Putin on Scandinavian tour....

[DanishDynamite]

Today in Denmark. Some quotes from the press conference of the bonehead...

1. A journalist asked him to expand on him calling the NATO enforcement of the UN Resolution "a Christian Crusade". His reply: "It was supposed to be just a no-fly zone, but where is that zone if they every day bomb the palaces of Ghadaffi?" "They say: No, we don't wanrt to kill him, but why then do they bomb his palaces?

2. "More and more representatives (of the Coalition) say "Yes, we are going after Ghadaffi". But who gave them the right? Was this decided by a court of law? Who can give themselves the right to judge another man to death, no matter what that man is like?

3. "When the so-called civilized world society combines its powers against a small country and destroys its infrastructure created by generations, I can't say if that is good or bad. But I don't like it."

Did anyone say "hypocritical"? "Popularist"? "Scum of the Earth"?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Today in Denmark. Some quotes from the press conference of the bonehead...

1. A journalist asked him to expand on him calling the NATO enforcement of the UN Resolution "a Christian Crusade". His reply: "It was supposed to be just a no-fly zone, but where is that zone if they every day bomb the palaces of Ghadaffi?" "They say: No, we don't wanrt to kill him, but why then do they bomb his palaces?

Seems like a fair question to me. If someone dropped a bomb on my house , I'd tend to suppose he meant me harm.

2. "More and more representatives (of the Coalition) say "Yes, we are going after Ghadaffi". But who gave them the right? Was this decided by a court of law? Who can give themselves the right to judge another man to death, no matter what that man is like?

Remind me. Who was it again?

3. "When the so-called civilized world society combines its powers against a small country and destroys its infrastructure created by generations, I can't say if that is good or bad. But I don't like it."

Did anyone say "hypocritical"? "Popularist"? "Scum of the Earth"?

The word you are groping for , is "politician".
The question is- does he perhaps have a point?

 

[Skeptic]

Putin on Scandinavian tour... with an entourage of a hairdresser, a press chief, a doctor, a pilot, and fifty armored divisions, I guess.

 

[The Don]

I'm totally unsurprised that the UN resolution was worded in such as to allow large differences in interpretation. The NATO position appears to have always been to facilitate a change in leadership in Libya. The UN resolution seems to be more about protecting civilians.

I think Putin is justified in highlighting that there is a significant difference between implementing a no-fly zone to prevent the us of airstrikes in a civil war and flying offensive ground attack missions in support of one of the parties in that war.

It is hypocritical of Putin to say this, but it is also hypocritical of a NATO country like the UK to act shocked that the leader of a country may use force to keep his country together.

IMO NATO are rubbing their hands with glee at the opportunity to depose someone who has been a real irritation for a long time (humanitarian regime change isn't really a factor otherwise it'd have been carried out in some other African countries with equally despicable rulers). I just hope that when there is someone new in charge, it's not someone even worse. A fundamentalist regime in that part of the world would be a destabilising influence.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Seems like a fair question to me. If someone dropped a bomb on my house , I'd tend to suppose he meant me harm.

A fair question? Are you joking, my friend? The resolution included a no-fly zone but it was all about protecting the citizens of Libya being killed by their own army. Being killed by their own army for the simple fact that they had the audacity to puplicly walk into the streets and protest.

Remind me. Who was it again?

It was *********** common humanity. It is amazing to me that you could ask.

The word you are groping for , is "politician".
The question is- does he perhaps have a point?

You, sadly, appear to think that he does. I'm utterly bewildered. Please try and explain your reasoning.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm totally unsurprised that the UN resolution was worded in such as to allow large differences in interpretation. The NATO position appears to have always been to facilitate a change in leadership in Libya. The UN resolution seems to be more about protecting civilians.

I think Putin is justified in highlighting that there is a significant difference between implementing a no-fly zone to prevent the us of airstrikes in a civil war and flying offensive ground attack missions in support of one of the parties in that war.

It is hypocritical of Putin to say this, but it is also hypocritical of a NATO country like the UK to act shocked that the leader of a country may use force to keep his country together.

IMO NATO are rubbing their hands with glee at the opportunity to depose someone who has been a real irritation for a long time (humanitarian regime change isn't really a factor otherwise it'd have been carried out in some other African countries with equally despicable rulers). I just hope that when there is someone new in charge, it's not someone even worse. A fundamentalist regime in that part of the world would be a destabilising influence.

A dictator is killing his own citizens using the country's own army. The dictator is doing this because some citizens decided to walk into the streets and protest against his tyrannical rule. And somehow you find this acceptable? I'm lost for words.

