Libya, another Iraq another lie
Scroll to see replies
Original post by zohaib93
you are talking of illegitmate goverments, you said if the govern does not act in reflection of whats its people want its illegitimate, i jusat gave you a clera exmaple of the blair government and bush administration doing excatly that, tehri people did nto wnat the iraq war, not only did the pair atatck iraq but thjey attacked iraq on FALSE GROUNDS, so i ask you again do you have double standards or do you admit that the blair and bush governments were illegitmate?
the reason why this question is relevant to the libya conflict is so that i can assess whether you have double standards or not whether you have one rule for america and another for libya.
so answer the question
do you have double standards or do you admit the blair and bush governments were illegitmate
the reason why this question is relevant to the libya conflict is so that i can assess whether you have double standards or not whether you have one rule for america and another for libya.
so answer the question
do you have double standards or do you admit the blair and bush governments were illegitmate
I'm not sure if you are actually semi retarded, or if you are just making me write answers to your obviously holed arguments in order to waste my time...
As I'm sure you will recognise, there is something of a continuum between illegitimate and legitimate. It is not black and white, yes or no. You are certainly right that many people have been disturbed by revelations about how we came to go to war in Iraq. Even though It is not my view, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that it was a worst case scenario and Blair and Bush took us to war just so they could steal all Iraq's oil (and I must stress this is NOT what I think). But, anyway, let us assume.
Several points:
Firstly, both those leaders are now gone. Blair particularly becasue he faced mounting hostility from those he represented. That is partly democracy in action.
Quaddafi has been ruling Libya as his personal kingdom for 42 years! He has showed no sign of stepping down, and most commentators believe he is grooming his sons as successors. Now are you telling me that these are comparable political systems?
We have representative democracy in this country, and many times the government will act without conducting a plebiscite. Plebiscites are basically mob rule, and in principle thye reprasentative system is in place so that better informed people can represent our best interests. If our government makes decisions on our behalf that we don not like, we can vote them out. So even though there is a case (although personally I am not strongly in its favour) or arguing that Blair became somewhat illegitimate - he was soon forced out as our political system does not give our leaders unchecked power. There is no such checks and balances system in Libya, and that is why, when measured against each other, the Quadaffi system is infinitely more illegitimate than Britain's has been in centuries.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by zohaib93
yeh well don't expect me to believe such *******s
one two three maybe but 19 ffs get a grip, nush and co wnated a excuse to get in afghanistan so they could paly their sick games, adn guess what thsaddest part of it all is, its the fact that you believe that crap the bush adminustration told you.
one two three maybe but 19 ffs get a grip, nush and co wnated a excuse to get in afghanistan so they could paly their sick games, adn guess what thsaddest part of it all is, its the fact that you believe that crap the bush adminustration told you.
My god, is that really the best you can muster as a come back?!
You really are a complete f*ckwit aren't you.
I pity your bitter, twisted, warped, joyless existence.
Original post by teadrinker
I'm not sure if you are actually semi retarded, or if you are just making me write answers to your obviously holed arguments in order to waste my time...
As I'm sure you will recognise, there is something of a continuum between illegitimate and legitimate. It is not black and white, yes or no. You are certainly right that many people have been disturbed by revelations about how we came to go to war in Iraq. Even though It is not my view, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that it was a worst case scenario and Blair and Bush took us to war just so they could steal all Iraq's oil (and I must stress this is NOT what I think). But, anyway, let us assume.
Several points:
Firstly, both those leaders are now gone. Blair particularly becasue he faced mounting hostility from those he represented. That is partly democracy in action.
Quaddafi has been ruling Libya as his personal kingdom for 42 years! He has showed no sign of stepping down, and most commentators believe he is grooming his sons as successors. Now are you telling me that these are comparable political systems?
We have representative democracy in this country, and many times the government will act without conducting a plebiscite. Plebiscites are basically mob rule, and in principle thye reprasentative system is in place so that better informed people can represent our best interests. If our government makes decisions on our behalf that we don not like, we can vote them out. So even though there is a case (although personally I am not strongly in its favour) or arguing that Blair became somewhat illegitimate - he was soon forced out as our political system does not give our leaders unchecked power. There is no such checks and balances system in Libya, and that is why, when measured against each other, the Quadaffi system is infinitely more illegitimate than Britain's has been in centuries.
As I'm sure you will recognise, there is something of a continuum between illegitimate and legitimate. It is not black and white, yes or no. You are certainly right that many people have been disturbed by revelations about how we came to go to war in Iraq. Even though It is not my view, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that it was a worst case scenario and Blair and Bush took us to war just so they could steal all Iraq's oil (and I must stress this is NOT what I think). But, anyway, let us assume.
Several points:
Firstly, both those leaders are now gone. Blair particularly becasue he faced mounting hostility from those he represented. That is partly democracy in action.
Quaddafi has been ruling Libya as his personal kingdom for 42 years! He has showed no sign of stepping down, and most commentators believe he is grooming his sons as successors. Now are you telling me that these are comparable political systems?
We have representative democracy in this country, and many times the government will act without conducting a plebiscite. Plebiscites are basically mob rule, and in principle thye reprasentative system is in place so that better informed people can represent our best interests. If our government makes decisions on our behalf that we don not like, we can vote them out. So even though there is a case (although personally I am not strongly in its favour) or arguing that Blair became somewhat illegitimate - he was soon forced out as our political system does not give our leaders unchecked power. There is no such checks and balances system in Libya, and that is why, when measured against each other, the Quadaffi system is infinitely more illegitimate than Britain's has been in centuries.
you did deals with gaddafi when it SUITED YOU, and you are attacking him when it does not SUIT YOU , that stinks of double standards
gaddafi and many others think the british system is WRONG? so do they attack britain for not having a gaddafi style leadership? NO, so how dare the west interfere yet again in another arab country, kepe your hands feet and noses out of other countries, you are not god, you never will be.
Original post by zohaib93
you did deals with gaddafi when it SUITED YOU, and you are attacking him when it does not SUIT YOU , that stinks of double standards
gaddafi and many others think the british system is WRONG? so do they attack britain for not having a gaddafi style leadership? NO, so how dare the west interfere yet again in another arab country, kepe your hands feet and noses out of other countries, you are not god, you never will be.
gaddafi and many others think the british system is WRONG? so do they attack britain for not having a gaddafi style leadership? NO, so how dare the west interfere yet again in another arab country, kepe your hands feet and noses out of other countries, you are not god, you never will be.
Firstly, I have never made any claims to personal divinity.
There ARE double standards here. You are right. We should always have ostracised Quadaffi. Sadly the world is not a place where on can always play to the highest moral standards. And as it is true that our world needs oil to function, sometimes you have to do business with odious **** bags like Quadaffi. Sadly, in a cruel twist of subterranean georgaphy a lot of the world's oil lies under the feet of some of the world's nastiest little dictators. The alternative of having the world's economy gring to a halt is less preferable than sometime having to hold your nose as you do business. Westerners who complain about our business deals with dictators would soon change their tune as soon as the cost of living shot up to astronomical levels.
Also, it could be argued that Bush and Blair did very well at diplomatically negotiating Lybia's dismantling of its chemical, nuclear and biological weapons program. He would have been far more dangerous had we not achieved such. (actually, its quite funny to imagine Quadaffi fuming at having dismantled his nukes only a few years ago! double lol!)
The double standard of doing business with dictators, and then turning on them when the opportunity presents itself is not one to be as deeply ashamed of as the shame you should feel for defending such a murdering little scraggy throated scum bag as Quadaffi. And for having a micro penis. Probably.
