The USA Position on Libya

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:53 pm

According to recent polls 60% of Americans support our involvement and 40% do not.

I guess I am in the 40%. Why? I don't like Gaddafi, but how does this differ from a Civil War? We kill those that kill the rebels to protect the rebels. Now that makes a lot of sense? Who are the rebels? Whose their leader? What is their agenda? Will they be better or worse than Gaddafi? I think the U.S. is flying by the seat of their pants and really doesn't have a clue. If that sounds sarcastic you are right. After Viet Nam, Iraq & Afganistan I am loosing all confidence in our diplomacy and Intelligence Service.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:04 pm

Lon;1355844 wrote: According to recent polls 60% of Americans support our involvement and 40% do not.

I guess I am in the 40%. Why? I don't like Gaddafi, but how does this differ from a Civil War? We kill those that kill the rebels to protect the rebels. Now that makes a lot of sense? Who are the rebels? Whose their leader? What is their agenda? Will they be better or worse than Gaddafi? I think the U.S. is flying by the seat of their pants and really doesn't have a clue. If that sounds sarcastic you are right. After Viet Nam, Iraq & Afganistan I am loosing all confidence in our diplomacy and Intelligence Service.

One word. Bullshit.

Those polls are all Bullshit. Do you really believe any American with their head on straight would ever support a THIRD war in the Middle East when we are already tiring of our first two? We aren't stupid. Our country is broke, we are on the brink of economic collapse, and they're trying to tell us that 60% of Americans are in favor of spreading our military even thinner than it already is......

Sure. Those polls are all fake. This just proves it even more.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:16 pm

TruthBringer;1355846 wrote: One word. Bullshit.

Those polls are all Bullshit. Do you really believe any American with their head on straight would ever support a THIRD war in the Middle East when we are already tiring of our first two? We aren't stupid. Our country is broke, we are on the brink of economic collapse, and they're trying to tell us that 60% of Americans are in favor of spreading our military even thinner than it already is......

Sure. Those polls are all fake. This just proves it even more.

Well do tell-----------------My mini poll has 6 of my 8 neighbors supporting and two of us not.-----No bullshit!!!

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:16 pm

We should do a poll here... I'm not in favor of any involvement in Libya.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:33 pm

how about including your neighbour Canada, we are also involved?

I guarantee none are in favor.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:07 pm

Not in favor. I don't understand how we can engage legally without congressional approval. We weren't attacked and aren't in danger of being attacked by Libya.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:09 pm

NOT!!!

To the polls being "fake" I can say with a certainty that 70 to 80% of the folks in my neighborhood are in favor.

I am in the minority around here.

At least this time, the French, British and Canadians are in on it, and it was not really an American decision. I think we should have stayed out of this on, entirely. No matter how it goes, we will be perceived as the bad guys, here.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:58 am

Accountable;1355862 wrote: Not in favor. I don't understand how we can engage legally without congressional approval. We weren't attacked and aren't in danger of being attacked by Libya.

Obama on presidential war-making powers - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

You think you have problems? The RAF squadrons being used were about to be disbanded, another year and it would have been paper aeroplanes.

posted by larsmac

At least this time, the French, British and Canadians are in on it, and it was not really an American decision. I think we should have stayed out of this on, entirely. No matter how it goes, we will be perceived as the bad guys, here.

:yh_rotfl Oh dear poor america being bullied by the nasty french and canadians in to going to war. It's all about the oil and trade, always has been and the french and british used to colonise the area for just that reason, (come to that it's by no means the only time american ships have bombarded tripoli - you still sing songs about the first time) you could put a case that the old colonial powers have been manipulating the states but you'd have to accept the americans are gullible half wits for that view to have any validity. If push comes to shove it's getting to the point the west really needs libyas oil. On the other hand it's clear gaddafi wouild have gone in and slaughtered all those that rose in revolt so what do you do?

meanwhile

US Army 'kill team' in Afghanistan posed with photos of murdered civilians | World news | The Guardian

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:18 am

gmc;1355875 wrote:

you'd have to accept the americans are gullible half wits

Done.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:16 am

gmc;1355875 wrote: Obama on presidential war-making powers - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

You think you have problems? The RAF squadrons being used were about to be disbanded, another year and it would have been paper aeroplanes.

posted by larsmac

:yh_rotfl Oh dear poor america being bullied by the nasty french and canadians in to going to war. It's all about the oil and trade, always has been and the french and british used to colonise the area for just that reason, (come to that it's by no means the only time american ships have bombarded tripoli - you still sing songs about the first time) you could put a case that the old colonial powers have been manipulating the states but you'd have to accept the americans are gullible half wits for that view to have any validity. If push comes to shove it's getting to the point the west really needs libyas oil. On the other hand it's clear gaddafi wouild have gone in and slaughtered all those that rose in revolt so what do you do?

meanwhile

US Army 'kill team' in Afghanistan posed with photos of murdered civilians | World news | The Guardian

Yup, we are either gullible half-wits, jerked around by the Gnomes of Zurich, or we are the Evil Empire. no middle ground.

What happens now, if, even with the no-fly zone, Ghaddafi puts down the revolt, and regains control of Libya? You think he get over the interferance of those western nations and life will go on?

I see him returning to the radical, anti-western whacko he once was, and sponsoring more terrorism.

next, the European "coalition" will have to take him out. They will likely call on us half-wits to come do the dirty work, again.

The next question is what happens when the rebels take over? Do we know what, exactly, they plan to do when the Colonel is out on his ear?

They may take the same anti-Western stand, and we still have to do something "to protect Western interests"

I still see no way we (the West) come out of this looking like good guys.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:56 am

Lon;1355844 wrote:

I guess I am in the 40%. Why? I don't like Gaddafi, but how does this differ from a Civil War? We kill those that kill the rebels to protect the rebels. Now that makes a lot of sense? Who are the rebels? Whose their leader? What is their agenda? Will they be better or worse than Gaddafi? I think the U.S. is flying by the seat of their pants and really doesn't have a clue. If that sounds sarcastic you are right

so you're saying that it's ok for Gaddafi to kill civilians??!

also, people of Libya aren't rebels, they are sick of Gaddafi's policy, their country is rich but there are a lot of poor people.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:12 pm

M.A.S;1355904 wrote: so you're saying that it's ok for Gaddafi to kill civilians??!

also, people of Libya aren't rebels, they are sick of Gaddafi's policy, their country is rich but there are a lot of poor people.Some, MAS. Some Libyans are sick of Gaddafi's policy. Other Libyans admire the chap and his non-aligned foreign policy. And the more their country's bombed, I suspect, the more will become loyalists.

An armed civilian isn't a civilian, he's an armed rebel. Killing armed rebels is a natural function of government. Killing civilians, on the other hand, is wrong. So long as you distinguish the two circumstances you'll make sense. Armed rebels often say afterwards "I wasn't armed", you know. And it's often untrue.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:28 pm

spot;1355905 wrote: Some, MAS. Some Libyans are sick of Gaddafi's policy. Other Libyans admire the chap and his non-aligned foreign policy. And the more their country's bombed, I suspect, the more will become loyalists.

An armed civilian isn't a civilian, he's an armed rebel. Killing armed rebels is a natural function of government. Killing civilians, on the other hand, is wrong. So long as you distinguish the two circumstances you'll make sense. Armed rebels often say afterwards "I wasn't armed", you know. And it's often untrue.

that's an interesting point Spot, but did you know that Gaddafi employed mercenaries as soldiers to kill and torture civilians? ! did you know that he used jets ( I think F16s or something) to destroy whole cities there?!

at the beginning of the demonstrations the civilians were unarmed and it was all peaceful, until Gaddafi sent his troops to blow up everything. I watched a speech for him in Arabic in YouTube, what he said was unbelievable !!, he said that he's ready to kill every moving object on his land just to remain as president of Libya..

life is so strange :-3

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:32 pm

If there's a newly-destroyed city in Libya, I'll eat my hat. How's that? Would you like to name one?

As for the rest that's certainly what some parts of Western news reports say, yes. I have long held some parts of Western news agencies in disdain as lying clowns who print solely for profit rather than integrity.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:50 pm

spot;1355907 wrote: If there's a newly-destroyed city in Libya, I'll eat my hat. How's that? Would you like to name one?

As for the rest that's certainly what some parts of Western news reports say, yes. I have long held some parts of Western news agencies in disdain as lying clowns who print solely for profit rather than integrity.

here are some cities : ( Alzawea: الزاويه) & ( Agdabia: أجدابيا)

some news agencies are lying

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:51 pm

sorry, repeated reply

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:28 pm

M.A.S;1355909 wrote: here are some cities : ( Alzawea: الزاويه) & ( Agdabia: أجدابيا)

some news agencies are lyingTransliteration into a western font is difficult, certainly. We're talking about Az Zawiyah and Ajdabiya I assume.

And these two cities are destroyed, you're telling me?

Well, time will tell. I'll come back to the thread as and when information on those two cities becomes available. If they're destroyed then I'll apologize and confess ignorance. If, on the other hand, they're still standing and life goes on when matters quieten down, I'll point that out. I think we can both agree a destroyed city can't be rebuilt in mere weeks or months.

If I'm fortunate, I'll even find current photos to display the reality. One can only hope that Western air attacks don't cause more havoc than the damage wrought by the civil war itself.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:36 pm

now come one eat your hat :p

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:39 pm

M.A.S;1355915 wrote: now come one eat your hat :pYou seriously think you're right? What planet do you live on?

Here we go - My drive from Tunisia to Tripoli, with a Libyan government escort - CSMonitor.com

Filed 23 minutes ago, reporting a trip through Az Zawiyah yesterday.

Witnesses in the town, some of them Western journalists who were caught up in the fighting, reported numerous killings that included shooting of demonstrators, children among them.

But on Sunday there was no sign of Libyan military withdrawal from Zawiyah, as soldiers deployed Toyota Landcruisers mounted with heavy machine guns at virtually every street corner along the main bypass road, guns pointed toward the center of town where green bunting and flags were visible.

The front of many buildings were scarred with explosive rounds and bullets of past battles. Handfuls of soldiers appeared to patrol down side streets, or stood about, sometimes near roadside panels where canvas portraits of Qaddafi had been torn from their frames.It doesn't, you'll concede, sound like a destroyed city from that eye-witness report. It sounds like a city under government control.

Of course, it might well get destroyed in the near future by Western cruise missiles.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:50 pm

And again, if I may?Another man, who asked not to be identified because his brother and father were in the town, said the coalition must bomb the town even if it meant civilian casualties. "They have destroyed a mosque. We have heard there are bodies in the street and no one has moved them. This is what Gaddafi does," he said. Razing the town, he added, was the best way to free the country of Gaddafi resistance. "Even if they blow up Ajdabiya we don't care – to get rid of them is crucial."

Libya: rebels push on to the disputed town of Ajdabiya - Telegraph

Again, today's newspaper. Ajdabiya is standing, Ajdabiya is held by government forces, Ajdabiya is under attack by both the rebels and by Western aircraft. So presumably it's not destroyed? Not yet? But "razing the town, he added, was the best way to free the country of Gaddafi resistance"?

I don't think you can blame Colonel Gaddafi for the damage, MAS. What there is so far is trivial. What's about to be inflicted is by the criminals you're cheering for and their Western paymasters.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:11 pm

spot;1355905 wrote: Some, MAS. Some Libyans are sick of Gaddafi's policy. Other Libyans admire the chap and his non-aligned foreign policy. And the more their country's bombed, I suspect, the more will become loyalists.

An armed civilian isn't a civilian, he's an armed rebel. Killing armed rebels is a natural function of government. Killing civilians, on the other hand, is wrong. So long as you distinguish the two circumstances you'll make sense. Armed rebels often say afterwards "I wasn't armed", you know. And it's often untrue.

