TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Libya Situation
Pages (30): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »

He hasn't left the country, according to CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by narcism Gadafi has left the county, the bombs are falling

If that's true, what a fucking coward!

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker And the U.S. State Department ordered all U.S. citizens out, too. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we sent in some jets to scuttle their military after what I've been hearing and seeing coming out of there. Bombing civilians is pretty sick.

This is fucked, but i would prefer the US not to get involved. Us involvement has never ended in anything except disaster (imo) at worst, and a WAY too long involvement in the country at best...

They don't like just 'helping', they like to take control... and would the US killing even more civilians with their bombs really help anyone?

Interesting article
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/post...e_libyan_horror

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII This is fucked, but i would prefer the US not to get involved. Us involvement has never ended in anything except disaster (imo) at worst, and a WAY too long involvement in the country at best... They don't like just 'helping', they like to take control... and would the US killing even more civilians with their bombs really help anyone?

We need to do more than just sit here saying, "Bad Army! Don't commit genocide on your own people!"

Talking about bad consequences of getting involved, what will happen when a new government gets formed and they had to fight against their own army and they know that Europe and the U.S. did nothing to help? They're going to be pissed. I've already seen stuff from protesters begging for Western help against the army.

The U.N. should go in. At a very minimum blow up their air bases.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII This is fucked, but i would prefer the US not to get involved. Us involvement has never ended in anything except disaster (imo) at worst, and a WAY too long involvement in the country at best... They don't like just 'helping', they like to take control... and would the US killing even more civilians with their bombs really help anyone?

You're probably right, even though I'm thinking the U.S. could manage to target only military installations. Sadly, if you take away the Libyan military, you're left with a bunch of armed tribes whose ambitions have been kept in check with the current regime. It's threatening to topple without our help and I could go either way concerning our involvement, but if it makes matters worse, it shouldn't be done, at all.

I'm also quite leery about any other involvement past air-strikes. We have a rather poor track record, maintaining boots on the ground, and there's no stomach for more of that in America, let alone elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You're probably right, even though I'm thinking the U.S. could manage to target only military installations. Sadly, if you take away the Libyan military, you're left with a bunch of armed tribes whose ambitions have been kept in check with the current regime. It's threatening to topple without our help and I could go either way concerning our involvement, but if it makes matters worse, it shouldn't be done, at all. I'm also quite leery about any other involvement past air-strikes. We have a rather poor track record, maintaining boots on the ground, and there's no stomach for more of that in America, let alone elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews We need to do more than just sit here saying, "Bad Army! Don't commit genocide on your own people!" Talking about bad consequences of getting involved, what will happen when a new government gets formed and they had to fight against their own army and they know that Europe and the U.S. did nothing to help? They're going to be pissed. I've already seen stuff from protesters begging for Western help against the army. The U.N. should go in. At a very minimum blow up their air bases.

Of course the inclination is to help, I don't think that's bad at all. But, knowing the history of international involvement fairly well, it is better if individual states mind their own business imo.

UN going in would be a good idea, but I personally don't believe individual states (US) should involve themselves in other state's business, because they always make it THEIR business, instead of trying to help with the other countrie's business... very bad wording here, but the US never offers aid, it offers US support... might be a subtle difference for some, but its extremely important.

again, i completely understand the desire to help, but I don't think one country sending military aid is ever going to be helpful. Road to hell paved with good intentions and all that... there's just not one case I can think of where individual states have helped other states... Do tell me if you can think of one though?

good point about an army-less state too Eddie: That would be pretty fucked...

http://www.livestation.com/channels...jazeera_english

Qatar asking for international help, time for the UN & NATO to step up.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Of course the inclination is to help, I don't think that's bad at all. But, knowing the history of international involvement fairly well, it is better if individual states mind their own business imo. UN going in would be a good idea, but I personally don't believe individual states (US) should involve themselves in other state's business, because they always make it THEIR business, instead of trying to help with the other countrie's business... very bad wording here, but the US never offers aid, it offers US support... might be a subtle difference for some, but its extremely important. again, i completely understand the desire to help, but I don't think one country sending military aid is ever going to be helpful. Road to hell paved with good intentions and all that... there's just not one case I can think of where individual states have helped other states... Do tell me if you can think of one though? good point about an army-less state too Eddie: That would be pretty fucked...

