What's new

Libya: Qaddhafi Violates Ceasefire, Foreign Forces Mount Attack

Yeah I saw your post after I posted mine. There is a reason why the protests are continuing for such a long time. The regime has been oppressive for a decades and has looted the public wealth into their own coffers and the loyals close to Gaddafi.
Imagine a country who has the largest oil reserves in the whole of Africa and still not able to share its profits with the people. Compare any oil producing country in the middle east and compare the living conditions and employment rates. You might get your answer there.

Libya was under sanction until 2003... after 2003 libya started to develop... but no arab country other then Iraq were under sanction .. but if I am not wrong libya has higher literacy rate then many other arab countries...
 
Lets adopt a resolution against Bahrain and have an arms embargo against them too. Enough of the West's Double Standard, that is what will lead to the impotency of UN itself just like the League of Nations. We can use the UN resolution against Libya as toilet paper, I ran out.

Lets enforce the all resolutions against Israel too?
 
Jesus christ, do you listen to what you`re saying? What about the THOUSANDS of dead Libyan Arabs since this started? No sympathy for them because they "must be supported by the Israelis and the US"?

Jesus Christ? Are you referring to the same Jesus Christ the Prophet that the Jews conspired with the Romans to have him cruisified, or this a different one?
 
China has invested a lot in Libyan oil fields and as someone mentioned earlier 10% of Libyan oil exports goes to China. So if this UN resolution was passed by Western countries to capture the Libyan Oil, why didn't China veto such resolution? Mind you Italy and Germany doesn't have veto power, China does! Surely if people like yourself know that this is the evil plot of Western World, China knows it too?

I do not think that China invested too big in libyan oil and gas... the agreement is such that I believe due to western attack qaddafi will give away the power and everything will be fine again and may be their are plans to kill qaddafi and to show it as if he has been killed by its own people ...arab support for the resolution is also a reason... if either Russia or China would have gave veto then US would try to show them as bad guy.. but do not know whether any back door deals has been happened or not to compensate any loss due to sanction...
 
Most likely pressure from the arab league.

I personally think resource hungry countries like China and India decided to not vote at all based on the other scenario. What if Qaddafi prevails? They didn't want to be left out in that scenario. Does Arab league really care about the death of civilians or does it have other motives against Libya and Qaddafi?
 
I personally think resource hungry countries like China and India decided to not vote at all based on the other scenario. What if Qaddafi prevails? They didn't want to be left out in that scenario. Does Arab league really care about the death of civilians or does it have other motives against Libya and Qaddafi?

No.. arab dictators only like to remain in power by hook or by crook... n arab league supported it only cause of saudi arabiya..
 
US bans Israel to sell its own radars to China and India, but according to your conspiracy Israel is so powerful that can order US to attack any country it wishes? :lol:

It is because US does not want any of its competitors to achieve any advance technology... but still Israel supply US tech to china and may be also to India illegally ...by doing so they are just spitting on the pot which is giving them money, weapon and protection from all sort of illegal activities...

And by the way, before US invasion in Iraq, Israel explicitly told the US that Iran is bigger danger than Iraq and that Iran should be dealt first.

That was just from above... but all the israeli zionist and neocons in the USA has masterminded it... n attacking iraq and dividing it into 3 part was at 1st developed by a israeli zionist in 1982...

for your info ...

United States foreign policy

Brian Whitaker reported in a September 2002 article [8] published in The Guardian that

"With several of the Clean Break paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it."

John Mearsheimer wrote in March 2006 in the London Review of Books that the 'Clean Break' paper

"called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle 'are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ... and Israeli interests'."[9]

Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that[10]:

"Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make 'a clean break' from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, 'The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.' It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and 'Jewish interests' are not the main reason for it now."

Buruma continues[10]:

"What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them -- Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al. -- are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place."

Daniel Levy described the paper and the influence its authors came to yield on US foreign policy[11]:

"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The 'clean break' was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of 'Hashemite control in Iraq.' The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush."

An October 2003 editorial in The Nation criticized the Syria Accountability Act and connected it to the 'Clean Break' report and authors[12]:

"To properly understand the Syria Accountability Act, one has to go back to a 1996 document, 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,' drafted by a team of advisers to Benjamin Netanyahu in his run for prime minister of Israel. The authors included current Bush advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. 'Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil,' they wrote, calling for 'striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.' No wonder Perle was delighted by the Israeli strike. 'It will help the peace process,' he told the Washington Post, adding later that the United States itself might have to attack Syria. But what Perle means by 'helping the peace process' is not resolving the conflict by bringing about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state but rather - as underscored in 'A Clean Break' - 'transcending the Arab-Israeli conflict' altogether by forcing the Arabs to accept most, if not all, of Israel's territorial conquests and its nuclear hegemony in the region."

Commentator Karen Kwiatkowski [1] has pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Patrick J. Buchanan,[5] in reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the report, wrote that "Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish 'the principle of preemption,' has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States."


