Libya, another Iraq another lie

...well we did invent concentration camps. Makes you proud doesn't it?

Who the hell negged you?

yes it does, it devalues infact it totally invalidates it becuase the intention is not to save lives but is to secure strategic interests, saving lives is a seocndary objective.

Its probably right to help because the poeple themselves are ready to rebel. But the problem comes when the counrty must rebuild itseld and how the west imposes itself which will probably be negative due to the selfish motives of oil and to have not necessarily a libyan people wanted governmnent but a western and possibly UN approved government bringing definate stability even if it means sacrificing the needs and rights of the libyan poeople because remember the west does support alot of middle eatern dictators.

or so the british say, just like iraqs wmd

As far as I can see, the Lybia situation is lose/lose for NATO.

If we hadn't done anything we were most likely going to be faced with another Rwanda - a conflict that still haunts the international community with guilt.

However, the intervention in it's present form was always going to be prone to end in awkward stalemate. Already the rebels are complaining that we are not doing ENOUGH. Soon they may turn even more hostile towards us. If the rebels are crushed we will not only be left with a Qaddafi regime in Tripoli, but will also forever be remembered by East Lybians as duplicitous, or as having outright abandoned them.

What's more there are rumours that Al Qaeda have already infiltrated the rebel forces - so who exactly ARE we helping?

The whole thing is a complete **** up, and the British and the Americans were and are always going to be hated in this region, no matter what they do.

We have an array of corrupt and violent regimes in the Arab world who in this Spring of uprisings have already killed thousands of their own people for no more reason other than to keep their fat, grubby little thieving hands on their thrones of power. That the greatest vitriol from the "Zohaibs" of the world is directed at the West (how we are 'murdering' Arabs when we are attempting to avert a massacre) is a clear illustration of how the Arab world and the West will not be seeing things eye to eye for a long time to come.

The difference between those fighting against the Lybian regime and the IRA is obvious to most rational people who have a modicum of knowledge of world affairs. However, as you are neither rational nor, it seems, particulalry well informed, I will spell out the single key difference.

The Lybian regime has no legitimacy. It has not been elected by it's people.

Personally, I am rather ambivalent to the NI issue, if they voted to secede from the union, I would wish them all the best. However, the IRA turned to violence after they FAILED to win the democratic battle.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

This 2009 survey shows that the majority of NI citizens still support being part of the UK (this breaks down as 91% of Protestants and 40 % of Catholics).

Therefore, in Lybia you have Lybian citizens fighting against an illegitimate government (which of course uses FAR more brutality than the British government would ever DREAM of using in NI).

And in NI, you have a discredited band of militants carrying out bombings against predominantly civilian targets, designed to destabilise a democratically elected government.

I hope this helps.

the rebels are TERRORISTS, just like AMERICA AIDED THE TALIBAN IN THE 90s they are no willing to do the same to the TERRORIST REBELS OF LIBYA, and then the americans will come back to OCCUPY LIBYA once the REBEL TERRORISTS **** america right over, another iraq? another afghanistan more like.

how much oil does america want?, just ask gaddafi, im sure he will give you enough to set yourself on fire and rid the earth of you burden and your obsession with the occupation of foreign countries

the libyan government told westren oil companies to pay up properly for libyan oil or do one, and thats one thing you do not like, your cheap oil days were over, and that why teh west interfered in libya so that they could have a puppet government just like in iraq who will sell you cheap oil.

how is britain and who is america and who teh heck are you to make it a 'FACT' that teh libyan goverment is illegitimate,

Firstly, your descent into incoherence is amusing.



The West knows the days of cheap oil is over. It is also fed up of pandering to little tin pot middle eastern dictators and their personality cults. See how it is frantically scrabbling around for alternative sources of energy. Regardless of all political realities, the oil is a finite source that is rapidly diminishing.

Let me repeat two point I touched upon earlier:

European states had been going through a normalisation of relations with Lybia and the oil companies were doing a decent trade. They will not be doing much business in the foreseeable future as the country is in turmoil. The status quo was in EVERYONE's business interests. This unrest is ****ing up a lot of western business.