I just watched a Panorama programme on BBC1. It traced the time line of the rebellion in Benghazi. Those protesters were unarmed and were cut down and killed by armed soldiers, hundreds of them. Some with anti aircraft fire. It wasnt untill the bloodbath that they ramraided the barracks - with a bulldozer and petrol bombs - that they attained the weopans. Many soldiers joined them, the rest fled. Gadaffi's son ordered the army to open fire.

Sounds like a crime against humanity to me. You really think this man is to be admired ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:37 pm

Snowfire;1355918 wrote: Sounds like a crime against humanity to me. You really think this man is to be admired ?You know perfectly well that if a mob attacked an army base in the UK attempting to arm itself, the riot act would swiftly be followed by deaths on the street. Gaddafi's son ordered the army to open fire? So did Winston Churchill, as you well know, on unarmed British protesters in far less warrantable circumstances.

I don't think it's a "crime against humanity" at all, and I've read the Nuremberg charges and verdicts in full. By all means point me to a more recent definition which you think has been flouted, I'll be interested to see it.

As for Colonel Gaddafi, yes, on balance I think he's been self-consistent over the decades, honorable and idealist. Having ideals matters a lot. Many countries have been far worse governed than Libya. I don't think the man was in it to loot the nation either.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:47 pm

spot;1355920 wrote: You know perfectly well that if a mob attacked an army base in the UK attempting to arm itself, the riot act would swiftly be followed by deaths on the street. Gaddafi's son ordered the army to open fire? So did Winston Churchill, as you well know, in far less warrantable circumstances.

I don't think it's a "crime against humanity" at all, and I've read the Nuremberg charges and verdicts in full. By all means point me to a more recent definition which you think has been flouted, I'll be interested to see it.

As for Colonel Gaddafi, yes, on balance I think he's been self-consistent over the decades, honorable and idealist. Having ideals matters a lot. Many countries have been far worse governed than Libya. I don't think the man was in it to loot the nation either.

so that's how you think !!

killing hundreds of Libyans isn't crime against humanity ?!?!?!? OMG!

why did Gaddafi order his army to open fire on protesters ? I think that you know: protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it. well, Gaddafi is not happy with that so he's killing people.

If you're defending a killer, then that's a problem you know that :-2

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:50 pm

M.A.S;1355906 wrote: did you know that Gaddafi employed mercenaries as soldiers to kill and torture civilians? ! That, of course, is a charge far more frequently leveled against the USA than any other country. Employing foreigners to torture on behalf of the USA is very well documented and undeniable. Employed mercenaries as soldiers? Have we ever heard of Blackwater? Or, rather more notoriously, Executive Outcomes and Sandline?

Libya may well have recruited soldiers from Chad. The British famously recruit soldiers from Nepal and Ireland, and before that from Germany. The Americans even offer citizenship to any Honduran or Nicaraguan prepared to enlist for sufficiently long a contract.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:58 pm

M.A.S;1355922 wrote: why did Gaddafi order his army to open fire on protesters ? I think that you know: protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it. well, Gaddafi is not happy with that so he's killing people.

If you're defending a killer, then that's a problem you know that :-2

Oh my, that's so funny given the circumstances... How about "Saudi Arabia Protest Turns Violent: The New York Times":Protests in Saudi Arabia turned violent when police officers opened fire on marchers in the eastern city of Qatif [...] A video posted online allegedly from Qatif showed a group of protesters chanting “The people want the release of the prisoners” and “Our protest is peaceful; Sunni and Shiites are brothers; we will never betray this country.” Moments later violence erupted. Qatif is a region heavily populated by Shiites, who believe they are discriminated against by the Sunni government.or how about Will Saudi Arabia crush Bahrain's protests?Saudi Arabia sent 1,000 soldiers into neighboring Bahrain on Monday to help quell increasingly violent anti-government protests. While Bahrain's King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifah, a Sunni Muslim, has offered to start a dialogue with the mostly Shiite protesters, opposition leaders have refused, demanding that the government step down, and calling the arrival of foreign troops an invasion.

"protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it"? Not if you're a citizen of Saudi Arabia, it seems. Not if you live in Bahrain and Saudi Arabian troops start firing into the crowds.

If you're defending killers then that's a problem, you know that?

Why did the House of Saud order its army to open fire on protesters? I think that you know: protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it. well, the House of Saud is not happy with that so it's killing people.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:59 pm

It's Tomato, Tometo just the same, if he's killing his nation by mercenaries or by his own soldiers, it doesn't matter, it's a crime. I'm a human being, I don't really feel good when any human is killed or tortured. so now, you're arguing about his soldiers while blood's spilled in their land.

Just imagine you're self one of these people, I'm sure you wouldn't say that, would you?

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:07 pm

M.A.S;1355922 wrote: killing hundreds of Libyans isn't crime against humanity ?!?!?!? OMG! [...] I don't really feel good when any human is killed or tortured
I think you'll find the American, British, French and Canadian governments have killed rather more Libyans than that over the last few days.

You seem to be ignoring most of what I say, possibly because my points are unarguably accurate. Are you still claiming those cities are destroyed, after the eye-witness reports I posted?

Just imagine you're self one of these people, I'm sure you wouldn't say that, would you?I imagine, in the unlikely event I was in Libya and fighting, that I'd be a part of the regular army and patriotically fighting for my country. I'd be very annoyed about the foreign invasion that's taking place.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:48 pm

Honorable ? A man that uses tanks and an air force against his own people. Your definition of honourable is clearly different to mine and clearly different to the protesters who ransacked the Secret Polices offices in Bengazi. What they found was very far from honorable. Gunning down unarmed protesters in the streets with an anti aircraft gun is a million miles from honorable by any stretch of the imagination.

It's clear they wanted to free them selves from this barbaric torturer and given the momentum, they are doing it.

M.A.S · Post by **M.A.S** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:59 pm

spot;1355924 wrote: Oh my, that's so funny given the circumstances... How about "Saudi Arabia Protest Turns Violent: The New York Times":Protests in Saudi Arabia turned violent when police officers opened fire on marchers in the eastern city of Qatif [...] A video posted online allegedly from Qatif showed a group of protesters chanting “The people want the release of the prisoners” and “Our protest is peaceful; Sunni and Shiites are brothers; we will never betray this country.” Moments later violence erupted. Qatif is a region heavily populated by Shiites, who believe they are discriminated against by the Sunni government.or how about Will Saudi Arabia crush Bahrain's protests?Saudi Arabia sent 1,000 soldiers into neighboring Bahrain on Monday to help quell increasingly violent anti-government protests. While Bahrain's King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifah, a Sunni Muslim, has offered to start a dialogue with the mostly Shiite protesters, opposition leaders have refused, demanding that the government step down, and calling the arrival of foreign troops an invasion.

"protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it"? Not if you're a citizen of Saudi Arabia, it seems. Not if you live in Bahrain and Saudi Arabian troops start firing into the crowds.

If you're defending killers then that's a problem, you know that?

Why did the House of Saud order its army to open fire on protesters? I think that you know: protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it. well, the House of Saud is not happy with that so it's killing people.

with all do respect Spot, but you're running out of word that's why you changed the subject, we're talking about Libya here.

However, think the way you like, and I'll believe what I see is right.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:39 pm

Good first post Lon. For the record I'm against this little kerfuffle, another poll I read was 65% against and most of the people I have spoken to about it are against it. We're supposed to be supporting the good side but I just don't know. I heard the rebels found some loyalist soldiers yesterday, they were tortured and killed. I question the upstanding qualities of the individuals we are supporting. This is tribal warfare. I wonder what will happen if they ever get to Tripoli. I have my doubts about just what this next bunch of people are going to bring to Libya.

I remember what happened in Iraq.

Attached files

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:53 pm

It's clear they wanted to free them selves from this barbaric torturer and given the momentum, they are doing it.

