China preventing UN action on Libya

[AOE]

it is not Gaddafi that is "killing his own people" at all.

It is two tribes called Tripolia and Cyrene that restart their thousand-year-long tribe-killing game.

it is two bad apples that are argueing who is worse. and West countries asserts that the bad apple called tripolia led by gaddafi is worse and the one called Cyrene is "democracy"....hahah

While I will say there are islamist elements within the Libyan rebels (or through support), to compare them to Gaddafi who has supported international terrorism for around 40 years is a moral equivalency fallacy. I think you need to do a bit more research on the subject.

 

[The Messiah]

While I will say there are islamist elements within the Libyan rebels (or through support), to compare them to Gaddafi who has supported international terrorism for around 40 years is a moral equivalency fallacy. I think you need to do a bit more research on the subject.

what makes you think the west hasn't armed terrorists ?

what makes you think that the west hasn't helped topple democratic govt's ?

 

[Armand2REP]

you are wrong.
Most Chinese in lybia were hired by Chinese companies . that is why the retreat of over 36K CHinese in Lybiacould be organized so well and so rapidly.

Furthermore, many Indians ,Vietnamese and Bengaliese in Lybia were also hired by CHinese companies,so they were also allowed to board on the "rescuing ships" provided by CHinese government.

here are the Indian and Bengaliese who were "bailed out" from Lybia by Chinese government....they were all the employees of CHinese companies....that is why CHinese helped them....

Thats funny when that picture is Chinese telling them, sorry... only room for Han. China only chartered two planes during the refugee crisis, and those 30,000 Bangladeshis stuck in Tunisia weren't being transported by China.

 

[redragon]

Thats funny when that picture is Chinese telling them, sorry... only room for Han. China only chartered two planes during the refugee crisis, and those 30,000 Bangladeshis stuck in Tunisia weren't being transported by China.

There were a lot pictures showing Indian, Bangladash and vietnamese came out of Chinese plane in Chinese airport, I don't bother to find them since you can spin any direction without any proof.
But I guess they will be fine even their own governments are not doing anything for them, because almighty and soon to be No 1 world power: France will make sure they won't get killed by Gaddafi, so leave them to French, they will be full responsible for those refugees.

 

[Armand2REP]

There were a lot pictures showing Indian, Bangladash and vietnamese came out of Chinese plane in Chinese airport, I don't bother to find them since you can spin any direction without any proof.
But I guess they will be fine even their own governments are not doing anything for them, because almighty and soon to be No 1 world power: France will make sure they won't get killed by Gaddafi, so leave them to French, they will be full responsible for those refugees.

Sure there is, there is also proof China only got out less than 1000 during the refugee crisis. IOM was transporting most of the Bangladeshi/Indians. France was busy transporting 10,000 Egyptians.

 

[AOE]

what makes you think the west hasn't armed terrorists ?

what makes you think that the west hasn't helped topple democratic govt's ?

What relevance does this have to the discussion or context? He made a logical fallacy by comparing Gaddafi and the Libyan rebels as being equally immoral, yet such a comparison is ridiculous when you do proper research into either side. The Libyan protestors want democracy; what purpose does highlighting the evils of any western countries involved in the no-fly zone over Libya? Sounds like a Tu Quoque.

On a side note, interesting to see you display a picture of Che Guevara in your avatar. Do you support communism by any chance?

 

[Armand2REP]

There were a dozen guys from Iraq fighting in Libya and suddenly it is an Al Queda insurrection.

 

[Armand2REP]

Hu Jintao condemns France over Libya bombing campaign
03/30/2011
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN

(AP) BEIJING - Chinese President Hu Jintao admonished French President Nicolas Sarkozy over the Western bombing campaign in Libya on Wednesday, saying force will not resolve the conflict in the North African country.

The lengthy statement is unusually strong language for a diplomatic meeting was a further display of China's pique at what it sees as an overly broad use by Western countries of U.N. Security Council authorization to protect Libyan civilians rebelling against leader Moammar Gadhafi.

"If the military action brings disaster to innocent civilians, resulting in an even greater humanitarian crisis, then that is contrary to the original intention of the Security Council resolution," Hu told Sarkozy in remarks carried by Chinese state media.

Hu called for an immediate cease-fire, expressed Beijing's concern that Libya may end up divided and said force would complicate a negotiated settlement. China, Hu said, "is not in favor of the use of force in international affairs."

The lecture is a seeming rebuke to Sarkozy, an ardent proponent of the Western-led bombing campaign and current president of the Group of 20 rich and developing nations. While he traveled to China to preside at a meeting of G-20 finance officials in the city of Nanjing on Thursday, a main purpose of his Beijing stop-off was to assuage Hu's concerns about Libya.

