• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

Serenity said:
Saif al-Islam has not been captured. those reports are false.
Click to expand...

TRIPOLI - A son of Muammar Gaddafi who rebels said they had captured appeared with cheering supporters in Tripoli, giving a boost to forces loyal to the veteran leader trying to fight off insurgents who say they control most of the capital.

TODAYonline | World | Gaddafi's 'captured' son walks free, taunts rebels


That is a shame. They'll probably get him and his daddy soon. Hopefully in a few days.
 
Opteron said:
BBC News - Libya: Clinton condemns rape as weapon of war

Col. Gaddafi's claim wasn't supported by credible reports and credible news agencies.
Click to expand...

Neither is this. I see no evidence in your source; just hearsay from Hillary Clinton and some Libyan officer who apparently doesn't like Gaddafi.
This Viagra claim has all the hallmarks of being standard war propaganda carefully crafted for maximum outrage, rather than a factual claim. And until I see some actual evidence supporting this idea, that's what I'm going to assume it is.

Show me reports of the atrocities committed by the rebels and then I will believe you. There are many reports for the other side. I know you want to condescend the 'good guys and bad guys' notion, but that's how its looking to be based on the facts.
Click to expand...

An example of rebel atrocities: Libyan rebels accused of arbitrary arrests, torture - CNN
An example of NATO atrocities: NATO cites errant missile in Libya deaths - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

But I forgot, it's perfectly fine when the "good guys" do it, because it's collateral damage unfortunately necessary to win. Never mind that you'd never excuse Gaddafi doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. :roll:

Still, its remarkable they weren't shot instantly. Do you think Gaddafi would have given them the same privilege? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I don't find it so implausible that Gaddafi might hold some rebels for more than 12 hours before killing them, even if for no other reasons than intelligence gathering and arranging the logistics of it.
 
Last edited:
War crimes are never okay. Sadly, civilian casualties are often unavoidable.

I wouldn't discount reports of Gadaffi's crimes, however. He has a very long history of brutal repression.
 
Kandahar said:
Neither is this. I see no evidence in your source; just hearsay from Hillary Clinton and some Libyan officer who apparently doesn't like Gaddafi.
Click to expand...
I posted this report five months ago (3/27/11)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...fi-government-put-display.html#post1059373016

After Libyan woman’s rape claims, methods of Gaddafi government put on display

TRIPOLI, LIBYA — A woman provided journalists with a glimpse into the methods of the Libyan government Saturday when she was dragged from their hotel by security guards and government minders seeking to stop her from telling her story of abuse. “Look what Gaddafi’s militia have done to me,” she said, raising her long black robe to reveal scratch marks and blood on her thigh. There were also bruises and lacerations on her cheeks, and marks on her hands and ankles indicating that she had been tied up.

A small group of reporters gathered around to listen. She gave her name as Iman al-Obaidi and recounted how she had been detained by Gaddafi militiamen at a checkpoint two days earlier and raped by 15 of them. “I was tied up. They defecated on me. They urinated on me. They violated my honor,” she said.

As she spoke, hotel staff members, security guards and government minders closed in on her and began dragging her away. Journalists who tried to protect her were punched, and one, Charles Clover of the Financial Times, was knocked to the ground and kicked. Eventually, the woman — screaming, “They are taking me to jail!” — was hauled outside to an unmarked car, which whisked her away at high speed.
Click to expand...
Source: Washington Post

Followup: According to a dedicated Facebook page, Iman al-Obaidi somehow escaped Libya and is now in the United States (Asylum Status).
Iman al-Obaidi Updates | Facebook
 
Kandahar said:
Neither is this. I see no evidence in your source; just hearsay from Hillary Clinton and some Libyan officer who apparently doesn't like Gaddafi.
This Viagra claim has all the hallmarks of being standard war propaganda carefully crafted for maximum outrage, rather than a factual claim. And until I see some actual evidence supporting this idea, that's what I'm going to assume it is.



