Oh, is that the new standard? Well, alright, though it clearly applies to quite a few of the governments out there… For example, notice how well it describes, say, the US-supported Saudi Arabian regime? Despotism - check. Routine torture by security forces - check. Suppression of dissent - check. Growing filthy rich by raping the nation’s resources - check.
Oh dear, looks like your argument forces us into a corner, don’t you think? Tripoli today, Riyadh tomorrow, eh? Or is it acceptable to be a horrible mass-murdering dictatorship as long as you’re America’s lapdog?
You were off topic. I did not jump on you for a single off-topic post, (which I recognize does happen a lot), but because you insisted on keeping your topic bubbling to the surface for no better reason than that you wanted a fight with Finn.
I’m certainly no expert on international relations, but this move seem likely to cause the maximum disruption and least likelhood of an early end to the Libyan rebellion. It currently appears (feel free to correct me) that the Libyan military has sufficient heavy weapons and armor to re-take the remaining rebel-held cities without air support. I suppose the rebels could fight guerilla-style, but all that seems likely to do is extend the bloodshed indefinitely. It seems to me that if some sort of early resolution to this conflict were in the interests of the countries voting on this measure, either letting the rebellion collapse or supporting then with arms would be more to the point. This action makes it seem like the preferred outcome would be a protracted and no doubt highly bloody civil war.
Now I’ll shut up and listen.
ETA: OK, maybe western airstrikes may tip the balance, if they have indeed been authorized.
Of course, a case could be made that the only way to protect civilians effectively in this environment is to strafe/bomb Gaddafi’s trucks, tanks and artillery to smithereens wherever they can be spotted. And his barracks and bases and airfields. And his palaces. And then, releasing the vultures.
I’d really like to know what the hell “The West” said to China to get them to abstain. I really hate agreeing with Commissar, but the totalitarian regimes need to stick together and prevent the “scourge” of representative democracy from determining policy. I guess they could have convinced them that if they veto’d any further loss of civilian life was going to be on their hands, but I’d like to know why China would care about that. I really can’t imagine threatening them with much of anything else, or abstaining being a natural position for China to take. They must feel secure that they have indoctrinated the population sufficiently that there is practically no chance for a similar revolution, and that they have shown the people good sustainable economic growth is possible as long as you endure the oppression of a totalitarian government that doesn’t care about your individual rights.
I don’t think China is afraid that something similar could happen to them, they’re much too powerful for a foreign intervention like that. They might be afraid of their people getting ideas, but they work hard at controlling the message internally.
Awesome. I’m still worried that even air strikes will be too little, too late. But perhaps the broad mandate and the firepower available to the free nations of the world who’re involved in defending Libya’s people will tip the scales.
unless you authorize a hunting expedition with A-10’s it’s going to be another Kosovo. Buses were mistaken for tanks because of the altitude we operated at.
I think it would be better to make it an all or nothing manefesto. If any aircraft are launched they will be shot down and then we automatically go after every air base, radar site and missile launcher.
If we get sucked into a protracted baby sitting job then mistakes are going to happen. There is no upside to our presence there.
Yes, I realize that your favored outcome has come to pass, my friend; there is no need to shout about it.
As most of you will have guessed, I am highly disappointed in this turn of events. I condemn this resolution, and I condemn both Russia and the People’s Republic for failing to stop it (though, as has been pointed out, we know not their real reasons for this).
At this point, I have only two statements to make:
(1) Politics notwithstanding, this is the worst result possible for the people of Libya. A halt in hostilities will effectively split the nation in two, which will benefit neither of the sides.
(2) I have read reports that the Libyan government may currently possess modern Russian-made anti-aircraft weaponry. I hope to Lenin that this is true. May the aerial warships of the West burn in the glorious fire of Libyan sovereignty.
China operates a very, very public and a very long standing ‘non-interference’ policy. They are also especially adamant about zero support for rebellions, insurgencies and new countries as it sets a bad precedent against their own policies.
That said, I feel like the more they become involved in the world, the more their top boys acknowledge that they might have to start playing ball a different way and while non-interference is their prime directive, it can be unofficially bent behind the scenes while maintaining the official desired appearance of non-involvement. I suppose that is the great ambiguous power of abstaining.
Gadaffii may be on a roll at the moment but the conflict could very well drag on for quite awhile disrupting the stability China craves. I don’t think they give a shit who they deal with, as long as things are calm. Could be they view a no-fly zone the quickest route to settling in some manner.
First off, it’s not my “favored outcome.” That would be for Qaddafi to not murder people in his country for having the temerity to demand they be treated as humans.
Next, given your propensity for pretending a statement means exactly the opposit of its one and only possible meaning, yes, there obviously is a need to shout, or otherwise make apparent to you, the essential facts of an issue.
Maybe they’re tired of the embarrassments that come from supporting Qaddafi at the moment.
Not being dead is the worst possible result? Interesting viewpoint, that.
Wow. Whoever said you like the verbiage of the Soviet rhetoric sure pegged that. Sadly, that rhetoric bore little, if any, resemblance to reality. And that glorious fire of Libyan sovereignty? That would be the people of Libya exerting that, would it not? Seems to me, along with plenty of other observers, that the people of Libya are doing just that and the person they’re rebelling against is hiring more thugs (you know, those non-Libyans) to murder Libyan civilians.
