The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

I was watching the news pretty closely on the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-rebels-tripoli-gadhafi-defenses-collapse-224430097.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/21/139826377/libyan-rebels-say-theyve-launched-attack-on-tripoli?ps=cprs
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E7JK0NU20110821

From August 20th
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/battle-begins-for-the-libyan-capital/

Video footage from Green square, the center of Tripoli, on August 21st
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qhnu6N40SE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89jIJZioNc

Heres the thread from boards (after hours)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056364112

without even reading these, what makes you think that these are any more trust worthy than her reporting? do you have any information on the reports background from the articles you quoted, you know to give it context?

to put it simpler: you are questioning her reporting based on her being an 'activist', how do we know that the reports your are using to counter hers are written by non 'activists'?

also the boards thread from after hours is very informative "Gadaffi's Gaff niteclub to open soon." i'd visit that alright ....

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

seemed like she was, she was there, and she saw first hand what happened. if you don't believe her because her story contradicts that of the war machine, well then this forum is not for you, as you obviously believe what you were told ...

The fact that "she was there" is not the issue. The fact that she is misreporting and lying is the issue - I have pointed out the discrepancies in her report which you have failed to address.

they did, they killed civilians, invaded a sovereign nation under a false pretence and forced regime change .. unless you agree that that was their objective

NATO did not kill thousands of civilians as she claimed, far from it.

do you even know what the UN resolution was? do you know what nato did? i find myself as having to dismiss all your biased comments. you seem to pour out the same unfounded, non-researched nonsense again and again.

I've been writing/debating in almost all the Libyan threads since the uprising really began in mid-Feb.

I've followed it daily on the news, Al Jazeera, Euronews, BBC, TF1, and a lot of print media, The Guardian, Telegraph, Irish Times, etc.

they will need an exit strategy, once the oil is sorted, have you not been watching the news? iraq, afghanistan?

Actually I've followed both since 2003, and been posting here regarding both for many years

NATO have exited Libya, the mission is over, it ended 3 weeks ago.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

The fact that "she was there" is not the issue. The fact that she is misreporting and lying is the issue - I have pointed out the discrepancies in her report which you have failed to address.

which ones? and you've provided nothing to back it up either.

you can't really use the reports that she calls lies as prove that she is lying, now can you?

Jonny7 wrote: »

NATO did not kill thousands of civilians as she claimed, far from it.

okay so, how many civilians did they kill?
any source would be nice ..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants just to show you that nato are not the nice freedom giving crowd you want us to believe ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've been writing/debating in almost all the Libyan threads since the uprising really began in mid-Feb.

okay, were you saying that the nato action was supported by the un resolution? i'm sorry if i can't remember, but a lot of people have been posting on those threads.

and you kinda missed the point there ...

Jonny7 said:

Amazingly she says "NATO has not respected the United Nations in Iraq, Israel or anywhere else" - eh what?

davoxx said:

do you even know what the UN resolution was? do you know what nato did? i find myself as having to dismiss all your biased comments. you seem to pour out the same unfounded, non-researched nonsense again and again. if you are saying that nato has followed the un and respected their decision, you are frankly 100% wrong, and this alone puts into question any further comments by you.

i think that shows that regardless of how long you might have been following it, you did not understand the resolution.
the un resolution was for PROTECTING civilians, not REGIME CHANGE, therefore nato has not respected the un.

and that is just one example .. i'm sure there are more out there ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've followed it daily on the news, Al Jazeera, Euronews, BBC, TF1, and a lot of print media, The Guardian, Telegraph, Irish Times, etc.

ok, so this proves what to be fair? she is claiming that the reports were wrong, i posted something showing how they were clearly wrong regarding the capture of an Libyan official ...

if you have proof that she was wrong, please present it ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

Actually I've followed both since 2003, and been posting here regarding both for many years

ok, i've been following it for only six months or 20 years, time does not matter too much here, what matters are the facts. you've been posting here since 2006, though i'm surprised by your baffling dismissal of certain facts because "they are an activist" ....