 

[egslim]

Did anyone say "hypocritical"? "Popularist"? "Scum of the Earth"?

He's all that, but he's also right.

1. A journalist asked him to expand on him calling the NATO enforcement of the UN Resolution "a Christian Crusade". His reply: "It was supposed to be just a no-fly zone, but where is that zone if they every day bomb the palaces of Ghadaffi?" "They say: No, we don't wanrt to kill him, but why then do they bomb his palaces?

Can't argue with any of that. The UN resolution was for a no-fly zone to protect civilians against the Libyan air force. Instead NATO provides tactical air support to the rebels, not only when they're on the defensive, but also when they attack.

There is no UN mandate to overthrow Gadaffi. And NATO has denied that is its mission. Yet not only have NATO leaders said the operation will continue as long as Gadaffi remains in power, they bomb his palaces in the obvious hope to kill him.

2. "More and more representatives (of the Coalition) say "Yes, we are going after Ghadaffi". But who gave them the right? Was this decided by a court of law? Who can give themselves the right to judge another man to death, no matter what that man is like?

The West prides itself on the rule of law, and regularly admonishes others when they do not. So when someone rightfully criticizes the west for breaking the rule of law it hits home. Even if that someone is Putin.

3. "When the so-called civilized world society combines its powers against a small country and destroys its infrastructure created by generations, I can't say if that is good or bad. But I don't like it."

Slightly overdone, though I'm not sure how bad the damage to Libyan infrastructure is.

It was *********** common humanity.

Common humanity to kill someone? We must have different definitions of the word.

A dictator is killing his own citizens using the country's own army. The dictator is doing this because some citizens decided to walk into the streets and protest against his tyrannical rule. And somehow you find this acceptable? I'm lost for words.

Stop putting words in people's mouths.

I'll spell it out for you:
* Gadaffi is scum.
* Putin is scum.
* NATO-leaders are hypocritical liars, and their intervention in Libya has probably made a bad situation worse.

 

[DanishDynamite]

He's all that, but he's also right.

He's right? Unbelievable assertion.

Can't argue with any of that. The UN resolution was for a no-fly zone to protect civilians against the Libyan air force. Instead NATO provides tactical air support to the rebels, not only when they're on the defensive, but also when they attack.

As I'm sure you know, the UN Resolution was for any means to protect civilians. The no-fly zone was just one of those means.

There is no UN mandate to overthrow Gadaffi. And NATO has denied that is its mission. Yet not only have NATO leaders said the operation will continue as long as Gadaffi remains in power, they bomb his palaces in the obvious hope to kill him.

They bomb as long as he continues to shred his own citizens. Amazing that you find this problemetic.

The West prides itself on the rule of law, and regularly admonishes others when they do not. So when someone rightfully criticizes the west for breaking the rule of law it hits home. Even if that someone is Putin.

Pray tell which rule of law has been broken.

Slightly overdone, though I'm not sure how bad the damage to Libyan infrastructure is.

Slightly overdone? What bloody diference does it make how much infrastructur has been demolished?

Common humanity to kill someone? We must have different definitions of the word.

The dictator of a country is bombarding his own people with their own army. He is blowing away street protesters with tanks and missiles.

Stop putting words in people's mouths.

I'll spell it out for you:
* Gadaffi is scum.
* Putin is scum.
* NATO-leaders are hypocritical liars, and their intervention in Libya has probably made a bad situation worse.

Are you a simple idiot or do you just love genocide?

 

[geni]

They bomb as long as he continues to shred his own citizens.

It would be a lot more convenient if you know he actualy did that. At the moment the death toll in what is in fact a full blow civil war is well rather low.

Slightly overdone? What bloody diference does it make how much infrastructur has been demolished?

Well if we are trying to protect civilians blowing up their infrastructure would be kinda questionable

The dictator of a country is bombarding his own people with their own army.

No at this point he's mostly bombarding the National Transitional Council's people.

He is blowing away street protesters with tanks and missiles.

No reports of tanks and missiles being used against protestors. Some AA fire was used (ZU-23-2 probably).

Are you a simple idiot or do you just love genocide?

Genocide? If you think what is going on in Libya is genocide what was say the american civil war? I think you are going to run out of nouns.

 

[egslim]

As I'm sure you know, the UN Resolution was for any means to protect civilians. The no-fly zone was just one of those means.

Tactical air support of an attacking (rebel) force does not protect civilians, it endangers them.
Likewise for air strikes on cities firmly in government hands.

They bomb as long as he continues to shred his own citizens. Amazing that you find this problemetic.

So to prevent a governmental crackdown they throw the country into civil war. As I said, that's making a bad situation worse.