Secondly, the Arab oil producing nations NEED Western oil companies. People always talk as if it's oil companies going into Arab nations and raping their oil fields. Lets get something straight: If it wasn't for their naturally occurring oil reserves, Arab oil producing nations would be an insignificant 3rd world backwater. They survive by SELLING their oil, and they would not get by without their customers in the West and the rest of the world who BUY the oil. The sad thing is that some Arab governments are so shamelessly corrupt and so negligent towards their own citizens that in many oil producing countries the money that is raised through oil exports is siphoned off by the elite, leaving the rest of the population in poverty.



Legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed - that is to say from regular democratic elections between multiple candidates conducted in a transparent manner. How can we derive legitimacy from anything else? Legitimacy is also strengthened by a government that reflects and acts upon the desires of its people, and looks after their welfare. I have no doubt you would support such a vile dictator as Qaddafi to the bitter end and discount or refuse to accept the brutality of his regime, perhaps it is because you have a slavish mentality. All dictators need their lackeys, and you would probably do a good job of sucking dictatorial c0ck if the opportunity presented itself.

the rebels are TERRORISTS, just like AMERICA AIDED THE TALIBAN IN THE 90s they are no willing to do the same to the TERRORIST REBELS OF LIBYA, and then the americans will come back to OCCUPY LIBYA once the REBEL TERRORISTS **** america right over, another iraq? another afghanistan more like.

how much oil does america want?, just ask gaddafi, im sure he will give you enough to set yourself on fire and rid the earth of you burden and your obsession with the occupation of foreign countries

Firstly, your descent into incoherence is amusing.



The West knows the days of cheap oil is over. It is also fed up of pandering to little tin pot middle eastern dictators and their personality cults. See how it is frantically scrabbling around for alternative sources of energy. Regardless of all political realities, the oil is a finite source that is rapidly diminishing.

Let me repeat two point I touched upon earlier:

European states had been going through a normalisation of relations with Lybia and the oil companies were doing a decent trade. They will not be doing much business in the foreseeable future as the country is in turmoil. The status quo was in EVERYONE's business interests. This unrest is ****ing up a lot of western business.

Secondly, the Arab oil producing nations NEED Western oil companies. People always talk as if it's oil companies going into Arab nations and raping their oil fields. Lets get something straight: If it wasn't for their naturally occurring oil reserves, Arab oil producing nations would be an insignificant 3rd world backwater. They survive by SELLING their oil, and they would not get by without their customers in the West and the rest of the world who BUY the oil. The sad thing is that some Arab governments are so shamelessly corrupt and so negligent towards their own citizens that in many oil producing countries the money that is raised through oil exports is siphoned off by the elite, leaving the rest of the population in poverty.



Legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed - that is to say from regular democratic elections between multiple candidates conducted in a transparent manner. How can we derive legitimacy from anything else? Legitimacy is also strengthened by a government that reflects and acts upon the desires of its people, and looks after their welfare. I have no doubt you would support such a vile dictator as Qaddafi to the bitter end and discount or refuse to accept the brutality of his regime, perhaps it is because you have a slavish mentality. All dictators need their lackeys, and you would probably do a good job of sucking dictatorial c0ck if the opportunity presented itself.

who are you to say 'elections' and 'democracy' are right, you run your country, let gaddafi run his.

so why did america and britain attack iraq ON FALSE CLAIMS when the majority of their people were agaisnt it? do you now acceot the bush administration and the blair government were illegitimate? as tehy did nto act upon the wish of tehri people

Your first sentence is rather hard to follow owing to its poor construction, therefore I may have this wrong, but it seems you are calling the Mujahideen terrorists too. This, implies you were for a Soviet puppet government being imposed in Afghanistan. Your first sentence is also factually inaccurate (a habit of yours, actually). The USA did not fund the Taliban as such, rather the Mujahideen, and this was not in the 90s but in the 1980s. Elements of the Mujahideen did, indeed, become the Taliban (as I understand it). I'm unsure what points you are attempting to make by your semi-incoherent tirade, but I shall make the following points:

It is hard to justify calling the East Lybians terrorists. As I posted before, the comparison that somebody made between the East Lybians and the IRA is farcical. The IRA moved to violence after failing to win the democratic battle - they are therefore fighting against a legitimate democratically elected government (see my link above about opinions in NI). Not only this but they target civilian targets with bombs.