Jonny7 wrote: »

NATO have exited Libya, the mission is over, it ended 3 weeks ago.

so they had an exit strategy after all ...
do you have a source for them being gone? i can't find anything ...

in summary, show me where she has failed to be an independent objective reporter ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

i think that shows that regardless of how long you might have been following it, you did not understand the resolution.
the un resolution was for PROTECTING civilians, not REGIME CHANGE, therefore nato has not respected the un.

And if regime change is deemed to be protecting civilians? And it wasn't NATO that killed Gadafi, if you noticed.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

The fact that "she was there" is not the issue. The fact that she is misreporting and lying is the issue - I have pointed out the discrepancies in her report which you have failed to address.



NATO did not kill thousands of civilians as she claimed, far from it.



I've been writing/debating in almost all the Libyan threads since the uprising really began in mid-Feb.

I've followed it daily on the news, Al Jazeera, Euronews, BBC, TF1, and a lot of print media, The Guardian, Telegraph, Irish Times, etc.



Actually I've followed both since 2003, and been posting here regarding both for many years

NATO have exited Libya, the mission is over, it ended 3 weeks ago.

And what was the damn mission exactly? Most gullible morons think it was to prevent genocide (uh-hum...bullsh!t...hum!). How many have been slaughtered since Ghadaffi went underground and was eventually caught. Western oil companies are now busy carving up production contracts for Libyan oil and you can bet that the Libyan people won't see a red cent of it. The free education and subsidised housing, electricity that they used to receive will be abolished and they'll be forced into grinding poverty. That's the mission and it WILL be accomplished.
But as for NATO no longer operating there on behalf of Chevron and Amoco and Total, I somehow doubt that. Do you have a source for the withdrawal of all NATO personnel?

Daithi 1

If you remember what Lizzie said in her interview...

It was mostly celebratory, over exhaggerated and there were rebel snipers on the roofs.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I was watching the news pretty closely on the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-rebels-tripoli-gadhafi-defenses-collapse-224430097.html

This backs up what lizzie said.

In one area, Associated Press reporters with the rebels were stopped and told to take a different route because of regime snipers nearby.

More like rebel/UN snipers.

"It's over, frizz-head," chanted hundreds of jubilant men and women massed in Green Square, using a mocking nickname of the curly-haired Gadhafi. The revelers fired shots in the air, clapped and waved the rebels' tricolor flag.

Celebratory. And we cant tell where the picture was taken.

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/21/139826377/libyan-rebels-say-theyve-launched-attack-on-tripoli?ps=cprs

Green Square holds profound symbolic value. The regime has held pro-Gadhafi rallies there nearly every night since the revolt began in February, and the historic Red Fort that overlooks the square is a favorite scenic spot for the Libyan leader to deliver speeches to his loyalists.

How do we know this isnt a pro Gaddafi rally ?

In a statement issued Sunday, President Barack Obama said that the surest way for the bloodshed to end is for Moammar Gadhafi and his regime to recognize that he no longer controls Libya.

In other words, pretent, that the rebels have won.

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E7JK0NU20110821

Rebels said after a night of heavy fighting they controlled a handful of city neighbourhoods. Whether they hold on could depend on the speed with which the other rebels reach Tripoli.

Does this sound like they had control of Trippoli ? A handful of neighbourhoods !!!!

Jonny7 wrote: »

From August 20th
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/battle-begins-for-the-libyan-capital/

On CNN, Matthew Chance, reporting from a government-controlled hotel in the center of Tripoli, characterized the scene on the streets as “complete mayhem,” but he was unable to determine the nature of the conflict, whether it was part of the rebel advance or had another cause.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Video footage from Green square, the center of Tripoli, on August 21st
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qhnu6N40SE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89jIJZioNc

More celebratory gunfire which Lizzie confirmed. Thanks.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Heres the thread from boards (after hours)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056364112

You using a boards thread as a source ?? Link to SKY is dead, im sure it was more crowds dancing on the streets of Green Square as they had done every night.

