What's new

Libya: Qaddhafi Violates Ceasefire, Foreign Forces Mount Attack

temujin

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
447
Reaction score
0
Breaking news..

10 for, 0 against, 5 abstentions (China, Russia, India among them)

Now the fun begins..The French are talking of air strikes (about time too). I wonder how many Arab countries would have the b**ls to join in, given many of them are still run by Pseudo monarchs and Gaddafi types..
 
.
This arab countries are the biggest bigots.... they knows very well how to axe their own foot... all this so called rebel are funded and funneled by the US and Israel... their main intention is to take control of libyan oil as it has the largest oil reserve of africa and to create a separate state east libya... all these stuff were planned by the zionist when pressure was given on Israel to stop settlement activity... all of them are for only to divert attention from Israel and to install another bunch of puppets in the of popular uprisings and democracy...and to break all the big north african countries in to smaller countries based on ethnicity and race icluding iraq, turkey, iran and pakistan.

Here we are seeing US and some european countries are suddenly so interested to protect the live of the civilians ... I am just where they were when they were killing innocent civilians on Iraq and Afghanistan...n israel is killing innocent palestanian and killed thousands lebanease??? UN is such a crap ... it needs to be modified... all the resolution is just like vote business..
 
.
This arab countries are the biggest bigots.... they knows very well how to axe their own foot... all this so called rebel are funded and funneled by the US and Israel... their main intention is to take control of libyan oil as it has the largest oil reserve of africa and to create a separate state east libya... all these stuff were planned by the zionist when pressure was given on Israel to stop settlement activity... all of them are for only to divert attention from Israel and to install another bunch of puppets in the of popular uprisings and democracy...and to break all the big north african countries in to smaller countries based on ethnicity and race icluding iraq, turkey, iran and pakistan.

Here we are seeing US and some european countries are suddenly so interested to protect the live of the civilians ... I am just where they were when they were killing innocent civilians on Iraq and Afghanistan...n israel is killing innocent palestanian and killed thousands lebanease??? UN is such a crap ... it needs to be modified... all the resolution is just like vote business..

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"?
 
.
This arab countries are the biggest bigots.... they knows very well how to axe their own foot... all this so called rebel are funded and funneled by the US and Israel... their main intention is to take control of libyan oil as it has the largest oil reserve of africa and to create a separate state east libya... all these stuff were planned by the zionist when pressure was given on Israel to stop settlement activity... all of them are for only to divert attention from Israel and to install another bunch of puppets in the of popular uprisings and democracy...and to break all the big north african countries in to smaller countries based on ethnicity and race icluding iraq, turkey, iran and pakistan.


Here we are seeing US and some european countries are suddenly so interested to protect the live of the civilians ... I am just where they were when they were killing innocent civilians on Iraq and Afghanistan...n israel is killing innocent palestanian and killed thousands lebanease??? UN is such a crap ... it needs to be modified... all the resolution is just like vote business..

I can totally see your point, especially since the US has had such tremendous success 'taking over' Iraq's oil resources. WRT the rebels being agents of the Zion, I would suggest that you switch on your telly and watch the scenes in Benghazi.Are you suggesting the thousands on the streets celebrating the UN resolution are all on Israel's payroll?

I am shocked at the hesitation shown by the Arab nations in acting against Gaddafi. Its almost as if 'Muslim on Muslim crime' doesn`t count. I feel sorry for the US-its a classical case of damned if you do, damned if you don`t. If it chooses not to act, it gets accused of ignoring the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people and if it does, it gets accused of waging war on 'Muslim lands'..
 
.
I can totally see your point, especially since the US has had such tremendous success 'taking over' Iraq's oil resources. WRT the rebels being agents of the Zion, I would suggest that you switch on your telly and watch the scenes in Benghazi.Are you suggesting the thousands on the streets celebrating the UN resolution are all on Israel's payroll?

I am shocked at the hesitation shown by the Arab nations in acting against Gaddafi. Its almost as if 'Muslim on Muslim crime' doesn`t count. I feel sorry for the US-its a classical case of damned if you do, damned if you don`t. If it chooses not to act, it gets accused of ignoring the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people and if it does, it gets accused of waging war on 'Muslim lands'..

March 16, 2011, 3:40 pm
The Republic of East Libya?


The Republic of East Libya? - NYTimes.com

I agreed with National Review’s last editorial on Libya, which argued against a no-fly zone on the sensible grounds that 1) it probably wouldn’t be militarily effective and 2) it would be better for American interests if Qaddafi was toppled without a U.S. intervention anyway. The new editorial, though, takes a much more unpersuasive line. After arguing, reasonably, that there are good reasons for America to wish Qaddafi gone from power, the editors go on to argue that those reasons justify establishing an American protectorate around Benghazi, so that the rebels can live to fight another day:

We initially opposed a no-fly zone, but circumstances have changed. We should establish both a no-fly zone and a no-drive zone in the approach to the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi to prevent Qaddafi’s armored vehicles from entering the city. The no-fly zone is unlikely to tip the military balance in itself, but Qaddafi’s air force has been a factor in his fight against the rebels. Coupling a no-fly zone with an effort to stop his advance on the ground should save Benghazi and allow the rebels time to recoup. Ideally, the Egyptians would dispatch peacekeepers to the city. Regardless, we should work with our allies to provide logistics, training, and arms to the rebels.

No military intervention is without costs and risks, but this air campaign would be an intervention commensurate with our interest — not an overwhelming commitment, but a meaningful one. We are not talking of a military operation comparable to taking and occupying Baghdad in 2003. If we check Qaddafi’s offensive, then we can consider other options. Perhaps we will only want to do what’s necessary to maintain the rebels’ enclave so they can fight another day; perhaps we will want to undertake decapitation strikes against the regime in Tripoli; perhaps we’ll want to use the threat of such strikes to try to bargain Qaddafi out of the country.

… We should have no illusions about the rebels, a rag-tag crew that, no doubt, includes its share of bad actors. The standard here, though, shouldn’t be particularly high — are they better or worse than Qaddafi? It will be hard to do worse, unless they take over and immediately begin hatching assassination plots against foreign leaders and ravaging Libyan society. Even if Qaddafi survives, he will be in a much weaker position with a rival government — recognized by us and presumably much of the region — controlling part of the east than if he rapidly retakes the entire country.

I recommend reading the NR editorial in tandem with Vivienne Walt’s Time Magazine dispatch from Libya, which tries to explain why Qaddafi has proven so resilient. Walt’s assessment of his deep reserves of tribal support may be overstated in some respects (popularity can be bought as well as earned), but her reporting suggests that once the initial moment of instability came and went, it was never that likely that a little more air cover and a few more arms would have tipped the balance to the rebels. This means that National Review’s preferred course would necessarily commit us to either a direct attempt at regime change by American forces (we would be acting “in support” of the rebels, to be sure, but it seems clear that we would have to do all the heavy lifting) or else the creation of semi-permanent U.S. client state on the Gulf of Sidra, which would depend on Washington not only for its legitimacy, but for its very existence. We would be making an open-ended commitment to babysit the losing side in a civil war, in other words, out of a vague hope that eventually our support would enable the rebels to evict Qaddafi and reunite the country. And in geopolitics, eventually can be a very, very long time.

The point, to be clear, isn’t that the rebels are likely to be “worse than Qaddafi” — though given how few problems the Libyan dictator has given the West in the last decade or so, it isn’t that hard to imagine a replacement regime proving itself more dangerous and destabilizing. It’s that Qaddafi’s victory, while undesirable and horrible in many ways, might well be preferable to an open-ended American commitment to prop Republic of East Libya at a time when the world is filled with more strategically-significant trouble spots, and America’s list of pre-existing commitments runs long.

