M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Why is a UN sponsored, NATO led force in Libya? They aren't Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Resolution 1973 wasn’t passed till the 17th of march, and air strikes didn’t start till the 19th…….. Resolution 1973 is a continuation of resolution 1970, passed feb 26 Ben Ali & Mubarak never threatened nationalisation of western companies……. There goes the price of tinfoil again ....keep dissembling... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Turkey is a member of NATO, and they share a boarder with Syria…….not too mention, Israel & Cyprus, both closer to Syria than Libya is to Italy. I don't recall Turkey offering the use of its airbases..nor do I recall when Israel and Cyprus joined NATO....or are you seriously, incredulously suggesting attacks against Ba'athist regime be launched from Israel? That would go over well with the Arab League... ...pass the kool-aid Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 They aren't Is not Libyan airspace a continuation of Libyan territory? Resolution 1973 is a continuation of resolution 1970, passed feb 26 Whats the difference between the two resolutions? There goes the price of tinfoil again....keep dissembling... Did either nations leaders threaten western owned companies? I assume you concede your other poorly thought out points? Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 The United States faces a daily deluge of refugees from Cuba and Mexico…. They’re a NATO ally, should we conduct air strikes there? :lol: Mexican refugees.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I don't recall Turkey offering the use of its airbases..nor do I recall when Israel and Cyprus joined NATO....or are you seriously, incredulously suggesting attacks against Ba'athist regime be launched from Israel? That would go over well with the Arab League... ...pass the kool-aid Turkey was never asked……. The Israeli forgein Minster has called on the west to take similar action in Syria and Iran As for not being in NATO, neither are the Arab countries that were initially involved in the Libyan no-fly-zone…… Israel has already launched strikes on a suspected Syrian (North Korean built) WMD facility……the Arab league’s response……who cares. Quote
William Ashley Posted June 22, 2011 Author Report Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Why libya and not Tunisia? Why Libya and not Egypt? Why Libya and not Algeria? Part of the answer is timing....spring came fast and Tunisia finished fast. Part of the answer is severity....egypt's violence was minor in comparison to Libya. Part of the answer are ramifications. Itay is facing a daily deluge of refugees from Libya. Italy is also dependant on buying Libyan oil. The civil war affected this. Part of the answer is ability....Libya proximity to Europe allows All nato to launch attacks from Italy...where as Syria would necessitate the action be almost entirely american. Part of the answer is timing. Libya started around feb 15..Syria march 15th I find it funny on the --- Entirely American.... Syria is just south of Turkey you know that Islamic country that is part of NATO... and almost the EU... Really I think this is about provoking the destruction of precious Israel... its like having a hostage on every border. Fact is though Turkey has already violated Syrian sovreignty by breaking international law in illegal shipments across the border. Israel also has conducted bombing runs in Syria.. it is still there.. what is to say if Nato did it would be any different? The real issue is http://www.npr.org/2011/06/22/137350883/is-syria-losing-another-ally <-- that and nothing else. Edited June 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Is not Libyan airspace a continuation of Libyan territory? One is above the other. We are not in Libya. We are above it.... Whats the difference between the two resolutions? One is the beginning of the other... 27. Affirms that it shall keep the Libyan authorities’ actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures contained in this resolution, including the strengthening, modification, suspension or lifting of the measures, as may be needed at any time in light of the Libyan authorities’ compliance with relevant provisions of this resolution; 28. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter And shatters your suggestion that the date of 1973 is somehow relevant... Did either nations leaders threaten western owned companies? Nothing substantial...Canada has made threats too....are there any bombs coming? I assume you concede your other poorly thought out points? Turkey is a member of NATO, and they share a boarder with Syria…….not too mention, Israel & Cyprus, both closer to Syria than Libya is to Italy. :lol: Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
William Ashley Posted June 22, 2011 Author Report Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Why is a UN sponsored, NATO led force in Libya? Well technically there is a problem because of the UN resolution and the absence of recognizing the country they are suppose to be protecting.. read the resolution then read who they recognize as being in control of the territory... illegal acts much? The definition of no fly zone and bombing tripoi and other areas where civilians arn't threatened or in support of the rebels is an issue... since there are no civilians to support there.. they support gadaffi.. how are they protecting civilians by bombing them? http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution Natos mission does not equal the UN resolution. The US president is at risk of impeachment over his continued support for undeclared acts of war (beyond the statutory limits). Canada has gone as far as I can tell way over and above resolution 1973 other countries may also feel that way. The law isn't at issue here and the operation is causing mass injuries rather than preventing them potentially.. (that one is written by history it is hard to say less people would be maimed and killed if Nato didn't support the rebels. "The Benghazi-based Transitional National Council refers to the Libyan state as the Libyan Republic" I think it is important to recognize that there is the establisment of a new state in the whole deal - ONE THE UN HASN'T RECOGNIZED... . The resolution called for a CEASEFIRE not the establishment of a new state. The rebels are (potentially) in violation of the constitution article 4 The whole thing comes down to this Article 18 [Revolutionary Command Council]The Revolutionary Command Council constitutes the supreme authority in the Libyan Arab Republic. It will exercise the powers attached to national sovereignty, promulgate laws and decrees, decide in the name of the people the general policy of the State, and make all decisions it deems necessary for the protection of the Revolution and the regime. As the government fractured somewhat.. you'd have to take a look at who was part of the revolutionary command council... However Gadaffi is apprently the chairman so depending on those powers there is a bit of a question of the decision making powers of the council and discharge and role of the chairman as opposed to other memebers such as Jalil. Well Jalil is (or was) a member of cabinet.. not sure on the RCC here is a list from wikipedia Maj General. Abdul Salam Jalloud (removed from the council in 1993) Maj General. Beshir al-Saghir Hawady Maj General. Mukthar Abdullah al-Gerwy (resigned during the Libyan civil war) Capt. Abdul Moniem al-Taher el-Huny Capt. Mustafa al-Kharuny Gen Khouidli Hamidi Capt. Muhammad Nejm Gen. Awad Ali Hamza Maj General Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr Capt. Omar Abdullah al-Meheishy Lt. Muhammad Abu Bakr al-Quarrif Edited June 23, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Turkey was never asked…… Neither was italy, they offered.. Italy has offered the use of seven military bases to enforce the U.N.-authorized no-fly zone over Libya and protect Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi’s troops. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-buildup-for-libya-mounts-at-italian-bases-031911/ The Israeli forgein Minster has called on the west to take similar action in Syria and Iran Irrelevant As for not being in NATO, neither are the Arab countries that were initially involved in the Libyan no-fly-zone…… CAIRO — The Arab League asked the United Nations Security Council on Saturday to impose a no-flight zone over Libya in hopes of halting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s attacks on his own people, providing the rebels a tincture of hope even as they were driven back from a long stretch of road and towns they had captured in the three-week war. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/middleeast/13libya.html Israel has already launched strikes on a suspected Syrian (North Korean built) WMD facility……the Arab league’s response……who cares. *chortle* Arab League center denies it was Israeli raid target DAMASCUS -- An agricultural research center run by the Arab League vehemently denied Sunday it was the target of a secret Israeli air raid on Syrian territory earlier this month.The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid zones and Dry lands (ACSAD) issued a statement saying it was "surprised" by media reports that it was the target of an Israeli airstrike, and said it had nothing to hide from foreign journalists wishing to visit its facility. http://www.lebanonwire.com/0709MLN/07093025AF.asp Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 One is above the other. We are not in Libya. We are above it.... So you’re suggesting a nations airspace is not Sovereign territory? Why do we need NORAD then? One is the beginning of the other...And shatters your suggestion that the date of 1973 is somehow relevant... From the UN website: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures. Are you suggesting I got the day of the vote wrong? Nothing substantial...Canada has made threats too....are there any bombs coming? No, but the Qadhafi regime did, and well......... Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 One is above the other. We are not in Libya. We are above it.... So you’re suggesting a nations airspace is not Sovereign territory? Why do we need NORAD then? One is the beginning of the other...And shatters your suggestion that the date of 1973 is somehow relevant... From the UN website: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures. Are you suggesting I got the day of the vote wrong? Nothing substantial...Canada has made threats too....are there any bombs coming? No, but the Qadhafi regime did, and well......... Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 So you’re suggesting a nations airspace is not Sovereign territory? Why do we need NORAD then? No I am suggesting that your language and rhetoric is needlessly inaccurate and misleading, but of course, you know that. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 No I am suggesting that your language and rhetoric is needlessly inaccurate and misleading, but of course, you know that. Where? Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Are you suggesting I got the day of the vote wrong? Unless you are a completely dishonest, you klnow fully what I am suggesting, in fact, I spelled it out. No, but the Qadhafi regime did, and well......... Great. Care to quote the regime first hand? Or even a western firm repeating the threats...and even is so./...why then did western firms increase their investment? Tinfoil...tinfoil.... But like any good tinfoil theory, you will have to show how the west managed to get the Tunisians first to stand up, and then to export it to Libya... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Where? Is there a hint of honestly in you? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Unless you are a completely dishonest, you klnow fully what I am suggesting, in fact, I spelled it out. You’re suggesting the UN would never adopt a resolution meant to keep the peace when Syria is one of the named combatants/belligerents? And that there is no precedent for foreign troops (Canadian included) being deployed to Cyprus & Israel for a UN mandated peacekeeping mission? Great. Care to quote the regime first hand? Or even a western firm repeating the threats...and even is so./...why then did western firms increase their investment?Tinfoil...tinfoil.... http://www.energy-pedia.com/article.aspx?articleid=133583 'Oil exporting countries may move toward nationalization because of the rapidly declining prices. This is put on the table and is being discussed seriously,' Gaddafi said through an interpreter. 'Oil maybe should be owned by national companies or the public sector at this point, in order to control the oil prices, the oil production or maybe to stop it,' he told the students. 'We may refuse to sell it at this very low price.' But like any good tinfoil theory, you will have to show how the west managed to get the Tunisians first to stand up, and then to export it to Libya... Why would I have to do that? Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 You’re suggesting the UN would never adopt a resolution meant to keep the peace when Syria is one of the named combatants/belligerents? Let me answer your question. No. And that there is no precedent for foreign troops (Canadian included) being deployed to Cyprus & Israel for a UN mandated peacekeeping mission? Do you know why there were Canadians in Cyprus?....they weren't there to police the Golan. But since you offer Cyprus as a staging ground, perhaps even comparable to Italy's seven air bases....how about expounding on the purposely designed capabilities of the airbases in Cyprus. Why would I have to do that? Because the tinfoil hat narrative you are spinning needs a jump start to propel it from Jan 2009 to Dec 2010...all the while being no moves to nationalize anything, including Libyan owned firms. Mind you, if you twist the tin foil hat tighter, you could always claim that high oil prices are a result of OPEC accommodating Quadaffi to forestall his motives to nationalize...and to twist it tighter, Libya is a OPEC member.... But then you have to balance the increase of investment and commitments by western firms in Libya...all of which are on indefinate hiatus now.... You need more tinfoil? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Ben Ali & Mubarak never threatened nationalisation of western companies……. The United States faces a daily deluge of refugees from Cuba and Mexico…. They’re a NATO ally, should we conduct air strikes there? Turkey is a member of NATO, and they share a boarder with Syria…….not too mention, Israel & Cyprus, both closer to Syria than Libya is to Italy. Resolution 1973 wasn’t passed till the 17th of march, and air strikes didn’t start till the 19th…….. The Tunisian and Egyptian regimes were toppled internally without a lot of help from anyone. The rest of your post is nothing more than an incoherent set of non sequiturs. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Do you know why there were Canadians in Cyprus?....they weren't there to police the Golan. But since you offer Cyprus as a staging ground, perhaps even comparable to Italy's seven air bases....how about expounding on the purposely designed capabilities of the airbases in Cyprus. Canadians were in both the Golan and Cyprus…….The Syrian’s shot down a Canadian Buff back in the early 70s.....As for Cyprus proper, the RAF has two large bases (Both currently support the War on terror) there.....Then there's Turkey.....and Israel......Canadian and British forces in Italy are based in hotels... Because the tinfoil hat narrative you are spinning needs a jump start to propel it from Jan 2009 to Dec 2010...all the while being no moves to nationalize anything, including Libyan owned firms.Mind you, if you twist the tin foil hat tighter, you could always claim that high oil prices are a result of OPEC accommodating Quadaffi to forestall his motives to nationalize...and to twist it tighter, Libya is a OPEC member.... But then you have to balance the increase of investment and commitments by western firms in Libya...all of which are on indefinate hiatus now.... You need more tinfoil? I’ve never stated the Arab Spring is one and the same ……that said….The idea was a cornerstone in GWB’s freedom agenda……His book came out prior to the start of the major uprisings…Wrap your tin-foil around that. Edited June 23, 2011 by Derek L Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 The Tunisian and Egyptian regimes were toppled internally without a lot of help from anyone. The rest of your post is nothing more than an incoherent set of non sequiturs. Say, thanks tips.... Did I say different? The majority of the Egyptian general staff is trained in the States……So what? Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 I’ve never stated the Arab Spring is one and the same ……that said….The idea was a cornerstone in GWB’s freedom agenda……His book came out prior to the start of the major uprisings…Wrap your tin-foil around that. Correct. Enacting change has been a policy of the US and the West for decades.....but you still have to explain how the west engineered the uprisings to fit your nonsense that it is about nationalisation. Thye can't even get the camel trains to run on time... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Did I say different? The majority of the Egyptian general staff is trained in the States……So what? Exactly, so what. The rest of your post is nothing more than an incoherent set of non sequiturs. Why change now eh? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 The Syrian’s shot down a Canadian Buff back in the early 70s..... The rest of your post is nothing more than an incoherent set of non sequiturs. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest Derek L Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Correct. Enacting change has been a policy of the US and the West for decades.....but you still have to explain how the west engineered the uprisings to fit your nonsense that it is about nationalisation. Thye can't even get the camel trains to run on time... I’ve never claimed the West engineered the uprisings……..I’ve claimed that the reason we (as in UN/NATO) are engaged with the Libyans and opposed to Syria is the threat posed to Western companies/interests by Gaddafi. We have (as well as Western Europe) Oil & Gas interests within both countries……..Both countries have been(are) sponsors of terrorism……Both countries have countless human rights violations…. Both countries have been accused of having offensive WMD programs…And Both countries are led by complete and utter nutters……..Only one of these countries broached the subject of nationalising western companies…. Now the subject of this thread is why Libya and not Syria……. I claim the threat to Western (and Canadian) interests…… You claim because Libya came first by a couple of weeks and Syria would be too hard a mission without US support…… I’ve backed up my opinion with open source facts….you’ve backed up yours with insults and happy faces…. Whats that fancy Latin word again? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.