|
shotgunbadger posted:also let's not forget at the very beginning using the tactic of 'bomb around the ground to keep those savages from going near our fancy wrecked plane'. This really isn't as clever as you think it is. I really doubt that the aircraft was destroyed for anything even remotely resembling that reason, it's all the more likely it was destroyed to prevent any other foreign nations from getting their hands on the wreckage, as happened in the former Yugoslavia with the F-117 that was shot down.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Few updates for Libya:quote:Libyan rebels say they expect to receive an offer from Muammar Gaddafi “very soon” that could end the four-month war but insisted the veteran strongman must agree to step down. quote:The Libyan government has repeated its offer to hold elections on whether Muammar Gaddafi should stay in power. quote:Libyan rebels in Benghazi have dismissed Gaddafi’s apparent offer to stay out of negotiations on a settlement to the conflict. The Africa Union announced the apparent concession, which has not been confirmed by Tripoli, at the end of talks in Pretoria. Representatives refused to take questions on the offer. And a brief round up from other areas from the Guardian: quote:• Activists in Syria say thousand of mourners have taken to the streets of Damascus for the funeral of two civilians killed by government forces. It comes after a series of protest last night in and around the capital. Various people on Twitter (not journalists) have been saying the Nafusa rebels are currently attacking Bir al Ghanam, which is about 30km north of Yafran, and is on the road to Az-Zawiyah and Al-Aziziyah, the latter of which is on the road to Tripoli.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I recall the two Libyan fighter bombers landing in Malta, claiming they did it because they were told to bomb a Libyan city, were proven to be a CIA/NATO false flag operation. Wasn't one of them shot down by rebel friendly-fire over Benghazi around the time the NFZ was voted ? I don't know what we'd hear about the other one anyway, I don't think he's authorized to fly under the NFZ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
I thought that came from a nearby airbase? I wouldn't imagine Malta would have let the other aircraft leave after they had landed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
A student posted:The Libya / Iraq comparisons fall apart when it comes to the legal authorization, the motivations, the scale of involvement, and the reasons for regime change. Iraq/Libya comparisons are fair because the ultimate cause for the intervention was Saddam/Gaddafi crossing a certain line. Iraq was basically Libya played out in slow motion on both sides. The biggest difference is that in the buildup to intervention, lies about WMD were used to try and convince the UN to act. Outside of the WMD bullshit, the reasons for intervening in both countries were pretty much the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Iraq/Libya comparisons are fair because the ultimate cause for the intervention was Saddam/Gaddafi crossing a certain line. Iraq was basically Libya played out in slow motion on both sides. The biggest difference is that in the buildup to intervention, lies about WMD were used to try and convince the UN to act. Outside of the WMD bullshit, the reasons for intervening in both countries were pretty much the same. The reasons cited for going to war, and the actual reasons for going to war are different though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Plus the war we started in Iraq has killed more people, or at least as many, in eight years than Saddam did during his entire reign, so there's that, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Iraq/Libya comparisons are fair because the ultimate cause for the intervention was Saddam/Gaddafi crossing a certain line. Iraq was basically Libya played out in slow motion on both sides. The biggest difference is that in the buildup to intervention, lies about WMD were used to try and convince the UN to act. Outside of the WMD bullshit, the reasons for intervening in both countries were pretty much the same. And here I thought the biggest difference was 200,000 invading soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Furthermore, you do realize that just because a certain justification was bullshit in one case doesn't mean it has to be bullshit in all cases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:Plus the war we started in Iraq has killed more people, or at least as many, in eight years than Saddam did during his entire reign, so there's that, too. The Iraq War killed 150,000 people, far less than Saddam ever killed (or would have killed had he remained in power). quote:Furthermore, you do realize that just because a certain justification was bullshit in one case doesn't mean it has to be bullshit in all cases? The only bullshit justifications were WMD and links to al-Qaeda. Aside from those two, every other stated reason for invading Iraq was legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
I don't actually remember an armed insurrection in Iraq similar to the one in Libya (or Afghanistan), though all I really remember is our news wondering why the US insisted there were WMDs when the UN inspectors insisted they couldn't find any.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:We also have plenty of videos of African mercenaries. We just had one posted about a week ago that was recovered from a Gaddafi supporter, with truckloads of armed Africans about to be shipped to "purify Misrata". I think now those are mainly black Libyans though, probably recruited from the Tawergha area itself. From what I read the town is mostly black, the inhabitants being descended from freed slaves that were allowed to settle there. They and Misuratans seem to have resented each other for some time now, Misurata being mostly white, wealthy and often racist, Tawergha poorer and black. Then black Libyans in general like Gaddafi because he for once didn't treat them like poo poo and sometimes even favored them over Arabs. Those Arabs that pissed him off anyway, which apparently Misuratans frequently did. So it likely wasn't all that hard to find enough young men there willing to go to Misurata to put down the handful of troublemakers, make a nice profit and teach those Misuratans a lesson. Not sure if I can blame them, from their perspective Gaddafi must look like the good guy, or must have at least until they saw what was really going on in Misurata. Now of course a whole lot of them are dead and Misuratans blame the town collectively for what happened. They may have been racist before, but now they are racists with guns thinking the people of Tawergha are directly responsible for the deaths of their family. And some have stated they intend to wipe Tawergha off the map. So yeah, race relations in the new Libya are going to be a whole lot fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:The only bullshit justifications were WMD and links to al-Qaeda. Aside from those two, every other stated reason for invading Iraq was legitimate. Except none of them were worth going to war over (nor were presented as being meaningful). So yes, all the meaningful justifications were bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
pylb posted:I don't actually remember an armed insurrection in Iraq similar to the one in Libya (or Afghanistan), though all I really remember is our news wondering why the US insisted there were WMDs when the UN inspectors insisted they couldn't find any. There was something of an armed insurrection, in the latter part of the Gulf War, but we stood by as they were virtually annihilated by Saddam's forces. Also, no one asked us to go into Iraq the way the rebels did with Libya, which seems to be a nontrivial distinction. And 150,000 is the conservative estimate. The death toll could be in the many hundreds of thousands, which would be comparable with Saddam's body count, which again he accumulated over decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:We also have plenty of videos of African mercenaries. We just had one posted about a week ago that was recovered from a Gaddafi supporter, with truckloads of armed Africans about to be shipped to "purify Misrata". Forgetting that Libya is in Africa for the moment, please can you tell me how you can identify some black people in trucks, mixed in with what appears to be regular military, as non-Libyan "African Mercenaries" from that video.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:There was something of an armed insurrection, in the latter part of the Gulf War, but we stood by as they were virtually annihilated by Saddam's forces. Also, no one asked us to go into Iraq the way the rebels did with Libya, which seems to be a nontrivial distinction. That's really it. If the US had supported the armed resistances in Iraq, if it had done so when they were being crushed, if it had worked through them rather than just sending its own invading force, and if it had not made WMD claims and Al-Qaida links the primary justification for war, Iraq would be a lot more comparable to Libya. However, if these were true, Iraq would have been a much different conflict, and many of the arguments used before or against would have been different both in claims and underlying truths. The mindset of "This argument worked really good when I made it against Iraq, so now I'm going to make it against every other potential foreign intervention" is simply a lazy one. Though I will grant that this time the spurious AQ claims have migrated from the pro-intervention to the anti-intervention side, so people at least are switching it up a little.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Freigeist posted:I think now those are mainly black Libyans though, probably recruited from the Tawergha area itself. From what I read the town is mostly black, the inhabitants being descended from freed slaves that were allowed to settle there. They could also be Tuaregs: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110302/world/gaddafi-recruiting-hundreds-of-tuareg-fighters.352704 Or men from Mali: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16mali.html] Gaddafi's mercenaries aren't exactly professional ones, but they're people he's brought in from neighboring countries in exchange for cash and guns. These articles are all from the start of the war, so he may have stopped doing that since then, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:The Iraq War killed 150,000 people, far less than Saddam ever killed (or would have killed had he remained in power). You're off by 500,000 people or so. I do think comparisons between these conflicts is off though, I don't think they're the same, nor have been waged for the same reasons at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Well if the sentiment on here towards Libya is this strong then so be it. I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind on here but they are certainly not going to change my mind. At least Kucinich had the balls to go against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
