Protests in Libya

yeh the un have been sitting back for 40 years and now think enough is enough, dont make me laugh.

oil prices are going up as well by the way.

Something has to be done. We cannot just sit back and watch a civil war.

I had this attitude but then I realised that the superpowers, (not saying any names) are selfish- only caring for their interests first and foremost- money most of the time.

The oil prices has very little to do with this. Its more of a general thing to do with the Middle East and the unrest in the other countries.

If the people do not want to fight for change then invading a country to oust a dictator will only backfire

I had this attitude but then I realised that the superpowers, (not saying any names) are selfish- only caring for their interests first and foremost majority of the time.

False, I am not saying anything of the sort. Please retract your misleading claim.

The "international community" (whatever the hell that is) are free to condemn whoever they like. But they aren't free to call him a criminal unless he has actually broken a law. As he is in the nation of Libya, he is under Libyan jurisdiction. Therefore, to be a "criminal", he needs to have violated Libyan law - Do you understand that?

We have the same thing in Britain. Any citizen can "condemn" any other citizen for something, but they can't call them a criminal unless the person has actually broken a law. as that would be slander. To use my analogy of bankers again, I strongly condemn them getting large bonuses. In my opinion, people like Fred Goodwin don't have any morals. But this doesn't make them criminals, as they have not broken any laws of the nation in which they reside.

So if you and your "international community" want to condemn Gadaffi, by all means go ahead. But if you call him a "criminal", please at least backup the claim by quoting Libyan legislation, and how you feel Gadaffi is violating of it. That is of course assuming you base your claims on something, as opposed to running around calling people criminals just because they don't have morals ?

Well from that angle Libya has shut off oil.

If it was a bigger producer the US would be in there like a shot

Apparently he does have some stocks of chemical weapons that were meant to be destroyed but never were. Part of an agreement he made with Blair.

read this from the bbc and guardian have you?

8:45pm Randa Fahmy Hudome, the former US Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, tells Al Jazeera that Obama is being "characteristically quiet' on Libya.

She says Western countries have little leverage on Libya, given years of cold relations.

"We have to look at the history about what our relationship has been with Libya," she said.

The Libyan elite, she notes, has done well since their country came in from the cold, after Gaddafi agreed to give up his WMD in 2003 in a deal with the Bush Administration. In return, Libya was removed from the "terrorist" list and international sanctions were lifted.

He managed to hold on to some chemical weapons, she comments.

But does Gaddafi care about sanction threats, given his pledge to fight to the bitter end?

Nah, I don't think that he's gonna stand down

Nah, I don't think that he's gonna stand down

i think they are gonna do same to him as they did to saddam

To be honest, unlike in Egypt the longer he stays in the better. There isn't anything legitimate to replace him, so maybe the U.N might have to move in for a short while in order to help replace the Goverment/regime when it eventually falls - although you could argue that it already has.

I hope to God they're not!



I don't think he should stand down
Agreed, but the un mess up everywhere they go.

To be honest, unlike in Egypt the longer he stays in the better. There isn't anything legitimate to replace him, so maybe the U.N might have to move in for a short while in order to help replace the Goverment/regime when it eventually falls - although you could argue that it already has.

Why, do you like him?

Why, do you like him?

Obviously national laws always overrule any international law, because nations (and their citizens) have a right to decide their own laws, and not be forced to obey foreign organisations such as the UN.

Your post made me curious, could you perhaps answer the following?

1. Are the UN justified in not allowing nations and their citizens to make their own laws, and instead demanding that they must obey UN "international law"?

2. What happens if TWO organisations made "international laws" that conflicted with each other. Which (if any) would you want people to obey?