Original post by zohaib93
gaddafi and many others think the british system is WRONG? so do they attack britain for not having a gaddafi style leadership? NO, so how dare the west interfere yet again in another arab country,
gaddafi and many others think the british system is WRONG? so do they attack britain for not having a gaddafi style leadership? NO, so how dare the west interfere yet again in another arab country,
You are INSANE man! You'r probably taking the same drugs that Quadaffi said the rebels were on! You are a total ****ing fruitcake!
How much popular support do you think a Libyan airstrike would have on Britain's air defenses? DO you think half of East Anglia would take up arms to try to implant a fat flatulent shades wearing murderer in Westminster? Do you think Ipswich would rise up to overthrow liberal democracy and have it replaced by the authoritarian and arbitrary rule of a family of lunatics?
On a more serious not, Quaddafi DID used to fund attacks on the British government, apparently supplying the IRA with most of the Semtex they've been using in the last 30 odd years.
But, seriously man, you really are a complete d1ck. It's almost frightening.
Original post by teadrinker
I'm not sure if you are actually semi retarded, or if you are just making me write answers to your obviously holed arguments in order to waste my time...
As I'm sure you will recognise, there is something of a continuum between illegitimate and legitimate. It is not black and white, yes or no. You are certainly right that many people have been disturbed by revelations about how we came to go to war in Iraq. Even though It is not my view, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that it was a worst case scenario and Blair and Bush took us to war just so they could steal all Iraq's oil (and I must stress this is NOT what I think). But, anyway, let us assume.
Several points:
Firstly, both those leaders are now gone. Blair particularly becasue he faced mounting hostility from those he represented. That is partly democracy in action.
Quaddafi has been ruling Libya as his personal kingdom for 42 years! He has showed no sign of stepping down, and most commentators believe he is grooming his sons as successors. Now are you telling me that these are comparable political systems?
We have representative democracy in this country, and many times the government will act without conducting a plebiscite. Plebiscites are basically mob rule, and in principle thye reprasentative system is in place so that better informed people can represent our best interests. If our government makes decisions on our behalf that we don not like, we can vote them out. So even though there is a case (although personally I am not strongly in its favour) or arguing that Blair became somewhat illegitimate - he was soon forced out as our political system does not give our leaders unchecked power. There is no such checks and balances system in Libya, and that is why, when measured against each other, the Quadaffi system is infinitely more illegitimate than Britain's has been in centuries.
As I'm sure you will recognise, there is something of a continuum between illegitimate and legitimate. It is not black and white, yes or no. You are certainly right that many people have been disturbed by revelations about how we came to go to war in Iraq. Even though It is not my view, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that it was a worst case scenario and Blair and Bush took us to war just so they could steal all Iraq's oil (and I must stress this is NOT what I think). But, anyway, let us assume.
Several points:
Firstly, both those leaders are now gone. Blair particularly becasue he faced mounting hostility from those he represented. That is partly democracy in action.
Quaddafi has been ruling Libya as his personal kingdom for 42 years! He has showed no sign of stepping down, and most commentators believe he is grooming his sons as successors. Now are you telling me that these are comparable political systems?
We have representative democracy in this country, and many times the government will act without conducting a plebiscite. Plebiscites are basically mob rule, and in principle thye reprasentative system is in place so that better informed people can represent our best interests. If our government makes decisions on our behalf that we don not like, we can vote them out. So even though there is a case (although personally I am not strongly in its favour) or arguing that Blair became somewhat illegitimate - he was soon forced out as our political system does not give our leaders unchecked power. There is no such checks and balances system in Libya, and that is why, when measured against each other, the Quadaffi system is infinitely more illegitimate than Britain's has been in centuries.
that 'continuum' is nothing other than your DOUBLE STANDARDS
Original post by teadrinker
You are INSANE man! You'r probably taking the same drugs that Quadaffi said the rebels were on! You are a total ****ing fruitcake!
How much popular support do you think a Libyan airstrike would have on Britain's air defenses? DO you think half of East Anglia would take up arms to try to implant a fat flatulent shades wearing murderer in Westminster? Do you think Ipswich would rise up to overthrow liberal democracy and have it replaced by the authoritarian and arbitrary rule of a family of lunatics?
