-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UN and NATO to Gaddafi: Operation Odyssey Dawn |OT|
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Psychotext
Member
FUCK YOU CLOUUUUDDDDDDSSSSS!!!!!!!
Have lost count of the amount of time that's happened. Facepalm worthy.Xeke said:
RustyNails
Member
Oh shit, is there a youtube link or online version? I will gladly put in the OP.DECK'ARD said:
RustyNails said:
Here's the iPlayer link for those in the UK, it should be up in a bit after the programme ends. Hopefully someone will YouTube it as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0101pyh/Panorama_Fighting_Gaddafi/
SoulPlaya said:
In this case responsibility for your family or whatnot might be to go and try to secure them a better future. Those who cowarded out or flipped sides will likely be stigmatized afterwards by whichever side wins.
Its a hard choice to make in the end, but I can see her point.
RustyNails
Member
Thank you sir. I will keep an eye on this.DECK'ARD said:
The better future might be for them to have a father that can provide for them. This isn't a movie or comic book, and in the end, each family has different needs. The man might be a single father, or the only breadwinner in the family (more likely). Dying for the sake of "democracy" might not be worth it.AndyD said:
Advance_Alarm
Member
SoulPlaya said:
nobody had to sacrifice anything in the american war for independence if i recall correctly
SoulPlaya said:
If the choice is between living in a country with no future or dying trying to secure a future for your kids, its completely different. Its hard to judge from the outside. I was young in Romania when the 89 revolution happened.
Talking to dad and my uncle now, in retrospect they said the revolution was in large part because a 30 year dictator was destroying the country and young people had zero future. So it was a choice between a long life of suffering and no opportunities, lamenting having missed the chance to bring change, and actually trying to do something about it despite the risk. So they went out there. My grandma too. Despite people being run over by tanks and getting shot. If the same can be said in Libya, then I think the better choice might be to go.
But like I said its a hard choice to make that everyone should make individually. From the outside it is hard to judge, but I feel I understand her view.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did I say no one should sacrifice? All I'm saying is that sitting behind a computer screen, or being some old bitch that no one expects to do anything, it's easy to call someone that we know NOTHING about a coward because they're not willing to die for "democracy". You don't know his situation, you don't know his responsibilities, so don't judge him.Advance_Alarm said:
What do you mean by "no future"? Are you talking economically? Romania was run by a madman who was starving his people, so as to avoid any national debt. It's a different situation here, and what constitutes a "future" is subjective.AndyD said:
Considering Iraq, I have plenty of relatives who would rather be back under Saddam than continue living under the BS "democracy" that they have now. So, leave what future people want up to them "individually".
Joel Was Right
Gold Member
David Cameron says Libyan leader may be a legitimate target while Chief of the Defence Staff said he was 'absolutely not'
A breach within Britain's political and military leadership has opened up as David Cameron argued the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, may be a legitimate target while the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, said he was "absolutely not".
The clash fed a growing concern on the third day of the air assault against Gaddafi that the hastily assembled international alliance is struggling to paper over disagreements about its ultimate war aims in Libya, the future role of Nato and the legitimacy of the rebel groups.
There was also cabinet anxiety that the scale of the initial heavy bombardment may strengthen popular support for Gaddafi in Tripoli and be seen in the Middle East as exceeding the UN security council goal of protecting civilians.
Gaddafi's compound was hit by British missiles on Sunday night in an attempt to weaken his command structure as fighting continued across the coastal towns of Libya.
Tripoli faced a third night of bombing with no sign yet that the allies would call an early halt to attacks on the basis that the no-fly zone had been established.
Senior cabinet ministers admitted that "the emotional optics" of cruise missiles raining down on Libya, backed by coalition military briefings, had unwelcome echoes of Iraq.
Downing Street is urgently trying to help organise the rebel forces so they become a more coherent and visible political and military force.
During a long Commons debate, Cameron eventually won cross-party support from sceptical MPs for his actions, but there was widespread disquiet in the Commons about mission creep, and whether the intervention would end in an unstable partition of Libya.
The rift between Cameron and his defence chief arose after the defence secretary, Liam Fox, said on Sunday that an attack on Gaddafi could be a possibility if it did not lead to civilian casualties. When asked whether Gaddafi was a legitimate target, Sir David replied: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further."
