Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

I never said people were entitled to their views

Exactly the point you ignorant racist twat and as usual high on opinion and very low on content!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

That's quite a simplistic interpretation you are having here.

"pupa" Here's a simple interpretation for you...latest score... Gadhafi 0 - Allies 6 and the Allies are playimg away from home!

Originally Posted by Panda

Most thinking people in the world agree that US foreign policy is corrupt, unethical and just plain wrong. You seem to be putting the case that anyone who agrees with you on that issue is blindly anti American. That kind of irrational rhetoric may work in the junk food capital of the world, but it doesnt wash with the majority in the international community

That may or may not be true and it's a discussion worth having but what the fuck does your reference to the 'junk food capital of the world' have to do with it. You simply cannot make a point with out resorting to some kind of ridiculous sterotype. Unless you can point to some factual linkage with your various slurs to foreign policy what is the point of polluting your arguments with them. They are just gratuitous pot-shots that point to an underlying disdain.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Humbert

Unless you can point to some factual linkage with your various slurs to foreign policy what is the point of polluting your arguments with them. They are just gratuitous pot-shots that point to an underlying disdain.

^
I'll point you in the right direction - the rest is up to you:

The Shock Doctrine; Naomi Klein

and..

Empire of Illusion: The end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle (this guy's a Pulitizer Prize winner based in NYC.

Excerpt from a book review (a Canadian magazine soft-right of center)

..the “illusion” serves the other half of his title, the “empire,” the corporate and military forces that he believes profit from the impoverishment, moral and financial, of his countrymen. It prevents Americans from seeing what is done in their name or even what is done to them. What seems to truly drive Hedges’ rage is his conviction that no republic has ever survived the acquisition of empire, and that his own will be no exception. The U.S. is in a death spiral, he believes, inextricably trapped in other nation’s lives and in “a culture of illusion that is, at its core, a culture of death—it will die and leave little of value behind.” Remarkable, bracing and highly moral, Empire of Illusion is Hedges’ lament for his nation.

First of all; how do you know it's the right direction. Are you and your fellow anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti every fucking thing supporters going to mold your lives around the views of one slightly hysterical author who seems to have a singular fixation with the pop culture element in American society? He raves on about "pro-wrestling" and "porn" as if they were at the very core of life in the US. They are NOT....
He missed out on the mass of medical research, technical innovation, and a thousand and one good things that go on in America, but hey it's always much easier to bitch about the US than to praise it....and it sells books.

Then we have this great conspiracy.....headed up by who else...the USA. Guys in Armani suits plotting behind locked doors. They plot and scheme against everybody, but especially against people who are black, brown, have oil, or other things that guys in Armani suits want....but mostly just because they don't like black and brown people. (There are a few black and brown guys in the plot too but naturally they are just Uncle Tom's and traitors)

Oh shit, they are keeping aliens on ice down in New Mexico too, and they attacked the WTC just so they could use it as an excuse to fire off a load of surplus ammo.

These faceless guys have hi-jacked the UN, NATO, The Arab League, The African Union, ASEAN and every other organization they can find. (you have to shuffle the order depending on circumstances) Everything is secret and sinister.....they are out to get us all.

Thank god for Islamic suicide bombers, middle east dictators, anarchists
and all those others who are helping us who wallow in darkness, to finally see the light.... If the suicide bombers win I'm sure we can look forward to a brave new world where we can look back on the bad old days of American hegemony and feel warm and fuzzy....while we brew tea on our camel dung fire....

Back in the real world: US politicians, senators, congressmen, EU governments, NATO members etc can not agree on what kind of toilet paper to use in the shit-house at HQ let alone run a conspiracy. They can't keep anything secret for more than a week and they will drop each other in the shit a the blink of an eye.....but I digress, and I really don't want to destroy a good conspiracy theory...
it would be such a terrible anti-climax

Libyan fighters retake strategic towns from Gaddafi


US president Obama said Gaddafi's forces were "on the back foot" (File)

Regime change in Libya 'very complicated': Gates

Libyan fighters retake strategic towns from Gaddafi

The western powers have been lookinjg for an excuse to kick Ghadaffis arse for ages.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I'll point you in the right direction - the rest is up to you:

If this is how you form your views I think you have the wrong nic. Mark Twain would be rolling over in his grave to hear your half-witted arguments

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Panda

Most thinking people in the world agree that US foreign policy is corrupt, unethical and just plain wrong. You seem to be putting the case that anyone who agrees with you on that issue is blindly anti American. That kind of irrational rhetoric may work in the junk food capital of the world, but it doesnt wash with the majority in the international community

That may or may not be true and it's a discussion worth having but what the fuck does your reference to the 'junk food capital of the world' have to do with it. You simply cannot make a point with out resorting to some kind of ridiculous sterotype. Unless you can point to some factual linkage with your various slurs to foreign policy what is the point of polluting your arguments with them. They are just gratuitous pot-shots that point to an underlying disdain.