On a more serious not, Quaddafi DID used to fund attacks on the British government, apparently supplying the IRA with most of the Semtex they've been using in the last 30 odd years.
But, seriously man, you really are a complete d1ck. It's almost frightening.
How much popular support do you think a Libyan airstrike would have on Britain's air defenses? DO you think half of East Anglia would take up arms to try to implant a fat flatulent shades wearing murderer in Westminster? Do you think Ipswich would rise up to overthrow liberal democracy and have it replaced by the authoritarian and arbitrary rule of a family of lunatics?
On a more serious not, Quaddafi DID used to fund attacks on the British government, apparently supplying the IRA with most of the Semtex they've been using in the last 30 odd years.
But, seriously man, you really are a complete d1ck. It's almost frightening.
IRA were also 'rebels' in that case and wanted rid of british rule in ireland, the rebels want an end to gaddafi rule in libya.
so if we play this by your rules, if you are backing NATO helping the rebels then you must also back the libyan government helping the IRA which are also rebels get rid of british rule in ireland?
if you back helping the libyan rebles but not back the IRA then you have double standards, sorry kiddo, but you seem retarded
Original post by teadrinker
Firstly, I have never made any claims to personal divinity.
There ARE double standards here. You are right. We should always have ostracised Quadaffi. Sadly the world is not a place where on can always play to the highest moral standards. And as it is true that our world needs oil to function, sometimes you have to do business with odious **** bags like Quadaffi. Sadly, in a cruel twist of subterranean georgaphy a lot of the world's oil lies under the feet of some of the world's nastiest little dictators. The alternative of having the world's economy gring to a halt is less preferable than sometime having to hold your nose as you do business. Westerners who complain about our business deals with dictators would soon change their tune as soon as the cost of living shot up to astronomical levels.
Also, it could be argued that Bush and Blair did very well at diplomatically negotiating Lybia's dismantling of its chemical, nuclear and biological weapons program. He would have been far more dangerous had we not achieved such. (actually, its quite funny to imagine Quadaffi fuming at having dismantled his nukes only a few years ago! double lol!)
The double standard of doing business with dictators, and then turning on them when the opportunity presents itself is not one to be as deeply ashamed of as the shame you should feel for defending such a murdering little scraggy throated scum bag as Quadaffi. And for having a micro penis Probably.
There ARE double standards here. You are right. We should always have ostracised Quadaffi. Sadly the world is not a place where on can always play to the highest moral standards. And as it is true that our world needs oil to function, sometimes you have to do business with odious **** bags like Quadaffi. Sadly, in a cruel twist of subterranean georgaphy a lot of the world's oil lies under the feet of some of the world's nastiest little dictators. The alternative of having the world's economy gring to a halt is less preferable than sometime having to hold your nose as you do business. Westerners who complain about our business deals with dictators would soon change their tune as soon as the cost of living shot up to astronomical levels.
Also, it could be argued that Bush and Blair did very well at diplomatically negotiating Lybia's dismantling of its chemical, nuclear and biological weapons program. He would have been far more dangerous had we not achieved such. (actually, its quite funny to imagine Quadaffi fuming at having dismantled his nukes only a few years ago! double lol!)
The double standard of doing business with dictators, and then turning on them when the opportunity presents itself is not one to be as deeply ashamed of as the shame you should feel for defending such a murdering little scraggy throated scum bag as Quadaffi. And for having a micro penis Probably.
that comment itself is full of hypocrisy and double standards
Original post by teadrinker
The Spanish actually beat us to that particular honour:
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013545.html
Nevertheless, it is an irrelevant point to this discussion. EVERY nation on earth has a dark side to its history. Just because you can point to a past atrocity does not mean that the present government or people of a nation can not cast their judgement, or indeed make a stand, against a paranoiac dictator who has turned heavy artillery against his own people.
No one is asking you to be 'proud' of your nation's history. In fact, national pride is all a bit passe. But in the same way, wallowing in national self hatred, and lacking the self confidence to recognise blatant injustice is equally corrupting.
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013545.html
Nevertheless, it is an irrelevant point to this discussion. EVERY nation on earth has a dark side to its history. Just because you can point to a past atrocity does not mean that the present government or people of a nation can not cast their judgement, or indeed make a stand, against a paranoiac dictator who has turned heavy artillery against his own people.
No one is asking you to be 'proud' of your nation's history. In fact, national pride is all a bit passe. But in the same way, wallowing in national self hatred, and lacking the self confidence to recognise blatant injustice is equally corrupting.
Gadaffi is responding to insurgency in his own country and has support from his own people. I was being ironic regarding Britain’s record. You must be American if you didn’t get that!
Original post by CODKING
Gadaffi is responding to insurgency in his own country and has support from his own people. I was being ironic regarding Britain’s record. You must be American if you didn’t get that!
He was already shooting protesters and using jets to bomb them before the rebellion started.
Original post by zohaib93
IRA were also 'rebels' in that case and wanted rid of british rule in ireland, the rebels want an end to gaddafi rule in libya.
so if we play this by your rules, if you are backing NATO helping the rebels then you must also back the libyan government helping the IRA which are also rebels get rid of british rule in ireland?
if you back helping the libyan rebles but not back the IRA then you have double standards, sorry kiddo, but you seem retarded
so if we play this by your rules, if you are backing NATO helping the rebels then you must also back the libyan government helping the IRA which are also rebels get rid of british rule in ireland?
if you back helping the libyan rebles but not back the IRA then you have double standards, sorry kiddo, but you seem retarded
*yawn*
*scratches balls*
We've been through this, darling.
In fact I went through it in some detail. The differences between the East Lybians and the IRA is clear. According to the 2009 opinion poll (I posted a link a while back) more than 60 percent are happy to be part of the UK (with devolved powers). The IRA turned violent after losing the democratic battle.
The East Lybians, I think it is fair to say, seem overwhelmingly against Quaddafi. Not only this, but whereas the N Irish democratically chose to remain part of the UK (thereby legitimising the government), the Libyans have no democratic rights to decide their own fate, nor recourse to peaceful protest. This means the East Libyans are fighting for a cause that is overwhelmingly popular (unlike the IRA) against an illegitimate (unelected) government (unlike the IRA) and what's more are restricting their attacks to military targets (unlike the IRA). Furthermore, the city of Benghazi was threatened with annihilation by the government - remind me the last time the British Government said they would show no mercy to the citizens of the Catholic districts of Belfast as they amassed heavy artillery outside the city gates?
Each 'rebel' movement must be judged by its merits. This is not a black and white issue: it is not true that if you support one group of 'rebels' you must support all 'rebels'. To anyone with even moderate intelligence, this should be clear. But then, having read repeated installments of your bull****, I understand you will never grasp such matters.
Why don't you go and join Quadaffi's forces if you are so keen to suck his cock. His team of Ukrainian nurses have already jumped ship, so I'm sure he's actively looking for a young catamite to caress his testicles. I hear a few Lybian lads from the UK have joined the rebels* - so they obviously, unlike you, are not all mouth. Failing that, as I said before, if you're such a little God's warrior, why don't you go and strap your self to some tubs of bleach and wreak Allah's revenge. Do us all a favour.
*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390143/Libya-crisis-London-teenager-drops-Wii-for-gun-to-join-rebels.html
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by teadrinker
*yawn*
*scratches balls*
We've been through this, darling.
In fact I went through it in some detail. The differences between the East Lybians and the IRA is clear. According to the 2009 opinion poll (I posted a link a while back) more than 60 percent are happy to be part of the UK (with devolved powers). The IRA turned violent after losing the democratic battle.
