"Shoot the opposition? Get Tomahawk.
Posted 26-03-2011 at 14:47 by Кирилл Сызранский
The signal for all: "Shoot the opposition? Get the" Tomahawk ".
Why support Gaddafi considerable number of people in Russia completely unfounded and totally undeserved Medvedev poured mud and accused of treason? Let me explain.
First of all, to quote a man who really does not suspect of being sympathetic to the U.S.. Iran's ambassador to Moscow Reza Sajjadi said on Qaddafi: «It is generally believed that any person or group that acts against the United States - is, by default a good man or a good band, and it (they) should be maintained. But Iran does not share this belief. We have a value that should be followed ... Al-Qaida and Taliban are also considered anti-American groups. But we condemn them ... Look at how behaved Mr. Qadaffi against residents of Benghazi. He was ready to kill their own people in order to retain power. Such is simply unacceptable. Instead of taking care of the financial support of his people, he gave millions of dollars every month in order to earn the respect of foreign heads of state ... »
I emphasize: Gaddafi wanted to earn the respect of foreign, primarily Western states, not Russia. The mansion is Saif al-Islam has bought in London, rather than on "Rublyovka. And he defended his thesis at the London School of Economics, and not at MSU. 7 thousand hectares of land for VIP Golf Club, Gaddafi also bought in Andalusia, but not in the suburbs. But we somehow believe that Gaddafi - an ally of Russia. And it gave Medvedev. But is this true?
as an ally of Russia Gadhafi was not very good.
He has not fulfilled achieved in April 2008 an agreement on the purchase of Russian weapons, despite the fact that Russia has written off Libya in return the Soviet era debt of $ 4.5 billion. Unable to move forward with selling the "Russian Railways" contract worth 2.3 billion dollars for the construction of the railway Sirt - Benghazi, although the branch scheduled to open in September 2009. Not meet expectations for Libya on the issue of creating a "gas OPEC", in which Libya was seen as a key partner. Gaddafi declined to participate in the organization rather than jeopardize the entire project. Russian naval base in the port of Benghazi, he never gave the opening - although declared willingness to do so. In short, a very "lucrative" and "reliable" ally.
True, a former Russian ambassador to Libya, sacked for "inadequate understanding of Russia's interests in Libya, as it turned out, had sent a telegram to the president, which he stated:" Russian companies have signed a few years ahead is very lucrative contracts for tens of billions of euros, which could lose and have already lost. That in some respects can be regarded as a betrayal of Russian interests. " On some contracts, saying the ambassador - is unclear, such information is nowhere to be found in the public domain. Perhaps, for this and it was removed. There are two options: either contracts with tens of billions of euros were - but they were secret, and the Ambassador of the information disclosed publicly. Either of these contracts were not, and in a telegram to the president, he carried a nonsense. Under both options, it - Resignation.
They say tribal chiefs who opposed al-Gaddafi, oil is needed - say, they had better be left alone with the desert, laid the pipe on which to have your personal rent from their ownership of this segment of the pipe itself. Say, for some reason, Gaddafi put them to pass on hospitals, education, building roads, cities. The attention of people who claim such escapes that Gaddafi, in fact, liked to invest more petrodollars into foreign accounts than in the economy of Libya. In late February, under arrest were assets Gaddafi in Western countries for an amount not less than 54.3 billion dollars. Specifically - in Canada, he was arrested in assets at 2.4 billion dollars in the UK - 1.46 billion, in Germany - 19.58 billion in Switzerland - 0.88 billion dollars in the U.S. - 30 billion . dollars. Immediately evident that Colonel Qaddafi - a true patriot Libya. Even greater patriot than our colonel - it just something $ 40 billion there in the West, among the enemy.
