France has launched air strike on Libya

[DM101]

I think the league of Arabs should be regretting now... you invite the WESTERN wolves in... and they come in droves for OIL. The French is leading the packs .... i wonder what those league of Arabs was thinking of.. No fly Zone become a bombing run ?

 

[shiruikage]

Therefore is it better, in your opinion… to let the civilians of Benghazi be kill because they poke the porcupine ?? :think: Do the people there deserve to die because ''they should have know better''…

Is there going to be another tyrant after Gadhafi… I really don't know. But I DO know that if UN or the Arab League do nothing… alot of people will die inside the City of Benghazi.

no...but in the words of someone wiser than i: who are we to bleed for our friend in their defense when we do not allow them to bleed for their own freedom? no, it is not better. but when the decision to strike is for a reason other than altruism, the strike is suspect.
tell me, many died in somolia, why did not the UN or the arab league do something? scores of people died in north korea and myanmar, why didn't the UN do something? hmm? there are more military dictators in africa than other continents combined, and why didn't the UN do something? why libya? why iraq? when Ayatollah launched the iranian revolution, why didn't the UN goes win all guns blazing? why libya? did the civilians in iraq not beg for help? in somolia? in iran? in north korea? myanmar? where is the much loved United Nations? and where were they when russia sent in the troops into south ossetia? why didn't the mighty UN and USA send in the troops? hmm?

simple...this is not about helping those people on the ground, like what the propaganda says. it's business plain and simple. hypocrits they call them. in a word, its about oil.

 

[diver-hloc]

simple...this is not about helping those people on the ground, like what the propaganda says. it's business plain and simple. hypocrits they call them. in a word, its about oil.

I agree with you here.... but my Question remains the same. Do we now allow Gadhafi to kill the people inside Benghazi because the Intention of UN/WEST/Arab League isn't as pure/clean as we want/like it to be ?? :think:

We are all too grown up to still believe that do-gooder with heart of GOLD and pure intention like a saint..... Superman for example, will zoom out from the sky and save ppl in need... but is letting the ppl trapped inside the city, facing shortage of food and water... being attack daily, to their own fate... any better. And who are we to decide its better.... you and me don't have to worry will a shell from a tank kill us in the middle of the night... or what will happen to us should Gadhafi's forces retake the city and teach those who are still alive... a lesson they won't forget.

The West don't butt in... those ppl will die, giving up won't help. Since Gadhafi would likely kill all and any 'rebel' to set an example. But if the West get involve... yes, the usual problem will happen again. BOTH case isn't ideal.... but someone has to choose "the lesser of two evil"... and choosing which is the lesser one.... is the problem :sweat:

 

[hanqiang1011]

Replacing some rebels for a dictator, thats insane... If the rebels came to power with the help from the west, what if they become al-Qeada no.2???

 

[ricohflex]

It is good that the US/UK/France/others coalition stop very large number of people being killed. It is an unbalanced contest when Libya uses its own army, tanks, artillery to kill its own citizens. Many here are simply observing that other countries did the same too; and no one blinked.

 

[kei1309]

It is good that the US/UK/France/others coalition stop very large number of people being killed. It is an unbalanced contest when Libya uses its own army, tanks, artillery to kill its own citizens. Many here are simply observing that other countries did the same too; and no one blinked.

it would be ironic if China stepped in to aid the west

 

[ManWearPants]

Here's another genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

I hv watched the movie Hotel Rwanda and several documentaries on this Hutus and Tutsis. It is like today you are my neighbour, tomorrow I am going to kill you just because you are of a different ethnic. It is terrible. UN and the western powers actually evacuated its citizen and pulled out from the country.

 

[ManWearPants]

I agree with you here.... but my Question remains the same. Do we now allow Gadhafi to kill the people inside Benghazi because the Intention of UN/WEST/Arab League isn't as pure/clean as we want/like it to be ?? :think:

Actually till today, there are no evidence of genocide in Libya. It is a civil war with Gaddafi supporters fighting the rebels. It is like claiming there are MWD in Iraq and we know after Saddam has been hung that it is all tales being spinned by the western powers.

I have also observed how quickly the stand of the western powers changed during Egypt's revolution. They supported Hosni Mubarak initially and when demonstartion persist, support for a smooth transition in near future, and then an immediate transition and finally applaud democracy at the downfall of Mubarak.

In the case of no fly zone. The Arab league supported it but did not endorse the bombardment.

I am totally disgusted with the way these so called western powers acted. It is more often in their own interests than anything. In the case of France and Italy, it may be for Sarcozy and Belusconi to divert attention from their woes at home. Support for Sarcozy is dwindling and Belusconi is facing a lawsuit involving sex with a minor. This is a welcomed diversion of attention for their nation.

UK's involvement may be related to the Lockerbie bombing which the government are continued to be accused of releasing Megrahi back to Libya, on the pretext that he is dying of cancer, in exchange for commercial benefits.

 

[diver-hloc]

Actually till today, there are no evidence of genocide in Libya. It is a civil war with Gaddafi supporters fighting the rebels. It is like claiming there are MWD in Iraq and we know after Saddam has been hung that it is all tales being spinned by the western powers.

And you think Gadhafi is sending APCs, Tanks and Fighter Jets into Benghazi because of a big party inside ??

And is it not too late for the ppl inside Benghazi should evidence be found only after Gadhafi's supporters retaken the city. :think: UN and the World at large, acted too late during Rwanda… would it be 'better' for them to once again, be too late for Benghazi so as to be 'Morally' correct ??

 

[ManWearPants]

And you think Gadhafi is sending APCs, Tanks and Fighter Jets into Benghazi because of a big party inside ??