Cameron told MPs: "The UN resolution is limited in its scope and explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi's removal by military means. We will help fulfil the security council aims, and leave it to the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny, but our view is clear that there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power."
Later Cameron's spokesman argued it was lawful to target Gaddafi if he was seen as organising the threat to Libyan civilians, pointing out the security council's objective is the protection of civilians.
A summary of the legal advice given to the cabinet by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was published. It implies attacks on Gaddafi are lawful if he poses a threat.
The head of the US Africa Command, Gen Carter F Ham, said attacking Gaddafi was not part of his mission.
A French spokesman said that even if the Libyan leader's exact location were known, he would not be targeted. However, the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said he hoped the allied attacks would topple Gaddafi. "It is very probable that faced with the increased fragility of the regime, it falls apart from within. In any case that is what we are hoping for."
Barack Obama, on tour in South America, echoed the dispute in London, saying there was no contradiction between the Pentagon saying removal of Gaddafi was not a goal and the White House saying it was. The aim of the military was restricted to fulfilling the mandate of the UN, which was to protect the civilian population, but the White House and the state department was working for his removal.
"I have also stated that it is US policy that Gaddafi has to go and we have a wide range of tools to support that policy," Obama said, making it clear he had in mind diplomatic pressure.
Obama said the core principle was when a leader loses legitimacy and turns his army on civilians, the international community cannot respond with "empty words".
Republicans, while backing intervention to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, objected to Obama going to war without proper consultation with Congress and without a clear mission. Although Obama said he had expected to transfer command from the US to Europe within days, that is being held up by a Nato dispute involving Turkey, which objects to the scale of the attack on Libya.
Ham insisted he was not worried about mission creep. Most of the action to destroy Gaddafi's air defence systems and push back his forces from Benghazi had taken place in the first 24 hours and he did not anticipate further action on that scale.
Ham said he also saw coalition partners taking a bigger share in the days ahead. There had been 60 sorties on Sunday in which coalition planes took part in about half, 70 on Monday, and again about half were non-American. New members were joining the coalition, with Canadians and Belgian forces being added and an expectation of more to follow.
A total of 12 Tomahawk missiles had been fired in the last 24 hours, he said, aimed at a Scud missile base, a regional command centre and a repeat attack on an air defence system. US, British, French, Italian and Spanish planes were over Benghazi and he expected the no-fly zone soon to extend along the length of the coastline.
Ham insisted the mission was not to provide air cover for the rebels, only to protect civilians.
But Mark Toner, the state department spokesman, suggested that regime change was an aim after Gaddafi's failure to honour the ceasefire he declared at the end of last week. "What we are trying to do is convince Gaddafi and his regime to step down from power that remains our ultimate goal."
A breach within Britain's political and military leadership has opened up as David Cameron argued the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, may be a legitimate target while the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, said he was "absolutely not".
The clash fed a growing concern on the third day of the air assault against Gaddafi that the hastily assembled international alliance is struggling to paper over disagreements about its ultimate war aims in Libya, the future role of Nato and the legitimacy of the rebel groups.
There was also cabinet anxiety that the scale of the initial heavy bombardment may strengthen popular support for Gaddafi in Tripoli and be seen in the Middle East as exceeding the UN security council goal of protecting civilians.
Gaddafi's compound was hit by British missiles on Sunday night in an attempt to weaken his command structure as fighting continued across the coastal towns of Libya.
Tripoli faced a third night of bombing with no sign yet that the allies would call an early halt to attacks on the basis that the no-fly zone had been established.
Senior cabinet ministers admitted that "the emotional optics" of cruise missiles raining down on Libya, backed by coalition military briefings, had unwelcome echoes of Iraq.
Downing Street is urgently trying to help organise the rebel forces so they become a more coherent and visible political and military force.
During a long Commons debate, Cameron eventually won cross-party support from sceptical MPs for his actions, but there was widespread disquiet in the Commons about mission creep, and whether the intervention would end in an unstable partition of Libya.
The rift between Cameron and his defence chief arose after the defence secretary, Liam Fox, said on Sunday that an attack on Gaddafi could be a possibility if it did not lead to civilian casualties. When asked whether Gaddafi was a legitimate target, Sir David replied: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further."