George Packer, in his 2005 non-fiction analysis of the Iraq war The Assassins’ Gate, explicates the Clean Break report "through the lens of Wurmser’s subsequent AEI-published volume, which argued (in 1999) that America’s taking out Saddam would solve Israel’s strategic problems and leave the Palestinians essentially helpless."[13]

Phyllis Bennis [14] has pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Sidney Blumenthal wrote in August 2006 that "In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process."[6]

Taki writes in the September 2006 issue of The American Conservative[15] that

"recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go."



But I thought most of problems are because of Israel. :rolleyes: What about Yemen? Poorest Arab country. For sure its Israel's fault. No?


I dont care about your poverty problems, I just wondered because u said that all problems are because of Israel.

Being poor is not the problem ... every one knows this is cause of british... they kept colonizing the place for centuries but did not do any development in the region... but all the major conflict's root cause is israel...
 
I personally think resource hungry countries like China and India decided to not vote at all based on the other scenario. What if Qaddafi prevails? They didn't want to be left out in that scenario. Does Arab league really care about the death of civilians or does it have other motives against Libya and Qaddafi?

I think that's plausible, although I believe Indian governments have historically sucked up to Gaddo? But now that the Egyptians are arming the rebels, around 8000 soldiers have defected to the rebel side and the 'coalition of the willing' planning to start a bombing campaign against Gaddafi, the chances of him remaining in power for much longer look remote. If he is deposed and a rebel government takes his place, that would put India and China in a difficult position.
 
No.. arab dictators only like to remain in power by hook or by crook... n arab league supported it only cause of saudi arabiya..

So how come you never blame Saudi Arabia? Are the part of the Zionists Mafia as well?
 
I think that's plausible, although I believe Indian governments have historically sucked up to Gaddo? But now that the Egyptians are arming the rebels, around 8000 soldiers have defected to the rebel side and the 'coalition of the willing' planning to start a bombing campaign against Gaddafi, the chances of him remaining in power for much longer look remote. If he is deposed and a rebel government takes his place, that would put India and China in a difficult position.

India supporting the resolution wouldn't have changed anything, resolution would still be adopted. Not that opposing it would have changed anything either (no veto power), but it would have surely send wrong signals to the rebel groups. Not voting seems like the best option, and I wouldn't be surprised if Indian government has already established contacts with the rebels.
 
Wonder why China didn't veto the resolution then. Doesn't China have a lot of stake in Libyan oil? I know you are going to say UN is run by Zionists or something along those lines, but what the heck worth a try!:undecided:

Why would they do anything ? Their best position is to abstain from voting. Thats the position they took.

I doubt the bombings (if any) will be limited to air defence capability. When you get blank check, why limit yourself to one objective .
 
Israelis could care less about any muslims or arabs, they just need a chance to attck the muslims from any direction and any reason.

No, unlike you i care about death of innocent people even if they themselves died hating me and Israel. Children have a chance, that chance was taken from them by that monster.
 
Wonder why China didn't veto the resolution then. Doesn't China have a lot of stake in Libyan oil? I know you are going to say UN is run by Zionists or something along those lines, but what the heck worth a try!:undecided:

:coffee: Most of Libya's oil belongs to British Petroleum.
Gaddafi's support for Taiwan independence faction, Do you think China will support the Gaddafi?
 
:coffee: Most of Libya's oil belongs to British Petroleum.
Gaddafi's support for Taiwan independence faction, Do you think China will support the Gaddafi?

I am not saying China should have vetoed the resolution. I was just saying how is logic, that the western countries adopted this resolution so that they can capture Libya's oil is flawed. Cause if that was case, China and Russia would have surely vetoed it.
 
It is because US does not want any of its competitors to achieve any advance technology...
I thought Israel controls USA? :lol: As result of canseled deal Israel forced to pay a huge fine to China.

That was just from above... but all the israeli zionist and neocons in the USA has masterminded it... n attacking iraq and dividing it into 3 part was at 1st developed by a israeli zionist in 1982...
I know ur conspiracy theories. And here facts:

As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon arrives today for a White House visit, Israeli officials are redoubling efforts to warn the Bush administration that Iran poses a greater threat than the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

A series of Israeli leaders have carried that message to Washington recently in the hope of influencing a debate that has centered not on Iran but on whether to pursue the overthrow of the Iraqi government.

Today, everybody is busy with Iraq," Ben-Eliezer said in an interview. "Iraq is a problem. . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq."

washingtonpost.com: Israel Emphasizes Iranian Threat

This was in February 2002, more than one year before the war in Iraq. By 2002 Iraq's army was comletely destroyed, Afghanistan was never a problem to Israel at all. Thats why Israel tried to convince US to go on Iran instead, but they did not listen. War in Iraq only boosted oil prices and strengthened Shias.

Being poor is not the problem ...
Of course its not a problem for you, since u are in USA.

every one knows this is cause of british...
Yeah, Yemenis are poor because of British, although they never were there :lol:

but all the major conflict's root cause is israel...
Iran-Iraq war, Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, war in Sudan, civil war in Algeria all that because of Israel? :lol: These are bloodiest Middle East conflicts in new era.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom