Russia Sends Aircraft Carrier and Warships to Syria

[NUS]

Sir, please be kind enough to provide a link that shows NATO sent an invasion force to Lybia. Thanks!

An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.

This defenition fits perfectly. You might not like it, and use your own defeniton and call NATO's actions as you like. But it does not change the simple fact - NATO's use of force was a decisive factor in war in Libya. Without it rebels would never left Bengazi and most of 25 000 killed people would now were alive.

Sir, please be kind enough to provide a link that shows that the rebellion in Syria was caused by "Foriegn" sponsors. Thanks!

They are not even hiding anymore:

In its issue published on Thursday, The Times newspaper revealed that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have secretly agreed to fund the Syrian opposition to buy weapons, after Qatar played an important role in importing weapons to the Libyans protesting against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.

The British newspaper quoted a so-called Syrian dissidentas saying that the secret agreement between Qatar, Saudi Arabia and figures from the Syrian opposition took place after Arab Foreign Ministers' last week meeting in Cairo, at which the Gulf states decided to withdraw their observers from the Arab League's monitoring mission in Syria.

"The Saudis are offering their support in any way," said the so-called Syrian dissident, who asked not to be named, adding that Turkey is also involved in the current events in Syria.

He referred to Turkish plans to help solve the main problem facing the insurgents in Syria which is that of smuggling weapons into the Syrian territories.

Here is link to original article it Times, if you have access to it:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/w...cle3298221.ece

Sir, please provide VALID GOVERNMENT information that backs up this claim. BTW, thousands die daily in Africa yet governments like Robert Mugeverybody is still prospering...support your claim the economy will collapse. Thanks!

I dont have it. But lets wait about a year and will see what will happen.

Considering that every country in the world gets money in one form or another from the The United States of America no one should be pointing fingers at us.

You probably dont even understand how amazing you words are. You really think money can buy you love and respect? Or pay enough money and any crime is allowed? Send few dollars to libyan children and you can confiscate (read "steal") billions of Libyan Central bank as a "Gaddafi assets"? Pathetic.

Oh and Japan, China and Russia should shut up because you borrow them money... Oh, wait!

But then that is how the world operates.

Indeed.

[NUS]

Considering it was Lybians against Lybians in that war, do you know how to count?

By looking at the current level of NTC government support among population of Libya.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesig....php?nid=35282

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...?newsfeed=true

[Tanker]

This defenition fits perfectly. You might not like it, and use your own defeniton and call NATO's actions as you like. But it does not change the simple fact - NATO's use of force was a decisive factor in war in Libya. Without it rebels would never left Bengazi and most of 25 000 killed people would now were alive.

I'm a little slow. So you will either provide a link as asked to SUPPORT your argument or explain how 2 teams of military advisors and a bombing run and a ground attack by A10s constitutes and invasion. So your definition doesn't fly.

They are not even hiding anymore: Here is link to original article it Times, if you have access to it:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/w...cle3298221.ece

So two middle eastern countries buy weapons for the rebels in Syria and that the Wests fault? aaah your making me laugh...thanks for the humor!

I dont have it. But lets wait about a year and will see what will happen.

Sorry, but you stated and I quote:

Not to mention those, who would died from hunger and lack of medecine then world economy will collapse.

Waiting a year makes your CURRENT point null and void. So support your claim with a link...

You probably dont even understand how amazing you words are.

Amazing but true!

You really think money can buy you love and respect?

Nope. I never said that. You need to stop twisting things trying to make yourself look smart or like a victim. You were asked to provide links to support your claims and you provided one (1) link in which I had to scour the entire website to find something even remotely close to what you claimed.

Or pay enough money and any crime is allowed?

Any crime is allowed? Please provide us a link to this claim please.

Send few dollars to libyan children and you can confiscate (read "steal") billions of Libyan Central bank as a "Gaddafi assets"? Pathetic.

Pathetic? That would be your department. Supporting Kaddaffi. Your the person in a school yard who is asked if he saw the bully beating on a kid who says "the bully didn't do anything but ask for money. The kid got beat up because he didn't his money to the bully fast enough, it's his fault." Thats what you sound like. Same with Syria.

