Coalition Strikes Against Libya, Chinese Netizen Reactions

Coalition Strikes Against Libya, Chinese Netizen Reactions

Many Chinese media have been reporting and man Chinese netizens have been discussing the current situation in Libya. For example, popular Chinese news portals NetEase and Sina both have dedicated sections featuring news, photos, interactive elements, and netizen discussions about Libya.

NetEase Libya Photo Reports special page.

 

To give you an example, below are the “photo reports” currently featured on NetEase‘s special page, along with English translations of their titles and captions:

March 22nd local time, American military claim that an F-15E "Strike Eagle" tactical fighter crashed in Libya due to mechanical failure. An American military official said the airplane "crashed" and was not "shot down" by the Libyan national military. The two pilots ejected successfully and have been confirmed to be safe.

American military F-15E fighter jet crashes near Benghazi

March 22nd local time, American military claim that an F-15E “Strike Eagle” tactical fighter crashed in Libya due to mechanical failure. An American military official said the airplane “crashed” and was not “shot down” by the Libyan national military. The two pilots ejected successfully and have been confirmed to be safe.

March 21st local time, outside the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, a fight broke out between Libyan opposition supporters and a group of Gaddafi supporters who had besieged United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to protest.

Gaddafi supporters melee with opposition in Cairo

March 21st local time, outside the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, a fight broke out between Libyan opposition supporters and a group of Gaddafi supporters who had besieged United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to protest.

On the 21st local time, Egyptian capital Cairo, about 50 demonstrators in support of Libyan leader Gaddafi surround United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, forcing Ban Ki-moon to retreat to the nearby Arab League headquarters.

Ban Ki-moon besieged by Gaddafi supporters in Egypt

On the 21st local time, Egyptian capital Cairo, about 50 demonstrators in support of Libyan leader Gaddafi surround United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, forcing Ban Ki-moon to retreat to the nearby Arab League headquarters.

Around 10pm local time on March 20th, Libya's capital city of Tripoli suffered an air attack from the multinational coalition force, with Gaddafi's residence suffering missle attacks. A coalition official confirmed that Gaddafi's compound was amongst the air attack's targets because it possessed Libyan national army command and control capabilities.

Coalition forces attack Libya capital at night, Gaddafi’s compound bombed

Around 10pm local time on March 20th, Libya’s capital city of Tripoli suffered an air attack from the multinational coalition force, with Gaddafi’s residence suffering missle attacks. A coalition official confirmed that Gaddafi’s compound was amongst the air attack’s targets because it possessed Libyan national army command and control capabilities.

Around 10pm local time on the 20th, intensive anti-aircraft fire from the ground to the sky in city center Tripoli. Orange colored gunfire criss-cross in the night sky, forming a dense web of fire, making loud explosions in the high altitude.

Coalition’s second aerial attack, faced intense anti-aircraft counterattacks

Around 10pm local time on the 20th, intensive anti-aircraft fire from the ground to the sky in city center Tripoli. Orange colored gunfire criss-cross in the night sky, forming a dense web of fire, making loud explosions in the high altitude.

American military Director of the Joint Staff William Gortney said on the 20th that 3 B-2 stealth bombers deployed by the Air Force bombed Libya. The targets of these stealth bombers were Libyan military airfields. Gortney said that after two rounds of attacks, Libya's air defense capabilities were "greatly reduced".

American military B-2 stealth bombers participate in air operations against Libya

American military Director of the Joint Staff William Gortney said on the 20th that 3 B-2 stealth bombers deployed by the Air Force bombed Libya. The targets of these stealth bombers were Libyan military airfields. Gortney said that after two rounds of attacks, Libya’s air defense capabilities were “greatly reduced”.

2011 March 20th, France's "Charles de Gaulle" nuclear aircraft carrier departed from the Toulon military port in Southern France, prepared to participate in military strikes against Libya. There are 20 "Rafale" fighter jets and other planes on the aircraft carrier.

France “Charles de Gaulle” aircraft carrier departs for Libya

2011 March 20th, France’s “Charles de Gaulle” nuclear aircraft carrier departed from the Toulon military port in Southern France, prepared to participate in military strikes against Libya. There are 20 “Rafale” fighter jets and other planes on the aircraft carrier.

On the 20th local time, following attacks upon the Libyan military by the multinational force, the Libyan national military forces around Benghazi lost their attack capabilities and withdrew from the outskirts of Benghazi while abandoning their armored and tank units.

Libyan troops severely hit, withdraw from Benghazi outskirts

On the 20th local time, following attacks upon the Libyan military by the multinational force, the Libyan national military forces around Benghazi lost their attack capabilities and withdrew from the outskirts of Benghazi while abandoning their armored and tank units.

March 19th local time, American and British naval warships and submarines deployed to the Mediterranean Sea implement the "Odyssey Dawn" operation, firing hundreds of "Tomahawk" cruise missiles, attacking over 20 Libyan air defense facilities. At present, approximately 48 people have been killed in the air assaults, with another 150 people injured.

British and American forces fire hundreds of Tomahawk missiles against Libya

March 19th local time, American and British naval warships and submarines deployed to the Mediterranean Sea implement the “Odyssey Dawn” operation, firing hundreds of “Tomahawk” cruise missiles, attacking over 20 Libyan air defense facilities. At present, approximately 48 people have been killed in the air assaults, with another 150 people injured.

March 19th local time, in Libya's capital city Tripoli, supporters of the current government form a human shield in front of Gaddafi's official residence to prevent the multi-nation coalition from bombing it.

Gaddafi supporters form “human shield” to prevent aerial attacks

March 19th local time, in Libya’s capital city Tripoli, supporters of the current government form a human shield in front of Gaddafi’s official residence to prevent the multi-nation coalition from bombing it.

March 19th local time, in Libya's capital city Tripoli, Gaddafi's daughter Ayesha al-Gaddafi on the streets with Gaddafi supporters, shouting slogans with them.

Gaddafi’s daughter appears on street in Libya to visit supporters

March 19th local time, in Libya’s capital city Tripoli, Gaddafi’s daughter Ayesha al-Gaddafi on the streets with Gaddafi supporters, shouting slogans with them.

March 19th local time, hundreds of anti-war protesters gathered outside the White House, to commemorate the 8th anniversary of the Iraq War and protest the government's military action against Libya. Police arrested 113 protesters for not obeying instructions.

READ  "Beef Extract" Additive Used To Change Pork Into "Beef"

American anti-war demonstrations, protesting military action against Libya

March 19th local time, hundreds of anti-war protesters gathered outside the White House, to commemorate the 8th anniversary of the Iraq War and protest the government’s military action against Libya. Police arrested 113 protesters for not obeying instructions.

2001 March 19th, a French Rafale jet fighter takes off from a military base in Eastern France to carry out a Libyan mission. French President Sarkozy confirmed that French military planes are already headed to the Libyan "no-fly zone" for patrols, and have already made other battle preparations.

French fighter jet heads towards Libya no-fly zone for patrols

2001 March 19th, a French Rafale jet fighter takes off from a military base in Eastern France to carry out a Libyan mission. French President Sarkozy confirmed that French military planes are already headed to the Libyan “no-fly zone” for patrols, and have already made other battle preparations.

March 19th, the French President held a meeting to implement the United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Libya, with Arab League, European Union, and other regional organization representatives and leaders participating. After the summit concluded, Sarkozy stated that if Gaddafi does not immediately ceasefire, military action will be taken.

France convenes international summit, decides to immediately militarily intervene in Libya

March 19th, the French President held a meeting to implement the United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Libya, with Arab League, European Union, and other regional organization representatives and leaders participating. After the summit concluded, Sarkozy stated that if Gaddafi does not immediately ceasefire, military action will be taken.

March 19th local time, in the air above Benghazi, Libya, a fighter jet emitting smoke falls in the city's southern district. Previous reports indicate that this downed fighter plane belonged to the Libyan national army. However, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP), and confirmed by the Libyan opposition, this fighter jet belongs to them, and that it was shot down by the Libyan national army.

Libyan opposition fighter jet shot down over Benghazi

March 19th local time, in the air above Benghazi, Libya, a fighter jet emitting smoke falls in the city’s southern district. Previous reports indicate that this downed fighter plane belonged to the Libyan national army. However, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP), and confirmed by the Libyan opposition, this fighter jet belongs to them, and that it was shot down by the Libyan national army.

March 17th local time, the United Nations Security Council has decided to designate Libya as a no-fly zone. Of the 15 member Security Council, 10 countries voted for the resolution, while China and Russia abstained. The resolution passed designating Libya as a no-fly zone, and relevant countries must protect Libyan civilians and civilian residential areas from military attacks.

Security Council decides to designate Libya as a no-fly zone, China and Russia abstain

March 17th local time, the United Nations Security Council has decided to designate Libya as a no-fly zone. Of the 15 member Security Council, 10 countries voted for the resolution, while China and Russia abstained. The resolution passed designating Libya as a no-fly zone, and relevant countries must protect Libyan civilians and civilian residential areas from military attacks.

Comments from NetEase:

READ  2011 Japan Tohoku Earthquake, Chinese Netizen Reactions

网易重庆市网友:

Last time they attacked Iraq it was for oil, what about this time? It can’t be for prostitutes, can it? 5 mao come out and give us an explanation.

网易上海市黄浦区网友:

I think this is justice!

网易北京市网友:

Good attack! Support the Western countries’ military operations!

网易广东省深圳市网友:

Fatty Kim [Kim Jong Il] is frightened silly now.

网易江苏省网友:

Americans are true men! Gei li!

网易广西防城港市网友:

America sure has a lot of demonstrators/protesters, a total of 2, and they even dragged the banner behind someone resting just to inflate their numbers.

网易广东省广州市网友:

Must be for Colonel Gaddafi’s pretty nurse and female body guard.

网易浙江省杭州市网友:

The Eight-Nation Alliance appears again to loot/pillage.

网易河北省邢台市网友:

Muammar Gaddafi will definitely be the next Saddam Hussein, his family definitely must die. His level of brutality is worse than Iraq and Afghanistan. This kind of person must die. Warn all the dictators in the world that the unjust are doomed to destruction. Despotic governments like North Korea, Cuba, Iran must one by one be annihilated. America, France, and England are the true democratic countries of the world, and I really admire the leaders of these democratic countries. I thank these countries and leaders for the contributions they have made for world democracy.

网易重庆市网友:

France has impressed me this time. In the past, it always really disappointed me.

网易云南省曲靖市网友:

France is such a joke, only knowing how to bully weaker countries. Sarkozy is simply a clown.

网易浙江省嘉兴市网友:

You are all onlookers, so how could you know the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

网易黑龙江省哈尔滨市网友:

Ban Ki-moon is America’s dog.

网易天津市网友:

[Libya] should be attacked, someone who turns a country into their own family’s private property is nothing good…

Sina's Libya special page.

Sina‘s special page features the latest headlines and Chinese news reports about Libya, also with photo collections, an interactive map showing the different military operations and developments, and an automatic updating stream of messages posted by Chinese netizens using Sina Weibo (a Chinese microblogging service similar to American Twitter).

READ  12-Year-Old Chongqing Girl Raped & Imprisoned Has Baby

At this time of translation, there are over 40,000 comments left by Chinese netizens on Sina and, like the NetEase comments above, we have translated the “most popular” comments currently on Sina below…

Comments from Sina:

新浪四川省南充市网友:

A world where might makes right, plundering a burning house.

新浪江苏省南京市手机用户:

Clearly a war of aggression, yet they spin it as protecting the common people, despicable!!!

新浪北京市网友烟雨春秋:

Fuck, the same old, since ancient times weaker countries are always powerless [before more powerful countries]! It is the great powers’ world!

新浪吉林省长春市网友:

Little Japan, sticking their nose in other people’s business when they haven’t even resolved their own problems. I think the earthquake was too small!

新浪四川省德阳市网友:

America, England, and France, well done, hope you guys will plant the banner of freedom and justice around the entire world.

新浪吉林省长春市网友:

Gaddafi lied to the international community, attacked his own people for his own political power, went back on his word, truly shameless, he got what he deserves!!!

新浪广东省广州市手机用户:

In terms of human fairness, Gaddafi deserves to die. For one person to dominate a country for 42 years, the good fortune you’ve enjoyed is already too much.

新浪江西省鹰潭市网友:

Why is it that when Gaddafi massacred the people of his country no one came out to shout, yet now when many countries have interviewed, people start yelling?

新浪辽宁省沈阳市网友:

After entering the 21st century, as a result of economic crises and energy shortage problems becoming increasingly prominent, the imperialist powers have ripped off their fig leaf [dropped pretenses], revealed their sinister faces, robbing oil-rich Libya. This is the inherent nature of robbers/thieves, just like how a dog cannot be taught to not eat its own shit!

新浪四川成都手机用户:

I think “Old Obama” wants to show his ruthlessness. After all, this is his first war after taking office. He wants to show that black people’s not only have black skin, but that their hearts are even blacker…

新浪山东潍坊网友拍砖的榔头:

It’s time to take back Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.

A woman rebel fighter supporter shoots an AK-47 rifle as she reacts to the news of the withdrawal of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces from Benghazi March 19, 2011. A rebel spokesman said on Saturday anti-government troops had driven out forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi who had entered the eastern city of Benghazi.   REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic (LIBYA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST MILITARY IMAGES OF THE DAY)

What do you think of the situation and developments in Libya?

Written by Fauna

Fauna is a mysterious young Shanghainese girl who lives in the only place a Shanghainese person would ever want to live: Shanghai. In mid-2008, she started chinaSMACK to combine her hobby of browsing Chinese internet forums with her goal of improving her English. Through her tireless translation of popular Chinese internet news and phenomenon, her English has apparently gotten dramatically better. At least, reading and writing-wise. Unfortunately, she's still not confident enough to have written this bio, about herself, by herself.

