UN clears way for Libya no-fly zone

[Zeron]

Gadaffi.

I dont know what is the correct way to spell his name I see Khaddaffi,Ghaddaffi and Qaddaffi all over different media sources.....

[antron]

Gadaffi.

I dont know what is the correct way to spell his name I see Khaddaffi,Ghaddaffi and Qaddaffi all over different media sources.....

something like 35 used spellings. no one knows exactly how to spell his name, thus this is the source of all his power. if we could only find the true spelling he would be defeated.

[Observer]

Indeed, we just write his real name on that Death Note we safely keep in a hidden chamber...

But yeah, the name is written with K in most spanish media.

[BIL]

I've always written it "Cataffy," which is the spelling he used in the NES port of Metal Gear.

[cul]

This will be a disaster that sends the country into civil war


Sure for the most part it seems that the eastern part of the country hates Qaddafi but the western part for the most part supports him, lets say they oust and arrest Qaddafi then what? These pro Qaddafi guys will all just surrender and give up? yeah right..

Lybia has a long tradition of tribes wars that only stopped temporarly with Gaddafi's rules, kinda like Iraq constant state of civil war stopped during Saddam Hussein and restarted as soon as we went there.

That's also why talking about "what the Lybian people want is X" doesn't mean anything, cause there are very different Lybian people, to be quick, you could split Lybia in two main groups, west Tripolitania that is home of Gaddafi, where the people are mainly backing him up, and east Cyeranica, that the west is supporting.



So the situation is always more complex than the usual "hurp durp, the west is helping Lybian people who all want to be free!" media storytelling.


Also because I'm french, I can't stop laughing at the western leaders and especially "my president"'s (thank god I'm not living in France anymore, but I still feel ashamed) hypocrisy since the no-fly zone event.

Because what most media commentators seem to forget, is that since mid 90ies, Gaddafi was one of the best ally for the west (exactly like Saddam), media commentators seem to forget that less than 5 years ago, we even wanted to sell him nuclear plants because he was such a nice guy.

And I'm not even going to bother to find the same kind of bs by the different US administrations. In short, exactly the same BS they're serving us with Arabia, Yemen or Barhain today: "don't worry, they're totally fine regimes, and if they're not democratic enough, at least they're not Al Qaida!".


Western's foreign policy is really a fucking joke. I'm filled with joy when I see Hillary Clinton welcomed like the hypocrite piece of shit she is by the Tunisian people.

[Jockel]

Gadaffi.

I dont know what is the correct way to spell his name I see Khaddaffi,Ghaddaffi and Qaddaffi all over different media sources.....

something like 35 used spellings. no one knows exactly how to spell his name, thus this is the source of all his power. if we could only find the true spelling he would be defeated.

Seriously? In German Media, i've never read something besides Gadaffi.

[Ganelon]

Arabic is like Japanese if romaji was one of a dozen accepted romanization systems. ehssupu-Garoodduh for the win.

[Skykid]

The main headline on tonights news is that the US has said it doesn't want to be the front man for this situation, and that it will be taking a back seat to 'allow the other countries a chance to show they can handle the situation'.

Sounds to me like Obama looked in the White House wallet and had an 'oh shit' moment.

[antron]

Also, advancing rebels will not receive protection as they are not considered civilians.

[tinotormed]

Gadaffi.

I dont know what is the correct way to spell his name I see Khaddaffi,Ghaddaffi and Qaddaffi all over different media sources.....

Or more like:
Voilaffi, Sandaffi, Jakaffi, Galaffi, or Hadaffi

[Stormwatch]

The only "canon" spelling is: معمر القذافي

Wikipedia uses "Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi" ("Muammar Gaddafi" for short), and explains the transliteration issues.

[gct]

I've always written it "Cataffy," which is the spelling he used in the NES port of Metal Gear.