It's a civil war. You don't keep the tanks and fighter jets in the bunker during a war. The rebels on the other hand are also trying to capture Tripoli.

Today, NATO has stated that the miltary actions by the western powers has gone beyond the UN intent of creating a no fly zone. The UN resolution is to protect the Libyan people but the western power is to overthrow or even accidentally kill Gaddafi. Apparently, they have differing agendas.

Why are there no travel ban, asset freeze, military action in Bahrain or Yemen where 13 and 50 over demonstrators have been killed by government forces. Simple, those government are backed by US and western allies.

I quote from a news agency
"Despite its official UN-granted legality, the credibility and legitimacy of Western military action is dwindling rapidly, even in key diplomatic circles"

 

[ManWearPants]

It is also interesting to note that the new world powers - China, India, Russia, are condemning the western intervention in Libya. Obama is in Brazil so don't think it will make too much noise. Japan is busy with their own disaster.

Also interesting that I have not heard of Germany's involvement in this.

 

[9V-Orion Images]

US response then:

There were no U.S. troops officially in Rwanda at the onset of the genocide. A National Security Archive report points out five ways in which decisions made by the U.S. government contributed to the slow U.S. and worldwide response to the genocide:

1. The U.S. lobbied the U.N. for a total withdrawal of U.N. (UNAMIR) forces in Rwanda in April 1994;

2. Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term "genocide" until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;

3. Bureaucratic infighting slowed the U.S. response to the genocide in general;

4. The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;

5. U.S. officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence but did not follow up with concrete action

Context is key, just exactly a year ago the United States lost 19 highly trained special operations soldiers with one aviator held captured in the botched up Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia.

There was a huge public outcry over the Clinton Administration and he was forced to withdraw the majority of his troops from humanitarian and OOTW (Operations Other Than War) missions in the months that followed.

 

[dreaming]

Black Hawk Down

 

[de_stan]

Maybe one day if oil is discovered in Singapore, the western coalition may invade Singapore on the grounds that we do not have enough human rights and are living under an oppressed government too?

 

[shiruikage]

It's a civil war. You don't keep the tanks and fighter jets in the bunker during a war. The rebels on the other hand are also trying to capture Tripoli.

Today, NATO has stated that the miltary actions by the western powers has gone beyond the UN intent of creating a no fly zone. The UN resolution is to protect the Libyan people but the western power is to overthrow or even accidentally kill Gaddafi. Apparently, they have differing agendas.

Why are there no travel ban, asset freeze, military action in Bahrain or Yemen where 13 and 50 over demonstrators have been killed by government forces. Simple, those government are backed by US and western allies.

I quote from a news agency
"Despite its official UN-granted legality, the credibility and legitimacy of Western military action is dwindling rapidly, even in key diplomatic circles"

ditto. therein my question: why libya? not bahrain or yemen? i mean, if they want to safe civilians, why not intervene in bahrain as well rite?

nobody wants any innocent civilians killed. but the way force is applied, does not reflect the responsibility of a big power nation to preserve peace. 'helpin' one country where an undesireble is the leader, but turns a blind eye on another where the leader is the crony...that's not right, right?

i mean, do we let civilians in bahrain or yemen die?

and the no fly zone...the main purpose is to twart enemy air power rite? so, other than air to air missile sites and aircrafts actually in the air, why bomb other places?

 

[hanqiang1011]

These so-called western powers are all but "hanging the goat's head but selling the dog meat"...

 

[ManWearPants]

I dunno WTF NATO is doing. They claim they do not want a war with Gaddafi but are already bombarding military targets in Libya, launching Tomahawks missiles everyday. They refuse to send in the ground troops as they have obviously learned from the Afghan/Iraq war that it will be long drawn, hard to exit and have financial burden. But this kind of half hearted involvement surely must have infuriated Gaddafi. IMO, the NATO have given Gaddafi a reason to go on a witch hunt to sniff out traitors.

I seriously think NATO has lost the plot. They should have stayed out of it or if they want to go in, do it with full scale military actions. The rebels are not armed to win the battle with Gaddafi. NATO's action has created a situation where the civilians are in more peril than before.

 

[ManWearPants]

I dunno WTF NATO is doing. They claim they do not want a war with Gaddafi but are already bombarding military targets in Libya, launching Tomahawks missiles everyday. They refuse to send in the ground troops as they have obviously learned from the Afghan/Iraq war that it will be long drawn, hard to exit and have financial burden. But this kind of half hearted involvement surely must have infuriated Gaddafi. IMO, the NATO have given Gaddafi a reason to go on a witch hunt to sniff out traitors.

I seriously think NATO has lost the plot. They should have stayed out of it or if they want to go in, do it with full scale military actions. The rebels are not armed to win the battle with Gaddafi. NATO's action has created a situation where the civilians are in more peril than before.

 

[ManWearPants]

I dunno WTF NATO is doing. They claim they do not want a war with Gaddafi but are already bombarding military targets in Libya, launching Tomahawks missiles everyday. They refuse to send in the ground troops as they have obviously learned from the Afghan/Iraq war that it will be long drawn, hard to exit and have financial burden. But this kind of half hearted involvement surely must have infuriated Gaddafi. IMO, the NATO have given Gaddafi a reason to go on a witch hunt to sniff out traitors.

I seriously think NATO has lost the plot. They should have stayed out of it or if they want to go in, do it with full scale military actions. The rebels are not armed to win the battle with Gaddafi. NATO's action has created a situation where the civilians are in more peril than before.

 

[hmjt]

Its so obvious its the oil they are after, protecting the rebels are just an excuse.