Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

AlekSmart

czx wrote: »

40 years of restoring order.

Some achievement alright...?

However,in the context of Libyan society during the rule of King Idris,it's unlikely that our definition of "order" would match their own.

What Gadaffi did,was to maintain a semblance of order over his 42 year rule,something which very few leaders in the region ever managed to do.

It kinda gets back to the Corinthians point about perception,and perhaps a form of modernist quasi-colonial belief that Westill know whats best for these people....

czx

AlekSmart wrote: »

Some achievement alright...?

However,in the context of Libyan society during the rule of King Idris,it's unlikely that our definition of "order" would match their own.

What Gadaffi did,was to maintain a semblance of order over his 42 year rule,something which very few leaders in the region ever managed to do.

It kinda gets back to the Corinthians point about perception,and perhaps a form of modernist quasi-colonial belief that Westill know whats best for these people....

These people?

AlekSmart

czx wrote: »

These people?

Libyans...Syrians....Egyptians...inhabitants of any State requiring our "Intervention" .....You can,of course,insert whatever descriptive word you favour.

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

You still think Libya is better off under a dictatorship

And you disagree with my argument why because...

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you disagree with my argument why because...

It was a rotten dictatorship. I don't buy the 'at least it's stable' excuse

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

It was a rotten dictatorship. I don't buy the 'at least it's stable' excuse

That's not disagreeing with my argument, that's ignoring it. Try again.

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not disagreeing with my argument, that's ignoring it. Try again.

You argue that Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I disagree. Don't see what else there is

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

You argue that Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I disagree. Don't see what else there is

Then what are you doing here? The whole point of these discussion boards is to discuss issues.

Edit: And for the last time, I have not argued that Libya is better off under a dictatorship, I've argued that while ideally it is better off under a functioning and peaceful democracy that option is not there, leaving the options of dictatorship and anarchy that will most likely end up becoming another dictatorship - and given that choice, skipping the anarchy phase seems like the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, I've pointed out that it was western intervention that ultimately facilitated this descent into anarchy. Without it, Gadaffi would, by most evidence, still be in power. Ignoring why completely misrepresents my position.

Do you really think that the Libyans are better off in a failed state, where various factions impose arbitrary rule on a daily basis than under a dictatorship? If so why is anarchy preferable?

realweirdo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

There was order under Gadaffi
There isn't now and I expect Libya will be carved up before it vapourises.

That's like saying there was order in Germany in the 1930s under Hitler. Which of course there was. But only because he locked up, eliminated or exiled any social misfits or those who opposed him, as did Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad. The problem post these dictatorships is also mostly down to the dictators themselves. The people have no experience of running the country and the intellectuals and best and brightest have been murdered or exiled. Much of the strife post Saddam in Iraq was caused by hardline Baathists themselves, the kind of thugs the Iraqis had been under the jackboot of for decades.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then what are you doing here? The whole point of these discussion boards is to discuss issues.

Edit: And for the last time, I have not argued that Libya is better off under a dictatorship, I've argued that while ideally it is better off under a functioning and peaceful democracy that option is not there, leaving the options of dictatorship and anarchy that will most likely end up becoming another dictatorship - and given that choice, skipping the anarchy phase seems like the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, I've pointed out that it was western intervention that ultimately facilitated this descent into anarchy. Without it, Gadaffi would, by most evidence, still be in power. Ignoring why completely misrepresents my position.

Do you really think that the Libyans are better off in a failed state, where various factions impose arbitrary rule on a daily basis than under a dictatorship? If so why is anarchy preferable?

Still blaming the west I see? When the Arab League were the ones initially begging for intervention and a no fly zone. When the UNSC authorised it in a democratic vote with several countries not from the west, and which China and Russia did not oppose. When Scandanavian countries played a large part in the bombing. When several countries condemned Gadaffi and immediately cut ties with the regime. When many Libyan ministers, diplomats and so on defected and left the government. When the Libyan Ambassador to the UN himself begged the UNSC to stop Gadaffi attacking Banghazi and for a no fly zone.

This was clearly a multinational operation with massive support from all around the world, something you convienently choose to overlook or ignore.

At some stage the Libyans are going to have to grow up and stop looking to the west as you call it or elsewhere to solve their problems. In fact that goes for most countries.

walshb

realweirdo wrote: »

Means Of Escape wrote: »

That's like saying there was order in Germany in the 1930s under Hitler. Which of course there was. But only because he locked up, eliminated or exiled any social misfits or those who opposed him, as did Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad. The problem post these dictatorships is also mostly down to the dictators themselves. The people have no experience of running the country and the intellectuals and best and brightest have been murdered or exiled. Much of the strife post Saddam in Iraq was caused by hardline Baathists themselves, the kind of thugs the Iraqis had been under the jackboot of for decades.

You seem to have quoted the wrong poster!

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

Libyans...Syrians....Egyptians...inhabitants of any State requiring our "Intervention" .....You can,of course,insert whatever descriptive word you favour.

Irish too...remember Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement? It took the Americans and a lot of brow beating from them to force it through. Or any number of other succesful peace negotiations and peace processes such as the Dayton Peace accord which you choose to ignore. A bit of balance from you would be nice, although I'm not naive enough to expect it.

realweirdo

walshb wrote: »

realweirdo wrote: »

You seem to have quoted the wrong poster!