China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with a veto, usually opposes armed intervention in other nations' affairs. But with its diplomatic entanglements growing along with its economic interests, Beijing abstained from this month's U.N. vote authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya out of deference to Arab and African countries that sought it.

China's discomfort has risen as the bombing attacks by the U.S., France, Britain and others have expanded beyond Gadhafi's air forces to include ground forces as well. In doing so, the now NATO-led bombings are exceeding what Beijing thought would be enforcement of a "no-fly zone" to keep Gadhafi from attacking anti-government forces by air.

At their meeting in Beijing's Great Hall of the People, Hu suggested that proposals for peaceful means, rather than armed force, in Libya had been given short-shrift but were urgently needed.

"The Chinese side supports all political efforts that would help alleviate the situation in Libya and calls on all parties to immediately cease fire and seek a peaceful solution to avoid more civilian casualties and to restore stability to the situation in Libya," Hu said.

China is not alone in its objections. Russia also abstained in the U.N. vote, and Germany, whose foreign minister arrives in Beijing on Thursday, is also a critic.

Yet in keeping its distance from the bombing campaign, China is also furthering its interests, allowing it to avoid getting mired in what could be a protracted crisis with an uncertain outcome, analysts said.

Beijing has issued no criticism for Gadhafi. That leaves China in a precarious position if Gadafhi loses. If he wins, China will gain substantialy says Huang Jing, a China politics expert at Singapore National University's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

Beyond that, China's authoritarian government is uncomfortable with the notion that nations may intervene in a conflict to protect civilians _ known in diplomatic parlance as the right to protect. With its human rights record often under criticism and with restive minorities in its regions of Tibet and Xinjiang, Beijing worries that it might be the target of international intervention one day.

To build domestic support for the government's position, state-controlled Chinese media depict the Western powers' attacks on Libya as similar to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reports emphasize Libyan government claims of civilian deaths and suggest that any government would be preferable to chaos.

Forcing Gadhafi from power without a negotiated solution "could throw the country into utter chaos," An Huihou, the former Chinese ambassador to Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon and Egypt, wrote in a commentary Wednesday in the official China Daily newspaper.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

 

[AOE]

'BEIJING - Chinese President Hu Jintao admonished French President Nicolas Sarkozy over the Western bombing campaign in Libya on Wednesday, saying force will not resolve the conflict in the North African country.'

Yes, better to let Gaddafi handle it and kill thousands of people. It's good to see the CCP showing its humanitarian side... or should I say its opportunistic side.

The French and the rest of the UN are doing a good job.

 

[cw2005]

I think the reason why the British and French are eagerly involving in the Libya military action is because of Oil interest.

The Libya conflict is a typical Arabic tribal war that has been happening since the dawn of history.

The same courtries that are claiming to save lives had paid no attention when similar situation happened in Somalia and Congo with much bigger scale of killing. What a show of hypocrisy.

It is sad to see the great culture of Europe reduced to such degree so that they even dare not to pick a decent opponent of their own size and capability.

 

[cw2005]

Old Colonial Rivalries Revive over Libya
Analysis by Jacques N. Couvas

ANKARA, Mar 25, 2011 (IPS) - Turkey's volte-face Thursday evening to make a sizeable military contribution to NATO's intervention in the Libyan crisis, after two weeks of fierce opposition to the Alliance's mingling with Arab affairs, has further blurred Ankara's position in the North African conflict.

The Turkish Grand General Assembly voted in a closed-door session Thursday in favour of the country's military participation in NATO's plans to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, and other measures aiming at restraining the activities of Muammar Gaddafi's forces fighting anti-government rebels in the country.

Several hundreds of demonstrators, mostly from opposition parties and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), gathered during Thursday's vote outside parliament and the U.S. Embassy shouting slogans against Turkish involvement and the presence in Ankara of NATO's top military commander, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, who was having meetings with Turkish senior officers about the crisis in the Middle East.

In an effort to dissuade a vote by the Security Council, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had on Mar. 14 said that "Any NATO military operation in Libya would be unhelpful and fraught with risk," a stance he continued to take in subsequent speeches, calling for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and saying he opposed foreign military intervention, including a no-fly zone operation.

But the French initiative, backed by Britain, to begin bombing Libya two days after the U.N. resolution was passed, seems to have played a role in Ankara's change of strategy.

The formation of an ad hoc coalition by a small number of Western powers, including Britain, Canada and France, and U.S. President Barack Obama's decision for his country to assume a vital role, at least temporarily, has changed the lay-out on the chess board.

Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party won -- for Turkey -- an unprecedented victory in the 2007 contest with 47 percent of the vote, mostly because of the country's growing prosperity, fuelled by strong exports to the Middle East, which have increased by 600 percent to 30 billion U.S. dollars since the AKP came to power in 2002 and which represent one-third of the country's total exports. Turkish foreign direct investment in Libya alone exceeds 15 billion dollar.

It is, therefore, easy to understand Ankara's anxiety in the application of the Security Council resolution. Turkey, the only Muslim member of NATO, does not want to be seen as assuming an imperialistic role in the Middle East, a region that was part of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 500 years, until 1918.

On the other hand, Turkey cannot pursue its Pax Ottomana agenda by being a mere spectator of the events in the region. Being active in NATO's activities gives Ankara access to local intelligence and to the intentions and decision-making process of the alliance.

Erdogan, speaking Thursday night in Istanbul, questioned the motives of the hastily formed Anglo-French coalition and warned that the imposition of a no-fly zone or any other military action aiming at seizing Libya's natural resources would be intolerable.

"I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in that direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on," said Erdogan, visibly irritated by an earlier indirect allusion by French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe to a modern "crusade".

France has been a firm opponent of Turkey's application to join the European Union, creating periodic tensions between the two countries. French President Nicolas Sarkozy kept Turkey out of the Mar. 19 Paris conference on the implementation of resolution 1973.

The Turkish dialectic seems, however, to be two-pronged. On the one hand, it appeals to the anti-western sentiment of the Turkish conservative population and to the Arab street, serving primarily electoral campaign needs and the image of the Muslim democratic model Turkey wants to project in the region.

At the same time, Ankara wants to be part of the club of the powerful in order to reinforce its new-found identity of a catalyser in the Middle East. Its sustained effort to influence hearts and minds there has perhaps prompted the Anglo-French military intervention, in a positioning race in the new Arab world.

Britain, France and Italy -- which replaced the Ottomans after 1918 as colonial powers -- now apparently see a window of opportunity to return. The dispute is on whether they should be carrying guns or olive branches. (END)

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55004

 

[AOE]

I think the reason why the British and French are eagerly involving in the Libya military action is because of Oil interest.

The Libya conflict is a typical Arabic tribal war that has been happening since the dawn of history.

The same courtiers that are claiming to save lives had paid no attention when similar situation happened in Somalia and Congo with much bigger scale of killing. What a show of hypocrisy.

It is sad to see the great culture of Europe reduced to such degree so that they even dare not to pick a decent opponent of their own size and capability.

What are you talking about?

There are large numbers of people in Libya who do genuinely want democracy, that's the reason those protests are happening as well as all over the muslim world. Is every single one about oil? lol Yeah I'm sure you can find huge deposits of oil in Tunisia, and America allowed the government to be overthrown there, even though it was pro-western. Of course I'm not going to deny that the oil there will not be an economic incentive, but if you read up on your history, you will note that when Gaddafi called for the assassination of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the US boycotted Libyan oil.

Somalia has had on and off military involvement by the US. The Congo is a different story and is relegated to the same fate as the Rwandan genocide, which had no US intervention because just like the Congo, it was left up to the UN who sat on their hands and still do to this day, like they usually do with a lot of conflicts. Another factor you're forgetting that if it wasn't for the anti-war movement in America, then they would intervene in genocidal and authoritarian regimes a lot more than they do now.

 

[pmaitra]

What are you talking about?

There are large numbers of people in Libya who do genuinely want democracy, that's the reason those protests are happening as well as all over the muslim world. Is every single one about oil? lol Yeah I'm sure you can find huge deposits of oil in Tunisia, and America allowed the government to be overthrown there, even though it was pro-western. Of course I'm not going to deny that the oil there will not be an economic incentive, but if you read up on your history, you will note that when Gaddafi called for the assassination of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the US boycotted Libyan oil.

Somalia has had on and off military involvement by the US. The Congo is a different story and is relegated to the same fate as the Rwandan genocide, which had no US intervention because just like the Congo, it was left up to the UN who sat on their hands and still do to this day, like they usually do with a lot of conflicts. Another factor you're forgetting that if it wasn't for the anti-war movement in America, then they would intervene in genocidal and authoritarian regimes a lot more than they do now.

That is rhetorical.

There is no doubt that Gaddafi is no Saint. I fully support the rights of protesters to demand democracy.