It was Khadafi in Scorched Earth

[antron]

Lybia has a long tradition of tribes wars that only stopped temporarly with Gaddafi's rules, kinda like Iraq constant state of civil war stopped during Saddam Hussein and restarted as soon as we went there.

I don't recall any rebels taking over half of Iraq (albeit for a short time) and asking us for help.

That's also why talking about "what the Lybian people want is X" doesn't mean anything, cause there are very different Lybian people, to be quick, you could split Lybia in two main groups, west Tripolitania that is home of Gaddafi, where the people are mainly backing him up, and east Cyeranica, that the west is supporting.

The significant city of Misurata is deep in the Tripolitania region. Right now all Gaddafi can do there is plant cells to snipe civilians.

So the situation is always more complex than the usual "hurp durp, the west is helping Lybian people who all want to be free!" media storytelling.

The media is also showing Gaddafi's supporters in Tripoli.

Also because I'm french, I can't stop laughing at the western leaders and especially "my president"'s (thank god I'm not living in France anymore, but I still feel ashamed) hypocrisy since the no-fly zone event.

Because France is not ruled by a tyrant dictator, I believe hypocrisy is not the word you are looking for. It's inconsistency.

Because what most media commentators seem to forget, is that since mid 90ies, Gaddafi was one of the best ally for the west (exactly like Saddam), media commentators seem to forget that less than 5 years ago, we even wanted to sell him nuclear plants because he was such a nice guy.

hindsight is 20/20. but I don't think the US liked him until after 9/11 and he provided anti "islamofascist" support.

And I'm not even going to bother to find the same kind of bs by the different US administrations. In short, exactly the same BS they're serving us with Arabia, Yemen or Barhain today: "don't worry, they're totally fine regimes, and if they're not democratic enough, at least they're not Al Qaida!".

Western's foreign policy is really a fucking joke. I'm filled with joy when I see Hillary Clinton welcomed like the hypocrite piece of shit she is by the Tunisian people.

It's real simple. There are cities in Libya that didn't want to wiped out by Tripoli. The tanks were rolling in. We blew them up to save the cities. There is nothing like that happening in the countries you mention. Bad stuff yes, but nothing we can do anything about. Looks like Yemen is going the way of Egypt. Barhain seems to be part of Arabia, and Arabia is a real can of worms. I bet you buy their gas all the time.

[dcharlie]

Arabic is like Japanese if romaji was one of a dozen accepted romanization systems.

there ARE several romaji systems! hence all the complete DRAMA over YOSSYS ISLAND and massive internet (and off board) mongs INSISTING on then pronouncing it "Yossseeee"

but anyways, we've been through that several times and wrong people are wrong.

re: Libya : i have completely failed to follow this entire situation at all - i've no idea what is going on.

[JoshF]

I think it would be Qaddafi
معمر القذافي
Arabic names have this problem. There are loads of ways to spell Arabic in English. This actually makes it difficult to catch suspicious ppl, and there are systems design to analyze names in a certain way to compare them with reference lists (for example eliminating all vowels).

[austere]

That's also why talking about "what the Lybian people want is X" doesn't mean anything, cause there are very different Lybian people, to be quick, you could split Lybia in two main groups, west Tripolitania that is home of Gaddafi, where the people are mainly backing him up, and east Cyeranica, that the west is supporting.

The overall plan they're winging out at the moment is to partition Libya into several parts, perhaps even what you have on that map there. As long as there exists a segment with a most of the oil (I'm told the west of Libya does) and minimal population, it becomes more profitable to corruptly control it. Less people to feed you see, with Ghaddafi, he had to be able to import all he did (and though he's an ugly, cowardly piece of shit, he did genuinely build up his country) so he embezzled less fiat money (which, as you see, has now been confiscated -- trust me the Libyans won't see it back in any shape or form except possibly as weapons sold to them at inflated prices).

So the recipe is: weaken both sides and obtain a stalemate. Then remove your men and call for "dialog". Finally, push for your "solution" (by force if necessary) and enjoy the profit.

Western's foreign policy is really a fucking joke. I'm filled with joy when I see Hillary Clinton welcomed like the hypocrite piece of shit she is by the Tunisian people.

I know what you mean, but in truth, it's only a joke to people who can't read between the lines, otherwise it's rather successful considering how many nations have been raped and pillaged through lies, deceit and firepower (if it ever comes to it). If you take their statements at face value, of course, it's a joke. Obama's political phrase "change you can believe in" has a simple english translation which is "change which you have to believe in, because it won't actually happen", lol. I guess they'll need to give him a Nobel prize in humanitarian bombing now.

On that note, I wonder when they'll strike the infrastructure next, gotta have some projects for those multinationals to snap up.

[DragonInstall]

If you take their statements at face value, of course, it's a joke. Obama's political phrase "change you can believe in" has a simple english translation which is "change which you have to believe in, because it won't actually happen", lol. I guess they'll need to give him a Nobel prize in humanitarian bombing now.

lmao. Probably the most humorous thing I've read in awhile. Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if he got a Nobel prize for it too.

[cul]

I know what you mean, but in truth, it's only a joke to people who can't read between the lines, otherwise it's rather successful considering how many nations have been raped and pillaged through lies, deceit and firepower (if it ever comes to it). If you take their statements at face value, of course, it's a joke. Obama's political phrase "change you can believe in" has a simple english translation which is "change which you have to believe in, because it won't actually happen", lol. I guess they'll need to give him a Nobel prize in humanitarian bombing now.

On that note, I wonder when they'll strike the infrastructure next, gotta have some projects for those multinationals to snap up.

How dare you mock the only respectable US president since Bill Clinton, after all, he stopped Afghan and Iraq wars, and made Pakistan a safer place!

Hasn't he?

Anyway, to all the people supporting this intervention, can you find me at least ONE example in history when a foreign intervention made things better, and didn't triggered decades long civil wars?

It's real simple. There are cities in Libya that didn't want to wiped out by Tripoli. The tanks were rolling in. We blew them up to save the cities. There is nothing like that happening in the countries you mention. Bad stuff yes, but nothing we can do anything about. Looks like Yemen is going the way of Egypt. Barhain seems to be part of Arabia, and Arabia is a real can of worms. I bet you buy their gas all the time.

Yes you're right, armless civilians protestators being shot in Bahrain by regular troops and by Saudia troops is really different from Lybia indeed. We can indeed do nothing because they're our good friends. Like usual.

If you really believe that we went to Lybia to "protect the people", excuse me, but you're really naive, naive like the people who voted for Obama and thought that it would make any difference in foreign policy, naive like the people who blindly believe what corporate media are telling us (ho fuck, I'm turning into a leftist anti corporate hippie)...


Seriously, we heard the SAME SHIT with Afghanistan and Iraq : "we're here for the people, we're stopping a slaughter". Was it still worth it? Couple of years later, those countries objective situation is far worse than it was before we went there, but at least we're now controlling the oil. But no no, Lybia is different, we doo eeet for the peeeple.

Sure. If we really do it for the people, then why in 30 years haven't we done anything in Palestine? Why aren't we intervening right now in Ivory Coast, where a dictator who lost a presidential election, is openly preparing an ethnic cleaning of Abidjan. Why aren't we freeing people in Qatar, Saudia, Burma, North Korea, Kazakhstan, [...]?

[Zeron]

North Korea,

You see North Korea has nukes no one dares to do anything against them a few months ago they freaking bombarded their neighbour which would have resulted in war pretty much anywhere but hey North Korea has nukes so they can do whatever the fuck they want, people crack jokes about them etc how terrible of a country they are but in the end they are such a little country with a small population but they can bend the will of all major powers just because they have the nuke.

