Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cashinmattress

Two U.s. Warships, 1200 Marines Sent To Libyan Coast

Recommended Posts

Link

A ragtag army of opponents to Col. Moammar Gadhafi began moving west toward Tripoli from the east and the U.S. ordered two warships to the Mediterranean Sea, as the prospect of an extended war loomed over Libya.

Margaret Coker reports from Tripoli on the latest on the standoff in Libya between pro-Gadhafi forces and anti-government rebels as both sides dig-in for a protracted confrontation. Plus, Gold hits a record high and the countdown to iPad 2.

A convoy of armed youth, including what appeared to be rebel military forces, was seen heading Tuesday night toward the pro-Gadhafi stronghold city of Sirte, witnesses said. The forces were viewed passing westward through Ajdabiya, a city about 75 miles from the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, said four residents, including a volunteer rebel soldier and an official on the city's local leadership council. It was unclear how many rebels were on the move.

Also Tuesday, the U.S. ordered two warships and 1200 Marines to the waters off of Libya, but a top Obama administration official stopped short of saying the forces would intervene in the clashes that have consumed the country following anti-Gadhafi protests here in recent weeks.

At a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he had ordered to the Mediterranean the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious-assault ship that typically carries infantrymen and troop-transport helicopters. Those ships currently have 800 marines, in addition to 400 U.S.-based Marines who will be airlifted to meet the ships. He said the ships would be ready to perform evacuations and humanitarian relief.

Mr. Gates wouldn't specify the other military options he has offered President Barack Obama. But he sounded a note of caution about sending U.S. assets into Libya. "We have to think about the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East," Mr. Gates said. "We are sensitive about all these things."

Libya's opposition is increasingly seeking U.S. military support to push out Col. Gadhafi. Libyan dissidents held meetings with the State Department in Washington this week in which they called for greater logistical support from U.S. and NATO forces, and possibly targeted military strikes on against Col. Gadhafi's air force, tanks and troops.

"We're worried this conflict could drag on," said Ali Rishi, among the dissidents who met with the State Department this week. "We don't want Gadhafi to feel he can survive."

A senior State Department official confirmed the U.S. has met with a variety of Libyan opposition figures this week but wouldn't discuss the details. "There were a variety of views expressed," he said.

The U.S. has said it wouldn't rule out any steps to ensure Col. Gadhafi exits power, as the White House and international community continue to exert pressure. The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday suspended Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council over the violent crackdown on protesters.

A Libyan civilian trained on using an anti-aircraft cannon in Benghazi Tuesday.

Regional Upheaval

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress that Libya risks falling into "civil war" unless the international community offers a more coordinated response to the bloodshed there. "In the years ahead, Libya could become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war, or it could descend into chaos," she said.

Some U.S. officials don't believe conflict will be protracted. They say Col. Gadhafi's fate is less likely to be settled by a clash on the battlefield than it is by the loyalty of the elite units defending Tripoli. If commanders from those units begin defecting, some U.S. officials believe members of the Libyan dictator's inner circle will move against him.

One senior U.S. official said as the rebellion spreads, an assassination attempt on Col. Gadhafi "seems more plausible." The official added: "The best outcome for those Libyan leaders who are defecting will be [to put] two bullets into the heads of Gadhafi and his son."

For now, the elite brigades remain "the most enthusiastically loyal" to the dictator, and neither officials in Washington nor witnesses in Libya have seen defections from the elite units, a military official in Washington said.

Inside Libya, battle lines have hardened.

Col. Gadhafi's main support resides in the western part of the country, and he retained a strong grip on Tripoli, Sabha and Sirte, his hometown. Forces loyal to Col. Gadhafi have attempted to block the advance of rebel forces based in the eastern stronghold of Benghazi, and on Sunday retook the tiny coastal town of Ras Lanuf with a handful of troops and scarcely a bullet fired, say rebel commanders.

There are, in essence, two Libyan rebellions. A rebel army has risen up in the east, led by a provisional government in Benghazi. Independent uprisings have occurred in western towns—including Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, which lies 130 miles east of Tripoli, and Al-Zawiya, 30 miles to the capital's west.

In Zawiya, rebels controlled the center of the city Tuesday, while pro-government forces held the outskirts. Witnesses said pro-government forces have moved their checkpoints closer to central Al-Zawiya, increasing their control over several neighborhoods.

Libya's deputy foreign minister, Khalid Kaid, denied reports that the government had attacked Al-Zawiya's central square. He said talks between the government and major tribal leaders would start Wednesday in Tripoli and that the government wasn't planning any major military offensives while the talks were under way. It wasn't clear who was taking part in talks.

