Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Erkki]

Actually the war in Iraq was viewed very negatively in the local media here(despite us being in the West). The protesters in France and UK especially were given a lot of screen time and newspaper lines for weeks. The local anti-NATO advocates and a couple of newspapers still use Iraq as one of their main arguments.

There are places where media is not state-controlled or state-manipulated and it views hot topics more or less objectively. Of course those news that people want to hear will sell the best but I dont think that is unavoidable. It says a lot that the by far largest newspaper group that also owns several TV channels including a news one is viewed simultaneously as russophilic semi-communistic or elitist voice of the prime minister party and pro-NATO propaganda depending on whos asked(those were the exact terms I heard used in a conversation while back).

[mainiac]

The goal of Libya was to make one side of two win a conflict.  It was believed that if the wrong side won, bad shit would happen.  If you ask why intervene while ignoring this, the primary stated goal, you are begging the question.

[Sheb]

Also, re: Libya, the question is not if things are worse than before the intervention, but if things would have been worse without it. The debate is open (I for one think the overall result was positive, we could have had a second Syria otherwise), but it's pretty clear that in Ukraine Russia made things worse.

Then there is also the fact that Russia is actively annexing part of neighbouring countries, something no NATO country has done since, well, NATO exist.

[Sergarr]

Bad shits happens right now in Libya, since the country is divided between secular rebels, various tribes fighting each other and radical jihadists trying to make another Islamic State.

And Russia did not stop the resolution because - guess what - nobody predicted that "no-fly zone" is actually a designation for "bomb the shit out of everything".

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.

They actually knew that perfectly well but thanks for trying!

[Sergarr]

The Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.

They actually knew that perfectly well but thanks for trying!

Again: "bombing the shit our of ground forces" =/= "enforcing no-fly zone"

[Guardian G.I.]

NATO's invasion of Libya

Lol

Well it was more of intervention, okay. Still doesn't change the fact that the country is now much worse than it was before, with no good end in sight.

Even the BBC, which supported NATO attack on Libya back in the day, acknowledges its not particularly good results.
Did anyone who had ordered the intervention in 2011 even think of any possible consequences of their actions?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That's some neat linguistic gymnastics there

Did anyone who had ordered the intervention in 2011 even think of any possible consequences of their actions?

I dont know, ask Putin his reasoning for not stopping the resolution like the magnanimous and pragmatic democracy facilitator he is?

[mainiac]

Why are people surprised that there is violence in Libya?  Nobody thought that dropping a few bombs on them would make them into a happy perfect democracy.  The thought was that dropping a few bombs on them will let the warlords who aren't going to engage in mass murder win over the warlords who are going to engage in mass murder.

And Russia did not stop the resolution because - guess what - nobody predicted that "no-fly zone" is actually a designation for "bomb the shit out of everything".

UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Russia didn't know that enforcing a no fly zone requires force.. Russia was duped! Can we take back that resolution now? Or is it too far gone to send little green men?

while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory

Oh right now I understand why Putin didn't exactly approve it, they didn't allow them to invade immediately after the collapse. Dodged a bullet there, having two civil wars on your hands is enough already!

[Guardian G.I.]

That's some neat linguistic gymnastics there

Did anyone who had ordered the intervention in 2011 even think of any possible consequences of their actions?

I dont know, ask Putin his reasoning for not stopping the resolution like the magnanimous and pragmatic democracy facilitator he is?

Russia's foreign policy in 2011 was directed by Medvedev, who didn't want to go against the will of Russia's "western partners".

EDIT: Furthermore, my question was about American and European politicians and not Russian ones.

[Sergarr]

And Russia did not stop the resolution because - guess what - nobody predicted that "no-fly zone" is actually a designation for "bomb the shit out of everything".

UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Okay that sounds better and actually sound like a more legitimate reason.

Russia didn't know that enforcing a no fly zone requires force.. Russia was duped! Can we take back that resolution now? Or is it too far gone to send little green men?

Enforcing a no fly zone requires you to shoot all aircraft in the area both in air and on land. Where does it implies that you've to bomb ground forces

ground forces do not fly

[Sheb]

Did anyone who had ordered the intervention in 2011 even think of any possible consequences of their actions?

Again, the question is: would things have been worse without the intervention? What you're doing is like claiming chemo is bad, because the patient's state is still worsening.

[Sergarr]

Did anyone who had ordered the intervention in 2011 even think of any possible consequences of their actions?

Again, the question is: would things have been worse without the intervention? What you're doing is like claiming chemo is bad, because the patient's state is still worsening.

Are you considering killing the only person who was able to keep the tribes from fighting each other constantly a cure?

[mainiac]

Are you considering killing the only person who was able to keep the tribes from fighting each other constantly a cure?

Yes it is a cure.  You just want to ignore what problem it was addressing and talk about a different problem.

Remind me again why I am considered the rude one when shit like this is par for the course?