US Military Action in Libya?

[Pirlo]

Pirlo - please translate in the bottom right of the screen.

HAHAHA funny.. it says "Barrack Obama - Libyan President"

[Phatscotty]

Peaceful Syrian student youth democracy activists gun-down Australian for disagreeing with them

After Australia violated the Geneva convention by allowing the Syrian embassy in Canberra to be stormed and ransacked - an action that would have met with military retaliation had it been a western embassy in Syria - Australian gunmen then shot a Syrian-Australian supporter of Dr. Bashar al-Assad in both legs after he dared to post a photo of Assad on his Facebook page. Shooting people who engage in unpopular speech is necessary to protect democracy.

Events in Syria are being orchestrated by peaceful Syrian student youth democracy activists and have nothing to do with al-Qaeda or violent religious cults. Just like in Libya! If you disagree with this you will be shot!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/shooting-fo ... 1r1xh.html

I thought Australia didn't have gun problems anymore?

[Qwert]

The UN has painted a disturbing picture of the situation in Libya.
"The NTC is not fully in control of the country and it has a lot to do with how the country was liberated and how these militias came to be. Until there is a central authority with all the necessary institutions to defend and secure the country in place, there are only limited things that the NTC will be able to do. There are some 150,000 Libyans under arms and as many as 300 militias in the country."

- Bill Lawrence, International Crisis Group


Five months after the fall of Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the security situation is getting worse, not better.

Militias operating outside the control of the interim government - the National Transitional Council (NTC) - remain heavily armed and they continue to detain, and sometimes even torture, hundreds of prisoners suspected of being loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader.

Revolutionary forces were involved in recent fatal clashes in Tripoli, Bani Walid and Gharyan - in the west, and Benghazi in the east.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF), the international medical humanitarian organisation, has decided to suspend its operations in detention centres in Misrata after confirming that detainees are being tortured and denied urgent medical care.

The UN says Libyan militias are holding thousands of people in secret detention centres, while the interim government struggles to assert its authority.

Navi Pillay, the UN Human Rights chief, in a report to the UN Security Council said she is deeply concerned.
"We know that at least 60 detention centres exist, of which only six are under the control of the authorities. We visited a number of them and have seen torture and other abuses in all of them ... it is widespread. Many of the detainees we had spoken to did not know why they were being held."

- Carsten Jurgensen, Libya researcher, Amnesty International


Pillay said Libya's revolutionary forces were holding more than 8,000 prisoners in about 60 secret detention centres, most of them accused of being loyal to Gadaffi.

A large number of detainees come from Sub-Saharan African countries. The UN says there is no central authority overseeing the informal prisons, so prisoners are not having their cases reviewed.

Abdurrahman Shalgham, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, has acknowledged the existence of such detention centres, and that they are not under government control.

So who actually controls Libya? And is the ruling National Transitional Council capable of holding the country together through this interim period?

If you care about the above questions, here's a 25-minute video (omg, 25 minutes!? Yeah, I know.)

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/01/20121279497910159.html

These is succesfull creation of democratic countries, where people have same citizens standard like in any western countries.
These is only aljazzera propaganda,because if these true, then US will start bombard again to bring fredom again.

[BigBallinStalin]

?

These guy's are all propagandists working for Al-Jazeera?

(Inside Story, with presenter James Bays, discusses with guests: Carsten Jurgensen, a Libya researcher for Amnesty International; Bill Lawrence, the North Africa project director for the International Crisis Group; and Faraj Najem, author of Tribes, Islam and state in Libya.)

The following is propaganda?

Revolutionary forces were involved in recent fatal clashes in Tripoli, Bani Walid and Gharyan - in the west, and Benghazi in the east.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF), the international medical humanitarian organisation, has decided to suspend its operations in detention centres in Misrata after confirming that detainees are being tortured and denied urgent medical care.

[Qwert]

yes,they are, what else can be.
I from start tell that US create Propaganda,that Guadafy attack inocent,unarmed people. Ofcourse nobody belive, but now these is US product, country withouth law,100000 armed civilians, who dont want to listen NTC(these council in western propaganda presented like some organization who have full support of (un)armed civilians of LIbya.)
in previous post i been sarcastic.
If you go to mine previous post,after guadfy are killed, i say,that Libya will go to civil war,not go to something what US and hes frend UK and France want, country who will obey and give oil for a fistfull of dollars. Its not going to be easy,because people dont want to give oil for 1,4 dollar for barell,like IRaq marionetes give to US companies.
We all know that concesion on extract of oil,expire next year,and someone from western world create plan for quadafy elimination, so that can get new oil contract for cheap oil. Now they need to defeat libyan civilians to get oil.

[BigBallinStalin]

yes,they are, what else can be.
I from start tell that US create Propaganda,that Guadafy attack inocent,unarmed people. Ofcourse nobody belive, but now these is US product, country withouth law,100000 armed civilians, who dont want to listen NTC(these council in western propaganda presented like some organization who have full support of (un)armed civilians of LIbya.)
in previous post i been sarcastic.
If you go to mine previous post,after guadfy are killed, i say,that Libya will go to civil war,not go to something what US and hes frend UK and France want, country who will obey and give oil for a fistfull of dollars. Its not going to be easy,because people dont want to give oil for 1,4 dollar for barell,like IRaq marionetes give to US companies.
We all know that concesion on extract of oil,expire next year,and someone from western world create plan for quadafy elimination, so that can get new oil contract for cheap oil. Now they need to defeat libyan civilians to get oil.

