Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

realweirdo · 09-08-2014 06:28PM

Would love to know how Gadaffi, a man with pedigree when it came to supporting and financing mass murder, particularly in west africa, was going to take back benghazi, misrata, zintan and dozens more towns and cities in revolt against him? Was he going to offer the people coffee and donuts and hope they'd surrender peacefully and fall at the feet of brother leader once more. The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back. Remind us again how Syria turned out where the west didn't impose a no fly zone. Libya might have problems but it isnt a fraction of that of syrias. 10 million displaced, 500,000 injured, 170,000 dead, 150,000 missing probably dead...a real model for non intervention alright.

czx · 10-08-2014 11:57AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Couldn't think of anything more constructive to say after getting home from a night on the town?

#asia

czx · 10-08-2014 12:00PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Would love to know how Gadaffi, a man with pedigree when it came to supporting and financing mass murder, particularly in west africa, was going to take back benghazi, misrata, zintan and dozens more towns and cities in revolt against him? Was he going to offer the people coffee and donuts and hope they'd surrender peacefully and fall at the feet of brother leader once more. The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back. Remind us again how Syria turned out where the west didn't impose a no fly zone. Libya might have problems but it isnt a fraction of that of syrias. 10 million displaced, 500,000 injured, 170,000 dead, 150,000 missing probably dead...a real model for non intervention alright.

Arabs need FGM and dictatorships. Anything else is arrogance

nacho libre · 10-08-2014 02:47PM

.

jmayo · 12-08-2014 03:29PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

@Corinthian: That may be true in the case of Civilians and some naive, low-level politicians but it is not so for those involved in Intelligence, Military and upper echelons of Government. No military action is taken without due consideration and information from agents within the area - of which there are many.

You would think.
As I posted on another thread I recall seeing Oxbridge Iraq expert being interviewed about his meeting or presentation to high level government (politicans, officals and probably military) about Iraq prior to Gulf War II.

He was trying to get across how it's people were not some homogenous group and how fractured it really was with different ethnic groups, different religions and different religious sects within the one religion.
He was gobsmacked that all they seemed to think was saddam = evil and everything will be ok when we get rid of him.
I bet all the likes of rumsfeld thought about was how well Halliburton were going to do out of it.

Americans have an arrogance, and because they have such a powerful military apparatus they believe and actually know they can win on the battlefield.
What they have never trully figured out is how to win the hearts and minds campaign.
They failed misreably in Vietnam in actually winnng over the population.
Calling them gooks and treating them with utter disdain doesn't help of course.
And they haven't learned much all these years later as can be seen in Iraq.
The British were far more successful in Malaya countering communism.

Conas · 15-08-2014 12:17AM

realweirdo wrote: »

Would love to know how Gadaffi, a man with pedigree when it came to supporting and financing mass murder, particularly in west africa, was going to take back benghazi, misrata, zintan and dozens more towns and cities in revolt against him? Was he going to offer the people coffee and donuts and hope they'd surrender peacefully and fall at the feet of brother leader once more. The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back. Remind us again how Syria turned out where the west didn't impose a no fly zone. Libya might have problems but it isnt a fraction of that of syrias. 10 million displaced, 500,000 injured, 170,000 dead, 150,000 missing probably dead...a real model for non intervention alright.

There was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs that was of none of their business. Now it's a failed state in ruins. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Denial is like a really bad disease, that's why there's no cure for some people. Syria is another humiliation for Obama and the rest of his good for nothing goverment. Funds ISIS in Syria to overthrow Assad, then declares them an enemy in Iraq. Most if not all of their weapons are America weapons either stolen or payed for by the Saudi's. It's an ash heap of ruins, the whole of the middle east.

It could be left to the Chinese or Russians to go in and clean up this awful mess. Obama is clueless and incapable of it.

The Corinthian · 15-08-2014 09:01AM

Conas wrote: »

There was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs that was of none of their business.

Apart from half of the country being in open revolt, I suppose...

jmayo · 15-08-2014 12:21PM

Conas wrote: »

There was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs that was of none of their business. Now it's a failed state in ruins. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Denial is like a really bad disease, that's why there's no cure for some people. Syria is another humiliation for Obama and the rest of his good for nothing goverment. Funds ISIS in Syria to overthrow Assad, then declares them an enemy in Iraq. Most if not all of their weapons are America weapons either stolen or payed for by the Saudi's. It's an ash heap of ruins, the whole of the middle east.

It could be left to the Chinese or Russians to go in and clean up this awful mess. Obama is clueless and incapable of it.

You can't just level that at Obama, although I do agree he is not a strong leader.

You could also use the Libya and Syria argument for Iraq.
saddam was keeping a rein on things and kept all the different factions under control.
Al qeada did not have base there and everything was kinda hunky dory so long as you were pro saddam and he played ball with the west.

Problem has been that these strong dictators have been replaced by a myriad of groups who do not agree on anything bar probably their hatred for the dictator.
Once they are out of the way then they can start having a go at each and resume their traditional long held animosities and go back to settling old scores.
Hell they are even already doing that in Syria before they have even gotten rid of Assad.

And the groups that always rise to the top are usually the most fundamentalist, partially I believe due to fact a fiar chunk of the population actually want them (ala Muslim brotherhood in Egypt) and also because they are the ones willing to go to any extreme to get power (ala ISIS in Syria and Iraq).
Moderates aren't willing to sacrifice themselves or slaughter wholesale to get what they want and thus lose out.

Add into the mix the influx of islamic nutjobs from other countries (often in the Western world), the backing of conflicting sides by the various local Gulf powers who are trying to exert their influence and you have a powder keg.

realweirdo · 16-08-2014 10:22PM

The scale of Libya's current problems are simply not in the same league as Syrias. A reminder of Syria's current problems where a no fly zone was not implemented - 10 million displaced - half the Syrian population reliant on food aid - 170,000 dead, a similar number missing presumed dead. Tens of thousands held in prisons for peacefully protesting - the rise of ISIS which now threathens the whole region, an organisation Assad helped create so he could then say to the west he is fighting terrorism - Here is an article about it. http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631?piano_t=1

And now they have come back to bite him and the whole of Syria.

And this without any meaningful intervention and with Assad still in power.

My guess is if the west hadnt intervened in Libya, we would be seeing today in Libya a situation quite similar to Syria, with millions displaced, Benghazi in ruins much like Homs is in ruins and an intractable conflict stretching on for years if not decades. This of course would suit the anti-western brigade no end. There are no easy solutions to the scenario where a mass murdering genocidal maniac like Gadaffi wants to kill everyone who opposes him - remember his quote - either I rule you or I kill you. But the intervention by the west was unquestionably the best option.

The Corinthian · 17-08-2014 09:49AM

realweirdo wrote: »

My guess is if the west hadnt intervened in Libya, we would be seeing today in Libya a situation quite similar to Syria, with millions displaced, Benghazi in ruins much like Homs is in ruins and an intractable conflict stretching on for years if not decades. This of course would suit the anti-western brigade no end. There are no easy solutions to the scenario where a mass murdering genocidal maniac like Gadaffi wants to kill everyone who opposes him - remember his quote - either I rule you or I kill you. But the intervention by the west was unquestionably the best option.

Actually, most analysis points to a very different scenario, if you care to look at the facts. Assad has been unable to crush the rebellion against him, Gadaffi was already at the gates of Benghazi and would have almost certainly crushed the rebellion had the West not intervened - even with the West intervening it took months for the rebels to push Gadaffi back from a position of about 30km from Benghazi.

So had the West not intervened, the rebellion would have likely failed and Gadaffi would have remained in power, and the disintegration we're witnessing now would not not have occurred. So there's nothing unquestionable about your analysis, I'm afraid.