On Tuesday night, a convoy of pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns rolled out of Benghazi, horns honking. Soldiers yelled, "To Tripoli! To Tripoli!"

But the army's battle readiness is unclear. It is being cobbled together from defectors from Col. Gadhafi's army, most of whose soldiers were undertrained and poorly equipped, and from volunteers with some army training in a country where all men are compelled to serve.

Rebel commanders pledged to move on Tripoli repeatedly in recent days, but until the convoy was seen passing through Ajdabiya no substantive force appeared to have deployed west. A municipal official in Benghazi said earlier Tuesday that hundreds of young pro-democracy rebels set off in a convoy of their own headed toward the capital after they declared they were fed up with the military's slowness to move themselves. The municipal official said rebel military units were deployed to help protect the youth convoy, not as part of a broader offensive.

Col. Gadhafi's core support remains the elite security brigades, designed to guard against a coup by army conscripts, U.S. officials said. One of Mr. Gadhafi's sons, Khamis, leads the 32nd Brigade, which is Tripoli's main defense.

Control of the elite brigades is concentrated at the top, and the Libyan military doesn't allow lower-ranking officers to make decisions or take initiative. A retired Western military official familiar with the Libyan military command said if the top commanders of the elite brigades defect, the troops underneath them would likely crumble.

Western analysts put the strength of the security force—before the civil war —at between 10,000 and 12,000 men.

The brigades occupying Tripoli have at their command 54 Russian-made tanks and 24 heavy artillery pieces, according to the retired Western military official. Witnesses in Libya said the tanks have been positioned in recent days in a defensive cordon along the southeastern outskirts of the capital.

Unlike members of the regular conscript army, who earn $450 a month, the troops in the regime-protection brigades are well-paid and equipped with modern weaponry. The units have received training from former British officers and within the last three years Khamis Gadhafi completed a commander's course in Russia, according to the retired Western official.

"The whole purpose of these forces has been to keep the leader in his capital," he said. "That's the design and the commanders are people considered the most likely to fulfill this plan."

A relative of a man killed in a February clash between protesters and forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi mourns at the funeral Tuesday in Benghazi.

In addition to the elite brigades, paramilitary forces help secure the capital for Col. Gadhafi. A person familiar with the colonel's inner circle said loyalists from the country's revolutionary committees command many of these paramilitary forces. The committee leaders include business oligarchs who have been rewarded with lucrative state contracts as well as military political commissars.

Over the long term, the new sanctions imposed on Libya will make it difficult for Col. Gadhafi to resupply the elite units.

But current and former officials are skeptical the asset freezes and sanctions will have an immediate effect. Col. Gadhafi may be able to tap black-market sources for short-term armaments needs. Although much of his wealth overseas has been frozen, Col. Gadhafi has access to cash to pay for such purchases.

Col. Gadhafi also has long-time ties with rebels in neighboring Chad, who may be able to supply the Libyan government with arms, circumventing sanctions or a naval blockade. "With billions in cash, there is always somebody he can get something from," said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

More: Link

Ragtag? Hardly.

Cities being taken, retaken, etc. As yet unnamed mercenary providers, western based intelligence services openly intervening. This is full scale war.

Who exactly is backing the opposition? Bet you can trace that money right back to the same old culprits, JP Morgan, GS, Citi, et al. They just won't be so easily found out as they have layers upon layers of proxy banks to cover their trails.

Anyway, now there is enough PR on the issue to give the US a 'blank cheque' and invade. More oil for the behemoth.

One thing is, from a UK slant, this makes the Scots look like Blair's poodles, with Salmon bending over backwards for Blair/Brown and letting go that creep bomber, especially as we're taking their land very soon.

Get used to perpetual war for resources for the rest of your lives. Can't say we all weren't warned of course. This has been in the cards for a while.

UK arms sales to Libya (and the others selling too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

More: Link

Ragtag? Hardly.

Cities being taken, retaken, etc. As yet unnamed mercenary providers, western based intelligence services openly intervening. This is full scale war.

Who exactly is backing the opposition? Bet you can trace that money right back to the same old culprits, JP Morgan, GS, Citi, et al. They just won't be so easily found out as they have layers upon layers of proxy banks to cover their trails.

Anyway, now there is enough PR on the issue to give the US a 'blank cheque' and invade. More oil for the behemoth.

One thing is, from a UK slant, this makes the Scots look like Blair's poodles, with Salmon bending over backwards for Blair/Brown and letting go that creep bomber, especially as we're taking their land very soon.

Get used to perpetual war for resources for the rest of your lives. Can't say we all weren't warned of course. This has been in the cards for a while.

UK arms sales to Libya (and the others selling too)

QUOTE

Libya's opposition is increasingly seeking U.S. military support to push out Col. Gadhafi. Libyan dissidents held meetings with the State Department in Washington this week in which they called for greater logistical support from U.S. and NATO forces, and possibly targeted military strikes on against Col. Gadhafi's air force, tanks and troops.

Big oil (BP, Shell, Total, Exxon) will buy from Libya regardless of who is in control. Adolf Armourdinnerjacket rules the Iranian people with an iron fist and yet the West still buy oil from Iran.

As the Germans say about oil purchase and who you buy from: Machts nicht.

The West will continue to enrich the sheiks and mullahs as they have done for years--how else do you think they have funded their wonderful palaces and lavish lifestyles while the masses live in poverty. No wonder there are revolutions. Sorry, but I am not sympathetic toward the Arab fascist regimes and believe its a good thing that they are falling and if the masses get some help from the West it can't be all bad. Total, Shell, BP etc. are amoral and will buy from whoever takes over so no worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE

Libya's opposition is increasingly seeking U.S. military support to push out Col. Gadhafi. Libyan dissidents held meetings with the State Department in Washington this week in which they called for greater logistical support from U.S. and NATO forces, and possibly targeted military strikes on against Col. Gadhafi's air force, tanks and troops.

Big oil (BP, Shell, Total, Exxon) will buy from Libya regardless of who is in control. Adolf Armourdinnerjacket rules the Iranian people with an iron fist and yet the West still buy oil from Iran.

As the Germans say about oil purchase and who you buy from: Machts nicht.

The West will continue to enrich the sheiks and mullahs as they have done for years--how else do you think they have funded their wonderful palaces and lavish lifestyles while the masses live in poverty. No wonder there are revolutions. Sorry, but I am not sympathetic toward the Arab fascist regimes and believe its a good thing that they are falling and if the masses get some help from the West it can't be all bad. Total, Shell, BP etc. are amoral and will buy from whoever takes over so no worries.

Macht's nicht = Doesn't do it.

Presumably you meant:

Macht nichts = It doesn't matter.

Not the the Germans seem any less concerned than anyone else where their oil comes from, though they do seem to be making more of an effort to wean themselves off the stuff than most.

Edit: And "Libya's opposition is increasingly seeking U.S. military support to push out Col. Gadhafi." sounds like propaganda to me. I get the impression that most of the rebels would rather not have foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Macht's nicht = Doesn't do it.

Presumably you meant:

Macht nichts = It doesn't matter.

Not the the Germans seem any less concerned than anyone else where their oil comes from, though they do seem to be making more of an effort to wean themselves off the stuff than most.

Vielen danke, mein Deutsch is nicht sehr gut.

True. I am hankering after a used Audi A3 1.6FSI that gets the same mileage as most other people's weedy 1.4 litre engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

At a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he had ordered to the Mediterranean the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious-assault ship that typically carries infantrymen and troop-transport helicopters.

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Libya's opposition is increasingly seeking U.S. military support to push out Col. Gadhafi. Libyan dissidents held meetings with the State Department in Washington this week in which they called for greater logistical support from U.S. and NATO forces, and possibly targeted military strikes on against Col. Gadhafi's air force, tanks and troops."

Really? This reeks of BS.

So between organising ad-hoc civil defense, securing oil facilities, provisioning hospitals and disarming the police, rebel leaders have just popped over to Washington from a warzone to parlay with the US!

Or would this be some quickly assembled bunch of Libyan expat conmen, criminals, bull******** and fantasists. Iraqi National Council ring any bells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.pngcashinmattress, on 03 March 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Link

At a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he had ordered to the Mediterranean the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious-assault ship that typically carries infantrymen and troop-transport helicopters.

:lol::lol::lol:

Is the Ponce full of seamen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor Yanks can't do anything right can they. It's pretty clear they'd be excoriated if they did nothing, now they are being excoriated for doing something. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor Yanks can't do anything right can they. It's pretty clear they'd be excoriated if they did nothing, now they are being excoriated for doing something. :rolleyes:

"US stand idly by as Libyan citizens are slaughtered by their leader"
"US invade Libya to remove legitimate regime"

Damned if they do, damned if the don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor Yanks can't do anything right can they. It's pretty clear they'd be excoriated if they did nothing, now they are being excoriated for doing something. :rolleyes:

Well at least the chances of them doing the right thing are significantly higher now that old cuckoo-bananas is no longer in the driving seat. Even if doing the right thing means doing nothing, and possibly costing the present incumbent the next presidential election. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Yanks (aka neo colonial war mongerers) should open up a department for revolutionary affairs which will vet which countries are allowed a revolution or not.

