ladyram Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 leave that poor man alone. What poor man is that Dangerous? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What poor man is that Dangerous? :confused: i was joking.i hope they hang the git. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 i was joking.i hope they hang the git. Ah - I thought as much Too right they should hang him. On a different note - I've been reading a lot of opinions on should Cameron have jumped in with his political clout and I say yes - somebody has to - instead of letting him run riot murdering his own civilians. Some of the same people said Cameron should be called to justice over war crimes. Do us a favour!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 AFP: Plume of smoke seen in area if Gaddafi's residence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 AFP: Plume of smoke seen in area if Gaddafi's residence lets hope he hasnt lit a cigar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky1106 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Bahrain's royal family have called in Saudi Arabian troops to help them kill their own people. Luckily the King of Bahrain has been invited to William and Kate's wedding so we won't be attacking his country any time soon. Hope he buys them a decent toaster or a generous Argos voucher. Seriously? :eek: There's gonna be assassination attempts if he's at the royal wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Ah - I thought as much Too right they should hang him. On a different note - I've been reading a lot of opinions on should Cameron have jumped in with his political clout and I say yes - somebody has to - instead of letting him run riot murdering his own civilians. Some of the same people said Cameron should be called to justice over war crimes. Do us a favour!! Its not the fact that Cameron has pushed for air strikes against Gaddafi, its the old "why Libya, why not Bahrain or the Yemen" arguments. We cannot police the world so why have we the right to chose certain countries to police. The west have known all about Gaddafi for decades. He has systematically imprisoned or slaughtered thousands of his own citizens (often with weapons we sold him) and we've stood by and watched. We could have taken the man out long ago if it suited but we chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trigger Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Its not the fact that Cameron has pushed for air strikes against Gaddafi, its the old "why Libya, why not Bahrain or the Yemen" arguments. We cannot police the world so why have we the right to chose certain countries to police. The west have known all about Gaddafi for decades. He has systematically imprisoned or slaughtered thousands of his own citizens (often with weapons we sold him) and we've stood by and watched. We could have taken the man out long ago if it suited but we chose not to. gaddafi has only survived so long because of corrupt politicians , now the dog has slipped his lead, the masters will punish him, ok he,s a fec kin crackpot but we knew this 20 years ago, it only takes 1 bullet to stop him, ask your self why he,s been allowed to do live?= $$$$$$$$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickramstag Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 thatcher oil over again Yeah, so how come we are not in Congo, and other African states where thousands have been killed ??? why are we intervening, oil, end of. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Oil, and to influence the locals to put moderate Islamists with favourable attitudes towards the western powers into office, I'd say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Good piece on the whole thing THE ROVING EYE The West bombs, the Arab League ducks History will surely register the irony that the new war doctrine of United States President Barack Obama took shape on board Air Force One on the way to deeply pacifist Brazil; then in a message delivered to America from Brasilia (yes, Operation Odyssey Dawn was launched from the tropics, and not from the Mediterranean); and finally in a war room set up in sunny, sexy Rio. Here are the parameters. 1. The Pentagon must conduct a "limited operation" with no ground troops involved (think the 1990s Bill Clinton approach to Bosnia and Kosovo). 2. The US is part of a "coalition" (of the willing), but is not leading it (think the opposite of George W Bush in Iraq). 3. The operation is to "protect civilians", and not about "regime change" (once again Clinton trumps Bush). 4. It's all based on "solid international legitimacy" – conferred by UN Security Council resolution 1973, which is more explicit than the one authorizing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to act in Kosovo (not to mention the non-existent resolution for Bush to bomb Iraq). Yet immediately after the Tomahawks started flying the White House ran into trouble. The "limited operation" - as in bombing Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses and military installations - may be practically over, and the Americans are dying to be relived of the heavy lifting. But who's going to be in charge? General Carter Ham, the head of the US Africom and the present commander of Odyssey Dawn, pretty much summed it all up, saying, "The first thing that has got to happen is identification of what that organization is." You fight, we watch It won't be the Arab League, whose vote for a no-fly zone over Libya has been extensively pimped by every single Western diplomat as laying the groundwork for the United Nations resolution. But then Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa backtracked, saying the attack had gone beyond the initial objective, which was to protect, not kill, civilians. And finally the demagogue, opportunist Moussa got his marching orders again from the House of Saud (who pushed heavily for the no-fly zone); another about face and he said the resolution was fine. What is never mentioned by Western corporate media is that among the 22 Arab League members it was Saudi Arabia - as leader of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - which obsessively lobbied for no-fly to apply (thanks to visceral bad blood between King Abdullah and Gaddafi (see The Odyssey Dawn top 10 Asia Times Online, March 22); and that only Qatar will actually send a maximum of four of its Mirage fighters (no one knows when). Even though Obama personally called Sheikh