But I'll give you a "what if". You are my neighbor and you work late nights, and 6am one day I get up and mow my lawn and you come outside with a sign that says "NUS hates Tanker mowing his lawn!!!" what you are saying is that it is perfectly OK for me to go into my son's sports bag pull out his baseball bat and swing a homerun at your head...thats what you are saying. Kaddaffi and ASS-sad are perfectly in their rights to machine gun crowds of people...that's ok according to you.

Oh and Japan, China and Russia should shut up because you borrow them money... Oh, wait!

"them" money? Actually you may want to look into those three countries. 60% of American manufacturing is a large portion of Japanese and Chinese people WORK. If the US forced all manufactures to stop operating in China its economy would faulter...

Indeed.

I would find a way to support what you state to what is actually happening in the world by using links. if you are to lazy to look then just say so, if you can't find a link then just say so.

[Tanker]

By looking at the current level of NTC government support among population of Libya.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesig....php?nid=35282

Gaddafi loyalists take back Bani Walid | World news | The Guardian

Interesting, the question asked by Officer of Engineers remains...unanswered.

Your links provide...nothing.

[Tanker]

NUS without giving clear and concise links babbled on....

This article here seems to contradict what you claim...

BBC News - UN Security Council votes to end Libya operations

[Officer of Engineers]

This defenition fits perfectly.

Your definition maybe but not one accepted by anyone with standing authority. UNSCR 1973 is not an invasion document.

But it does not change the simple fact - NATO's use of force was a decisive factor in war in Libya.

Remind me again who stood fast at Misrata, marched into Tripoli, and beat Qaddafy to a pulp?

Without it rebels would never left Bengazi and most of 25 000 killed people would now were alive.

Qaddafy could not take Misrata despite occupying the city centre for weeks.

None of this is legal standing of any direct violation of the GC, the LOAC, and the Hague. You may hold NATO responsible for the 25,000 deaths but no one in legal authority would ever agree with you.

By looking at the current level of NTC government support among population of Libya.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesig....php?nid=35282

Gaddafi loyalists take back Bani Walid | World news | The Guardian

Horse Puckey! This was not an election. This was a civil war and the vote was by bullets. Less than a platoon was defending Qaddafy when he got caught. This despite the fact that he was giving an AK47 to anyone and everyone who would stand with him.

The populace may not like the current NTC but they were far from hating it enough to raise arms.

Finally, no one. Absolutely no one is making any apologies for getting rid of Qaddafy. Not the UN. Not NATO. And most certainly, not the Libyans.

I, for one, am not sorry that he's gone.

[NUS]

I'm a little slow. So you will either provide a link as asked to SUPPORT your argument or explain how 2 teams of military advisors and a bombing run and a ground attack by A10s constitutes and invasion. So your definition doesn't fly.

You had ships in territorial waters, planes 24/7 in a sky and unknown numbers of "advisors" on a ground. Still not invasion? Fine. As i said formal defenition does not have much meaning to me.

So two middle eastern countries buy weapons for the rebels in Syria and that the Wests fault? aaah your making me laugh...thanks for the humor!

Well, there is nothing funny about it for Syrians who are dying thanks to this sponsors. West and Katar are worknig together on this. If internal "rebellion" is not enough to destroy the country NATO do it by force. I can understand Katar's and KSA motives, but why USA wants islamists to take power on Middle East is an interesting question.

Sorry, but you stated and I quote:
Waiting a year makes your CURRENT point null and void. So support your claim with a link...

There has been riots in poor countries in 2008-2009 connected with price of food (which is directly affected by oil price), and currently in Nigeria. Try to null them.

But if you need a formal research, i've spend several minutes to find one

Pathetic? That would be your department. Supporting Kaddaffi.

Show a single word in support of Kaddafi in my messeges here. I dont care about him.

Your the person in a school yard who is asked if he saw the bully beating on a kid who says "the bully didn't do anything but ask for money. The kid got beat up because he didn't his money to the bully fast enough, it's his fault." Thats what you sound like. Same with Syria.