Got an air force base but batter and subdue your population with British and American equipment. Declined.

Got valuable oil fields not under our control with a civil war not a revolution. Pass.

The choices available to that of a regime in its own right.

Anyone falling for this defender of the free stuff should think again. The States and with it its foreign policy is that of a plurocratic neo colonial force of aggression. The only reason you probably don't have this perspective is that you are sat on the 'correct' side of the fence. Ask most South American's or Middle Eastern and they would not see the States in this movie-esque role of the States being a force for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason you probably don't have this perspective is that you are sat on the 'correct' side of the fence. Ask most South American's or Middle Eastern and they would not see the States in this movie-esque role of the States being a force for good.

It also helps that we have a relatively free press that can (to a degree) be trusted, and most of us are educated to a reasonable level, unlike the countries you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Yanks (aka neo colonial war mongerers) should open up a department for revolutionary affairs which will vet which countries are allowed a revolution or not.

Got an air force base but batter and subdue your population with British and American equipment. Declined.

Got valuable oil fields not under our control with a civil war not a revolution. Pass.

The choices available to that of a regime in its own right.

Anyone falling for this defender of the free stuff should think again. The States and with it its foreign policy is that of a plurocratic neo colonial force of aggression. The only reason you probably don't have this perspective is that you are sat on the 'correct' side of the fence. Ask most South American's or Middle Eastern and they would not see the States in this movie-esque role of the States being a force for good.

The two biggest wars since 1914 were as a result of Germany desiring room to expand and to pay back for the first big defeat.

Japan decided it did not want the US to interfere with its invasion of Korea, Burma, Indonesia, China............and in order to maintain the "Rising Sun" over SE Asia it took out the US base in Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Russia invaded Europe twice, 1917 and again in 1944 and decided in the second war mongering attack to remain in full occupation until 1989.

Perhaps those who are so anti-US would have preferred it had the US not "invaded" Britain in 1942 to use it as a base from which to launch an "invasion" of Europe in 1944 to remove our good freind, that nice Mr. Hitler.

Seig heil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also helps that we have a relatively free press that can (to a degree) be trusted, and most of us are educated to a reasonable level, unlike the countries you mention.

Ha ha so people in the 60 or so soveriegn interventions by the States shouldn't mind as they do not have access to Fox News et al?????!

Education is regularly used as a tool for interpreting history as your nation sees fit.

Is that before or after something like wikileaks showing how 'casual' they are with foreign lives. Or is that before or after the perspective of 60 years of aggressive intervention in sovereign affairs.

You are clearly under the impression that the plurocracy that is the States is somehow allowed to meddle in countries for the good of the opporessed. ******, it is purely out of their own neo colonial self interest. Please do not dress the States up as the land of the free or i will vomit over the depressingly incorrect viewpoint. It is a plutocracy run for the benfit of it coporations. If you are so blind as not to see this at play in Iraq i can get back to work and you can watch your hollywood war movies.

It all depends which side of the fence you are on, you clearly lack the perspective of a couple of people i have met who have been on the 'wrong side', try being operated on without anastetics, try seeing a relative being crushed under the wheels of Uncle Sams tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two biggest wars since 1914 were as a result of Germany desiring room to expand and to pay back for the first big defeat.

Japan decided it did not want the US to interfere with its invasion of Korea, Burma, Indonesia, China............and in order to maintain the "Rising Sun" over SE Asia it took out the US base in Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Russia invaded Europe twice, 1917 and again in 1944 and decided in the second war mongering attack to remain in full occupation until 1989.

Perhaps those who are so anti-US would have preferred it had the US not "invaded" Britain in 1942 to use it as a base from which to launch an "invasion" of Europe in 1944 to remove our good freind, that nice Mr. Hitler.

Seig heil?

You refer to the last World War but interestingly omits the half a century of 60 plus soveriegn invasions made by the States since this date. Did Venezuala threaten Florida with WMD?

Please do justify these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team USofA please do justify why the US preaches caution when it comes to Bahrain but it is ok for revolution in other countries? Please enlighten me.