They also say that the situation in Libya and elsewhere does not coincide with the Egyptian or Tunisian. It's true - Ben Ali and his family stole the entire $ 20 billion, while Mubarak and his clan - $ 70 billion. It is, indeed, does not coincide with the sum of 54.3 billion dollars, which stole the Gaddafi. Furthermore, also does not match the reaction of the Tunisian and Egyptian leaders with the reaction of Libyan counterpart on the uprising in their own countries. Ben Ali almost never fought, and fled at once - is it possible to avoid major civilian casualties (killed 219 people and wounded - 510). Mubarak resisted longer, trying to incite the army and police on the demonstrators cut off the Internet - but in the end still had to leave (but his obstinacy cost the lives of 384 people and wounded was more than 6 thousand). Gaddafi also had the most violent resistance, the result - more than 10 thousand dead and tens of thousands wounded. That's all, what does not match the situation in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
And if Gaddafi survived - after all, what he did - it would give a very bad signal to the rest of the "national leader" in several other countries.
Judge for yourself. First, in Tunisia and then in Egypt occurred revolution which overthrew the local dictators for decades stood at the head of the corrupt and utterly corrupt regimes always rig the elections, lining up their own "vertical of power", based on the selling police and security forces raging, and people begging and silent until such time as longer bear has become impossible. These regimes did not differ from the regime of the Russian Federation - and many in RuNet blogosphere and sincerely happy to bring them down, because it was clear and unambiguous signal to the current government in Russia: no action would any of the regime remain in power if the people are actively opposed to him.
But in a third country, the dictator (or he regularly re-elected in free, fair, inclusive and competitive elections?) Decided to prove otherwise and to shoot the opposition, drowning in blood the uprising against him. The more important it was to ensure that his regime collapsed and crashed horribly, as a victory regime would signal to all the other dictatorships in the world, that the mass shooting of the opposition is an effective deterrent power.
It is obvious that the current U.S. administration and the governments of the European Union would not intervene in the conflict and waited until the last moment, hoping the rebels will be able to cope with Gaddafi themselves. At first it seemed that this will happen. But when he began to smash their unorganized volunteer ranks with the help of air strikes, tank shelling and attacks, it became clear: the rebellion will be drowned in blood.
I repeat the above: if Gaddafi won, then his victory would be an obvious signal to all countries with dictatorial regimes: Shoot the bombs and all those who rose up against you, do not run away, Ben Ali and Mubarak - and stay in power. Not surprisingly, the regimes of China and Russia, brutally suppressed opposition to his own in 1989 and 1993, were the only obstacle to the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution that would open the possibility for a military operation against the regime of Gaddafi. But this obstacle could break.
Alignment is clear. Those who are behind Qaddafi and also against their own authoritarian regime in the country in the world, should not be surprised when they were shot in the same way as in Libya, if they are massively act on the streets. Even simpler: Protestuesh at home? Supported before Qaddafi? Get a bullet from the NSV.
The truth seems to be a military operation against al-Gaddafi gave, finally, the signal, which must hear all the dictatorial regimes: firing at the opposition? Get the "Tomahawk".
However, some argue that such an approach the United States, France and Britain have much else to intrude, as in so many countries, rampant bloody dictatorship. But, they say, once they attacked only on Qaddafi, so they need a Libyan oil (respectively, in Yugoslavia, they needed a Yugoslav oil, and Afghanistan - Afghan).
Assume that many regimes deserve to be overthrown (for example, when the Vietnamese overthrew Pol Pot, the whole world breathed a sigh of relief). But as you can imagine the simultaneous invasion of the dozens of countries? This is - cheap? The operation of the Odyssey. Dawn "in just the first 4 days has cost the Allies $ 800 million. U.S. already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time. Even if the U.S. president took an idiotic decision - at the U.S. still would not have enough forces to invade and yet in Zimbabwe, Bahrain, or Kuwait, or Iran, or North Korea or Venezuela right now, and everywhere at once. It is clear that the costs of military operations must be at least partially pay off. In this sense, the Libyans "lucky" than Zimbabweans - at Gadhafi in the West confiscated tens of billions of dollars that the Libyans were able to pay if this will be questioned, as well as send them to restore the shattered country, when it is finally released.
here.
