Libya, another Iraq another lie

it does invalidate it when its reminiscent of both the iraq and the arming of jihadists, both massive mistakes, what to say that whilst todays its a no fly zone over libya, it won't be occupation tomorrow? just like it happend in iraq? no fly zone form 91-03, then occupation.

who is to say arming the rebels today won't lead to open terrorism tommorow? just like it did with the 'mujahadeen' as you like to call them???? which willl tehn be followed by teh occupation of libya on the grounds of terrorim just like afghanistan

this war on libya is a mixture of both afgahnsitan and iraq.

my point is america is playing a sly and sneaky game, its seen what has happened when similar actions have been taken in the past and its a hurry to repeat those actions hoping the same outcoem will occur so it can occupy yet another country

you state that america has no choice but to play the two faced bitch with dictators because america needs oil, i would actually acceot that as a reason if it actually wa strue, but it isn't though is it?

then tell me when iran ousted the shah, WHY did america FEEL COMPELLED to shelter the dictator.

your answer to this will be interesting.

After Iraq and Afghanistan, the last thing america wants or needs is to occupy a third country.

Let's just wait and see hey. If there is a unilateral US occupation of Lybia in the next 15 years, I will be rather surprised to say the least.

In the mean time, you should follow your 'convictions' and join the green brigades. But you won't, because you are all mouth, no guts, and you don't believe your own propaganda. You're just an angry bitter inarticulate young man, partial to the idea of a few conspiracy theories, and ****ed up by identity issues and a lack of education.

As far as I am aware the Shah spent only 2 months in the US receiving treatment at hospital before going to Panama and then ending his days rather shortly afterwards in Egypt.

The US did not shelter him - or if they did - they didn't make a particularly good fist of it.

From what I have read about the Shah's rule in Iran, it was a rather unpleasant affair, and the US propping him up like they did was not a glorious moment in their history.

Like I said before, I am not here to argue that the US's history has been 300 years of unblemished innocence. My beef is with Quadaffi, and I think NATO's current action is the morally correct thing to do.

However, I have my worries that politically, it may turn out to have awkward consequences. As I have stated before (if not in this 'debate' but in others on TSR) I believe the West was presented with a lose-lose situation.

well usa are withdrawing at this end of this year form iraq COMPLETELY, so they can get ready for libya, its coming, you might have those american tinted specs on, but you will soon take them off and see the reality.

iraq 91, arabian peninsula all through the 90s, afghanistan since 2001, iraq again since 2003, next will be libya, amrk my words, america is so obsessed with occuaption that if it was to rated it on a sclae of 0 to 10, it would be infinity, its ever increasing.
occupation is an american obsession and it will keep on occurring till teh end of time,

my point is america loves american puppet dictators but does not like those dictators which are not american puppets, thats DOUBLE STANDARDS, so stick americas unresreved support for 'democracy' where the sun does not shine, because its a farce.

If it was a choice between wearing my 'American tinted specs' or your position of having your head up the arse of a flatulent (according to John Simpson) geriatric dictator, I'd take the specs every time, thanks.

If all you previous bile and vitriol now boils down to accusations of double standards (tell me a government that doesn't practice some form of double standards) well I think I'll take that on the chin.

My accusations against the Quaddafi regime include but are not limited to:

Hijacking a nation and ruling it as his own personal fiefdom
Suppressing freedom of expression
Suppressing any political discourse
Egregious human rights infringements
Grooming his playboy sons as successors in a grotesque dynasty
The massacre of his own citizens
Employing a secret police that would make the Shah of Iran proud
Allowing the rape and torture of his own citizens
Financial corruption - in essence stealing from his own people
Crimes against fashion

and to be honest, this is supposed to be a debate about Lybia, not the US. The NATO action was instigated by European nations anyway. But what does that matter to a delusional bitter ****wit such as yourself, hey?

i am no sympathiser of gaddafi, i am just saying america has no right to meddle with anyones affairs given it two faced bitch stance on such subjects in the past and its unreliablity in gathering intelligence such as iraqs WMD and obsession with occupying foreign lands, so no your accusation is baseless whereas mine isn;'t kiddo

on americas intereference in libya,

civilians are a secondary objective, primary is strategic interests such as oil

false intelligence, proven by the WMD claims, claims about gaddafi unrelaible, which refutes all of your accusations above by the way

and ofcourse american obsession with occupation, tehre is nothign to stop american occupying libya

No sympathiser of Quaddafi eh!?