This is shaping up to be Obama's version of Somalia/Bosnia Herzegovina. It's a little more complicated than staying out of or intruding in someone's business with roads to hell in both directions. I do think, at this point, military intervention should be under-taken but, in my opinion, there is an envelope closing for which such an action will cease to be more useful than its consequences, dire.

I'm not talking about a full-scale invasion but enough hurt to take the wind out of the military's operation which would be to impose a strategic defeat by air-power only. Beyond that, there will eventually be a requirement for having boots on the ground, in that country, with the UN and Arab countries playing a dominant role - not the U.S.

There's almost little point, however, in doing anything unless the requirement for U.N. assistance is secured and air attacks can begin quickly enough to stop the violence before the Libyan military achieves its objectives.

Even the Libyan UN Delegation is asking for the UN to step in, saying otherwise it will be Genocide.

when oil moves up 7$ in one day, you know its serious.

By wednesday oil will actually be up almost 12 dollars due to the nature of future contracts expiring. spot price will follow i presume. In my two years tracking commodity movement i've never seen anything like this.

quote:

Originally posted by narcism http://www.livestation.com/channels...jazeera_english Qatar asking for international help, time for the UN & NATO to step up.

Libyan diplomats are quitting.

Gaddafi video released stating he is still in Libya, al-jezeera doubting it.

I believe he's going to fall before the end of the week. If the diplomats are quitting, the Libyan UN delegation no longer supports him and even his own army seems to be crumbling, I doubt this will take too long.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker This is shaping up to be Obama's version of Somalia/Bosnia Herzegovina. It's a little more complicated than staying out of or intruding in someone's business with roads to hell in both directions. I do think, at this point, military intervention should be under-taken but, in my opinion, there is an envelope closing for which such an action will cease to be more useful than its consequences, dire. I'm not talking about a full-scale invasion but enough hurt to take the wind out of the military's operation which would be to impose a strategic defeat by air-power only. Beyond that, there will eventually be a requirement for having boots on the ground, in that country, with the UN and Arab countries playing a dominant role - not the U.S. There's almost little point, however, in doing anything unless the requirement for U.N. assistance is secured and air attacks can begin quickly enough to stop the violence before the Libyan military achieves its objectives.

Great points. To challenge my own pozt, in times like this, the US as sole superpower is always going to look bad, from over or under action...

Thank goodness the rest of the libyan gov isnt as crazy as its head

This shit is moving so quick!!

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII This shit is moving so quick!!

I hereby resend my assertion about this being Obama's dilemma. The British want to have a meeting, tonight, and invoke section 7. Apparently, Libyan ships are firing on Tripoli, too. Shit has officially hit the fan.




EDIT: And apparently Al Jazeera's getting hammered, on-line. I know I'm watching it. Thanks, Narcism.

There will be a special spot for you in Hell Qaddafi

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen There will be a special spot for you in Hell Qaddafi

He deserves no less than a pit where he is spat upon until he drowns.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker The British want to have a meeting, tonight, and invoke section 7.

Forgive my ignorance. What is section 7, exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Forgive my ignorance. What is section 7, exactly?

I can't find it, on UN's shitty website but it was used in the context of calling for a meeting of the security council. I was just reporting what I heard. In light of that, it's you who should pardon my ignorance while I seek its remedy.


I believe it's this:

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Cool, thanks.

Heavy shit

UN council to hold 'closed door' meeting

FUCKING HELL

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Cool, thanks. Heavy shit

heavier than Great Dane shit?

on a positive note, its good that it is all moving pretty quick- I hope the UN can skip the shit (for once in their existence), and get in there quickly!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.