AlekSmart · 17-08-2014 01:33PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, most analysis points to a very different scenario, if you care to look at the facts. Assad has been unable to crush the rebellion against him, Gadaffi was already at the gates of Benghazi and would have almost certainly crushed the rebellion had the West not intervened - even with the West intervening it took months for the rebels to push Gadaffi back from a position of about 30km from Benghazi.

So had the West not intervened, the rebellion would have likely failed and Gadaffi would have remained in power, and the disintegration we're witnessing now would not not have occurred. So there's nothing unquestionable about your analysis, I'm afraid.

With the caveat that since Gadaffi is dead,and his regime now a mere 40 year line in the regions 2000 years of troubled history,all of our opinions,pro and anti are moot for sure.

That said,as I followed the news reports on the developing Libyan crisis,I was struck by the many contradictions visible in advance of the U.N/NATO adventure.

Unrest,certainly,with serious localized rebellion in several unsurprising parts of the country,where the Gadaffi name had never been top-drawer.

Yet,Libya remained a functional entity,with it's energy centred output still flowing and earning revenue for the State.

In the absence of actual evidence of Libyan Government massacres of civilians,the "Interested Observers" could barely conceal their glee when Gadaffi himself waded in with his usual mad-cap OTT performances broadcast worldwide.

With his strident,graphically colourful descriptions of his opponents as "Rats","Cockroaches"and "Devils" etc he was a Godsend to those whose interests were best served by pumping-up the volume.

Gadaffi certainly had'nt mellowed with age,in fact,if anything he may well have gotten crankier and less amenable to wiser,saner counsel as offered by at least one of his son's,Saif.

However,the reality of those Gadaffi mad-dog soundbytes,was that they were directed specifically at those directly involved in the rebellion against the State,with dire warnings to Civillians to get themselves out of town if they wanted to stay safe.

Not a very desirable situation for non-combatants,and something which would strike fear into my heart should it ever happen here,but yet a far far cry from the deliberate indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets which the U.N./NATO used as its core justification for Intervention.

As The Corinthian points out,even with overt military assistance provided by U.N./NATO,the popularity of this rebellion against the Libyan Government was variable,with large numbers of Libyan's remaining reticent about declaring firmly for either side.

One of the Obama administrations major political successes was the manner in which it managed to stay off the centre-stage during the Libyan adventure.

However,it can be argued that the U.S.inspired and executed Financial Sanctions against Libya was the ACTUAL WMD that sealed Gadaffi's own fate and opened the gates on a new-dawn for all of those undecided Libyans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sanctions-in-72-hours-how-the-us-pulled-off-a-major-freeze-of-libyan-assets/2011/03/11/ABBckxJB_story.html

I should think that the success of the Financial War on Gadaffi will be helping to shape much of how the Western World majors intend to expand their indirect control over troublesome states and their rulers going forward.

Brown Bomber · 18-08-2014 10:29PM

jmayo wrote: »

Y
And the groups that always rise to the top are usually the most fundamentalist, partially I believe due to fact a fiar chunk of the population actually want them (ala Muslim brotherhood in Egypt)

It's a lazy generalisation to label the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as "fundamentalist". Islamist? Yes. Conservative? Yes. Fundamentalist? No.

In fact, the majority of actual fundamentalists; the Salafists, allied with the secularists, liberals and Mubarrak loyalists to overthrow the legitimate MB government in a military coup. The various fundamentalist parties in Egypt got around 10% of the popular vote combined - meaning that in Egypt at least a vast majority did not support the fundamentalists.

Brown Bomber · 18-08-2014 10:32PM

realweirdo wrote: »

The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back.

Morally what is the difference in the then Libyan government hypothetically doing this and NATO doing this to provide air cover for their Al Qaeda affiliated boots on the ground?

Brown Bomber · 18-08-2014 10:44PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

With Libya's situation s remaining hughly unstable it is interesting to see the emergence of some Irish "Green Army" members at the top of the new ruling order.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/dublin-dad-elected-as-mayor-of-tripoli-in-libya-30492455.html

I wonder if this means if this Gulf-funded, friend of Al Qaeda and Stratfor stooge has to give back his 200,000 Euros in CIA blood money he had stolen from his home...

jmayo · 19-08-2014 07:21PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a lazy generalisation to label the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as "fundamentalist". Islamist? Yes. Conservative? Yes. Fundamentalist? No.

In fact, the majority of actual fundamentalists; the Salafists, allied with the secularists, liberals and Mubarrak loyalists to overthrow the legitimate MB government in a military coup. The various fundamentalist parties in Egypt got around 10% of the popular vote combined - meaning that in Egypt at least a vast majority did not support the fundamentalists.

Interesting choice of username.

To me an organisation that will not put a picture of a female election candidate on an election poster because some clerics or other thinks it is wrong is a fundamentalist and not just bloody conservative.
Conservative would be that she wear a hijab.

Of course we could also look to their principles as stated in their website which includes the introduction of Sharia Law and uniting Islamic countries and states in a Caliphate.
Oh and the dying part for allah.

It is interesting that you mention Morsi and the legitimate government overthrown by Salafists, Mubarrak loyalists allied with liberals, secularists and military.

You of course fail to mention that during Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhoods time in charge attacks on Christians and other minorities had drastically increased, the creation of gangs linked to the Muslim Brotherhood that attacked protests and that Morsi tried to give himself the power to legislate without any judical oversight, etc.

realweirdo · 19-08-2014 09:28PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, most analysis points to a very different scenario, if you care to look at the facts. Assad has been unable to crush the rebellion against him, Gadaffi was already at the gates of Benghazi and would have almost certainly crushed the rebellion had the West not intervened - even with the West intervening it took months for the rebels to push Gadaffi back from a position of about 30km from Benghazi.

So had the West not intervened, the rebellion would have likely failed and Gadaffi would have remained in power, and the disintegration we're witnessing now would not not have occurred. So there's nothing unquestionable about your analysis, I'm afraid.

Well if we are on the topic of "what ifs".

There is nothing to indicate Gadaffi would have "crushed" the rebellion in anything other than a very bloody way. Retaking Benghazi would have involved street to street urban fighting. Assad had the sense not to bother with this in Homs and instead laid seige to rebellious areas, starved everyone out, barrel bombed and fired artillary. Gadaffi would have likely tried the same approach.

After that, there would be the rounding up of thousands of opponents and there is little question most would have been executed. This is the guy who executed over 1200 prisoners in one day, all because they complained about their conditions.

And Benghazi was just one city in revolt. There was also Misrata and Zintan and parts of Tripoli. Taking back all this and crushing the revolt would have cost at least 10,000 lives minimum. Even with Western assistance thousands lost their lives. And there was very few if any civilian casualties as a result of precision strikes from NATO.

So its your argument that doesn't hold water. Libya has struggled since the fall of Gadaffi but is a thousand times better than Syria where NATO didn't get involved. It doesn't take a genius to see that. Again the most likely outcome of Gadaffi winning was a destroyed Benghazi. Thankfully NATO stopped him from doing that, something his apologists still whinge about.

I personally get sick of people who portray all these dictators as nice guys. Gadaffi was a barbaric mass murdering thug who had personal torture chambers for political opponents and who kept murdered opponents in freezers to view them every so often. The guy was a delusional maniac and only the occassional equally deluded apologist on places like this think it would be better if he was left in power. It wouldn't and tens of thousands of Libyans owe their lives today to NATO, and certainly not to Gadaffi who wanted to murder them and would have.

Gadaffi was almost universally hated in Libya, and yet you have people in Ireland saying he should have been left in power, the same people who go out and vote in every democratic election in Ireland and think the 1916 rising or war of independence was a great thing since it gave irish people the right to self determination.

realweirdo · 19-08-2014 09:38PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

With the caveat that since Gadaffi is dead,and his regime now a mere 40 year line in the regions 2000 years of troubled history,all of our opinions,pro and anti are moot for sure.

That said,as I followed the news reports on the developing Libyan crisis,I was struck by the many contradictions visible in advance of the U.N/NATO adventure.