Well who I was trying to reply to were those people and posters who say "at least it was stable under Saddam/Stalin/Hitler/Gadaffi/Assad/etc."

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

Some achievement alright...?

However,in the context of Libyan society during the rule of King Idris,it's unlikely that our definition of "order" would match their own.

What Gadaffi did,was to maintain a semblance of order over his 42 year rule,something which very few leaders in the region ever managed to do.

It kinda gets back to the Corinthians point about perception,and perhaps a form of modernist quasi-colonial belief that Westill know whats best for these people....

He invaded Chad and got his ass kicked. He armed, funded and trained Charles Taylor and his rebels in West Africa as he did virtually every anti democratic rebel group in Africa and the world over. He killed 1200 people in Abu Salim in one day. He is strongly alleged/probably did shoot down a Libyan Airways plane to demonstrate the severity of western sanctions. He didn't bring stability, be brought mayhem.

realweirdo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

realweirdo wrote: »

I have addressed it - failed state or failing state, again far from it. Oil production is being ramped up, most people go about their daily lives, there's been democratic elections, things are improving for most people. Yes there are low level conflicts which inevitably make the news.

That's not quite true
Oil production has plummeted from 1.4 million barrels to just over 230k
Some of the key ports are governed by the rebels who are trading oil for their own gains
The 'new' government is suffocating under the pressures bearing down on them from insurgents and localised strife
The rebels are heavily armed compliments of gaddaffi looted arsenal and are becoming more entrenched by the month.
Clans are forging alliances in attempts to snuff out others

Libya post gaddaffi is a failed state not a failing one
The country 3 years after his removal has gone 20 years backward
He was a spent force internationally.
No longer this mad dog threat
Nuclear programme dismantled
Reparations for Pan Am paid to the victims eventhough there is now a belief that it was the Iranians.
There was an anticipation that his learned son Saif would have taken over the reigns 2 years ago as gaddaffi ,as previously mentioned in another post ,had turned to the unification of Africa and fair distribution if wealth
He looked to ensure that the countries with bountiful precious natural resources were no longer exploited by the west .
It can't be played both ways .
His removal was well planned and orchestrated by vested interests
His escape stopped and his execution swift as he had too many tales to tell that would have had many EU countries soul searching .

And he was about to attack Benghazi (in the interests of balance). It was not going to be an easy fight to take it back. Or Misrata, Zintan and other areas. He just wasn't a nice guy and he didn't bring stability, he brought mayhem and misery to virtually everyone in Libya.

daUbiq

Interesting thread guys and the intervention supporters did get involved. What a gullible bunch they are! I'm guessing they believe everything they see on sky news and read in the Irish independent... This is a failed intervention. I feel sorry for the average person in Libya. The country is completely and utterly lawless now. Thank you American idiots.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

Still blaming the west I see?

Regardless of whether the Arab League was begging for military intervention or Russia or China were happy to see it happen, it was the West (principally the British and French, not the Americans) that ultimately chose to do so. Buck stops there, I'm afraid - something you've conveniently choose to overlook or ignore.

When Scandanavian countries played a large part in the bombing.

Don't know why you're setting them apart from the West - they are Western countries, after all.

At some stage the Libyans are going to have to grow up and stop looking to the west as you call it or elsewhere to solve their problems. In fact that goes for most countries.

I agree with this. All the military intervention is not going to magically get them to set up a functioning democracy, only they can do so. Thing is, it didn't take a genius to figure out that they were not up to the task, but we still decided to intervene. In short, we really should have known better.

walshb wrote: »

You seem to have quoted the wrong poster!

That's easy to do when you don't bother to read the posts...

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Regardless of whether the Arab League was begging for military intervention or Russia or China were happy to see it happen, it was the West (principally the British and French, not the Americans) that ultimately chose to do so. Buck stops there, I'm afraid - something you've conveniently choose to overlook or ignore.

This is just patent nonsense. It's like blaming a policeman for carrying out the order of a judge.

If you want to blame anyone, why not blame the UNSC since they authorised it and legitimised it and asked for it to go ahead. You can't have it both ways. When America invaded Iraq in 2003 people said they didn't have UN approval. When there is UN approval given for something people say something else. It's laughable at this stage.

Read this for a start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Libyan_Civil_War

Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from airlifting mercenaries and using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians.[496] Italy said it would support a no-fly zone if it was backed by the United Nations.[497] U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates was cautious on this option, warning the US Congress that a no-fly zone would have to begin with an attack on Libya's air defenses.[498] This proposal was rejected by Russia and China.[499][500] On 7 March, US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder announced that NATO decided to step up surveillance missions to 24 hours a day. On the same day it was reported that one UN diplomat confirmed to AFP on condition of anonymity that France and Britain were drawing up a resolution on the no-fly zone and it go before the United Nations Security Council as early as this week.[501][502]

On 8 March, the GCC issued a joint statement, calling on the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone on Libya to protect civilians.[26] On Saturday 12 March the foreign ministers of the Arab League agreed to ask the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Group of Eight met in Paris on 14 March to discuss their potential support of a no-fly zone. On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council voted to impose a no-fly zone, and other measures, to protect the Libyan people.[503]

Here are the countries on the UNSC who voted in favour many of whom aren't in the west.

