Results for: libya Search Results
Family Filter:
1:07
Take a tour of Old Town of Ghadames in Ghadames, Libya – part of the World’s Greatest Attractions travel video series by GeoBeats. There is much to distinguish the town of Ghadames from its surrounding environment in Libya. The town is an oasis on the edge of the Sahara Desert, and maintains a unique architectural style and layout. The multi-story buildings are built with limestone, mud and palm wood, protecting the people from the intense heat and cold. This region was once an important center of trade and was thus occupied by the Roman Empire and later Muslim Arabs. As a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the old part of Ghadames stands as an impressive example of a pre-Saharan civilization and a present- day Arab community. In this town most houses have open air connected roof terraces.
4 Mar 2011
728
Share Video

2:35
BY: ALLIE SPILLYARDS ANCHOR MEGAN MURPHY You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy What’s the U.S. to do? Step in and help rebel fighters or stand back and let Libya take care of Libya. A writer for CNN says the U.S. has already stuck it’s toe in the water by calling for Ghaddafi to step down. Now, it needs to follow through. “Gadhafi's departure from power in other words is not just a requirement of humanity and decency. It's not only justice to the people of Libya. It is also essential to American credibility and the stability of the Middle East region.” Others say not so fast. During a Meet the Press roundtable discussion, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says the U.S. needs to consider if its help is even wanted. “Do you really want American boots on the ground? The rebels in Libya are not exactly excited about the idea of a kind of U.S. sponsored revolution. They’re doing this themselves. I’m not sure how that would leave America's standing if we participate to too great an extent in what they’re trying to do.” And if the U.S. does intervene, what considerations should it make? Political analysts from two competing networks say the U.S. can’t act alone. Michael O’Hanlon: “I think given the lessons of Iraq where we tried to do the right thing but paid a big price for overthrowing a dictator, we need to be careful here. I think international support is the key prerequisite to acting unless the violence just gets so much worse its a humanitarian requirement to intervene, but we’re not really at that level yet.” MARK HALPERIN: “It would be crazy to make this a U.S. operation. If it’s an international operation it takes away some of the dangers in terms of how this is viewed around the world.” All debates aside.... the questions really at the heart of the issue: why Libya? Why now? A blogger for the New American challenges U.S. interest. “If moral obligations were our reason for meddling in the lives of others, then why did we not do anything in Sudan? The West sent only relief workers to aid the afflicted and no military might to quell massacres hundreds of times greater than those that may be occurring in Libya. There was no “morality” because Sudan and its people are insignificant to the West — that is, they have no economic importance to us.” So whether America is taking a stance in favor of humanity or protecting the oil that keeps its economy stable, politicians have some decisions to make. Congress and the White House will grapple with the options. As President Obama has said, it’s all on the table. So for now, Americans and rebel protestors will be watching for action. According to Politico, that response could be a no fly zone, a no drive zone, arming the opposition, or invasion. Now, it’s just a waiting game. 'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
8 Mar 2011
831
Share Video

2:10
BY YIQIAN ZHANG You're watching multisource U.S. news analysis from Newsy. Obama administration officials are voicing skepticism about a no-fly zone in Libya. This as lawmakers continue to debate the merits of intervention in the North African country. Before we get into media reaction, let’s take a look at what a no-fly zone is. REPORTER: “A no-fly zone is very much what it says on the tenet -- a zone in which no planes can fly essentially. What it would mean is that it would give allied planes the right to shoot down anything that took off inside Libya. And the idea behind that is to prevent Colonel Gaddafi from turning his airforce on his own people, from attacking civilians...” The media are largely bashing the idea. The Wall Street Journal’s John Bussey tells Fox News a no-fly zone raises lots of questions. BUSSEY: “This will be a huge step for the U.S. if it endorsed the no-fly zone and if NATO got involved with this, because what do you do? Who do you shoot down? Who do you support? If this is an effort to help the rebels then suddenly you are in a new war, another war against Gaddafi.” A CNBC editor agrees, saying -- politically, a no-fly zone is a step over the line. “The very first step in establishing a no-fly zone would be a bombing attack on Libya. Our bombers would have to seek out and destroy Libya’s air defenses. Bombing another country is called war. We’d be converting a nascent civil war in Libya into an international war lead by the United States.” But at least two Senators disagree with that point. Republican John McCain and Democrat John Kerry say the humanitarian situation on the ground in Libya makes a no-fly zone a viable option. "We can't risk allowing Gadhafi to massacre people from the air, both by helicopter and fixed-wing [aircraft].” “The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the no-fly zone stepping over that line.” Retired Navy Capt. Tom Parker tells NPR -- politics aside, a no-fly zone is hard to operate strategically. PARKER: “If you're doing full-time, round-the-clock operations, they'll run out of gas. That is, they'll get physically exhausted and it becomes unsafe after about a day.” 'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
12 Mar 2011
370
Share Video

1:45
BY JONATHAN KETZ ANCHOR JENNIFER MECKLES You're watching multisource world news analysis from Newsy With air strikes against rebel forces in Libya intensifying, the Arab League is calling for a United Nations-backed “no-fly zone” over the country. We’re following coverage from Gather, MSNBC, NPR, and the BBC. While Arab League leaders are backing a no-fly zone, they also made it clear they are against any other kind of foreign military intervention. A blogger for Gather reports... “It’s entirely possible that the call for the no-fly zone is as much about heading off more extensive military intervention as about checking Gadaffi. Any risk of a propaganda advantage to Gadaffi...is offset by the Arab League...endorsement..." MSNBC reports- the Arab League’s position is good news for the West as well. Yonatan Pomrenze: “This could help some in the west who were trying to push a no fly zone forward but they don't want it to be seen as a west versus the Arab world type of scenario, so with the Arab league on board that could get some people who want to get a no fly zone passed a little more momentum...” Now it’s up to the U.N. Security Council to make the no-fly zone a reality. But according to NPR, all the voting members aren’t on board. “...such a move is unlikely to win the backing of veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China, which traditionally object to such steps as infringements on national sovereignty.” Steve Clemons writes for the BBC- from a political perspective- a no-fly zone is too risky for the West. “A no-fly zone is popular because it scratches an emotional nerve of those wanting to help stop a dictator terrorising people from the skies, but it's a very high-cost, low-return tactic - that may have even more enormous political risks attached.” The European Union and NATO say they aren’t ready to back a no-fly zone. According to Reuters, the Arab League’s endorsement is just one of several conditions that must be met before the groups will intervene. 'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
15 Mar 2011
782
Share Video

0:32
19.03.2011 Libya plane crash 1000
20 Mar 2011
874
Share Video

1:07
Revolution Libya, war Libya 20.03.2011
20 Mar 2011
1700
Share Video

0:51
Revolution Libya 20.03.2011 News from Russia, Moscow Rights activist Ruslan Brovkin. Правозащитник Руслан Бровкин.
24 Mar 2011
660
Share Video

0:50
F-15E shot down in Benghazi Libya
23 Mar 2011
608
Share Video

1:47
Revolurion, war Libya 23.03.2011
23 Mar 2011
165
Share Video

5:34
Revolurion, war Libya 23.03.2011
25 Mar 2011
315
Share Video

6:45
Michael Shure on Republican Senator John McCain and other leading conservatives criticizing President Barack Obama for, among other things, 'waiting too long' to support a no-fly zone in Libya to help the overthrow of dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
23 Mar 2011
826
Share Video

2:12
BY ALLIE SPILLYARDS ANCHOR MEGAN MURPHY You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy Is it boys versus girls in the Obama Administration? The president’s top foreign policy advisers have taken sides on the issue of intervention in Libya- and the media have noticed- it looks like a gender divide. FRED FRANCIS: “It was three women, three women who pressed the president to go ahead.” ANDREA MITCHELL: “In the end it became the women foreign policy advisers against the men.” PAT BUCHANAN: “The President is the weakling here. Quite frankly, I think he was flipped by these women.” The three gals behind the push to help enforce the no-fly zone? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Council’s Samantha Power, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates along with other security advisers, all men, disagreed. The New York Time’s Maureen Dowd notes... “There is something positively mythological about a group of strong women swooping down to shake the president out of his delicate sensibilities... And there is something positively predictable about guys in the White House pushing back against that story line for fear it makes the president look henpecked.” A blogger for Forward points out- this is a good example of why old stereotypes don’t stick. “If the situation was reverse, some would cite it as an example of female passivity or indecision up against male strength and combativeness. In reverse, it pretty much shows that those caricatures are empty of meaning, that men can be wishy-washy and women can be firm.” MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell says this “powerful women” storyline is interesting- but the media shouldn’t lose perspective. “I do think it’s a bit overblown. I think some of this narrative from critics on the right that this was the castrate is a bit too much.” But a blogger for the Atlantic argues- the boys versus girls narrative is absurd. “It's really amazing how a factual sociological observation can quickly devolve into the most ridiculous story imaginable as it moves down the media food chain... Hillary Clinton pushed for intervention in Libya not because she's female, but because, cautious as she may be, she also is among the more historically hawkish members of the administration.” Follow Newsy_Videos on Twitter Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
26 Mar 2011
848
Share Video