  • warped0ne

    China and Russia both chose not to use their UN veto votes to prevent this from happening, I don’t see how they can say anything now that it is happening.

    • Chad

      Only Putin criticized it. Medvedev and the Russian Foreign Minister were okay with it. China said it regretted the air strikes and had reservations about the no-fly zone, which is exactly what India has said so I’m unsure of why people seem to be painting the situation as Russia/China vs Everyone Else.

      Reservations shouldn’t = vetoing everyone else’s wishes. However, the air strikes were something that developed after the resolution passed because the wording of the resolution was so open-ended and ambiguous

      • Xiao en

        These countries are given a vote, To say no or veto cancels the entite operation. Because Russia and China did not issue this veto they are a partner in this operation. Expressing regret is not saying NO. They are a part of the Elite 8 nations who lead the world correct??

    • cdn icehole

      China is stuck in between a rock and a hard place. If they’ve vetoed the motion then they look like a bad guy. If they supported the motion then they look like any other imperialist nation (or a puppet of one).

      I think China wisely abstained as it gives them breathing room to do business (think securing oil). Not sure why Russia abstained as they are an oil supplier.

      • too yellow

        also if you vote for it, you’re expected to participate. which is why Germany abstained.

    • Bob

      China and Russia abstained from the no fly zone, but did not expect the air strikes.

      • Adam

        Utterly refuse to believe that, Bob. The Chinese are not stupid, they knew that by abstaining (thus allowing) the airstrikes, civilian casualties would be inevitable.

        I don’t believe for a second that the Chinese did not know what was going to happen.

        How do the Chinese justify the support of the Arab League? They are not evil Western imperialists. Nor is Bosnia, Gabon, and the handful of other USNC countries that supported this.

      • Luis

        Where do you idiots come from?

        No-fly zone = AIR STRIKES

        Have you been living under a rock? It’s been all over the news since day one, from the Pentagon themselves no less! No-fly zone means air strikes against ground installations. You can’t have a no-fly zone if the enemy threatens your planes with AAA and SAMs.

    • Jack

      Do people really think China, Russia, US, Obama, Putin, Wen etc have any “power” to make decisions. They are puppets guys, they do what they are told.

      There is a power structure above all what we see on TV..its called the Illuminati and freemasons..google it to know the hidden masters of the world to unravel why China and Russia merely abstained.

      Do you Obama, Mao, Wen, Putin are all members of secret society..yeah its a conspiracy baby..there is no truth in the world only conspiracy..

      • kissmyass

        you watch too many blockbuster movies…….conspiracy..hahaha
        wake up man….

      • Jon

        Hahaha, “google it to know the hidden masters of the world.”

        Google is truly powerful.

      • Joe

        China is not Illuminati controlled. It would be difficult as the Illuminati are white.

  • cdn icehole

    What do you think of the situation and developments in Libya?

    I don’t support the intervention as this is clearly an INTERNAL matter. I only would support military action if one nation attacks another. What pisses me off is the Arab League itself. They have the ability to do the dirty work but refuses to do so. Now they are complaining that this isn’t want they wanted. I can clearly see ‘mission creep’ taking place as the objectives are clear as mud.

    Getting rid of Gaddafi and his family is not a problem. The real problem is his supporters. Once Gaddafi and family are removed, there’s a possibility that his supporters will go underground and align with Islamic fundamentalists. Remember that saying: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    • Chad

      Exactly. But hey at least we only sent 6 CF-18s. I’d be terribly sad if we wasted yet more billions following the US into the Middle East again.

    • dim mak

      See, the Arab league played America like a fiddle. They got them to do their dirty work, AND take the heat for it. Well played, Arab league. America doesn’t know shit about realpolitik.

      • Alikese

        That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. America has been directing world geopolitics since WWII with realpolitik.

      • Jones

        Wait, wait, let me try to spin it, too:

        Ah, but don’t you see? America just made the Arab League THINK they were getting us to do their dirty work and get the blame for it. They fell right into the US’s hands.

        Herpa-derp derp derp.

    • zagny

      well put. lots of people seem to completely ignore the lack of action from the arab league.
      anyone think that perhaps the reason the arab league does nothing is because in some of their own countries such human violations as those Gaddafi and his family’s purport also happen in their own countries? why would they support action against that or do anything against that in Libya then – would mean a precedent would be set against themselves too soon enough.

    • bando

      Maybe Obama was afraid that everyone would see him as complacent and undeserving of his Nobel Peace prize if he let America sit back and watch Libya tear itself apart. It’s probably America that is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

  • Jess

    The comments are interesting, though not really much different from American reactions elsewhere. But it does show how the posters don’t seem to consider themselves as being oppressed under a dictatorship, or anything.

    And can someone explain to me all this “sofa” business? : (

    • cdn icehole
    • Nathan

      Yeah cos America is really “Land of the Free????” – its all the same, public opinion warped by national strategy. Everyone thinks they’re on the right team. Sometimes its worth studying just how similar China is to the US and other western nations and in many cases how these western nations are worse – but their respective posters “don’t seem to consider themselves as being oppressed under a dictatorship, or anything.”

      • Alikese

        Chinasmack Rule 1. Subcategory A:

        i) A commenter cannot criticize one country without criticizing America in equal or greater amounts. If a poster criticizes China that person is inevitably from America, and must be met equal and opposite criticisms of the US (e.g. “But, but, America!”).

        Thank you Nathan, you are in compliance with protocol and will be allowed further commenting privileges.

        • GodsHammer

          Your response was PERFECT.

        • Jones

          Ha, Alikese, you never cease to entertain.

        • david

          perhaps you are right about this. However, being an American in China for many years, I can easily see that many people who are from here who slam America do not have the proper information. most likely its just things they read about. They never been to the USA.
          same goes for america. They haven’t visited or lived in China so the things they think are correct are just heresay.

          I know this for I lived in both places. its just quick words from misinformed pepole

    • ##BlothaLonely##

      Sofa is a place where lonely peoples hangout quite often.

      Scientifically speaking, the probability of finding a lonely on the sofa is log(e)x5 more than that of a non-lonely person.

      What I am uttering is not bullshit, but loneliness…

  • En

    this is hilarious:

    “America sure has a lot of demonstrators/protesters, a total of 2, and they even dragged the banner behind someone resting just to inflate their numbers.”

    • Airy

      We can now conclude that (America population -2) support Libra war!!

      • Dr. Jones Jr.

        Yes, let us make war upon those cold-hearted Libras–they of the facile “balance”. As a Scorpio, my stinger is well prepped!

        Oh, never mind, you meant Libya.

  • Bo Wang

    Can someone enlighten me as to why enforcing a “NO-FLY ZONE” involves launching air-strikes against fixed positions and armor? I thought the purpose of the no-fly zone was to keep Ghadafi’s air force from being used in the civil war.

    • KfU

      @ Bo Wang…

      Firstly, the “No Fly Zone” is only part of UN Resolution 1971 (2011), which is designed to keep Gadaffi from killing any more of his own citizens, with the particular mention of those in Benghazi – and allows the UN coalition to use “all means necessary” to defend the Libyan people, but strictly rules out the use of an “invasion force” (one should note the ambiguous nature of the word “invasion” – which technically does not rule out the use of troops in Libya, especially Special Forces)

      Therefore, in answer to your question…

      The No-Fly Zone is only part of the UN mandate in Libya. The main objective is to nullify Gadaffi’s ability to threaten his own people.

      The UN Coalition Forces have used air-strikes and sea launched missile attacks to a) destroy military hardware and it’s support (supply train) around Benghazi – largely done by the French on Day 1, and b) to destroy Gadaffi’s Command and Control Centres, his Air-Force, his ability of supply (fuel, etc), Radar, Anti-Aircraft capabilities, Radar, etc, etc (essentially his military capability) – largely done by the US / UK Cruise Missile Attacks complimented by Special Forces on the ground to direct targeting.

      None of which is contrary to the mandate set out by Resolution 1971 (2011)

      – which was supported by the Arab League, and received 11 Yes, 4 Abstentions, and 0 No at the UN vote, with China failing to use their Veto, which in this particular UN vote meant “The Arabs (oil) are supporting this, and Gadaffi is a complete b*astard and will lose anyway, and we want our 30,000 oil workers to be allowed back in once fighting is over, so we can’t vote “No”, but we don’t want to be seen as openly supporting the removal of an authoritarian dictatorship that suppresses the rights and freedoms of its own citizens, because that might set a precedent that may come back to haunt us – and we also want to be able to stir up anti-western feelings at home, so we can distract people from rising food and fuel prices…. (None of which I mind by the way, as long as it allows the UN to get rid of Gadaffi – unlike in Sudan and Zimbabwe – where nothing can be done – because China would use it’s Veto…)

      • B-real

        you said it better than I was going to say it.

      • Bo Wang

        Thanks for insightful post. The news article I read on CBC about the no-fly zone wasn’t so informative.

        • cdn icehole

          I’m assuming you’re talking about the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. If so, the quality of their reporting have been on the down turn for a while; more so once that faggot Harper started meddling into it’s operation.

      • Airy

        In order to better protect the Libya people, the UN Force now decided to pump all the oil out of Libya with green technology and put it in a safe place.

      • Airy

        Will the military involvement in Libya will leads to rights and freedom?

      • Larsa

        This is all good and well if it’s the majority of the Libyan people who wants him gone. Is this the case? Seen a lot of people being FOR Gadaffi. Must say the footage i’ve seen on Tv looks like its 50 50. But that’s the problem with TV. And DON”T believe that western TV is not getting orders from “above”. All media is state controlled because it’s the ultimate forum to fool the people. So, how can any of you be so sure that what the allies is doing is right, or is it as some mention the old oil trick again. “We fight for freedom” and the freedom for us to rob you of your oil.

    • stubear

      A no-fly zone also first involves blowing up any ground targets that might be a threat to planes. Which could be a lot of things.

      • Bo Wang

        I’ve seen a lot of videos with anti-aircraft gun fire since the campaign started. Probably not high value targets as they don’t really pose a threat to jets; might as well let ’em waste their ammo.

      • Chad

        There’s reports and photos of tanks blown up by French air strikes. I don’t believe tanks can target planes… when they are in the air at least.

        • stubear

          Yes but the agreement is to do anything necessary to protect civilians. The tanks where probably firing at Misrata or somewhere similar.

          • Chad

            That’s a different issue. My problem is with the fact that many people have been misled by the media and government into thinking this intervention was about simply setting up a no-fly zone when far more targets irrelevant to a no-fly zone have been bombed.

            Canadian fighter jets just bombed an ammunition depot, and with an arms embargo going on, they’re simplying pushing for the rebels to win without directly acting themselves to cost lives. Instead, it’s just a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

            You can support this war, fine, but don’t act as if this is just about enforcing a no-fly zone and protecting civilian lives because it clearly isn’t. It’s about disabling Gaddafi enough to hopefully let the rebels win, and who do you think the rebels will be favourable to in the future?

          • k2000k

            This isn’t about ‘protecting the civilians’ it is very much picking a side in an internal war. Gadafi is a terrible human being, with a terrible regime, unfortunately western media never adequetly asked just who exactly are the rebels? Only now are they reporting, which certain private intelligence firms had reported earlier, that many factions within the rebel group have ties to islamist and other fundemental groups. The US role is complex, Europes not quiet as much. Europe, paticularly France and Italy, have a heavy stake when it comes to Libya as they recieve substantial oil from them. In their mind, the sooner a victor emerges, preferbly the rebels, and economic normalcy restored the better. With the United States there is no economic incetive, there really wasn’t as big a one with Iraq or Afgahnistan though many people like to claim, wrongly I might add, it was pure realpolitik and the maintaining of the balance of power for that region. Perhapes the US sees this as an opportunity to gain favor with the mideastern public, also to help gloss over the realitive inaction in other middle eastern nations. It can also be a case of simple momentum, the US has been involved in the region for some time now and it cannot help but continue to be involved. It could also be that there is no way Europe could maintain these strikes without US aid. Just look at the Balkans prior to US involvement. The President may say the US is taking a back seat, I assure you America isn’t. The vast majority of sorties are done by America and the logistic operations are still almost exclusively done by the American military. My own opinion is that getting invovled is a terrible idea, it is insanely expensive, there is no real clear American interest, and whatever good will is earned will rapidly dissapate because either we will get more invovled, which will entail America telling the rebels what to do, or we simply drag out a civil war which will make the rebels angry for not helping more. It is a no win scenario and what makes me shake my head is that it was completely avoidable for the US.

    • Chad

      KfU is totally correct in that, which is why it’s also sad that so many people think that the only thing the US, France and friends is doing is enforcing a No-Fly Zone. That’s NOT what they are doing. That’s what they are telling the public, and that’s what the public believes since everyone just hears about attacks on anti-air sites, but they are also targeting ground targets including tanks and APCs because the UN resolution was VERY ambiguous on what the rules of engagement would be since it included anything to prevent civilian deaths aside from actually invading the place. The big problem is of course no one actually needs to show any evidence any destroyed APC was actually on route to killing civilians.

      Plain and simple, this is an act of war by the US and friends framed as enforcing a No-Fly Zone to save civilian lives.

      hat in itself is a pretty questionable objective considering they’ve said they’re going to be targeting snipers and other ground forces in the coming days. I’ve no idea how they’re going to do that without causing civilian casualties themselves.

      • Bo Wang

        How are they going to target snipers from above? Are they going to coordinate air strikes with rebel ground units?

        Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Libyan government forces used/uses civilians as meat shields.

        • KfU

          @ Bo Wang (again, but i’m not singling you out)

          Targeting of snipers will not really involve any direct intel from the “rebels”… They are not particularly organized… Targets will be acquired by Special Forces operatives and also Agents working on the ground embedded with rebel fighters, or in or around major urban areas.