In your world view, America is the font of all evil. Whilst your teenage angst phase lasts, you will believe nothing else.

As I said before, If I were you and I genuinely believed what you say you believe I would at least have the honour to live by my convictions as join the poor beleaguered defenders of true Libya. I posted a link to an article that reports UK Lybians joining the rebels, so why wont you fight for your beliefs? What exactly are you doing to right the world that has been so wronged by America? Please, do tell.

This is an unsubstantiated allegation. But no matter what happens, you will not drop it. So we are wasting each other time. This is to my disadvantage obviously, as I'm sure you fill your own time with nothing but an uninterrupted string of misery ****s over aged Arabian male military figures.



The only 'claim' about Quadaffi I need is his own words: "we will annihilate BEnghazi" When he said that, and with memories of the Rwandan genocide that the UN failed to prevent, the international community had no choice but to do something.



We've been through this before. Please refer to my first point about time wasting.

i never said i 'support gaddafi' so your argument is irrelavnt and you assumed i supported gaddafi, i just said america has no right waht so ever to interfere in libya, given its proven record of false claims, arming jihadists aswell as then occupiing foreign lands

So far you have told me you don;t support liberal democracy in Libya

You don;t support Gaddafi

You don;t support the rebels

You don;t support international intervention

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child.

It is easy to criticise everything and everyone, but the world of international relations is a difficult arena which doesn't allow for such evasion. You have to make positive decisions from time to time. Sure, that may make you a 'two faced bitch' but for those who have to engage with reality (which you obviously do not), it is an essential and tricky balancing act. You evade any such responsibility by providing no positive ideas or solutions and therefore I can not take you seriously. (not that I ever did)

As I always reply to your questions, yet you fail to reply to any of mine, I want you to tell me the following:

What SHOULD happen in Lybia? Give me a positive vision.

You say you don't support Quadaffi, yet you don't support democracy, what the hell do you support there?

What DO you believe in exactly?

You don't support Quaddaffi, yet you acknowledge the people are powerless to remove him as there is no freedom of expression or political discourse, this leaves you sitting on a rather strange fence, warped by your own deficient logic.

Why are you (as someone who has such insight into the evil of america) doing NOTHING to change the world for the better? *


*yes, ok, I know it's because you are a talentless adolescent who doesn't actually believe his own propaganda and is incapable of doing anything other than mouthing off on internet forums (and even when doing that still managing to didge the trickiest questions). It was more a rhetorical question, I suppose.

A two state solution. my point on america is ithat is the most two faced, bitchiest country on earth, full of double standards. obsessed with occupying foreign nation using any means necessary even if that menas arming 'mujahdeen' as you call them.

leave libya be, its not americas business, and it has no right to waddle into libya.

A two state solution. my point on america is ithat is the most two faced, bitchiest country on earth, full of double standards. obsessed with occupying foreign nation using any means necessary even if that menas arming 'mujahdeen' as you call them.

leave libya be, its not americas business, and it has no right to waddle into libya.

Well?? come one? Has the retard run out of batteries?

How would your 2 state Lybia work when Quadaffi doesn;t agree with your diplomatic proposal, has all the guns and is at the gates of what would be your East Libyan capital saying he's going to show no mercy?

I'm waitng to hear

i cannot belive you followed up my 'suggestion , incase you didn't notice it was tongue in cheek, i wasn't actually serious about it you clown

whatever the answer is, america waddling in and preparing for yet another occupational mission is definately not the solution, the african union have proved that.