it was never about the civilians. If you believe it is, I have a bridge to sell you. |
Quote:
He couldn't win no matter what he did. In the end it is at least somewhat about protecting civilians in hopes that they will overthrow the leadership, take power and be our friends. So it is helping them out with a hope of it one day paying a dividend. |
Just remember who pushed for the no fly zone!
It was not The United States Of America! The USA is however part of NATO, and not backing NATO would not make much sense when NATO has been backing the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade! Turning NATO's request down now would almost be a traitorous act. So just remember who we had to follow to fulfill our obligation to NATO. They sure fucking remember us when it comes to Iraq. :2 cents: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I understand we can't be the world police. We can't go everywhere there is injustice and help anyone and everyone who needs help. We just don't have the means to do that. But it kind of annoys me that we make a big deal of helping some people who just might down the road be able to provide us with something we want while ignoring others. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here is some stuff he previously said, verbatim. Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, before Obama was elected, he said; "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..." How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein? While Obama knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war. In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD, as the dictator flamboyantly relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate. It's funny watching all the hypocrites lay in their own filth. |
Quote:
|
having a war in desert is not intersting, so military entered cities...
this is why civilians are getting killed... not because Gaddafi wants to kill it's own people... |
Quote:
Pam Geller, writing at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment: “And now [President Obama] is essentially backing Al-Qaeda in Libya. Al-Qaeda has already established an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, and is playing a leading role in the revolt against Gaddafi. The Libyan Islamist Fighting Group is also involved.” [03/21/11] Former Speaker Newt Gingrich asked “Does President Obama acknowledge the danger of Al Qaeda allies among the anti-Qaddafi forces and pledge to work for a moderate replacement government without extremist factions?” [03/28/11] Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): “I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?” [03/24/11] According to a report from Al Arabiya, Khaled Khaim confessed to E.U. ambassadors in Tripoli that the terrorist group al-Qaead has set up an “Islamic emirate” in Derna, a city in eastern Libya. The camp, he claims, is headed by Abdelkarim al-Hasadi, a former prisoner once held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “They have an FM radio station and have begun to impose the burqa” (head-to-toe covering for women) and have “executed people who refuse to cooperate with them,” Khaim claimed. Khaim also said Hasadi has a lieutenant, “also a member of al-Qaeda and named Kheirallah Baraassi” in al-Baida....http://www.theblaze.com/stories/repo...itmo-detainee/ |
I don't believe Qadaffi is doing anything the USA or any other country wouldn't do if faced with the same situation.
Look at how the US gov handed Waco. Killed everyone, burned that shit to the ground. If the day ever comes when US militia rises up with arms for some crazy reason, they will be gunned the fuck down by all means necessary, as will any non violent civilian caught in their path. Those in power will do anything and everything to remain in power. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I could be totally wrong, but I believe they would be gassed, shot, burned, and even bombed if necessary. Whatever it takes to restore order. Do you disagree? |
Quote:
In the U.S. there is not any need for an armed revolution. There is a legal revolution every 2-4-6 years with multiple political parties to vote for as well as the ability to create new political parties. The power of the vote is the revolution in the U.S. |
Quote:
And would it then be acceptable for say... China, to fly in and attack US soldiers who were fighting the armed protesters? Of course, they would not be called rebels or freedom fighters, they would be called "home grown terrorists" and treated as such. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ding! Ding! . |
Qaddafi's troops halt rebel advance |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Few in the West may know that Libya - along with Egypt - sits over the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer; that is, an ocean of extremely valuable fresh water. So yes, this "now you see it, now you don't" war is a crucial water war. Control of the aquifer is priceless - as in "rescuing" valuable natural resources from the "savages". This Water Pipelineistan - buried underground deep in the desert along 4,000 km - is the Great Man-Made River Project (GMMRP), which Gaddafi built for $25 billion without borrowing a single cent from the IMF or the World Bank (what a bad example for the developing world). The GMMRP supplies Tripoli, Benghazi and the whole Libyan coastline. The amount of water is estimated by scientists to be the equivalent to 200 years of water flowing down the Nile. Compare this to the so-called three sisters - Veolia (formerly Vivendi), Suez Ondeo (formerly Generale des Eaux) and Saur - the French companies that control over 40% of the global water market. All eyes must imperatively focus on whether these pipelines are bombed. An extremely possible scenario is that if they are, juicy "reconstruction" contracts will benefit France. That will be the final step to privatize all this - for the moment free - water. From shock doctrine to water doctrine. |
Quote:
So? You want to be cynical? |
Actually, there is a very interesting article about this water development in Libya by Gaddafi, in all fairness he really did an amazing job of developing this and turning the whole economy of the country around....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4814988.stm
|
Adolf Hitler was instrumental in the development of the Volkswagen.
. |
Americans never learn ....:1orglaugh
Rice: U.S. has not ruled out arming Libyan rebels http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72S3GU20110329 Funny how the US complained about Iran arming the " rebels " in Iraq .... |
The really funny thing is... The difference between a rebel and a terrorist is just a matter of which side you are on.
If ten thousand people in California rose up and over threw local law enforcement, they would be considered criminals. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Well, Qaddafi couldn't send in troops or air support so your point is that the US Government would declare martial law and send in troops as Lincoln did in the American Civil War? |
With all my intel that is so far beyond what Obama has I suppose I won't sit here and armchair quarterback the whole thing. You guys with your amazing intel are doing just fine. :D
It's a catch 22 no matter how it's dissected. US does nothing, they're criticized. They do something in name of helping civilians, they're criticized. Personally I don't much like catch 22 situations, so I'm often liable to say "fuck you" to the critics. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course, they would and we were called criminals. And whose side I am on would depend on the specifics. Quote:
So, the scenario that you have laid out has occurred in the USA in recent history. The result was the end of Nixon by both non-violent and other means. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Does it matter? The Libyan military pissed off NATO and the UN. End game for them now.
As for what's right, and what not... I have no idea, and neither does anyone else on GFY, because we probably have about a whopping 1.5% of the facts. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc