Argentina questions allied attacks on Gaddafi

[Napoleon]

Here is actually a summary of criticism from Wikipedia of the operation.

Russia's foreign ministry said that it noted "with regret this armed action, taken in conjunction with the hastily passed U.N. Security Council resolution 1973".[77] On 21 March, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described the resolution as "defective and flawed" stating that "it allows everything" and "resembles medieval calls for crusades.",[78] comments that were later called “unacceptable” by the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.[79][80] However on the same day Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented after a meeting with the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, that Moscow supported the Arab League resolution which had called for a no-fly zone over Libya.[81]
China's foreign ministry said that it has "serious reservations"[82] about a UN decision calling for a no-fly zone over Libya and regretted the military strike against Libya.[83] Along with Russia, China said the resolution's backers failed to explain adequately how the no-fly zone would work and what the rules of engagement would be.[82]
A committee of five member states of the African Union demanded an immediate end to the attacks on Libya. However South African government officials have voiced concern that three of the five committee members are "financially reliant on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi" and questioned whether South Africa should even be part of this committee.[84][85]
Gaddafi called the air strikes terrorism "and vowed to fight to the death." [86]
Cuba ,[87] Iran,[88] Venezuela,[89] and Zimbabwe[90] have each condemned the military intervention in Libya.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, the 2006 recipient of the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, demanded that U.S. President Barack Obama be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for authorizing the attack against Libya.

Looks to me to be mainly from other authoritarian regimes that don't like the idea of elections and democracy. Perhaps their real concern is that the same fate could befall their governments.

1) Once again, this is about oil. But really, it's about oil for Europe this time rather than oil for the U.S.

2) Without a doubt, the dictators who are speaking out against this are the same dictators who are worried about this happening to them.

Evo was elected fairly to his post and probably reelected fairly as well. As for the other guys?... not even close. Squashing rebellion is what they do before breakfast.

3) What this resolution says is-

"If you're going to be a crazy dictator, then you better avoid mass murder if you want to hold onto power. ESPECIALLY if your country has natural resources that NATO wants and you can't defend yourself."

That's what this says. And I think that deterring mass murder isn't the worst thing in the world.

 

[ptolemy]

guys with all due respect, i think this is an extremely easy call to make.

it is painfully obvious that the UN and the allied forces have stepped in to attack libya in order to protect British and US oil investments. the same lies and phony logic that were used to displace saddam hussein are now being used against gaddafi.



it is amazing the level of hypocrisy going on here that is not being recognized. gaddafi has been a puppet petty dictator for 40 years, propped up with money, weapons, technology and military training/consulting by the british and the US. and now, the same people that put him in power are taking him out of power because he has now become expendable. he is no longer useful to their agenda. and so they double cross him just like they double crossed hussein and all the other petty dictators before him.



it's time we start thinking three dimensionally and look past the propaganda and phony rhetoric. there is almost always another agenda being pushed when it occurs on the world stage.

i think former member of paliament george galloway sums it up best in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTcc--fIHUQ

I agree with your first point. It is of some concern to me that US presidents can suddenly plunge the US into wars and conflicts without the approval of congress. On the other hand, I disagree with many here that believe that this war is about Gaddafi's oil. If the US/Europe wanted that, it would be easier to buddy up to Gaddafi and let him take care of his rebellion instead of spending millions on missiles and the like. And, as for Gaddafi's weapons, technology , etc., look to Russia. They supplied him, not the British and or the US. You only have to google that one.

 

[AndrewWoodward]

If they wanted to protect their oil investment, they're not doing a very good job of it. Doing fuck all and letting Gaddafi crush the opposition probably would have been more effective from that standpoint.

 

[redrum]

I agree with your first point. It is of some concern to me that US presidents can suddenly plunge the US into wars and conflicts without the approval of congress. On the other hand, I disagree with many here that believe that this war is about Gaddafi's oil. If the US/Europe wanted that, it would be easier to buddy up to Gaddafi and let him take care of his rebellion instead of spending millions on missiles and the like. And, as for Gaddafi's weapons, technology , etc., look to Russia. They supplied him, not the British and or the US. You only have to google that one.

the attack is most definitely about oil. there is no doubting that whatsoever. Libya is the largest african oil producer and top 20 in total world production.

and if you believe that gaddafi was not propped up by US and british forces then i have a bridge to sell you. there is no dictator of significant influence in africa that is not supported or allowed to be in power by the western powers.

think about this logically for those of you who don't believe this is about oil - the arabs were nomads wandering in the desert before US and European oil companies deployed their technology in the 1930's in helping them to extract their crude oil. they are not about to allow this petty tyrant to now go AWOL and jeopardize their investments.

to your point about it being easier to simply let him stay in power - that's exactly what the western powers don't want anymore. they want a new puppet now to take his place in order to placate the uprisings. that's why the UN decreed the attack. that's why hillary clinton called for violence. who do you think controls the UN? come on people.

the oligarchs and western powers have billions invested in libya. they decide when to remove an employee from power. it was time for gaddafi to go but he is not cooperating. like all dictators he is a megalomaniac and wants to remain in power.

again - this is all part of the great game. a dictator stays in power until the people become so oppressed that they rebel. that rebellion is placated and diffused by removing the evil dictator and giving the ILLUSION of a new beginning, of elections, of democracy, of hope and change(sound familar?), however nothing could be further from the truth. gaddafi will only be replaced by another puppet dictator.

and this allows the globalists to ultimately remain in power. and on and on it goes for another 40 years until the people get fed up and cause another rebellion.

rinse and repeat.

 

[LAtoBA]

I normally shy away from political threads but wow. Somehow, someway, somebody found a way to spin this into the "big bad US". Seriously? Hillary Clinton and Obama have been painstainkingly cautious in their approach to Libya. Did you all just pick up a newspaper a few days ago? This crisis has been raging for over a month. Obama deliberately dragged his feet on this, purposely attempting to circumvent any type of action that seemed unilateral in nature. Despite a multi-lateral response in favor of enforcing a no-fly zone and protecting civilians from the vast majority of the international community, the US is still the bad guy. We really can't win.

By the way abstaining is completely different from veto power in the Security Council. Russia and China could have done that but they chose not to because they knew it would be morally reprehensible. It's a shame how some of you can defend this evil man and his actions in the name of perceived "western imperialism".

Please lets not forget about the innocent people who have died at the hands of this man and his mercenaries.

 

[Napoleon]

Despite a multi-lateral response in favor of enforcing a no-fly zone and protecting civilians from the vast majority of the international community, the US is still the bad guy. We really can't win.

By the way abstaining is completely different from veto power in the Security Council. Russia and China could have done that but they chose not to because they knew it would be morally reprehensible. It's a shame how some of you can defend this evil man and his actions in the name of perceived "western imperialism".

Please lets not forget about the innocent people who have died at the hands of this man and his mercenaries.

1) I'm wondering if the argument is that everyone should have just stood back and watched hundreds of thousands of people get slaughtered. I'm not sure if that's what the argument is for, but it seems a little Gladiator Loving Romanesque to me.

Just wondering what should have been done? Nothing? Just wondering. Please respond.


2) Russia is just upset because the might be losing a customer.

Nearly all of Libya's attack-oriented planes were Russian made. They don't want to lose those contracts and they don't need oil.


3) China doesn't like to bring attention to dictatorships who kill protesters because ummmm, well....

Plus, they don't like to see a new contract possibly go to the West and/or the control of the oil fields to stay in Western friendly hands. So they're kind of bummed to not get anything out of a toppled government in Libya, but they know that they can't oppose action.


I understand that it's all about oil. I just don't understand how anyone on here can argue for the alternative.

 

[sergio]

First, I, in no way pretend to defend the Kirchners.

But FYI there are a lot of countries against this indiscriminate attacks by the US, UK and France, and those include China, Germany, Russia, the whole Arab league. The one thing is stopping the attacks on the rebels, the other things is firing HUNDREDS of missiles and bombs against all kind of targets. I am very sorry for the civilian casualties, about which we barely will hear anything as we are being bombarded with propaganda by the US/UK. Like in Afghanistan, where thousands of innocent civilians are killed every year. There was even a former CIA boss saying that the drone killings are the RIGHT of the USA as they are fighting their enemies
Sarkozy really wants to 'erase' Gaddafi because he's afraid someone would uncover the financial aid he received on his way to presidency.

I am afraid France/US/UK are again starting a bloodbath to stop a blodbath!

Just some months ago Gadaffi was best friends and holding hands with Tony Blair, Condoleeza Rice, Berlusconi...just for the oil, as Gaddafi has always been a tyranne. And now there they go, trying to secure access to oil. Why there was no intervention in Sri Lanka to protect the rebels? why have they left Somalia? No oil, no protection? What a hypocrisy!

Saudi Arabia, the most important country in the Arab world, is firmly opposed to the Liibyan regime. I don't know what the Arab League has publicly said but it may have been for appearances.

 

[ghost]

Please lets not forget about the innocent people who have died at the hands of this man and his mercenaries.

Let's start remembering with PanAm 103.

 

[Amargo]

What the Arab league is quite my opinion. Read it here.
I don't defend Gaddafi or criticise the no-fly zone. But is is just brute and disproportionate...and will contribute to more hatred towards the West. The West wants to sell the image of being rational...is it?
The western bombs are not that precise, look at the number of civilian casualties caused in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia...a shame.

Let's start remembering with PanAm 103.

How many innocents died there? And how many in all the previous attacks on Libya by the West?

 

[marksoc]

After watching "Inside Job" it is obvious that almost anything that the US does it is to favour some CEOs to make more money for themselves, this thing included, so oil is the objective, and the beneficiaries must have a name and be around Obama this time.