An example of rebel atrocities: Libyan rebels accused of arbitrary arrests, torture - CNN
An example of NATO atrocities: NATO cites errant missile in Libya deaths - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

But I forgot, it's perfectly fine when the "good guys" do it, because it's collateral damage unfortunately necessary to win. Never mind that you'd never excuse Gaddafi doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. :roll:



I have no idea. I don't find it so implausible that Gaddafi might hold some rebels for more than 12 hours before killing them, even if for no other reasons than intelligence gathering and arranging the logistics of it.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that there no difference between the NATO member nations and Libya? American war has killed civilians and so has Gaddafi, so Obama and GWB are just as bad as Gaddafi?
 
SheWolf said:
Do you honestly believe that there no difference between the NATO member nations and Libya?
Click to expand...

If you're asking if it's just as bad when NATO indiscriminately kills civilians to advance its political goals, the answer is yes. Now whether NATO members are as "bad" as Gaddafi's regime overall is more subjective. Granted, they have more redeeming qualities than Gadaffi does (like providing a decent standard of living to their citizens), but on matters of war and peace they're considerably worse. Gaddafi hasn't attacked another country for decades, whereas the United States can't seem to go more than a couple years without doing so.

American war has killed civilians and so has Gaddafi, so Obama and GWB are just as bad as Gaddafi?
Click to expand...

Correct. Actually on matters of war and peace, Obama and Bush are worse than Gaddafi. They've killed far more civilians in pursuit of their political agenda than Gaddafi ever has. I don't buy the argument that they have the moral high ground because they didn't "intend" to kill civilians, because this is A) a subjective assessment of their motives based on preconceived notions that they're the "good guys", and B) irrelevant to the victims.

I don't have a problem with humanitarian peacekeeping missions that don't pick sides in internal civil conflicts, in parts of the world where they can ACTUALLY be useful. I have a big problem with the United States deposing its enemies under the guise of humanitarianism, when it has such a horrible track record backing unsavory regimes, especially in the Arab world. Hosni Mubarak had the full backing of the United States just a few months ago, and the House of Saud still does...so forgive me if I'm skeptical that the US government has suddenly had a change of heart and wants to bring freedom and democracy and human rights to the Arab world.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
War crimes are never okay. Sadly, civilian casualties are often unavoidable.
Click to expand...

How to avoid civilian casualties:
Step 1: Don't fire thousand pound bombs into populated areas.

SheWolf said:
Do you honestly believe that there no difference between the NATO member nations and Libya? American war has killed civilians and so has Gaddafi, so Obama and GWB are just as bad as Gaddafi?
Click to expand...

The massacres due to NATO bombings aside, the US has quite a long history of supporting those who do their dirty work for them. In this case, it is the rebels.

Kandahar said:
I don't buy the argument that they have the moral high ground because they didn't "intend" to kill civilians
Click to expand...

When you know that an area is populated with civilians, and you drop a bomb on it, your intent is obvious, regardless of how you rationalize it. Dropping bombs on cities is intentionally killing civilians, even if you label them "collateral casualties".
 
Last edited:
I think you guys have misunderstood what's going on here. NATO is simply enforcing a no fly zone because of internal crimes (i.e. Gaddafi killing his own people). The NATO no fly zone is not supporting the rebels. It was only meant to prevent a genocide. Yes, the no fly zone benefits the rebels, but when Gadaffi's forces turned the civil war around and the rebels were retreating NATO didn't change tactics.

EU prepares for worst after Gaddafi 'genocide' threats | EurActiv


The fact is, Gaddafi would have killed every single person who wasn't a loyalist. He doesn't care about ruling people. He cares about making money from the Libyan oil fields and losing his control over those fields. The people wanted him to step down from that power.
 
"Hundreds of Qaddafi supporters took over Green Square after truck loads of militiamen arrived and opened fire on protesters, scattering them from the square. Residents said they now feared even to emerge from their houses.
“It was an obscene amount of gunfire,” said the witness. “They were strafing these people. People were running in every direction.” The police stood by and watched, the witness said, as the militiamen, still shooting, chased after the protesters. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22libya.html?_r=1&hp

I don't understand how you can confuse intentionally shooting unarmed, noncombants with collateral damage. I'd say the revolution the Libyan rebels are engaging in is a natural and justified response to oppressive and coercive government. Of course I'd consider the Libyan government the bad guys in this situation. Revolutions are necessary, and the people are behind the revolution. The rebels might not be have a future vision for Libya that is perfect, but I don't care. I am not judging the rebels. I just know a government is being coercive and I support overthrowing those governments as a general rule.