If you make the claim that the intervention is unjust because all war is unjust or all interventions must be conducted in certain ways that's a legitimate arguement. Kucinich has been consistent with his stance that the US should not be using the military the way the military has been used, that global imperialism harms the world, that the hidden motives only empower the rich and powerful. That's a legitimate philosophical discussion where people can weigh the pros and cons of many conflicts, hypothetical conflicts, etc. Making the claim that the Libya campaign is unjust because Iraq was unjust is something else. People can look at the stated reasons for war and the hidden drives and motivations for the war. I already pointed out that the biggest stated drives for the Iraq war were "WMDs" and "Terrorism": existential threats to the US and the middle east. No one is making the claim that Libya poses an existential threat. Events can be charted on time lines to see where there are similarities and differences. I already pointed out how Libyan intervention went thru a different process, has a different legal legitimacy, and has involved different forms of action than Iraq. People can compare and contrast direct and indirect death tolls. I brought up evidence that more children may have died due to sanctions than civilians died due to persecution from Saddam. The war, reconstruction, and the effect of sanctions on older populations undoubtedly raises that to a much higher number. If the crux of your argument is how the two are very similar you would be well served to step back, reevaluate what upsets you about the conflict, and then form a different argument that can withstand facts and logic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:You're off by 500,000 people or so. I do think comparisons between these conflicts is off though, I don't think they're the same, nor have been waged for the same reasons at all. Source? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ has 101,426 – 110,810 Most were from sectarian violence as well, but obviously I doubt Sunnis would be blowing up Shiites and vice versa to the extent that they are if the US didn't invade. Still no reason to inflate the number without anything backing it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Source? He's referring to the two reports released by the Lancet, which were seriously flawed and are only believed by the political fringe. It's a shame that the Lancet has sunk so low in recent years, first with their flawed bodycount, then with their study showing that vaccines cause autism. The Iraqi Health Ministry puts the total at 150,000, which is the most accurate and reasonable count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
There are more reports than just the lancet report, and if memory serves the biggest complaints about the lancet report was that they had to use tens of thousands of surveys to collect the data and it didn't necessarily follow that a large increase in deaths could be directly tied to decreased access to food, water, sanitary supplies, and so on. I'm not troubled by the need to use survey data for medical purposes. It's a valid and useful tool. And I think it strains credibility to deny a link between a lack of basic necessities and a higher death toll. Even if we take your point about the death tolls for granted that doesn't directly translate to the intervention being wrong. TLDR: The number of people who died under Saddam vs. under Sanctions vs. due to the Iraq war is not the sole way to compare Iraq to Libya and it has limited utility in this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
A student posted:If you make the claim that the intervention is unjust because all war is unjust or all interventions must be conducted in certain ways that's a legitimate arguement. Kucinich has been consistent with his stance that the US should not be using the military the way the military has been used, that global imperialism harms the world, that the hidden motives only empower the rich and powerful. That's a legitimate philosophical discussion where people can weigh the pros and cons of many conflicts, hypothetical conflicts, etc. Making the claim that the Libya campaign is unjust because Iraq was unjust is something else. I'm not trying to compare it to Iraq. I'm sure Obama and the other NATO leaders are honestly worried about the Libyan people are doing what they can to avoid civilian deaths. The thing is i'm a Quaker so I pretty much oppose all war. I do agree though that if there was ever a time that called for a 'just war' this would be it, but I don't buy into Just Wars, much less any war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