          Oh, and I can’t watch CBC anymore – their reporting makes me vexed – for example the Death Star theme tune from Star Wars that they play over any film showing UN Forces Fighter planes – yes, i get it – you think they’re bad – jesus – stick to business news like why a bag of carrots now cost 100 RMB!

          @ Chad

          I wouldn’t say that the UK gov’t is hiding behind the “No-Fly” mantra – i’d say that they’ve made it pretty clear from the start that they want to f*ck Gadaffi by all means available, as have the French to be fair – albeit without mentioning the dreaded phrase “Regime Change”.

          The US, probably due to Obama’s reluctance to be involved (remember – this is Hilary C’s baby), because of the upcoming elections and memories of Iraq, and the fact that the US has virtually no financial interests in Libya and can’t get anywhere near the oil because the extraction rights and infrastructure are largely owned by BP and some Chinese oil company (there were 20-30,000 Chinese workers in Libya before the unrest, and they weren’t there growing rice) is the one pressing home the “No-Fly zone” and “limited intervention” comments.

          America is not in Libya to “conquer” Libya. Obama wants out asap. Over the next week military operations will concentrate on taking out as much of Gadaffi’s military hardware as possible, then the Americans will cede operation command to NATO or some other Organisation to be overseen by the French or the Brits – who will then continue to enforce the no-fly zone, continue to take-out any remaining forces that threaten the civilian population ( or as you may know them “rebels”, more commonly referred to “Not Gadaffi’s Tribe” or as the “other 142 Tribes in Libya”) except of course those citizens loyal to Gadaffi’s ( or as you may know them “loyalist”, more commonly referred to as “Gadaffi supporters” or “Those in the same tribe as Gadaffi” or “Pro-Gadaffi Big Number 1 Tribe”), until the Rebels are able to topple the Gadaffi regime and take control of Libya.

          … and as a show of gratitude, the Rebels-now-Leaders of Libya will kick-out BP and Mobile and grant sole oil extraction rights to the Chinese in exchange for a few hospitals, a few pointless 8 lane highways, a few schools, and a massive bribe… New World Order indeed!

          • Chad

            Go look at some articles and the comments about them. The vast majority of people defending this war somehow think this is about a no-fly zone. I can’t even describe the # of times that I’ve seen people say they’re targeting ground targets because they can target aircraft as well, compeltely ignorant of the fact that tanks, troops, APCs and ammo depots have been hit as well. I don’t specifically look at UK websites, but that’s certainly what’s been shown on US and Canadian sites.

            The UN resolution is absolute bull. Doing anything that can prevent civilian deaths somehow includes blowing up an ammo depot in the middle of nowhere. What they’re really doing is as you say trying to make Gaddafi lose without losing a single man because god knows the public would freak out if they’d realize this is just another Middle Eastern war where billions of taxpayer dolalrs wasted in bombs and missiles AGAIN.

            In North America at least we’ve been presented a picture of the helpless rebels who are the representation of justice against the evil Gaddafi when really no one knows what the heck the rebels are going to do when they’re in control.

            It’s just tragic that history can repeat itself so many times and the unassuming public will always lie down and think they’re on the right side.

          • anon

            “In 2009, Libya’s Qaddafi demanded that oil companies operating in Libya pay him to offset the cost of reparations to victims of Libyan terror attacks, according to the Times. (Several major oil companies had also previously lobbied against the law that ensured American victims would be compensated by Libya, arguing this could harm business ties between the two countries.)

            The Times cited an example of two oil companies who made other payments to Libya:

            In 2008, Occidental Petroleum, based in California, paid a $1 billion “signing bonus” to the Libyan government as part of 30-year agreement. A company spokesman said it was not uncommon for firms to pay large bonuses for long-term contracts.

            The year before, Petro-Canada, a large Canadian oil company, made a similar $1 billion payment after Libyan officials granted it a 30-year oil exploration license, according to diplomatic cables and company officials.”

            http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/oil-companies-that-gave-bonuses-to-libya-Als-lobbied-against-disclosure-ru
            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24qaddafi.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

  • Foreign Devil

    I’m against it. As someone earlier commented. It is an internal affair. If we intervene here then by logic we should take military action in every oppressed country were the majority is oppressed byt he minority and not happy with their situation. Of course that is impossible. Libya has oil that’s why we are there.

    Bankrupt nations spending more on war and creating more terrorists and enemies in the process. The next form of government in Libya will probably be no better. Do we really know who these armed rebels are??

    • stubear

      So just because we can’t act everywhere means we shouldn’t act anywhere? We have to be selective. Not sure what all the oil arguments are about anyway, everyone has been buying oil off them for ages anyway. As far as I heard, Gadaffi has talked to Russia, India and China and promised that he would only sell oil to them if they didn’t support the attacks. He apparently said this on Libyan TV. Russia makes more money from the whole thing anyway as it pushes oil prices up. We don’t have much to gain in UK, France and US, the last thing we need is higher fuel prices.

      • Foreign Devil

        Here’s the politics. Most of these countries now fighting Gadhafi were just a few months ago cozy with him and purchasing oil from him. At first signs of civil war they would still not condemn Gadhafi. . but then when it looked like Gadhafi would be defeated they all jumped to become friends and allies with the new “would be” rulers so they can continue having access to Libyan oil. Italy now is having a tizzy with France because they feel that they are not being acknowledged enough as being part of the rebellion and thus getting access to the cheap oil. At this point it is imperative that Gadhafi be defeated or all the countries currently involved will absolutly lose all access to Libyan oil. They will defeat Gadhafi now at all costs. mark my words!

        • Marsvin

          So you’re saying support for the protesters isn’t based purely on idealism and human kindness? Countries act in a certain way because it’s in their interests? What a shocker.

          People have NEVER gone to war over idealism. Idealism is just what’s used to sell the war.

          • stubear

            Yep. Choose the side you think will win :) . I’ve got no arguments with that. Especially when that side is the none evil one as well. China, Russia, India etc will get no oil off them once the rebels win. hehe

          • anon

            “The point is that there’s something a bit head in the sand about proclaiming this a simple “humanitarian” undertaking. Showing up with bags of rice in a famine zone is a humanitarian undertaking. Sending in some Marines to help guard the trucks full of bags of rice is a plausible military element of a humanitarian undertaking. What we’re doing is providing tactical air support to one faction in a civil war in order to help them prevail against a rival faction that has much more heavy military equipment. This may or may not produce some net humanitarian benefits in the end, but it’s hard for me to know how you’d make an accurate forecast about that one way or another.”

            http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/revolutionary-justice-in-benghazi/

    • cdn icehole

      Do we really know who these armed rebels are??

      No and that’s going to bite “The West” in the ass…again.

  • anon

    “But my real question for Judis (and those who voice the same accusations against Libya intervention opponents) is this: do you support military intervention to protect protesters in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies from suppression, or to stop the still-horrendous suffering in the Sudan, or to prevent the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Ivory Coast? Did you advocate military intervention to protect protesters in Iran and Egypt, or to stop the Israeli slaughter of hundreds of trapped innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon or its brutal and growing occupation of the West Bank?

    If not, doesn’t that necessarily mean — using this same reasoning — that you’re indifferent to the suffering of all of those people, willing to stand idly by while innocents are slaughtered, to leave in place brutal tyrants who terrorize their own population or those in neighboring countries? Or, in those instances where you oppose military intervention despite widespread suffering, do you grant yourself the prerogative of weighing other factors: such as the finitude of resources, doubt about whether U.S. military action will hurt rather than help the situation, cynicism about the true motives of the U.S. government in intervening, how intervention will affect other priorities, the civilian deaths that will inevitably occur at our hands, the precedents that such intervention will set for future crises, and the moral justification of invading foreign countries? For those places where you know there is widespread violence and suffering yet do not advocate for U.S. military action to stop it, is it fair to assume that you are simply indifferent to the suffering you refuse to act to prevent, or do you recognize there might be other reasons why you oppose the intervention?”

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/22/libya

  • Akim BI

    some days like this, i feel all the countries should have nuclear heads. That way, nobody shall intervain in nobody’s matter. But well that won’t help either, as some poor countries like France won’t be able to survive without imperialism which is otherwise their historical traits. Funny that France was the first and one of the top defender of the raids over Lybia. An african won’t be surprised, France has looted Africa before, with its european allies such as UK and Belgium and him particularly, still is using 21st century means to keep looting Africa. That block (France on top, uk and belgium) has done everything to cut off state leaders such as Khadafi who was being a threat to their looting of Africa (there are other example: Lumumba, Sankara etc). Am not saying they are all responsible of this, they get help from the inside from less partrioctic people who dont see y the west is in, it is just for oil and they know Khadafi is nut. He can cut their supply chain any time. So better cut him loose b4 he does sthg stupid. What I know is that Khadafi, regardless how bad he is, is the one that brought the many tribe of Lybia together (regardless of their race and tribal membership) and is the only one Lybian with that amount of aura and leadership. Even though I believe he needs to loosen his grips on the state affairs, I also believe for the time being he is the right one @ the right place and western countries cant just interfer with countries affair. Why they dont interfere in China affair? With all the killing going on in the working camp, the killing of civil right activists? Organ trafficking etc? Cause they know if they do, China will retaliate so bad, right? Western countries are pussies, they attack the weakest for their little arrrogance and for the sake of their confortable condition. But they should know violence calls violence. I have friend from France ( few of them, not fan of that countries for its double standard), but also from US and countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Irak. It’s amazing to see the intensity of hatred between, them from Iran, Pakistant and so on with the americans. Even if they try not to show it much, we all know if is there and it is not healthy. BEcause of your country policies, people from outside will judge u and decide if they hate you or like you, they dont care u r innocent. If Khadaffi does go, Alkaida will soon take over the place and from there they will have a great window to europe. Bombing attack, terrorism, you name it. More killings, but it’s probably worth guaranteeing your oil supply chain. God bless the axis of evil. That axis, acc. to me, look more like FRANCE-UK-US today

    • KfU

      I know most of this is just opinion,
      based on personal inference… but …

      “ What I know is that Khadafi, regardless how bad he is, is the one that brought the many tribe of Lybia together (regardless of their race and tribal membership) and is the only one Lybian with that amount of aura and leadership…”

      Now, that’s not really true is it….

      Gadaffi has held power in Libya for 4 decades, which is quite an achievement I do not deny – but such supremacy was not the result of “bringing the tribes together” or through the Libyan masses gazing in awe at the sheer “aura” of their great leader…

      Whilst maybe true in 1969, and maybe for part of the early 1970’s, the notion that Gadaffi has retained power in Libya through aura and leadership is a tad complementary. The great socialist hope of Northern Africa he may once have been, but Power and later Oil revenue has long since changed that.

      To misunderstand this point, is to misunderstand the events currently occurring within Libya – separate from any UN intervention and whatever opinion you hold regarding the implementation of UN Resolution 1971.

      Gadaffi came to power through a military coup in the late 1960’s. Gadaffi is from the Gaddadfa Tribe. This tribe was ostracized by the then Libyan Monarchy – who barred it from much of Public life and positions of state – except strangely the army and the police – which the monarchy thought as being “low” jobs.

      Now, for most I do not need to go in to any detail about what happened between the Gadaddfa being allowed to gain control in the army and police and the coup / revolution in 1969 – that would seem obvious….

      After 1969, Gadaffi has increasingly weakened the influence of both the police and the army – obviously not wanting to create any potential opponents – and has thus relied on his own tribe, as well as foreign mercenaries from African nations and also his paramilitary units.

      In this way, Gadaffi has turned Libya in to a private fiefdom. He has weakened the army and the police, strengthened his personal paramilitary forces, given over the majority of key “public” positions to his fellow clansmen, and brought in foreign mercenaries to supplement his power base.

      … he uses this position of strength to maintain control of Libya (the western regions anyway) – and siphon of much of its’ oil revenue for personal aggrandizement.

      So what about the other Tribes, whom are apparently in awe of their great leader…

      Well the Tribal leaders of the Warfalla (about 1/6th of the population) have been bought off, allowed to benefit from oil revenues just enough to stop any wide-spread dissent. The same can be said of the Megrahee, but perhaps to a lesser extent.

      The remaining tribes, either too small, too disunited, or based largely in the Eastern regions – where as long as they didn’t interfere in oil extraction (the oil is mainly in the eastern region) they were left alone – have been played against one-another or have been too “tribal” to join forces in an attempt to overthrow the Tripoli regime.

      … except in the 1990’s – when Gadaffi successfully put down a rebellion not too dissimilar to the current one… wasn’t nice.. lot’s of people killed… but no-one cared.. so it didn’t matter…

      This time however, there are even murmurings of discontent from the Warfalli’s and the Megrahee’s – which leaves Gadaffi, the Gaddadfa and the foreign mercenaries with their backs somewhat against the wall – which is why Gadaffi couldn’t back-down even after it became obvious that the UN were considering getting involved – because if he did, he would have been finished…

      The man has even managed to unite the Amazeegh and the Berbers – something not even mutual hatred of the Italians could do during Italian colonial rule (yes, shocking for some – but Libya was only controlled by the Brits and French between 1942 and 1949 – and funnily enough that had a lot to do with WW2).

      Whether you agree with the actions of the UN or not is a matter of personal opinion, and obviously people hold different views…

      … but no-one be under any illusion that Gadaffi is some “misunderstood” benevolent ruler who has the support of the majority of his population and is serving anyone but himself by opposing the UN resolution.

