• IMPORTANT: Covid-19 can only be discussed on this site in terms of SUPPORT. There is a covid-19 support forum and a covid-19 support chat for people needing support around this topic. There is a thread in Forum News and Announcements explaining this further. Please read it.

The Libyan Conflict.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zurkhardo

Well-Known Member
#21
Well, Vietnam was quite a different case than Libya. They were a divided country in the midst of a civil war between ideologies, involving a state (South Vietnam) that we had long backed up as part of a broader Cold War strategy of "containment."

With respect to Libya, we're basically propping up and supporting the efforts of a rag-tag alliance of rebels in an effort to dislodge a single madman and his inner circle of loyalists.
 

am I alive

Well-Known Member
#22
To those that are cynical about this intervention
Well, I am cynical about one thing: any US (and EU allies) intervention has end up with more dead civilians than any dictator ever did to its nation (where intervention has been taken), so it will probably be in Libya, but hey it will be collateral damage, not a big deal.

Also, why are other powerful countries always for peaceful solution such as China or Russia, why they never got involved in any war?

Why Libya? There are many countries in similar situations.
And I don't agree that Gaddafi slauthering its own people, who the hell would do that to its own people. There is a civil war, rebels defend the the big city full of civilians and its normal to some civilians have been killed, which doesn't mean he has intention to kill its own people. If anyone has any proof of killing (bombing) unarmed people please show me.
Btw. when we talking about rebels those people threatened with arms and even robbed and exiled many foreign workers, including people from my country. Why would they do that if they are peaceful?

If I am Gaddafi I would stepped down, 40+ years is more than enough, well, they say he would be killed if that happen so probably thats is the reason he refuses to step down. In Libya there are many tribes with different cultures yet he managed to keep peace for whole those years. It seems like someone didn't like it.

I can tell you one thing, if they succeed to take Gaddafi down after him it will be only worse for people of Libya, mark my words:)
 

aoeu

Well-Known Member
#23
Also, why are other powerful countries always for peaceful solution such as China or Russia, why they never got involved in any war?
If they support an intervention they admit that Korea was wrong on their parts, essentially. If they always oppose interventions they can say they oppose *all* interventions. If they vote towards *any* intervention they admit that sometimes interventions are right - and then they're opposing *certain* conflicts including Korea, which they probably opposed because it was *them*. I guess, more simply, they're trying to say "we would've voted against intervention in Korea, because intervention is wrong, NOT because we were involved".

Noteworthy: they didn't vote against it. If they had, the resolution would have automatically failed. If they actually opposed it, wouldn't they have used their veto? They talk big about opposing it but obviously don't care too much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Issaccs

Well-Known Member
#24
Lybia does seem like another Vietnam to me, more so than Iraq ever was. Now Qaddafi can justify his war as "the war against invasion" instead of "the war against democracy" in the same way North Vietnam justified their war against the South. Therefore, I absolutely agree with mrluvaluva and Crue-K: STAY OUT OF IT. For the better or worse, let them sort it out.
Vietnam and Iraq being nearly decade year old conflicts involving thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars with a population that never wanted us while Libya involving a few multinational aircraft carriers in a country that repeatedly asked for the assistance.
I completely see where you are coming from.
 

am I alive

Well-Known Member
#25
Noteworthy: they didn't vote against it. If they had, the resolution would have automatically failed. If they actually opposed it, wouldn't they have used their veto? They talk big about opposing it but obviously don't care too much.
The only reason for that is because of their economies which depends more on western countries than some african country. Thats politics, everyone takes care of its own ass.
 

Zurkhardo

Well-Known Member
#26
Well, I am cynical about one thing: any US (and EU allies) intervention has end up with more dead civilians than any dictator ever did to its nation (where intervention has been taken), so it will probably be in Libya, but hey it will be collateral damage, not a big deal.
Actually, by all accounts civilian deaths have been stemmed since the intervention. Thousands were already being killed by indiscriminate bombings by Qaddafi loyalists. While some civilians will sadly inevitably get killed, it'll be far fewer compared to the status quo.

Also, why are other powerful countries always for peaceful solution such as China or Russia, why they never got involved in any war?
Because they're not interested in helping. Both nations are autocracies which, while contributing to some peacekeeping missions, don't tend to intervene on matters like this.

Why Libya? There are many countries in similar situations.
Only so many countries can receive. Every situation is different.

