-
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
RustyNails
Member
China likes to sit back and actually partake in world burning. Remember, Tiananman Square massacre wasn't that long ago. It's probably why they're being shifty on this issue.Teh Hamburglar said:
TacticalFox88
Banned
No. China probably has more investments than any other country in the world.Teh Hamburglar said:
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Teh Hamburglar said:
If the world burning was going to benefit them, yes. Just like every other country. Everybody acts faux outraged whenever somebody intervenes in a regime that they are happy with.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
RustyNails said:
The Chinese government just doesn't fundamentally take issue with the idea of browbeating, coercing and occasionally murdering your own people to maintain power.
aronnov reborn
Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:
If/when the world burns it'll probably be China lighting the fire
RustyNails
Member
JayDubya said:
You're such a debbie downerSalvor.Hardin
Banned
Wow. The backlash against China in this thread is a little bit disgusting.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Salvor.Hardin said:
Right around the time the mess in Libya started some Chinese citizens started thinking out loud about organizing their own "day of rage"-esque protest. The following days saw uniformed and plainclothes police offers and riot vehicles swarming the streets and sidewalks of the cities where the protests were rumored to take place. For a few days in it was essentially considered illegal for more than three people to congregate anywhere in those places.
Not trying to kick up another, "fuck China" discussion, but given the realities of the situation it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to assume that they're probably rather indifferent to Qadaffi's way of holding onto power.
Salvor.Hardin said:
How so? China not only has a very recent incident historically of murdering protesters, consistent human rites violations in their own country, and voting down both logical and humanitarian interventions proposed in the UN. While I admire certain strides that both Russia and China have made compared with their past, they continually obstruct any usefulness the UN could possibly have by opposing the EU and North America and most of the free world with their actions. The fact that they abstained in this vote was a rare moment which I can applaud them on.
C4Lukins said:
Not to defend China (because they don't deserve any defending), but I'm sure you'd hear the same argument the other way around from them. The US is by far the biggest user of the UN Security Council veto since the fall of the Soviet Union (and for a long time before that, too).
China has only used the veto six times. The US has used it more than 82 times, all since 1970.
How About No
Member
C4Lukins said:
W-well that doesn't mean you get to mean to them on a message board!!
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Holly shit. That is just laughable, or sad. I am not sure.Salazar said:
TransTrender
Gold Member
China is essentially bankrolling every third cruise missile thrown at Libya, now that's laughable.
Mr. Pointy
Member
If Jean-Luc Picard were the captain of the Enterprise (CVN-65), he would have personally tried to negotiate with Gaddafi. Failing that, he would have had Geordi and Data sneak in low-yield tactical nuclear devices into all Gaddafi's military installations as Plan B.
Edit> My mistake, Picard would have been captured, Jellico would have mined the Libyans.
Edit> My mistake, Picard would have been captured, Jellico would have mined the Libyans.
UnblessedSoul
Member
Operation blow some shit up YO, civilian casualties are unavoidable, especially if Gadaffi is using them as human shields
Igor Antunov
Banned
aronnov reborn said:
I find this hilarious, being said at a time when the US is actually incinerating civilians. 16 confirmed killed in Tripoli during the cruise missile attack. Probably many more.
Oh and last week nato killed 40 in pakistan. Civilians.
WickedAngel
Banned
Igor Antunov said:
How exactly do you think war is waged?
Unknown Soldier
Member
maharg said:
China's "Peaceful Rise" foreign policy doctrine precludes them from doing anything outside of what they consider their backyard. Outside of occasionally yelling at Taiwan and Japan, they seem content to quietly build themselves into a world economic power first before they start waving big military sticks around. Especially since they don't yet have a real navy nor ICBMs capable of reaching all of the United States and Europe, their capability for military power projection is still regional at this point, not global.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Unknown Soldier said:
And they don't even have an operational carrier yet, decades later. Kinda funny that Australia used to have a pair of aircraft carriers but China still doesn't. The Red Dawn remake is pretty hilarious for this reason (although less so than Homefront, lawl).
gundamzeta209
Banned
It's funny how a country's sovereignty is not being respected. What business does anyone in the world have invading a country based on some internal strife.
This is pretty big move here i'd say. Did NATO get involved in the Liberian Civil war? or what about current rebellions in South Asia? Did NATO get involved there? No of course they didn't.