Unrest,certainly,with serious localized rebellion in several unsurprising parts of the country,where the Gadaffi name had never been top-drawer.

Yet,Libya remained a functional entity,with it's energy centred output still flowing and earning revenue for the State.

In the absence of actual evidence of Libyan Government massacres of civilians,the "Interested Observers" could barely conceal their glee when Gadaffi himself waded in with his usual mad-cap OTT performances broadcast worldwide.

With his strident,graphically colourful descriptions of his opponents as "Rats","Cockroaches"and "Devils" etc he was a Godsend to those whose interests were best served by pumping-up the volume.

Gadaffi certainly had'nt mellowed with age,in fact,if anything he may well have gotten crankier and less amenable to wiser,saner counsel as offered by at least one of his son's,Saif.

However,the reality of those Gadaffi mad-dog soundbytes,was that they were directed specifically at those directly involved in the rebellion against the State,with dire warnings to Civillians to get themselves out of town if they wanted to stay safe.

Not a very desirable situation for non-combatants,and something which would strike fear into my heart should it ever happen here,but yet a far far cry from the deliberate indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets which the U.N./NATO used as its core justification for Intervention.

As The Corinthian points out,even with overt military assistance provided by U.N./NATO,the popularity of this rebellion against the Libyan Government was variable,with large numbers of Libyan's remaining reticent about declaring firmly for either side.

One of the Obama administrations major political successes was the manner in which it managed to stay off the centre-stage during the Libyan adventure.

However,it can be argued that the U.S.inspired and executed Financial Sanctions against Libya was the ACTUAL WMD that sealed Gadaffi's own fate and opened the gates on a new-dawn for all of those undecided Libyans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sanctions-in-72-hours-how-the-us-pulled-off-a-major-freeze-of-libyan-assets/2011/03/11/ABBckxJB_story.html

I should think that the success of the Financial War on Gadaffi will be helping to shape much of how the Western World majors intend to expand their indirect control over troublesome states and their rulers going forward.

I'm sorry but you seem to know nothing about Gadaffi's past or penchant for massacres and mass murder. There are many examples of it, and much of it recorded, including the televising of the executions of university students, some for the "crime" of studying in America. Also the Abu Salim massacre.
Libyans knew not to discuss politics while Gadaffi was alive, and most celebrated his downfall.

So enough of this attempted rehabilitation of Gadaffi's image. Who next? Stalin? He wasn't all that bad was he!

Brown Bomber · 19-08-2014 10:24PM

jmayo wrote: »

Interesting choice of username.

Really? Why?

jmayo wrote: »

To me an organisation that will not put a picture of a female election candidate on an election poster because some clerics or other thinks it is wrong is a fundamentalist and not just bloody conservative.
Conservative would be that she wear a hijab.

:pac: You are describing the Salafis (The Nour Party) not MB. The MB has circa 50% female members and ran more women candidates in the real democratic election than anyone else. It was Al Nour who used flowers instead of women in their campaign posters and insisted on female interviewers wearing a veil.

You really need to learn the difference between fundamentalists and conservatives.

jmayo wrote: »

Of course we could also look to their principles as stated in their website which includes the introduction of Sharia Law and uniting Islamic countries and states in a Caliphate.

This is from their website and should put into context for you whatever scaremongering media you've been exposed to:http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29516

jmayo wrote: »

Oh and the dying part for allah.

... And they've got beards too!!! Seriously?

jmayo wrote: »

It is interesting that you mention Morsi and the legitimate government overthrown by Salafists, Mubarrak loyalists allied with liberals, secularists and military.

Well it's a fact.

jmayo wrote: »

You of course fail to mention that during Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhoods time in charge attacks on Christians and other minorities had drastically increased,

Attacks by whom? Source for this?

jmayo wrote: »

the creation of gangs linked to the Muslim Brotherhood that attacked protests

Do you know why people were protesting? Linked how? Source?

jmayo wrote: »

and that Morsi tried to give himself the power to legislate without any judical oversight, etc.

These powers were only temporary. The subsequent military putsch, theft of democracy and brutal crackdown proves extraordinary measures were required to attempt to protect Egyptian democracy from the Egyptian deep state..

Which needs to be put into it's context of a power struggle between a democratically elected President and the unelected Mubarrak loyalists in the judiciary who were determined to destablilise the fledgling Egyptian democratic governmnet. These appointees of the dictator had dissolved again a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood majority parliament at their discretion.

It was this parliament who would have agreed upon egypt's constitution. The secularists withdrew from negotiotians on the constitution and then declared it illegitimite.

Mursi put the constitution to the people which the passed in a democratic referendum 2:1.

Conas · 19-08-2014 10:26PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apart from half of the country being in open revolt, I suppose...

So the West and their NATO allies say they have to go in and remove Gaddafi who is slaughtering his own people, when removed the country turns into a failed state, that's in an ash heap of ruins.

As is Iraq where there was no problem, till Bush turned that country into an ash heap of ruins, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and countless innocent Iraqis.

They are all failures, they are all useless, they are all crooks, liars and thieves. Nobody cares what the US goverment has to say on foreign policy anymore. They have ruined every country they touched. They might aswell leave it to someone with a brain to clean up their mess. They failed, and that's it.

Conas · 19-08-2014 10:34PM

jmayo wrote: »

You can't just level that at Obama, although I do agree he is not a strong leader.

You could also use the Libya and Syria argument for Iraq.
saddam was keeping a rein on things and kept all the different factions under control.
Al qeada did not have base there and everything was kinda hunky dory so long as you were pro saddam and he played ball with the west.

Obama's election was the greatest PR stunt in American Presidential History. The only positive thing I can say is that he was the first African-American President, and that will keep the Americans happy. As Oliver Stone said 'it's a good story and Americans like that kind of story'.

But he's keeping the empire going. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Pakistan, Yemen.

Bullying Iran, China and Russia. Why doesn't he just mind his own business, the same for his good for nothing Congress. They are all disasters.

Brown Bomber · 19-08-2014 10:44PM

Conas wrote: »

So the West and their NATO allies say they have to go in and remove Gaddafi who is slaughtering his own people, when removed the country turns into a failed state, that's in an ash heap of ruins.

As is Iraq where there was no problem, till Bush turned that country into an ash heap of ruins, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and countless innocent Iraqis.

They are all failures, they are all useless, they are all crooks, liars and thieves. Nobody cares what the US goverment has to say on foreign policy anymore. They have ruined every country they touched. They might aswell leave it to someone with a brain to clean up their mess. They failed, and that's it.

I think the problem is greater than simply destroying a single state via R2P/ regime change wars. It is the ripple effect of these imperialist interventions that is equally destructive. For example, "we" recruit, finance, arm, train and let loose brigades of jihadis to fight on the front lines. Many of these take their training and rifles to fight Assad, the Syrian-Iraqi border becomes non-existent and the Al Qaeda fighters who were fighting the US in Iraq are now the allies and we have the beginnings of what is to become the ISIS Caliphate in Iraq. Another line is the Tuareg's journey, who were given a fair deal in Libya by Gadaffi but who fled into Sudan with their guns and took up a war of self-determination there, and these are just two strands of this.

Conas · 19-08-2014 10:57PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think the problem is greater than simply destroying a single state via R2P/ regime change wars. It is the ripple effect of these imperialist interventions that is equally destructive. For example, "we" recruit, finance, arm, train and let loose brigades of jihadis to fight on the front lines. Many of these take their training and rifles to fight Assad, the Syrian-Iraqi border becomes non-existent and the Al Qaeda fighters who were fighting the US in Iraq are now the allies and we have the beginnings of what is to become the ISIS Caliphate in Iraq. Another line is the Tuareg's journey, who were given a fair deal in Libya by Gadaffi but who fled into Sudan with their guns and took up a war of self-determination there, and these are just two strands of this.