Here is another article:


"Members of Libya’s mission to the United Nations renounced Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Monday, calling him a genocidal war criminal responsible for mass shootings of demonstrators protesting against his four decades in power. They called upon him to resign. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22nations.html?hp
 
Re: Libya: Gaddafi faces final battle as fighting erupts in Tripoli

Juiposa said:
I saw this earlier and was thrilled. Hopefully Ghadaffi gives up once Tripoli falls. If he does then this war wont draw itself out.
Click to expand...
I doubt they'll get Ghadafi, he's a billionaire.
 
Opteron said:

Show me reports of the atrocities committed by the rebels and then I will believe you. There are many reports for the other side. I know you want to condescend the 'good guys and bad guys' notion, but that's how its looking to be based on the facts.
Click to expand...


I'd be glad to show you some, as well as some things NATO has done. ([url]http://www.france24.com/en/20110619-nato-acknowledges-killing-civilians-air-strike-arada-tripoli) (Libyan Rebels Killing Civilians in Benghazi | Veterans Today) (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html)

(Chicago Indymedia: Libyan Rebels Killing Civilians in Benghazi) (NATO, Rebels Accused of War Crimes in Libya) (NATO’S Massacre at Majer, Libya | Foreign Policy Journal)

(Blacks In Libya | Libyan rebels accused of targeting blacks - Los Angeles Times) (Black Africans and other non-Libyans targeted for revenge killings: reports - International Business Times) (Libyan rebels massacre black Africans)
 
SheWolf said:
I think you guys have misunderstood what's going on here. NATO is simply enforcing a no fly zone because of internal crimes (i.e. Gaddafi killing his own people). The NATO no fly zone is not supporting the rebels. It was only meant to prevent a genocide. Yes, the no fly zone benefits the rebels, but when Gadaffi's forces turned the civil war around and the rebels were retreating NATO didn't change tactics.

EU prepares for worst after Gaddafi 'genocide' threats | EurActiv


The fact is, Gaddafi would have killed every single person who wasn't a loyalist. He doesn't care about ruling people. He cares about making money from the Libyan oil fields and losing his control over those fields. The people wanted him to step down from that power.
Click to expand...

Enforcing a no fly zone my ass. The main goal was to overthrow Gaddafi. The UN Security Council Resolution clearly stated (ODS HOME PAGE) for UN members "to take all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron even admitted it (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html) when they said "Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power." (emphasis added)

In addition to this, economic concerns come to light as almost as soon as the rebels had won, an Italian oil company (Italy: Oil company Eni 'has returned to Libya and will regain prominent role' - Adnkronos Business) returned to Libya to resume its activities.

There is a greater geo-political role in this as well. The rebels are going to favor Western oil corporations at the expense of the Chinese, Brazilians, and Russians (Libya end-game pulls down oil prices | euronews, corporate)

“We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil,” said Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

I think Gaddafi is a POS and should get a bullet in the head, but lets not act like the US-NATO war machine did this out of the goodness of their hearts.
 
SheWolf said:
I think you guys have misunderstood what's going on here. NATO is simply enforcing a no fly zone because of internal crimes (i.e. Gaddafi killing his own people). The NATO no fly zone is not supporting the rebels. It was only meant to prevent a genocide. Yes, the no fly zone benefits the rebels, but when Gadaffi's forces turned the civil war around and the rebels were retreating NATO didn't change tactics.
Click to expand...

No, that's the NATO spin. Of course it supports the rebels. Why else would they bomb Gaddafi while he is in his compound? What part of a "no fly zone" gives NATO the mandate to bomb Gaddafi's tanks? And the stuff about "preventing a genocide" is nothing more than speculation about what Gaddafi would do if he won the war - what reason is there to believe that the rebels (about whom NATO knew absolutely nothing at the time it decided to intervene) won't do exactly the same thing to Gaddafi's supporters now that they have (more or less) won the war? Again, this is just speculation...based entirely on preconceptions of who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. Gaddafi is a villain in this narrative, so you assume the worst about how he would react if he won. The rebels are freedom-loving democrats in this narrative, so you assume that nothing similar would occur under their victory.

