Russia's FM knocks no-fly zone for Libya

Russia's FM knocks no-fly zone for Libya

news.yahoo.com

GENEVA – Russia's top diplomat has ruled out the idea of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya and says world powers should focus instead on implementing sanctions.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Tuesday that "we need to avoid the superfluous" when asked about the idea of creating a no-fly zone.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not sure if they are more upset that they were left out of the loop or that with Libya's liberation, Europe will not need Russian oil and gas.

Either way, NATO and the EU are going to take action to help the people of Libya, regardless of the UN. The UN has become obsolete and profligate. How can anyone depend on them when Libya sits on the UN human rights council?

Case in point: UNHRC poised to adopt report praising Libya's Human Rights records
www.dailyindia.com...

That story is from Feb 29th. The UN is useless. We will have to take action without UN approval.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by MikeboydUS


are we talking the SAME U.N. ?!
I like RUSIA at least someone says something AGAINST THE SATANIC "LEADERS" /CRIMINALS that do whatever they wish on this world!

UFOTV Presents...: THE DISCLOSURE MADNESS CARTOON
www.youtube.com...

NATO is very likely going to do it outside of the UN, using Kosovo as precedent.

Russia can go play in the bushes. Sanctions? Are you kidding me? Sanctions won't do squat.

Time to take down the air force who's bombing protesters so the revolutionary army can march on Tripoli.

Let someone else get involved in this mess, the US needs to get all its people out if they haven't already and be done with it. Europe can go enforce a no fly zone, were broke over here and can ill afford to get involved. Good for the Russians, they may have crappy leadership but at least we don't see them butting in. My fear is if we or other countries get involved in these revolutions we may get dragged in and then guess what? WW3, which I believe is already in the the beginning to mid stages now but our state controlled media will never tell us that.

reply to post by Jeremiah Johnson


WW3?

By whom and what?

In the past two world wars there were alliances of great powers that could project forces around the world.

During the Cold War two such alliances existed, but since the fall of the Soviet Union this has not been the case. NATO and the US have surged in strength. Neither Russia or China have the projection capablities of the old Soviet "empire". They both could fight a major regional conflict in Asia, but not a world war.

We are not on the verge of a world war. We are on the verge of an era of widespread unrest and regional conflict, but thats not a world war. Its just chaos.

We are more likley to see collapse than any sort of organized global war.

Technically, many historians consider the Cold War or the Global War on Terror as the Third World War. We may see years from now that the history books look back upon the GWOT as WW3.

Personally I don't think we will see any sort of global war on the scale of WW2 for about ten to twenty years, unless we, the US, become theofascist and start one after 2012.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


True, but once again Damned if we do, Damned if we don't!
We will have support for action on Moral grounds until Dead Bodies show up on the news then we would be accused of being the World police/Evil Empire yadda yadda blah blah blah...

Go russia

the libyan rebels don't want US "help". any action by the US is just sticking its nose into a war were its not wanted by either side.

reply to post by monkofmimir


They want help, just not boots on the ground.

So we will probably send them medical supplies, food, munitions, and weapons. In many ways this mirrors Bosnia.

If america goes in.
they will Stay,
and the Libean people will fight them.
both sides.
if ant one sends planes it should be
germany, italy and france.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by monkofmimir

 

They want help

I disagree and so do most libyans

www.npr.org...

www.guardian.co.uk...

news.sky.com...

"Any intervention will be confronted with more force than we are using against Gaddafi."

that what the rebels official policy is on it.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I disagree, you can call them regional conflicts but how many regional conflicts are going on? At some point you need to call a spade a spade. WW3 started on 9/11, and it can be debated who was behind that attack but either way everything has been going downhill since and we are losing the wars we are in, the game is over for us. If we get dragged into this God help us, and lets hope Pakistan doesn't fall to enemies of the West and I don't think I need to explain myself on that one.

reply to post by monkofmimir


In the Sky News story they specifically ask for an air embargo to stop Gaddafi from bringing in mercenaries.

He said: "Tripoli is fighting against oppression and when it falls the regime will follow. Now the support around (Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi) is collapsing.

"What we want is an air embargo to stop Gaddafi bringing in mercenaries."

They don't want foreign troops in Libya. NATO isn't planning on that.

If you think they don't want food, medicine, and ammo drops thats crazy.

Originally posted by Jeremiah Johnson
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

I disagree, you can call them regional conflicts but how many regional conflicts are going on? At some point you need to call a spade a spade. WW3 started on 9/11, and it can be debated who was behind that attack but either way everything has been going downhill since and we are losing the wars we are in, the game is over for us. If we get dragged into this God help us, and lets hope Pakistan doesn't fall to enemies of the West and I don't think I need to explain myself on that one.

Some would argue that WW3 started with the War on Terror, but so far its a one sided war more akin to the Roman Empire suppressing multiple tribes of barbarians than a real war between major powers.

How are we losing? Iraq has been stabilized for the most part, except for occaisional terror attacks

Most of our issues in Afghanistan deal with cross border issues and right now, due to political reasons, we have not been able to deal with them. Other than that we arn't losing militarily.