You answer is to bomb entire school into a pile of rubble and dead bodies.

But I'll give you a "what if". You are my neighbor and you work late nights, and 6am one day I get up and mow my lawn and you come outside with a sign that says "NUS hates Tanker mowing his lawn!!!" what you are saying is that it is perfectly OK for me to go into my son's sports bag pull out his baseball bat and swing a homerun at your head...thats what you are saying. Kaddaffi and ASS-sad are perfectly in their rights to machine gun crowds of people...that's ok according to you.

According to you, it's ok to kill even more people to remove them. And ruin their economy. And confiscate any money they have abroad. And leave them in a hands of even more crazy lunatics.

"them" money? Actually you may want to look into those three countries. 60% of American manufacturing is a large portion of Japanese and Chinese people WORK. If the US forced all manufactures to stop operating in China its economy would faulter...

So, now China should shut up and don't have any opinon about world affairs because you can ruin their economy? The more the merrier. Democracy on a march.

[NUS]

Remind me again who stood fast at Misrata, marched into Tripoli, and beat Qaddafy to a pulp?

Qaddafy could not take Misrata despite occupying the city centre for weeks.

You mean those, who could barely hold the line with NATO's airforce killing everthing what is moving to thier direction? As for Qaddafy being slow, it might have something to do with a fact what he did not want even more dead Libyans and did not wanted to level Misrata with a ground, as NATO did with Sirt.

None of this is legal standing of any direct violation of the GC, the LOAC, and the Hague. You may hold NATO responsible for the 25,000 deaths but no one in legal authority would ever agree with you.

Like i care. You can hide behind formalities as much as you want, but dead bodies wont return to life by the force of new UNSCR.

Horse Puckey! This was not an election. This was a civil war and the vote was by bullets. Less than a platoon was defending Qaddafy when he got caught. This despite the fact that he was giving an AK47 to anyone and everyone who would stand with him.

Exactly. He gave AKs to anyone, and NOBODY but NATO-supported "rebels" turned their weapons against him.
Everything bigger then platoon in his caravan would be too attractive and easy target for NATO's airfoce. Typical partisan tactics. They dont travel with divisions of guards.
If he really was so much hated as a western press is trying to make him, siege of Sirt would never happen. People dont fight hopeless fights till the end for dictators.

The populace may not like the current NTC but they were far from hating it enough to raise arms.

This is exactly what happend in Bani-Walid.Or you really belive in a mythical Gaddafi loyalists who woke up after six months and took city by force? Entire city full of armed civilians with only 4 killed people?

Finally, no one. Absolutely no one is making any apologies for getting rid of Qaddafy. Not the UN. Not NATO. And most certainly, not the Libyans.

I, for one, am not sorry that he's gone.

I dont care about Qaddafy.
And i dont care about Basher al-Assad.

If tomorrow Obama will come out and say: "I wand Assad removed. I dont care how much Syrians will be killed in a proccess and a which bunch of crazy lunatics will replace him. I dont care about Syrian infrostructure and economy destroyed in a process.", i would have nothing to say. All i might add would be "Good luck killing your own economy."

But this discussion has begun with a pathetic attempt to take a moral highground with no right to do so. You wont do Syrians any good. That's what i'm trying to say here.

[snapper]

NUS: The West did NOT start Tunisia, Egypt, Libya or Syria. It was Gaddaffi who effectively threatened the entire population of Benghazi and this prompted UN Resolution 1973. Did Russia or China offer to enforce this Resolution? Perhaps they should have and would have managed matters differently and more to your liking. Fact is they did not have the ability to respond fast enough with Gaddaffi at the gates of Benghazi already so we got dragged in to enforce the resolution that others condoned.