Surely a force of good would not dictate which country should and should not be ‘allowed’ a people’s revolt?? Or is it many misinterpret the type of national and by proxy corporate self interest as being a crusade for democracy and good?!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha so people in the 60 or so soveriegn interventions by the States shouldn't mind as they do not have access to Fox News et al?????!

Education is regularly used as a tool for interpreting history as your nation sees fit.

Is that before or after something like wikileaks showing how 'casual' they are with foreign lives. Or is that before or after the perspective of 60 years of aggressive intervention in sovereign affairs.

You are clearly under the impression that the plurocracy that is the States is somehow allowed to meddle in countries for the good of the opporessed. ******, it is purely out of their own neo colonial self interest. Please do not dress the States up as the land of the free or i will vomit over the depressingly incorrect viewpoint. It is a plutocracy run for the benfit of it coporations. If you are so blind as not to see this at play in Iraq i can get back to work and you can watch your hollywood war movies.

It all depends which side of the fence you are on, you clearly lack the perspective of a couple of people i have met who have been on the 'wrong side', try being operated on without anastetics, try seeing a relative being crushed under the wheels of Uncle Sams tank.

"All states are looking out for their own interests as opposed to the interests of a neighbour who might be a potential invader"

Gaius Virinius

In a dog eat dog world only the fittest survive. Ask Poland--they got it 4 times since 1914--twice by the Germans and twice by the Russians. Ask the Koreans, Burmese, Indonesians and Chinese if they enjoyed being pillaged by Japan in the years running up to their attack on Pearl Harbour. Ask the E Germans if they are pleased to be part of West Germany and the fact that Hitler was removed largely by force byu the US and UK. ask the averga epoor Libyan in the street iof they would like the US and UK to help them rid Quaddafi and see what response you get.

You have a anti-US bias that is based on your interpretation of history. Some see things from a Western perspective. And others just dislike fascists--as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You refer to the last World War but interestingly omits the half a century of 60 plus soveriegn invasions made by the States since this date. Did Venezuala threaten Florida with WMD?

Please do justify these?

Venezualans were being brutalised by yet another fascist regime--I suspect most people who value freedom are pleased to be rid of despots. Notice how that nice Mr. Chavez is trying to save his mate Quaddafi's bacon? Sorry, but I have no time for Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Quaddafi. Chavez, Castro or any other fascist who has felt the hand of the US or the Uk against them.

I suspec the poor Atrab peoples revolting now weill be hijacked by another Mullah of fascist like Saddam as the people will never be free form these evil men. And notice how they always point to the US as to blame for their plight to take the spotlight off themselves. This is why Palestibne is in such poor shape--the Arab elites want it that way to keep the heat of themselves and their lives as playboy billionaires. Scammers, the lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"US stand idly by as Libyan citizens are slaughtered by their leader"
"US invade Libya to remove legitimate regime"

Damned if they do, damned if the don't.

"US stand idly by as Libyan citizens are slaughtered by their leader"
"US invade Libya to remove legitimate regime"

Damned if they do, damned if the don't.

+1000000

This is exactly my view. If the west go in various muslims will say that we're just invading another islamic country, if we don't go in the muslims will complain that we're not defending them.

Look at Kosovo and Kuwait, I don't exactly see many people mentioning what the west did for them in those two wars when they were getting slaughtered. I'm almost thinking that we should just stand by and watch. All the fleeing migrants can be taken in by fellow peace loving countries in the area like Iran, Suadi and Dubai (Jordon and Syria have enough as it is). If they want military help, ask the Sudais as they have more than enough weaponry.

I don't understand why they'd want to come to Europe, after all we're all non-belivers!

I know this fight in libya isn't about religion, but if the west go in it will be turned into one.

On a further note to RBs further posts. Lets look at the parts of the world that arn't f***ed up, erm, thats roughly the western countries and the Asia countries that have been under a heavy US influence. If you want to see how different things could be take a look and North and South Korea and then tell me the USA hasn't been a good country (on the whole) and then look at everything they've done for science on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask the E Germans if they are pleased to be part of West Germany

If you phrased it like that, you probably get a smack in the face.

the fact that Hitler was removed largely by force byu the US and UK.

I think you'll find it was the Russians at the door when Hitler topped himself.

ask the averga epoor Libyan in the street iof they would like the US and UK to help them rid Quaddafi and see what response you get.

They were doing just that in Bhengazi on BBC news, and most of them were saying, "No we want to do it ourselves!" They also had posters up saying, "Foreign armies keep out!" just to make sure the message got through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha so people in the 60 or so soveriegn interventions by the States shouldn't mind as they do not have access to Fox News et al?????!