It's all smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned, all deception. Every leader out their that they don't like he's labelled a dictator, and the they insist he has to be removed, and everyone seems dumb enough to swallow that BS every single time. Then they install in their man, and things get worse, and the chaos never ends. Might I also add to the list of failures that I mentioned above, is the issue in Gaza which they are incapable for resolving for decades.

Now they think we should believe in all the things that they say about Assad, the situation in Ukraine, Iranian's nuclear weapons program. Nobody can trust them anymore.

I listen to Obama reading from his script, and teleprompter, and all I hear is BS coming out of his mouth.

realweirdo · 19-08-2014 11:07PM

Conas wrote: »

So the West and their NATO allies say they have to go in and remove Gaddafi who is slaughtering his own people, when removed the country turns into a failed state, that's in an ash heap of ruins.

As is Iraq where there was no problem, till Bush turned that country into an ash heap of ruins, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and countless innocent Iraqis.

They are all failures, they are all useless, they are all crooks, liars and thieves. Nobody cares what the US goverment has to say on foreign policy anymore. They have ruined every country they touched. They might aswell leave it to someone with a brain to clean up their mess. They failed, and that's it.

Its not a failed state, far from it. The country functions as normally with healthcare, education, civilian infrastructure mostly working as normal. There have been democratic elections and the first post Gadaffi mayor of Tripoli was recently elected, an Irish man to boot! There is a central government and a growing military. The militias have to be disarmed, no-one doubts that and it will take time and patience. Name me one western European country which transitioned from dictatorship to democracy in peace and without some bloodshed.
The real beneficiaries of the fall of Gadaffi will be future generations of Libyans just as it was in western europe with the fall of dictators and monarchs. no-one ever said the transition to democracy would be easy in Libya and its definitely a work in progress.

realweirdo · 19-08-2014 11:11PM

Conas wrote: »

It's all smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned, all deception. Every leader out their that they don't like he's labelled a dictator, and the they insist he has to be removed, and everyone seems dumb enough to swallow that BS every single time. Then they install in their man, and things get worse, and the chaos never ends. Might I also add to the list of failures that I mentioned above, is the issue in Gaza which they are incapable for resolving for decades.

Now they think we should believe in all the things that they say about Assad, the situation in Ukraine, Iranian's nuclear weapons program. Nobody can trust them anymore.

I listen to Obama reading from his script, and teleprompter, and all I hear is BS coming out of his mouth.

Oxford English Dictionary:

dictator
noun
1A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.

There's really no room for misunderstanding there. Gadaffi was a dictator, as was Saddam. There is no way these guys were upholders of democracy no matter how you look at it, or whether the west hated them or not. They were dictators, full stop.

Harold Weiss · 19-08-2014 11:19PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Oxford English Dictionary:

dictator
noun
1A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.

There's really no room for misunderstanding there. Gadaffi was a dictator, as was Saddam. There is no way these guys were upholders of democracy no matter how you look at it, or whether the west hated them or not. They were dictators, full stop.

What's the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, Museveni in Uganda or even Khalifa in Bahrain?

I'm not disputing whether Gaddafi or Hussein were dictators, just the motives you believe led NATO/US to blow up and murder people in Libya and Iraq.

Brown Bomber · 19-08-2014 11:19PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Its not a failed state, far from it. The country functions as normally with healthcare, education, civilian infrastructure mostly working as normal. There have been democratic elections and the first post Gadaffi mayor of Tripoli was recently elected, an Irish man to boot! There is a central government and a growing military. The militias have to be disarmed, no-one doubts that and it will take time and patience. Name me one western European country which transitioned from dictatorship to democracy in peace and without some bloodshed.
The real beneficiaries of the fall of Gadaffi will be future generations of Libyans just as it was in western europe with the fall of dictators and monarchs. no-one ever said the transition to democracy would be easy in Libya and its definitely a work in progress.

It's has been fairly easy for YOU to be fair, all you had to do was cheer on NATO's fireworks show from your armchair. You aren't the one being caged in a zoo because the colour of your (black) skin being force-fed the new Libyan cloth flag at gunpoint are you?