“After the Iraq War,” NR’s editors conclude, “we are all mindful of the risks inherent in any military action.” Still, they continue, “if we can’t establish a no-fly zone over Libya and stop Qaddafi’s drive toward Benghazi, we really are tapped out as a world power.” But surely a true world power doesn’t need to embark on ill-considered military intervention just to prove that it isn’t yet “tapped out.” (I have every confidence that we can stop Qaddafi’s drive toward Benghazi. Indeed, I’m so confident that I don’t think we need to go the trouble of proving it.)

Besides, the lesson of Iraq isn’t that we can’t execute a tactically-successful military intervention. It’s that even the greatest power in the world needs to think long and hard about what happens after the intervention. And National Review’s preferred course promises a very, very long “after” for America in Libya.
 
.
This arab countries are the biggest bigots.... they knows very well how to axe their own foot... all this so called rebel are funded and funneled by the US and Israel... their main intention is to take control of libyan oil as it has the largest oil reserve of africa and to create a separate state east libya... all these stuff were planned by the zionist when pressure was given on Israel to stop settlement activity... all of them are for only to divert attention from Israel and to install another bunch of puppets in the of popular uprisings and democracy...and to break all the big north african countries in to smaller countries based on ethnicity and race icluding iraq, turkey, iran and pakistan.

Here we are seeing US and some european countries are suddenly so interested to protect the live of the civilians ... I am just where they were when they were killing innocent civilians on Iraq and Afghanistan...n israel is killing innocent palestanian and killed thousands lebanease??? UN is such a crap ... it needs to be modified... all the resolution is just like vote business..
UN is indeed crap that regulary condemns Israel and ignores much bigger crimes.

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"?
I dont see evidence for thousands of dead Libyans or any crimes commited by Kazafi, I saw slaightered blacks by "democratic opposition" though.
 
. .
UN is indeed crap that regulary condemns Israel and ignores much bigger crimes.

Israel is root cause of many of the conflict and loss of millions of people so far... and majority of the problem of middle east... so do not try to hide your countries crime just by saying UN crap... I said it crap as the permanent members within UN has made it a monopoly and pass resolution only for their own interest but not for just and upload the law... for example this is US that vetoed a resolution on Israel which condemns it for illegal settlement supported by 130 member of the UN and voted for 14-1. n there are many more such example...


I dont see evidence for thousands of dead Libyans or any crimes commited by Kazafi, I saw slaightered blacks by "democratic opposition" though.

I am not fan of qaffai... but I do not like to see a western puppet replace him who will be more greedy then him... but US, UK and France is just after that and some bigot arab dictators are just supporting that...
 
.
And your point is? Its obvious that there are differences in opinion on the US position vis a vis Libya but from their actions till date, Obama and crew appear highly reluctant to get involved in yet another military campaign in the middle east. I would be very surprised if the US takes the lead on this..
 
.
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"?

Every human life is lost due to this conflict must be regretted whether it is by qaddafi or libya... but what happened here is not like popular uprising like egypt, tunisia or bharain or yemen... here a bunch of power hungry rebel (This is the name used by so far even western countries and media)... helped and funneling by western government started a civil war to take the power of libya... Libya was relatively calm but this rebel group suddenly appeared... this sort of group can not be form or regrouped in such a small time without western support...

So I hardly believe even if qaddafi is overthrown they will get any support... n western countries want to take control of Libyan oil and if possible to break it up to create a new state named East Libya...n to create a diversion from Israeli Palestine conflict and to crate a new business ground... by selling the rebel arms from the 30 billion USD libyan money which belongs to its people...
 
.
BBC News - Libya unrest: UK forces 'could be in action by Friday'

Libya unrest: UK forces 'could be in action by Friday'


UK forces could be in action over Libya as early as Friday, after the UN backed a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

A senior UK government source has told the BBC action could take longer, but would be within days of the vote.

The resolution rules out a foreign occupation force in any part of Libya.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would "now respond" to the responsibility it placed on UN members.