Were you really reading all these as closely as you say ?

You seem to have read something that isnt in the articles and videos. Seems to be that you have backed up everything Lizzy had said.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

Western oil companies are now busy carving up production contracts for Libyan oil and you can bet that the Libyan people won't see a red cent of it.

Many western oil companies had lucrative deals in Libya before Gadafi was overthrown, but of course you ignore that

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And if regime change is deemed to be protecting civilians? And it wasn't NATO that killed Gadafi, if you noticed.

Protecting civilians OR regime change....both are still war crimes when used as pretences for attacking a country.

The rule of law has lost all meaning when it comes to US/European interventions and anyone with two eyes and an IQ above room temperature can clearly see that all of these interventions are just the newest phase of modern colonialism and resource control.

If you want to pretend that that's not the case in order to ease your conscience then go right ahead. Uncomfortable truths are for the courageous. If you can't muster the guts to accept it then you shouldn't insult people's intelligence with your rose-tinted, feelgood theories about the West's latest episode of "the rush for Africa".

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And if regime change is deemed to be protecting civilians? And it wasn't NATO that killed Gadafi, if you noticed.

and if raping dogs is deemed protecting civilians?

why ask a silly question like that? was regime change supported by the un?

and it was nato, or maybe i forgot that all the air strikes were not nato ... and the targeting of the convoy was not nato ...

you already know the answer, stop looking for excuses ....

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Many western oil companies had lucrative deals in Libya before Gadafi was overthrown, but of course you ignore that

They had deals but Ghadaffi set the cap on what they were allowed to keep for themselves and he set the conditions on all contracts. They weren't happy with not being allowed to fleece out the lot and just give Ghadaffi enough to keep him in a life of luxury and thuggery whilst his people starved. Ghadaffi insisted the majority of the revenue go to Libyan citizens and this was something that the Western oil companies just could not stomach.

But of course YOU ignore that.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Many western oil companies had lucrative deals in Libya before Gadafi was overthrown, but of course you ignore that

now they are more lucrative ... half price is good, but since we need more profits, how about a 99% discount?

but seriously, i'm guessing that you have little or no knowledge on how oil was sold in libya and why libya did not have any debt ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

so they had an exit strategy after all ...

The conflict finished.

do you have a source for them being gone? i can't find anything ...

Firstly, you don't know much about the conflict if you don't know this simple information and secondly its all there. If you don't know how to search for news, just use google and type in "NATO ends mission libya"

in summary, show me where she has failed to be an independent objective reporter ...

I've already done this, but I might do it again in more depth in a sec as there seems to be so much "interest" in the matter.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

Protecting civilians OR regime change....both are still war crimes when used as pretences for attacking a country.

The rule of law has lost all meaning when it comes to US/European interventions and anyone with two eyes and an IQ above room temperature can clearly see that all of these interventions are just the newest phase of modern colonialism and resource control.

If you want to pretend that that's not the case in order to ease your conscience then go right ahead. Uncomfortable truths are for the courageous. If you can't muster the guts to accept it then you shouldn't insult people's intelligence with your rose-tinted, feelgood theories about the West's latest episode of "the rush for Africa".

Protecting civilians is a war crime now? :rolleyes:

Do you know what a war crime is? And how is the intervention in Libya illegal?

jackiebaron wrote: »

They had deals but Ghadaffi set the cap on what they were allowed to keep for themselves and he set the conditions on all contracts. They weren't happy with not being allowed to fleece out the lot and just give Ghadaffi enough to keep him in a life of luxury and thuggery whilst his people starved. Ghadaffi insisted the majority of the revenue go to Libyan citizens and this was something that the Western oil companies just could not stomach.

But of course YOU ignore that.

