Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Shofercia]

Again, how does "the Libyan 'war' was necessary and justified, 'animated by the noble motives of humanitarian intervention'" and "'taken up the flag of interventionism with the aim of canceling out its past links to the dictators of the Maghreb and relaunching French grandeur in the Mediterranean'" equal "the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya"?

I don't know why you are intent on spreading false propaganda about the Libyan intervention, but I can only assume it has a partisan basis.

What do you think the "relaunching of French grandeur" entails?

It entails somthing else. After all I'm apparenly arguing the Russian Party Line by arguing against it, so why can't French Grandeur mean the exact opposite for Beck-Suran.

This isn't a NATO mission.

How many times must this be said?

Duh! of course it's not a NATO mission, it's just a bunch of countries, that just, purely by accident, happen to be NATO members, bombing an Islamic country under a vaguely worded UNSC Resolution. Nothing to see here folks, moving on.

That Russia and China have condemned western european military attacks on Libya?

More like offered a weak criticism of military attacks on Libya.

Can't Gaddhafi just not slaughter his people, whose well being is his responsibility.

Can't Thaci just not slaughter his people, whose well being is his responsibility. Oh wait, he's the guy that NATO, excuse me, I meant countries that are in NATO, placed in power.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/fo ... d=29030830

The report for Europe’s premier human rights watchdog alleges that civilians detained by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) were shot dead in northern Albania so their kidneys could be extracted and sold on the black market after the war in Kosovo ended in 1999.

This is just selective enforcement, to do two things: distract the citizens of NATO, I mean excuse me, distract the citizens of countries that are in NATO from the economic woes, and to get lucrative oil and rebuilding contracts for their corporations, all at taxpayer expense, while the retirement age is raised, yet again. And for saying this, I am towing the Russian Party Line according to Beck Suran.

[Laerod]

No, it's so obviously not. The rebels asked for help. The US never implemented any Christian culture in the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, or the Gulf War, so it won't happen now.

Except, that this isn't an American operation. It's a European operation. You remember those guys? The ones who banned minarets, headscarves, and Korans?

America, fortunately, has not banned any symbols of Islam. That is why we didn't impose Christianity on those nations.

The minarets? You know, despite actually having genuine beef with Libya over the "Gaddafi's son beats people and gets away with it" incidents, they're not actually involved. Given their stance on neutrality, I highly doubt they will. Also, the guys that banned the headscarves... They're not Christian.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

The Scandinavians that have never to have anything to do with a Africa.

[Laerod]

This is just selective enforcement, to do two things: distract the citizens of NATO, I mean excuse me, distract the citizens of countries that are in NATO from the economic woes, and to get lucrative oil and rebuilding contracts for their corporations, all at taxpayer expense, while the retirement age is raised, yet again. And for saying this, I am towing the Russian Party Line according to Beck Suran.

BULLSHIT. There's a perfectly reasonable catastrophe in Japan that would allow for the distraction of the populace and the oil is not lucrative seeing as it was already being obtained by the Europeans.

[Shofercia]

As for content: We had forewarning of the genocide in Rwanda--the rhetoric of the Hutu power radio was no different from Colonel Gaddhafi's proclamations. There is something for us to carry over from Rwanda to Libya. That if we move fast w can stop unparalleled bloodshed

The forewarning makes all the difference. In Rwanda, we had reliable news that at least 10,000 Tutsis are being wiped out each week. In Lybia, we do not. Conflict's been ongoing for weeks, so if Khadaffi was the monster you make him out to be, we would've heard something about thousands of casualties by now. If you want to analogize, I do remember people talking about thousands of civilian casualties in the Ossetian War. Both sides' rhetoric was downright pathetic in terms of casualties. In reality, it was 69 Georgian civilians and 168 Russian/Ossesian civilians. The Georgian government later upped that number to 228, and the Russians/Ossetian upped theirs to 365, with both sides including militia deaths, and people missing for over a month, on the civilian death lists. So yeah, I know very well that governments lie, and that the Dumbocrats havejust as much reason to up casualties as Khadaffi does to talk about his glorious leadership. Difference in Rwanda was that we knew, instead of going off of intel from another source, like US did in Iraq.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

Toughs that think you can't help, the French and UK..Well then and other European nations.

This is a a European fight.

The US is a not a matter.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Except, that this isn't an American operation. It's a European operation. You remember those guys? The ones who banned minarets, headscarves, and Korans?

America, fortunately, has not banned any symbols of Islam. That is why we didn't impose Christianity on those nations.

The minarets? You know, despite actually having genuine beef with Libya over the "Gaddafi's son beats people and gets away with it" incidents, they're not actually involved. Given their stance on neutrality, I highly doubt they will. Also, the guys that banned the headscarves... They're not Christian.

I take it you are not aware of the headscarve ban in France?

[Hydesland]

This is just selective enforcement, to do two things: distract the citizens of NATO, I mean excuse me, distract the citizens of countries that are in NATO from the economic woes, and to get lucrative oil and rebuilding contracts for their corporations, all at taxpayer expense, while the retirement age is raised, yet again. And for saying this, I am towing the Russian Party Line according to Beck Suran.

You're like a political hipster.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

The minarets? You know, despite actually having genuine beef with Libya over the "Gaddafi's son beats people and gets away with it" incidents, they're not actually involved. Given their stance on neutrality, I highly doubt they will. Also, the guys that banned the headscarves... They're not Christian.

I take it you are not aware of the headscarve ban in France?

The French have the only nuke carrier in the sea. They put fighters in with out support.

[Nazis in Space]

Guise, I've a perfect plan. We're presently getting oil from Libya, at premium rates. Gaddafi stopped supporting the terrorists, and has paid one and a half billion dollar in reparations for Lockerbie, La Belle and some other things.

How about we support a popular uprising with barely any sign of discipline and cohesion against Gaddafi that'll put our Libyan oil supply at risk?

I think it's an awesome plan. Economic wars are best wars.

Btw, am I the only one remarkably entertained by Shofercia's smooth transition from one side of the debate to the exact opposite in between Libya and Georgia?

With the slight difference that the latter didn't have UN approval, obviously.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

The thing about the French is that they don't need the oil.

[Nazis in Space]

The minarets? You know, despite actually having genuine beef with Libya over the "Gaddafi's son beats people and gets away with it" incidents, they're not actually involved. Given their stance on neutrality, I highly doubt they will. Also, the guys that banned the headscarves... They're not Christian.

I take it you are not aware of the headscarve ban in France?

It seems more likely that you aren't.

France bans all religious symbols from schools. Whether they're headscarves or crosses makes no difference. This does not back your assertion of a christian crusade.

France bans the burqa from being worn on the street. Wearing headscarves is perfectly acceptable.

tl;dr: You're lying.

Actually, I'd say you're probably trolling, but your past posting history supports the possibility that you actually believe the stuff you're saying, which makes it all the more hilarious.

[Meryuma]

This fucking sucks. I support the Libyan rebels, and I don't want the US hegemonic state to shackle the Libyans to imperialist goals.

[Takaram]

The thing about the French is that they don't need the oil.

Oh yeah they do. They run on oil as much as any other country. Maybe they aren't as reliant on coal as other nations, but they need oil as badly as any developed nation.

[Nazis in Space]

This fucking sucks. I support the Libyan rebels, and I don't want the US hegemonic state to shackle the Libyans to imperialist goals.

How exactly are you supporting the Libyan rebels when you're evidently cool with them being overran and curbstomped by Gaddafi?

[Andaluciae]

As for content: We had forewarning of the genocide in Rwanda--the rhetoric of the Hutu power radio was no different from Colonel Gaddhafi's proclamations. There is something for us to carry over from Rwanda to Libya. That if we move fast w can stop unparalleled bloodshed

The forewarning makes all the difference. In Rwanda, we had reliable news that at least 10,000 Tutsis are being wiped out each week. In Lybia, we do not. Conflict's been ongoing for weeks, so if Khadaffi was the monster you make him out to be, we would've heard something about thousands of casualties by now. If you want to analogize, I do remember people talking about thousands of civilian casualties in the Ossetian War. Both sides' rhetoric was downright pathetic in terms of casualties. In reality, it was 69 Georgian civilians and 168 Russian/Ossesian civilians. The Georgian government later upped that number to 228, and the Russians/Ossetian upped theirs to 365, with both sides including militia deaths, and people missing for over a month, on the civilian death lists. So yeah, I know very well that governments lie, and that the Dumbocrats havejust as much reason to up casualties as Khadaffi does to talk about his glorious leadership. Difference in Rwanda was that we knew, instead of going off of intel from another source, like US did in Iraq.

We know what Colonel Gaddhafi has been saying, and the areas most likely to face reprisals are those that have been under rebel control--most obviously Benghazi. We know he called the for the purification of Libya, house by house.

Hutu power radio gave us the exact same warning. Once the mass murders begin, it's too late, the only way you can pre-empt its by acting before the crimes happen.

[EnragedMaldivians]

This fucking sucks. I support the Libyan rebels, and I don't want the US hegemonic state to shackle the Libyans to imperialist goals.

Condemned for inaction, or imperialism. What's a hegemon to do?

[Takaram]

This fucking sucks. I support the Libyan rebels, and I don't want the US hegemonic state to shackle the Libyans to imperialist goals.

Condemned for inaction, or imperialism. What's an imperialist hegemon to do?

Nuke the world. Universal reset button.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

I dunnon, let the tribes figure how they will do?

The tridese are not exactly planned.

[Laerod]

The minarets? You know, despite actually having genuine beef with Libya over the "Gaddafi's son beats people and gets away with it" incidents, they're not actually involved. Given their stance on neutrality, I highly doubt they will. Also, the guys that banned the headscarves... They're not Christian.

I take it you are not aware of the headscarve ban in France?

I am actually. For one, it's not really a headscarf ban. It's a ban on all conspicious religious symbols in schools. Thus it doesn't even go as far as the headscarf ban in Turkey.

But maybe you're referring to the ban on wearing face veils in schools, hospitals, or public transportation instead?

[Shofercia]

If you're going to respond to me, I require that you actually read the post.

Also, if you're firing cruise missiles at Ghadaffi's tanks in Benghazi, odds are tat you're killing more civilians than tanks. Just pointing out the stupidity of the Gung-Ho interpretation of the resolution.

Who's firing cruise missiles at Gaddafi's tanks anywhere?

I was responding to a hypothetical, posited by OuroborousCobra:

The only limits on this action is that an occupying force may not be used, i.e. a ground invasion. Other than that, the coalition forces are authorized to take force in the prevention of harm to civilians under threat of attack, without limitation as to what that threat is from. If Ghadaffi decides to use tanks against civilians, such as in Benghazi, coalition forces have the authority to destroy those tanks.

Oh right, Qatar sent their entire air force of four planes. Clear it's not a NATO operation

You asked for us to mention one country that wasn't involved. Learn to express yourself in the English language if that's not what you meant. Or quit moving your goalposts if you did and changed your mind after setting yourself up like that.

I am terribly, terribly sorry that I forgot Poland, err Qatar. I was wrong to forget the mighty nation of Qatar, and I admit it. My main point is that this war is being primarily escalated by countries who are in NATO.

Look, it might not be dubbed as a NATO operation, but the countries doing the actual fighting will all be NATO members.

Which is irrelevant. We didn't refer to the Iraq war as a NATO operation either, despite NATO countries supplying just about all of the troops.

That's because certain NATO countries, such as France, offerred severe criticism of Iraq. Thus NATO was split on Iraq. In this case, not a single NATO country objected.

That's why it's simpler for me to type "NATO", then to type "United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany..." Plus, if NATO countries are doing the majority of the fighting, to me it's a De Facto NATO operation, which is what I call it.

Yes, lying and avoiding uncomfortable truths is simpler than admitting it. But here's some basic facts you conveniently forgot:
- "Coalition" is currently the accepted term for the group of nations enforcing the no-fly zone
- Germany is not one of them, so typing "Germany" when referring to them is either you being ignorant or you lying
- A de facto NATO operation is an operation de facto run by NATO; an operation de facto run by France is not a de facto NATO operation

Coalition is extremely vague. As for Germany - I thought they usually tag along with France, didn't realize that wasn't the case here. Additionally, I somehow doubt that France is "running" Operation Dawn. By saying that, you are being ignorant or you lying, (oh look, I can do that too!) It's a coalition of nations, most of whom just happen to be in NATO, running Operation Dawn. Unless you want to argue that the US is placing parts of its military under the French command. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 38009.html

Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gadhafi, the U.S. kicked off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.