The fact is that NATO intervened for one reason: They didn't like the fact that the rebels were about to lose. They weren't interested in preventing bloodshed, as NATO intervention undoubtedly prolonged the conflict. They just weren't happy with the likely outcome of the conflict in the absence of their intervention. This is yet another case of the United States deposing a leader it doesn't like, under the guise of humanitarianism.

The fact is, Gaddafi would have killed every single person who wasn't a loyalist.
Click to expand...

:roll:

He doesn't care about ruling people. He cares about making money from the Libyan oil fields and losing his control over those fields. The people wanted him to step down from that power.
Click to expand...

Is being a corrupt leader who wants to make money from oil a sufficient justification for NATO to launch an unprovoked attack on a country and depose its leader? If so, there are plenty of other countries that should be ahead of Libya on that list, including some of our good buddies.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
TRIPOLI - A son of Muammar Gaddafi who rebels said they had captured appeared with cheering supporters in Tripoli, giving a boost to forces loyal to the veteran leader trying to fight off insurgents who say they control most of the capital.

TODAYonline | World | Gaddafi's 'captured' son walks free, taunts rebels


That is a shame. They'll probably get him and his daddy soon. Hopefully in a few days.
Click to expand...

Al Jazeera is reporting that Rebel Command in Basra is thoroughly embarrassed by this blow to their credibility. Al Jazeera is further speculating that either the sons were never captured or they bribed their way free. Since the rebels are not a disciplined fighting force, the latter is definitely a possibility. It's not over until we see Khadafi's entire family lined up in handcuffs in front of a tv camera, in my view. The chaos of war, and all that.
 
DiAnna said:
Al Jazeera is reporting that Rebel Command in Basra is thoroughly embarrassed by this blow to their credibility. Al Jazeera is further speculating that either the sons were never captured or they bribed their way free. Since the rebels are not a disciplined fighting force, the latter is definitely a possibility. It's not over until we see Khadafi's entire family lined up in handcuffs in front of a tv camera, in my view. The chaos of war, and all that.
Click to expand...

Basra? Or Benghazi? I hadn't realized that the Libyan rebels were operating out of Iraq.
 
Those of you who are lambasting NATO are turning a blind eye to what you don't want to see/believe, and stretching credulity in your accusations and blamemongering. Telling a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth; it just makes the teller a liar. This is not a "US-led attack." It's a NATO attack, led by France, Italy and Spain, which the US is supporting. US planes aren't flying over Libya; French planes are. It's fine to hate America if you want, because fortunately you live in a country that allows you to hate it. But making **** up on one hand while ignoring inconvenient realities on the other serve only to have others brush you off as crackpots.

Bottom line, Khadaffi's compound is now in rebel control, and according to NATO, no NATO bombs or planes have been used in the seige of Tripoli. Mind you, NATO's spokespeople on the Libyan operation are European, not American.

The Libyan people began this revolution on their own, buoyed by the success of Tunisia and Egypt. America had nothing to do with any of these insurrections, despite some of the ludicrous claims made in this thread. Sheesh. Just... sheesh. :roll:
 
Kandahar said:
No, that's the NATO spin. Of course it supports the rebels.
Click to expand...

The rebels are the civilians, but all the civilians are not rebels. If you disagree with the campaign, that's fine but I think you have gone beyond that. You're basically comparing Obama, GWB, all the rebels, and Gaddafi to each other, and you can't see a difference which is just ridiculous.

Your own spin is preventing you from admitting that Gaddafi was doing more than just defending his government in a civil war. If you want to complain about spin, then stop spinning stuff yourself.

Why else would they bomb Gaddafi while he is in his compound? What part of a "no fly zone" gives NATO the mandate to bomb Gaddafi's tanks?
Click to expand...

Enforcing a no fly zone requires bombings, because the pilots and planes have to be protected... A a no fly zone isn't simply shooting **** out of the sky. Being in a no fly zone and shooting stuff out of the sky simply puts those planes at risk of being targeted and shoot down by ground forces, therefore, bombings are practical.