Pray tell which rule of law has been broken.

Show me the part of UN resolution authorising regime change in Libya. Not only do attacks on government-buildings in Tripoli endanger nearby civilians, they serve no purpose authorized by the UNSC.

Slightly overdone? What bloody diference does it make how much infrastructur has been demolished?

Quite a lot of difference, for Libyas prospects of recovery.

The dictator of a country is bombarding his own people with their own army. He is blowing away street protesters with tanks and missiles.

Yes.
How does that make killing him (and a number of his servants, bodyguards and familymembers in the process) humane?

Are you a simple idiot or do you just love genocide?

Four people posted in your thread so far. Of three of us you found our responses incredulous, the fourth merely made a snide remark. Furthermore your posts showed a lot of indignation, but few arguments and quite poor reading comprehension. You need to think your position better through.

My problem with the Libyan operation is 'we' jumped on the bandwagon without proper understanding of what we were getting into, 'we' launched an operation that violated elementary military guidelines for success, and 'we' paid no attention to unintended consequences in the rest of the world.

 

[The Don]

A dictator is killing his own citizens using the country's own army. The dictator is doing this because some citizens decided to walk into the streets and protest against his tyrannical rule. And somehow you find this acceptable? I'm lost for words.

Well clearly you completely misunderstood my post.

I'll try to say it simpler.

- The UN resolution is about protecting civilians
- NATO actions appear to have extended the scope to include regime change
- Putin is justified in calling this out

After all we are perfectly positioned to know EXACTLY what regime is best placed to rule Libya.

If NATO want to facilitate regime change then they should be honest about it, engage in dialogue to achieve support for this aim and if they press on without achieving that consensus then they should live with the negative consequences (in terms of the reputational damage).

 

[DanishDynamite]

It would be a lot more convenient if you know he actualy did that. At the moment the death toll in what is in fact a full blow civil war is well rather low.

Uh..what? Are you saying you doubt whether Ghadaffi's army is actually shelling, raping and killing his own citizens? You doubt whether the basis for the UN Resolution is true, you doubt what everyone has been watching on their TV screens, including Ghadaffi's own "I will come and kill you, house to house, as the rats you are" speech? I did not expect this level of idiocy from you, geni.

Well if we are trying to protect civilians blowing up their infrastructure would be kinda questionable

What? I'm not going to even dignify this crap with a response. Geni, what is going on with you?

No at this point he's mostly bombarding the National Transitional Council's people.

He's bombarding every town and city which is protesting. You have lost all credibility, geni.

No reports of tanks and missiles being used against protestors. Some AA fire was used (ZU-23-2 probably).

See all news media.

Genocide? If you think what is going on in Libya is genocide what was say the american civil war? I think you are going to run out of nouns.

Not understood.

And that goes for your entire post.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well clearly you completely misunderstood my post.

I'll try to say it simpler.

- The UN resolution is about protecting civilians
- NATO actions appear to have extended the scope to include regime change
- Putin is justified in calling this out

After all we are perfectly positioned to know EXACTLY what regime is best placed to rule Libya.

If NATO want to facilitate regime change then they should be honest about it, engage in dialogue to achieve support for this aim and if they press on without achieving that consensus then they should live with the negative consequences (in terms of the reputational damage).

Don, I see no change of scope announced from NATO. I see no "on-the-ground" change of scope from NATO in regard to the UN Resolution. I see only leaders of NATO members saying they would like to see regime change.

And who, really, can blame them?

 

[geni]

Uh..what? Are you saying you doubt whether Ghadaffi's army is actually shelling, raping and killing his own citizens? You doubt whether the basis for the UN Resolution is true, you doubt what everyone has been watching on their TV screens, including Ghadaffi's own "I will come and kill you, house to house, as the rats you are" speech? I did not expect this level of idiocy from you, geni.

Ghadaffi's speeches are not exactly known for their relationship with reality.

What you've seen on your TV screens is a desperate attempt by the media to make a low level surprisingly conventional conflict interesting while Gaddafi's forces and the rebels play who's kids can die sadder games.

Take Misrata for example. Now if Gadaffi's forces were behaving the way you seem to think not only would they in all probability have won by now but the causalities would be in the thousands (urban warfare with the civilian population present?). Compare the Siege of Sarajevo. Thousands died. Misrata is in the tens.

He's bombarding every town and city which is not protesting. You have lost all credibility, geni.

At present bombardment is limited to misrata and wherever the front line is today. Oh and there was a bombardment of Wazin today which falls under the heading of legitimiate millitry action.

See all news media.

