No Fly zones over Libya?

[Laeke]

I cannot blame you for listening to the whole tape but he repeats this over and over, but it is not very coherent.
He says that if people leave arms "outside" or "at the gates of the city" they will not be attacked, but either it is "flee, escape" or "stay in your homes", he once speak about "searching every home" and "every alley".
This is all mixed with rhetoric like No Mercy/Those traitors will be dealt with/ We will wipe this shame/those people (he uses both at different points.)

In other news:
French correspondant for Le Monde is in Benghazi and participed to today's live chat. This bit is interesting

17h05
Rémy Ourdan :
Il me semble évident que des militaires de Kadhafi qui sont passés du côté rebelle jouent un jeu pour le moins ambigu.
mercredi 23 mars 2011 17h05 Rémy Ourdan

17h06
Rémy Ourdan :
Ils soutiennent très peu les combattants sur le front. Je les ai même entendus mentir sur la situation militaire aux chefs politiques de la rébellion. De là à dire qu'ils sont des espions de Kadhafi, c'est une accusation impossible à porter.
mercredi 23 mars 2011 17h06 Rémy Ourdan

17h06
Rémy Ourdan :
On peut simplement constater que du côté des insurgés, il existe une forte suspicion vis-à-vis de ces militaires.
http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/03/23/direct-kadhafi-defie-la-coalition-l-insurrection-pietine_1497092_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986

A rough quick transcript:
The soldiers that have defected to the rebellion play an ambiguous game. They provide little support on the front lines. I [the journalist] even heard them lie to the leaders of the rebellion about the military situation. Are they spies? There is too little elements to claim so. There is suspicion towards them among the insurgents.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/22/libya-costs-mission-unclear/

Libya costs, mission unclear
Allies ‘in complete disarray’ on whether Gadhafi is goal

… snip …

“NATO is in complete disarray,” James Ludes, director of the think tank the American Security Project, told The Washington Times. “Everyone seems to have a different idea about what this is and where it is going.”

So ... what's Obama's *exit strategy* at the moment?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html

Libya: Navy running short of Tomahawk missiles

The Navy could run out of Tomahawk missiles after a fifth of the Navy stockpile has been used against Libya, sources disclosed yesterday.

Shades of Kosovo. Remember that? When the US exhausted nearly it's entire cruise missile inventory ...

 

[Thunder]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/22/libya-costs-mission-unclear/

try sourcing a REAL newspaper next time.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-ob...n-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HRke15Mn

Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Czech Republic

Denmark

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Hungary

Italy

Japan

South Korea

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Philippines

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Spain

Turkey

United Kingdom

Uzbekistan

Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

Belgium

Denmark

Norway

Qatar

Spain

Greece

Germany

Poland

Jordan

Morocco

United Arab Emirate

 

[Thunder]

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-ob...n-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HRke15Mn

err....HOW long were they planning and bitching for the Iraq invasion?

and how long have they had to plan the Libya no-flea zone?

 

[BeAChooser]

Joe Biden in 2007 - "I make it clear to the President, that if he takes this nation to war in Iran without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That's a fact. That is a fact." Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw&feature=player_embedded#at=17

Maybe this explains why Obama is rushing back from Brazil?

 

[Thunder]

Joe Biden in 2007 - "I make it clear to the President, that if he takes this nation to war in Iran without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That's a fact. That is a fact." Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw&feature=player_embedded#at=17

Maybe this explains why Obama is rushing back from Brazil?

if there was a massive revolt against the Mullahs and the Islamic authoritarian system in Iran, and they desperetly needed our help, and the Ayatollah was murdering civilians left and right, I bet Biden would have supported an immediate action by Bush..with or without Congressional approval.

 

[BeAChooser]

err....HOW long were they planning and bitching for the Iraq invasion?

How about the amount of bitching still going on about the Iraq Invasion? Why here's what Obama said just yesterday while visiting Chile:

“In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

He was comparing his effort in Libya to that of Iraq. But as I just showed, Bush's coalition was twice the size of the one in Libya. And the US did have a UN resolution authorizing force. And Bush sought and got the nearly unanimous approval of Congress before the invasion ... something that Obama neglected to do. And we did not bear the "entire burden" in Iraq, no more than we've borne the one in Libya so far. Obama is a LIAR. So what does that make those who continue to believe his lies?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

You forgot the biggie- UNSC.

He says that if people leave arms "outside" or "at the gates of the city" they will not be attacked, but either it is "flee, escape" or "stay in your homes", he once speak about "searching every home" and "every alley".

I would like to see these quotes situated in the context of what was said directly before and after what is quoted. Unless you can find me something other than a word or phrase that can be easily taken out of context to mean whatever one wants, I don't accept Gqadafhie's speech (or what I've seen of it) as evidence of intent to deliberately target civilians.

Which- if one is looking for a reason to bomg Kahdhafhay- is fine. One can still justify going after a state that is using disproportionate force to suppress a rebellion, cause proportionality is a legal indicator of whether or not a military action is criminal

 

[funk de fino]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html



Shades of Kosovo. Remember that? When the US exhausted nearly it's entire cruise missile inventory ...

Thats the UK, whats it got to do with Obama?

 

[BeAChooser]

You forgot the biggie- UNSC.

In Bush's case, that would be the UNSC which had members who had already negotiated deals with Saddam to sell him arms and technology for oil.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_32

Now when did we hear a claim like that in the not too distant past?

I'm not exactly 100% on US involvement here, but we're now criticizing Obama for things Clinton did? And you think that's reasonable?

 

[funk de fino]

If there were an similar uprising in the USA it would also be eradicated by violent means.

That is hilarious. From someone who cries foul at police brutality against a few idiot students at demos in the UK. And also tries to blame all violence at protests on the police or their agent provocateurs.

You then are looking to defend a man who indiscriminantely ordered the shooting of many, many peaceful protestors.

You now think it is OK to stand by and watch such violence meted out against protestors?

Think yourself lucky you did not attend any of your protests in Libya.

 

[funk de fino]

In Bush's case, that would be the UNSC which had members who had already negotiated deals with Saddam to sell him arms and technology for oil.

So what? Rummie was his pal eh?

 

[Laeke]

I would like to see these quotes situated in the context of what was said directly before and after what is quoted. Unless you can find me something other than a word or phrase that can be easily taken out of context to mean whatever one wants, I don't accept Gqadafhie's speech (or what I've seen of it) as evidence of intent to deliberately target civilians.

Which- if one is looking for a reason to bomg Kahdhafhay- is fine. One can still justify going after a state that is using disproportionate force to suppress a rebellion, cause proportionality is a legal indicator of whether or not a military action is criminal

I gave you the link to the video on the page before, can't get much more in context than that. I did not write down the timecodes, so you'll have to take 20 minutes to listen to it, sorry.

I do not claim that "genocide" was going to happen and I said to Caustic Logic that I agreed with him that some of the rhetoric in the media was over the top.

My main point when bringing up the speech, in response to Caustic Logic was that on the day that the UN voted for military intervention (positive vote was certain, as those things are negociated beforehand, and Kadhaffi mentions the UNSC vote coming, so he is well aware of it), was that both in his speeches and actions, Kadhaffi was pledging to continue to fight and attack Benghazi. The regime maintained military action all the way to the start of the airstrikes, and continued after. I am not aware that Libya mentioned any other way out of this crisis than by sheer force, except to accept the principles of a mediation by Chavez (that was still "at a very early preliminary stage"), which did not result in any goodwill or cease fire at the moment, at a point in time where the regime was in a seemingly bad position.

The use of force by the Libyan appears to be wildly disproportionate since the very first days of the protests. I have little doubt as well of human rights abuse, seeing how well the BBC journalists were treated in captivity.

 

[Thunder]

How about the amount of bitching still going on about the Iraq Invasion?

nice job changing the subject.

Obama is a LIAR. So what does that make those who continue to believe his lies?

I don't know, what do we call folks who still believe Saddam had usable WMDs, an active nuclear program, and was helping Al-Qaeda?

 

[Peephole]

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-ob...n-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HRke15Mn

The invasion of Iraq was conducted by three countries.

Three.

The current war on Libya has 14 participants so far.

Come back after Libya has been occupied for a year or two if you want to compare occupation forces.

For comparison the 1991 Gulf War had 32 participants.

 

[funk de fino]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_32



Now when did we hear a claim like that in the not too distant past?

Oh yes … on March 24, 1999, when another democrat, Bill Clinton, on the first day of the war in Kosovo, proclaimed "

I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war."

Yet interviews after the war, with senior officials in the Clinton adminstration, prove that Clinton was just days from authorizing an invasion that would have involved as many as a 100,000 US troops.

Wonder if Obama means what he says? Afterall, we have so many other examples of him saying one thing then doing the opposite.

How about you think about what that means?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm not exactly 100% on US involvement here, but we're now criticizing Obama for things Clinton did?

No, simply suggesting that this democrat will act like the last.