And the stuff about "preventing a genocide" is nothing more than speculation about what Gaddafi would do if he won the war -
Click to expand...

This didn't start out as a war. It started out as a protest like the Egyptian Revolution, but Gaddafi had to start killing the protesters. Instead of backing down, the the people revolted against the government and are trying to overthrow it.

The people were simply over powered, and Gaddafi had the capabilities to completely kill them all. He was winning and killing them right up until NATO intervened. He also made genocidal speeches and loyalist defected because of his genocidal comments, don't forget.

If he would have won, be honest. We all know he was going to win. We all know he was killing his own people.


what reason is there to believe that the rebels (about whom NATO knew absolutely nothing at the time it decided to intervene) won't do exactly the same thing to Gaddafi's supporters now that they have (more or less) won the war? Again, this is just speculation...based entirely on preconceptions of who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. Gaddafi is a villain in this narrative, so you assume the worst about how he would react if he won. The rebels are freedom-loving democrats in this narrative, so you assume that nothing similar would occur under their victory.
Click to expand...

I just said I am not judging the rebels. I don't even know what their plans are for Libya. Some people think Libya might split along tribal lines, but I don't care. I don't care because it's a sovereign country, and determining whether or not they want to be democratic, slightly democratic, not at all, etc. is up to them. I only know the Libyan government was being coercive, and I support overthrowing coercive governments. I am not so much taking the rebels side as I am taking the side of the people/the civilians, whom were oppressed by Gaddafi's government. I believe many people are fighting as rebels and have differing views and visions for the nation's future. There is no single rebel leader.

I'll always cheer for people overthrowing oppressive governments.. :shrug:

The fact is that NATO intervened for one reason: They didn't like the fact that the rebels were about to lose. They weren't interested in preventing bloodshed, as NATO intervention undoubtedly prolonged the conflict. They just weren't happy with the likely outcome of the conflict in the absence of their intervention. This is yet another case of the United States deposing a leader it doesn't like, under the guise of humanitarianism.
Click to expand...

And if that's your opinion and your feelings. Fine... :shrug: So ****ing what. You don't have facts. We can either take NATO's word or not, but the fact is they simply enforced a no fly zone. We can speculate on their hidden agenda all we want, but this isn't an American war. It's simply a no fly zone.


Is being a corrupt leader who wants to make money from oil a sufficient justification for NATO to launch an unprovoked attack on a country and depose its leader?
Click to expand...

If you think that that's all there is to this situation, then you really haven't been paying attention.

If so, there are plenty of other countries that should be ahead of Libya on that list, including some of our good buddies.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, Syria is the only country that is acting in a similar manner... but I don't think it's as bad. I don't think it's a civil war there, not yet.
 
DiAnna said:
Those of you who are lambasting NATO are turning a blind eye to what you don't want to see/believe, and stretching credulity in your accusations and blamemongering. Telling a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth; it just makes the teller a liar. This is not a "US-led attack." It's a NATO attack, led by France, Italy and Spain, which the US is supporting. US planes aren't flying over Libya; French planes are.
Click to expand...

If the US decided it wasn't going to support this, the NATO intervention would not have happened. Period. The US is the only NATO country with a sufficient fighting force to sustain these attacks. Even the French and British (the European countries with the strongest militaries) are woefully unprepared for even a minor conflict like this and would not have been able to act without the United States.

It's fine to hate America if you want, because fortunately you live in a country that allows you to hate it. But making **** up on one hand while ignoring inconvenient realities on the other serve only to have others brush you off as crackpots.
Click to expand...

-George W. Bush, describing people who protested the Iraq War

Bottom line, Khadaffi's compound is now in rebel control, and according to NATO, no NATO bombs or planes have been used in the seige of Tripoli.
Click to expand...

NATO has been bombing Bab al-Azizyah for months.

Mind you, NATO's spokespeople on the Libyan operation are European, not American.
Click to expand...

Well as long as they find some Italian dude to parade in front of the cameras, I guess Obama is off the hook for his war of choice.

The Libyan people began this revolution on their own, buoyed by the success of Tunisia and Egypt. America had nothing to do with any of these insurrections, despite some of the ludicrous claims made in this thread. Sheesh. Just... sheesh. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have no problem with them rebelling and overthrowing Gaddafi on their own if that's what they want to do. I have a problem with the United States deciding that it is going to determine who should be in power in Libya and then deposing the existing government with military force, under the guise of saving lives.
 
That's not quite true. NATO needed America in the early days to take out Gadaffi's air defenses. Since then we have had a much more limited role.
 
Kandahar said:
If the US decided it wasn't going to support this, the NATO intervention would not have happened. Period. The US is the only NATO country with a sufficient fighting force to sustain these attacks. Even the French and British (the European countries with the strongest militaries) are woefully unprepared for even a minor conflict like this and would not have been able to act without the United States.
Click to expand...

This is a no fly zone, not a full scale war. The German military, the largest in Europe, is prepared enough to help us in Afghanistan, so they are prepared enough to enforce a no fly zone, but hey are not in NATO nor do they want to get involved on their own. I'd say the British has enough fighting force to enforce a no fly zone by themselves. They involved themselves in Iraq and we are in NATO, so if we can do it, I don't see why they can't...


-George W. Bush, describing people who protested the Iraq War
Click to expand...

He invaded Iraq. You can compare and speculate on their motives, but also be mindful of the obvious differences.

I have no problem with them rebelling and overthrowing Gaddafi on their own if that's what they want to do. I have a problem with the United States deciding that it is going to determine who should be in power in Libya and then deposing the existing government with military force, under the guise of saving lives.
Click to expand...

The facts are, Gaddafi had more power than the rebels and the rebels were losing, and he was willing to kill them all. Now we can speculate that the rebels knew all this when they decided to rise up against Gadaffi and his military. We can also speculate that they were counting on outside force to give them an upper hand.

I think that that is a good speculation.

They even knew what they wanted NATO to do.

0516-OHEARING-LIBYA-ICC-Qaddafi_full_380.jpg


But still, Libya is different. It isn't like Iraq. It's not even like Iran. When the Iranians were protesting after the elections, some people thought America should do something and get involved. America didn't get involved. Iran was actively trying to overthrow their government... they were rioting, but it wasn't a full blown revolutionary war.

The situation in Libya isn't a simple revolutionary war either, because the leader was attacking and murdering people. Gaddafi's murderous actions is what likely caused the protests to escalate into a full blown rebellion.

NATO decided to get involved on the legal grounds that Gaddafi was committing international crimes. NATO is protecting the civilians, but NATO is also helping to overthrow Gaddafi by enforcing the no fly zone. It could be very likely that NATO is more interested in killing Gadaffi than saving civilians. I wouldn't doubt it, but at the same time, they have legitimate reasons to enforce a no fly zone. It's not like NATO is breaking international law.

We have seen presidents issue bombing campaigns for less cause than this.
 
Last edited:
This is almost as good as when the USA liberated Iraq:roll:

Explaining the Color Revolutions

"In fact, the anti-regime movement in Ukraine was funded and organized by the US government, according to The Guardian. They claimed that The Democratic Party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republic party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and the USAid are the main agencies involved in grassroots campaigns launched by the young activists in Ukraine as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros’s open society institute.[10] Officially, the US government spent $14 million in organizing and funding the operation of anti-regime movements.[11] In addition, Freedom House and the Democratic Party’s NDI helped fund and organize the ‘largest civil regional monitoring effort’ in Ukraine where they sent in 1,000 trained observers and organized exit polls. It is very important in organizing the exit polls because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime and put the onus on the authorities to respond. While in Georgia, the US ambassador during the Rose revolution played an important role in coaching Mikheil Saakashvilli in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze. Besides foreign influences, the mass media also plays an important role to further stimulate anti-regime forces. During the Orange revolution, despite the government’s nearly total control of political content on national television they also put pressure on independent media, some objective newspapers and local radio stations continued to function. More over, journalists also bristling at government control and censorship, launched strikes and public protests demanding the right to tell voters the truth in the days before the Orange revolution."

e-IR » Explaining the Color Revolutions
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
That's not quite true. NATO needed America in the early days to take out Gadaffi's air defenses. Since then we have had a much more limited role.
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm thinking "truth" isn't particularly high on his agenda. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom