Libya, another Iraq another lie

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.

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

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.

mujahadeen=jihadist, taliban are mujahadeens, in fact all terrorists are you clown.

It's quite simple. Democratic elections need to be held to find out what the people want.

As it is Quadaffi who has stopped ANY attempt at political discourse in his country, the fair assumption is that he has something to hide. Ie. he knows he does not have popular support.

Furthermore, the support that Quadaffi's DOES have is partially derived from the results of a 42 year old personality cult.

The Afghan Taliban evolved out of numerous Mujahideen groups. The Taliban was formed my Mohammed Omar who was in conflict with other Mujahideen groups. It is misleading to say the US funded the Taliban, and it is agreed the Taliban formed in 1992. The Asfghan Soviet War ended in the 80s.

For someone who thought there was an Afghan-Russian conflict in the 1990s, I think the title 'clown' is all yours.

Thanks!

libyas population is concentrated in the west esp. tripoli, the west esp. tripoli supports gaddafi, so no thr rebels do not have any right to demand that gaddafi leaves, MOST libyans actually support gaddafi

The population of Benghazi is 700,000, Misrata is 500,000, Al bayda is 200,000 Tobruk is 75,000, Brega and Ras Lanouf combined add another 20,000. In addition to this there are an array of smaller towns and villages.

The population of cities held by the rebels constitutes more than a quarter of the population. In addition, until recently there were thousands on the streets of Tripoli, as well as other cities. And I tell you, it takes a lot more guts to take to the streets in a police state than it does in this country - the chances are you'll get a damn sight more done to you than a bit of kettling. It is safe to assume therefore that there are significant elements even in the west who are keen to get rid of Quadaffi.

It is hard to argue these are insignificant numbers. Just to put things into context, according to the survey I posted before (conducted in 2009) less than 30% supported unification with Eire. That means the IRA of whom you frequently use for comparison, at the most generous estimate, represent the 'interests' (and far fewer people who support unification support violent tactics) of less than 600,000 out of a UK total population of 60 million.

incase you didn't know 8 and 9 sit ebsides each other on a keyboard, i rest my case on that topic.

ok so america funded JIHADISTS then. HAPPY? its was fine with america as long as these JIHADISTS TARGETED RUSSIA, but hey double standards america didn't like it when they targeted america.

america is reaping what it sowed, it sowed the destuction of russia, now fate has come back to bite america on its backside, and its reaping the rewards of plotting russia's destruction, thsoe who plot to destroy other shall themselves be destroyed

You rest your case?! A real little lawyer we have in the making hey! Which case exactly are you resting, may I ask? That you are a competition winning knobend?

That you can't grasp the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union, nor that the Taliban did not come into existence until after the US stopped funding the Mujahideen leads me to believe your little decade 'typo' was something more along the lines of you not knowing the **** what you're talking about. But hey. You go right ahead and rest your case.



Like I said earlier, your faliure to appreciate the difference between Russia and the USSR is suggestive of deeper ignorance. The US funding of the Mujahideen was part of the Cold War during which the US aimed to economically exhaust the USSR. This tactic obviously had its pitfalls and dangers, but essentially it succeeded, as 1989 showed. (that's nineteen EIGHTY-nine by the way - I hope you're keeping up).

You allege that the US funding of the Mujahideen was some sort of grand conspiracy: that they wanted to reap chaos to create a pretext for their own 'occupation'. Apart from its obvious absurdity (to the sane, anyway), you seem to forget that nearly 15 years elapsed between the Soviet withdrawal and the US led invasion. Besides, you also allege that Bush exploded the twin towers. So why would they need a 15 year old pretext to 'occupy' when they could just destroy downtown Manhattan?

you are just assuming there are people in west libya who want gaddafi out but are fearful to say so, i can same that there are people in east libya who want gaddafi to stay but are fearful to say so????

so your point on that front is pretty much futile

Arguing with the mentally ill (that's a category you fall into, by the way)is often regarded as a futile exercise. I find it holds a certain amusement factor though.

You CAN certainly claim that people in the East want him to stay but are to afraid to say so. The problem with your argument is we are dealing with a despot who does not allow public expression. If he allowed a democratic discourse in Libya then we would have a much clearer impression of who wants what, and could have a much more productive argument (well - with you, possibly not). The fact that he is so keen to hide what the public wants must lead us to conclude, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, that he has something to hide: namely, that he has far less support than idiot delusionals like you (or he) think.

Freedom of expression is one of the benefits of a liberal democratic system. But as you told me before, you don't believe that democracy is the best way for Libya. You support the arbitrary rule of a geriatric psychopath.

well look at how the towers fall, kiddo, CONTROLLED EXPLOSION, well unless the terrorist used parachutes and managed to escape and plalnt explosives in the towers i don't see how you can get a controlled explosion by crashing a plane into a building.

the jihadist terrorism is of american doing,fund the JIHADIST AND BRING DOWN THE USSR(HAPPY NOW I SAID USSR) now it is paying the price.

now america are on another crusade, arm the rebels bring down gaddafi, the same will happen again, gaddafi wil go, but america will probably end up paying another price.

america is against dictator gaddafi, yet for 30 years it supported dictator mubarak

it sheltered dictator shah till his death

it supports the dictators of bahrain, saudi, kuwait, qatar

yet america condemns the democratic government of iran

i rest my case

america is against dictator gaddafi, yet for 30 years it supported dictator mubarak

it sheltered dictator shah till his death

it supports the dictators of bahrain, saudi, kuwait, qatar

yet america condemns the democratic government of iran

i rest my case

america is against dictator gaddafi, yet for 30 years it supported dictator mubarak

it sheltered dictator shah till his death

it supports the dictators of bahrain, saudi, kuwait, qatar

yet america condemns the democratic government of iran

i rest my case

There are neo-cons whose political philosophy is to support the spread of democracy wherever they can, regardless of the consequences. It is a noble attitude in many ways.

However, if the US administration worked to this principle it would ground to a halt economically, in addition they would no doubt be accused of interference in the affairs of other sovereign states. Sadly, the West has its balls grasped by the grubby claws of a collection of cheap and nasty little dictators. These dictators did not achieve their positions of power through feats of entrepreneurship, invention or initiative. Rather they were just blessed by sub-terranean good luck. They live above naturally occuring reserves of oil. And it is oil that makes the world go around.

In Eastern Europe the West did a much better job of developing its contacts in democratic dissident circles, and more importantly the Poles, Czechs Hungarians and so on showed such spirit and determination and initiative to develop democratic alternatives to authoritarian rule that by 1989 they had thrown off their authoritarian rulers and embraced democratic change.

The Arabs, by contrast, have less history of democratic practices that the E. Europeans., And it is my belief that they are (sadly) culturally averse to democracy - with Islamism being a particular retardant on its development.

The Americans are stuck between a rock and hard place. They need the oil, yet the dictators they have to deal with contradict their political principles. I am not an idealist, and I understand why they have taken the course they have, but I hope this Arab Spring goes some way to persuading the US that they have to put their faith in democratic change in the Arab world.

I am not here to argue that the US has a whiter than white history, far from it. But the fact that the US has made mistakes before in its dealings with other countries, does not invalidate its actions when it DOES pursue the right course. AS it is doing in Libya.

If your case rests on the idea of Iran being democratic, let it rest indeed.

If your case rests on the idea of Iran being democratic, let it rest indeed.