However, when protesters take up weapons, they become rebels. I repeat, they become rebels. All right, once again, they become rebels before you think of coming back with the same trite excuse of 'saving the civilians'. Rebels are not civilians. They are combatants. They are fighters. They are warriors. Warriors are the ones who are waging a war. They are armed with Kalashnikovs, PKs, ZU-23s, Iglas and lots of other weapons. Therefore, by virtue of the rebels possessing such lethal weapons, they can only expect one thing in return from pro-Gaddafi forces, and that is the bullet. It is only fair.

Now coming to oil, yes, it is indeed about oil. To expect people to think otherwise would be underestimating the gray matter of the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Germans and Brazilians. Don't even take that avenue. If this was not about oil, NATO should have invaded Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, the leaders thereof, their retinue et al.. Hope that makes sense, If this doesn't, nothing else will.

 

[AOE]

What you said was ironically more rhetorical and condescending than what I have said.

Gaddafi is indeed not a saint, I also fully support the rights of protestors to demand democracy too.

If you actually read the post you quoted, rather than just the bolded part, you would actually notice I said that there is economic incentive involved. Oil is important, it is used in cars, buses, air craft, tanks, ships, helicopters, etc... therefore it's an important part of our lives. It is used in countries such as Russia, China, India, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, etc... In contrast, Libyans have little to no rights because the country is run by a tyrant named Gaddafi. I repeat, a tyrant named Gaddafi. All right, once again, when people protest in a country where there is little to no human rights and aren't listened to by their dictatorial shills in power, consider that before you think of coming back with the same trite excuse of 'it's all about oil'. Tyrants are not humanists. They are authoritarian. They kill innocent people. They are cowards. Cowards are the ones who defy the Geneva Conventions as an excuse to terrorize and oppress a country. They are armed with Kalashnikovs, PKs, ZU-23s, Iglas, and lots of other weapons. Therefore, by virtue of the tyrant being a violent repressive twat, they can only expect to get one thing in return from protestors, and that is the bullet. It is only fair.

Now coming to protecting civillians, yes the NATO forces are trying to protect civillians.. To expect people to think this conflict is solely about oil is condescending to ones intelligence. Don't even take that avenue. Apparently making a statement that you're going to war NOT for oil involves invading an oil rich country like Saudi Arabia. Hope that makes sense, if this doesn't, nothing else will.

PS. I'm glad we understand each other.

 

[pmaitra]

Yes and let me respond in a similar manner.

What you said was ironically more rhetorical and condescending than what I have said.

Gaddafi is indeed not a saint, I also fully support the rights of protestors to demand democracy too.

If you actually read the post you quoted, rather than just the bolded part, you would actually notice I said that there is economic incentive involved. Oil is important, it is used in cars, buses, air craft, tanks, ships, helicopters, etc... therefore it's an important part of our lives. It is used in countries such as Russia, China, India, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, etc... In contrast, Libyans have little to no rights because the country is run by a tyrant named Gaddafi. I repeat, a tyrant named Gaddafi. All right, once again, when people protest in a country where there is little to no human rights and aren't listened to by their dictatorial shills in power, consider that before you think of coming back with the same trite excuse of 'it's all about oil'. Tyrants are not humanists. They are authoritarian. They kill innocent people. They are cowards. Cowards are the ones who defy the Geneva Conventions as an excuse to terrorize and oppress a country. They are armed with Kalashnikovs, PKs, ZU-23s, Iglas, and lots of other weapons. Therefore, by virtue of the tyrant being a violent repressive twat, they can only expect to get one thing in return from protestors, and that is the bullet. It is only fair.

Condescending? Oh well, that's fine. We are not launching missiles and bombing civilians in the garb of a 'no-fly-zone'. I understand Monsieur Sarkozy can be the Ignoramus Maximus, because he is French (or should I say Hungarian?), but Cameron has no excuse. He could use a dictionary to look up what exactly a 'no-fly-zone' means. I'm afraid, the English aren't particularly good with either the English language or cricket these days. In the event I am wrong, perhaps Cameron should come clean and say it openly, 'We want Libya's oil'. I'd still have some respects for him. Right now, he is too much of a motley, with loads of lethal weapons and the backing of big daddy, the USA.

I see where you are coming from. Being subject of the British Empire, or whatever remains thereof, I see no reason for you to disagree with Cameron.

I am glad my paraphrasing helped you respond in a manner that simply beats around the bush and doesn't really add much substance. I can agree that Gaddafi is a tyrant, but he has his loyal supporters as well, and they are not just a few. Have you explored the possibility that the rebels could be tyrants too? If they were not, they would not have attempted to invade Sirte, Gaddafi's native place where he has overwhelming support.

Now, for your tall claims, and I quote "... consider that before you think of coming back with the same trite excuse of 'it's all about oil'."; here is a response that should help you get out of your hallucinations:

Now coming to protecting civillians, yes the NATO forces are trying to protect civillians..