      … and you may all disagree with every word I’ve written – but having lived in Egypt and spent a reasonable amount of time in Libya – speaking to actual Libyans.. i stand by it…. : )

      and that’s it. I’m done. I promised my gf i wouldn’t get sucked in to this – and i failed… I’m off to HK for the weekend to forget this site exists… a tip by the way is not to turn on the email notification option – i’ve learned my lesson – won’t be doing that again…

      • Akim BI

        yeah right, I agree with you on certain points. It also, might just be my opinion, but am african, I’ve as well been in many african countries, as a matter of fact, I know what am talking about (I don’t need to google up or wikipedia it before I can tell, I’ve been moulded in it). The ultimate thing I learnt and will keep passing on to future generation is that foreigner are not in to help. We ought to solve our own issues and I believe the AU and the Arab league was to solve these. Not “Infidels”, as it is the proper term my arab friends would use in similar circumstances. So please…I may be could understand the Lybia strikes if all the UN security council and Europe backed the resolution 1971(or whatever name they give it, Aube de l’Odyssée???MDR)but, surprisingly Russia, China, Germany, these countries aren’t really confortable with the strikes. These same countries are the one that haven’t been much involved in the colonial industry. Governement are killing people in Ivory coast, but if the intention was just justice for the weakers, I think just a day of strike would be enough to solve the pbm there. And yet they prefered using the whole and heavy artillery on Khadaffi. Whether you think that my statement that he had brought the tribes of Lybia together once but not anymore is right or not, I believe back then it wasnt easy task and he deserves a credit for that. Do u see anybody that can make it happen nowaday, the circumstances being what they are? the rebellion leaders that met Sarkozy? These rebelion isnt even well organized enough…It looks more like a rebellion of the hook. What I believe is that US and its henchman should try to solve serious issues that have been lingering for ages (israeli-palestine, the many conflicts they’ve started in middle east and have never ended etc). Perhaps, they’ve already drawn enough oil there and it is time to taste and/or secure the super quality lybian oil by overthrowing the stubborn colonel for a pet they can manipulate easily to guarantee their companies will be back in business. Khadaffi waved several agreements with western (France, UK …) and nationalize several companies as well while he was entering deal with Chinese and Russian, coincidence that all this is happening afterward.
        I probably can’t guess what their real intentions are, but time will tell us. On the other hand, I cannot allow myself to believe a country that started a full scale war on fake basis (Iraq.), and if you are american, you might not wanna be fooled by your leaders again in case u have a bit of humanism and humanity equality among the principles you hold as true. As for myself, I’m African and I love that continent. I don’t feel right with people dying because they have different opinion, but I also believe in a nation you can’t let every one behave the way it sounds right for him, that is called anarchy and that’s also not what I want for Africa.
        Ultimately, I firmly believe those countries that have looted and plundered our richness should really keep out.
        Proud African!

  • red_five

    Intervention or not, the West was screwed either way on this one.

    • Yeah, that’s how I see this… Before the attack happened all I ever heard was people bitching about “How could we sit by and let them killi nnocent protestors!” now I keep hearing, from the same groups, “How can you invade an innocent country!?”

      I did not support Iraq or Afghanistan, I’m very against war but seriously… these people were about to be slaughtered by that clown… If they help the people and then get the hell out of Libya I fully support this action, I just hope hope hope they get out afterwards because getting stuck in yet another fucking country is not what the West needs right now…

      • Noodle

        Exactly. It was a decision based on the risk of doing sth. versus the risk of doing nothing. A horrific decision to make, especially as it had to be made quickly.

        Nothing to do with oil in Libya – Western oil companies were already there. Has more to do with the Middle East’s view of the West – which the West has to care about because of oil.

        (And why is there no intervention in Bahrain? Because that pushing the Saudis to turn off the oil tap would plunge the world into the greatest depression in history. Sadly there’s no decision to make there until Western economies become self-sufficient in energy.)

      • Akim BI

        They won’t get out cause after Khadaffi is out, everybody will wanna lead the country. Just see the way the rebellion is organized. The whole thing is screwed before it even started and that’s y they are intervening. They know afterward, the place is gonna be so screwed that they gonna find some international laws to stay otherwise these poor & uncivilized people will kill themselves. Then they gonna help them to elect a president that will take his order from Elysée, white house or downing street

      • k2000k

        We are definetly going to be stuck in that nation. Look at the No Fly zone impletemented by the US in Iraq during the 90s. It is very easy to get involved in the affairs of another nation, it is hard to get out. A lot of people think the US is involved in Iraq for oil, it is not, it is involved because of geo-political reason that go back to the 1950s when the US started using economic incentive to try and isolate the soveit union. Few people realize that the US is currently the 3rd largest oil producer in the world, back in the 1950s it was the largest. It made economic aggrements with middle eastern nations that largely involved purchasing oil, and later giving military equipment, to ensure that they would be, if not on the US side, certaintly not on the Soviets. These agreements later ensured that at a later date the US would be involved in those countries internal affairs. Purchasing oil is simply a mechanism thorugh which the US exercises political clout and power. If the US wanted to it could eliminate its dependence on middle eastern oil through contracts with other nations, continued expansion of its own oil drilling, and research in alternative energies. Kind of a long winded aside but what I am getting at is that because of these relationships go back a long ways. The Iraq No Fly zone pretty much paved the way for future military involvement in that country. This mission is a bad, bad idea. One that the US cannot afford, we are wasting treasure when we should be focusing on fixing whats broken.

  • Cool Matt

    Internal Internal Internal. An authoritative government’s favorite word. Tends to come out when they are accused of human rights violations.(i.e. Intentionally killing their own people)

    The question is valid. Why intervene in Libya? Governments around the world intentionally kill their own people all the time. Oil looks like a motive. But does it have to be the only one?

    Nothing noble about it, but can’t it be getting oil and protecting people from being slaughtered be a reason?

    Can anybody honestly say Gaddafi, who admitted to blowing up a plane, and who routinely abuses, arrests and kills Libyans who go against him should be left to do so because it happens within his boarders?

    Human rights is never an internal problem only. It is a global problem that requires a global solution. Peacefully if possible, if not, by other means. If it was left to be internal, it would never end. People would keep being killed for disagreeing with those in power.

    Hitler would have loved to say the “final solution” against Jews was an internal problem. What if we took his word?

    This latest Libya episode is shady, don’t get me wrong, but there are some elements of good to it that shouldn’t be ignored either.

    • Rick in China

      The line was crossed when he started shelling groups of civilians & towns who opposed him.

      Up to that point, it was seen as business as usual in that region.

    • Airy

      How to exercise power over other country
      Step 1: declare something a global problem
      Step 2: declare a global solution
      Used by American Only

      Not until this formula allows all countries in the world to do the same thing people will be mad at whatever the US do with it.

    • Nathan

      Thats not the issue for me, the issue is who has the right to intervene… a coalition of Britain, USA and France. Maybe human rights in these nations are not the worst in the world but their foreign policy dictates that they are certainly not the ones to be dishing out lessons in humanitarianism.

      • bert

        We should get the Norwegians, Swedes and Fins to do it. :)

    • CHNinUSA

      it is interesting to see how the west allies justify the intervention to Libya for the reason Gaddafi oppress and kill people stand opposite against him, but did not to do that on CPC on 1989. Come on France! Use the same standard to bomb the facility like the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CPC, the mainlanders will have free speech immediately!

    • Chad

      Human rights is a global problem eh? Well that opens Pandora’s box doesn’t it? Last I checked, the US is guilty of torture, overthrowing legitimately elected governments, kidnapping German citizens, illegally detaining alleged enemy combatants for years, and oh… killing thousands of civilians in many wars over ideology and fabricated WMDs. Why hasn’t the US been invaded 10 times over?

      • Cool Matt

        Yes Chad,

        It is a global problem. USA is apart of that problem. But where you see no line, (and you may be right as a life is a life no matter where it is from) I see a clear line between what the acts the USA is doing and what somebody like Saddam or Gadhafi is doing to their own people.

        FYI, News just in from CNN said Gadhafi just attacked a hospital. A HOSPITAL. Not confirmed, but still, the day American forces willingly attack a hospital is the day that line I previously mentioned will disappear.

        • Chad

          Haha, I do agree in that there’s a distinct difference between the US and Libya. Libya kills its own people. The US just kills other people.

          Of course, that’d make being an American when better than being a Libyan, but both should be ashamed of what their governments have done.

  • nereis

    The difference here is that no one else orders airstrikes and artillery fire on protesters.

  • Nathan

    From a British point of view I am totally against any intervention. Yes Gaddafi has an organised opposition and yes he has a questionable track record. But all that needs to be said is we have no legal right to remove Gaddafi from power and thats all we need to know. Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy along with rest of the bumbag club will say the mission is not to remove Gadafi from power… um so then what is the mission, when will we achieve it and how has this situation go anything to do with our countries. I dont doubt that most in the west oppose Gaddafi’s position, but they are from the west, they are not from Libya. Just as you should not jump into someone else’s fight on a saturday night in San Li Tun, you should never interfere with other countries internal affairs. Not only is it illegal, but it justifies further such action in the future against other less innocent parties.

    We have seen much questioning of Chinese authority on ChinaSmack, now lets reveal just how similar our own western countries are, but in a much more sly manner!

    • Airy

      It is interesting how the democratic mechanism in western country doesn’t reflect what you think to the decision makers. Wouldn’t be nice if each of those country have a vote on the topic before going to war? It seems that the reality now is lets to go on war first and than do the vote later, a time where the leaders have a chance to think of a way to justify what they have done based on the outcomes.

      • Nathan

        Your right and thats why the UK does not really have a democracy. Just as Blair made a secret deal with Bush to invade Iraq, before politicians had a chance to vote and also under the knowledge that Iraq probably did not possess WMD’s and we can extradite our own citizens to the US to stand trial without evidence. We British are just a bitch hand puppet to America and our politicians would never listen to us over the greater calls from other leaders and money men.

        • KfU

          Nathan, from your comments I take it that you’re British. I’m also guessing that you were a student or maybe in your 20’s at the very least (although I may be wrong, so don’t be offended) during the Iraq War.

          Britain has a parliamentary democracy, although not a direct democracy – which most people would consider impracticable unless you are a small Greek small city state in the 2nd Century BC, and certainly an impediment to efficient governance in a country of over 70 million people.

          The system works by everyone voting in an election for a Constituency MP, with the MP who gets the most votes in a constituency being given the right to sit as a member of the parliament. The party with the most MP’s is usually allowed to form a government (although sometimes, as now, a coalition may need to be formed to gain a majority). These elections are held every 4 to 5 years on average, and one would suppose that if a governing party had not performed well – they would be voted out of power.

          It would be wrong to presume that simply because the current government (or previous, in relation to Iraq) does not follow your preferred cause of action – that it therefore does not represent the will of the people in general.

          In terms of the Iraq war, apart from students, left wingers in need of a cause, pacifists, and professional protesters totalling about 1 or so million – whom protested in London – I would say out of the remaining population 20% were in favour of the war, 20 % were against, 50 % didn’t give a sh*t, and 10 % thought Iraq was a small village in Scotland and couldn’t understand why Blair and Ryan Seacrest wanted to attack it….

          Regarding the current intervention in Libya, a vote was held in the UK Parliament and it was passed – with your MP, if you bothered to vote, or rather the MP who was elected in your local constituency probably voting in-favour of backing the UN Resolution 1971 – as obviously did a majority of all MPs who in turn were voted for by UK subjects. Obviously if their decision upset you, you can vote against the government at the next election, and if enough people agree with you – they will be removed from power.

          ( to digress – it’s not a perfect system by any means – but when pitted against most others around the globe, and when you throw in all the other things you enjoy under such a government – like an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, free-speech, and so-on – i’d say that it’s not so bad….)

          The UN intervention in Libya, and note UN not US, was not sort by the current US administration, but rather France and Britain, who made all the running – to get the Arab League and most EU nations on board. If anything Obama’s hand was forced by the stridency of the UK and France, as well as support from H. Clinton and the US Ambassador to the UN.

          Again, I will state that this is a UN intervention. The UN is an international body – who relies on the US and other Western nations to go in and conduct military operation – because no-one else will. Following events in Kosovo and Rwanda, and so on – the UN made it it’s direct responsibility and obligation to intervene in “Sovereign” nations where those in power were inflicting crimes against their own citizens – so that you wouldn’t have the situation were UN troops had to stand by whilst people massacred people in front of their eyes – literally in the case the French Troops in Rwanda.

          Yet, this is a Libyan problem… and at best an Arab problem… but having lived in the region not so long ago – and having spent time in Libya – I would hazzard a guess that 141 of Libya’s Tribes would be backing UN intervention – with only a small number of (Gadaffi dependent) Tribes supporting the current regime.

          And a quick look at today’s papers in the Arab world would suggest that the general consensus is in support of the UN intervention (http://www.akhbaralarab.ae/ as an example – if anyone reads Arabic…). Indeed the only really vocal heavy-weight opposition that I’ve seen internationally is from Russia, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and China – which is quite a list in many ways…..(although one should note the absence of N.Korea)…

          So i guess, rather than going all “bLIAR” and Britain is a non-democratic state (and just how anyone from the UK can write that when they are living in China and can see what non-democratic system really means – not that I have anything against the one-party autocratic system here in China ) maybe you should calm down and see this for what it is: a clear UN resolution, not vetoed or voted against by any member, supported by the Arab League, being implemented by a global coalition, to protect Libyan civilians from their insane un-elected “leader” – who had spent the previous 2-3 weeks trying to kill them…

          … Damn, it’s nearly 5 o’clock.. enough rambling… dinner time…

          • Nathan

            KFU, thanks for responding to me in detail it was interesting to hear your opinion and lets get one thing clear, we are talking with our opinions here. Yes of course I am British but I think my age and position at the time of the conflict in Iraq is irrelevant and quite condescending in the way you put it, but if you must know I was a 16 year old Army cadet who supported the war but was more interested in rugby, beer and getting fishy fingers. Furthermore, if you know I am British I don’t know why you felt the need to break down the British parliamentary system for me, again very condescending and really quiet pointless.