[austere]

You see North Korea has no oil

Fixed (joking). But seriously, you're misquoting me there (also how about the other examples he listed as well as Congo, Bahrain and Yemen, etc. etc. etc.).

[BPzeBanshee]

You see North Korea has no oil

Fixed (joking). But seriously, you're misquoting me there (also how about the other examples he listed as well as Congo, Bahrain and Yemen, etc. etc. etc.).

Not that I agree with his taking quotes out of context, but the guy's got a point though - The Cold War's dead and gone, yet America's doing fuckall to the countries that really do need intervention due to one reason: MAD theory.

If North Korea and Iran didn't have nukes America would've invaded them by now as well. And if America didn't invade North Korea there'd certainly be a war of some sort between it and the other countries in Asia (probably Japan, since China supports NK, and I doubt SK would have the balls to go to war with NK again).

[Obiwanshinobi]

Anyway, to all the people supporting this intervention, can you find me at least ONE example in history when a foreign intervention made things better, and didn't triggered decades long civil wars?

World War I
World War II
At the cost of the allies selling quite a few nations into subjugation to uncle Stalin, but wars in Europe died out for a number of decades.

[antron]

Anyway, to all the people supporting this intervention, can you find me at least ONE example in history when a foreign intervention made things better, and didn't triggered decades long civil wars?

Kosovo

edit: I admit not everyone would agree that it was a success, but many do.

Yes you're right, armless civilians protestators being shot in Bahrain by regular troops and by Saudia troops is really different from Lybia indeed. We can indeed do nothing because they're our good friends. Like usual.

Is there an armed and motivated opposition on the ground to support there? Like say, Kosovo? This is the difference I was refering to. It would be nice if we could help everyone, but it's not always physically possible.

If you really believe that we went to Lybia to "protect the people", excuse me, but you're really naive, naive like the people who voted for Obama and thought that it would make any difference in foreign policy, naive like the people who blindly believe what corporate media are telling us (ho fuck, I'm turning into a leftist anti corporate hippie)...

Seriously, we heard the SAME SHIT with Afghanistan and Iraq : "we're here for the people, we're stopping a slaughter". Was it still worth it? Couple of years later, those countries objective situation is far worse than it was before we went there, but at least we're now controlling the oil. But no no, Lybia is different, we doo eeet for the peeeple.

There already is a very big difference in our forign policy. This has the support of the UN and Arab League (are they in it for the oil too?). Bush would have gone alone. And no, you didn't hear the same shit in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan we went in response to an attack on our soil. I'll concieved, but justified. Iraq was also sold as a preemptive act of self defense. Total bullshit, but that's how they sold it.
The "spread democracy" thing was made up after the fact.

edit: but "helping the people there" probably was thrown on top with other reasons for attacking. It always is.

Sure. If we really do it for the people, then why in 30 years haven't we done anything in Palestine? Why aren't we intervening right now in Ivory Coast, where a dictator who lost a presidential election, is openly preparing an ethnic cleaning of Abidjan. Why aren't we freeing people in Qatar, Saudia, Burma, North Korea, Kazakhstan, [...]?

By your logic we should never attempt anything noble because we failed to do so in the past. Nice. Once again, is there an armed and motivated opposition who we are comfortable supporting in those countries?

[cul]

Anyway, to all the people supporting this intervention, can you find me at least ONE example in history when a foreign intervention made things better, and didn't triggered decades long civil wars?

World War I
World War II
At the cost of the allies selling quite a few nations into subjugation to uncle Stalin, but wars in Europe died out for a number of decades.

WW1 and 2 weren't civil wars, they were conflicts between sovereign nations, not an intervention in internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

Kosovo

edit: I admit not everyone would agree that it was a success, but many do.

The many who do, are everything but people who know what is going on there. Kosovo is one of the most corrupt country in europe, where ministers are even linked to organ traffics. That country has become the number one destination for mafia's money laundering. And as for the war, there's actually a lot of Albanians, Kosovars, etc here in switzerland, and one of my friend comes from there, I can tell you that NOTHING is solved there, the conflict is just on hold.