Cameron told MPs: "The UN resolution is limited in its scope and explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi's removal by military means. We will help fulfil the security council aims, and leave it to the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny, but our view is clear that there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power."
Later Cameron's spokesman argued it was lawful to target Gaddafi if he was seen as organising the threat to Libyan civilians, pointing out the security council's objective is the protection of civilians.
A summary of the legal advice given to the cabinet by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was published. It implies attacks on Gaddafi are lawful if he poses a threat.
The head of the US Africa Command, Gen Carter F Ham, said attacking Gaddafi was not part of his mission.
A French spokesman said that even if the Libyan leader's exact location were known, he would not be targeted. However, the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said he hoped the allied attacks would topple Gaddafi. "It is very probable that faced with the increased fragility of the regime, it falls apart from within. In any case that is what we are hoping for."
Barack Obama, on tour in South America, echoed the dispute in London, saying there was no contradiction between the Pentagon saying removal of Gaddafi was not a goal and the White House saying it was. The aim of the military was restricted to fulfilling the mandate of the UN, which was to protect the civilian population, but the White House and the state department was working for his removal.
"I have also stated that it is US policy that Gaddafi has to go and we have a wide range of tools to support that policy," Obama said, making it clear he had in mind diplomatic pressure.
Obama said the core principle was when a leader loses legitimacy and turns his army on civilians, the international community cannot respond with "empty words".
Republicans, while backing intervention to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, objected to Obama going to war without proper consultation with Congress and without a clear mission. Although Obama said he had expected to transfer command from the US to Europe within days, that is being held up by a Nato dispute involving Turkey, which objects to the scale of the attack on Libya.
Ham insisted he was not worried about mission creep. Most of the action to destroy Gaddafi's air defence systems and push back his forces from Benghazi had taken place in the first 24 hours and he did not anticipate further action on that scale.
Ham said he also saw coalition partners taking a bigger share in the days ahead. There had been 60 sorties on Sunday in which coalition planes took part in about half, 70 on Monday, and again about half were non-American. New members were joining the coalition, with Canadians and Belgian forces being added and an expectation of more to follow.
A total of 12 Tomahawk missiles had been fired in the last 24 hours, he said, aimed at a Scud missile base, a regional command centre and a repeat attack on an air defence system. US, British, French, Italian and Spanish planes were over Benghazi and he expected the no-fly zone soon to extend along the length of the coastline.
Ham insisted the mission was not to provide air cover for the rebels, only to protect civilians.
But Mark Toner, the state department spokesman, suggested that regime change was an aim after Gaddafi's failure to honour the ceasefire he declared at the end of last week. "What we are trying to do is convince Gaddafi and his regime to step down from power that remains our ultimate goal."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya?CMP=twt_fd
Your Excellency
Banned
SoulPlaya said:
That's not a fair comparison. Ask them, prior to Saddam's removal, would they have preferred continuing to live under Saddam as he killed his own people, or living in a free democracy?
The fairer question would be, are you willing to die to get rid of Saddam? I would guess that many of them would not.Your Excellency said:
Let's be honest folks, if Obama became a dictator tomorrow, how many of you would be willing to just grab some guns and jump in a car and drive to DC, like this woman wants these men to do? I wouldn't do it, especially if it's uncoordinated, and I would wager that the vast majority of you wouldn't do it, either. You may say you will, but actions are tougher.
Roude Leiw
Member
that woman is just stating that these men are pussies. they might have their reasons, but they still are (i would be one too).SoulPlaya said:
teruterubozu
Member
SoulPlaya said:
Glenn Beck and Tea Partiers already think he's a socialist dictator. Don't give them any ideas.
bistromathics
facing a bright new dawn
What happened to all the foreign reporters that were in Tripoli when the ceasefire was first announced? Were they sent home or what? Does anybody have reporters in eastern lybia? Everything I've heard on the radio has been 'can't be independently verified'
Souldriver
Member
Off course Kaddafi is a target. They want him out or dead. For diplomatic reasons they won't say as much, but everybody knows it. That's also pretty much what the Belgian Prime Minister said. lol
Since Gaddafi announced cease-fire yesterday, some people in Misrata went to the centre of the city to protest and the pro-gadddafi forces shelled them today, 40 people have died according to reuters due to both the shelling and sniper fire.