            My constituency (which I have consistently voted within no matter where I am in the world) is controlled by the Conservatives and has been for as long as I can remember (coming from a rural part of East Anglia.) The problem with this is there are a huge amount of people with quite varying political views who never get heard, due to the majority of the local population being farmers, London commuters and small business owners. With this system it is possible for the majority of the national population to vote for one person and get another. Anyway, this is really another matter not related to this article and we could go into detail about it for hours.

            You did however make an interesting point:

            “In terms of the Iraq war, apart from students, left wingers in need of a cause, pacifists, and professional protesters totalling about 1 or so million – whom protested in London – I would say out of the remaining population 20% were in favour of the war, 20 % were against, 50 % didn’t give a sh*t, and 10 % thought Iraq was a small village in Scotland and couldn’t understand why Blair and Ryan Seacrest wanted to attack it….”
            The population is estimated to be around 62 million in 2010 contrary to your quote of 70 million. So according to your opinion this means about 13 million people opposed the war in Iraq. Now lets look at ethnic groups within the United Kingdom, second to Caucasian would be South Asian at 4% (roughly 2,400,000) followed by Black at 2% (roughly 1,200,000.) Now lets apply your rule of thumb to them. What do you think would be the outcome? Or you know what? Lets apply this rule to Libyan protesters who opposed Gadaffi!

            Also considering you believe 60% of the population don’t give a sh*t or don’t know better, I would also say that means the government quite righty doesn’t give a sh*t about them as no votes would be gained or lost. So in another way your saying the government ignored 50% of the politically conscious population. Nonetheless my argument had nothing to do with this! Blair shook hands with Bush before it went to the polls. So you can ****off the people who supported the war as well, its irrelevant!!!!!

            As for this being a UN decision I am skeptical about the current efficiency of the UN as a force for good in the world. However that was not really related to my point and I don’t really have time.

    • Airy

      Also, if democratic value comes into account, where the power of the country comes from the people, then where does the power of interfering other nations come from? Libya people didn’t vote Sowalsky and Obama. Sowalsky and Obama are not responsible to the libya people either. How do you make sure Sowalsky and Obama will do good for the libya people? By faith? Who can Libya people go to if Sowalsky and Obama fail to meet their need? What about the saying “absolute power corrupt absolutely”? With the military power in their hands, Sowalsky and Obama can determine the fate of Libya, with zero responsibility to take.
      This discrepancy in the democratic theory seems to be intentional, as these countries are often democratic inside, authoritarian outside. you can get all the goodies if you immigrate. If you don’t, you’re piece of shit. The flows of immigrants to these developed country further confirming the “American dream”, “freedom and rights dreams”, as they will find some immigrants to testify it and imply that it represents all immigrants, pretty much the same way a company would use to advertise their product. With such a perfect set up, I don’t see a need for change. It pumps labors into the economy, power into global politics, and pride for national identity.

      • Nathan

        Yes and that was my point exactly, what we think or vote for in our own country should not result in direct violent action on another… regardless of what we think… in my opinion… but then again… my opinion doesnt count!

  • B-real

    Enquiry for Fuana. are their any commentors that have long thought out comments like you see on this site. I notice that allot of times the chinese comments are short and unimformed when pertaining to international matters.

    [Note from Fauna: Of course, but they are rarely very popular. Most people enjoy simple thoughts. Same on Chinese internet, same on foreign internet.]

    • B-real

      It would be nice to see some of those post if its not too much trouble in the future.

      [Note from Fauna: We post them sometimes. Look at many of our past posts.]

      • cdn icehole

        I don’t know about you, but combing through 40,000+ posts doesn’t sound fun IMO.

  • Alex

    “China asks for an inmediate Cease Fire and coming back to dialogue in Libia.”

    They saw they have no voice and vote in the situation so China is trying to give a very sensible and talkative apareance. How humanitarians they behave suddenly!!

    Why didn’t have the same attitude in XingJiang or Tibet?

    • Bob

      China abstained because it opposed what it sees as a violation of Libya’s sovereignty – the ability for the government in power to put down an armed rebellion and fly its own air force in its own skies, something that western powers seem to want to prevent it from doing.

      China’s attitude in Xingjiang and Tibet stems for its desire to protect its own sovereignty and territorial integrity from separatism and foreign political interference… From dissident and separatist groups often supported by the same western powers that is besieging Libya.

      These two seem to go hand in hand, I don’t see what is the point of using Libya to bash China on its consistency.

      • B-real

        Bob is correct. There is that question of if we can interfere in Libya why not China for theirs, or Iran, or Dufar and any nation for that matter? If this flies as acceptable practices of policing the world, who is stop us from coming your way? These Rogue nations like Iran and North korea and MAYBE China have now been reaffirmed of their worries Rhetoric that they are not safe and should build up more defenses if they are stand a chance for when shit breaks in their own neck of the woods. This is why scensorship and close control of the media is very important. Once the powerful get wind of nasty shit going on they wanna fix it for 1 reason or the other.

      • KfU

        So Bob, why didn’t China just Veto the Resolution?

        If it really disagrees with intervention and sees it as a violation of Libya’s sovereignty – then why not just veto it?

        I guess it had nothing to do with not wanting to upset the Arab League, or not wanting to be seen to have backed the wrong side when the Americans and Brits and France and made it clear to them that they were going in no matter what – especially with all of the Chinese oil interests in Libya…

        International politics is a tricky game and the Chinese are good at it…. If they were against it, they would have vetoed it – but they didn’t – and they didn’t for a reason – we’re just not clever enough to truly know why yet….

        They are also very good at Domestic Politics…. “look what the evil Americans and Brits and French are doing… Forget about your worries, forget about price increases and inflation.. blah blah”

        I do agree with you about Tibet and Xingjiang though. No one’s business but China’s. Especially as Tibet provides a perfect natural buffer zone to the Indian sub-continent, and Xingjiang is full of oil and mineral wealth…

        Although I can’t agree with you praise for the free and independent Chinese media… If you’ve ever been involved in that sector here in China then you’ll know that every piece of content is subject to veto – only in that case they’d use it… like most media outlets around the globe…

        • Nathan

          KFU – how about western media and how its controlled by the powers that be. Thats right, just like China only China is more open about it. Just ask Rageh Omaar, he was told to be standing on a balcony of a hotel when Al Jazeera HQ in Baghdad was bombed by the US and again he was there when they bombed Al Jazeera HQ in Kabul… funny that seeing as Al Jazeera is a legitimate and independent news source. Oh, and remember the famous day when the media captured the ‘liberated’ Iraqi’s pulling down the Saddam statue in Baghdad, he was there too… only after reporting the story did he reveal the whole thing was a US Marine operation and “made for the press.” Have you ever heard of the term “the embedded war” where journalists join troops and become one of the boys… report the war from inside a humvee? The media is controlled in the west and if you think its not then you need to open your eyes and not be afraid to question what you think you know. The only difference is China can be more open about their control of the media… the only difference.

          • KfU

            Hi Nathan mate, we seem to keep bumping in to each other today….
            … great… Army Cadets.. that’s like CCF, right? Me too. . .

            Oh dear Nathan, did I piss you off so much earlier that you came searching for more of my comments….

            Perhaps in this instance you should have read until the end of the post.

            If you did, you’d see that i wrote

            “like most media outlets around the globe…”

            That would suggest that I am saying that most media outlets are controlled to some extent…

            Thus I am confused as to your exact point, as it agrees with mine, but your aim was obviously to disagree… however to disagree you would need to take the stance that all western media is free of interference – but i think that’s not the opinion you hold?

            You see, I am neither pro or anti anything… whereas you obviously are half way to despising your own country and somewhat of a sinophile – which i think is clouding your reason somewhat…

            I might as well respond to your earlier ramble here – so it is easier for you to find later, just in case you want comment back with some more cut&paste commentary of my words…

            Anyway, I was actually making the point that to say Britain is undemocratic is a tad facetious, and in terms of comparison with most of the political systems in the world, just plain wrong. It is as open and as fair as you will find, even if you don’t think it is. I was making the point that having lived under that system and now living in China, you should at least appreciate the level of freedom you had as a citizen of that country – compared to the average Chinese person – indeed the greater freedom that you have in China because you are a citizen of that country, than the average Chinese person has.

            I was also making the point that to suggest that Britain was operating in Libya simply because of America is untrue and inconsistent with events during the build-up to the UN vote, and that to link the current intervention in Libya with previous events in Iraq can only be as a failure to appreciate that they are in fact two completely different situations.

            I’m unclear as to your reference to the ethnic groupings of British society, but I’ll take your point of
            applying this rule to Libyan protesters who opposed Gadaffi – now, here I might sound a little condescending again, sorry – but Libya.. it is a multi-ethnic (Arab-Berber, Berber, Touareg, and Tebou) tribal country ( 140 + tribes and clans). Those supporting Gadaffi are mainly western tribes with everything to lose if he is removed from power. Those opposing him are the remaining western tribes who do not gain from Gadaffi’s rule and the eastern tribes who have continually been ostracized by the Gadaffi regime. Libya is 97 % Muslim (Sunni Sect) although oddly it would be fair to suggest that the Libyan Rebel forces opposing Gaddafi are far more “devoutly” Muslim than Gaddafi – who in the 1990’s aligned himself with the Orthodox (Christian) Serbs against Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s majority Muslim populations and supported the EVIL Milosevic regime – even when clear evidence of the ethnic cleansing of Kosovan and Bosnian Muslims had been shown.

            Now my point about explaining the political system to you was to remind you that it is nothing to do with you, or any other UK citizen as to whether the UK is involved in Libya. It is the Governments decision (actually it’s the Queen’s, but let’s not go there…i’m guessing your not a royalist) as to whether we send forces or not. They were elected in a free and fair election in accordance with clear and defined rules and regulations, to represent the electorate. They take decisions on your behalf until / If they are removed from office by another election. That may seem unfair – but it is a lot more than most other citizens from many of the world’s nations could expect. Indeed I would suggest a closer look at the views of the Libyan people themselves would show that the UN intervention is generally welcome – and my personal experience in Libya left me with the impression that most people in Tripoli didn’t care much for Gadaffi and that almost everyone outside of Tripoli thought of him as a git – the difference being that they can’t vote out Gadaffi – or even write nasty things about him on blogs.

            Now obviously I touched a nerve – but it vexes me to see people who are lucky enough to grow up in a country where by-en-large there is freedom of speech, rule of law, independent judiciary, free and open elections – expressing personal “feelings” based upon domestic issues and biases – that ignore what those directly involved desire. The vast majority of people in Libya, namely those who haven’t benefited from the Gadaffi regime and the billions of oil revenue he has received (go to Libya, see the poverty and fear that the majority of the population live in compared to those who are linked to Gadaffi), want a new government – something that they will never get without UN / outside intervention.

            Whether you like the UN or not, it is the only international body that can legitimately intervene in these situations. It has a responsibility to intervene in Libya. We can’t dislike it simply because the US, UK, and other western powers are the only ones willing to back up it’s Resolutions with military action. Remember no one, including China and Russia, Veto’d this Resolution….

            It comes down to this. What if the UN hadn’t intervened. If Gadaffi had obliterated Benghazi and punished the Rebels who remained, if thousands, or even hundreds of thousands had been massacred as Gadaffi’s soldiers came “door-to-door” in Benghazi… the first thing everyone would say is “why didn’t the UN intervene” “where was the US” etc – just as they did in Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo, etc, etc. Sometimes people need defending. Sadly, I don’t see any other countries standing up and taking on the responsibility.

            Unless you think that responsibility is not ours in the first place – which would mean that you are fine for innocent Libyans to be killed by their own “leader”, that you thought Rwandan genocide was an African matter, and that we should have left Milosevic to butcher the Kosovans.

            None of the above is “pro-western”, “anti-chinese” (I’m married to a Chinese, my friends are Chinese, my kid will be half Chinese), or anti or pro anything – it is an assessment based upon the realities of the world today, not how I or anyone else would wish it to be…

          • Nathan

            I dont have time to respond fully right now but will do in the morning I have a chance…

            Please dont mistake my ramblings as anything more than banter… I dont get upset over internet postings.

            Yes I was also in the CCF.

            till next time…

          • Wade

            “The media is controlled in the west and if you think its not then you need to open your eyes and not be afraid to question what you think you know. The only difference is China can be more open about their control of the media… the only difference.”

            The only difference eh? What would happen to a journalist in Britain or the US that openly and repeatedly criticized the government? What would happen to a journalist in China that openly and repeatedly criticized the government? I don’t think their fates would be the same.

          • cdn icehole

            @KfU
            …more “devoutly” Muslim than Gaddafi – who in the 1990′s aligned himself with the Orthodox (Christian) Serbs against Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s majority Muslim populations…

            Gaddafi must have been influenced by his ‘voluptuous’ Ukrainian nurse to align with the Orthodox Serbs.

            …the first thing everyone would say is “why didn’t the UN intervene”…“where was the US” etc – just as they did in Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo, etc, etc. Sometimes people need defending. Sadly, I don’t see any other countries standing up and taking on the responsibility

            While it’s nice and dandy to turn to the UN for assistance, at it’s present form it’s really a useless organization for action. The UN is in dire need of reforms or it will fade into irrelevance.

            The problems with Rwanda, Sudan ,etc… should have been dealt with by the Organisation of African Unity (now replaced by the African Union). The OAU should have done the dirty work while Western nations and/or UN should have played the supportive role.

            As for the US, that’s the price for playing Global Police for interfering with internal matters for it’s own gain. The World have become accustomed to such level of interference that if some nation stubbed it’s toe, they go crying to Uncle Sam. If Robert Gates speech at West Point is any indication, it appears they will try to wean itself out of that role.

            Unless you think that responsibility is not ours in the first place – which would mean that you are fine for innocent Libyans to be killed by their own “leader”, that you thought Rwandan genocide was an African matter, and that we should have left Milosevic to butcher the Kosovans.