Um, I quoted some simple facts. I wouldn't call that propaganda. The speakers in the video weren't too crazy or full of it either...

[Phatscotty]

[saxitoxin]

Another town liberated - just released video from this afternoon of the NTC flag being ripped down in Al-Kufra by Qaddafi forces, replaced by the Green banner of the Green Movement.

[saxitoxin]

From the "Thanks for the help, suckers! LMAO!" file -

The graves of WWII UK military personnel in Libya, which had been tended and protected for 60 years by Col. Qaddafi's orders - even at the lowest points in UK-Libya relations - have been razed and destroyed by the UK's new ally, the National Transitional Council.

http://rt.com/news/cemetery-libya-graves-desecrate-791/

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, well, graves are too expensive to maintain; therefore, your argument is invalid.

[saxitoxin]

A French investigator has released a report corroborating claims of the late Col. Qaddafi that Sarkozy had accepted a €50 million bribe in 2007.

At the time Qaddafi made the claim it was ridiculed in the west's state-run media (like also, since proved, claims about Al-Qaeda backing of the so-called "rebels"). Sarkozy passionately denied the assertion and started bombing Tripoli immediately afterwards, his first target being Qaddafi's tent (ultimately killing 5 children instead) --- what now appears was a move to use the French military to shut-up someone who had dirt on him.

http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/interna ... 07-electio

The report has been vetted and published by Mediapart, the acclaimed French media portal that was previously credited with exposing the Bettencourt bribery scandal.

[thegreekdog]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

[BigBallinStalin]

A French investigator has released a report corroborating claims of the late Col. Qaddafi that Sarkozy had accepted a €50 million bribe in 2007.

At the time Qaddafi made the claim it was ridiculed in the west's state-run media (like also, since proved, claims about Al-Qaeda backing of the so-called "rebels"). Sarkozy passionately denied the assertion and started bombing Tripoli immediately afterwards, his first target being Qaddafi's tent (ultimately killing 5 children instead) --- what now appears was a move to use the French military to shut-up someone who had dirt on him.

http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/interna ... 07-electio

The report has been vetted and published by Mediapart, the acclaimed French media portal that was previously credited with exposing the Bettencourt bribery scandal.

This might explain why Sarkozy was so eager to kill Gaddafi.

[Qwert]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

I think that US goverment realy dont care what US people think.

[Phatscotty]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

Timing is everything. The key was to make the poll before the media and Obama started making excuses for why we should go into/get involved militarily with Libya. Then he just let us know that we are going in and he decided it without asking Congress or even telling them, and he decided it while he was in South America.

Anyways, I am wondering how much the Libya situation has to do with high gas/oil prices right now?

[thegreekdog]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

Timing is everything. The key was to make the poll before the media and Obama started making excuses for why we should go into/get involved militarily with Libya. Then he just let us know that we are going in and he decided it without asking Congress or even telling them, and he decided it while he was in South America.

Anyways, I am wondering how much the Libya situation has to do with high gas/oil prices right now?

I'm going to ask you these questions (and I'm also including VOL and NS):

(1) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Libya?
(2) If Obama was the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?
(3) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?

[Phatscotty]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

Timing is everything. The key was to make the poll before the media and Obama started making excuses for why we should go into/get involved militarily with Libya. Then he just let us know that we are going in and he decided it without asking Congress or even telling them, and he decided it while he was in South America.

Anyways, I am wondering how much the Libya situation has to do with high gas/oil prices right now?

I'm going to ask you these questions (and I'm also including VOL and NS):

(1) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Libya?
(2) If Obama was the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?
(3) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?

I wouldn't change shit. I told Bush to shove it up his ass from the beginning on Iraq. but I'll play along

(1) No. mostly based on the "skipping Congress" factor alone, amongst other reasons.
(2) No.
(3) No.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm going to ask you these questions (and I'm also including VOL and NS):

(1) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Libya?
(2) If Obama was the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?
(3) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?

(1) Yes. The situation in Benghazi was dire. Those Al-Qaeda freedom fighters needed air support so that the walls of tyranny would crumble, and from the ruins a freedom-loving democracy would emerge.
(2) Of course. Iran can't be trusted. When they get the nuclear warheads, they'll ship them over to Hezbollah who will rip apart that whole region. The Middle East would explode.
(3) Yes, but only if the president is a freedom-loving man who has no qualms with making the world safe for democracy.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to ask you these questions (and I'm also including VOL and NS):

(1) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Libya?
(2) If Obama was the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?
(3) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?

