Gaddafi 'may have fled Libya' as Tripoli burns

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
wait wait is Obama just bolting for Brazil with no explanation?

and if we're spending more than a symbolic dime on this what in the fuck is the justification for the current domestic spending cuts both parties embrace? let's not let cost ever prevent us from middle eastern joyrides.
 
and if we're spending more than a symbolic dime on this what in the fuck is the justification for the current domestic spending cuts both parties embrace? let's not let cost ever prevent us from middle eastern joyrides.

God, I wish once, just once, somebody could point this out to our government officials, or find a reasonable way to explain this constant contradiction.

So, yeah. Now we're involved in Libya. Faaaaaaaaantastic.

Angela
 
_51552202_ivory_coast_304x170.gif


:hmm:

Hamadane Toure said the shells killed 25 to 30 people and had injured between 40 and 60, AFP reports.

He said the UN expressed its "indignation in the face of such atrocities against innocent civilians" and vowed that the "perpetrators will not go unpunished".

Once more unto the breach!

edit- Libya's Foreign Minister has apparently just declared a ceasefire
 
the ceasefire is good news. Lets see how the UN plays their cards - could it be, they will actually show their usefulness?

Also, in my opinion, even if the US were to get more directly involved it would be a very justified intervention, internationally sanctioned, and morale boosting for those on the ground. All kinds of wins.
As it is, with the UN resolution, the US will not have to carry the brunt of the burden.
 
The U.S. has fired missiles at Libyan forces loyal to Gaddafi, and French planes are patrolling the skies.

Canada is part of a coalition that includes the U.S. and France, and has sent six fighter jets to the region to participate in the strikes.
 
God, I wish once, just once, somebody could point this out to our government officials, or find a reasonable way to explain this constant contradiction.

So, yeah. Now we're involved in Libya. Faaaaaaaaantastic.

Angela

It's one of those heart vs head occasions, isn't it, and personally I think that you're right to be sceptical.

One of the few conservative (old school, not neo-con) journalists that I trust had an interesting and thought-provoking piece today about the British intervention:


If you want to see in its raw horror the lack of comprehension among our political class about the Libyan crisis, go to the BBC iPlayer and watch the performance of Baroness Warsi, the Conservative Party chairman, on Question Time on Thursday. Supplementing her inadequate grasp of a bad Central Office brief with globules of sentiment, emotion and downright pig ignorance, Lady Warsi was taken apart by Kelvin Mackenzie, the former tabloid editor, in a manner that stunned even me.

To be fair to her, even politicians one might expect to know what they are talking about have struggled on this question – such as Alastair Burt, the Foreign Office minister, who staggered all over the Today programme on Thursday trying to find something sensible to say, and failing. This is the problem: just five months ago, the Prime Minister chose to shut down much of our defence capacity. He has now decided he wants to act as a world policeman, and help the Libyan rebels before Benghazi is flattened. However, he has absolutely no means of carrying out this intention, except in the most marginal way, or with the help of others, such as the French, who have not made the idiotic decisions about defence that he has.

That, though, is not the end of it. Having persuaded the UN to sanction everything short of an invasion, Dave and his colleagues do not appear to have paused to consider the consequences. This was the subject of Mr Mackenzie's evisceration of Lady Warsi. If we are going to assist (with our nearly non-existent RAF, and without the aircraft carrier we are just scrapping) in the relief of Benghazi, what about the civilians that YouTube videos show being attacked by the security forces in Bahrain? What about measures that may be taken against civilians by our main ally in the region, Saudi Arabia? Or shall we choose to ignore those?

But, indeed, if we start to feel that outrages perpetrated in other countries compel us not to ignore them, how should we find the means to register a protest against them, since we do not even have the capacity to be of much use in Libya? In short, do we understand what we might be getting into, thanks to Dave's cavalier determination to pretend he leads a country that still has influence? Do we understand that Wootton Bassett could find itself permanently on parade if we do not get a grip, and think of the realities of our predicament and our place in the world? What if the no-fly zone isn't enough?


PC Dave can't police the world - Telegraph
 
Gadhaffi's forces are conventional and ground-based. There's no reason we won't be able to wipe most of it out from the air, clearing the rebels a path to Tripoli. I'm pretty hopeful at this point.
 
One other thing to remember, in Iraq there was no large united opposition group ready to step in and take over and restore order. The country was still very divided after Saddam was gone, which in part lead to the military quagmire that was the Iraq War. What we're doing in Libya is VERY different from what we did in Iraq.
 
One other thing to remember, in Iraq there was no large united opposition group ready to step in and take over and restore order. The country was still very divided after Saddam was gone, which in part lead to the military quagmire that was the Iraq War. What we're doing in Libya is VERY different from what we did in Iraq.

What has led you to the belief that there is a "large united opposition group ready to step in and take over and restore order" in Libya?

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
 
What has led you to the belief that there is a "large united opposition group ready to step in and take over and restore order" in Libya?


I think the numbers of protesters who initially took to the streets in February were significantly high. However, I agree that his doesn't necessarily imply a united opposition.
 
It's one of those heart vs head occasions, isn't it, and personally I think that you're right to be sceptical.

Thanks. Of course, certainly, I'm fully supportive of the Libyan people, and I want Gaddafi's reign of terror against the poor civilians stopped as much as the next person. He's a disgusting figure and what he's been doing to his people is shameful. And I don't ever want to retreat completely into a total isolationist worldview, I don't think that is good for anybody here or abroad, either.

But given all the issues surrounding our recent escapades into other countries, and our "help" not always actually turning out as such, I'm very hesitant about the way we currently seem to go about getting involved in other nations. I know sometimes too we don't always have much choice, but I think we could definitely do with some serious revamping of the way we handle our strategy should we need to get involved. The link from that journalist, the bit you quoted, very well said, some excellent points made there. He said it better than I could, I think.

I do hope for the best in this current intervention. May it bring the results that people are looking for. And any talk of cease-fires and such is always good news as well.

Angela
 
^I share yours and financeguy's skepticism. Indeed, I might go further and say that I think that getting involved here was unwise.

What's happening in Libya is horrible yes, but I'm not convinced that our involvement will help the situation there.
 
Interesting way to look at it:

If this was the movie "Star wars": The Rebels are the Rebellion, the Empire is whoever was incumbent in Libya and the Emperor is Gadhafi

Go the rebels!
 
Back
Top Bottom