Tanks were used against those involved in an armed insurrection. Only missiles to feature were some anti ship ones bombed by NATO.

Not understood.

Historicaly speaking genocide refered to an attempt to wipe out a particular ethnic group. There is no suggestion that Gaddafi is even trying to do that.

There has been an attempt to repurpose it to mean a very large number of civilian deaths without regards to ethnicity (Cambodia is probably the most legitimate example). The death toll in libya is far too low for that.

Calling events in Libya "genocide" is pure PR.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Ghadaffi's speeches are not exactly known for their relationship with reality.

What you've seen on your TV screens is a desperate attempt by the media to make a low level surprisingly conventional conflict interesting while Gaddafi's forces and the rebels play who's kids can die sadder games.

Take Misrata for example. Now if Gadaffi's forces were behaving the way you seem to think not only would they in all probability have won by now but the causalities would be in the thousands (urban warfare with the civilian population present?). Compare the Siege of Sarajevo. Thousands died. Misrata is in the tens.



At present bombardment is limited to misrata and wherever the front line is today. Oh and there was a bombardment of Wazin today which falls under the heading of legitimiate millitry action.



Tanks were used against those involved in an armed insurrection. Only missiles to feature were some anti ship ones bombed by NATO.



Historicaly speaking genocide refered to an attempt to wipe out a particular ethnic group. There is no suggestion that Gaddafi is even trying to do that.

There has been an attempt to repurpose it to mean a very large number of civilian deaths without regards to ethnicity (Cambodia is probably the most legitimate example). The death toll in libya is far too low for that.

Calling events in Libya "genocide" is pure PR.

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

You used to be one of the good guys geni. What happened?

 

[Ryokan]

Change a few words, and the OP could be talking about Georgia..

 

[geni]

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

If you believe the anti-gaddafi PR then this it probably is unbelievable.

If however you have even a passing knowlage of late 20th and early 21st century war then the anti-gaddafi PR is unbelievable.

At present what is going on in Libya is a civil war being fought far more cleanly than most of the recent ones. Nato has indeed decided to back the National Transitional Council. You can legitimately argue if this is a good thing or not. However you can't realisiticaly argue that that is the case.

 

[DanishDynamite]

If you believe the anti-gaddafi PR then this it probably is unbelievable.

Is Al-Jazeera an anti-Ghadaffi channel? Is Alarabiya an anti-Ghadaffi channel? Kindly provide a non-pGhaddafi controlled channel which is still somewhat unpartisan.

If however you have even a passing knowlage of late 20th and early 21st century war then the anti-gaddafi PR is unbelievable.

Not understood. In what sense does any other war let Ghaddafi's use of his own military against his own population become a right thing to do?

At present what is going on in Libya is a civil war being fought far more cleanly than most of the recent ones. Nato has indeed decided to back the National Transitional Council. You can legitimately argue if this is a good thing or not. However you can't realisiticaly argue that that is the case.

Not understood. See above.

 

[geni]

Is Al-Jazeera an anti-Ghadaffi channel? Is Alarabiya an anti-Ghadaffi channel? Kindly provide a non-pGhaddafi controlled channel which is still somewhat unpartisan.

None. No one likes Gaddafi.

Not understood. In what sense does any other war let Ghaddafi's use of his own military against his own population become a right thing to do?

Within most martial traditions it is considered acceptable to try and kill people who've taken up arms. At the present time Ghaddafi appears to targeting the fighters of various rebel groups.

Not understood. See above.

Well recent civil wars have included the likes of Darfur, Congo, Ivory coast and various events in the former yugoslavia. With the possible exception of Ivory coast the civilian casualty level is within the margin of error for the figures from those wars. So it's a pretty clean civil war.

NATO is providing air support for the National Transitional Council had has certianly been looking into providing further support (probably out of frustration, the rebels outside of misrata appear to be one of the most useless fighting forces in human history).

 

[DanishDynamite]

None. No one likes Gaddafi.



Within most martial traditions it is considered acceptable to try and kill people who've taken up arms. At the present time Ghaddafi appears to targeting the fighters of various rebel groups.



Well recent civil wars have included the likes of Darfur, Congo, Ivory coast and various events in the former yugoslavia. With the possible exception of Ivory coast the civilian casualty level is within the margin of error for the figures from those wars. So it's a pretty clean civil war.

NATO is providing air support for the National Transitional Council had has certianly been looking into providing further support (probably out of frustration, the rebels outside of misrata appear to be one of the most useless fighting forces in human history).

You have no arguments. Which is understandable. No arguments are possible afterall. But what continues to grieve me is your insistance that an argument for killing civilians opposing a dictatorship, is somehow defensable.