Arab League Splits From West Over Libya Bombing

Arab League Splits From West Over Libya Bombing

news.sky.com

The Arab League has criticised the military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state

(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh dear... so there is no backing from the Arab league after all!!

This could get a bit nasty now like, last thing we needed was for the Arab league to side with Gadaffi.

(did a quick search and found nothing for this breaking news and also thought it deserved its own thread - please remove if needs be)

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

indeed this quit possibly will become ugly, my only question is: has the mainstream media become this good at propaganda that the rest of the world follows suit

Sounds like the Arab League needs to make up their minds...

This is all going to be way more of a mess than anyone expects, guaranteed!

reply to post by Flying Sorcerer


Wait... so the Arab-league is siding with Gaddafi? (Forgive me, I'm a N3WB :/ )

Jamie

A few days ago, Hillary called the Europeans allies and the Arabs partners.

Guess now we know why she called them partners.

Once again the West jumps into a nest of snakes with their pants down.

Libya suffered greatly under Italian colonial rule. They have a long history of disdain, and justifiable distrust of Western powers. Why on Earth would you start another war there of all places?!

Those British special forces that were captured a couple weeks back were held by the opposition. This gives a warning sign to how the whole country is weary of Western intervention. Again and again the Libyan people have made it clear they do not want Western intervention.

Let us think of the one way to unite the country behind Gaddafi? Attack with Western forces alone. Good call. Now we are even more intertwined in a war that will foster greater ill will. Thank god we can afford another war. Oh wait....

reply to post by Flying Sorcerer


I assume they do not like the attacks on the tanks, but otherwise what did they expect? Do they think they can fly around in Libya's airspace all willy nilly without Libya actually shooting back with their SA-5's and AA batteries? They have to attack radar installations, command and control centers, surface to air missiles stations, anti-aircraft batteries, and airfields to prevent enemy fighters from scrambling to attack said aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.

Also, they called for it first, if they do not like the way it is being done, then they should feel free to step up to the plate and put their lives on the line and do it themselves.

IMHO

reply to post by pandapowerjamie


Well they have not come out saying things like "we are with Gaddafi" but they were requesting a no fly zone last week but today have condemned what it sees as attacks on civilians and targets other than those associated with implimenting a no fly zone.

link to story

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,"

What the hell did the Arab League think a "no-fly-zone" consist of, shaking our finger at Gadaffi and telling him to pretty please promise to keep his jets on the ground?

This is exactly why I have been against the US enforcing a no-fly-zone. Hell, the Arab League has military capabilities to enforce a no-fly-zone. Since they originally approved it, we should have let them handle it. Granted, it wouldn't do any good without taking out Libyan infrastructure through bombings. But that is a lesson they would have quickly learned.

Honestly, I don't think anyone should be meddling in Libya's business, aside from possibly providing arms to those that have none. It's a freaking civil war...Imagine if we were to have another civil war here in the U.S. and the UN intervened....you had better hope you are fighting on the side that the UN backs.

reply to post by majesticgent



Yes the attacks on the tanks were mentioned

along with attacks on other military "formations"

I heard a rumor on the news last night that the Arab league were only supporting the strikes on Libya if the West agreed to turn a blind eye to the protests in Bahrain, Saudi and other oil producing nations. Just a rumor, but you could see it happening.

Originally posted by Flying Sorcerer
reply to post by pandapowerjamie

 

Well they have not come out saying things like "we are with Gaddafi" but they were requesting a no fly zone last week but today have condemned what it sees as attacks on civilians and targets other than those associated with implimenting a no fly zone.

link to story

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,"

With the quote about "what is happening in Libya" - Does that/could mean that if the U.N doesn't stop they might/will take action against the U.N?

Jamie.

reply to post by Flying Sorcerer


This is a messy situation and I figured it would get this way. I'm thinking it will only get worse before it gets better because once again there is no end game here. Even if they do manage get rid of Ghadaffi, who brought some semblance order of country which was plagued with tribal infighting, it will go back to the tribes fighting over control again, and whose to say that the result will be a "Pro-West" government and not just another enemy?

Point & case: www.huffingtonpost.com...

and now news reports flying out from multiple countries that Qatar are about to get involved with teh no fly zone process lol

you can just picture it can't you "quick quick - get an Arab jet bombing the crap out of something Libyan ASAP!!"

The only reason that the west is going into Libya, is because Kadaffi has lost control of the situation and the west wants to be there to protect their interests, just in case Kadaffis is beaten.
They want to have a say so on who steps into the power vacuum.

This is what Obama gets for attacking a non-threatening sovereign nation with only a ruling from the U.N. which isn't even worth the toilet paper it's written on. Well, looks like he now has his own little oil war on his resume. Any predictions when our ground forces are going to be deployed, and the first U.S. bases pop up in Libya?

reply to post by Aggie Man

What the hell did the Arab League think a "no-fly-zone" consist of, shaking our finger at Gadaffi and telling him to pretty please promise to keep his jets on the ground?

I don't even know why this surprise us. They will complain about it but in the background they are cheering like crazy. They are just afraid that there own people will take to the streets to demonstrate against them for proposing the no fly zone.

Now I predicted this on 12/3/11 an was getting s@!t from some ATS users
I guess I was right. " does know it all" acting like if they know everything are dead wrong.

Originally posted by Warhacks
This is really turning into a world war III scenario. Although some Arab Nations support a no-fly zone over Libya am sure not ALL Arab Nations would agree and that could signal the beginning to some serious tensions between other dictators across the middle east. Once the American and NATO bombs start falling over Libya Eliminating it's air defense am sure other countries will have a problem with it and would call for massive fighting around the region.

www.ledger-enquirer.com...

edit on 12-3-2011 warhacks


reply to post by boondock-saint


With 2 more warships headed to the Mediterranean Sea, that brings the total to 6 warships in the region not counting some nuclear subs that my be lurking in the depth. Now not all warships are going to be American and am not saying they will impose a no-fly zone today or tommorow but with more warships headed to the area it's likely possible we will have a no-fly zone over Libya in the coming days.

I think a fleet of 6 US Warship hovering around is a formitable force for any extra DIV

The Arab league leader is now saying he was misquoted earlier on and the comments were translated incorrectly on Sky news live at the moment