OMG! Now you are offended by me referencing USA as the junk food capital of the world. Clutching at straws a bit there.

Originally Posted by Panda

OMG! Now you are offended by me referencing USA as the junk food capital of the world. Clutching at straws a bit there.

Not offended. Its just your style to make a point and then add on some ludicrous little turd of a comment.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Panda

OMG! Now you are offended by me referencing USA as the junk food capital of the world. Clutching at straws a bit there.

Not offended. Its just your style to make a point and then add on some ludicrous little turd of a comment.

Speaking of ludicrous little turds;-- when are you going to get off the personal attacks and offer some valid information in the debate about US foreign policy.

The personal jibes soon get boring and drive a thread into an early end.

A very interesting and informative interview re US foreign policy with US Congressman and potential Republican Presidential candidate, -- Ron Paul.

The question is, assuming the opposition wins who will take control?

Libya Live: coalition enforces no-fly zone on Muammar Gaddafi - Telegraph

"11.02 As the rebels make sweeping gains in the east of Libya, more signs that it is the government which is on the offensive in the west. At Zintan - the scene of French airstrikes at the weekend - pro-Gaddafi forces have been bombarding the town with rockets according to Al Jazeera.
10.27 it is now becoming clear that the rebel advance on Sirte was halted outside the city after shelling by pro-Gaddafi forces. With convoys of reinforcements in pick-up trucks said to be pouring west from Benghazi, the insurgents are reported to have pulled back to Bin Jawad, 85 miles to the east of Sirte, an oil town which fell into their control on Sunday.
09.41 The Daily Telegraph's Damien McElroy, in Tripoli, says claims of the fall of Sirte appear to be premature.
Reports from Muammar Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte suggest the town remains loyal to the regime despite rebel claims it had fallen without resistance.
Loyalists are parading in the streets waving Gaddafi's Green flag, troops in camouflage uniforms are heavily deployed and wide avenues of the city are under the control of local volunteers."

Any bombing of Site, and other previously bombed Libyan cities, towns, shacks, therefore will be illegal ("civilian populated areas") under the UNSCR resolution and even NATO's unpublished "deal"

The western objective is regieme change. Not their choice in the first place, as in Egypt, subject to an overwhlelming tide of popular support, better to get on the winning side and hope you can control the outcome.

Once the west referred Gidaffie to the International Criminal Court their fate in this civil uprising was sealed. It was only meant as a threat to stop the instability in an important oil producing nation for Europe. But it gave Gadaffie no way out other than absolute victory or death. Likewise, it locked the western nations into a win/ lose situation.

getting a bit sticky then isn't it.

Originally Posted by Panda

The western objective is regieme change.

If that is the case, I am inclined to follow your suggestion, then the last few weeks of murderous bombardment of Libya by the "coalition" and now the NATO forces is and has been illegal.

The political leaders of the "coalition" forces are war criminals.

Originally Posted by Koojo

The question is, assuming the opposition wins who will take control?

I believe the speculative question at hand might not be who, but instead, how long {the looming occupation}.

Originally Posted by OhOh

So my questions to the any one who has reached this far are:

1. Has the UN resolution 1973 been modified by NATO to only attacked the Libyan government forces and none others.

How could NATO "modify" a UN Resolution? They could just ignore it I suppose, but they don't need to. All they have to do is follow the "by all means necessary" rules of engagement. That is a pretty broad mandate and they will do whatever is necessary to degrade and disable the forces of Gadaffi. If Gadaffi can no longer control Libya's population down the barrel of a gun, they may just get to a point where a real cease fire can be imposed. Then we shall see.


2. Will the NATO forces start shooting down their own planes attacking the bases (airports, carriers) where the planes are based, as they are bombing unarmed civilians and attacking civilian populated areas and continue to be a threat for the foreseeable future?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they would not shoot down their own planes and why do you keep insisting that they are bombing unarmed civilians. What possible
reason would they have for doing that? Civilians (innocent or otherwise) will likely be killed in the air attacks, but to keep harping on about this as being some kind of deliberate action is just silly.
On the other hand there is no shortage of evidence that Gadaffi's forces have killed plenty of people (who were not in uniform so they must have been civilians)....you seem to be OK with that, or maybe you just can't bring yourself to believe it.

3. will they identify the "indelendent observers" upon which they are basing their whole murderous campaign in terms of who they are and where they are?

Why would they do that?...and even if they did you would not believe them anyway. You would say that the observers were just stooges of the crusaders no matter who there were.

There are likely plenty of "observers" and small special forces units operating there for the purposes of gathering intelligence, target marking and stuff like that. There is also plenty of journalists from around the world reporting from both sides of the conflict. Even the ones who are traditionally quite anti-American and anti-western don't seem to be so in this particular action.

PS A question on "civilians" When a Gadaffi soldier takes his outer uniform off.... is he now a civilian?. He waits for the airstrike to end and puts his uniform back on.......at which point are you willing to stop calling him an "innocent civilian"?
The word "civilian" and "innocent" are not irrevocably connected you know.