Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
From everything I see, this narrative does not get much play outside of Western domestic consumption. That is it's primary purpose anyway. Hardly anyone in the Indian street, let alone the Arab street, will swallow it whole. Surely some will support it for the reasons the UN has given for the action, but after all there is a grain of truth to it, so this is not so strange.shiv wrote: Colonialism lives on under some other name - with a large proportion of people dhimmified to believe that the actions of the colonialists are righteous.
Singha,Singha wrote:he will pull back his forces to safer non-threatening positions and try to wait this out...if he doesnt attack, the UN mandate does not cover NATO supporting rebel attacks technically.
Both Qadafi and Saddam Hussein are and were monsters, but in what way are they worse than Musharaf, Paki Army, Saudi Arbian Monarchy, Kuwait Monarchy, - Why these regimes are favoured and given such benevalent coverage?Theo_Fidel wrote:Singha,Singha wrote:he will pull back his forces to safer non-threatening positions and try to wait this out...if he doesnt attack, the UN mandate does not cover NATO supporting rebel attacks technically.
I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.
There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.
Analysts are warning that the decision of the BRIC nations not to support the no-fly zone in Libya is an indication that in years to come Gaddafi-like dictators will find it easier to wage war on their people without external intervention.
"It’s clear that the bar for military action is getting higher and higher," says Ian Bremmer, President of New York-based consultancy Eurasia. "Right now Gaddafi has no friends on the world stage, except Chavez. Libya is even an oil-producing nation, but it’s taken weeks to get some action."
Investors believe Brazil, Russia, India and China will be the new economic Titans, but so far BRIC nations either cannot or will not provide leadership.
Each of these four nations is currently sitting on the U.N. Security Council, yet each abstained from voting on Resolution 1973 that opened the way for military intervention.
Russia and China
Vladamir Putin says the resolution was a "medieval call for crusades." China says it abstained at the request of its friends in the Middle East and Africa (presumably the ones that supply oil and commodities), and it’s true both have sought to establish positions of non-interference.
But they also occupy two of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means each has an absolute veto. They could have destroyed plans for the no-fly zone, but they chose not to.
"Vetoing is an expression of leadership," says Ian Bremmer, "but they’d rather have no responsibility, sit on the sidelines, and complain if or when something goes wrong."
Brazil and India
Brazil and India currently hold rotating Security Council seats of two years duration. Both are campaigning for permanent ones. Critics say they might have abstained in order demonstrate to the U.N. General Assembly what great counterweights they could be against the West.
But the more charitable suggestion is that India and Brazil are still struggling to develop their diplomatic positioning on the world stage.
India knows it’s non-interventionist. Brazil however is so new to even G8 conferences it may not have thought past projecting a "honeyed" image of itself.
Plus it’s a brave nation that publically stands out against military action by the United States, particularly when your vote is not a veto.
UK, France and Germany
In Europe it's a widely held view that the Obama administration is only taking action against Libya because the UK and France said they would.
"The US was late to the game," says Daniel Gros at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. "Washington was shamed into action by Paris and London."
It’s no great surprise the UK and France so readily jumped to action. Europe has more skin in the game than America. Its colonial past riddles North Africa. It’s oil companies have assets in Libya that risk being nationalized. And geography dictates that North Africa's refugees easily become Europe's humanitarian problem.
After Tony Blair’s "success" in Bosnia, David Cameron is only the latest British Prime Minister to believe it’s the West's duty to protect and intervene.
The current President of France also believes in spreading democracy. Nicolas Sarkozy also hopes a swashbuckling performance by its military at his decree will turn around his poll ratings in advance of next year’s Presidential Election.
"Also bear in mind that the French elite is heavily connected to and invested in France’s former colonies of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco," says Daniel Gros. "So Libya is the one place it can be seen to intervene without loss of national interest."
In fact two weeks ago Sarkozy sacked his Foreign Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, for not only vacationing in Tunisia at the height of the protests but apparently offering its ruling elite French expertise in riot control.
Germany also remains absent from the action over Libya after it too abstained at the U.N. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foreign minister had quickly ruled out action in the belief that voters — still shamed by its Nazi Era — did not want to see its army operating outside its borders. But that may have proven to be a major political mistake. Merkel was backtracking today, increasingly isolated in Europe.
© 2011 CNBC.com
It was claimed Khamis — leader of the feared Khamis Brigade that has been attacking rebel-held areas — died in the same compound hit by RAP cruise missiles hit by coalition forces last night.
Today Gaddafi's Tripoli compound was again rocked by blasts, his southern strongholds targeted and a navy base bombed as international criticism mounted over the assault on Libya.