And I don't agree that Gaddafi slauthering its own people, who the hell would do that to its own people. There is a civil war, rebels defend the the big city full of civilians and its normal to some civilians have been killed, which doesn't mean he has intention to kill its own people. If anyone has any proof of killing (bombing) unarmed people please show me.
This man has been murdering his own people for 40 years, and sponsored numerous terrorist acts from the Lockerbie bombing to the Berlin disco-tech bombing.

And you clearly haven't read into the series of events. This began as a peaceful protest movement, to which Qaddafi reacted by murdering over 200 of the protesters and sending the army to stifle more dissent. The rebels emerged in response to this slaughter, and included defecting soldiers that refused to follow orders to kill protesters.

Btw. when we talking about rebels those people threatened with arms and even robbed and exiled many foreign workers, including people from my country. Why would they do that if they are peaceful?
So some of the rebels do this, and you claim this represents them all? There has been documented evidence of loyalist troops using migrant workers as human shields.

If I am Gaddafi I would stepped down, 40+ years is more than enough, well, they say he would be killed if that happen so probably thats is the reason he refuses to step down. In Libya there are many tribes with different cultures yet he managed to keep peace for whole those years. It seems like someone didn't like it.
He stated that he would slaughter protesters like "rats" and "roaches" in order stay in power. How do you think he managed to stay in power all these years, and keep such tribal differences suppressed? Intimidation and torture.

I can tell you one thing, if they succeed to take Gaddafi down after him it will be only worse for people of Libya, mark my words:)
The words of someone who, with all due respect, clearly doesn't know much about the details of this event, based on your misinformed statements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

am I alive

Well-Known Member
#27
The words of someone who, with all due respect, clearly doesn't know much about the details of this event, based on your misinformed statements.
I got no time to quote everything, and with all due respect to you I've been involved in two wars, not as a soldier but as a child who saw the war with its own eyes while you've been sitting on the sofa watching TV.
I know how many propaganda comes from TV, of course lets say western countries are more democratic and there are many sources of informations but still the whole media follow the same idea, more or less, in order to justify every Nato intervention.

When I was talking about all the facts above I was talking about the world in general and there is almost always same patter applied. I admit that I don't know much about Libyan situation but I've heard many informations from ppl that have been living there and I bet you didn't know nothing as well until these crisis occurred.

What about Iraq? The reason for bombing was "secret production of weapons for mass murdering". Was it ever find until now? How many civilians have been killed by Nato bombing, including women and children? Nato also used forbidden materials which has a long impact on the health of the Iraqi nation(and not only in Iraq) There are many monster babies born in the last two decades. Saddam was a pcycho no doubt and at the end he was hanged but was there any american politician ever being sued for anything they did around the world? Well, of course not, because there is no one stronger to do that.

Do you thing ppl of Iraq live better lives than before? They got junk food in exchange for oil. They are not hungry at least, but they haven't been under Saddam as well.

In my country(Serbia) Nato killed over 1,500 civilians, including bombing civilian buildings, refuge colones, civilian train, and destroyed many bridges and other objects needed for civilians to live normal lives.
The trigger for bombing was so called the massacre in Racak, which where killed terrorists(which were btw. financed by Bin Laden organisation) dressed like civilians. And there are many proofs for that, its not my story.
The truth is here: http://vimeo.com/8606283

As about Srebrenica, there were no doubt killed muslim war prisoners, but not 6 or 7 thousounds as it was claimed, maybe 1,5 to 2,5 at most. Most of them were killed in direct battle between serbian an muslim forces. The masaccre in Srebrenica occurred after many serbian villages has been slaughtered(including children and women) by muslim forces leaded by Naser Oric who was later released from Hague tribune because of lack of evidence.
There were crimes by both sides but Serbs have never been killing civilians beside single acts and some paramilitary formations.
Same thing with Kosovo, they've been organising killing and selling human organs of Serbs yet they are now lead politicians in Kosovo goverment. Those stories you can find in the book of Carla Del Ponte a former Chief Prosecutor of two United Nations international criminal law tribunals, after she has been retired. We Serbs has been fighting for thousand years for that holy land and now they took it away from us, burned all the churches and serbian possesions. Serbs have been exiled, many killed and some of them who decided to stay there can't get out of their homes. Thats democracy what Nato brings to the world.
War is business dude, if you can't see that than you are blind.

Btw. I had to left my hometown due to war and move to other country and some of my cousins have been killed and many neighbors, not by Nato though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zurkhardo

Well-Known Member
#30
For the record, I don't watch television, and while I respect your experiences, you can't hold them over me as if it gives you any more weight in this discussion. A lot of people haven't experienced war, and that doesn't make them any less capable of knowing the facts about something. In any case, you have me sincere condolences.