There already is a very big difference in our forign policy. This has the support of the UN and Arab League (are they in it for the oil too?).

They're in because they see Gadaffi as a menace, a guy that could do the same thing that Saddam did to Kuwait when the US stopped backing him up. Like most Arabs leaders want an open war with Iran (just check wikileaks). Besides, what is the Arab League? A league of some of the most oppressed countries in the world, a league of nations under the control of a few families living off the oil rent while the vast majority of their citizens can barely eat. That's fucking nice.

Btw, it's just for show, they haven't had a single plane above Lybia yet, and they won't.

In a way you're right, there's a change in foreign policy since Obama got elected: it's even worse, just checking what is happening in Pakistan, where they publicly paid blood money for a CIA agent, in a country where Islamic fundamentalism is raising, a country that got nukes. Good job indeed.

By your logic we should never attempt anything noble because we failed to do so in the past. Nice. Once again, is there an armed and motivated opposition who we are comfortable supporting in those countries?

No it has nothing to do with my logic, it's fact, countries NEVER get in war for noble causes. Both time USA got involved in WW1 and 2, it was because they were attacked, it was to defend their interest, the whole nation and its leader was against any involvement.

Must I remind you all the CIA funded coup d'états in South America, to install authoritarian regimes?

Just because you've got a democrat in the white house doesn't mean foreign policy is more noble.

[austere]

Must I remind you all the CIA funded coup d'états in South America, to install authoritarian regimes?

Never forget September 11...

... 1973.

[cul]

Must I remind you all the CIA funded coup d'états in South America, to install authoritarian regimes?

Never forget September 11...

... 1973.

Hahahaha, I say that every year during 9/11.

[antron]

Kosovo

edit: I admit not everyone would agree that it was a success, but many do.

The many who do, are everything but people who know what is going on there. Kosovo is one of the most corrupt country in europe, where ministers are even linked to organ traffics. That country has become the number one destination for mafia's money laundering. And as for the war, there's actually a lot of Albanians, Kosovars, etc here in switzerland, and one of my friend comes from there, I can tell you that NOTHING is solved there, the conflict is just on hold.

really? do they still have mass graves filling up with men and boys? all the women in the village still being raped? just on hold? so you think that even in Europe if two groups hate each other enough to carry out genocide we should just let them?

[Obiwanshinobi]

WW1 and 2 weren't civil wars, they were conflicts between sovereign nations, not an intervention in internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

How's that any better reason for a foreign intervention than 9/11 and possible future terrorist assaults on your own turf? How are sovereign nations twatting each other on some distant continent any more of America's business?

[cul]

WW1 and 2 weren't civil wars, they were conflicts between sovereign nations, not an intervention in internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

How's that any better reason for a foreign intervention than 9/11 and possible future terrorist assaults on your own turf? How are sovereign nations twatting each other on some distant continent any more of America's business?

What did Iraq had to do with 9/11? Ho WMD? Yeah right, still looking for them.

Kosovo

edit: I admit not everyone would agree that it was a success, but many do.

The many who do, are everything but people who know what is going on there. Kosovo is one of the most corrupt country in europe, where ministers are even linked to organ traffics. That country has become the number one destination for mafia's money laundering. And as for the war, there's actually a lot of Albanians, Kosovars, etc here in switzerland, and one of my friend comes from there, I can tell you that NOTHING is solved there, the conflict is just on hold.

really? do they still have mass graves filling up with men and boys? all the women in the village still being raped? just on hold? so you think that even in Europe if two groups hate each other enough to carry out genocide we should just let them?

You really don't get the point.

[neorichieb1971]

Is Gadaffi still alive?

Surely even if he is, he is definitely screwed in the ass sideways. Where is this hell war he was talking about?