(1) Yes. The situation in Benghazi was dire. Those Al-Qaeda freedom fighters needed air support so that the walls of tyranny would crumble, and from the ruins a freedom-loving democracy would emerge.
(2) Of course. Iran can't be trusted. When they get the nuclear warheads, they'll ship them over to Hezbollah who will rip apart that whole region. The Middle East would explode.
(3) Yes, but only if the president is a freedom-loving man who has no qualms with making the world safe for democracy.

Senator McCain? Is that you?

[ViperOverLord]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

Or a poll on if we should at least be supplying Syrian rebels with arms and/or humanitarian aid.

I'm going to ask you these questions (and I'm also including VOL and NS):

(1) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Libya?
(2) If Obama was the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?
(3) If Obama was not the president, would you support military action in Iran (as the situation sits right now)?

1. I think the media gave Obama more/less a blank check to do whatever he wanted in Libya. He never really had to explain our mission, objectives, timelines or means. He just did what he wanted and they went along for the ride. A Republican president does not have that luxury. He faces intense scrutiny. I think I would have listened to the argument and judged the merits for whatever they were. I think one item that was shamelessly not covered by the media was whether or not military action was justified based on Gaddafi's role in the Lockerbie bombing. Obama had his blank check. It somehow didn't need to be covered.

2. Again, Obama has not stated any clear case or rationale for bombing Iran. He has not set out a plan on what they need to do to avoid being bombed. I would say as a practical measure I might support the bombing if it was a realistic necessity. But that would not mean I approve of Obama's handling of Iran.

3. I think a Republican president faces much tougher scrutiny. By the time something gets to war a lot more questions have been asked (and often answered). Likely, he would have had to have enforced (or tried to enforce) regular inspections by the UN, outlined exactly what (tougher) sanctions are and what they are trying to accomplish, explain Iran's doings and and associations and exactly why they are a threat.

I don't even believe it would be the same situation at this point. But if you're asking me on the basis of if I think there's a clear and present danger then I'd answer that I'd be okay with bombing just like I was for Obama in question two. But being for a bombing does not mean I approve of the politicking.

[saxitoxin]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

Or a poll on if we should at least be supplying Syrian rebels with arms and/or humanitarian aid.

Or a poll if Syria should supply Puerto Rican nationalists, ALF and AIM with arms.

As an armchair supporter of the Assad administration I would not support, but I probably wouldn't vociferously oppose an arms embargo on Syria provided it were applied equally to all sides, unlike Libya. But I can't imagine the position of people who think the solution to violence is to introduce more weapons.

If there had been an arms and foreign military aid embargo on North America during the US revolution, the Americans would still likely have won but with much less bloodshed. Britain wouldn't have introduced 20,000 German mercenaries, prompting America to introduce 20,000 French troops, etc.

I do agree, however, with VO that Republican presidents have more scrutiny for military action, whereas for Democrats it's basically a Bar Mitzvah.

[BigBallinStalin]

There are over 40 votes for "no" in this poll.

We should do a poll on whether the US should act in Iran and see if we get a similar response.

Or a poll on if we should at least be supplying Syrian rebels with arms and/or humanitarian aid.

Or a poll if Syria should supply Puerto Rican nationalists, ALF and AIM with arms.

As an armchair supporter of the Assad administration I would not support, but I probably wouldn't vociferously oppose an arms embargo on Syria provided it were applied equally to all sides, unlike Libya. But I can't imagine the position of people who think the solution to violence is to introduce more weapons.

If there had been an arms and foreign military aid embargo on North America during the US revolution, the Americans would still likely have won but with much less bloodshed. Britain wouldn't have introduced 20,000 German mercenaries, prompting America to introduce 20,000 French troops, etc.

I do agree, however, with VO that Republican presidents have more scrutiny for military action, whereas for Democrats it's basically a Bar Mitzvah.

Is this generally due to the Democratic voters' unwillingness to expose themselves as hypocrites (to others or to themselves)? Is there some deep psychological fear that things aren't what they seem--that the Commander-in-chief behaves more or less the same?

Tell us, sax.

[saxitoxin]

Earlier this afternoon the government of Mali was overthrown in a bloody military coup as Malian troops stormed the presidential palace.

Mali has experienced massive unrest since the "overthrow" of Qaddafi. Qaddafi had brokered a peace deal between the Tuaereg minority and the Malian government. With his death the peace deal broke down and the rebellion restarted, resulting in today's coup d'etat.

[ViperOverLord]

Earlier this afternoon the government of Mali was overthrown in a bloody military coup as Malian troops stormed the presidential palace.

Mali has experienced massive unrest since the "overthrow" of Qaddafi. Qaddafi had brokered a peace deal between the Tuaereg minority and the Malian government. With his death the peace deal broke down and the rebellion restarted, resulting in today's coup d'etat.

Coup participants.

[saxitoxin]

Earlier this afternoon the government of Mali was overthrown in a bloody military coup as Malian troops stormed the presidential palace.

Mali has experienced massive unrest since the "overthrow" of Qaddafi. Qaddafi had brokered a peace deal between the Tuaereg minority and the Malian government. With his death the peace deal broke down and the rebellion restarted, resulting in today's coup d'etat.

Coup participants.

Looks like a fun group. I'd go camping with them.