And here is our new Mayor embracing his "close confederate" the leader of Al Qaeda in Libya Belhaj. This is progress to you?

Conas · 19-08-2014 11:30PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Oxford English Dictionary:

dictator
noun
1A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.

There's really no room for misunderstanding there. Gadaffi was a dictator, as was Saddam. There is no way these guys were upholders of democracy no matter how you look at it, or whether the west hated them or not. They were dictators, full stop.

Deny all you want, the countries are in an ash heap of ruins AFTER they were removed from power. If the people wanted them out so bad, we wouldn't be listening to never ending bloodshed all these years later. Turns out they should have been left in power, and those countries never bombed in the first place.

Bush was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Tortured people, but I bet you would never think of Bush as a dictator though would you? All they wanted is control of all the oil, and resources in those countries. They never cared about the people of Libya, and Iraq. Never did, and never will.

Saddam was funded and armed by the US in the 1980s, so that makes him a dictator that was friends with the Reagan administration. Osama Bin Laden was funded and armed by America in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. They were America's boys all along. I just think it's hilarious how people forget so easily. You ought to go deeper down the rabbit hole my friend.

realweirdo · 19-08-2014 11:49PM

Conas wrote: »

Deny all you want, the countries are in an ash heap of ruins AFTER they were removed from power. If the people wanted them out so bad, we wouldn't be listening to never ending bloodshed all these years later. Turns out they should have been left in power, and those countries never bombed in the first place.

Bush was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Tortured people, but I bet you would never think of Bush as a dictator though would you? All they wanted is control of all the oil, and resources in those countries. They never cared about the people of Libya, and Iraq. Never did, and never will.

Saddam was funded and armed by the US in the 1980s, so that makes him a dictator that was friends with the Reagan administration. Osama Bin Laden was funded and armed by America in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. They were America's boys all along. I just think it's hilarious how people forget so easily. You ought to go deeper down the rabbit hole my friend.

Again, this is all like saying USSR/Russia was better under Stalin. It's exactly the same kind of mindset. But its all rose tinted glasses. These countries weren't better under Stalin/Milosevic/Saddam/Gadaffi.

They were better for a tiny elite.

99% of Libya is fine. But when there are issues with 1%, that's the 1% the usual anti western brigade harp on about.

Anyways, I would ask people like you, if you despise western values so much, why do you still live here? Rather hypocritical on your part

realweirdo · 19-08-2014 11:50PM

Harold Weiss wrote: »

What's the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, Museveni in Uganda or even Khalifa in Bahrain?

I'm not disputing whether Gaddafi or Hussein were dictators, just the motives you believe led NATO/US to blow up and murder people in Libya and Iraq.

Ah yes...NATO evil, Gadaffi good.

We've heard all this before and at this stage its repetitive, false and boring.

Conas · 20-08-2014 12:11AM

realweirdo wrote: »

Again, this is all like saying USSR/Russia was better under Stalin. It's exactly the same kind of mindset. But its all rose tinted glasses. These countries weren't better under Stalin/Milosevic/Saddam/Gadaffi.

They were better for a tiny elite.

99% of Libya is fine. But when there are issues with 1%, that's the 1% the usual anti western brigade harp on about.

Anyways, I would ask people like you, if you despise western values so much, why do you still live here? Rather hypocritical on your part

America fought along side Stalin and the Communists to the defeat Germany in WW2, despite the fact that the likes of Roosevelt no doubt knew 'Uncle Joe' and the Bolsheviks were slaughtering 100,000's of their own people, and working others to death in the Gulags. What I'm trying to say is, these people are allies when they suit the American goverment, and then enemies when they don't suit their agenda. How can anyone not despise such hypocritical rubbish. Who will be the enemy tomorrow? who will they be going to war with next year? Iran most likely. Since they never stop warmongering against that's country over non-existent nukes. Is their any country that the American goverment do like?

Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

Comments