Rebels aren't civilian last time I checked. I don't think it's customary for civvies to carry around 81mm mortars. I don't think this guy qualifies for a civilian:

Here's some reading material for you:

Libya's insurgent leader warned that any delay in imposing a no-fly zone could let Gaddafi regain control.

"We ask the international community to shoulder their responsibilities," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Libyan Council, told the BBC.

"The Libyans are being cleansed by Gaddafi's air force. We asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed from day one, we also want a sea embargo," he said.

Yeah, looks like NATO, err I mean countries that are in NATO, just happen to be taking sides in a Revolution, and supporting the Rebels.

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), 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, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

You didn't bold the part that's talking about protecting civilians. You can only take military measures that protect civilians. And cruise missiles generally have this weird tendency to kill civilians, it's like their stupid, or an inanimate object unable to distinguish between civilians and military, or something.

[Laerod]

This fucking sucks. I support the Libyan rebels, and I don't want the US hegemonic state to shackle the Libyans to imperialist goals.

Gee, and if the US is involved, it has to be for imperialist goals. Anything else is impossible.

[Nazis in Space]

This fucking sucks. I support the Libyan rebels, and I don't want the US hegemonic state to shackle the Libyans to imperialist goals.

Gee, and if the US is involved, it has to be for imperialist goals. Anything else is impossible.

The hilarious part is the one where the US were hesistant to no end about getting involved, and are pretty much there solely because the French and British pushed the matter.

[Shofercia]

The forewarning makes all the difference. In Rwanda, we had reliable news that at least 10,000 Tutsis are being wiped out each week. In Lybia, we do not. Conflict's been ongoing for weeks, so if Khadaffi was the monster you make him out to be, we would've heard something about thousands of casualties by now. If you want to analogize, I do remember people talking about thousands of civilian casualties in the Ossetian War. Both sides' rhetoric was downright pathetic in terms of casualties. In reality, it was 69 Georgian civilians and 168 Russian/Ossesian civilians. The Georgian government later upped that number to 228, and the Russians/Ossetian upped theirs to 365, with both sides including militia deaths, and people missing for over a month, on the civilian death lists. So yeah, I know very well that governments lie, and that the Dumbocrats havejust as much reason to up casualties as Khadaffi does to talk about his glorious leadership. Difference in Rwanda was that we knew, instead of going off of intel from another source, like US did in Iraq.

We know what Colonel Gaddhafi has been saying, and the areas most likely to face reprisals are those that have been under rebel control--most obviously Benghazi. We know he called the for the purification of Libya, house by house.

Hutu power radio gave us the exact same warning. Once the mass murders begin, it's too late, the only way you can pre-empt its by acting before the crimes happen.

Wait, so you're arguing for intervention based on something that Ghadaffi said?! Are you saying that Ghadaffi would never use a scare tactic to win a war? Well if that's the case, then Ahmadinejad said something bad about Israel, let's invade Iran according to Anda's logic.

In reality, it's much safer to wait until criminal acts are being committed, than to go in blind, and risk another Iraq. US cannot be the World Force Police, as that's an impossible goal to attain. Besides, if Ghadaffi does carry that out, he knows that he will be wiped out. He may be crazy, but he's not a complete dolt to carry out that threat.

[Cosmopoles]

Wait, so you're arguing for intervention based on something that Ghadaffi said?! Are you saying that Ghadaffi would never use a scare tactic to win a war? Well if that's the case, then Ahmadinejad said something bad about Israel, let's invade Iran according to Anda's logic.

In reality, it's much safer to wait until criminal acts are being committed, than to go in blind, and risk another Iraq. US cannot be the World Force Police, as that's an impossible goal to attain. Besides, if Ghadaffi does carry that out, he knows that he will be wiped out. He may be crazy, but he's not a complete dolt to carry out that threat.

Your proposing that we wait for the massacres to start before we get the UNSC to spend a few weeks debating whether or not they should do anything? Great idea, the first responders should arrive just in time to count the bodies.