A pretty big message was sent here... If your country is setting on valuable resources (like oil) and your country doesn't have the weapons to defend itself or repel a Nato invasion, Your country's national sovereignty means absolutely nothing.
For better or worse, we are truly in the Globalist Age now. The nationalist nations (N. Korea, China, russia) are running on Borrowed time. they are going to be required to submit to the Global order or else.
This is pretty big move here i'd say. Did NATO get involved in the Liberian Civil war? or what about current rebellions in South Asia? Did NATO get involved there? No of course they didn't.
A pretty big message was sent here... If your country is setting on valuable resources (like oil) and your country doesn't have the weapons to defend itself or repel a Nato invasion, Your country's national sovereignty means absolutely nothing.
For better or worse, we are truly in the Globalist Age now. The nationalist nations (N. Korea, China, russia) are running on Borrowed time. they are going to be required to submit to the Global order or else.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Salazar said:
Why? The US shouldn't be involved in this farce either.
gundamzeta209 said:
What business do you have using the English language ?
PhoenixDark said:
They seem willing to see Gaddafi massacre the rebels. I'm not. They continue to act as if a diplomatic alternative to force obtains any likelihood of success. I can see that it doesn't. On those grounds, we are not friends.
WickedAngel
Banned
Blackace said:
I WAS DULY ELECTED TO MURDER THESE PEOPLE!
lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
He's talking.... So much cognitive dissidence.
He's even claiming that the western people are on his side, and that "all tyrants will fall"
He's even claiming that the western people are on his side, and that "all tyrants will fall"
Unknown Soldier
Member
gundamzeta209 said:
Best Korea, China, and Russia have nukes. Nobody will touch their shit. Hooray for nukes!
lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
gundamzeta209 said:
This is the UN not NATO
Operations
Member
lol @ Libyan State TV background image.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Salazar said:
Should the US intervene against every government that violently oppresses its people? Bahrain, Yemen, etc...where does it stop?
LOVE & TRUTH
Banned
I wish Russia wasn't governed by the american whores, then we'd beat the living hell out of the american and french murderers.
Hang on, Libya! The fight is not lost yet!
Hang on, Libya! The fight is not lost yet!
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
gundamzeta209 said:
So you support letting dictators do whatever they want with countries (ethnic cleansing, extermination etc) because they are "sovereign"? If not, then you admit that there are circumstances in which intervening is morally acceptable, and "help a country rebel against its oppressive dictatorship by denying them the ability to airstrike their own population" is assuredly one of them.
LOVE & TRUTH
Banned
I applaud FoxNews and CNN - their brainwashing skills are incredible.ThoseDeafMutes said:
Fantastic. You forgot to mention "democracy" and "freedom", that the people of Libya "unfortunately" lacks.ThoseDeafMutes said:
Gaddafi tells US/UK/France/Spain/etc. that not only are the Libyan people with him but even their own people are with him, then he compares them to Hitler, Napoleon, and Mussolini, and says all tyrants inevitably fall.
He's so crazy that he doesn't realize he's talking about himself.
He's so crazy that he doesn't realize he's talking about himself.
Meus Renaissance
Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/18/relief-fade-real-impact-libya-intervention
The first reaction was relief. The UN security council resolution 1973 authorising foreign intervention in Libya was held up as an attempt to protect the Libyan rebels and alleviate their suffering, and who would not welcome that? Who would not want to stop a bully intent on "wiping out" those who oppose him? But any relief should be tempered by serious misgivings.
First, what motives lie behind this intervention? While the UN was voting to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, at least 40 civilians were killed in a US drone attack in Waziristan in Pakistan. And as I write, al-Jazeera is broadcasting scenes of carnage from Sanaa, Yemen, where at least 40 protesters have been shot dead. But there will be no UN no-fly zone to protect Pakistani civilians from US attacks, or to protect Yemenis. One cannot help but question the selective involvement of the west in the so-called "Arab spring" series of uprisings.
It is true that the US was reluctant to act and did so only after weeks of indecision. Unwilling to become embroiled in another conflict in the region where it would be perceived as interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state, Obama wisely insisted on a high level of Arab and Muslim involvement. At first the signs were good: the Arab League endorsed the move last week, and five member states seemed likely to participate. But that has been whittled down to just Qatar and the UAE, with Jordan a possible third. This intervention lacks sufficient Arab support to give it legitimacy in the region.