Libya is a member of OPEC which sets quotas. Oil accounts for 95% of Libyas export revenues, I'm sure Gadafi would sell as much as he could to get more revenues. You're talking rubbish again, western companies had good, secure oil deals in Libya with Gadafi, it doesn't make sense to put it all at risk, halt production, destroy infrastructure and hope that the new government, if it emerged, would give better deals

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Celebratory. And we cant tell where the picture was taken.

Here's actual footage from Green Square

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wbb3xPkgr8

How do we know this isnt a pro Gaddafi rally ?
In other words, pretent, that the rebels have won.

Look at footage above.

More celebratory gunfire which Lizzie confirmed. Thanks.

How did she confirm something that was happening in the evening of the 21st August when in her report she is reporting in the daytime of the 21st August?

You using a boards thread as a source ?? Link to SKY is dead, im sure it was more crowds dancing on the streets of Green Square as they had done every night.

Again, footage above. The boards thread started on August 21st.

You seem to have read something that isnt in the articles and videos. Seems to be that you have backed up everything Lizzy had said.

What more information do you require?

Jonny7

Should I even need to bother when stuff like this starts turning up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED7cyuVdACM

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wbb3xPkgr8

Going to use your character assassination trick here.

Your link is no good.

DOHA: Al Jazeera’s top executive, Wadah Khanfar, resigned yesterday after eight years as the head of the satellite news channel, the station announced on its website.
The move has been linked to Wikileaks revelations of meetings with CIA officers.
“For some time I have been discussing my desire to step down and the board chairman has accepted my decision,” Khanfar wrote.
Shaikh Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani has been named to replaces Khanfar.
His resignation came amidst a leaked US government cable suggesting that the Al Jazeera executive agreed to alter the content of the channel’s website after a US request to do so.
It said Khanfar agreed to “tone down” objectionable content on the station’s website and promised to “remove it over the subsequent two or three days.”

http://manamapress.net/?p=3506

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Going to use your character assassination trick here.

Your link is no good.

DOHA: Al Jazeera’s top executive, Wadah Khanfar, resigned yesterday after eight years as the head of the satellite news channel, the station announced on its website.
The move has been linked to Wikileaks revelations of meetings with CIA officers.
“For some time I have been discussing my desire to step down and the board chairman has accepted my decision,” Khanfar wrote.
Shaikh Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani has been named to replaces Khanfar.
His resignation came amidst a leaked US government cable suggesting that the Al Jazeera executive agreed to alter the content of the channel’s website after a US request to do so.
It said Khanfar agreed to “tone down” objectionable content on the station’s website and promised to “remove it over the subsequent two or three days.”

http://manamapress.net/?p=3506

Its live footage from Green Square on the night itself on August the 21st.

I was watching it live on TV on August the 21st.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89jIJZioNc

Here is Alex Crawford, she was one of the first Western reporters into the square that night.

Here's Al Arabiya..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZK1TZWhTNA

Are you denying that this happened? is it a faked sound stage?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Firstly, you don't know much about the conflict if you don't know this simple information and secondly its all there. If you don't know how to search for news, just use google and type in "NATO ends mission libya"



I've already done this, but I might do it again in more depth in a sec as there seems to be so much "interest" in the matter.

to be honest this is a poor reply. but then again so was your reason for disregarding the female activist's reporting ...

if you can't find anything to back up what you claim, why bother typing it?

i know the un voted for nato to end their campaign, i also know that it is an end to 'formal' involvement, but i have not seen anything about them withdrawing fully ...

but was she wrong about them needing an exit strategy ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

The conflict finished.

well now that's just plain not true .. and you know it .. the old regime has been toppled, but conflict goes on ...

and the un voted for nato to stop .. huge difference .. talk about misreporting .....

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

to be honest this is a poor reply. but then again so was your reason for disregarding the female activist's reporting ...

Lets take one example.. she says that "NATO has not respected the United Nations in Iraq, Israel or anywhere else"

That is absolute nonsense. Unless you can provide information to the contrary?

i know the un voted for nato to end their campaign, i also know that it is an end to 'formal' involvement, but i have not seen anything about them withdrawing fully ...