Presumably you would argue that after Benghazi had been 'saved' we should have stopped but the same scenario was only narrowly averted in Misrata. So supposing we had averted massacres in Benghazi and Misrata should we then have stepped back? In this case we would have been guilty of supporting an eternal civil war; 1000s more would have died in the years to come and it would have been very expensive for us for us to continualy prolong this stalemate. In ANY war generaly the quicker it's over the less people die and the less risk of others being 'drawn in' there is. I am not sure how you would have advised NATO and Quatar to act in order to obtain a swifter result with less loss of life.

If you're advice on Syria is a similar 'stalemate' solution then I am afraid that you will have the blood of countless Syrians on your hands.

[NUS]

NUS: The West did NOT start Tunisia, Egypt, Libya or Syria.

Let's see. West created mass-media histeria heavily exaggerating numbers of victims. West gave all support possible to people who wanted to remove Gaddaffi (for whatever reason, and most of them have nothing to do with freedom). And then this was not enough West turned local riots into a full scale war directly.

All countries have problems. All countries have riots. But what would you say if you saw riot in London this summer being funded from North Korea and China enforceng safe zone for rioters in London with armed force? I can see Xinhua turning rioters into peaceful protesters and police into brutal heavily armed forces.

In ANY war generaly the quicker it's over the less people die and the less risk of others being 'drawn in' there is.

It was not a war until rebels received arms, funds and media support.

I bet couple of years later Amnesty Int will publish one more report about Syria with words like "found that many of the allegations against Assad and the Syrian state turned out to either be false or lack any credible evidence, noting that rebels at times appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence. ... the number of casualties was heavily exaggerated, some of the protesters may have been armed, "there is no proof of mass killing of civilians" and there is no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against crowds. It also doubted claims that the protest movement was "entirely peaceful" and "presented no security challenge. "

But who will care?

[Officer of Engineers]

You mean those, who could barely hold the line with NATO's airforce killing everthing what is moving to thier direction?

What line? You may think what you want but the military reality was that this was a war of hundreds, not tens of thousands.

As for Qaddafy being slow, it might have something to do with a fact what he did not want even more dead Libyans and did not wanted to level Misrata with a ground, as NATO did with Sirt.

HORSE PUCKEY! The only reason why Qaddafy did not level Misrata was that HE COULD NOT. He neither had the manpower nor firepower to do so.

Like i care. You can hide behind formalities as much as you want, but dead bodies wont return to life by the force of new UNSCR.

Like I care what you think. You can cover yourself in your own crap. It still does not change the fact THAT NATO IS NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING YOU STATE. THOSE ARE THE LEGAL FACTS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO SULK SOMEWHERE ELSE. NATO IS NOT GUILTY. PERIOD.

Exactly. He gave AKs to anyone, and NOBODY but NATO-supported "rebels" turned their weapons against him.

And they outnumber his supporters. Period.

Everything bigger then platoon in his caravan would be too attractive and easy target for NATO's airfoce. Typical partisan tactics. They dont travel with divisions of guards.

Oh give me a freaking break. We barely dropped 50 bombs a day. There's only one reason why Qadday didn't travel with divisions of guards. He didn't have them. He didn't even have one battalion. He had a platoon. THOSE ARE THE REAL NUMBERS. I like to see dance out of that one.

If he really was so much hated as a western press is trying to make him, siege of Sirt would never happen. People dont fight hopeless fights till the end for dictators.

The same reason why Qaddafy could not take Benghalzie and Misrata. This was a war of hundreds, not thousands.

This is exactly what happend in Bani-Walid.Or you really belive in a mythical Gaddafi loyalists who woke up after six months and took city by force? Entire city full of armed civilians with only 4 killed people?

So, you're using post civil-war situations to justify your stand. Sorry, don't wash.

I dont care about Qaddafy.

Yes, you do. You wanted this motherfuck to live.

[snapper]

An intriguing reply...

Let's see. West created mass-media histeria heavily exaggerating numbers of victims. West gave all support possible to people who wanted to remove Gaddaffi (for whatever reason, and most of them have nothing to do with freedom). And then this was not enough West turned local riots into a full scale war directly.