Permanent members: United States, Britain, France
Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa

Please familiarise yourself on which countries supported the overthrow of Gadaffi - in particular those who recognised the Libyan NTC as the legitimate government of Libya. 114 members of the UN voted to recognise the NTC as the government of Libya, with only 17 against. Dozens of African and Arab countries recognised the NTC and were critical of Gadaffi while the GCC and Arab League were among the loudest calling for a no fly zone.

The United Nations General Assembly, with 114 member states in favour to 17 opposed, voted on 16 September 2011 to recognise the NTC as holding Libya's seat at the United Nations.[2][3] On 20 September 2011, the African Union officially recognised the National Transitional Council as the legitimate representative of Libya.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_National_Transitional_Council

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

This is just patent nonsense. It's like blaming a policeman for carrying out the order of a judge.

Then rebut what I've said rather than dismissing it, which is all you've done.

The rest of your post is just repeating your earlier point, without bothering to engage in discussion. In other words 'patent nonsense' that I'll ignore as you ignore others.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then rebut what I've said rather than dismissing it, which is all you've done.

The rest of your post is just repeating your earlier point, without bothering to engage in discussion. In other words 'patent nonsense' that I'll ignore as you ignore others.

This seems to be your stock reply any time you are losing an argument. I have laid out in many posts and thousands of words and in great detail my opinions on the Libyan issue. No-one can accuse me of not going into detail. The essential point is this - the libyan no fly zone was not some unilateral action by the US or Britain. It was carried out by a number of nations acting on a specific request and resolution from the UNSC as well as a request from the GCC and Arab League who represent most nations in the middle east and the citizens of those nations. Dozens of African countries also recognised the NTC and the only three African countries on the UNSC at the time voted in favour of the no fly zone. 114 members of the UN voted to recognise the NTC with 17 against, that's almost a 7 to 1 majority which supported the NTC. I am a firm believer the UN should be the policeman of the world and in this case, for once, it did its job. As I said people can't have it both ways. They have to be consistant. They should be in favour of the UN being the policeman of the world or not.

AlekSmart

daUbiq wrote: »

Interesting thread guys and the intervention supporters did get involved. What a gullible bunch they are! I'm guessing they believe everything they see on sky news and read in the Irish independent... This is a failed intervention. I feel sorry for the average person in Libya. The country is completely and utterly lawless now. Thank you American idiots.

I don't believe they are "Gullible at all.

They have a point of view on dictatorships that presupposes every other part of the World appreciating and supporting it's elements.

Listening to a speech at a recent anti-something rally in Dublin recently,I had to smile inwardly at the speaker ranting on about "Dictators in Leinster House Imposing Illegal Water Charges on the People"....and BOY did she get a big Búladh Bos from the crowd.

Post intervention Libya has a long-long way to go before it can assume a level of normalcy acceptable to us,it may well never achieve this,but it's not really any of our business any more,as our Leaders rid them of Gadaffi and presumably every Libyan is now hugely thankful to us for that.

Ditto Iraq,Syria and whereever else required a bit of guidance in how to be democratic like us.

The intervention is not yet failed,but is in failing mode,with only the likely emergence of another "Great Leader" likely to make much difference when it comes to establishing order and cohesion in the country.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

This seems to be your stock reply any time you are losing an argument. I have laid out in many posts and thousands of words and in great detail my opinions on the Libyan issue.

Yes and repeatedly ignored when those opinions are questioned.

Even in the last post you managed to completely ignore that I pointed out that the 'blame', if you want to call it that, falls upon the party that ultimately made the choice to facilitate this fiasco. You simply dismissed the point then repeated your own and this has been your modus operandi throughout this discussion.

That is nothing more than soapboxing, and my stock response to that is to call such people out and ignore their repetitious nonsense.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even in the last post you managed to completely ignore that I pointed out that the 'blame', if you want to call it that, falls upon the party that ultimately made the choice to facilitate this fiasco. You simply dismissed the point then repeated your own and this has been your modus operandi throughout this discussion.

What on earth?? I answered that directly! I can't help it if I answer your points and you then ignore my answer and say something along the lines of "I'm ignoring your points" or simply that you don't understand my answers. Go back and read the post - I will give you a clue - I said what you were saying is like blaming a policeman for carrying out the orders of a judge. I further said that the UN should be the ultimate judge and the resolutions of the UNSC should be enforced - otherwise the UN is just a toothless talking shop and if it is that, it should be shut down. If the will of the UN is ignored, the world risks decent into anarachy and in cases where the UN has been ignored precisely that has happened. To outline the point even further its not policemen who are judge and jury. How would you like if your local policeman didn't carry out the order of a judge, didn't arrest someone when they should have, or arrested someone innocent because they had a grudge on them. Ultimately a policeman normally acts within the law. It's a complex point I know but please try to understand it - these are legal facts I am pointing out, not opinions so deal with the facts - and less of the personal posts too. I try to deal with facts such as the fact that the NTC was supported by the majority of UN members, the fact that the UNSC voted for a no fly zone, the fact that 3 african countries voted for the no fly zone and many many more facts that show this operation had widespread international support. To summarize my whole point the UN without a means to enforce its will is worthless, as worthless as the old League of Nations. And a worthless UN might as well be shut down.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

This seems to be your stock reply any time you are losing an argument. I have laid out in many posts and thousands of words and in great detail my opinions on the Libyan issue. ........I am a firm believer the UN should be the policeman of the world and in this case, for once, it did its job. As I said people can't have it both ways. They have to be consistant. They should be in favour of the UN being the policeman of the world or not.