Why support Gaddafi considerable number of people in Russia completely unfounded and totally undeserved Medvedev poured mud and accused of treason? Let me explain.
First of all, to quote a man who really does not suspect of being sympathetic to the U.S.. Iran's ambassador to Moscow Reza Sajjadi said on Qaddafi: «It is generally believed that any person or group that acts against the United States - is, by default a good man or a good band, and it (they) should be maintained. But Iran does not share this belief. We have a value that should be followed ... Al-Qaida and Taliban are also considered anti-American groups. But we condemn them ... Look at how behaved Mr. Qadaffi against residents of Benghazi. He was ready to kill their own people in order to retain power. Such is simply unacceptable. Instead of taking care of the financial support of his people, he gave millions of dollars every month in order to earn the respect of foreign heads of state ... »
I emphasize: Gaddafi wanted to earn the respect of foreign, primarily Western states, not Russia. The mansion is Saif al-Islam has bought in London, rather than on "Rublyovka. And he defended his thesis at the London School of Economics, and not at MSU. 7 thousand hectares of land for VIP Golf Club, Gaddafi also bought in Andalusia, but not in the suburbs. But we somehow believe that Gaddafi - an ally of Russia. And it gave Medvedev. But is this true?
as an ally of Russia Gadhafi was not very good.
He has not fulfilled achieved in April 2008 an agreement on the purchase of Russian weapons, despite the fact that Russia has written off Libya in return the Soviet era debt of $ 4.5 billion. Unable to move forward with selling the "Russian Railways" contract worth 2.3 billion dollars for the construction of the railway Sirt - Benghazi, although the branch scheduled to open in September 2009. Not meet expectations for Libya on the issue of creating a "gas OPEC", in which Libya was seen as a key partner. Gaddafi declined to participate in the organization rather than jeopardize the entire project. Russian naval base in the port of Benghazi, he never gave the opening - although declared willingness to do so. In short, a very "lucrative" and "reliable" ally.
True, a former Russian ambassador to Libya, sacked for "inadequate understanding of Russia's interests in Libya, as it turned out, had sent a telegram to the president, which he stated:" Russian companies have signed a few years ahead is very lucrative contracts for tens of billions of euros, which could lose and have already lost. That in some respects can be regarded as a betrayal of Russian interests. " On some contracts, saying the ambassador - is unclear, such information is nowhere to be found in the public domain. Perhaps, for this and it was removed. There are two options: either contracts with tens of billions of euros were - but they were secret, and the Ambassador of the information disclosed publicly. Either of these contracts were not, and in a telegram to the president, he carried a nonsense. Under both options, it - Resignation.
They say tribal chiefs who opposed al-Gaddafi, oil is needed - say, they had better be left alone with the desert, laid the pipe on which to have your personal rent from their ownership of this segment of the pipe itself. Say, for some reason, Gaddafi put them to pass on hospitals, education, building roads, cities. The attention of people who claim such escapes that Gaddafi, in fact, liked to invest more petrodollars into foreign accounts than in the economy of Libya. In late February, under arrest were assets Gaddafi in Western countries for an amount not less than 54.3 billion dollars. Specifically - in Canada, he was arrested in assets at 2.4 billion dollars in the UK - 1.46 billion, in Germany - 19.58 billion in Switzerland - 0.88 billion dollars in the U.S. - 30 billion . dollars. Immediately evident that Colonel Qaddafi - a true patriot Libya. Even greater patriot than our colonel - it just something $ 40 billion there in the West, among the enemy.