The East Lybians, I think it is fair to say, seem overwhelmingly against Quaddafi. Not only this, but whereas the N Irish democratically chose to remain part of the UK (thereby legitimising the government), the Libyans have no democratic rights to decide their own fate, nor recourse to peaceful protest. This means the East Libyans are fighting for a cause that is overwhelmingly popular (unlike the IRA) against an illegitimate (unelected) government (unlike the IRA) and what's more are restricting their attacks to military targets (unlike the IRA). Furthermore, the city of Benghazi was threatened with annihilation by the government - remind me the last time the British Government said they would show no mercy to the citizens of the Catholic districts of Belfast as they amassed heavy artillery outside the city gates?
Each 'rebel' movement must be judged by its merits. This is not a black and white issue: it is not true that if you support one group of 'rebels' you must support all 'rebels'. To anyone with even moderate intelligence, this should be clear. But then, having read repeated installments of your bull****, I understand you will never grasp such matters.
Why don't you go and join Quadaffi's forces if you are so keen to suck his cock. His team of Ukrainian nurses have already jumped ship, so I'm sure he's actively looking for a young catamite to caress his testicles. I hear a few Lybian lads from the UK have joined the rebels* - so they obviously, unlike you, are not all mouth. Failing that, as I said before, if you're such a little God's warrior, why don't you go and strap your self to some tubs of bleach and wreak Allah's revenge. Do us all a favour.
*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390143/Libya-crisis-London-teenager-drops-Wii-for-gun-to-join-rebels.html
*scratches balls*
We've been through this, darling.
In fact I went through it in some detail. The differences between the East Lybians and the IRA is clear. According to the 2009 opinion poll (I posted a link a while back) more than 60 percent are happy to be part of the UK (with devolved powers). The IRA turned violent after losing the democratic battle.
The East Lybians, I think it is fair to say, seem overwhelmingly against Quaddafi. Not only this, but whereas the N Irish democratically chose to remain part of the UK (thereby legitimising the government), the Libyans have no democratic rights to decide their own fate, nor recourse to peaceful protest. This means the East Libyans are fighting for a cause that is overwhelmingly popular (unlike the IRA) against an illegitimate (unelected) government (unlike the IRA) and what's more are restricting their attacks to military targets (unlike the IRA). Furthermore, the city of Benghazi was threatened with annihilation by the government - remind me the last time the British Government said they would show no mercy to the citizens of the Catholic districts of Belfast as they amassed heavy artillery outside the city gates?
Each 'rebel' movement must be judged by its merits. This is not a black and white issue: it is not true that if you support one group of 'rebels' you must support all 'rebels'. To anyone with even moderate intelligence, this should be clear. But then, having read repeated installments of your bull****, I understand you will never grasp such matters.
Why don't you go and join Quadaffi's forces if you are so keen to suck his cock. His team of Ukrainian nurses have already jumped ship, so I'm sure he's actively looking for a young catamite to caress his testicles. I hear a few Lybian lads from the UK have joined the rebels* - so they obviously, unlike you, are not all mouth. Failing that, as I said before, if you're such a little God's warrior, why don't you go and strap your self to some tubs of bleach and wreak Allah's revenge. Do us all a favour.
*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390143/Libya-crisis-London-teenager-drops-Wii-for-gun-to-join-rebels.html
most libyans want gaddafi in power, can you not see the heavily populated west libya supporting gaddafi or do you need specs? those that want gaddafi gone are al qaeda terrorists from benghazi, and are the minority. just liek america armed the taliban to fight russia and then occupied afgahnistan, thdy will now arm the rebels to fight gaddafi and then occupy libya,
americas obsession with occupation=route of all evil.
Original post by CODKING
Gadaffi is responding to insurgency in his own country and has support from his own people.
That is quite an assertion.
How do you know WHAT the people support when dissent is crushed and there have been no democratic elections since Quadaffi took power?
Does it look like the old Colonel has much support in the East to you?
I would suggest that you are talking right out of your fat arse.
Original post by zohaib93
most libyans want gaddafi in power, can you not see the heavily populated west libya supporting gaddafi or do you need specs? those that want gaddafi gone are al qaeda terrorists from benghazi, and are the minority. just liek america armed the taliban to fight russia and then occupied afgahnistan, thdy will now arm the rebels to fight gaddafi and then occupy libya,
americas obsession with occupation=route of all evil.
americas obsession with occupation=route of all evil.
I think it has more to do with the fact that as soon as anyone forms a group of 3 or more Gadaffis men come out of nowhere and arrest them. The media are not allowed to talk to anyone who is not government approved and the last women who tried disappeared.
Actually most of the people in Benghazi are not terrorists. You forget we have special forces on the ground as well as an intelligence operation at the same time looking for just that possibility.
America will not occupy Libya. You have a very limited understanding of the state of America right now.
And if you look into it America is wary of arming the Libyan rebels just in case the same thing as Afgan happens
Original post by Aj12
He was already shooting protesters and using jets to bomb them before the rebellion started.
ok lets believe the fantasy that thewest has no other motives than to protect civilians
arming rebels, and letting rebels break the no fly zone IS NOT PROTECTING REBELS, its ENCOURAGING CIVIL WAR AND HELPING REBELS NOT PROTECTING CIVILIANS
the last time i checked the REBELS WERE NOT CIVILIANS.
rmeidns me of afgahnistan, taliban and russia, arm taliban to figth russia, then attack and occupy afgjhanistan claiming taliban are terrorists,
in 10 years you will look back and see, america arming rebels to fight gaddafi, then atatcking and occupying libya claiming rebels are terrorist, america plays teis sly sneaky game,a nd foold liek you act liek the pawns and then you wonder why terrorism exists, america made the choice and created terrorism by its constant meddlign, now it is living and dying by the choices it made.Everyone has to live and die by the choice they make, AMERICA IS NO EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE
Original post by teadrinker
That is quite an assertion.
How do you know WHAT the people support when dissent is crushed and there have been no democratic elections since Quadaffi took power?
Does it look like the old Colonel has much support in the East to you?
I would suggest that you are talking right out of your fat arse.
How do you know WHAT the people support when dissent is crushed and there have been no democratic elections since Quadaffi took power?
Does it look like the old Colonel has much support in the East to you?
I would suggest that you are talking right out of your fat arse.
and how do you know the majority wnat gaddafi out?
does it look like rebels have much support in teh west of libya???
just because NATO or america make claims and accsuations, does nto mean its true.
you are so gullibel its beyond belief, get back to playing with lego or something.
Original post by zohaib93
most libyans want gaddafi in power, can you not see the heavily populated west libya supporting gaddafi or do you need specs? those that want gaddafi gone are al qaeda terrorists from benghazi, and are the minority. just liek america armed the taliban to fight russia and then occupied afgahnistan, thdy will now arm the rebels to fight gaddafi and then occupy libya,
americas obsession with occupation=route of all evil.
americas obsession with occupation=route of all evil.
You have no idea what the Libyans want when all dissent is crushed, and when there have been no democratic election since Quadaffi took power. You are basing this claim on your own warped mind and prejudices.
Secondly, the Americans did not fund the Taliban against the Russians, they funded the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets. A quick consultation with a history book should be in order. Like I explained to you before, the Soviet Afghan war did not take place in the 1990s, it took place in the 1980s. The Taliban did not form until about 1992 after the war had ended, and during the time the Afghans were fighting their own internecine conflicts.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Aj12
I think it has more to do with the fact that as soon as anyone forms a group of 3 or more Gadaffis men come out of nowhere and arrest them. The media are not allowed to talk to anyone who is not government approved and the last women who tried disappeared.
Actually most of the people in Benghazi are not terrorists. You forget we have special forces on the ground as well as an intelligence operation at the same time looking for just that possibility.
America will not occupy Libya. You have a very limited understanding of the state of America right now.