Perhaps it's odd,but I don't see this exchange of views as being argumentative ?

Myself and some others hold a differing set of views from yourself,however I do not see it as my role in the world to impose these upon you...I can hack your alternative viewpoint.

Whether or not the rest of the Worlds inhabitants will share your views of a U.N.Constabulary (Perhaps Gendarerie might be more accurate) is open to debate also.

I rather suspect that a Universal set of Rules for this Policeman role will prove decidedly difficult to craft.

Human nature,particularly round these parts,is decidely biased towards "Having it Both Ways" and will often react harshly when anybody attempts to sharpen up the ambiguous bit's.

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps it's odd,but I don't see this exchange of views as being argumentative ?

Myself and some others hold a differing set of views from yourself,however I do not see it as my role in the world to impose these upon you...I can hack your alternative viewpoint.

Whether or not the rest of the Worlds inhabitants will share your views of a U.N.Constabulary (Perhaps Gendarerie might be more accurate) is open to debate also.

I rather suspect that a Universal set of Rules for this Policeman role will prove decidedly difficult to craft.

Human nature,particularly round these parts,is decidely biased towards "Having it Both Ways" and will often react harshly when anybody attempts to sharpen up the ambiguous bit's.

I can hack anyone's alternative point of view as long as its based in actual facts and not based in myths and conspiracies such as the myth that is gaining common currency that the west invaded Libya for its oil, America alone overthrew Gadaffi, Gadaffi was a popular leader in Libya, no-one except the west wanted Gadaffi gone, he was overthrown because he was about to abandon the gold standard, Gadaffi was a nice guy, the CIA started it, the west went it alone, and other illogical variations on this.

I am also actually getting tired of this notional construct called "the west". The west is not homogenous no more than the Arab World is or Asia is. There are massive and wide variations of opinion and political views in "the west". It's too easy to lump everyone in "the west" together and say "the west" is to blame. It's lazy analysis. Some western countries for example opposed the invasion of Iraq, some were in favour or it. Just one example of how "the west" is not homogenous.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

I can hack anyone's alternative point of view as long as its based in actual facts...

Israeli lobbies were behind the invasion of Iraq.

On tenth anniversary, Israel partisans behind Iraq War still at large

You couldn't debunk that article with facts because those are facts.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

I can hack anyone's alternative point of view as long as its based in actual facts and not based in myths and conspiracies such as the myth that is gaining common currency that the west invaded Libya for its oil, America alone overthrew Gadaffi, Gadaffi was a popular leader in Libya, no-one except the west wanted Gadaffi gone, he was overthrown because he was about to abandon the gold standard, Gadaffi was a nice guy, the CIA started it, the west went it alone, and other illogical variations on this.

I am also actually getting tired of this notional construct called the "west". The west is not homogenous no more than the Arab World is or Asia is. There are massive and wide variations of opinion and political views in the west. It's too easy to lump everyone in the west together and say "the west" is to blame. It's lazy analysis. Some western countries for example opposed the invasion of Iraq, some were in favour or it. Just one example of how the west is not homogenous.

I've never subscribed to the American element of the Libyan adventure.

I believe the Intervention was possibly the first of it's type where America was in a follow-on position.

I further contend that the UK/France/Italy had,for some reason,found themselves in a situation which required urgent action.

Again,I do NOT believe this was concerned with the "Humanitarian" risk posed.

Together and seperately,the Euro3 had weathered far worse "Humanitarian" crises over the years than what was threatened in Libya.

Gadaffi himself,in true looney fashion did not help his own cause with his choice of words,but they were nothing unusual to those familiar with his vocabulary.

Something was fundamentally different here though,and that aspect remains unclear as far as I'm concerned.

The "West" for my purposes in this thread,encompasses those countries (Mainly European) who put their military into action over and on Libyan soil.

Iraq is for another thread,if anybody can be bothered to start one.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

What on earth?? I answered that directly!

No. You did not. Quote where you did so on my last point or just stop.

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

I can hack anyone's alternative point of view as long as its based in actual facts and not based in myths and conspiracies such as the myth that is gaining common currency that the west invaded Libya for its oil, America alone overthrew Gadaffi, Gadaffi was a popular leader in Libya, no-one except the west wanted Gadaffi gone, he was overthrown because he was about to abandon the gold standard, Gadaffi was a nice guy, the CIA started it, the west went it alone, and other illogical variations on this.

I am also actually getting tired of this notional construct called "the west". The west is not homogenous no more than the Arab World is or Asia is. There are massive and wide variations of opinion and political views in "the west". It's too easy to lump everyone in "the west" together and say "the west" is to blame. It's lazy analysis. Some western countries for example opposed the invasion of Iraq, some were in favour or it. Just one example of how "the west" is not homogenous.

Then I take it from your stance that the overthrow of Gaddafi was spawned from a group who decided to rise up and singlehandedly pushed so far to get a stronghold without the help from " the west"
Again the execution of Gaddafi smacks of a desire to keep his skeletons in the closet rather than the vengeance of a rag tag group who themselves benefitted indirectly from his rule (his executioner was popped soon after--surprised??)
Remember he had paid reparations for the downing of Pan Am ( Iranian involved maybe?)
Dismantled nuclear weapons programme.
Not prepared to deal with the oil though.