If Pakistan fell, then all of those political reasons keeping us out would be mute and the gloves would come off, meaning we could go in and wipe out the Taliban strongholds. There would no place to run for the Taliban at that point.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


The reason I feel we are losing is because we are still there and I doubt we will ever leave, it will take years. Iraq is now seeing protests and Afghanistan seems to be another meat grinder, much like Vietnam. I don't really disagree with your points, we just see them differently I'm guessing.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


If NATO would be justified to go into Libya then Russia should launch a "freedom campaign" on the US as well... You know it should be their business to free the American people from the tyranny of their government and corrupt corporations which are silently killing people with their fluoride, chemicals, chemtrails, and financial destruction... Add to that the spying, sexual assaults at the airports, suppression of rights with the police...

Gee I say Russia bomb the hell out of the US to establish freedom and real democracy to the people!!! Screw the UN and what other people want! Screw what the US people want! FREE THEM ANYWAY!!!

Did my post sound crazy? Well it was the flip side of what you said. The UN is powerless bu it's the law. If you break the law, you are no better than the other side who you are trying to "make right".

Just my 0.02$

Magnum

Originally posted by Jeremiah Johnson
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

The reason I feel we are losing is because we are still there and I doubt we will ever leave, it will take years. Iraq is now seeing protests and Afghanistan seems to be another meat grinder, much like Vietnam. I don't really disagree with your points, we just see them differently I'm guessing.

Considering Japan, Germany, and Korea, we may never leave.

Your right Iraq is seeing protests, especially from the Kurds, which could lead to some kind of situation in the near future. The Kurds really need their own country independent of Iraq and they may finally get it.

I wouldn't compare Afghanistan to Vietnam. In 9 years we have lost around 1500 personnel.

After 9 years in Vietnam we had lost over 50,000 personnel.

Bizarrely, the War on Terror, including Iraq, has been the least lethal war we have had in our history. In terms of lethality, soldiers are more likely to die in a drunk driving accident than the war.

I would love to know how many police have died in the line of duty in the US in the past 9 years. Let me check.

Prepare to have your mind blown.

2001: 242 officers killed in the line of duty
2002: 159
2003: 149
2004: 165
2005: 165
2006: 160
2007: 200
2008: 149
2009: 132
2010: 161
2011: so far 32

source: www.odmp.org...

So from 2001-2011, the same time frame as the War in Afghanistan, 1,714 police officers died in the line of duty in the US. Meanwhile, US fatalities in Afghanistan were 1,345. US casualty source: icasualties.org...

That is crazy.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

True, but once again Damned if we do, Damned if we don't!
We will have support for action on Moral grounds until Dead Bodies show up on the news then we would be accused of being the World police/Evil Empire yadda yadda blah blah blah...

BULLSH!T.

You Yanks would not be in such "moral" positions if you would stop meddling in their affairs of other, sovereign countries.

What the hell does Libya have to do with America? What the hell gives the US the right to impliment a no-fly zone over a sovereign country half-way around the world?

This is one big friggin' joke, and the punchline is that many more people will die while Americans continue to watch celebrities on TV while funding their impirical military machine.

I don't think it is very funny, and I most certainly do not think that the Americans will be damned if they keep their mouths shut and stay the hell away from Libya. They are only there because they see resources to exploit; it has nothing to do with democracy or freedom.

EDIT: You were probably being sarcastic, but my post still stands because I know there's a lot of pro-invade Libya people out there.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


You made a good point, the thing is compared to Vietnam and WW2, etc.. the country and world for the most part are less tolerant to mass causalities as was the case years ago. I suppose it could be said society doesn't have the stomach. More soldiers died say in the battle for Iwo Jima than Irag and Afghanistan combined and you could probably throw a few more conflicts in too. My concern is that if we get involved with Libya or some other country and some kind of miscalculation is made, I don't want to see anything snowball out of control.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
BULLSH!T.

Nice.

You Yanks would not be in such "moral" positions if you would stop meddling in their affairs of other, sovereign countries.

What the hell does Libya have to do with America? What the hell gives the US the right to impliment a no-fly zone over a sovereign country half-way around the world?

We are already getting fried in Public opinion for not doing anything...

This is one big friggin' joke, and the punchline is that many more people will die while Americans continue to watch celebrities on TV while funding their impirical military machine.

I don't think it's funny at all I'm glad you're getting a laugh out of it.
Figures...

I most certainly do not think that the Americans will be damned if they keep their mouths shut and stay the hell away from Libya. They are only there because they see resources to exploit; it has nothing to do with democracy or freedom.

Yeah you're half right

You Don't think

In the meantime Qaddafi kills hundreds if not thousands of civilians with air-strikes. Nobody is talking about an invasion or boots on the ground. Just considering the implementation of a no fly zone.

Your reply is a perfect example of what I meant. Damned if we do and Damned if we don't.
Apparently staying Neutral garners a heated reply with Anti US rhetoric thrown in for good measure ANYWAY!

I know you get emotional.
But chill out. We are just discussing the possibilities and various scenarios.