They also say that the situation in Libya and elsewhere does not coincide with the Egyptian or Tunisian. It's true - Ben Ali and his family stole the entire $ 20 billion, while Mubarak and his clan - $ 70 billion. It is, indeed, does not coincide with the sum of 54.3 billion dollars, which stole the Gaddafi. Furthermore, also does not match the reaction of the Tunisian and Egyptian leaders with the reaction of Libyan counterpart on the uprising in their own countries. Ben Ali almost never fought, and fled at once - is it possible to avoid major civilian casualties (killed 219 people and wounded - 510). Mubarak resisted longer, trying to incite the army and police on the demonstrators cut off the Internet - but in the end still had to leave (but his obstinacy cost the lives of 384 people and wounded was more than 6 thousand). Gaddafi also had the most violent resistance, the result - more than 10 thousand dead and tens of thousands wounded. That's all, what does not match the situation in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
And if Gaddafi survived - after all, what he did - it would give a very bad signal to the rest of the "national leader" in several other countries.
Judge for yourself. First, in Tunisia and then in Egypt occurred revolution which overthrew the local dictators for decades stood at the head of the corrupt and utterly corrupt regimes always rig the elections, lining up their own "vertical of power", based on the selling police and security forces raging, and people begging and silent until such time as longer bear has become impossible. These regimes did not differ from the regime of the Russian Federation - and many in RuNet blogosphere and sincerely happy to bring them down, because it was clear and unambiguous signal to the current government in Russia: no action would any of the regime remain in power if the people are actively opposed to him.
But in a third country, the dictator (or he regularly re-elected in free, fair, inclusive and competitive elections?) Decided to prove otherwise and to shoot the opposition, drowning in blood the uprising against him. The more important it was to ensure that his regime collapsed and crashed horribly, as a victory regime would signal to all the other dictatorships in the world, that the mass shooting of the opposition is an effective deterrent power.
It is obvious that the current U.S. administration and the governments of the European Union would not intervene in the conflict and waited until the last moment, hoping the rebels will be able to cope with Gaddafi themselves. At first it seemed that this will happen. But when he began to smash their unorganized volunteer ranks with the help of air strikes, tank shelling and attacks, it became clear: the rebellion will be drowned in blood.
I repeat the above: if Gaddafi won, then his victory would be an obvious signal to all countries with dictatorial regimes: Shoot the bombs and all those who rose up against you, do not run away, Ben Ali and Mubarak - and stay in power. Not surprisingly, the regimes of China and Russia, brutally suppressed opposition to his own in 1989 and 1993, were the only obstacle to the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution that would open the possibility for a military operation against the regime of Gaddafi. But this obstacle could break.
Alignment is clear. Those who are behind Qaddafi and also against their own authoritarian regime in the country in the world, should not be surprised when they were shot in the same way as in Libya, if they are massively act on the streets. Even simpler: Protestuesh at home? Supported before Qaddafi? Get a bullet from the NSV.
The truth seems to be a military operation against al-Gaddafi gave, finally, the signal, which must hear all the dictatorial regimes: firing at the opposition? Get the "Tomahawk".
However, some argue that such an approach the United States, France and Britain have much else to intrude, as in so many countries, rampant bloody dictatorship. But, they say, once they attacked only on Qaddafi, so they need a Libyan oil (respectively, in Yugoslavia, they needed a Yugoslav oil, and Afghanistan - Afghan).
Assume that many regimes deserve to be overthrown (for example, when the Vietnamese overthrew Pol Pot, the whole world breathed a sigh of relief). But as you can imagine the simultaneous invasion of the dozens of countries? This is - cheap? The operation of the Odyssey. Dawn "in just the first 4 days has cost the Allies $ 800 million. U.S. already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time. Even if the U.S. president took an idiotic decision - at the U.S. still would not have enough forces to invade and yet in Zimbabwe, Bahrain, or Kuwait, or Iran, or North Korea or Venezuela right now, and everywhere at once. It is clear that the costs of military operations must be at least partially pay off. In this sense, the Libyans "lucky" than Zimbabweans - at Gadhafi in the West confiscated tens of billions of dollars that the Libyans were able to pay if this will be questioned, as well as send them to restore the shattered country, when it is finally released.
here.
Total Comments 0