Means Of Escape

Gaddafi was taken out because he was pursuing a nationalist policy rather than a western policy in the Middle East
That's it
Twist it whatever way you like this is the simple fact.
If you believe otherwise that it was to remove a tyrannical ruler then one is misinformed.
The key element is oil
The bargaining power was being changed and would have been further entrenched by his successor Saif.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

I can hack anyone's alternative point of view as long as its based in actual facts and not based in myths and conspiracies such as the myth that is gaining common currency that the west invaded Libya for its oil, America alone overthrew Gadaffi, Gadaffi was a popular leader in Libya, no-one except the west wanted Gadaffi gone, he was overthrown because he was about to abandon the gold standard, Gadaffi was a nice guy, the CIA started it, the west went it alone, and other illogical variations on this.

I am also actually getting tired of this notional construct called "the west". The west is not homogenous no more than the Arab World is or Asia is. There are massive and wide variations of opinion and political views in "the west". It's too easy to lump everyone in "the west" together and say "the west" is to blame. It's lazy analysis. Some western countries for example opposed the invasion of Iraq, some were in favour or it. Just one example of how "the west" is not homogenous.

Of course it's about the oil. They were dying to overthrow Gaddafi due to his policies, and like Assad in Syria they were unwilling to be an installed puppet of the West. They installed Nouri al-Maliki after the overthrow of Saddam, and it has turned out to be an abysmal failure.

If it's the case in your opinion that he was a such a danger and a threat to the peace, why don't they go into North Korea and overthrow that goverment? who are armed with Nuclear Weapons, and threaten to nuke America? It was also a country that was named in Bush's 'axis of evil'. It doesn't have oil, nothing to be gained that's why.

I feel sorry for Americans though. The bad news is they'll be fighting the Arabs for the next 100 years. The whole thing has been a failure since the beginning, and it's only going to get worse. Thank god we Irish won't ever be sent to do the fighting.

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

Of course it's about the oil. They were dying to overthrow Gaddafi due to his policies, and like Assad in Syria they were unwilling to be an installed puppet of the West. They installed Nouri al-Maliki after the overthrow of Saddam, and it has turned out to be an abysmal failure.

If it's the case in your opinion that he was a such a danger and a threat to the peace, why don't they go into North Korea and overthrow that goverment? who are armed with Nuclear Weapons, and threaten to nuke America? It was also a country that was named in Bush's 'axis of evil'. It doesn't have oil, nothing to be gained that's why.

I feel sorry for Americans though. The bad news is they'll be fighting the Arabs for the next 100 years. The whole thing has been a failure since the beginning, and it's only going to get worse. Thank god we Irish won't ever be sent to do the fighting.

I had the discussion with others about american involvement in libya and i am certainly not going to rehash it with you or engage in childish conspiracy theories.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

I had the discussion with others about american involvement in libya and i am certainly not going to rehash it with you or engage in childish conspiracy theories.

When you get all upset and start calling it a conspiracy theory, that's when I know I'm winning.

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

I had the discussion with others about american involvement in libya and i am certainly not going to rehash it with you or engage in childish conspiracy theories.

Where's the conspiracy theory element in all this?
Rebels assisted by the west. Fact

daUbiq

As long as the UN members like China, Russia and the US can veto anything that does not suit themselves, it makes the whole thing pointless. I firmly disagree with the idea that they should police the world...the political system of the three countries mentioned are rife with corruption. The US lobbying system is incredibly bent, the Chinese communist party(!) and the Russians essentially have a dictator. So,why should these countries police the world? Everything they do on is to achieve their own goals. Goals that benefit their country only. Look at the US support of Israel.

If you look at Libya, the country is in a state of anarchy. The majority of people are caught up in a vicious civil war which the west appears unable or unwilling to end. I've yet to see a convincing argument, especially now that the country is such a mess, that justifies the intervention.

NATO is even worse than the UN...

Means Of Escape

Libya will implode with or without the help from America
Box can't be closed now
Impossible to fight the guerilla style war.
Russia failed in Afghanistan as did the Yanks in Vietnam
Warring clans heavily armed with Gaddafi weapons no country would set a foot in there besides the casualties in Iraq for the yanks and British were very high.
Iraq should have taught us all a lesson .Unmitigated disaster.

Conas

daUbiq wrote: »

As long as the UN members like China, Russia and the US can veto anything that does not suit themselves, it makes the whole thing pointless. I firmly disagree with the idea that they should police the world...the political system of the three countries mentioned are rife with corruption. The US lobbying system is incredibly bent, the Chinese communist party(!) and the Russians essentially have a dictator. So,why should these countries police the world? Everything they do on is to achieve their own goals. Goals that benefit their country only. Look at the US support of Israel.

If you look at Libya, the country is in a state of anarchy. The majority of people are caught up in a vicious civil war which the west appears unable or unwilling to end. I've yet to see a convincing argument, especially now that the country is such a mess, that justifies the intervention.

NATO is even worse than the UN...

It wasn't the Russian dictator, as you call him, that went into the middle east though and created this mess. It was the dictator in the White House that went into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and created this mess. So it's important to be able to tell the difference on who done what, and why.

Everyone that doesn't want to be a puppet of the West, NATO, is a dictator. I'm very surprised that you haven't realised that by now. When they say such a such a leader is a tyrant, and dictator, no one believes that nonsense anymore.. Case in point Syria last year, when people finally didn't swallow all the rubbish we were being told.

China and Russia don't seem to want to police the world. Only one country wants to do that.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

That's like saying there was order in Germany in the 1930s under Hitler. Which of course there was. But only because he locked up, eliminated or exiled any social misfits or those who opposed him, as did Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad. The problem post these dictatorships is also mostly down to the dictators themselves. The people have no experience of running the country and the intellectuals and best and brightest have been murdered or exiled. Much of the strife post Saddam in Iraq was caused by hardline Baathists themselves, the kind of thugs the Iraqis had been under the jackboot of for decades.

There's no doubt Saddam Hussein was a tyrant but aren't you at least aware US/UK supported him when it suited them?

UK and US supplied his regime with chemical weapons when fighting against Iran.

Anyway, about Libya.

The former British PM Tony Blair was doing lots of business with the Gaddafi family up until Gaddafi had a bayonet stuck up his anus with the help of NATO.
Good auld Peace Maker Tony was advising on gas and oil deals.

Given your arguments about Gaddafi being a dictator (which I don't dispute) why do you suppose so many European leaders did business with him?









Do you suppose they weren't aware of him being a dictator?

Lord Mandelson met Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son at a Corfu villa only a week before the announcement that the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing could be released from prison, it was revealed today.

Mandelson met Gaddafi's son before Lockerbie release announcement

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

It wasn't the Russian dictator, as you call him, that went into the middle east though and created this mess. It was the dictator in the White House that went into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and created this mess. So it's important to be able to tell the difference on who done what, and why.

Everyone that doesn't want to be a puppet of the West, NATO, is a dictator. I'm very surprised that you haven't realised that by now. When they say such a such a leader is a tyrant, and dictator, no one believes that nonsense anymore.. Case in point Syria last year, when people finally didn't swallow all the rubbish we were being told.

China and Russia don't seem to want to police the world. Only one country wants to do that.

So many lies in one post, where do I start. Obama and Bush were democratically elected, so to call them dictators is lie number 1.

Obama didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq. George Bush did. Lie number 2.

He didn't go unilaterly into Libya, America was a small part of a NATO operation that had massive interntional support. Lie number 3 from you.

What rubbish? Are you doubting that Syria had chemical weapons? If so, that's lie number 4.

If you are saying Assad, Gadaffi or Saddam were democrats or won democratic elections, that's lie number 5.

Your lies might fool and impress others. They certainly don't impress me and I'm calling you out on them.

The UN doesn't seem to want to police the world either. What do you think would happen if no-one policed the world? The middle east would be over-run by genocidal maniacs like IS for a start. I'm guessing that so long as it doesn't effect us in the west or europe you would have no problem with that at all.

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

There's no doubt Saddam Hussein was a tyrant but aren't you at least aware US/UK supported him when it suited them?

UK and US supplied his regime with chemical weapons when fighting against Iran.

Anyway, about Libya.

The former British PM Tony Blair was doing lots of business with the Gaddafi family up until Gaddafi had a bayonet stuck up his anus with the help of NATO.
Good auld Peace Maker Tony was advising on gas and oil deals.

Given your arguments about Gaddafi being a dictator (which I don't dispute) why do you suppose so many European leaders did business with him?


Do you suppose they weren't aware of him being a dictator?


Mandelson met Gaddafi's son before Lockerbie release announcement

What's your point here other than a vague hint at hypocrisy by the west - hypocrisy isn't a crime by the way.

Secondly, Gadaffi and Libya was under heavy sanctions for decades. The international community said to Gadaffi, give up your nuclear weapons quest, give up any weapons of mass destruction, stop supporting terrorist organisations and we will lift sanctions and do business with you. Gadaffi did all that and sanctions were lifted. It was a win-win for everyone particurly the ordinary Libyans who were allowed travel again and who saw their economy grow.

Would you have preferred if Libya stayed under sanctions?

If Saddam, Gadaffi or Assad had listened to the will of their people via democratic elections and stepped down peacefully if voted out, none of these conflicts would have happened. Violent tyrants usually end up one way, their own violent deaths.

As for feeling sorry for Gadaffi having a bayonet stuck up him, seriously. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You cannot do what Gadaffi did to his people and expect anything other than to suffer a violent death.

The Corinthian

So, realweirdo, are you going to show us where you actually responded to points made or did I call your bluff?

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, realweirdo, are you going to show us where you actually responded to points made or did I call your bluff?

Not really - you strike me as someone who will never be fully satisfied with anyones answers so there's no point - my answers are all there and I have no interest in playing word games with you - far too busy to do that.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

Not really - you strike me as someone who will never be fully satisfied with anyones answers so there's no point - my answers are all there and I have no interest in playing word games with you - far too busy to do that.

And that of course is nonsense, because your response to the post I cited made absolutely no reference to the point about the lion's share of responsibility being with those who ultimately made the decision to intervene, not those who were lobbying them to. It was just a repetition and embellishment of your previous post. And then you claimed that you had responded, despite the fact that you did not.

As I said, you're soapboxing and you're caught. Those are the facts.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

And that of course is nonsense, because your response to the post I cited made absolutely no reference to the point about the lion's share of responsibility being with those who ultimately made the decision to intervene, not those who were lobbying them to. It was just a repetition and embellishment of your previous post. And then you claimed that you had responded, despite the fact that you did not.

As I said, you're soapboxing and you're caught. Those are the facts.

I could write a whole book in detail as a response and you still wouldn't be happy - I replied - if you're not happy with my answer, tough, I'm certainly not going to change it for you. My answer is the same and will always be the same - the UN general assembly voted 7-1 to recognise the NTC.

The UNSC voted 12-0 to implement a no fly zone.

Clearly you are against democracy in all its forms, am I right in thinking that.

You're approach to world affairs is a recipe for disaster.

I for one think it was foolish of the Americans to go into Iraq in 2003 without UNSC approval - if memory serves they got the approval later after the start of the conflict.

However I believe that either the UNSC which includes China and Russia should be the ultimate arbitars of enforing the will of the international community or not.

In other words your approach to ignoring the UNSC and UN General Assembly mirrors George Bush's exactly. Well done on that!! It gives a thumbs up to anyone and everyone to act unilaterly and without legality whenever they want.

And that's the ultimate point - NATO acted with full legality in Libya. Whereas you are in favour of acting illegally it seems or probably worse not doing anything at all.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

I could write a whole book in detail as a response and you still wouldn't be happy - I replied - if you're not happy with my answer, tough, I'm certainly not going to change it for you. My answer is the same and will always be the same - the UN general assembly voted 7-1 to recognise the NTC.

Pity that wasn't the question. What does that vote have to do with the lions share of the responsibility goes to those who actually did intervene? I never suggested that those who agitated or helped facilitate it in the UN had no blame only that no amount of facilitation or agitation alone would have made it happen. The vote of the UN security council, not general assembly, is thus irrelevant to what I said.

Clearly you are against democracy in all its forms, am I right in thinking that.

No, I have never never said anything of the sort, unless you're from the asinine school of 'give me liberty or give me death' - and in that regard, I'd choose dictatorship over death and so would anyone who isn't a complete idiot.

You're approach to world affairs is a recipe for disaster.

As opposed to such success stories as Libya or Iraq?

In other words your approach to ignoring the UNSC and UN General Assembly mirrors George Bush's exactly. Well done on that!! It gives a thumbs up to anyone and everyone to act unilaterly and without legality whenever they want.

You've just equated refusing to act with acting unilaterally. Cute, but still a logical fallacy. You do understand that to act unilaterally here can likely be illegal, but not to do so actually isn't? What breach of international law would there have been had the West simply said, "no"? None.

And that's the ultimate point - NATO acted with full legality in Libya.

And what has that to do with anything I said? Did I ever suggest it was not legal? And not acting would not have been illegal, despite your rather crude attempt to suggest so. So what on Earth are you going on about?

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pity that wasn't the question. What does that vote have to do with the lions share of the responsibility goes to those who actually did intervene? I never suggested that those who agitated or helped facilitate it in the UN had no blame only that no amount of facilitation or agitation alone would have made it happen. The vote of the UN security council, not general assembly, is thus irrelevant to what I said.

No, I have never never said anything of the sort, unless you're from the asinine school of 'give me liberty or give me death' - and in that regard, I'd choose dictatorship over death and so would anyone who isn't a complete idiot.

As opposed to such success stories as Libya or Iraq?

You've just equated refusing to act with acting unilaterally. Cute, but still a logical fallacy. You do understand that to act unilaterally here can likely be illegal, but not to do so actually isn't? What breach of international law would there have been had the West simply said, "no"? None.

And what has that to do with anything I said? Did I ever suggest it was not legal? And not acting would not have been illegal, despite your rather crude attempt to suggest so. So what on Earth are you going on about?

You'd choose dictatorship over death? What on earth are you talking about? So far the recent fighting in Libya has claimed the lives mostly of rebel groups fighting each other which all in all is probably not a bad thing. I'd like some sources from you on civilian deaths recently if possible. So ideally you'd come up with those sources and back your arguments with facts rather than your personal opinion.

Secondly, tens of thousands died under Gadaffi in Libya and tens of thousands more outside of Libya as a direct result of his actions including training and arming Charles Taylor. So far, the post Gadaffi period has an awful long way to go to be as bad as the Gadaffi period.

At least I have gotten you to accept that NATO acted with full legality under international law. That is a start.

The will of the international community in relation to Libyan intervention was clear. They wanted intervention. It was right and legal to intervene in Libya.

The ultimate responsibility for whatever state the country lies in now is (1) the Libyans themselves who are acting stupidly (2) radical Islam which is the main reason the middle east and much of Africa is a sh*thole (3) a failure of the international community particularly the EU to support the Libyan people properly post Gadaffi (4) Gadaffi himself who ruled with an iron fist for 40 years denying even the most basic of proper democratic structures and thus leaving a vacuam. However it is better to have a vacuam which the Libyan people themselves can start to fill than having a mass murdering rapist as president who treated his people like rats and called them as much. "Either I rule you or you die". Clearly you had no issue with that pronouncement. I and most normal people did however.

Address those points if you like.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

So many lies in one post, where do I start. Obama and Bush were democratically elected, so to call them dictators is lie number 1.

Obama didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq. George Bush did. Lie number 2.

He didn't go unilaterly into Libya, America was a small part of a NATO operation that had massive interntional support. Lie number 3 from you.

What rubbish? Are you doubting that Syria had chemical weapons? If so, that's lie number 4.

