Protests in Libya

The U.S. put an end to the butchery in Bosnia and Kosovo when Europe stood by idly. It should've been done earlier, but that's the fault of our incompetent leadership in the EU and the UN.

We face a similar problem in Libya, and having experienced Bosnia and Kosovo a mere 10-15 years ago, it appears that we still haven't opened a seconday school textbook and learned from history.

What is it with people and the oil argument? If we support Gadaffi, our oil companies receive fat contracts and we receive oil at a discount price; if we support the people, we face higher, but fairer, oil prices. By your logic, our government seems hell-bent on receiving the best deal, thus why are we not supporting the tyrant?


Regime change? Where's our regime change in Tunisia and Egypt?

No, if a puppet government is in place, these companies will receive more generous contracts. It's simple really.

Plus there will be a strategic advantage. Currently, we aren't in control of the oil. And it's a foot hold in to the middle east-- a perfect place for an American base. The people will not decide anything so long as America forces interfere-- the Libyans dont want help. They can sort their own mess out. It's fairly clear: many of these middle eastern dictators are propped up by the West and it will happen again. Just recently, under Western 'liberation' the corrupt Hamid Karzai came in to charge in Afghanistan He didn't fall out the sky, but he was carefully picked.

Tunisia and Egypt are still out there, but Libya is a better prospect for us to interfere. There's no chance the Islamic Brotherhood will be allowed to govern in Egypt anyway, because the West wont approve it. If that isn't interfering what is it.

You are deluded if you think USA/UK are interfering for humanitarian purposes, because they are concerned about Libyan civilians. I don't buy that for one second and too much history supports the contrary.

The U.S. put an end to the butchery in Bosnia and Kosovo when Europe stood by idly. It should've been done earlier, but that's the fault of our incompetent leadership in the EU and the UN.

This really is not so insane as one might think. It is tribal rivalries that have been burning for a thousand years, mixed in with flammable oil wells. I just wrote an article about what is really going on - let me know what you think about 'the rest of the story' behind the headlines -

Libya’s Tangled Opposition – Youth, Tribes, Monarchists, Regime Castoffs and Oil

"A thousand years of history weigh on Libya today. One-hundred forty tribes stretch across three formerly separate kingdoms of what is now Libya. King Idris instituted the Kingdom of Libya in the 1950s, to the advantage of Cyrenaican tribes – the Zuwayya and others, which are today revolting..."

[more at http://theclearview.wordpress.com/20...ed-opposition/ ]

It's a mere shame an intervention wouldn't resemble Iraq in the slightest, or you'd have had a credible argument, you buffoon.

What kinda argument is that?..You wanna look at the US's human rights record? (of course its better than Chinas, but they are not exactly angels).
Have you ever thought that China believes that if something is not gonna affect them, then they should have nothing to do with it..?
But I agree with you, the UN is rather slow to do anything tbh...

Noooo Britain just follows whatever America does, but im sure you know that already and its not ideological/moral rather strategic, otherwise they would have gone into countries with no resources and in poor geo-political locations.

Ah the retard cometh, you have no argument, don't stick you nose in other people's business, they don't want you.

That’s exactly why I don’t think intervention in Libya has ever been an option. Kosovo, on top of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan, has acted as a deterrent for the western countries that usually intervene in these situations. Entrenching themselves in Libya and having to commit to nation building once again has never been a viable option. It’s like the west is finally learning lessons from history that foreign intervention means a longer commitment that just an invasion and a toppling of an unpopular government. American commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and a highly problematic situation in Korea insures that intervention will never be a possibility in Libya.

That's nonsense. The same thing was said in the case of Iraq. 2 million killed their by Western forces, many children (over half million killed in Afghanistan btw).

No thanks. The Libyans can take care of themselves. You must be having a LAUGH if you think Western forces are intervening for humanitarian reasons (Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda? where were they? oh sorry, no oil).

This is about oil and regime change. Plain and simple imperialism.

Ah the retard cometh, you have no argument, don't stick you nose in other people's business, they don't want you.

2 million?

I'm, sorry, but the absolutely highest credible number of excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion is 1,000,000.

A tiny minority of those would have "been killed by Western forces"

So, you're chatting ****.

I hope you're right with regards to the Libyans sorting it out for themselves, but unfortunately, this isn't a game whereby if it goes tits up you can simply try again; lives are at stake. Gadaffi's air force decimated Brega, and you sincerely believe that the rebels are a match against a regime which has shown no mercy whatsoever?

As for your silly puppet argument, we could've replaced Saddam with a pro-West dictator, but we didn't, did we? And Karzai is hardly a pro-Western puppet.

To interfere for what? We had great deals prior to the uprising, surely if it was a better prospect we'd have propped up Gadaffi.

The West won't have a say in Egypt's elections. And I sure as hell hope that a European-style democracy is enforced, so that the Brotherhood's influence can be contained by some sort of secular coalition.

You are talking **** sorry. 2 million have been killed directly/indirectly by the West during Saddam year. I didn't says since the invasion. That's since the West began attacking Iraq, isolating it, incidentally after they got fed up of their puppet. If they'd kept their dirty mits out of the situation in the first place...notice a pattern here?

100k (very conservative, closer to a million from some sources) or whatever was quoted above, since the invasion, isn't that huge enough number? How many 9/11's is that? It doesn't look like ending any time soon. So no, Libya can do better off without Western 'aid'. Opportunistic scum; that's what these Western governments are. They do a great job of convincing the public, evidenced by people like you.

Why can't Brits and Americans understand, these foreigner don't want your ****ing help.

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
IBC records solely violent deaths.
IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.
IBC builds on innovative uses of new technologies without which this citizens’ initiative would be impossible. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.

That seems to strengthen the use of the IBC?

No, wouldn't trust it one bit.
It's run by the UK/America. & it has the lowest count out of all of them.