The US was worried about the cost of military action, too, given its ailing economy. Abdel Rahman Halqem, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, has told me that Qatar and the UAE have agreed to foot most of the bill for the operation. And what is the motive of these autocratic states: to protect the Libyan people, a grudge against Gaddafi, or to bind the US further into the region?
So this is the second problem: the main players in this intervention are western powers led by Britain and France with US involvement likely. If Libya's neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia, were playing the leading role that would be something to celebrate. Democratic countries helping their neighbours would have been in the spirit of the Arab uprisings, and would have strengthened the sense that Arabs can take control of their future. It could have happened too: Egypt gets $1.3bn of US military aid a year. Diplomatic pressure by Hillary Clinton could have brought that mighty war horse into the arena, or at least encouraged Egypt to arm the rebels. Instead, an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesperson stated categorically on Wednesday: "No intervention, period."
The third problem is that, although he is often dismissed as mad, Gaddafi is a master strategist and this intervention plays into his hands. He quickly announced a ceasefire in response, which was claimed by some as an early victory for the UN resolution; in fact, it both deflates the UN initiative and allows Gaddafi to appear reasonable. Meanwhile, a ceasefire at this point suits Gaddafi: under its cover, the secret police can get to work. Similarly, Gaddafi accepted the earlier arms embargo: again, this apparent concession suited him. His regime has sophisticated weaponry, whereas the rebels have few arms.
Gaddafi knows how to play the Arab street, too. At the moment he has little, if any, public support; his influence is limited to his family and tribe. But he may use this intervention to present himself as the victim of post-colonialist interference in pursuit of oil. He is likely to pose the question that is echoing around the Arab world why wasn't there a no-fly zone over Gaza when the Israelis were bombarding it in 2008/9?
Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, the uprising in Libya quickly deteriorated into armed conflict. Gaddafi could question whether those the UN is seeking to protect are still "civilians" when engaged in battle, and suggest instead that the west is taking sides in a civil war (where the political agenda of the rebels is unknown).
And what of the long-term impact of this intervention on Libya, and the world? Here lies yet another concern. Libya may end up divided into the rebel-held east and a regime stronghold in the rest of the country which would include the oil fields and the oil terminal town al-Brega. There is a strong risk, too, that it will become the region's fourth failed state, joining Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. And that ushers in another peril. Al-Qaida thrives in such chaos; it played a key role in the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies and is based in Yemen and it may enter Libya, too. Several of Bin Laden's closest associates are Libyan, and Gaddafi is no stranger to terror groups the Abu Nidal Organisation found a safe haven in Libya from 1987 to 1999. Gaddafi has also threatened to attack passenger aircraft and shipping in the Mediterranean.
Fifth, there is no guarantee that military intervention will result in Gaddafi's demise. In 1992, the UN imposed two no-fly zones in Iraq to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. Saddam remained in power for another 11 years and was only toppled after an invasion. To date, over a million civilians have died in Iraq. The international community has a duty to ensure that this sorry history is not repeated in Libya.
Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the region's remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the status quo.
The Libyan people face a long period of violent upheaval whatever happens. But it is only through their own steadfastness and struggle that they will finally win the peaceful and democratic state they long for.
Posted earlier by Zenith
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637
In hindsight, we look at the medias handling of the Iraq war with embarrassment, perhaps even anger and frustration. The important questions weren't being asked, and they seemed to have become relay messages for Downing Street/White house, echoing the 'objectives' - which always tend to be, one way or the other, liberation by a dictator, who conveniently was an important asset for them which in this case was only a few years ago. And when the European leaders and President Obama comment on this conflict, they'll cite the same reason; "helping the people", yet clearly there is a contradiction there as is evident if you look at not only the region at present but world history when it involves dictators.
The first reaction was relief. The UN security council resolution 1973 authorising foreign intervention in Libya was held up as an attempt to protect the Libyan rebels and alleviate their suffering, and who would not welcome that? Who would not want to stop a bully intent on "wiping out" those who oppose him? But any relief should be tempered by serious misgivings.
First, what motives lie behind this intervention? While the UN was voting to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, at least 40 civilians were killed in a US drone attack in Waziristan in Pakistan. And as I write, al-Jazeera is broadcasting scenes of carnage from Sanaa, Yemen, where at least 40 protesters have been shot dead. But there will be no UN no-fly zone to protect Pakistani civilians from US attacks, or to protect Yemenis. One cannot help but question the selective involvement of the west in the so-called "Arab spring" series of uprisings.
