... is it a really just implementing a no fly zone or is it simply regime change by another name?
Chat Forum
[closed]
See this Libyan thing...
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
both
Posted 2 years ago # -
So illegal then?
Posted 2 years ago # -
no not really illegal, they'll just do enough damage to weaken the pro government forces sufficiently enough for the anti government forces to win thus implementing regime change without taking the blame and keeping costs and life losses to a minimum. but it amounts to the same thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
A very widely written resolution - short of an invasion and occupation any methods can be used that will protect the civilians from attack.
So if a major, general or perhaps even a colonel is the cause of suffering he can be taken out ( though they don't seem to have targeted a specific colonel at the moment ).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Those forces retreating West from Sirte will almost certainly be identified as being a threat to civilians in Misurata.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I just hope the rebels don't turn out to be a threat to civilians if/when they take over.
Posted 2 years ago # -
undoubtedly regime change
is it just me or do the condems seem to be making all the same mistakes as newlabrador
Posted 2 years ago # -
I noticed that they started taking out loyalist weapons near Tripoli, to soften they up for an expected rebel advance.How does that protect civilians?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Funny how in some conflicts they are called civilians yet in others they are called insurgents.
Suppose it all depends on the motives of the people doing the name calling.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Funny how in some conflicts they are called civilians yet in others they are called insurgents.
Shirley you've confused that for rebels. Civilians have always been civilians (or perhaps collateral damage), whereas rebels are now typically referred to as insurgents. An exception is in the case of Libya, where they need to be known as rebels as they are effectively on the same side as coalition forces.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Looks like Gaddaffi's thugs are dug in to put up a last stand. Won't be so easy for the rebels now, even with air cover. I wonder how the stretched supply lines will hold up.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If they are protecting civilians, why are they not taking out rebel military convoys too? After all, the rebels are also killing civilians, albeit gaddaffi supporters according to many reports (none of which are western!!!!)
Posted 2 years ago # -
its all about getting gadaffi out, the spice must flow...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Shirley you've confused that for rebels.
Ah, maybe, but I was sure that they were civilians to start with and now have strangely morphed into rebels as the civil uprising has continued.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What about those unarmed civilians who actually support Gaddafi (their right to support whoever they want, after all)? What happens to them if/when the rebels take control? Will the UN be protecting them equally? How will they do so?
Posted 2 years ago # -
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/fingers-crossed-libyan-rebels-aren't-insane-201103183639/
Posted 2 years ago # -
They have apparently been bombing barracks, supply lines, and individual tanks - according to an interview I heard with a rebel leader. I fail to see how any of that relates to a no fly zone.
Posted 2 years ago # -
you might need to re read the UN resolution, it might be titled No Fly Zone, but that is possibly a misnomer
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yeah I am aware that the remit is pretty wide, but that's my point - referring to it as a No Fly Zone is very misleading imo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Of course, we could always look at it a different way - if Gadaffi hadn't kept on killing his own people, the UN wouldn't have implemented the NFZ.
Just the other view there.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm certainly no fan of Ghaddafi and I'm in two minds about military intervention including regime change.
But there's lots of other countries 'killing their own people' - and ultimately how would any world leader react to an armed uprising in their country?
Posted 2 years ago # -
if Gadaffi hadn't kept on killing his own people
How many has he killed just out of interest? Figures are pretty hazy and certainly don't seem to be an order of magnitude more than Egypt.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What about those unarmed civilians who actually support Gaddafi (their right to support whoever they want, after all)? What happens to them if/when the rebels take control? Will the UN be protecting them equally? How will they do so?
the only thing that matters to the coalition is libya's oil - its nothing to do with people's welfare, otherwise gadaffodil would be enjoying the same freedom as mugabe still is after putting oil-less Zim and it's people though the grinder.
Posted 2 years ago # -
call him what you want BUT!
Posted 2 years ago # -
You have to say George Galloway makes some very good points (and is a very good speaker).
Posted 2 years ago # -
I usually think George is a prick but this time its hard to disagree with him
Posted 2 years ago # -
I love Gorgeous George. We need more like him who are willing to say it as it is, as it is we just move from clique to clique of middle management whiners who routinely take it in the arse from whoever pays the most.
Posted 2 years ago # -
otherwise gadaffodil would be enjoying the same freedom as mugabe still is after putting oil-less Zim and it's people though the grinder
Did Mugabe actually bomb his own people tho?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Did Mugabe actually bomb his own people tho?
No he used bulldozers, gangs of thugs armed with machetes and mass starvation as his chosen tools of oppression.
Posted 2 years ago # -
EDIT Torminalis types faster!
Did Mugabe actually bomb his own people tho?
The preference was for gangs with machetes, I believe.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wish we had many more like George Galloway.
Posted 2 years ago # -
call him what you want BUT!
Galloway has always had a tendency to talk a lot of common-sense, however much it might appear to be at odds with the officially perceived "truth". It is precisely that quality which, compared to your average run-of-the-mill politician, makes him so shocking and intolerable to so many.
He compounds the problem by being an exceptionally good speaker ....... I thought his description of Blair's "grisly embrace" of Gaddafi was classic Galloway.
Unfortunately the reason we don't have more politicians like him is because it tends to lead to political oblivion, as official parties shun and ostracise them, and the press engages in character assassinations. It's not the path which any career minded politician wants to follow.
Galloway's point concerning the Arab League themselves sorting out the problem was particularly poignant imo. The US, Britain, and France, has for decades been pouring some of the most advanced and sophisticated weapons available into these western backed dictatorship. Not only that, but they have also trained their armed forces in their use, and in other military matters.
What a waste of money. Now a country like Saudi Arabia which is armed to the teeth with western technology is demanding that NATO fight a battle in the Middle East which they claim is vital, and yet which they insist they are not going to get involved in. Well if anyone should get involved then I reckon it should include Saudi airman and warplanes - they have definitely got both. As Galloway says, Libya is not in the North Atlantic.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Plus he does a great pussy cat impression.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I was trying to forget that IanMunro ...........thanks
Yes, Galloway talks a hellva lot of common-sense and is exceptionally eloquent.
Occasionally he has a day off and acts like a ****.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
