[PAX] UN okays military action on Libya

Siamese cat

Siamese cat

Madame Cat strikes again
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
This is from yahoo, but the news about this is all over the place. I just read somewhere that the actions won't start before weekend, though in most sources they are saying that they'll start as of today. What do you think will happen and what will be Gaddafi's moves?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110317/ts_nm/us_libya

TRIPOLI/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)
 
Last edited:
http://www.debka.com/article/20784/

My biggest question of the moment is what will Obama do when civilians of America take to the streets? Will the UN help the "rebels"? Will Obama call out the National Guard, Police, Army, and all his forces to quell any violence he sees as a threat to his country?

Will Obama and the UN attack Saudi Arabia? Will Clinton state King Abdullah has to step down before she will be satisfied? She has stated the Colonel must go, yet that was not established in the UNSC meetings.

Will the UN stand by as this unfolds in other nations? What will they do when it gets up close and personal in their own backyards?

The UN Security Council is acting on humanitarian reasons, but what will they do when it happens to them? My guess is they would then be two-faced.

If this is not peaceful, please ask and I will delete this message. Moderators; you have my full permission to delete this message if it is out of line.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
http://www.debka.com/article/20784/

My biggest question of the moment is what will Obama do when civilians of America take to the streets? Will the UN help the "rebels"? Will Obama call out the National Guard, Police, Army, and all his forces to quell any violence he sees as a threat to his country?

Will Obama and the UN attack Saudi Arabia? Will Clinton state King Abdullah has to step down before she will be satisfied? She has stated the Colonel must go, yet that was not established in the UNSC meetings.

Will the UN stand by as this unfolds in other nations? What will they do when it gets up close and personal in their own backyards?

The UN Security Council is acting on humanitarian reasons, but what will they do when it happens to them? My guess is they would then be two-faced.

If this is not peaceful, please ask and I will delete this message. Moderators; you have my full permission to delete this message if it is out of line.
Click to expand...

What do you think Gaddafi will do? In almost every news that I found they spin the story of numerous weapons he has and that he has bought more recently, and that he talks about retaliating by targeting places in Mediterranean countries, but I don't think that he'll be just that hasty and give them reasons to march in there.

So far this seems a bit tip-toish, but I kind of expected that.

I'm not really surprised by the way UN acted, that kind of attitude is going on for a while and I don't think it will stop being that way any time soon.
 
By his grounding of his own planes when he did, he basically placed the UN in a stalemate for the moment. I want to restate he has blamed Al Qaeda from day one for this. I think the UN was hasty in regards to NOT further investigating his claims. I don't know of a single country involved that will stand down like Obama almost forced Mubarak to stand down.

I have to look at what is happening next door in Egypt to grasp the realities of this type scenario. The military is losing its grip slowly. Chaos is growing, which is known to be a breeding ground for terrorism and new recruits. Policy is changing anti-Israel and anti-US in favor of pro-Iran and pro-Syrian(read this to be anti-Israeli, which could have completely wiped out Egypt's entire Third Army had they not made peace).

Next I look at the Iranian threats against Saudi Arabia and their allies for their handling of Bahrain's chaos. I see the Iranian threats as a direct involvement in what is going on. Meanwhile, Iran is subduing the opposition in their own country, throwing them in prison, making some of them turn up missing, and the likes. They try to make this sound like the Sunnis attacking the Shias, trying to allow the momentum to swing deeper in their favor of dethroning the Sunni leadership in other countries in the area.

I then look at history and how the people think and act regarding fighting. I draw a conclusion based on what I see, what I have seen, what I have studied, and how I feel; Libya is being taken over by a group of terrorists inflaming the public and inciting fighting. Now the UN is backing it. I want to know what the UN has in store for Egypt. I want to know why the US is pushing for military intervention against Libya and why they pushed for Mubarak to step down. I want to see the big picture in the mindset of all this. Libya's ruler cannot even understand why the intervention. There is a bigger picture and I am not naive.

The US is acting like they are not the aggressors when they are an integral part of the aggression.

The Colonel will do what he can to maintain his control of his country. The world is clearly divided over what to do about the situation. Will he retaliate against other nations? Maybe we should ask ourselves if he is going to sit back and watch these nations destroy his military without any reactions? Will other countries form their own United Against Nations of Aggression, and fight against those meddling in the affairs of monarchies that have been established hundreds of years? Decades? Is Democracy so good? Is it without corruption and shame?

Israel, the first nation to publically announce their intentions to stop pursuing nuclear energy after what is happening in Japan and try to concentrate on the gas reserves they were given offshore for the same purpose of caring for their people with a safer energy, is the only nation in the world acting like they understand what is going on in the world around them. All the while they are watching the peace they were granted, and earned, be tossed out the window. I see a new coalition of countries being formed in our future. I do not know who their leader will be at this moment.
 
Last edited:
article-1367063-0B3BAB8700000578-423_634x331.jpg


I'm favour of establishing a no-fly zone and campaign to strike against military units attacking cities.

Why else does NATO - the arsenal of democracy - have such massive power if it is unwilling to use it to protect civilians from leaders who will use their military to massacre their people?
 
The west is not acting out of kindness or altruism, it wants to secure Libyas oil

The pro-western dictators who supported fee market capitalism are falling and the west want to get into Libya and impose some of their own control in the middle east.

If the US really cared they would 'release gaddafis frozen assets to the interim government'

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24186
 
No worries, that's why we have merge. :D

To the question at hand - if it's a NATO combined forces thing, I'm much more inclined to agree with the action. Obviously it's not about liberating the Libyan people as much as it is protecting our oil (same as Desert Storm) but I bet you this will be a quick and dirty action.

Gaddafi has money, but he doesn't have NATO. And many of his allies will probably hang him out to dry.
 
quote"It was carried by 10 votes with Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany abstaining."

What would the UN do if Russia and China with their friends dropped in the country and took control of a few airports? Have seen it happen before with Russia. It makes for a very sober day.
 
When Obama gave a speech about Libya while the guys in my class were watching the game, they got so annoyed.
 
daydreamer said:
When Obama gave a speech about Libya while the guys in my class were watching the game, they got so annoyed.
Click to expand...

Sport is there to distract people from what the capitalist ruling class is doing, so its working quite well
 
Last edited:
I wish I could read what media in Libya are saying about what's happening, because from the personal experience I know that what western media will tell tends to have very little to do with what is really happening at bombarded sites.

What irks me that when they have actions like this one, often they bombard civilian sites, though they at first say that they won't do so, and when they actually do that, they say that it was done like that because military forces were there.
 
muir said:
The west is not acting out of kindness or altruism, it wants to secure Libyas oil]
Click to expand...

arbygil said:
Obviously it's not about liberating the Libyan people as much as it is protecting our oil (same as Desert Storm) but I bet you this will be a quick and dirty action.
Click to expand...

If it were about securing oil, why wouldn't the allies and NATO let Gaddafi continue his despotic rule? After all, he has kept the oil flowing consistently for more than forty years. There's no certainty that the rebels (whom I support) will be as effective in providing oil.
 
Siamese cat said:
I wish I could read what media in Libya are saying...
Click to expand...

You can. Google "Libyan newspapers," choose one or two newspaper sites of interest, and then use the Google translation engine to translate the text of the newspaper's URL from Arabic into English.
 
Siamese cat said:
I wish I could read what media in Libya are saying about what's happening, because from the personal experience I know that what western media will tell tends to have very little to do with what is really happening at bombarded sites.

What irks me that when they have actions like this one, often they bombard civilian sites, though they at first say that they won't do so, and when they actually do that, they say that it was done like that because military forces were there.
Click to expand...

They have invented language to remove themselves from the reality of their acts....so civilians murdered due to their actions become 'collateral damage', whilst their own people killed are due to 'friendly fire'

Bottom line is the capitalist class don't give a damn.

In Haig's presence, Kissinger is claimed to have referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, in The Final Days (1976) ch. 14 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
 
Siamese cat said:
I wish I could read what media in Libya are saying about what's happening, because from the personal experience I know that what western media will tell tends to have very little to do with what is really happening at bombarded sites.

What irks me that when they have actions like this one, often they bombard civilian sites, though they at first say that they won't do so, and when they actually do that, they say that it was done like that because military forces were there.
Click to expand...

Watching Reuters I believe the statement from the Libyan dictatorship was 'Colonial, Crusader aggression overloading the hospitals across Libya with civilian casualties'. The same old pre-determined rhetoric. Of course, they didn't necessarily discuss the Gadaffi mercenaries bombarding the city of Misurata with artillery barrages or the Gadaffi tanks shooting their way through the western entrance to Benghazi.
 
Norton said:
If it were about securing oil, why wouldn't the allies and NATO let Gaddafi continue his despotic rule? After all, he has kept the oil flowing consistently for more than forty years. There's no certainty that the rebels (whom I support) will be as effective in providing oil.
Click to expand...

Britain imposed a ban on trade with Libya in 1988 after the Lockerbie bombing so Gaddafi hasn't been consistant. He was until the recent release of the alleged bomber Megrahi reffered to as a 'terrorist' in the British media.

Tony Blair made peace with him and business has boomed since: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/british-trade-with-libya-set-to-soar-1776019.html

I think the west have either cut a deal with the rebels or they are seizing an opportunity to get a bigger slice of Libya then they could get under Gaddafi

They are doing what they always do and interfering in other countries business. if i was a Libyan i would be extremely suspiscious of western 'assistance'
 
muir said:
They have invented language to remove themselves from the reality of their acts....so civilians murdered due to their actions become 'collateral damage', whilst their own people killed are due to 'friendly fire'

Bottom line is the capitalist class don't give a damn.

In Haig's presence, Kissinger is claimed to have referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, in The Final Days (1976) ch. 14 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link, I'm amazed by the quotes there.

What bothers me is that people, middle class people doesn't seem to care any more or are just repeating some stupid phrases they read in the newspapers. There used to be a time when people would show at least some form of a protest, nowadays they seem apathetic at best.

It bothers me that people are just so willing to be blind and to believe anything they see or hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top