Misrata Tank shelling Video (Youtube)
Also, please dont believe whatever the state TV says about civilian deaths, according to my uncle (Doctor) in Tripoli the bodies shown in state TV are old from earlier confrontations between protesters and security forces.
Misrata Tank shelling Video (Youtube)
Also, please dont believe whatever the state TV says about civilian deaths, according to my uncle (Doctor) in Tripoli the bodies shown in state TV are old from earlier confrontations between protesters and security forces.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Pretty sure Gaddafi is going to be living in his bunker for a while.
Eaten By A Grue
Member
"We have limited ammo, lets shoot clouds!!!!"Wazzim said:
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
House of Commons votes 557 to 13 to support the government
http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...CXytwu-FhMFbUs_Hg?docId=N0137101300734271623A
http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...CXytwu-FhMFbUs_Hg?docId=N0137101300734271623A
Roude Leiw
Member
yeah ceasefire, sure. i hope that guy dies.HawksEye said:
apparently gaddafis troops are shelling az-zintan.
SoulPlaya said:
Is this a joke? If Obama became a dictator, you would see widespread revolt in a very short period of time. In addition to this you would immediately see states stand against the federal government. Once you have freedom, most people, unless they are completely ignorant (or massively overpowered) will fight to keep it.
I can't say anything for your family in Iraq, and I don't know their situation, but I find it very odd that they would want to remain under a dictators rule. What is their reasoning? Where they better off under Saddam? What did they lose, when he lost power?
Psychotext
Member
Nice margin. Of course, 60% of those people will change their tune as some sort of political gain is available from it.Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
RustyNails
Member
They lost everyday safety. Under Saddam, you didn't fear car bombs, and you didn't fear going to Church.Godslay said:
And I will bet every dollar that I have that most Americans who are men with families would not run out dying to stop a dictatorship. They may protest, but once it devolves into war, then no.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
well that scared the shit out of me. it was hardly even an organized protest, just some people on a corner.HawksEye said:
SoulPlaya said:
Fair enough, but on the opposite end why didn't they fear potential hypothetical situations that Saddam could present?
As far as American's I guarantee that if a dictator situation occurs, Americans will fight. Sure we are complacent right now, but even men with families would get out there. Protest would happen, and if any killing happens the people would immediately lash out.
SoulPlaya said:
You're right I don't, but it doesn't mean that I can't have opinions or attempt to understand their reasoning. When you have freedom and stability it seems like a terrible trade to have stability and less freedom. Just my opinion and I'm sure most people would agree.
That's because they essentially had freedom. In Iraq, you could say whatever you want about anyone (except Saddam). You were free to discuss your the problems with your boss, Islam, neighbors, etc.Godslay said:
Now, you can't talk about anyone really. In 2003, things had gotten to the point that if you didn't say anything about Saddam, you were safe. Now, it's random violence everywhere.
Reneledarker
Banned
Godslay said:
Depends on the levels of freedom and the economic stability you have, here in Mexico lots of old timers remember whit glory the days of the one party rule of PRI, and they are willing to limit their "freedom" for stability in the country. In some CEPAL (UN economic commission for Latin America) papers they did a survey and a good percentages of people where willing to go back to a form of dictatorship in order to have security and economic stability. In the end it becomes a young vs old argument.
lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
HawksEye said:Seems like Gaddafi is paying his army and mercenaries with fake Libyan currency lol. (Same Serial Numbers + missing Luminescent Protection stamps)
He better hope that they don't find out.....
statham
Member
lol, so he is broke. I wonder if this will stop the mercenaries from being hired when they try to cash in @ their local banks?HawksEye said:Seems like Gaddafi is paying his army and mercenaries with fake Libyan currency lol. (Same Serial Numbers + missing Luminescent Protection stamps)
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
LOL. What did he send Saif down to Kinkos in Tripoli or something?HawksEye said:Seems like Gaddafi is paying his army and mercenaries with fake Libyan currency lol. (Same Serial Numbers + missing Luminescent Protection stamps)
RustyNails
Member
HawksEye said:
Holy shit... why? What does he think will happen when they find out?HawksEye said:Seems like Gaddafi is paying his army and mercenaries with fake Libyan currency lol. (Same Serial Numbers + missing Luminescent Protection stamps)
What kind of person scams some mercenaries he hires? omg.
- Status