Everything you just said pertains to *other* events. I never claimed Iraq was a success or that the Balkan intervention was spotless. All I'm saying is that you can't look at every intervention as the same in terms of effectiveness or moral legitimacy. It's one thing to be cautious and have doubts, but it's another thing to make all these claims about the Libyan intervention that are baseless.

Yes, the conflict is as ambiguous as any other. But there are unique dynamics to every conflict, and it seems as if your merely projecting your own understandably cynical experiences onto this one, rather than basing it on the specific details. In any case, I agree with you about those examples you mentioned. I just happen to think Libya is a different case, and that it is too soon to

As to your second comment, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. These acts were carried out by Libyan security forces commanded by and loyal to Qaddafi. I don't doubt some of those associated with those acts are now against him. But as I said, the coalition of rebels opposed to the regime is a diverse bunch. They're not all saints, but they're not all monsters either. Most just want to see the murderous tyrant out.
 

am I alive

Well-Known Member
#31
I was trying to say that someone started this shit. There are some tribes in Libya who didn't like him and it wasn't that hard to put them in action.
I don't know, maybe at the begining he has killed some civilians, but I don't believe he would be that stupid to kill everyone just for protesting and marching on the streets. Many of them were violent and try to take arms from Army barracks and exile foreign workers.

What I am saying: Libya is a country with decent economy (better than in my country in Europe) and life standard in opposite of the other african countries. Gaddafi and his tribe followers were got more benefits from oil reserves than other tribes though, but still he brought stability to this multicultural country. If it wasn't for him there would be another Somalia over there. Well, thats my opinion.

I am not fun of any dictator or communism. There was Milosevic in my country who was some kind of dictator. Western countries has financialy supported opposition to take em down, and people also were sick of him, of isolation, UN sanctions, inflation etc. Now we have new leadership for 11 years and nothing has changed since when we are talking about life standard. People live even worse, unemployment rate is higher, debts to MMF and World Bank high, inflation high, and lowest wages in the region, work is devastated to humilation level. They are even more corrupted than Milosevic was, they sold all state properties to private investitors at funny prices. Only politicians, tycoons and other elite have all benefits, we practically don't have a middle class. Not to mention their talking about joining EU and Nato against ppl will. They proceed every order from EU and USA without questioning. We are just a funny country, dependable on western countries.
Similar situation in Iraq, and thats why I believe that same might happen to Libya.

But hey, time will show who was right:biggrin:

I don't blame you at all, If I am an american and have a good job, house, car, big television etc. etc. I would be supporting the US goverment as well:biggrin:
I am kidding, I don't watch TV as well and I don't care about money, what I miss the most is my friends and hometown. Besides that i live decent life, but materialism doesn't mean much to me. Also I am not hater, I don't hate americans, africans, blacks, reds,yellows, its all the same to me as long as he's a good man. Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jota1

Well-Known Member
#32
I dont know how this can be resolved. The Sunni (gaddafi tribe) are the majority and the shiite are the rebels that want gaddafi out. How the UN thinks they will manage to reconcile a minority ruling a majority is beyond me. The percentage is something like 80% sunni 20% shiite.

The inverse is true in bahrain. the majority are shiite and their kings sunni, thats the reason saudi arabia sent troops there...to protect the sheiks and their oil. The Saudis are mostly Sunni.
 

aoeu

Well-Known Member
#33
Wikipedia said:
The vast majority of Libyan Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam, which provides both a spiritual guide for individuals and a keystone for government policy, but a minority (between 5 and 10%) adhere to Ibadism (a branch of Kharijism), above all in the Jebel Nefusa and the town of Zuwarah, west of Tripoli.
Quit making shit up. There aren't even any Shiite in the population. And if 5-10% of the population were against him ruling, and 90-95% were for him ruling, he wouldn't have had to fight the rebellion. Further, the minority is WEST of Tripoli, and the rebellion is east.
 

jota1

Well-Known Member
#34
Quit making shit up. There aren't even any Shiite in the population. And if 5-10% of the population were against him ruling, and 90-95% were for him ruling, he wouldn't have had to fight the rebellion. Further, the minority is WEST of Tripoli, and the rebellion is east.
Im not, I read a report about it, the percentage may vary some say 15% are shiite other a bit more but the problem exists, it also exists in bahrain. There have always been problems between shiit and sunni tribes.

The rebellion at the moment has one direction and that is gaddafi when this ceases to exist there will be conflict between the two Muslim factions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$255.00
Goal
$255.00
Top