Khalifa, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) backtracked from sending its jets and will only assist in "humanitarian" matters. The head of the GCC, Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah, insisted in Abu Dhabi that Qatar and the UAE were part of the "coalition" - but he refused to explain how. As for the King of Bahrain, Hamad al-Khalifa, he preferred to dabble on how the tiny kingdom had thwarted an "external plot" to undermine its security and stability; he also profusely thanked the Saudi invasion forces who are now helping him to repress any peaceful protests. The GCC/Arab League astonishing dithering and hypocrisy is compounded by the outright hostility of the African Union (AU) to the "coalition", expressed by a communique from Nouakchott, Mauritania, calling for "an immediate end to all attacks". The AU only demands that Gaddafi makes sure "humanitarian aid" arrives for those who need it. This explodes the myth that the "international community" is behind Odyssey Dawn. The Arab dictatorships - which once again have sanctioned an attack on a Muslim country - are scared to death of the backlash from their populations if "collateral damage" balloons. The Arab blogosphere is saturated with accusations that the UN and the Arab League have sanctioned a shameless Western plot to get Libya's oil. The African countries are mostly against it. The key emerging powers - Brazil, India, Indonesia, Turkey - are not part of it. The four top BRIC members (Brazil, Russia, India, China) all abstained from the UN vote. China has been very much aware that in both Africa and South America - where its business interests are now rivaling America's - support for the "coalition" is minimal. And Russia has gone one step beyond; according to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, "The resolution is defective and flawed ... It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades." True: Russia has weapons contracts with Libya to the tune of US$4 billion, half of it pending. No wonder Pentagon supremo Robert Gates has not managed to convince Moscow to support the "coalition". Catfight This means this "coalition" is in fact all about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Or is it? There's a major catfight going on inside NATO. No one knows how to interpret this "allow everything" resolution. In Britain, the Ministry of Defense swears that taking out Gaddafi is not part of the mandate (mirroring Gates, who said it would be "unwise"). But the David Cameron government thinks this is all about regime change. As it is in practice for the Obama administration - see everyone from President Obama to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisting "Gaddafi must go". France - following President Nicolas Sarkozy's Napoleonic syndrome - doesn't want to relinquish command to NATO. Other NATO members loudly complain that the Anglo-French plus the US monopolize all the decisions. Turkey, extremely worried about civilian deaths, and most of all worried about preserving its current very good standing in the Muslim world, is adamantly against a NATO intervention - calling instead for a review of other possible strategies and even for an immediate Western ceasefire. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, "Military intervention by NATO in Libya or any other country would be totally counter-productive". In this context, it's absurd to believe - like the proverbial think-tank suspects - that a NATO intervention modeled on Kosovo would be "a success". In 1999, NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days; dropped no less than 20,000 tons of bombs; and produced thousands of "collateral damage" - all in the name of humanitarian "protection" of Albanians in Kosovo. The Srebrenica massacre, by the way, happened after NATO imposed a no-fly zone over Bosnia. League of crooks The Anglo-French-American consortium leading Odyssey Dawn has fallen for its own propaganda - blindly convinced that the Arab League is on board. And even if the Arab League were totally on board, this means Odyssey Dawn is endorsed by the very nasty people the great 2011 Arab revolt is trying hard to get rid of. The Arab League's position is based on two very shady motives. One is King Abdullah and the House of Saud's obsession on taking out Gaddafi. The other is Moussa's campaign to become the next Egyptian president. Moussa takes orders from the House of Saud while trying to seduce Washington to support his bid for the presidency. The UN resolution has nothing to do with a ceasefire. The "rebels" themselves already said they would settle for nothing except regime change. The resolution points towards regime change - no matter what the British and American militaries are saying. Expect more cruise missiles visiting Gaddafi's compound in Bab al-Aziziya. If Gaddafi holds, things will get even messier. Under international law, his regime will still be legitimate. He may even invoke the right to fight against an armed insurrection trying to topple his regime - in fact much more of a right than the dictatorships in Yemen and Bahrain, who have been shooting unarmed protesters. The real test for the new Obama war doctrine - and its European minions - will be how to get regime change without a land war. Yet history may rule that just like in Georgia, Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Kosovo or North/South Korea, we may be on our way to kiss unified Libya goodbye. Libya: Obama's Iraq moment? Mar 21, '11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_ram Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It has sort of come to a crossroads now. The allies need to realise that by helping the rebels gain control they are in effect supporting a civil war, which would be terrible. As previous posters have said we cannot police the world and get involved in things that don't concern us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 BBC News And people assume that we're just there for the oil....... There doesn't seem to be a massive amount of difference between Gadaffi and the rebels. Although the Imperial Alliance seem to have taken the view that the Colonel's had 40 years to change his tune and hasn't, hence we may as well chance our arm with a new bunch instead. The Saudis - Invited US troops to help protect against a possible Iraqi invasion in 1990, and then spend every day since complaining about how they desecrated their holy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.