I didn't mean for you to feel singled out. It's possible to point out parallels between Iraq and Libya or Libya and other conflicts but the posters who talked about them being almost identical were being factually inaccurate. Now that you mention it I have an uneasy relationships with the idea of just wars. My view on this intervention (And WWII for that matter) is "less unjust than the alternatives". One of those is safer to say outloud than the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
A student posted:I didn't mean for you to feel singled out. It's possible to point out parallels between Iraq and Libya or Libya and other conflicts but the posters who talked about them being almost identical were being factually inaccurate. Oh, no problem, I didn't feel singled out, I just wanted to make my point of view clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
I also have no beef with people who believe all war is wrong- that viewpoint is inherently correct and while I do support humanitarian intervention the fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing if we are doing the right thing long term. Hell, someone worse than CQ could be put in power- to be honest regardless of what happens the standard of living for the average Libyan will almost certainly go down. Where I disagree is with the motivations of NATO. I support the rights of all people who wish for democratic self determination, and I didn't buy into the propaganda that said that Tunisia/Egypt etc would become Islamist dictatorships and I can't buy that with Libya. I would most certainly be willing to trade down to a lower standard of living to keep my right to have a say in my government and my right to speak freely, and the people of Libya have shown that they are willing to give far more than that. In other words, gently caress yeah war is wrong but the western alliance did not start this fight, and using arms to defend a civilian population is a just cause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Really Kosovo is a much better comparison. It was a NATO intervention, it was partially if not in fact mostly humanitarian in intent, it was initiated in part out of guilt for previous inaction, it was feasible because the intended target was easy to make a pariah based on previous history. Of course the controversial part is that the War in Kosovo made things worse for Kosovars in the short term and provided the justification and impetus for their persecution far beyond the initial situation that was judged as warranting intervention (by the admission of people like Wesley Clark himself). In Libya this clearly isn't the case: Qadaffi is not bombing civilians more now than he was before. On the other hand, it doesn't seem implausible that a rebel victory could be followed by vicious reprisals against Qadaffi supporters while NATO stands by and watches because humanitarianism is only for winners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Really Kosovo is a much better comparison. It was a NATO intervention, it was partially if not in fact mostly humanitarian in intent, it was initiated in part out of guilt for previous inaction, it was feasible because the intended target was easy to make a pariah based on previous history. So your point is that since CQ never stopped bombing the rebels we should feel bad about helping them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:So your point is that since CQ never stopped bombing the rebels we should feel bad about helping them? My point is that humanitarian intentions shouldn't be taken as sufficient evidence that an intervention is a good thing. I'm not really certain about Libya myself. What is unusual is that even NATO still seems (though less than before) somewhat uncertain about their intentions, their goals, and their level of commitment. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing: after all, being circumspect can look the same as being uncertain. But NATO members are being circumspect about their benefit from intervention, which in some ways overlaps with the good of the Libyan people, but in other ways doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 08:10
|
|
|
Lastest NATO updatequote:Sorties conducted 26 JUNE: 138 An overall increase in strikes sorties, but a overall drop in the number of targets hit in and around Brega. More strikes in the Nafusa region though. There's unconfirmed claims on Twitter that the rebels have captured Maradah south of Brega, cutting off one of the major supply lines. There's also claims that the recent NATO strikes in the area have killed a lot of Gaddafi troops, with NATO targetting officers and commanders hoping that without them the remaining troops with flee or surrender. Of course, all of this is totally unconfirmed, so take it with a huge pinch of salt. quote:Libyan rebels south of Tripoli have advanced to within about 80 km (50 miles) of the capital and are fighting government troops for control of the town of Bir al-Ghanam, a rebel spokesman told Reuters on Monday. Apparently midnight last night was the last time NATO had given Gaddafi troops in Zliten to surrender, so it'll be interesting to see what happenes next. There's also claims that the Nafusa rebels are fighting closer to Tripoli, at Bir al Ghanam, 20km north of Yafran. Again, pinch of salt with those claims. Today the ICC will be issuing warrents for the arrest of Gaddafi and friends. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