He said the resolution authorised a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect the civilian population - including those in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

It also called for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the violence, measures to make it more difficult to bring foreign mercenaries into Libya and a tightening of sanctions.

Mr Hague said it was a "positive response to the call by the Arab League" for measures to protect Libyan civilians and was the culmination of "a great deal of hard work in the last few days" by France, the UK, Lebanon and the US.

"It is necessary to take these measures to avoid greater bloodshed," Mr Hague said.

"This places a responsibility on members of the United Nations and that is a responsibility to which the United Kingdom will now respond."

'No mercy'

Ten UN Security Council members backed the resolution while five abstained - nine votes were needed for it to pass.

Contingency planning in the UK, France and Nato has been going on for weeks, but will now be accelerated.

The UN resolution is so broad it allows military action against all threats to civilians - so could even involve bombing Col Gaddafi's forces on the ground if deemed necessary.

Britain could contribute Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft as well as reconnaissance and early-warning aircraft and tankers for air-to-air refuelling.

The resolution means they could also attack Libyan helicopter gunships as well as Libya's fixed-wing aircraft, most of which are Soviet-era fighters as well as some more modern French Mirage F1s.

However, many of the crucial final details still need to be worked out between the nations contributing to the mission to ensure that all the necessary means are in place.

It comes as Libyan leader Col Gaddafi warns rebels in Benghazi his troops are coming and to expect "no mercy".

Senior UN sources said British and French war planes could be in the air within hours to carry out initial air raids on Libyan positions, possibly with logistical support from Arab allies.

A draft UN resolution tabled by the UK, France and Lebanon on Tuesday proposed a ban on all flights in Libya, authorised member states to enforce it and called on them to participate in it.

But on Thursday the US, which had been cool on the effectiveness of a no-fly zone, said the UN should go further and a new strongly worded draft resolution was put forward calling for "all necessary measures short of an occupation force" to protect civilians under threat of attack from the Gaddafi regime.

It would permit air strikes on Libyan ground troops or allow attacks on Libyan war ships if they were attacking civilians, the BBC's Barbara Plett at the UN said.

Five countries out of 15 on the Security Council abstained from the vote on the Libya resolution, including Russia and China, who traditionally oppose military intervention into other countries.

Downing St said Prime Minister David Cameron had called Arab, African and European leaders to "make the case for strong action" by the UN throughout Thursday.

Asked whether Paris wanted military intervention to follow immediately on approval of the UN resolution, Prime Minister Francois Fillon said: "Of course."

And Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, in New York to press the case, said the resolution "must be applied quickly" because of "the urgency on the ground".

"France is ready, along with others, to put in action the resolution," he said - citing the UK and Arab nations.

In response to warnings from Libya's defence ministry that any outside attack would trigger retaliation and destabilise the Mediterranean region, the Foreign Office said Britain would not be diverted from its objective.

Yet another case of the UK trying to punch above its weight in the international arena.What on earth has possessed Cameron to start sending already stretched UK forces on another potentially disastrous campaign????
 
.
And your point is? Its obvious that there are differences in opinion on the US position vis a vis Libya but from their actions till date, Obama and crew appear highly reluctant to get involved in yet another military campaign in the middle east. I would be very surprised if the US takes the lead on this..

If you are not aware of USA is already taking leading role and trying to utilize it as a mass business opportunity by selling arms to the rebel from the 30 billion USD freeze libyan money. Who gave the right to US to mishandling these libyan people money in this way by selling arms to the rebel and giving money from that... who are these rebel... do they have backing of majority of the people??? if so what is the percentage??? Why suddenly US is so interested on libya instead imposing the same on bharain, saudi arabiya and apartheid Israel..
 
. . .
So I hardly believe even if qaddafi is overthrown they will get any support... n western countries want to take control of Libyan oil and if possible to break it up to create a new state named East Libya...n to create a diversion from Israeli Palestine conflict and to crate a new business ground... by selling the rebel arms from the 30 billion USD libyan money which belongs to its people...

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:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom