Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Laerod]

My apologies for being unclear. I am trying to say that no one joined our side without us asking for their help. We asked the French for help but Libya did not ask for American aid. They want us out of their war.

Blatantly false. It's been pointed out time and time again that the representatives of the uprising have called on the international community to intervene.

[Ye-ap]

..

Of course NATO countries know this. They know that they can save a lot more by fighting starvation, than by fighting Khadaffi, with the same financial resources applied. This isn't about human rights, it's about selective enforcement, with human rights being used as a mere pretext; it's the old gangster days of "give us oil, or be invaded", with human rights as a mere pretext.

And that's why I'm against selective enforcement, which always just happens to be the country that has oil and pissed off NATO countries.

Pretty weak argument. Yes, why bother with any foreign policy issue besides fighting starvation? Amnesty International? They know they can do more net good for the world by directly saving the lives of the hungry than dicking around with the human rights of a few hundred or thousand political prisoners or journalists or what have you. In fact, every debate we have concerning every issue can and should be dropped - don't bother discussing it, arguing it, whatever - because hunger is a bigger issue. RIiight?

At the least, this thread could stick to addressing the issues at hand.

[Tokyoni]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

[Laerod]

The French and British are fighting a war of aggression.

False. There's a UNSC resolution authorizing this.

[Laerod]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

How dare they improve/save the lives of ordinary citizens that live in the houses Gaddafi has been shelling!

[Tokyoni]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

How dare they improve/save the lives of ordinary citizens that live in the houses Gaddafi has been shelling!

Unless they happen to be Black Africans of course...

But hell, the Klansmen tried to improve/save the lives of ordinary southern citizens from carpetbagger tyranny too right? xP

[Laerod]

How dare they improve/save the lives of ordinary citizens that live in the houses Gaddafi has been shelling!

Unless they happen to be Black Africans of course...

So you agree that the operation is for purposes of protecting the civilian population and not some imperialist goal?

But hell, the Klansmen tried to improve/save the lives of ordinary southern citizens from carpetbagger tyranny too right? xP

Not really.

[Tokyoni]

So you agree that the operation is for purposes of protecting the civilian population and not some imperialist goal?

No, because I'm not that bloody stupid to buy the same lies for the nth time. Seriously. They've been pulling that line since the Spanish-American War, and people still can't see through it. >_<

But hell, the Klansmen tried to improve/save the lives of ordinary southern citizens from carpetbagger tyranny too right? xP

Not really.

Theoretically, per their rhetoric they were.

How are the Libyan rebels who target and kill blacks in the name of "fighting tyranny" any different than the KKK who do the same? Ahh, how stupid of me. The latter was against US interests and the former for it. ^_^

[Laerod]

So you agree that the operation is for purposes of protecting the civilian population and not some imperialist goal?

No, because I'm not that bloody stupid to buy the same lies for the nth time. Seriously. They've been pulling that line since the Spanish-American War, and people still can't see through it. >_<

The words "people still can't see through it" coming from you are highly ironic.

Not really.

Theoretically, per their rhetoric they were.

How are the Libyan rebels who target and kill blacks in the name of "fighting tyranny" any different than the KKK who do the same? Ahh, how stupid of me. The latter was against US interests and the former for it. ^_^

Gee, it might be the lack of documented proof of widespread killing of black Africans compared to the documented proof we have of the KKK's atrocities. Do you have any that you haven't been sharing?

[Tokyoni]

The words "people still can't see through it" coming from you are highly ironic.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1899antiimp.html

112 years and counting... >_<

When will we learn to put down the white man's burden and stop this ridiculous pretext of "liberating" other nations by slaughtering their people and stealing their resources? *sigh*

Gee, it might be the lack of documented proof of widespread killing of black Africans compared to the documented proof we have of the KKK's atrocities. Do you have any that you haven't been sharing?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04 ... s-20110305

Fairly mainstream I think.

[Laerod]

The words "people still can't see through it" coming from you are highly ironic.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1899antiimp.html

112 years and counting... >_<

You're using past acts of imperialism to prove that this current act is an imperialist one?

When will we learn to put down the white man's burden and stop this ridiculous pretext of "liberating" other nations by slaughtering their people and stealing their resources? *sigh*

Says the person who wants to "free the workers from their shackles". Evidence for slaughter of the Libyan people at the hands of the coalition or that their resources are being stolen?

Gee, it might be the lack of documented proof of widespread killing of black Africans compared to the documented proof we have of the KKK's atrocities. Do you have any that you haven't been sharing?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04 ... s-20110305

Fairly mainstream I think.

Which is probably why it has no evidence for your accusation of widespread killing of black Africans.

[Chumblywumbly]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

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.

[Laerod]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

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?

Consistency. Tokyoni is the NSG Kim Jong Il fan club.

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

Aye.

[Andaluciae]

Fucking imperialism vermin.

Victory to Gaddafi! Death to the imperialist soldiers and all Libyan traitors!

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.

Tokyoni is a kimbot--his ideal is the Democratic People's Republic of Kill Dissidents.

[Cosmopoles]

Unless they happen to be Black Africans of course...

Because black Africans have been treated so well under Ghaddafi? Yeah, no. Your continued defence of a leader who has stolen billions of dollars from his country and openly encouraged attacks on minorities and immigrants leads me to believe that the only thing you actually value is anti-Western rhetoric - you certainly don't give a toss about the welfare of Libyan citizens.

[Chumblywumbly]

Consistency. Tokyoni is the NSG Kim Jong Il fan club.

Tokyoni is a kimbot--his ideal is the Democratic People's Republic of Kill Dissidents.

Ah, the authoritarian left rears its ugly and outdated head.

In other news, a Typhoon just flew over my house, heading south. Possibly coming from RAF Leuchars.

[Andaluciae]

All minor points, morality, Shofercia is clearly ebil, blah, blah, blah rants and/or "posts", if they can be called that, the facts of the matter are quite simple.

1. UK/US/France are NATO countries, last time I checked.
2. UK/US/France are bombing Libya, a Muslim country.

Thus, we can establish that NATO countries are bombing a Muslim country.

We can also establish that the "human rights" are being selectively enforced. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Congo - all those are much worse violators of human rights than Libya. Additionally, there are protesters in Saudi Arabia, protesting and wanting to bring down their government, much like the Libyan protesters. Same with Equatorial Guinea. So what's the difference? It's not Russia's and China's veto. It's the fact that Saudis and Guineans are providing oil to the US. So Libya gets hit, while the other two do not. Pure and simple.

Why Libya? Well, I already mentioned two "hipster" reasons: distraction from economic woes for the populace, and lucrative rebuilding contracts. Provided of course that Dumbocracy is established.

There's very little economic gain to be had from this, although there are plenty of other gains--least of all being the final removal of Colonel Gaddhafi, one-time Soviet stooge, terrorist and revolutionary. Now just a snappy dresser and rambling, crazy speaker--and constant nuisance and menace to his neighbors and people. This is happening because, literally, nobody likes the King-of-Kings Colonel Gaddhafi. Nobody likes him, his country is easily accessible from the Med, and his murdering his population.

Anda cut through the crap, and flat out stated that he supports selective enforcements, while craftier posters danced around it. And then we had the famous "Human Rights" argument again: "but if we don't intervene, tens of thousands of humans will die!"

I accept selective enforcement now, because it can be used to build the consensus, and the body of knowledge necessary for comprehensive enforcement. Rome wasn't built in a day.

And I care about human rights, so let's start helping out our fellow human beings. Let's end World Hunger. Two percent of Americans produce enough food to overfeed the other 98%. The numbers are similar in Europe. So instead of wasting money on warfare, let's add more farmers. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea ... _the_world

There were 925 million hungry human beings in 2010. So 2% - let's see that's 18.5 million, or for simplicity's sake, 20 million farmers. I can assure you, that there are a lot of unemployed people in US and Europe right now, and those jobs openings could be fulfilled. The economy would be back on track. All you have to do is tax the corporations who made a windfall profit, without inventing anything. Of course these measures might not be enough, and won't be instant, but helping even ten percent of that number, even 92.5 million, sounds like a plan. And if one truly cares about human rights, 10,000 deaths from bullets, over millions of deaths from starvation - it really is a no brainer which one is preferable.

A counterargument is - well all those are hungry - but how many are starving! That number's in the millions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... est-africa

Agencies launch emergency appeals for drought-stricken region as up to 10 million face conditions of 1984 Ethiopia famine

Of course NATO countries know this. They know that they can save a lot more by fighting starvation, than by fighting Khadaffi, with the same financial resources applied. This isn't about human rights, it's about selective enforcement, with human rights being used as a mere pretext; it's the old gangster days of "give us oil, or be invaded", with human rights as a mere pretext.
And that's why I'm against selective enforcement, which always just happens to be the country that has oil and pissed off NATO countries.