Tsk tsk! People can see through these lame excuses. Persist with your excuses though if you must be an apologist for these as-innocent-as-a-baby-walrus rebels.

To expect people to think this conflict is solely about oil is condescending to ones intelligence. Don't even take that avenue.

Repeat: I am glad my paraphrasing helped you respond in a manner that simply beats around the bush.

Apparently making a statement that you're going to war NOT for oil involves invading an oil rich country like Saudi Arabia.

First of all, read that sentence. Does it make any sense to you? To me it doesn't. What are you trying to convey?

P.S.: What I was trying to convey is, NATO should have used the excuse of saving the unarmed protesters in the countries I mentioned when it is willing to use the excuse of saving armed rebels in Libya. Whether NATO invades the countries I mentioned NOT for oil or for oil is moot. What I am talking about is that NATO should invade these countries for their suppression of protests.

Hope that makes sense, if this doesn't, nothing else will.

PS. I'm glad we understand each other.

What is the subject of that sentence (in red)? Who is the accusative? Who is the nominative? What is your point? Sorry if this comes off badly, your statement does not make any sense and I do not understand you in the entirety of your post.

Try responding again.

 

[AOE]

I think you have a bit of short term memory loss here, in one of my earlier posts I stated that there are islamist elements within the rebel forces, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't take the opportunity to remove a regime that has sponsored and carried out acts of terrorism against American, British, and other countries civillians. I guess though that doesn't matter to you since they are western, but if Gaddafi sponsored death squads to bomb or kill people in India like they have done in other parts of the middle-east, I'm sure you would be responding with a very different tone than highlighting one part of a not-so black and white conflict.

Instead I am subjected to a grade schooler response making Tu Quoque/moral equivalency arguments, as well as cheap jabs and stereotypes about the English, French, and even Australians; people of which I doubt you are even acquainted with. Interesting to note that you play mind games in such a manner yet you couldn't pick up basic sarcasm used by the text in red. Why not ad hominems too while we're at it? You've already shown you're quick to racism with someone who disagrees with you, because anyone who does must be the product of colonialism. Even more interesting worth noting is that you would consider a British politician making an outwardly suicidal, bizarre, and opportunistic statement as being admirable, I guess all I can think of to say to something so deep is that I want some of what you're smoking. You even seem to think in a naive manner that it's only western politicians who have some kind of ulterior, selfish motive. Yes clearly Russia has never done that, or China, or even India. It's always the Americans, the British, and friends. Well done on your well researched and tacit knowledge of geopolitics, you truly are an underappreciated genius. India should make you a diplomat!

Tsk tsk! People can see through these lame excuses. Persist with your excuses though if you must be an apologist for these as-innocent-as-a-baby-walrus rebels.

Ahh now we're onto strawman arguments. Please, do quote me where I said the rebels are completely innocent, rather than sound like a broken tape recoder.

Repeat: I am glad my paraphrasing helped you respond in a manner that simply beats around the bush.

Now for a healthy dose of projection, since all I did was respond in a similar manner in which you did. Any claim proposed requires an equal amount of evidence to dismiss, thus a claim made with zero evidence requires zero to counter it; or did you miss out on high school science? Bertrand Russell could have told you that one, oh but apparently not since he's British and therefore doesn't know anything.

Try responding again.

I think this advice is best served closer to home than sending it my way first, since you like to talk a lot about how every action has a consequence, well if you respond in the tone you did, expect the same back. Maybe now you're starting to understand what I meant at the last of the previous response.

Oh and since you edited your post to add in a picture (unless it didn't load before), here is the source of the picture you put up. How blatantly dishonest of you.

 

[RedDragon]

When a chieftain start a war, he should already know how to end the war. The war is not only militionary but also the politic.

I wish Sarkozy know how to end the war. And if he destroy the current goverment, he know how to establish a better goverment. Not make Libya chaos and become a hotbed of terrist, like Iraq.

 

[Armand2REP]

However, when protesters take up weapons, they become rebels.

So how many unarmed protesters have to die before they earn the right to take up arms to overthrow this fool?

 

[AOE]

Apparently not enough, and it appears some people cannot understand why someone would take up arms against a dictator.

 

[The Messiah]

Apparently not enough, and it appears some people cannot understand why someone would take up arms against a dictator.

He perfectly understands why people would take up arms against a dictator.

But you dont seem to understand that why would nato take up arms against gaddafi ? surely not out of the goodness of there hearts

People fight wars over resources....deal with it and accept it rather than make up shit ass excuses. Why dont the yanks get out of iraq when its been confirmed that weapons of mass destruction aren't there ?