And if you look into it America is wary of arming the Libyan rebels just in case the same thing as Afgan happens
Actually most of the people in Benghazi are not terrorists. You forget we have special forces on the ground as well as an intelligence operation at the same time looking for just that possibility.
America will not occupy Libya. You have a very limited understanding of the state of America right now.
And if you look into it America is wary of arming the Libyan rebels just in case the same thing as Afgan happens
but thats exactly what america wants, occupation of yet another country, if the rebels want elections, fine they can create their own state in east libya with benghazi as the capital, they have no right to impose anythin upon west libya just like you say gaddafi has no right to impose power upon east libya, seems fair to me
Original post by zohaib93
ok lets believe the fantasy that thewest has no other motives than to protect civilians
arming rebels, and letting rebels break the no fly zone IS NOT PROTECTING REBELS, its ENCOURAGING CIVIL WAR AND HELPING REBELS NOT PROTECTING CIVILIANS
the last time i checked the REBELS WERE NOT CIVILIANS.
rmeidns me of afgahnistan, taliban and russia, arm taliban to figth russia, then attack and occupy afgjhanistan claiming taliban are terrorists,
in 10 years you will look back and see, america arming rebels to fight gaddafi, then atatcking and occupying libya claiming rebels are terrorist, america plays teis sly sneaky game,a nd foold liek you act liek the pawns and then you wonder why terrorism exists, america made the choice and created terrorism by its constant meddlign, now it is living and dying by the choices it made.Everyone has to live and die by the choice they make, AMERICA IS NO EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE
arming rebels, and letting rebels break the no fly zone IS NOT PROTECTING REBELS, its ENCOURAGING CIVIL WAR AND HELPING REBELS NOT PROTECTING CIVILIANS
the last time i checked the REBELS WERE NOT CIVILIANS.
rmeidns me of afgahnistan, taliban and russia, arm taliban to figth russia, then attack and occupy afgjhanistan claiming taliban are terrorists,
in 10 years you will look back and see, america arming rebels to fight gaddafi, then atatcking and occupying libya claiming rebels are terrorist, america plays teis sly sneaky game,a nd foold liek you act liek the pawns and then you wonder why terrorism exists, america made the choice and created terrorism by its constant meddlign, now it is living and dying by the choices it made.Everyone has to live and die by the choice they make, AMERICA IS NO EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE
Actually unless you missed it before the rebellion started Gadaffi was shooting civilians bombing civilians and using heavy weapons on civilians.
This is nothing like Afghanistan in the 80's.
No America will not occupy Libya. Get that through your thick skull. They have no reason to occupy Libya and no one in the country wants to. Or do you not realize that occupying a country costs a shedload of money and most Americans do not want to see an occupation or even any kind of intervention the no fly zone was hard enough to get.
America did not create terrorism I think you will find it has been going on for at least the last 500 years.
And for God sake learn to bloody spell its a pain in the ass to try to read your posts and work out what your saying.
Original post by zohaib93
but thats exactly what america wants, occupation of yet another country, if the rebels want elections, fine they can create their own state in east libya with benghazi as the capital, they have no right to impose anythin upon west libya just like you say gaddafi has no right to impose power upon east libya, seems fair to me
The rebels (or most Libyans) do not want a partitioned state. Gadaffi has no right to impose his power through the use of bullets and bombs on any one of his people
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- Medicine reject after gap year.
- should i stay in nursing or transfer to biomedical science
- Intersection of planes / normals question
- How do i deny being bi when i actually am
- Being fired from work for misconduct
- Further maths vectors. Proving 2 lines lie in the same plane
- Reapplying to Medicine after getting kicked out
- Trying to do A-Levels abroad.
- Epq
- My parents forced me to do maths a level and I’m really upset and struggling
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Ucas application
- can i withdraw my ucas application and apply for a different subject
- Resit A level while in uni, what should I put in my UCAS Application
- is afghanistan pronounced AF-ghanistan or af-ghani-STAN?
- Dropping an A-Level
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
- LNAT reassurance
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