You're correct Snowfire BUT, what are they going to get? What will be the result. Saddam was a bastard but what happened in Iraq after he left is unparalleled in that countries history. Sometimes it takes a bastard like Saddam or Qadaffi to keep some semblance of peace. Look at what Russia is doing, if they were not in the Caucasus those tribes would be killing one another in droves, and it would spread to other parts of the country. The cost of not keeping order far outweighs the cost of keeping greedy fools in line.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

We have no strategy in the middle east. We have no end game. We don't know what we are doing. We don't even care. We citizens are spectators in a psychotic episode.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:01 am

M.A.S;1355932 wrote: with all do respect Spot, but you're running out of word that's why you changed the subject, we're talking about Libya here. I slept on it, I still think I was quite right. Any Saudi Arabian who writes "protesting is legal and everyone has right to do it" is inviting a well-deserved round of derisive mockery, after what happened this month in Bahrain. It's not a changed subject in the slightest, we were talking about the right to protest in a Middle Eastern context. To quote from a very relevant article from last week, "As Saudi troops operate in Bahrain to shore up the defenses of an authoritarian ruling family against its own people, the bankruptcy of calls for intervention in Libya by members of the GCC and the Arab League is evident". The whole article's worth reading, it's at http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 29910.html

You didn't give me an answer about whether those two cities had been destroyed or not, perhaps you'd like to read the two news reports I linked and give me your revised opinion.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:33 am

Prosecutors have identified at least seven incidents of demonstrators being shot in the early days of the Libyan uprising which could constitute crimes against humanity.

The Press Association: Libya in 'crimes against humanity'

I slept on it and still think I was quite right.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:25 am

I'm generally against intervention in other countries unless the people of that country have asked for help. It makes sense that people need help to overthrow a ruler who has lots of ammunition and won't hesitate to kill protesters. I'm not sure what percentage of the people are rebelling in Libya and am aware that rebels can be instigated and used for proxy wars by the governments of other countries. It does seem likely that the success in Egypt has fueled other countries to take action more so than any insidious plot by outsiders.

Having said that, what percentage of Libya was rebelling? I can only find articles about how nicely the dead people have died.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:25 am

It's a shocking abuse of language. And law, come to that.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:50 am

spot;1355920 wrote:

As for Colonel Gaddafi, yes, on balance I think he's been self-consistent over the decades, honorable and idealist. Having ideals matters a lot. Many countries have been far worse governed than Libya. I don't think the man was in it to loot the nation either.

I still don't get the honorable tag. Remember this is the man that ordered the Lockerbie bombing

Honourable | Define Honourable at Dictionary.com

adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action" [syn: ethical]

He's a murdering thug pure and simple. There's no honour in making hundreds of dissenters dissapear off the streets, taking them to a stinking hole and torturing them. Sure he's not the only one, maybe not even the worst, maybe not by a long chalk but he seems to be very good at it, judging by the Panorama report.

You'll get no arguement from me about the stinking double standards employed by us in dealing with him and other murdering low lifes around the world. The whole country whinced when Blair embraced him but I suppose when the worlds economy relies so essentially on oil, its hardly suprising when Presidents and Prime Ministers suck up and off, any old Tom, Dick and oil producing Harry

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:26 pm

Snowfire;1356002 wrote: I still don't get the honorable tag. Remember this is the man that ordered the Lockerbie bombing

You'd think so, wouldn't you. A significant element of the UK Families group think otherwise. The Lockerbie Case is a reasoned contribution to the question of whether it's true or not. I think you're missing the definite fact that, whether he's on balance an asset or a liability to Libya, he has annoyed a lot of powerful agencies in Western governments over the years and you're quite likely to hear the worst possible interpretation on events associated with him.

What's currently happening to Libya, and what will continue to happen to Libya hereafter, is a great deal worse than leaving his administration in charge. Of that I have no doubt whatever.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:54 pm

It's not entirely clear cut.

The former Libya justice minister says he has documents that implicate Colonel Gaddafi personally in the Lockerbie bombing.

It may be that he has an axe to grind. but if, as he says....

"This evidence is in our hands and we have documents that prove what I have said and we are ready to hand them over to the international criminal court,"

...we may be getting closer to the truth after all

Video: Libya rebel leader: I have evidence Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie - Telegraph

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:14 pm

I will be overjoyed to see it. I will be delighted. The notion that the chap's trying to ingratiate himself with people potentially hostile to his continued well-being is one I would love to see completely scotched. Who knows, in a while we'll find out whether "we have documents that prove what I have said and we are ready to hand them over to the international criminal court" is actually the truth or (as may equally well be the case) shoddy self-serving propaganda.

To quote Dr Swire's site:These two gentlemen have made claims which are music to the ears of the British and American governments. A reasonable view of their statements is that they are seeking to plea bargain with the International Criminal Court in advance of any arrests. They provide no proof, and when probed by journalists have turned reticent and evasive. We look forward with interest to any details which might indicate "proof". So far, nothing has emerged.

lockerbietruth.com

Do you remember "that Iraqi troops took premature babies out of incubators in Kuwait in order to steal the equipment", out of interest? Do you think pro-Western agencies commissioned that particular lie which so inflamed the public at the time? Do you remember how completely exposed as untrue it ended up?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:32 pm

He's a murdering thug pure and simple.

He has a very good internal police and governmental security force and the most important thing of all, the support of a large part of the people. Keep in mind, he was keeping a country traditionally fractured along tribal lines in a relatively peaceful state. Just like Saddam was, just like Russia is doing in the Caucasus. Sometimes you have to do some nasty things, especially when there is some other power hungry bunch trying to destabilize the situation for their own gain.

Look into this guy. He is largely in charge of the Libyan army and security force since the '70s from what I hear and he is apparently the instigator of the opposition in some way. Please tell me HE is going to bring democracy to Libya. I can assure you, the west will certainly call what he may create "democracy".

Abu Bakr Younis Jaber

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:05 pm

Scrat;1356015 wrote: He has a very good internal police and governmental security force and the most important thing of all, the support of a large part of the people. Keep in mind, he was keeping a country traditionally fractured along tribal lines in a relatively peaceful state. Just like Saddam was, just like Russia is doing in the Caucasus. Sometimes you have to do some nasty things, especially when there is some other power hungry bunch trying to destabilize the situation for their own gain.

Look into this guy. He is largely in charge of the Libyan army and security force since the '70s from what I hear and he is apparently the instigator of the opposition in some way. Please tell me HE is going to bring democracy to Libya. I can assure you, the west will certainly call what he may create "democracy".

Abu Bakr Younis Jaber

Absolutely. There's always a void filled when a vaccum is created in these situations. I'm sure the most ambitious tribal leader with the biggest bunch of thugs to back him up will jump at any opportunity to fill that gap and no doubt the West will always be ready to rub someone else's rhubarb all the time we need their oil.

My problem, is with the strange notion that Ghadaffi and his sons, are somehow the beleagured, oppressed figures in all this

This situation, in Bengazi, escalated rapidly when Ghadaffi's troops - ordered by his son - opened fire upon unarmed protesters. A protester was CUT IN HALF , such was the intensity of the barrage of fire. Ant aircraft guns used against unarmed civilians.

And we wonder why it intensified to such an extent. There would be far more rebellion in Tripoli if the initial protests were'nt quashed immediately. Its Ghadaffi's stronghold. He's gonna shoot any protesting head that pops over the parapet

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:08 pm

I'd be interested in hearing a reason why this rebellion is not legitimate.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:53 am

What does legitimate mean in this context? Someone's started a civil war in Libya. The government's suppressing it. Foreigners are interfering in an attempt to unseat the current ruler. The only illegitimate thing on that list is the foreign interference.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:58 am

Snowfire;1356016 wrote: This situation, in Bengazi, escalated rapidly when Ghadaffi's troops - ordered by his son - opened fire upon unarmed protesters. A protester was CUT IN HALF , such was the intensity of the barrage of fire. Ant aircraft guns used against unarmed civilians.Did you miss the news clip about the rescue of the two US F16 crew? The Bengazi locals were coming up, shaking their hands, blessing them for helping the cause, and a rescue helicopter came over the ridge and sprayed the crowd with whatever those noisy things are in helicopters that cut civilians on the ground in half when the trigger gets pulled. Anti-aircraft guns, I should imagine. Six dead, I think, if memory serves. It may be common practice in Afghanistan where there's nobody able to watch but it was scarcely appropriate in the circumstances.

"A protester was CUT IN HALF"? My god these Gaddafi troops are such amateurs compared to your all-action heroic GI in a helicopter, don't you think. Your all-action heroic GI in a helicopter can clear a square of sheltering civilians in thirty seconds flat, he doesn't rely on mere ammunition, he uses missiles from a position of utter absolute invulnerability while the couch TV audience applauds admiringly each time the film loop gets played.

With friends like those, who needs an enemy?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:10 am

spot;1356056 wrote: What does legitimate mean in this context? Someone's started a civil war in Libya. The government's suppressing it. Foreigners are interfering in an attempt to unseat the current ruler. The only illegitimate thing on that list is the foreign interference.

In that case, I see the interference as assistance.

Interference, to me, is when the rebellion is funded by another country and/or the assistance is not asked for by the suppressed people.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:15 am

ok, actually, I'm saying that without anyone having helped me out on what number of the Libyan people were rebelling.

Having not heard I actually assumed it was a large amount.

If the civil war was a few hundred people against an entire country then it's something to be left alone by the outside world. If it is thousands or tens of thousands within a small area then it's representing a fair percentage of the people's will.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:18 am

koan;1356058 wrote: In that case, I see the interference as assistance.

Interference, to me, is when the rebellion is funded by another country and/or the assistance is not asked for by the suppressed people.

So - let me get the full irony of this - when the IRA were bombing Northern Ireland and assassinating the local army and police and loyalists in their attempt to overturn the government and achieve a united Ireland, Gaddafi legitimately supplied a boat-load of Semtex and ammunition to aid the uprising? That was definitely "assistance asked for by the suppressed people", the IRA were undoubtedly repressed and represented a large proportion of the Northern Irish Catholics who were also undeniably treated as second-class citizens in their own birth country. That's your position? Because if it is, I'll stretch the argument even further in that direction.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:22 am

koan;1356059 wrote: If the civil war was a few hundred people against an entire country then it's something to be left alone by the outside world. If it is thousands or tens of thousands within a small area then it's representing a fair percentage of the people's will.

You weaseled... "within a small area". You then need to qualify your conclusion - "it's representing a fair percentage of the people's will within a small area". Which while that might be a legitimate basis for a national revolution it's no excuse for foreign interference on the side of the rebels.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:56 am

spot;1356061 wrote: You weaseled... "within a small area". You then need to qualify your conclusion - "it's representing a fair percentage of the people's will within a small area". Which while that might be a legitimate basis for a national revolution it's no excuse for foreign interference on the side of the rebels.
Not so much weaseling as trying to get an understanding... which I still haven't gotten an answer for. What percentage of the Libyan people back the rebellion?

Gaddafi took over in a "bloodless coup" from what I've read. Was a bloodless coup possible now that he's in power? Or has he shored himself against allowing any new leaders from ever uprooting him by making sure no one else can do what he did?

spot;1356060 wrote: So - let me get the full irony of this - when the IRA were bombing Northern Ireland and assassinating the local army and police and loyalists in their attempt to overturn the government and achieve a united Ireland, Gaddafi legitimately supplied a boat-load of Semtex and ammunition to aid the uprising? That was definitely "assistance asked for by the suppressed people", the IRA were undoubtedly repressed and represented a large proportion of the Northern Irish Catholics who were also undeniably treated as second-class citizens in their own birth country. That's your position? Because if it is, I'll stretch the argument even further in that direction.
I don't rightly have a position yet as I lack enough information to form one.

I'm thinking more along the lines of India if the British hadn't been embarrassed by the media attention and left. I don't know why that's the comparison I had in mind but that's where my questions are coming from. Quite honestly, there has been a lot of news lately and I've not been able to keep up on exactly what is happening where.