It is true that the US was reluctant to act and did so only after weeks of indecision. Unwilling to become embroiled in another conflict in the region where it would be perceived as interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state, Obama wisely insisted on a high level of Arab and Muslim involvement. At first the signs were good: the Arab League endorsed the move last week, and five member states seemed likely to participate. But that has been whittled down to just Qatar and the UAE, with Jordan a possible third. This intervention lacks sufficient Arab support to give it legitimacy in the region.
The US was worried about the cost of military action, too, given its ailing economy. Abdel Rahman Halqem, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, has told me that Qatar and the UAE have agreed to foot most of the bill for the operation. And what is the motive of these autocratic states: to protect the Libyan people, a grudge against Gaddafi, or to bind the US further into the region?
So this is the second problem: the main players in this intervention are western powers led by Britain and France with US involvement likely. If Libya's neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia, were playing the leading role that would be something to celebrate. Democratic countries helping their neighbours would have been in the spirit of the Arab uprisings, and would have strengthened the sense that Arabs can take control of their future. It could have happened too: Egypt gets $1.3bn of US military aid a year. Diplomatic pressure by Hillary Clinton could have brought that mighty war horse into the arena, or at least encouraged Egypt to arm the rebels. Instead, an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesperson stated categorically on Wednesday: "No intervention, period."
The third problem is that, although he is often dismissed as mad, Gaddafi is a master strategist and this intervention plays into his hands. He quickly announced a ceasefire in response, which was claimed by some as an early victory for the UN resolution; in fact, it both deflates the UN initiative and allows Gaddafi to appear reasonable. Meanwhile, a ceasefire at this point suits Gaddafi: under its cover, the secret police can get to work. Similarly, Gaddafi accepted the earlier arms embargo: again, this apparent concession suited him. His regime has sophisticated weaponry, whereas the rebels have few arms.
Gaddafi knows how to play the Arab street, too. At the moment he has little, if any, public support; his influence is limited to his family and tribe. But he may use this intervention to present himself as the victim of post-colonialist interference in pursuit of oil. He is likely to pose the question that is echoing around the Arab world why wasn't there a no-fly zone over Gaza when the Israelis were bombarding it in 2008/9?
Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, the uprising in Libya quickly deteriorated into armed conflict. Gaddafi could question whether those the UN is seeking to protect are still "civilians" when engaged in battle, and suggest instead that the west is taking sides in a civil war (where the political agenda of the rebels is unknown).
And what of the long-term impact of this intervention on Libya, and the world? Here lies yet another concern. Libya may end up divided into the rebel-held east and a regime stronghold in the rest of the country which would include the oil fields and the oil terminal town al-Brega. There is a strong risk, too, that it will become the region's fourth failed state, joining Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. And that ushers in another peril. Al-Qaida thrives in such chaos; it played a key role in the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies and is based in Yemen and it may enter Libya, too. Several of Bin Laden's closest associates are Libyan, and Gaddafi is no stranger to terror groups the Abu Nidal Organisation found a safe haven in Libya from 1987 to 1999. Gaddafi has also threatened to attack passenger aircraft and shipping in the Mediterranean.
Fifth, there is no guarantee that military intervention will result in Gaddafi's demise. In 1992, the UN imposed two no-fly zones in Iraq to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. Saddam remained in power for another 11 years and was only toppled after an invasion. To date, over a million civilians have died in Iraq. The international community has a duty to ensure that this sorry history is not repeated in Libya.
Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the region's remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the status quo.
The Libyan people face a long period of violent upheaval whatever happens. But it is only through their own steadfastness and struggle that they will finally win the peaceful and democratic state they long for.
Posted earlier by Zenith
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637
In hindsight, we look at the medias handling of the Iraq war with embarrassment, perhaps even anger and frustration. The important questions weren't being asked, and they seemed to have become relay messages for Downing Street/White house, echoing the 'objectives' - which always tend to be, one way or the other, liberation by a dictator, who conveniently was an important asset for them which in this case was only a few years ago. And when the European leaders and President Obama comment on this conflict, they'll cite the same reason; "helping the people", yet clearly there is a contradiction there as is evident if you look at not only the region at present but world history when it involves dictators.
opticalmace
Member
As someone oblivious to the history, could you explain?Blackace said:
- Status