From your statements you strongly appear to be bluffing your way through this.

But I'll bite, what portions of NATO remain in Libya if they haven't withdrawn fully?

well now that's just plain not true .. and you know it .. the old regime has been toppled, but conflict goes on ...

Conflict between who and who exactly?

and the un voted for nato to stop .. huge difference .. talk about misreporting .....

What difference? the UN voted for take action, it voted to withdraw action. Its part of the procedure.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Lets take one example.. she says that "NATO has not respected the United Nations in Iraq, Israel or anywhere else"

That is absolute nonsense. Unless you can provide information to the contrary?

did you not read what i posted earlier?

davoxx wrote: »

the un resolution was for PROTECTING civilians, not REGIME CHANGE, therefore nato has not respected the un.

there is one concrete example.

here is a link you can dismiss as activist rubbish ...
http://hamiltoncoalitiontostopthewar.ca/Articles/Libyarticles.html

Jonny7 wrote: »

NATO have exited Libya, the mission is over, it ended 3 weeks ago.

like i asked before, a link regarding nato withdrawing their forces would be nice ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

and if raping dogs is deemed protecting civilians?

why ask a silly question like that? was regime change supported by the un?

and it was nato, or maybe i forgot that all the air strikes were not nato ... and the targeting of the convoy was not nato ...

you already know the answer, stop looking for excuses ....

Thats a fairly stupid comparison in fairness. You don't think the removal of the source ordering attacks on civilians might help protect them?

davoxx wrote: »

now they are more lucrative ... half price is good, but since we need more profits, how about a 99% discount?

but seriously, i'm guessing that you have little or no knowledge on how oil was sold in libya and why libya did not have any debt ...

Go on, tell us then ...

ed2hands

What was the mission anyway?

Depends on who you ask i suppose.

If it's what many think it is, sure it's only just beginning.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26686

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Thats a fairly stupid comparison in fairness. You don't think the removal of the source ordering attacks on civilians might help protect them?

to be honest i don't think it is a stupid as suggesting that the un resolution the was about protecting civilians and yet that somehow meant regime change was authorised ...

i think we need an i said you said section ...

davox said:

the un resolution was for PROTECTING civilians, not REGIME CHANGE, therefore nato has not respected the un.

Jeboa Safari said:

And if regime change is deemed to be protecting civilians?

to which davoxx pointed out:

and if raping dogs is deemed protecting civilians?

why ask a silly question like that? was regime change supported by the un?

and you failed to answer the question as to whether it was supported ...

but maybe the point that was missed was: who decides that regime change is protecting civilians?

also to note is this http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/libya-formin-idINWEA950120110318

also if you don't know the background of oil in libya, you should re-read the threads, or not comment on them ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

to be honest i don't think it is a stupid as suggesting that the un resolution the was about protecting civilians and yet that somehow meant regime change was authorised ...

i think we need an i said you said section ...

davox said:
Jeboa Safari said:
to which davoxx pointed out:
and you failed to answer the question as to whether it was supported ...

but maybe the point that was missed was: who decides that regime change is protecting civilians?

also to note is this http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/libya-formin-idINWEA950120110318

also if you don't know the background of oil in libya, you should re-read the threads, or not comment on them ...

The mandate authorised the UN to use 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians.

Regarding the reuters article, was that the same ceasefire announced while the fighting still continued, and Gadafis forces continued towards the rebel positions?

Do you know the background of oil deals in Libya? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you think the situation was ...