The East Libyans are fighting against military targets, and are also fighting against an illegitimate government. As I said earlier - legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed - ie. regular democratic elections. We do not know how opinion divides nationally, but from the unrest in Tripoli it seems a fair assumption to make that hatred of the regime is not restricted to the East (which it seems fair to conclude is overwhelmingly anti-Qaddafi). Furthermore, it could be argued many are fighting for the freedom to peaceful protest, a right that all modern societies should allow its citizens.

The American's ended up being stung after their support the Mujahideen - as we said before, elements of the Mujahideen did evolve into the Taliban - nevertheless, I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make in relation to the Libya debate. I would have thought you also would have been on the side of the Mujahideen in the Soviet Afghan War.

I think the best explanation for your incoherence is that you are a bit of a thicky.

Thanks!

the mujahadeen is a term used for those engaged in JIHAD, research it if you want.

afghanistan was a game which america knew they would win by killing two brids with one stone, they armed the terrorists so that russia would not strengthen its interests in the region, and then america knew it would have ground for occupying afghanistan itself once terrorism prevails in the country

i will laugh my head off when libyan TERRORISTS OF BENGHAZI **** america right over

and tor ound off i question the charade of 9/11 you are seriously telling me 19 etrrirst got through security without any american knowledcge, america staged it, even the aflling of the towers is controlled. unliek you i am not subjected to american *******s i ahev a head and i use it and do nto beleive anything and evertything that your 'LORD BUSH OR LORD BLAIR OR LORD OBAMA' tell you.

I have much more sympathy with those criticising the Iraq conflict. But this is not a debate about the Iraq conflict. It is a debate about Lybia. You may be losing the debate, but I ask you to stick to the topic as best you can.

Thanks!

the mujahadeen is a term used for those engaged in JIHAD, research it if you want.

afghanistan was a game which america knew they would win by killing two brids with one stone, they armed the terrorists so that russia would not strengthen its interests in the region, and then america knew it would have ground for occupying afghanistan itself once terrorism prevails in the country

i will laugh my head off when libyan TERRORISTS OF BENGHAZI **** america right over

and tor ound off i question the charade of 9/11 you are seriously telling me 19 etrrirst got through security without any american knowledcge, america staged it, even the aflling of the towers is controlled. unliek you i am not subjected to american *******s i ahev a head and i use it and do nto beleive anything and evertything that your 'LORD BUSH OR LORD BLAIR OR LORD OBAMA' tell you.

the rebels are TERRORISTS, just like AMERICA AIDED THE TALIBAN IN THE 90s

afghanistan was a game which america knew they would win by killing two brids with one stone, they armed the terrorists so that russia would not strengthen its interests in the region, and then america knew it would have ground for occupying afghanistan itself once terrorism prevails in the country

i will laugh my head off when libyan TERRORISTS OF BENGHAZI **** america right over

and tor ound off i question the charade of 9/11 you are seriously telling me 19 etrrirst got through security without any american knowledcge, america staged it, even the aflling of the towers is controlled. unliek you i am not subjected to american *******s i ahev a head and i use it and do nto beleive anything and evertything that your 'LORD BUSH OR LORD BLAIR OR LORD OBAMA' tell you.

ok, so to resume our little to and fro:

Yes, Mujahideen is a term for those engaged in jihad. Nothing I have said would contradict that. I was merely correcting your error riddled account of what happened in the Soviet Afghan war. According to you the US ploughed money into the Taliban to fight the Soviets or as you elegantly put it:



As I tried to point out to you, the Americans aided what was generically called the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s. The Taliban's birth is somewhat murky, but most agree it did not form until about 1992 when the Mujahideen groups were battling each other for power in Kabul and the Soviets had long left. I fear it is you, my dear chap, who needs to do a bit of research.

Now, moving on:



It is true that throughout the Cold War America tussled for influence with the Soviet Union. But your suggestion that America thought that by arming the Mujahideen they would somehow manage to create an environment condusive to an "American occupation" is rather far fetched. ALthough, as I have already seen you are impervious to reasonable argument I suspect there is little point pursuing this part of the debate.



Well, this just about sums up your warped little mind. It's a pity you are all mouth and that you wouldn't have the guts to try a bit of DIY jihad yourself. Personally, I'd love to see you self detonate. But then I suppose the sh1t would take weeks to clean off the walls of wherever you pressed the button.



And yes, I am telling you that. You c0ck.