            As cold as it sounds, it really isn’t the responsibility of nations of picking a side in a civil war. Just look at the results of interference. It’s going to take decades if not centuries of fixing this mess. However, I have no problems with nations providing victims a safe route to escape and integrate into their new homeland. Although this strategy will not save all of them but at least some have been saved.

            As for Germany and Japan, they are pretty much the only countries that came out right after considerable interference. I think this is due to the attitudes of the ruling parties where there was genuine efforts in reshaping those societies to be better than manipulating them for personal gain.

            @Wade
            There is more than one way to skin a cat. Although outright beating isn’t par for the course (excluding G-Bay), the use of litigation is. The Chinese method is more physical while the US method is more financial and or psychological.

          • KfU

            Hey Wade, leave Nathan alone… It’s bad-form to pick a guy up on something he said in the process of rebutting something that he thought said one thing, but clearly agreed with the point he himself was trying to make in defence of someone else because the poster of the original comment had previously objected (too strongly, i know admit) to something the re-butter had posted previously…

            jeez, i thought that was a well know rule….

            I hope you’re not suggesting that Nathan has only been in China a short while and has fallen in to the trap of thinking that major urban areas like SH, BJ, SZ are representative of the majority of the country – and that the apparent openness and freedoms of those areas are representative of China as a whole… because that would be unfair!

            and anyway – from what I heard, the Minister for Culture Media and Sport gave the producer of Dispatches (BBC) a rather stern talking to after they aired the FIFA investigation the night before the Hosts were chosen for the World Cup, and made very clear how the programme had been bad for the chances of the English bid… a clear case of government control of the BBC if ever i heard… and let’s not get in to the BBC’s blatant anti-Iraq war bias – which received many raised eye-brows in Whitehall as well as a flurry of rather cursive “asides” – let me tell you!

            but as i said – all governments control the media to some extent… the only difference is to what extent and for what reason…

            right now the party line is that the intervention in Libya is bad – we know that because that’s what The People’s Daily is reporting, so that is what all the opinion you will here on domestic Chinese TV will state. If someone reported anything different – they would not be hurt in anyway – they would just lose their career.

            Now, why that is the party line remains unclear, especially as China chose not to veto the resolution – something it normally does – hence the lack of movement on issues such as Sudan, Zimbabwe (and i feel that i should be honest here and state that as i don’t know anyone in those countries, unlike in Egypt and Libya and Syria – where i do, i don’t really give a cr*p what happens there, but I will defend the UN’s right to do so, because after all they are there to look beyond personal interest of nations and individuals and do what is “right”) etc – when it’s interests are not served by any particular UN resolution.

            One could suggest that internationally it did not want to go against the Arab League or be seen to be opposing the rebels – in case they win – and chose not to renew the extraction rights held by the Chinese petrochemical companies currently operating in Libya as a punishment… whilst also gaining a favor “in-hand” from the US et al.

            One could also suggest domestically that it could not be seen to openly back an intervention designed to support rebel forces within a sovereign nation state who were being suppressed by the use of military force, and also that a bout of anti western emotions – seemingly so easy to stir-up second only to anti-Japan sentiments – is a great way to distract people from the current economic problems in china, namely high inflation and increasing costs of food and housing.

            … but that can only be supposition – and maybe they are really against intervention, and simply forgot to use their veto for the first time ever…

            … and i say all of that as a true admirer of the CPC and their ability to keep control of what is essentially 1.4 billion argumentative soles who’d descend in to chaotic destabilizing and violent civil war without a centralized authoritarian body to control them… as shown by a brief look at history and ones presence at any dinner table in China

            anyway… i’ve been told to stop chatting with stupid laowai, of which i am one, and come to bed –

            tomorrow, if he can be bothered, Nathan has promised me that he will “respond fully” to whatever i wrote earlier

            So I suggest you don’t distract him further with your vicious and unwarranted verbal jousts until he has done so….

          • Nathan

            yes, I will be replying and if there is still any question I have been in China for coming up to 3 years and have always lived outside of the big cities in small rural towns and villages… and calm down guys… after all this is all none of our business!

        • Chef Rocco

          In my opinion, China’s abstention in UN vote was calling the West’s bluff of military intervention, China considers military intervention of Libya a “death trap” for the Western countries, especially for US. It is very easy for these powers to beat Gaddafi, even terminate him or drive him out, but who would fill the power vaccum left by him? The rebel forces are just a bunch of mixed units with different political backgrounds and Libya is a tribes-basis country. Without Gaddafi, Libya would become another Somali for God knows how long a period.

          From a strategic point of view, US is speedily shifting its military and strategic resources from Europe and Middle East to Pacific around China, the Middle East chao plus Japan EarthQuake are providing China with another strategic opportunity for economic and military development, so if the allies want to destroy Gaddaif, go ahead.

          • Chef Rocco

            @KfU, you look like the one who is enforcing “No-Fly Zone” in this thread, bombing Nathan into silence with your thousand words rebuttal and ad hominem. Can you stop speculating on other poster’s personal backgrounds?

          • Wade

            KfU is the new Kai

          • PeterScriabin

            @Chef March 24, 2011 at 1:08 am – this is the first reasonably coherent, cogent post of yours I have ever seen here. Who helped you with it? Writing logically, imaginatively and in English, are not characteristics for which you are noted.

            @Chef March 24, 2011 at 1:49 am – &gtsigh&lt. KFU doesn’t need my help, but this post is back to the standard Chef cuisine, isn’t it?

            You miss so much by not speaking/understanding the language. KFU’s posts, and his interaction with Nathan do not come across anything like the way you depict them here.

            Honestly, now, do you have any faint clue WTF ad hominem even means? You could perhaps accuse KFU of the odd sly dig, even slight condescension at times, but it’s all pretty light-hearted, as members of the culture have realized.

            Where is there even one ad hominem argument in KFU’s posts? If you cannot answer that, then I submit that in future, people are entitled to ignore your posts, unread, as drivel, as soon as they see your ID.

            And, anyway, why the f**k is KFU supposed to “stop speculating on other poster’s personal backgrounds”, just on your unexplained say-so? (You mean “posters’”, but let it go.)

          • Chef Rocco

            @Peter, why not you summarize, with your incredible imagination and creativity, the key points made by KfU and Nathan, just as you did for the exchange between us in another thread? then we may go from there.

        • PeterScriabin

          @KFU March 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm – why do you who waxed so eloquent about the moral duty to intervene on behalf of innocent Bosnians, Kosovans, Rwandans, Zimbabweans, Libyans, Burmese, etc.…make an exception for Tibet and Xinjiang (not Xingjiang– it means “new frontier” = Xīnjiāng)?

          Perhaps you feel that the statute of limitations has already passed for ethnic Tibetans and Uighurs, and that they must simply kowtow to the overrunning by Hans; to losing their culture and identity; and to falling to the bottom of their own economy? How quaint.

          Please let me add that this is only carping on my part. I’m sure many here are very grateful for your summaries and argumentations in this thread, as am I.

          Now if people here could just stop writing it’s when it’s its, and its when it’s it’s, and your when it’s you’re, and you’re when it’s your, then I could die happy.

          • KfU

            Salient points indeed, PeterScriabin…

            tbf, my points on Tibet and Xinjiang (thanks for correction, i lazily copied from the poster to whom I was replying), my aim was to have someone who was anti-Libyan intervention go off on one about the rights and wrongs of Beijing’s activities in those two regions. I think somewhere else I let slip a little bit of my true feelings towards that issue when i mentioned the strategic importance of Tibet as a buffer-zone to the asian sub-continent, and the massive mineral reserves in Xinjiang. . . but i’m not one for talking about those issues in too much detail – given i’m in China – and they don’t like it… In the same way as when I’m in Saudi, I never mention women’s rights…

            … and regarding Nathan, you seem to “get it”… which is great…

            For anyone whom hasn’t realised – we are both British. What we’re doing is called “banter” or “taking-the-piss”, much the same way as if we were sitting in a pub back in Blighty…

            He made what I deemed a lazy comment about democracy / Iraq, etc… so I called him on it… then he replied (rather well)… picking out some “bull” that I had wrote, then I replied… and so on… no doubt he will reply again later if he has time… but there is no “animosity” in our back-and-forth… it’s not like he’s Welsh or anything….

          • KfU

            oh, and also Peter, you may like…

            http://chinadailyshow.com/

            Not sure if you have come across it before…

            Worth a look!

          • PeterScriabin

            @KfU March 24, 2011 at 10:20 am – you bastard. Another irresistible website, more effing hours down the toilet every week.

            Seriously, I hope you have time and inclination to stick around this site. Your posts on this Libya thread alone gave everyone a great deal of education and perspective we’d otherwise have blundered around for hours without.

            However, my feeling (hope?) is that in future, Nathan’s perspective will come out ahead. As online technology improves (not to mention people becoming more educated and informed), I can easily visualize a time when each representative will be at least constrained by issue-specific referenda in near-real time. At least perhaps Bradley Manning would not have been treated the way he has been…maybe just a fantasy.

          • Nathan

            Wow, I finally found some time to reply and it seems that the conversation is pretty much wrapped up with those final few posts. I hate to retreat, but after reading all of your responses I really don’t know what I can add… without bringing new issues to the table and further tiring the scrolling fingers of uninterested ChinaSmack readers.

            @KFU I look forward to exchanging further banter/loose insults with you in the not too distant future.

  • Irvin

    Another day another conflict, so much war and hate around the world these days, I don’t really care anymore.

  • dim mak

    “Who cares” is a perfectly acceptable attitude. Why do people act like it isn’t? Face it, most people don’t give a flying fuck what happens in Libya. Personally I doubt America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are profitable other than a for few contractors, so what is the real motive behind interventionism? I mean France I sorta understand, it’s their backyard. But what’s the deal with America’s world police mentality? Misplaced moralfaggotry?

    • cdn icehole

      It’s called the Bush Doctrine (from G.H.W. Bush).

  • Adam

    Surprised we don’t see more netizens pointing out China abstaining from the vote, then all the Chinese news outlets slamming the air strikes.

    Pretty damn hypocritical, I’m sure someone else has caught onto this by now.

    • Bob

      The same reason why the US is bombing Libya while congressmen want to impeach president Obama for it. All within the same government. Is that hypocrisy?

      Chinese media isn’t monolithic, journalists and editors have a say when what goes in, especially about international headlines that really do not matter much to Chinese domestic politics.

    • dim mak

      Why is that hypocritical? If China had vetoed the west would probably be throwing a shitfit right now about how China is enabling evil etc.

  • diverdude

    I thought the dude was pretty cool with his choice of Amazonian Bodyguards! He is like a Saharan Military Autocrat version of Hef !

    American soldiers must be turned into lambs and eating them is tolerated. Muammar Qaddafi »

    We are capable of destroying America and breaking its nose. Muammar Qaddafi »

  • Her

    I don’t understand how some people, especially Americans, don’t want to get involved. Back in the 90’s when Clinton was president, he chose to not interfere with the war in Rwanda. And what happened? Thousands of people were slaughtered, and Clinton is still hated to this day for that.

    • Capt. WED

      Because a lot of Americans may feel that their ass is broke and there are so many damn wars already.

      In reality who the fuck knows what the real politks are. Like all the previous cases, some of it is truthful (helping people) some of it is for self interests. The end result is shit gets all mixed up some will profit and someone will get fucked. The End.

  • Hongjian

    It’s the eight-nation alliance all over again, rounding up themselves and take turns on raping a third world country in the name of freedom, human rights and the burden of the white man to teach every mudrace some of their ‘civilization’.

    Stay classy, westerners…

    This should be another wake-up call for the third world to arm themselves and to seek alliance with autocratic, anti-western great-powers like Russia and China.
    Buy weapons, build up your economies, and pursue nuclear deterrence, so that you can take those western imperialist invaders with you down to hell. There’s only one way to protect yourself against western ideologic crusaders: Nukes. Many many nukes.

    • YEAH!!

      Song of the Article

      Drop da Bomb
      -Doctor Steel

      stay classy
      五毛党

    • 0311

      Why do you hate the west so much? If I hated a country as much as you spew your BS i def would not be learning their language. I guess thats just me tho. You think your country is innocent of any violoence against a poorer or opressed people? Pol Pot baby….

  • FYIADragoon

    Aside from the commentators who know what’s up, Chinese kinda looking a bit butthurt and jealous. Must feel pretty “inadequate” to not have any force projection abilities. Still in disbelief that France actually took charge of a situation for once in their country’s life.

  • The woman in the last picture shooting in the air – is she a part of Libyan anti-aircraft forces?

    • fouManChu

      Not exactly Crystal. What you have witnessed the impressive logic of an excitable arab, which is even dumber than a chinese peasant.

      First the arab loudly shouts “god is great” many times and then he/she empties the clip of her AK-47 at him.

      • diverdude

        @fmc~ had to ‘lol’ this one… thx for the chuckle. :-)

        @Crystal~ I also recognised u were making a joke. good on u girl! :-)

      • Hongjian

        >empties her clip
        >her clip
        >clip

        GET THE FUCK OUT SOLDIER!

        • 0311

          Atleast shes got something you dont….. BALLS!

      • Llanero

        Technically she empties a magazine not a clip. Great comment though.

  • Li Ruike

    What’s the difference between this and Iraq? Saddam Hussein was the evil villian then. Bush did it “for the oil”, right? This time it’s Gaddafi, and even Democrats are saying Obama is there “for the oil”. Micheal Moore, rightfully, demands Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize returned.
    The differences are HUGE, though. Check the history. Much more planning, public discussion and cooperation went into Iraq. The Libya attack comes from Hillary, with Obama following, in gutless, ignorant, clueless support. How much longer is he going to be paid to vacation and golf on the clock? What a loser.
    China had to decide whether to join or not. Do they want spoils of war: oil, or do they want to avoid joining a war?

    The idea of a world’s police force designed to protect populations against murderous dictators is a good idea. Fighting governments who deny democracy to their citizens is also noble. But these two concepts are not exactly the same, are they? If the majority of the people, perhaps the largest ethnic group, chooses a ruler who then murders or otherwise oppresses the minority groups, then what does the world cop do? Kill the leader of that country’s democratic majority? Good way to start a long and dirty fight.
    Hillary and Obama, constantly inept, will continue to bring debt, shame and enemies to the US. It’s almost as if that’s their goal.
    How long did it take for Iraq to become a stable, peaceful democratic country? What kind of fool thinks that the process will be any faster in Libya?

    • Alikese

      France and Italy are the catalyst for this action. Both of those countries are trying to avoid a long term civil war, which would send Libyan refugees floating across the Mediterranean to seek asylum in Europe. Italy is also a long standing partner of Libya and gets 38% of Libyan oil exports, so they’re hoping to avoid any stoppage of that trade. The tides are shifting and Italy is hoping to jump into bed with a new Libyan leadership.

      The other countries (Canada, US, UK, Holland…) have various motivations for joining in, ranging from helping European allies to trying to gather more support in a new Libya, but to assume that this is all Hillary’s or America’s doing is wrong.

  • Felix

    “France is such a joke, only knowing how to bully weaker countries. Sarkozy is simply a clown.”

    That’s it! :D I think for Sarkozy, this war is a means to show that he’s a tough guy, perhaps evoking a Napoleon-spirit among the population.
    I’m certain that there was human suffering in Libya, but does this call for an intervention? According to the UN-Charta, the Security Council may only vote for an intervention when the international peace/stability is at stake (Un Charta §7, 42). This was not the case. Plus, there are other or have been other suppressions of the population in other arab countries (Syria, Jemen, Katar) which were not followed by calls for intervention in the UNO.

  • TheOrz

    My favorite comment above “I think “Old Obama” wants to show his ruthlessness. After all, this is his first war after taking office. He wants to show that black people’s not only have black skin, but that their hearts are even blacker…” LOL, really?

    Actually I support the action in Libya, this is a very clear-cut case of tyrannical leader abusing his power and devastating an entire country of people. Most importantly, the people of Libya are the ones who initiated the revolt against Qaddafi.

    • B-Real

      I cried when I read that. I don’t know where they get that impression from. What has the black man done to the chinese as a whole that any one else hasn’t done much worse?

  • Gumsticksass

    保持队形 ┏━━━━━━━┓ 错点帖子失足者
      ┏┓  ┏┫    |||┣┓  ┏┓
      ┣┫  ┗┫━━ ┃ ━━┣┛  ┣┫
    ┏┳┫┣┳┓ ┃  ━━━━━ ┃ ┏┳┫┣┳┓
    ┃老子手贱┃ ┗━━━┳━━━┛ ┃误入此处┃
    ┗━━━━┻━━━━▇▇▇━━━━┻━━━━┛

    • Wade

      I’m glad there’s one post we can all agree on

  • Confucius says

    Fauna.

    I question your reporting.

    Mnistryoftofu and offbeat reports a much extreme of majority netizen’s opinions than yours.

    http://www.ministryoftofu.com/2011/03/most-chinese-bash-u-s-led-attack-against-libya-while-others-amused-at-the-bashing/

    http://offbeatchina.com/chinese-netizens-reaction-to-western-allies-libya-strike-the-imperialistic-invasion

    [Note from Fauna: You can check my reporting. I always provide my links. The comments I translated were the most popular comments on the comment section on NetEase and Sina at the time of my translation.]

    • Tommy

      Fauna,

      Do you usually translate the comments you find interesting, or the comments that are the most common?

      Tonight my Taxi driver told me America was bad because it was killing people in Libya for oil.

      [Note from Fauna: Some Chinese discussion forums like NetEase and Sina allow you to see the most popular comments (voted up by other people) easily. Other discussion forums do not do this, like Tianya, so I will read through the comments and choose some that I feel represent what many people are saying but sometimes also include funny or interesting comments. So the answer to your question is “both”. It is important for people to remember that netizen comments can only give you some insight but it is not wise to think they will represent everyone. For example, many people in the world will say America kills people for oil, including Americans. Is that true? Are the things that many people say in their comments about Chinese people true? People everywhere are emotional and prejudiced. This is the real truth.]

      • CHNinUSA

        That’s exactly what a Chinese Taxi driver will say, for most people who don’t surf Internet a lot, any thing about American and war is evil. That’s the education people get since young, what else can we expect?

        • B-real

          Well not true because all my partners are saying the same thing at my company and I can’t rebuttal it enough. The internet is not a reliable source in China if they can’t read outside of chinese news outlets. Its not just Taxis but its the bias Chinese population. Everyone kept bringing up Iraq and the motives to invade, they don’t know the reason why we are in afghanistan other than they think they have massive amounts oil, when its not oil that is their main source of income. And now Libya which in actuallity is mostly europes source of oil. The chinese don’t seem to realize that we can’t go into any nation and just flat out take control over some one elses oil. In todays time thats not how its going to go down. If anything after this is over the Libyan gov will sell its oil at inflated prices.

          Its just conveniently suspisious to see the US involved in another Mid east (some what) conflict where there are natural resources to be had. The current even just confirms all of uncle Mao rhetorics in the past.

          • Tommy

            Recently, when people find out I’m American, one of the first words out of their mouths is “Libya”.

            When so many Chinese are so hyper-sensitive to any criticism of their country, do they expect me to not get offended when they lie about mine?

            So how do I respond to it?

          • cdn icehole

            @Tommy

            do they expect me to not get offended when they lie about mine? So how do I respond to it?

            Politely correct them. It’s all in the delivery. Of course, follow your instincts. If you’re against someone who wants to start a tussle then do or say whatever is necessary to diffuse the situation (unless you’re bored).

  • McCurry

    I think the real crime here is how fugly Gaddafi’s daughter is

    • MeatBall

      Must be a typo. That’s clearly his son.

      • dilladonuts

        FOR THE WIN! EXCELLENT hahaha. Look at all these no fly zone and political experts on chinasmack, last week they were nuclear reactor experts.

  • Genxi

    I have to admit, the fighter jets are awesome looking. Btw, the woman with pointing her gun at the sky looks legit, haha.

  • Tommy

    The CCP opposes this because it sets a precedent they fear might one day be turned on them–stopping the murder of innocents is worth violating sovereignty.

  • Jess

    I thought news about Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia was banned in China, to stop citizens from copying?

    • CHNinUSA

      not exactly, they are smarter than stop the news by requiring all news source to report in a way they wish–the west amuse their power and intervene a weak country’s internal fair again. For Egypt and Tunisia, their strategy is to report in a attitude “we doesn’t want chaos as them”. Most citizens will agree with them in their mind because they seldom hear voice from the other side.

      • Chef Rocco

        Most citizens agree with them in their minds not because they seldom hear dissenting voice, but they are really afraid of chaos and riots on street, maybe some youth prefer the excitement of a revolution, but for most Chinese who have experienced or at least know Cultural Revolution well, social upheaval is nightmare.

    • Chad

      As with many other Americans, Canadians, outsiders etc you’ve been misled by the media. A few (literally) microblogging sites blocked those terms, but they were definitely reported (framed as chao in Egypt, etc due to revolution) and discussed on forums all over China. It was reported as such in the Western articles, but the headlines themselves all implied that China was blocking all news and discussion of the revolutions, and sadly enough that’s the only message people got.

      • Vakeesan

        I see lot of chinese people commenting on this post as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya were ruled by dictators and all these countries should be suppressed. Guys what do you think about china? There is not much difference between the government in china and the govt in other countries. What is the point in having a good GPD when lot of people are poor and retarded.

        Don’t laugh when something bad happens to other countries and don’t always think money and power can bring everything.

        • cdn icehole

          There is not much difference between the government in china and the govt in other countries

          There is a difference, a huge difference but there’s no way I’m going to type it all out. Instead, go to the website listed below, scroll down and look for a post from Huolong.

          http://justrecently.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/china-authoritarian-or-totalitarian/

          Enjoy

          • Vakeesan

            You don’t get what i am talking about, China: Authoritarian or Totalitarian? Well for sure i don’t care about it, I just wish Chinese people can be more understandable and try to look at situations in a broader view, Whereas the comments made by Chinese seems more racist and hateful.

          • Vakeesan

            Chinese government blocked all the news of what happened or how the uproar started in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya as a precautionary measure to prevent any such uproar in china, Try seatching in youku or any local sites you will only find less article about them. Is there a freedom of speech in china? For sure No. I see lot of my team members complaining to me about the labor laws or the hike or the insurance, Do they have the courage or right to speak out. Well i don’t think so. I just feel freedom is totally curbed and crippled in China. I am talking about freedom of speech and the mindset of people here and i don’t care about “China uthoritarian or Totalitarian?”

        • Gumsticksass

          Chinese propaganda told its people that the sovereignty of a nation is about all. We are not surprised to see some Chinese believe that America or westerns in general are evil imperialist, and often invade a country regardless of the country’s sovereignty. But the time is changing now, a large number of Chinese starts to realize that if a country were ruled by a dictator, then the sovereignty should not be concerned, freedom really matters.

          • dim mak

            Yeah and when Chinese start to realize there’s a foreign invader trying to take control of their country they’ll see that sovereignty is of the highest concern.

        • Chad

          NK: mismanaged and poor and isolated
          Cuba: Not a bad place to live actually. Suppresses the press and dissidents but for the average person, it’s not bad compared to other developing countries. Gets a bad rap because of the US.
          Iran: See above.
          Iraq: Craphole. Committed genocide. Got even worse after the Iraq war.
          Libya: mismanaged. Spends much of its oil money buying weapons from the EU. Committed terrorist attacks on multiple countries making everyone hate them. Very tribal.

          China: getting richer but freedom of press is still non-existent. It’s improving in terms of freedoms but it’s slower than it could be. This is largely due to paranoia from the Chinese government because of American interference (funding by for NED, RFA, Tibetan movement, Xinjiang movement). Frankly, China would’ve opened up so much earlier if not for the USA’s interference but it’s also the Chinese government’s fault for not dealing with it effectively. Alas, this is what you get for being a potential superpower.

          Summary; I guess the big difference is China is getting better in many fronts (although slowly), and not really comparable to places like Libya/Iraq/NK. Comparable to Iran/Cuba but those aren’t horrible places to live in if you look past the media coverage of them.

          • Your comment suggests that press freedom, for example, would be the CCP’s ultimate goal, Chad. What makes you think so?

            P.S., thanks a lot for the link in your comment, cdn icehole. Brought me quite some traffic.

          • Chad

            I didn’t say that was their goal. I’m saying press freedoms (and other freedoms of expressions) are eroded because of governments that fear social instability that risk overthrowing of the government. If governments see brewing discontent, they start restricting freedoms of expression to try to clamp down on communication for protests and societal issues. This kind of reactive approach is very apparent with China as demonstrated by their reaction to the Tibet protests and getting far more strict about foreign media entering Tibet for years to come.

            One of the main sources of instability for China (and many other countries experiencing revolution recently) have been the American government. Who do you think funds the Tibet and Xinjiang movements and many other anti-CCP organizations in China? Without separatist movements involving valuable territory and these organizations constantly stirring discontent and promoting American propaganda and interests, press freedoms would’ve increased a long time ago because then the Chinese government would likely not be so damn paranoid about foreign press, social media, etc.

  • xmcx

    “Police arrested 113 protesters for not obeying instructions.” I’m a bit surprised by this, anyone heard this outside the Chinese media? In “the West(TM’d)” you can get arrested at a RIOT, not a “protest”.
    The number by itself is plausible: when protest turns riot, enough people VOLUNTARILY ASSAULT/harass police multiple times, throwing urban scrap and/or Molotov cocktails and that gets them arrested.
    When a “protest” has been authorized, instructions such as “go home now” or “put down your sign” are not given by the police. If the authorization for the march was denied, the only reason I can imagine is that they made a silly declaration of purpose, for instance stating that they would “March into the Oval Office”.
    Anyhow, just saying, “113 protesters arrested for not obeying instructions” doesn’t ring right. Right?

    • Chad: if China blames censorship and repression at home on foreign funding for “separatist organizations”, there will always be an excuse for keeping the established regulations (and propaganda departments) in place.
      The reason for China’s status quo isn’t the amount of money Washington sets aside for the Tibetan Youth Congress. The reason is that the CCP has no intention to tolerate a free press.

      And there are plenty of reasons for that at home.

      • Chad

        I don’t think China blames their censorship on foreign funding of separatist organizations – and I’m not sure why you put that in quotes. Are you implying they are not really that? In fact, the CCP keeps a very tight lid on the fact that the US does this. I don’t think they want nationalistic sentiments to get out of control in the country. This is just my opinion, and it’s a very logical one. The sporadically increase of restrictions on the press occur AFTER separatist demonstrations supported by American funding. That’s a fact and it was shown after the Tibet and Xinjiang riots.

        If the CCP has no intention to tolerate a free press, why do they seem to only further restrict the media in -reaction- to riots sparked by American sources? Yes, there are certainly a lot of problems involving corruption and bulldozing the homes of the peasants, but you’re clearly diverting attention. Corruption is a big problem, but separatist movements in Xinjiang and Tibet are far greater problems. Both sparked massive riots causing millions of dollars in damage.

        Let’s be clear here. In the press freedom scores (from Reporters Without Borders), China has been improving gradually, and I’d wager they’d improve much faster if the riots in Xinjiang and Tibet didn’t happen. I don’t see how you can argue against that. Compare their progress to North Korea which truly has no attention of reducing press freedoms and that’s reflected in their press freedom scores.

        • If China doesn’t blame the lack of press freedom on these activities, you certainly do, Chad – both in your previous comment (“Without separatist movements involving valuable territory and these organizations constantly stirring discontent and promoting American propaganda and interests, press freedoms would’ve increased a long time ago because then the Chinese government would likely not be so damn paranoid about foreign press, social media, etc”), and in your most recent one.
          As I said before, there are plenty of reasons for censoring the press within China. You can excuse that with your own country’s behavior, if you like – but if China is really that unstable, its future is bleak.
          This is why I put “separatist organizations” into quotation marks, too. China may have bitten off more than it can chew. The main factor in “separatism” is that those places haven’t always been Chinese, and – maybe (we have no reliable polls on that, have we?) – do not want to be Chinese, if they have a choice.
          That’s nothing I’m looking at with glee. Given that many innocent Han citizens live in China’s west, disintegration would be a tragedy. But I don’t blame the West for that. If funding was cut, China’s next demand would be the expulsion or silencing of those “separatist organizations” which survive on private donations.
          I don’t feel responsible for the home-made problems of other people – unless I can be of real help. “Separatism” is China’s home-made problem, and all the gripes about foreign involvement mainly a convenient distraction.

          • P.S.: there will be no press freedom unless the people demand it, Chad. From the CCP’s perspective, all basic rights are -revocable whenever need be – modernization technicalities, not ends in themselves.

          • Chad

            Of course I do. I made it very clear that *I* do blame the US for being a huge source of destabilization in the country that causes reactive increases in press restrictions.

            There are plenty reasons for destabilization and press censorship in China as I said and did agree with you. Some are internal (corruption, disparity between the poor and rich) and some are external (US funding of separatist groups and other anti-CCP organizations). I’m saying external factors are a big issue, and I don’t see how anyone can deny that once they find out about what the US has done and still does today in China.

            And no we don’t have reliable polls on whether they want Chinese rule. But even if we do, I’d have to ask if it’s because a lot of the discontent is sparked and spread by American interference. The Americans have been involved in inciting rebellion (via arming, training and propaganda) in China and giving the Dalai Lama millions since the 60s. Do they need millions to survive and continue their movement, or was some of that for motivation? You seem to heavily downplay any possibility that a good amount of the discontent is fanned and flamed by US efforts. Yes, there’d be discontent in Xinjiang/Tibet without US efforts, but would be anywhere near as great as they are now and is this level of discontent really home-made?

            I’ll ask you this. If China quietly started funding separatist native American groups in the US, do you think that the level of discontent would stay the same among the native population? If you think there’d be an increase in discontent, would you call that increase home-made?

            If you answer yes to any of those two questions, I’d have to question your judgment.

  • John

    I was thinking about the amount of foreign journalism there is in the world today and coming from arguably the country with the largest coverage of global affairs for one country, Britain — I would say thanks largely to the BBC — I was pondering over how much news other countries report on.
    Reading this article has surprised me somewhat; China being one of the countries I would least have considered to qualify for my criteria. I think it would go without saying for most people why I presumed this but to quote my favourite personal phrase about China yet again- “I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned this but China sure is a weird country”.
    Kudos go to the websites and journalists involved, just as long as their reporting is truthful and accurate of course.

    • If you answer yes to any of those two questions, I’d have to question your judgment.
      Chad: What’s the use of your announcement? Can’t see it. I could care less about how you judge my judgment, and I don’t expect you to care much about how I judge yours. Given that our opinions differ quite strongly, and that you seem to have expressed some indignation about mine before, I don’t expect praise for my judgment from you. Civility is important for a constructive discussion. Harmony isn’t.

      Re your two questions: there could be an increase in discontent among native Americans, but none that I’d expect to threaten America’s unity or integrity. I reckon that most U.S. citizens, including natives, would either remain passive, or counter-react, for dislike of such a Chinese engagement. As for those who would side with a Chinese-sponsored “separatist” organization, I’d basically blame the conditions they live in, or the individuals. It is really a situation where the individual matters, and should be heard.

      The idea that a certain nationality or territory within the U.S. should want to secede is either too far beside the point to take root, or the causes for a strong “secessionist” drive must be searched for at home in the first place, not abroad.
      Apart from that, the U.S. federal government, just as the Chinese government, has certain rights to send diplomatic staff home which engages in such activities, and provided that such action is within the law, they also have the right to close the flow of funds – if it flows into their own countries from abroad.
      But if the CCP does indeed “control” the Chinese press for fear of secession, rather than for the convenience of controlling the degree to which they can or can’t be held accountable, they are losing the battle for “territorial integrity” right as we are exchanging these comments.
      I tend to believe the latter – that the danger of a Chinese split-up is currently overestimated. But if that should happen, the American factor in it will have been minor.
      One more thing: if China wanted to offer support to “separatist” American nationals who reside in China anyway, they may certainly do so – it would be up to them. The reasons as to why they wouldn’t do that are speculation. It may be because they are too kind to have the U.S. “taste some of its own medicine”, or because not too many native Americans would be interested in living in Chinese exile, or because China would have to lose more in an increasing slugfest of this kind. I think these considerations may also help to answer your two questions.

      • Chad

        You only answered the first question, but okay. Why would native separatist groups dislike Chinese engagement? You actually think that some mysterious man from China offering them a few million dollars to continue their push for separation would cause a counter-reaction? Please, you think they fall in line with the American government’s views? Ha! Remember, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Also, take note that most Tibetans have no idea about the CIA’s funding of the Dalai Lama. If you’ve read the debate about this over the internet, you’ll see many Tibetans denying something like that ever happened. The inner circles of the native American separatist groups could very well do the same and hide their Chinese funding for a few decades. Anyway, I’m glad to see you admit that there could be an increase in discontent.

        Why is it too far besides the point to take root? It’s actually a very good point. There are a fair number of native American separatist groups likewise with Xinjiang and Tibet. The difference is that China doesn’t fund the native American separatist groups so these groups do not have nearly the same amount of resources at their disposal to advocate for their cause amongst their population. They have reason to want to separate and very little access money or know-how to really spread the word about their cause unlike the Xinjiang and Tibetan movements. I’m sure a few million dollars to get them more motivated and give them greater means of spreading their beliefs would help a bit.

        And yes, the CCP is losing the propaganda battle with the US. The US is far more experienced at these types of battles considering how many rebellions they’ve started and supported. I agree with that.

        I think the risk of a Chinese split is tiny as well, but the CCP likely doesn’t see it that way and again, this is largely supported by American interests. You believe the American factor in a possible split-up is minor? Really? You think millions of dollars powering the Tibetan and Xinjiang movements are minor? Heh… millions of dollars goes a long way.

      • Chad

        And I guess where we disagree is on how much of a difference the US funding of separatist groups really makes. You seem to think it’s minor whereas I think it’s a huge factor. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong, but I’ll just leave you with interesting notes on how powerful some funding can be:

        http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul79.html
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530
        http://www.iefd.org/articles/ned_of_us.php

        • Chad: you asked if there would be a rise in discontent, and if I would call that home-made. I replied to both. Read closely.

          Ha! Remember, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Also, take note that most Tibetans have no idea about the CIA’s funding of the Dalai Lama. If you’ve read the debate about this over the internet, you’ll see many Tibetans denying something like that ever happened.
          You can’t tell if they don’t know it, or if they are denying it, Chad. But I can see that it drives you nuts if exiled Tibetans remain uninformed or when they are in denial. Well then – the Tibetans inside China are very well informed about foreign funding and support for the Dalai Lama, aren’t they? Why then would the CCP still have to worry about their “loyalty”?

          Why is it too far besides the point to take root? It’s actually a very good point.

          I’ll quote from my previous comment – your question tells me that you haven’t read closely:
          “The idea that a certain nationality or territory within the U.S. should want to secede is either too far beside the point to take root, or the causes for a strong “secessionist” drive must be searched for at home in the first place, not abroad.”

          As for your link collection, I don’t know about your reading habits, Chad, but judging by the links, you seem to believe that I only read the stories that suit my own picture of the world. That however is just your assumption. I’m aware of the CIA’s history in Tibet, and I know the current picture. I know America’s imperialism, and I know China’s. I’m not denying either of the stories. I’m open for information from all sides. I’m not here to advertise, but anyway, I suggest that you enter “Heinrich Böll” in the searchbox there (my name above this comment contains the link). You can also try this one. I’m always interested in the influence other countries exert in my country, too, and whenever we get a political message from abroad, I’m looking who the sender is.

          But the CCP’s main problem is that a counter-public to its engineered domestic public has remained in existence. That it is in part co-engineered by Washington seems to astonish them greatly, but it shouldn’t.

          And yes, the CCP is losing the propaganda battle with the US.
          Not so fast, Chad. China’s propaganda efforts certainly aren’t lost on the CEO world. If you know some of them yourself, you will have heard time and again how “China gets things done, while we keep labor with every minor misgiving by whatever kind of pressure group”. And you know what? Their opinion has to be fine with me, and mine has to be fine with them. They are free people, just as I am, free to draw their own conclusions. Only debate, not bans, can help to develop further. Neither of us has reason to resent when challenged by the other.
          When it comes to the role of propaganda in rebellions: you are talking about rebellions within a rising economic and political power, a permanent security council member, where we both agree that the risk of a split is tiny and where you still suggest that “the CCP doesn’t see that”. Well, then. I believe the CCP is the problem.

          • Chad

            Ah, so I can’t know the Tibetans are denying it or just ignorant of it but you can just wildly claim that all the Tibetans in China must know about the CIA funding. Good logic. Why wouldn’t the China have to worry about their loyalty anyway? I explained in my post why the US would have to worry about Chinese-sponsored native separatist groups as well even if they were aware of the Chinese involvement. Again, who doesn’t want millions of dollars to motivate them whether it by from the Chinese or French or Americans or whoever?

            I do believe you know nothing about what the US does in China because you’ve said they play a minor role in the separatism movements. Anyone who is actually knowledgeable about what they have done would not make such a claim if he were not biased. Many millions of dollars of funding over 6 decades is not small change and cannot be called minor factors. Arming and training Tibetan guerillas is not minor. Paying the Dalai Lama a 6-figure salary to spread his “spiritual” messages is not minor.

            I’ve heard those stereotypes about how China gets things done. Last I checked, none of them were caused by any sort of Chinese-funded propaganda aside from a single ad in NY’s Times Square that didn’t focus on any particular stereotype. My relative in fact manages several factories for a large electronics company, and he has noted how much faster Chinese labour is compared to those from many other countries for whatever reason. Does China fund separatist groups in the US? I’ve never heard of it.

            I think both the CCP and the American government are the problem: the CCP for being stupid, ignorant and paranoid, and the American government for taking advantage of those characteristics to destabilize China. And even though the risk of actual separatism is low, the risk of bad-for-business-behaviour is pretty high in places like Tibet and Xinjiang like riots and general ethnic violence.

            Again, the difference between your opinion and mine is that you seem to think that millions of dollars in funding of separatist groups by the Americans is minor.

          • Chad

            And I’m done with this, because we’re obviously not going to agree on that one point.

          • Chad

            One last point though: these “minor” factors like NED funding and CIA training/arming have brought down many governments, legitimate or not, in the past. I’ll let you sit on that.

  • dude

    It’s so normal. Oil and war.

    • Dalai Lama says: anger is useless. Enjoy your life, Chad.

  • krdr

    Gadaffi learned from the best – Milоšević.
    1) Provoke intervention
    2) Use intervention to:
    a) get appraisal from anti-globalists
    b) make your nemesis looks more evil.
    c) seek and destroy field enemy

    So, protecting people by killing people wont work

  • Bob

    I do not support the now NATO-led bombing campaign not because I hate America or France, but because I think the rebels should grow a pair of balls. If you don’t have the guts to win a civil war without foreign intervention, you clearly don’t have enough support to rule the country by yourselves. In the end, your country will just be a banana puppet state propped up by foreign interests that’ll be kissing NATO’s ass at every opportunity just so they can keep their peace keepers there a few years longer.

    Expedience comes at the price of being someone’s bitch. Fucking sissies.

    • B-real

      I second that notion, but because I love America and hate others view it. Last time I checked that is how America won its civil wars against Great Britain. Its how all world wars were ended. International involvement. A civil war can’t be won by the people alone, as history reflects an equal or greater force must assist.

      I just hate the bill that follows the war effort. The assisting nation pick up the tab and and get all the blame for all that is bad in their nation. They call for us to help but get angry when people die, get angry when we stay to help rebuild , get angry because we left them in worse shape than before the war, get angry when the guy they vote for doesn’t turn out to be who they thought to be and cycle repeats its self. Let these people hate themselves, kill themselves, rules themselves. Tired of my money being blamed for the people’s lack of civility to govern them selves.

      If and when the day the western nations can no longer defend themselves from ,Oh I don’t know China is the day we all stand alone on our 2 feet to decide who we are going to be ruled by. Who is going to come to our defense in the end?

  • Morrisshi

    I support NATO airstrike.

  • KfU

    WOW…

    I can’t believe people are still posting on this thread…

    It’s been 4 or 5 days, and I’m still getting auto email notifications…

    You do know there’s a post up about how small Asian penis sizes are, right?

  • Dan Danger

    I am an American and like any true American I oppose the US getting involved in foreign conflicts… unless it is 100% certain we will win and subjugate the vanquished. This looks like a lesson for Ghadaffi that has been long over due.

  • Cyrus Howell

    This is the best I have seen here in a long time.
    These comments are like the old China Smack that used to be subjected to DOS attacks and was shut down a few times.

    This one is more like an Entertainment Mag. CS found a way to make money and leave a tip at the Back Door. This subject is important, and interestingly with opposing opinions, and a variety of views concerning what exactly is democracy.

    How many Han want China run by Islamic Law? Raise your hands! Muslims believe God has given them the right to run the World. Pakistan believes China will fight on their side against India.
    We will all be Muslims when the Chinese stop eating the pig – and that will be never.

    I say let’s repeat Auntie Susan Boyle again.