Are you saying that the de facto civil war was caused by the Western media? I am not sure that western papers have arms stocks to supply rebels around the world and if they did they would probably supply at home. Should, for example, the British Government have 'censored' our papers? Our Government cannot stop our press effectively spying on victims of crime within the country (in the News of World phone tapping business) much less voice their opinions on world events. Nor would it be wise for our Governments to attempt to do so; they add to debate by using their freedom of speech. It would, in any case, have been illegal and contrary to various laws.

It was not a war until rebels received arms

Are you saying that we supplied them with arms? See: DIY Weapons of the Libyan Rebels - In Focus - The Atlantic We do not generaly mount old anti aircraft guns and whatnot on the back of Toyotas... seriously? I know the French did some limited supply later on in western Syria and they admitted it publicly but this was limited to ammunition and small arms and more aimed at forcing an end to the conflict. Certainly at the start of the civil war the rebels were dependant only on what they had captured from the regime and their own 'diy weapons'; we didn't cause the civil war anymore than China did.

All countries have problems. All countries have riots. But what would you say if you saw riot in London this summer being funded from North Korea and China enforceng safe zone for rioters in London with armed force? I can see Xinhua turning rioters into peaceful protesters and police into brutal heavily armed forces.

For sure all countries have problems and people riot for different reasons. The London rioters wanted new TVs etc and the Libyans and Syrians wanted/want a new Government. The problem is that in countries which are de facto family dictatorships and have limited press freedoms you cannot change your government with a vote, nor be in an informed position in which to vote. When sufficient people become disaffected there is always the chance of a rebellion and this is bound to be bloody as there is no peaceful manner to bring about a change.

For all I know it may be that these accounts of 'casualties are heavily exaggerated' although the longer it continues the less likely that is. The problem you have, I would suggest, is that you wish to be critical of the how the 'West' enforced Resolution 1973 but would have been just as critical if we had not acted to enforce the Resolution and alowed a massacre in Benghazi in Misrata etc... Yet I still see no better solution put forward by China. For sure Russia has offered to host talks by both sides in Syria but in reality the civil war in Syria is well underway; it is too late. Nor, it seems, will Russia listen to Arab League proposals as put forward to the UN, nor stop supplying weapons to the Syrian Government even! For how the Syrians are armed see The Future Movement From Lebanon Smuggling Weapons Into Syria.wmv - YouTube I hope you do not equate 'the west' with Lebanese arms dealers.

Your stance seems a cross of an apologist for the dictatorships with a mix of 'imperialist west' criticism. I cannot say that 'western solutions' are 'right'; there probably is no 'right solution'. If you have an alternative solution perhaps you care explain it. Syria is in a state of civil war; people are dying daily. One side proposes more of the same and the other side proposes change; both will doubtless conduct 'witch hunts' if they win. Your solution appears to be stalemate. Then the blood is on your hands.

[Dreadnought]

Funny he states the West West West. Much of the West was not even involved until later in the conflict.

Which began with events just like this one:

Chronology21 February 2011: Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to UN Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi "(called) on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime."[39]

So that tells you right there where he gets his information from.

An even funnier thing is he states all of this, meanwhile Russia has been supplying the weapons that have been knocking the protestors dead in Syria.

[Officer of Engineers]

This says it all

As for Qaddafy being slow, it might have something to do with a fact what he did not want even more dead Libyans and did not wanted to level Misrata with a ground, as NATO did with Sirt.

Qaddafy, the humanitarian. I want to puke.

[Dreadnought]

This says it all




Qaddafy, the humanitarian. I want to puke.

Agreed OOE, He had zero problem with the nightclub bombings nor the Lockerbie Airline explosion that brought about the first bombing of Libya. Maybe he should speak to the former housekeeper in his own compound about his humanitarian awards.

Luxury, horror lurk in Gadhafi family compound - CNN

Maybe visit one of his torture compounds.

Libya: Inside Gaddafi's torture chamber: The bloodstained cells inside a former primary school used to brutalise his enemies | Mail Online

Humanitarian my ass....

Ever know any political figure that has taken control by military coup and be a dictator for over 40 years to be a "humanitarian?"

Maybe he should read alot more about Gaddafi and his past.