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The mandate authorised the UN to use 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians.

yeah "all necessary measures" is widely understood to mean or agreed code for use of military force ...

if regime change was part of it, i'm sure it would have been mentioned explicitly ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Regarding the reuters article, was that the same ceasefire announced while the fighting still continued, and Gadafis forces continued towards the rebel positions?

no it was the ceasefire that was completed while nato sent in mercs and planted rebels and bombed civilians ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Do you know the background of oil deals in Libya? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you think the situation was ...

i do, it's been covered before, i know as i posted to it.
did you read these entire threads?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71364214
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71253959
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75161077
... if you have not read it, i can't enlighten you ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

yeah "all necessary measures" is widely understood to mean or agreed code for use of military force ...

if regime change was part of it, i'm sure it would have been mentioned explicitly ...


no it was the ceasefire that was completed while nato sent in mercs and planted rebels and bombed civilians ...


i do, it's been covered before, i know as i posted to it.
did you read these entire threads?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71364214
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71253959
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75161077
... if you have not read it, i can't enlighten you ...

So do you think that the UN removing the source ordering attacks on civilians could help protect civilians?

where are you getting nato planting rebels/mercs from?

I've read or posted in the first two, third is more of the same, so you can enlighten me ...

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So do you think that the UN removing the source ordering attacks on civilians could help protect civilians?

un or nato? and i think the attacks on his own people was fictitious ...
http://wfol.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6609:russia-intel-satelite-shows-gaddafi-did-not-attack-his-people&catid=55:arab-world&Itemid=40

regarding nato protecting civilians remember this:
http://www.military.com/news/article/russia-seeks-un-probe-into-natos-libya-airstrikes.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

where are you getting nato planting rebels/mercs from?

same place you are getting the "while the fighting still continued, and Gadafis forces continued towards the rebel positions?"

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I've read or posted in the first two, third is more of the same, so you can enlighten me ...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75047832

that's from this thread ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

un or nato? and i think the attacks on his own people was fictitious ...
http://wfol.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6609:russia-intel-satelite-shows-gaddafi-did-not-attack-his-people&catid=55:arab-world&Itemid=40

regarding nato protecting civilians remember this:
http://www.military.com/news/article/russia-seeks-un-probe-into-natos-libya-airstrikes.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

The UN. Well I certainly don't think they were fictitious. Why didn't Russia veto the UN mandate then?

davoxx wrote: »

same place you are getting the "while the fighting still continued, and Gadafis forces continued towards the rebel positions?"

I'm not just plucking things out of my head to suit my mindset

davoxx wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75047832

that's from this thread ...

And what about that post? If it's about Gadafi nationalising the oil companies, why didn't they just take them back straight away or any time in the last 40 years? Why not stop Gadafi before he got started? And it doesn't change the fact that in recent years western companies got a reliable, lucrative, stable supply of oil from Gadafi

shadowninty

davoxx wrote: »

i do, it's been covered before, i know as i posted to it.
did you read these entire threads?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71364214
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71253959
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75161077
... if you have not read it, i can't enlighten you ...

After reading the first page of the first link, it really came to the fore how wrong you and your crowd are. Good God man, your man sounds (Euroland) sounds exactly like you. And he was wrong. So bloody wrong.

This quote from Mike65 really struck a chord with me;

mike65 wrote: »

Eurolands greatest dissapointment would be a free democratic Libya.

Somes it all up for you and your like
Johnny and the like shouldn't bother even bother arguing with ye. Its no use. You can't accept anything that doesn't agree with your agenda. You can't change with the facts.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The UN. Well I certainly don't think they were fictitious. Why didn't Russia veto the UN mandate then?

i know you don't think that they are fictitious, but have you ever seen any evidence of this? if you have please supply a link or tell me where you saw it ..

regarding russia, i guess because they never thought that nato would force regime change so openly? i don't know the answer ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I'm not just plucking things out of my head to suit my mindset

some times it seems like it ... something to back it up would be great ..

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And what about that post? If it's about Gadafi nationalising the oil companies, why didn't they just take them back straight away or any time in the last 40 years? Why not stop Gadafi before he got started? And it doesn't change the fact that in recent years western companies got a reliable, lucrative, stable supply of oil from Gadafi

it explains the oil situation ... i thought you knew about the lucrative deals ...