If you are saying Assad, Gadaffi or Saddam were democrats or won democratic elections, that's lie number 5.

Your lies might fool and impress others. They certainly don't impress me and I'm calling you out on them.

The UN doesn't seem to want to police the world either. What do you think would happen if no-one policed the world? The middle east would be over-run by genocidal maniacs like IS for a start. I'm guessing that so long as it doesn't effect us in the west or europe you would have no problem with that at all.

Bush democratically elected you say? The man had to cheat Al Gore out of the election in the year 2000. Then again he did have his brother to do his dirty work for him in the state of Florida, and his fathers hand picked members of the Supreme Court to rubber stamp it.
We then went on to see 8 years have an absolute horror show, the after effects in which is still felt now. The costs of which will no doubt take decades to pay off. Yes, Bush was a dictator. His actions, and the actions of his executive branch have resulted in 100,000s innocent civilians being murdered, and scores more wounded for a life time. All based on a pack have absolute LIES!

The actions in Libya had no more broad International support than the Iraq War did. The 'coalition of the willing', was pro-war propaganda by Bush and his neocons that was waved before the International community, as if to dupe the global population into believing their actions against Iraq had global support, which it never did. Bush only had his stooge Blair always by his side, but the majority of the British public were against the war. Even members of Blair's own party were against it. So for you to say above that the actions in Libya also had massive International support is false.

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

The actions in Libya had no more broad International support than the Iraq War did. The 'coalition of the willing', was pro-war propaganda by Bush and his neocons that was waved before the International community, as if to dupe the global population into believing their actions against Iraq had global support, which it never did. Bush only had his stooge Blair always by his side, but the majority of the British public were against the war. Even members of Blair's own party were against it. So for you to say above that the actions in Libya also had massive International support is false.

More lies - it was voted for by the UNSC - the Iraq war wasn't before it happened.
Bush was elected twice. There was legal arguments over the first one, but all in all, its hard to dispute that he went through a democratic election process and narrowly came out the victor. In Syria on the otherhand there is no such process except rigged elections. So another lie from you.
Bush didn't only have his stooge Blair by his side - another lie - there were 40 nations in total in the coalition of the willing - the most competent of them participated directly in the invasion, the rest added troops later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
Some members of Blair's party were against it at the time, most were in favour and didn't resign. A number of others only came out later as being against it when there was no longer the chance they'd lose their fat ministerial salaries and pensions.
114-17 General Assembly in favour of the Libyan NTC, no-one voting against on the UNSC, numerous NATO countries involved, GCC in favour, Arab League in favour, numerous African countries recognising the NTC and cutting ties with Gadaffi, also South American and virtually all the Arab states and most nations in Asia. Gaddafi had few friends in the end because they all knew he was a nutter, a nutter you seem to have a lot of time for though. So again another lie from you that it didn't have massive international support.
Keep the lies coming though, they really do amuse me. I'm all in favour of people making points on here but if they are going to back it up with lies, why bother?

Fig of Fallacy

realweirdo wrote: »

If Saddam, Gadaffi or Assad had listened to the will of their people via democratic elections and stepped down peacefully if voted out, none of these conflicts would have happened. Violent tyrants usually end up one way, their own violent deaths.

No.

These conflicts happen because criminals control western foreign policy.

This leads to a situation where our governments/military/corporations are well behaved at home, but are then allowed to run amok in developing countries and elsewhere bombing, asset stripping and installing/deinstalling dictators/governments and generally causing as much destruction and abuse as they want.

The prime culprits in this game of domination are the USA, UK and France, with others being involved too. NATO is the combined alliance.

They are able to get away with this atrocious behavior through a well organized system of propaganda and the anesthetization of the public. On one hand you have the consistent lying and twisting of the narrative which makes most normal people in the street think that we are the good guys, and on the other hand you have a vast system of entertainment and capitalism that keeps most people more than occupied for their entire lives.

Any opposition to this system by any country will be met by destabilization, overthrow and even out-rite military action. Gaddafi being raped and killed on TV screens across the world sends a very powerful message to anyone who dares step out of line.

Bend the knee, or be destroyed.

realweirdo

Fig of Fallacy wrote: »

No.

These conflicts happen because criminals control western foreign policy.

This leads to a situation where our governments/military/corporations are well behaved at home, but are then allowed to run amok in developing countries and elsewhere bombing, asset stripping and installing/deinstalling dictators/governments and generally causing as much destruction and abuse as they want.

The prime culprits in this game of domination are the USA, UK and France, with others being involved too. NATO is the combined alliance.

They are able to get away with this atrocious behavior through a well organized system of propaganda and the anesthetization of the public. On one hand you have the consistent lying and twisting of the narrative which makes most normal people in the street think that we are the good guys, and on the other hand you have a vast system of entertainment and capitalism that keeps most people more than occupied for their entire lives.

Any opposition to this system by any country will be met by destabilization, overthrow and even out-rite military action. Gaddafi being raped and killed on TV screens across the world sends a very powerful message to anyone who dares step out of line.

Bend the knee, or be destroyed.

Did you complain once when Gaddafi was doing the raping and killing? Bet you didn't. The rest of your post is tiresome rehashed anti-western nonsense which has no basis in reality especially in relation to Libya. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown because he was "different". He was overthrown because he wanted to slaughter his own people en masse. Deal with that fact.