Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Correction. Armed rebels begged for a no fly zone.

So when we invade a repressive dictatorship under a Republican flag (Iraq) it's a patriotic duty, but setting up a no fly zone under a Democratic flag (Libya) is a violation of sovereignty.

Got it.

Iraq was part of the war against terrorism. Saddam Hussein was actively funding suicide bombings in Israel and other places.

Gaddafi used to support terrorism but gave it up after he saw what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's actions are going to undo all that and cause Gaddafi to go back to sponsoring radical Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda.

As the Arabs, Russians, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Indians, Africans and every other non European nation has said. The French rushed to war without thinking things through. And the Brits, Americans are blindly following the French lead.

Obama only has 27 more days to carry out this illegal attack before it has to end. Congress will not fund this conflict.

[Andaluciae]

And has been pointed out to you conspiracy theorists, if it had been about oil the coalition would have had a bigger payoff being buddy-buddy with Mo and crushing the rebellion.

One thing you missed. If France seizes the oil fields, it means that Europe, not the Libyans, decide what price of oil will be.

I seriously doubt that. The international oil market--in which oil from any country is a prefect substitute for oil from any other country, currently decides the price, and will do so whether or not France takes over the fields.

[Farnhamia]

So when we invade a repressive dictatorship under a Republican flag (Iraq) it's a patriotic duty, but setting up a no fly zone under a Democratic flag (Libya) is a violation of sovereignty.

Got it.

Iraq was part of the war against terrorism. Saddam Hussein was actively funding suicide bombings in Israel and other places.

Gaddafi used to support terrorism but gave it up after he saw what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's actions are going to undo all that and cause Gaddafi to go back to sponsoring radical Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda.

As the Arabs, Russians, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Indians, Africans and every other non European nation has said. The French rushed to war without thinking things through. And the Brits, Americans are blindly following the French lead.

Obama only has 27 more days to carry out this illegal attack before it has to end. Congress will not fund this conflict.

If it's illegal, the House should impeach the President immediately.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Correction. Armed rebels begged for a no fly zone.

No, you've been shown that the representatives of the rebels have asked for a no-fly zone.

The UN Resolution only authorizes protection of civilians. It does not authorize protection or help for the rebels. If protecting civilians was the main concern, then why do the Brits, Americans, and French have no qualms killing civilians who in support of Gaddafi?

And don't give me that "zero civilian casaulties" crap. There are always civilian casualties anytime the west interferes in other nations. Just because we don't have a confirmed number of dead, doesn't mean no civilians are being killed by the western air strike.

The correct number of civilian deaths from the western attacks, is not zero, rather it is unknown at this time.

The fact that Libya's officials are refusing to allow journalists to go to locations and verify their claims indicates a concern for the safety of journalists but it doesn't help them.

OTH, Bombing a group of government forces that are in a fire fight with armed rebels miles from Benghazi has nothing to do with protecting civilians.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

David Cameron says action in Libya came "just in the nick of time" and a massacre in Benghazi had been prevented. In my opinion, granted in part, but he could be a bit more daring by taking out Gaddafi... at least capture him in a dawn raid from a helicopter, and relax the minds of the Libyans.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

No it isn't. It's about helping armed rebels overthrow Gaddafi in direct defiance of international laws while hiding behind a UN resolution on civilians, to do so.

If the rebels were in direct defiance of international laws, wouldn't the UN have passed a resolution calling on them to lay down their arms and negotiate with the government? Instead they authorized military action to stop the government from killing its own people.

Anyway, why defend Qaddafi? It isn't as if he's such a stalwart defender of democracy, you know. Did you support Mubarak in Egypt or the government in Tunisia? Do you support the efforts of the governments of Bahrain and Yemen to suppress their people?

I support the right of all nations to settle their domestic disputes on their own without interference from western nations.

Why do you want to replace one dictator with another dictator?

[Farnhamia]

David Cameron says action in Libya came "just in the nick of time" and a massacre in Benghazi had been prevented. In my opinion, granted in part, but he could be a bit more daring by taking out Gaddafi... at least capture him in a dawn raid from a helicopter, and relax the minds of the Libyans.

The trouble is, Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds. The collateral damage would play right into USofA-'s hands.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

David Cameron says action in Libya came "just in the nick of time" and a massacre in Benghazi had been prevented. In my opinion, granted in part, but he could be a bit more daring by taking out Gaddafi... at least capture him in a dawn raid from a helicopter, and relax the minds of the Libyans.

The trouble is, Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds. The collateral damage would play right into USofA-'s hands.

I can only say for now, in this case, is that Gaddafi is very desperate to set things up, and now the UN is being more cautious about what he says now.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

David Cameron says action in Libya came "just in the nick of time" and a massacre in Benghazi had been prevented. In my opinion, granted in part, but he could be a bit more daring by taking out Gaddafi... at least capture him in a dawn raid from a helicopter, and relax the minds of the Libyans.

Or this could have been avoided if Reagan had succeeded in his 1986 attempt to assassinate Gadaffi.

[Caninope]

Enforcing an article doesn't need Senate approval. The Gulf War was started by a UNSC Resolution- it was however, funded by Congress.

Not that Congress will refuse to fund a few Tomahawk missiles though, to keep the Right from yelling "Why do you hate teh freedomz!" myself included.

What was Public Law 102-1, then?

Not a part of the Gulf War.

[Laerod]

As the Arabs, Russians, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Indians, Africans and every other non European nation has said. The French rushed to war without thinking things through. And the Brits, Americans are blindly following the French lead.

You're lying again:

Arab League chief Amr Moussa said on Monday that he respected a U.N. resolution that authorised military action on Libya, after earlier comments suggested he was concerned by actions taken by Western powers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 4220110321

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday said the use of the term crusades to refer to the situation in Libya was "unacceptable".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 1920110321

"We are united that the war must be ended. The resolution must be pushed through." - Chancellor Merkel

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... geNumber=2

The Chinese are the only ones on that list that appear to be openly against it, with the Russians split minds as far as leadership goes.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

David Cameron says action in Libya came "just in the nick of time" and a massacre in Benghazi had been prevented. In my opinion, granted in part, but he could be a bit more daring by taking out Gaddafi... at least capture him in a dawn raid from a helicopter, and relax the minds of the Libyans.

The trouble is, Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds. The collateral damage would play right into USofA-'s hands.

Are you saying that all of the civilians in Tripoli are families of officers and soldiers?

Up until today I've been largely silent on claims of civilian casualties and for a very good reason: we don't know.

The Western Alliance is not saying there were no civilians killed by their attacks on Libya, they are saying they have no information about civilian casualties. A big difference.

We don't know.

In fact we won't know until after this war is ended.

[Tokyoni]

Even if one were convinced that the coalition action in enforcing a NFZ and French action in striking a military convoy was imperialist aggression, why on Earth would one then support an authoritarian leader who is highly aggressive towards his own people?

Supporting autocrats due to their opposition of Western states is idiotic, and of no benefit to a better world.

It serves the purpose of opposing continued European American hedgemony over non europeans.

I like you. Let's be friends. ^_^

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

As the Arabs, Russians, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Indians, Africans and every other non European nation has said. The French rushed to war without thinking things through. And the Brits, Americans are blindly following the French lead.

You're lying again:

Arab League chief Amr Moussa said on Monday that he respected a U.N. resolution that authorised military action on Libya, after earlier comments suggested he was concerned by actions taken by Western powers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 4220110321

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday said the use of the term crusades to refer to the situation in Libya was "unacceptable".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 1920110321

"We are united that the war must be ended. The resolution must be pushed through." - Chancellor Merkel

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... geNumber=2

The Chinese are the only ones on that list that appear to be openly against it, with the Russians split minds as far as leadership goes.

And you lie everytime you say there are no civilian deaths from the western attacks on Libya.

[Farnhamia]

The trouble is, Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds. The collateral damage would play right into USofA-'s hands.

Are you saying that all of the civilians in Tripoli are families of officers and soldiers?

Up until today I've been largely silent on claims of civilian casualties and for a very good reason: we don't know.

The Western Alliance is not saying there were no civilians killed by their attacks on Libya, they are saying they have no information about civilian casualties. A big difference.

We don't know.

In fact we won't know until after this war is ended.

Please don't ask silly questions or try to put words in my mouth. I know your ability to read is better than that. Read what I wrote: "Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds."

[Andaluciae]

If the rebels were in direct defiance of international laws, wouldn't the UN have passed a resolution calling on them to lay down their arms and negotiate with the government? Instead they authorized military action to stop the government from killing its own people.

Anyway, why defend Qaddafi? It isn't as if he's such a stalwart defender of democracy, you know. Did you support Mubarak in Egypt or the government in Tunisia? Do you support the efforts of the governments of Bahrain and Yemen to suppress their people?

I support the right of all nations to settle their domestic disputes on their own without interference from western nations.
Why do you want to replace one dictator with another dictator?

We don't live in a Westphalian world anymore--the delusions of the nation-state are subsiding, and being replaced by a consciousness of a broader global consensus.

Fine, the BRIC's want to pretend they are still in the nineteenth century? Russia with its gamesmanship in the caucuses, the Chinese with their brutal clients in Burma, North Korea and Sudan, and Brazil with its striking ability to cozy up with asshole autocrats in spite of their recent history. They are going to lose out on the potential benefits of a more open, interconnected and liberal global order. One where the states are going to have to exist for their people, not the other way around.

Let's shed the chains of the old world.

[Laerod]

No, you've been shown that the representatives of the rebels have asked for a no-fly zone.

The UN Resolution only authorizes protection of civilians. It does not authorize protection or help for the rebels. If protecting civilians was the main concern, then why do the Brits, Americans, and French have no qualms killing civilians who in support of Gaddafi?

Hrm, no qualms? You lie:

12.45 The Ministry of Defence reveal that a planned Tornado strike was called off due to fears of hitting civilians:

Major General John Lorimer said:

"As the RAF GR4 Tornados approached the target, further information came to light that identified a number of civilians within the intended target area.

"As a result the decision was taken not to launch weapons. This decision underlines the UK's commitment to the protection of civilians."

And don't give me that "zero civilian casaulties" crap. There are always civilian casualties anytime the west interferes in other nations. Just because we don't have a confirmed number of dead, doesn't mean no civilians are being killed by the western air strike.

Even Colonlel "Ceasefire? Ceasefire?" Gaddafi alleges less than 200 casualties for 112 missile strikes.

The correct number of civilian deaths from the western attacks, is not zero, rather it is unknown at this time.

The only times I've said "0" is when someone alleged NATO had killed people in Iraq. NATO has, in fact, killed 0 people in Iraq, the same number as in Australia for pretty much exactly the same reason.

The fact that Libya's officials are refusing to allow journalists to go to locations and verify their claims indicates a concern for the safety of journalists but it doesn't help them.

LOL!

OTH, Bombing a group of government forces that are in a fire fight with armed rebels miles from Benghazi has nothing to do with protecting civilians.

The missiles were used to knock out the air defenses. It may not be directly linked to protecting civilians, but it most certainly is directly linked to the establishment of the no-fly zone. Also, bombing a group of government forces that are in a fire fight miles from Benghazi is covered by the resolution. Benghazi isn't the only place where reprisals are expected or have been occurring, nor is Benghazi the only place that civilians live.

[Laerod]

And you lie everytime you say there are no civilian deaths from the western attacks on Libya.

Show me where I said there were no civilian deaths due to Western attacks on Libya.

[Caninope]

Even if one were convinced that the coalition action in enforcing a NFZ and French action in striking a military convoy was imperialist aggression, why on Earth would one then support an authoritarian leader who is highly aggressive towards his own people?

Supporting autocrats due to their opposition of Western states is idiotic, and of no benefit to a better world.

It serves the purpose of opposing continued European American hedgemony over non europeans.

Which is why we're invading, amirite?

[Andaluciae]

I would have never thought just a few years ago, that I would become a bleeding heart liberal internationalist.

[Chumblywumbly]

Supporting autocrats due to their opposition of Western states is idiotic, and of no benefit to a better world.

It serves the purpose of opposing continued European American hedgemony over non europeans.

If supporting the likes of Gaddafi is the way one opposes US hegemony, then I'm all for US hegemony.

One knows one's position is flawed when one is cheering on murderous autocrats.

[Clagen]

So when we invade a repressive dictatorship under a Republican flag (Iraq) it's a patriotic duty, but setting up a no fly zone under a Democratic flag (Libya) is a violation of sovereignty.

Got it.

Iraq was part of the war against terrorism. Saddam Hussein was actively funding suicide bombings in Israel and other places.

Gaddafi used to support terrorism but gave it up after he saw what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's actions are going to undo all that and cause Gaddafi to go back to sponsoring radical Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda.

As the Arabs, Russians, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Indians, Africans and every other non European nation has said. The French rushed to war without thinking things through. And the Brits, Americans are blindly following the French lead.

Obama only has 27 more days to carry out this illegal attack before it has to end. Congress will not fund this conflict.

The "evidence" linking Saddam to terrorist organizations turned out to to be horseshit. The Iraqi government had no links to Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group.

[Nazis in Space]

The fact that Libya's officials are refusing to allow journalists to go to locations and verify their claims indicates a concern for the safety of journalists but it doesn't help them.

This line absolutely, positively, takes the cake.

[Clagen]

I would have never thought just a few years ago, that I would become a bleeding heart liberal internationalist.

A month of one sided news reports will do that to you. Think Iraq war run up fair and balanced coverage to the pro (Pentagon funded generals and other shills) and anti war sides.

[Mirkana]

It serves the purpose of opposing continued European American hedgemony over non europeans.

If supporting the likes of Gaddafi is the way one opposes US hegemony, then I'm all for US hegemony.

One knows one's position is flawed when one is cheering on murderous autocrats.

Indeed. I don't give a damn about US hegemony. I care about decreasing the number of dictators in the world and increasing the number of democracies. Personally, I don't view dictatorships as genuinely legitimate governments.