Live Blogs June 27th Guardian LibyaFeb17 Feb17.info AJE Libya AJE Yemen AJE Syria Libya ICC quote:The International criminal court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. quote:In a statement read out in court, the ICC judges emphasised that the arrest warrants issued for Gaddafi, his son and his head of intelligence on charges of "crimes against humanity" were not a finding of guilt: quote:A statement from the ICC says: quote:The UK foreign secretary, William Hague, has welcomed the decision by the ICC with respect to the Libyan leader and his two aides: quote:The Guardian's Middle East editor, Ian Black, writes that the prospects of a negotiated solution to the Libyan crisis have receded further after the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrants for Gaddafi: quote:Two loud explosions have shaken the area near Gaddafi's compound in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, the Associated Press reports: quote:Rebels in Libya's western mountains said they have advanced towards Tripoli and are battling pro-Gaddafi's forces in a strategic town south-west of the capital. The Gaddafi regime quote:Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's former intelligence chief and Libyan foreign minister, has been tracked down to a luxury hotel in the Gulf by the Daily Telegraph. Koussa defected to Britain at the end of March and, after being debriefed by MI6 and interviewed over the Lockerbie bombing by Dumfries and Galloway police, he was allowed to leave Britain in April. The Telegraph writes: quote:Gaddafi paraded his latest weapon in the war against Nato to the international media in Libya on Sunday, 500 women at a graduation ceremony in Tripoli, who had completed weapons training in defence of the regime. The Guardian's David Smith writes: quote:The Libyan foreign minister, Abdelati Obeidi, is in Tunisia negotiating with foreign parties, according to The Tunisian state news agency, Tap. NATO and friends quote:The UK defence secretary, Liam Fox, insisted today that Britain can afford military operations in Libya, amid domestic concerns that they are unsustainable. Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Fox said: quote:Major General Nick Pope via the UKMilOps Twitter account:
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:It's a shame that the Lancet has sunk so low in recent years, first with their flawed bodycount, then with their study showing that vaccines cause autism. Andrew Wakefield's paper predates the Iraq war. It was in the news last year because the Lancet finally officially retracted it. It's shameful that it took 12 years for them to do so, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
Is Dennis Kucinich going the way of Cynthia McKinney? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/06/what-dennis-kucinich-doing-syria/39300/ quote:Earlier this morning, CNN's Hala Gorani, one of the few Western journalists who has been permitted entry to Damascus, issued a strange tweet: "Ran into Dennis Kucinich in another hotel. Told me he's on fact-finding mission. Met w Assad for 3 hrs yest. Wouldn't elaborate." What is the anti-war, anti-Libya campaign Ohio Democrat doing meeting with the head of a regime accused of killing over 1,300 people in its crackdown on anti-government protests?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
If you mean principled and unfairly demonized for it, yea sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Is Dennis Kucinich going the way of Cynthia McKinney? Well, as long as he doesn't do something like putting up a press statement about how Assad hasn't done poo poo and is just fighting against terrorists in his country, like McKinney did with Gaddafi, his meeting with Assad wouldn't mean poo poo. I wouldn't doubt he would do something like that, though. I never liked him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
What would be interesting is if Kucinich came back from Syria a hawk for intervening there? Be interesting if pigs could fly as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
A CNN journalist in Tripli Tweeted this picture: The Gaddafi regime claims this bus was bombed by NATO. If it was, then NATO has some pretty pathetic bombs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
NATO must be dropping Molotov cocktails (or benzine-soaked tennis balls) because that's what the damage looks like its from. Naplam or incindergel would have covered the outside and incinerated the thing entirely, turning it completely into a black husk. Explosives would have shredded the outside and probably ripped all the way to the frame. Here, it looks like there was a fire inside the trailer, which burned up and out, which is consistent with an internal fire, like someone throwing a fuel can into a portable oven or tossing a Molotov into the cabin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Hell, the tires look fine as well. Doesn't look to be all that much deformation of the structure either so it wasn't a very hot fire at all. Might just be the quality of the picture but it doesn't look like there's any glass shards at all in those windows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:17
|
|