Rebels, meanwhile, said they were under intense attack by Gaddafi's forces in the city of Misrata near Tripoli and an AFP reporter saw them beaten back from a frail attempt to retake the eastern key town of Ajdabiya.
Aditya_V wrote:Theo_Fidel wrote: quote="Singha" he will pull back his forces to safer non-threatening positions and try to wait this out...if he doesnt attack, the UN mandate does not cover NATO supporting rebel attacks technically.
Singha,
I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.
There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.
Both Qadafi and Saddam Hussein are and were monsters, but in what way are they worse than Musharaf, Paki Army, Saudi Arbian Monarchy, Kuwait Monarchy, - Why these regimes are favoured and given such benevalent coverage?
Why was the Tunisian and Hosni Mubarak tolerated for so long, are they any better?
What regime will they replace Qadhafi with, someone who is pro western Oil companies and a Tyrant as well.
What right do the EU US have to Bomb Qadafi's forces?. If the west is sincere take out the Pak Army and House of Al-Saud first then act against the less dangerous regimes.
That is true, but India has still not completely resolved the issues of separatism in certain parts of the country - and inspite of the known Indian sensitivity to human rights (in comparison to Russia or China) - there is no shortage of Indian jholawalas and sellouts who would dress up any innocuous army activity as a 'brutal suppression of minorities'. Presumably that's one factor responsible for India's position on Libya.AKalam wrote:India, as a mature democracy, and a country with increasingly higher standards of internal conduct, should have little to worry about such UN resolutions. This, however, cannot be said about Russia and China who have a history of brutally suppressing their minorities and separatists/"splittists".
A man doesn't go around killing monsters to please the heavens, a man kills a monster for revenge, glory, or treasure. Or all of the above. It is a lot of effort after all.Aditya_V wrote:Both Qadafi and Saddam Hussein are and were monsters, but in what way are they worse than Musharaf, Paki Army, Saudi Arbian Monarchy, Kuwait Monarchy, - Why these regimes are favoured and given such benevalent coverage?Theo_Fidel wrote: Singha,
I don't think NATO gives a damn. If they can take out Gaddafi they will. Honestly it will save a lot of peoples lives.
There are all kinds of ways to help the rebels. Right now NATO is asking the rebels to hold while they take out the defenses around Ajdabiya. It will take some time to plan and coordinate. They can always claim, truthfully, that Gaddafi was killing the civilians there. Gaddafi is a monster, no getting around it. Destroying his forces will save civilian lives.
Why was the Tunisian and Hosni Mubarak tolerated for so long, are they any better?
Aditya_V wrote: What right do the EU US have to Bomb Qadafi's forces?
These nations probably realized the forces sweeping the Arab region are not something which can be suppressed anymore. So instead of damming the force, they are trying to channel it in some limited fashion. They really don't have the capacity to control events to their heart's content, they are just some nations.I wonder what's really up?
abhischekcc wrote:Arjun, nice sentiments about removing the influence of money in politics. Do you know how deeply corrupt even gram panchayat elections are? Every candidate has to spend on booze and a round of feast even at this low level. And these are normal guys spending this money. These candidates will stay humgy, and do not have access to a steady job, but they still spend 70k-100k rupees to win that low level seat, because they see it as a food coupon.
Give up the thought that corruption in India is still a upper class activity.
We are in a state of toxic corruption. The democratic state itself has decayed. Nothing can be changed until this system is replaced. Renewal is not possible.
Of course there is. Qaddafi has no right to rule and the West has no right to bomb him. Ergo, no one has a right to do anything, but this pious moralizing is quite useless in altering that. No one is bowled over by suddenly learning the idea that there is no "right" to do this. Perhaps they will get a piece of paper giving them right to bomb Qaddafi? But they already did that, so I guess you are not satisfied by it.Aditya_V wrote:U Banerjee the question is not pointless, there is no relation between Qadafi ruling Libya and west right to Bomb Libya
So if I slay a rabid dog that is troubling me, I must slay all other such dogs for your benefit before I can go to sleep tonight? Perhaps you might slay some as well? There's a saying that if you want something done right, you do it yourself. Well, it is very easy to give lectures about doing things right, and less easy to actually do anything. The GoI is prudent, but sometimes it is difficult to distinguish prudence from paralysis.Aditya_V wrote: , then why don't they Bomb Saudi Arabia or Pakistan which are ruled by Tyrannts, it is because of thier Self Interest in money to be made.
I am sure life of ordinary Libyans will continue much as before, perhaps without a Mad Dog to improve things slightly.Aditya_V wrote: Mark my words the a western campaign supported regime will only lead to the outflow Libyan Oil money outside the country and will not make the lifes of ordinary Libiyans any better.
The US-led international coalition has no right to interfere in Libya's affairs, India said on Tuesday, stepping up its condemnation of the military strikes on Muammar Gaddafi's forces to establish a no-fly zone.
India, which abstained from a UN security council vote to authorise military action, followed fellow BRIC countries China and Russia in condemning the air strikes led by the US, UK and France that have severely weakened Libya's air defences.
"What is happening in a country, within their internal affairs, no external powers should interfere in it," Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister and leader of the lower house of parliament, told lawmakers on Tuesday.
China and Russia also abstained from the resolution.
"Nobody, not a couple of countries, can take that decision to change a particular regime," Mukherjee said. "Whether a regime will change or not will depend on the people of that particular country, not by any external forces."
India's Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna called for the "cessation of armed conflict" on Monday, a day after his ministry issued a statement expressing "regret" over the air strikes.
Asia's third-largest economy, which has followed a foreign policy of non-alignment, took its seat as a non-permanent member of the security council in January.
Local media on Tuesday criticised New Delhi for appearing "confused" and "naive" in its condemnation of military action after abstaining from the vote.
Then why use the entire BRIC name for it. That is false creation of ImageLalmohan wrote:well the R and C in BRIC did prop them up
Gaddafi is a Soviet creation after all.Lalmohan wrote:well the R and C in BRIC did prop them up
Could you please educate us how Gaddafi was troubling US? As far as I knew, he was doing business deals with all western corporations and gave up WMD program.UBanerjee wrote:So if I slay a rabid dog that is troubling me, I must slay all other such dogs for your benefit before I can go to sleep tonight? Perhaps you might slay some as well?Aditya_V wrote: , then why don't they Bomb Saudi Arabia or Pakistan which are ruled by Tyrannts, it is because of thier Self Interest in money to be made.
This is OT but Syrian scenario is also warming up : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_ ... a/ml_syriaChinmayanand wrote:When is the turn of Syria?
32,000 Chinese from Libya were evacuated in Greek ships. They sure ain't gonna use Tripoli port to get back.ramana wrote:PRC condemns the destruction of the port of Tripoli! Looks like US using opportnity to bomb Libya to stone age and claim saving lives.
Libyan oil accounts for only about 3 percent of China's imports, but it won't be easy to replace. That's because Libya is one of only a few producers of "light sweet" or low-sulfur crude, which is highly prized for making gasoline. Global competition for limited remaining sources of light sweet crude will put upward pressure on prices, particularly if China decides to stockpile.
"If China starts buying and hoarding oil ... that means gasoline jumping above $4 a gallon" in the United States, said James DiGeorgia, editor of the Gold & Energy Advisor website. "You'd add another 30 cents to 40 cents a gallon to California."
Beijing also faces pressure at home. It must now choose whether to force its national oil companies to absorb the higher costs or pass them along to consumers. It's a decision fraught with risk. China is already battling the worst inflation in more than two years. Rising prices for food and fuel are seen as major threats to social stability.
"I've been making the same salary for the last 10 years, but everything else gets more expensive," said Yu Liyong, a veteran Beijing taxi driver complaining about a recent price hike that pushed gasoline to $4.28 a gallon. "What am I going to do?" said Yu, who earns about $600 monthly. "I still have to drive."
China's maturing oil fields are no match for the nation's surging demand. The country was a net importer of crude as recently as two decades ago.
China's manufacturing juggernaut needs fuel to keep cranking out exports. Rising living standards are boosting consumption as well; China is already the world's largest car market. China may be importing as much as 80 percent of its petroleum by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. China alone will account for half of all new oil demand in the next five years, the agency estimated.
"Its urbanization and auto market have been creating hard demand that won't slow down anytime soon," said Li Zhoulei, an energy analyst for Shanghai CIFCO Futures.
With much of the world's easily accessible petroleum gone, China will continue to scour the globe for oil. But upheaval in Libya and other parts of Africa and the Middle East could force Beijing to weigh the political risks more carefully, experts said.
China is facing resentment in Africa for not hiring enough local labor; some Chinese workers there have been kidnapped and murdered. Angola, a major supplier to China, is courting other investors to reduce its dependence on China.
In a sign of a potential shift from its non-intervention policy, China used its position as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to support sanctions against the Libyan government for its violent repression of civilian demonstrators.
Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/03 ... z1HNfZ3l1C
Libya, China strengthen economic, cultural cooperation
October 4th, 2010 in News, World
APA - London (United Kingdom) Libya has indicated its readiness to further strengthen cooperation with China in the areas of trade, economy, culture and people-to-people exchanges.
In his second visit to China in almost three decades, Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, heir-apparent to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi stressed that his country firmly sticks to the one-China policy and supports the peaceful reunification of China.
(copycat)