Are you trying to generate the greatest humanitarian crisis ever? A very real proportion of the developing world generates the vast bulk of its income from agriculture and food production. If you were to dump aid food aid on them, you would collapse economies, create vast dislocation and conflict, and drive the world's poorest to new depths of misery.

If we are going to do anything to address hunger in the developing world, we would provide infrastructure, governance and education aid.

[Andaluciae]

Consistency. Tokyoni is the NSG Kim Jong Il fan club.

Tokyoni is a kimbot--his ideal is the Democratic People's Republic of Kill Dissidents.

Ah, the authoritarian left rears its ugly and outdated head.

In other news, a Typhoon just flew over my house, heading south. Possibly coming from RAF Leuchars.

Tally ho!

[Chumblywumbly]

All minor points, morality, Shofercia is clearly ebil, blah, blah, blah rants and/or "posts", if they can be called that, the facts of the matter are quite simple.

1. UK/US/France are NATO countries, last time I checked.
2. UK/US/France are bombing Libya, a Muslim country.

Thus, we can establish that NATO countries are bombing a Muslim country.

We can also establish that the "human rights" are being selectively enforced. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Congo - all those are much worse violators of human rights than Libya. Additionally, there are protesters in Saudi Arabia, protesting and wanting to bring down their government, much like the Libyan protesters. Same with Equatorial Guinea. So what's the difference? It's not Russia's and China's veto. It's the fact that Saudis and Guineans are providing oil to the US. So Libya gets hit, while the other two do not. Pure and simple.

Why Libya? Well, I already mentioned two "hipster" reasons: distraction from economic woes for the populace, and lucrative rebuilding contracts. Provided of course that Dumbocracy is established.

There's very little economic gain to be had from this, although there are plenty of other gains--least of all being the final removal of Colonel Gaddhafi, one-time Soviet stooge, terrorist and revolutionary. Now just a snappy dresser and rambling, crazy speaker--and constant nuisance and menace to his neighbors and people. This is happening because, literally, nobody likes the King-of-Kings Colonel Gaddhafi. Nobody likes him, his country is easily accessible from the Med, and his murdering his population.

Yes, it's too simplistic to suggest that economic reasons are the only motivators behind the action in Libya, but I would be highly surprised if concerns over Western business interests - particularly oil production - are not a hefty contributory factor.

[Mapletish]

This attack is on to force Libya to stop their acts altogether,they need to buck up on how they treat people.
c

[Boysiopia]

Gaddafi be goin down

[Chumblywumbly]

In other news, a Typhoon just flew over my house, heading south. Possibly coming from RAF Leuchars.

Tally ho!

That's a second one.

(Unless the pilot's doing laps.)

EDIT: Third.

[Laerod]

Yes, it's too simplistic to suggest that economic reasons are the only motivators behind the action in Libya, but I would be highly surprised if concerns over Western business interests - particularly oil production - are not a hefty contributory factor.

That's the thing, though: Crushing the rebels swiftly and soundly would have been the best option for the oil companies who were already involved in Libya and whom the popular uprising shut down and forced to flee.

[Chumblywumbly]

Yes, it's too simplistic to suggest that economic reasons are the only motivators behind the action in Libya, but I would be highly surprised if concerns over Western business interests - particularly oil production - are not a hefty contributory factor.

That's the thing, though: Crushing the rebels swiftly and soundly would have been the best option for the oil companies who were already involved in Libya and whom the popular uprising shut down and forced to flee.

Which is why I wouldn't suggest that oil production is the only factor in the decision process.

[Andaluciae]

There's very little economic gain to be had from this, although there are plenty of other gains--least of all being the final removal of Colonel Gaddhafi, one-time Soviet stooge, terrorist and revolutionary. Now just a snappy dresser and rambling, crazy speaker--and constant nuisance and menace to his neighbors and people. This is happening because, literally, nobody likes the King-of-Kings Colonel Gaddhafi. Nobody likes him, his country is easily accessible from the Med, and his murdering his population.

Yes, it's too simplistic to suggest that economic reasons are the only motivators behind the action in Libya, but I would be highly surprised if concerns over Western business interests - particularly oil production - are not a hefty contributory factor.

I'm actually really sick of the "war for profit" rhetoric. Whenever it's trotted out, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense--especially in regards to oil. France, for instance, already had a pretty cushy deal between Total and Gaddhafi, and the UK just hammered a BP deal out fairly recently--both of those have been lost in this revolt.

Although, this may be a Swiss conspiracy. Those dastardly neutrals always bring so...neutral. It makes me uncomfortable Kiff. I don't trust their neutralness...