Education is regularly used as a tool for interpreting history as your nation sees fit.

Is that before or after something like wikileaks showing how 'casual' they are with foreign lives. Or is that before or after the perspective of 60 years of aggressive intervention in sovereign affairs.

You are clearly under the impression that the plurocracy that is the States is somehow allowed to meddle in countries for the good of the opporessed. ******, it is purely out of their own neo colonial self interest. Please do not dress the States up as the land of the free or i will vomit over the depressingly incorrect viewpoint. It is a plutocracy run for the benfit of it coporations. If you are so blind as not to see this at play in Iraq i can get back to work and you can watch your hollywood war movies.

It all depends which side of the fence you are on, you clearly lack the perspective of a couple of people i have met who have been on the 'wrong side', try being operated on without anastetics, try seeing a relative being crushed under the wheels of Uncle Sams tank.

I'm not jumping to the defence of America, just questioning your comments about the "valued" opinion of the indigenous population from poor, dictator-led regimes.

If I was a neutral Libyan, sat at home watching Libyan News at Ten, how do I take Gaddafis statement that the fighting is the result of Bin Laden handing out hallucinogenic drugs to gangs in the east of the country ???

Who would you rather be at the helm of a superpower ? Obama or Gaddafi

I know which one I'd rather have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All states are looking out for their own interests as opposed to the interests of a neighbour who might be a potential invader"

Gaius Virinius

In a dog eat dog world only the fittest survive. Ask Poland--they got it 4 times since 1914--twice by the Germans and twice by the Russians. Ask the Koreans, Burmese, Indonesians and Chinese if they enjoyed being pillaged by Japan in the years running up to their attack on Pearl Harbour. Ask the E Germans if they are pleased to be part of West Germany and the fact that Hitler was removed largely by force byu the US and UK. ask the averga epoor Libyan in the street iof they would like the US and UK to help them rid Quaddafi and see what response you get.

You have a anti-US bias that is based on your interpretation of history. Some see things from a Western perspective. And others just dislike fascists--as I do.

But you are comparing super powers from over 60 years ago to excuse the actions of a neo colonial agressor. Your addition of a Libyian example is proved invalid if you then go to Tripoli - it is a civil war not a revolution.

So every soveriagn nation the US has invaded has been to attack the causes of fascism????? Or is it to further their economic grip on countries/regions................sounds rather like the actions of a fascist state to me but never mind.

Please do remind me how Saddam (you remember the bringer of WMD to our fearful towns and villages) and Al-Qaeda came to prominance?

Please also remind me how many young brits have died in Iraq and Afghan? And then also remind me of the economic position of the UK and US? Perhaps it is time to allow these countries that are in CIVIL WAR (something that has been missed on this thread) to be or allow, as Chavez has intelligently suggested, that a council of of countries mediate as opposed to a ship of innocent 'grunts' take on more deaths and kill more innocent cervilians in the name of corporate.....sorry national security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not jumping to the defence of America, just questioning your comments about the "valued" opinion of the indigenous population from poor, dictator-led regimes.

If I was a neutral Libyan, sat at home watching Libyan News at Ten, how do I take Gaddafis statement that the fighting is the result of Bin Laden handing out hallucinogenic drugs to gangs in the east of the country ???

Who would you rather be at the helm of a superpower ? Obama or Gaddafi

I know which one I'd rather have.

Anthrax in the post anyone? The amount of spin and bluster perpertated by Western media in the name of interventionalist foreign policy is no worse than Gaddafi.

And cutting back to a very simplistic either or playground comparison is too simplistic and a typical method used to install a mandate of fear to justify aggression on foreign soil. Yes Gaddafi is a nutter but not too much of a nutter for us to lick his **** over the last couple of years for various trade deals?????

Again what is happening in Libya is a CIVIL war, the west should have no say in this matter.

Anyone suggesting we should is signing up for more innocent US and UK youngsters to lose their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you phrased it like that, you probably get a smack in the face.

I think you'll find it was the Russians at the door when Hitler topped himself.

They were doing just that in Bhengazi on BBC news, and most of them were saying, "No we want to do it ourselves!" They also had posters up saying, "Foreign armies keep out!" just to make sure the message got through.

Brilliant point. Most on here would appear to want the yanks to roll in and 'kick some ass', they have no right to and ALL of the Libyans (having been on the wrong side of the fence for so long) see them as an imperial agressor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.