R.I.P. Gaddafi

[barnsey]

Why did we help, properly because of oil.

If that's not the cases why aren't we in Syria. The cases in Syria is teen times worse than the Libya cases.

No oil, no reason.

We're not in Syria... as its not in our interests for the current Syrian government fall... Syria is vital in the stability of the East if control fall there... things will go bang big time with Jordan-Yemen-Israel ect This is why our media has failed to really show that the genocide that is happening there is far greater then anything in Libya...

As usual we invade countries in the name of morality but really its just a smoke screen...

This is why i will never be one of the mindless drones who sign up to the forces to kill another human in the name of some pen pushing politician whos policies are quite clearly corrupt...

Ok mamma ill go kill them cos there terrorists... wake up people.

[Lysippos]

]

So your evidence that the US is behind everything is because we "don't know what happened behind the lines"? Ok I hereby declare that Fiji was behind Libya. Because "well it might have happened". Just because you want the US to be this super sneaky bad guy doesn't make it reality.

Wow talk about putting words into my mouth.

Where did i say the US was behind everything? I said the US played a bigger role than people would like to think.

I said the reason why the US helped, wasn't because people was getting killed. If that was the case, then the US would be in Syria.

And there were nineteen different countries who committed military forces to the naval blockade and the air campaign. As for the US involved given that they have the largest military in NATO and are the main arms supplier it's hardly a shock that they had a large support role. They're going to play a huge role in any NATO operation. Doesn't mean they're running the show.

Then why say they didn't have a leading role?

And agian who said the US were running the show?

And by the way there wasn't 19 countries involed with air strikes in Libya. Your wiki source is wrong there, or at least misleading.

Who were the first to push for military intervention? France

Who said they were ready to launch air strikes within hours of a green light? France

Who were the first to recognize the NTC as the leaders of Libya? France

Who were the first to launch air strikes? France

Who hit the most military targets? France

I going to annoy you now

Who were the first to push for military intervention? France. Why? Obama was a sleep.

Who were the first to recognize the NTC as the leaders of Libya? France. Why? Obama was a sleep.

The above is not 100% correct.

Who said they were ready to launch air strikes within hours of a green light? Mabye France, but did they do it? No.

The US had ships along side with the UK standing by. Also the USS florida was ready to go. Before any French aircraft would reach into Libya.

But i agree with you that France had a pretty big role aswell. A longside the UK and the US.

Why ignore the evidence that it was France and other European countries who pushed for the Libyan intervention? Are they not "evil" enough? The whole 'oh the US is behind everything' bit is little more than wishful thinking.

I do not ignore any evidence.

Sorry Corp.

I can smell distortion coming from your armpits.

Please in the future don't try to put words into my mouth that i would never say.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Scepticus

[Lysippos]

We're not in Syria... as its not in our interests for the current Syrian government fall... Syria is vital in the stability of the East if control fall there... things will go bang big time with Jordan-Yemen-Israel ect

Hmm interesting point. Out of curiosity, why do you think this is the case?

[Space Commander Travis]

How wonderful it must be to know more than the gullible Sheeple, mustn't it. i wish i did.

[bee]

How wonderful it must be to know more than the gullible Sheeple, mustn't it. i wish i did.

you make me laugh even when you're arguing (sort of) with me....

for the record....I have never used the S word...and I never will.

and certainly not the G S combination.

[Corp]

]

Wow talk about putting words into my mouth.

Where did i say the US was behind everything? I said the US played a bigger role than people would like to think.

I said the reason why the US helped, wasn't because people was getting killed. If that was the case, then the US would be in Syria.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you were claiming that the US was running the show. I apologise.

Then why say they didn't have a leading role?

And agian who said the US were running the show?

And by the way there wasn't 19 countries involed with air strikes in Libya. Your wiki source is wrong there, or at least misleading.

That's why I included "naval blockade" as well as air strikes. And there are people right in this thread that are claiming the US are the ones who set the whole Libya issue up.

I going to annoy you now

Who were the first to push for military intervention? France. Why? Obama was a sleep.

Who were the first to recognize the NTC as the leaders of Libya? France. Why? Obama was a sleep.

The above is not 100% correct.

Who said they were ready to launch air strikes within hours of a green light? Mabye France, but did they do it? No.

The US had ships along side with the UK standing by. Also the USS florida was ready to go. Before any French aircraft would reach into Libya.

But i agree with you that France had a pretty big role aswell. A longside the UK and the US.

Yes the US did play a very big role, but the whole point I've been trying to make is that they were not the ones who were the driving force behind the Libyan intervention. They played a big role once it kicked off but it was France and Britain who got the ball rolling. However this fact often seems to be ignored.

I just find it odd and somewhat annoying that whenever some kind of international intervention happens, involving dozens of countries, the only one to get blamed and condemned is the US. If the US does something well it must be for some evil and secret purpose. Any other country? Silence. Or the claim that they're just American puppets.

[Mr.United_Nations]

You do realise Syria does have Oil? any enough of it?

The reason I think Russia and China did not help out was because of OIL.

Why? they wanted to protect its oil supply.

[Corp]

No no I'm sure it's something America is doing. They're the only evil ones after all

[Q24]

Yes the US did play a very big role, but the whole point I've been trying to make is that they were not the ones who were the driving force behind the Libyan intervention. They played a big role once it kicked off but it was France and Britain who got the ball rolling. However this fact often seems to be ignored.

I just find it odd and somewhat annoying that whenever some kind of international intervention happens, involving dozens of countries, the only one to get blamed and condemned is the US. If the US does something well it must be for some evil and secret purpose. Any other country? Silence. Or the claim that they're just American puppets.

The U.S. were not the sole driving force, then they weren’t with Afghanistan and Iraq either. What can be sure is that the U.S. were the main driving force - not only were the U.S. initially in command of strikes and the leading source of funds, but France and Britain wouldn’t carry out this type of intervention without first securing approval from the U.S. And the U.S. would not go along with France and Britain if it were not in their best interest. So the intervention was entirely dependent on the U.S. whatever went on behind the scenes.

I don’t think anyone pointing out the main U.S. role has said that France and Britain are the good guys, if that’s what you are worried about.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Q24

[Lysippos]

Sorry if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you were claiming that the US was running the show. I apologise.

That's why I included "naval blockade" as well as air strikes. And there are people right in this thread that are claiming Yes the US did play a very big role, but the whole point I've been trying to make is that they were not the ones who were the driving force behind the Libyan intervention. They played a big role once it kicked off but it was France and Britain who got the ball rolling. However this fact often seems to be ignored.

I just find it odd and somewhat annoying that whenever some kind of international intervention happens, involving dozens of countries, the only one to get blamed and condemned is the US. If the US does something well it must be for some evil and secret purpose. Any other country? Silence. Or the claim that they're just American puppets.

And I apologise for not making my self clear enough.

You do realise Syria does have Oil? any enough of it?

The reason I think Russia and China did not help out was because of OIL.

Why? they wanted to protect its oil supply.

Nearly ever country in the World have oil. So yes i realise that Syria have oil.

But is their reserves significant? No not at all.

When you say the reason why you think Russia and China didn't help out was because of oil, do you mean in Libya or in Syria.

Because if you mean in Libya you are wrong. The rebels have said that because they didn't help, they (Russia and China) should not expect getting oil from them.

[Lysippos]

No no I'm sure it's something America is doing. They're the only evil ones after all

France and the UK are as bad as the US. No doubt about that. The reason why France was so quick on their feet was because Sarkozy has an election coming up very soon. He can use this in his favour. Dispite some people thinking/saying it was because he wanted to stop immigrants coming to France.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Scepticus

[bee]

.

Sarkozy, Cameron Obama et al, might be celebrating now, but when the dust settles people are

going to start realising that something isn't right about it all.

from this article about the Civilian Cost of NATO victory....(yes NATO victory)

http://rt.com/news/libya-nato-civilian-deaths-323/

Perhaps more critically, a nation which had a remarkably high standard of living prior to the conflict now faces a potentially massive humanitarian crisis. Speaking with RT earlier this week, former MI5 agent Annie Machon claimed NATOs intervention has plunged Libya back into the Stone Age.

Theyve had free education, free health, they could study abroad. When they got married they got a certain amount of money. So they were rather the envy of many other citizens of African countries.

Now, of course, since NATOs humanitarian intervention the infrastructure of their country has been bombed back to the Stone Age. They will not have the same quality of life. Women probably will not have the same degree of emancipation under any new transitional government. The national wealth is probably going to be siphoned off by Western corporations.

Perhaps the standard of living in Libya might have been slightly higher than it perhaps is now in America and the UK with the recession, she said.

As the Libyan people now attempt to rebuild their country, it remains to be seen if NATO forces, which supposedly began military operations to defend civilians at all costs, will be as willing to help prevent any further loss of life now that the Gaddafi regime has finally come to an end.

not bad for a country said to be oppressed and tyrannized by Gaddafi, eh? A standard of living 'that might have been slightly higher

than in the US and Britain'.......but free health care....free education...a gift of money when getting married

( + other things not mentioned above)....sounds like they had a HIGHER standard of living than us.

Maybe we could do with a bit of that kind of tyranny.

But now thanks to us they have been bombed back to 'the stone age'.... it is said in quote above.

Women will not be so free.

And....surprise surprise....Western Corporations will probably syphon off Libya's national wealth.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The facts speak for themselves. FACTS.

Anyone got that black and white gif of the man staring and clapping.....??

Our leaders need a big clap now...because when facts like this start spreading.

They are going to start publically looking like the liars that they are.

What a very odd kind of 'humanitarian intervention'....George Orwell springs to mind.

rant over

.

Edited October 27, 2011 by bee

[Mr.United_Nations]

.

Sarkozy, Cameron Obama et al, might be celebrating now, but when the dust settles people are

going to start realising that something isn't right about it all.

from this article about the Civilian Cost of NATO victory....(yes NATO victory)

http://rt.com/news/libya-nato-civilian-deaths-323/

not bad for a country said to be oppressed and tyrannized by Gaddafi, eh? A standard of living 'that might have been slightly higher

than in the US and Britain'.......but free health care....free education...a gift of money when getting married

( + other things not mentioned above)....sounds like they had a HIGHER standard of living than us.

Maybe we could do with a bit of that kind of tyranny.

But now thanks to us they have been bombed back to 'the stone age'.... it is said in quote above.

Women will not be so free.

And....surprise surprise....Western Corporations will probably syphon off Libya's national wealth.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The facts speak for themselves. FACTS.

Anyone got that black and white gif of the man staring and clapping.....??

Our leaders need a big clap now...because when facts like this start spreading.

They are going to start publically looking like the liars that they are.

What a very odd kind of 'humanitarian intervention'....George Orwell springs to mind.

rant over

.

Maybe but there was a darker secret within the Gaddafi rule, They didn't really do enough to make everyone happy, only the rich were made happy

[Swamptick]

Can't watch the videos, but i agree with the above.

My first reaction was... Wow this is a good start for their democracy.

And then I started to think about how they treated his boody after death.

Why is this accepted? Didn't hear Obama or any other national leader say that is not the way to do it. Actually they went out and congratulated Libya. Shouldn't they have said, this is not how you treat a dead prisoner? If not, why didn't we do the same with Bin Larden?

Libya have shown that its okay to go agianst muslim customs if the person was a tyrant.

I want Bin Lardens body up from the deep sea and have my own litlle "tour" around his body, just like they did with Gadaffi.

Grow up. Gaddafi deserved this death. Besides, who cares what that piece of **** Obama thinks? He is a liar and NOTHING that comes out of his mouth is worth the air it vibrates on.

[Corp]

The U.S. were not the sole driving force, then they werent with Afghanistan and Iraq either. What can be sure is that the U.S. were the main driving force - not only were the U.S. initially in command of strikes and the leading source of funds, but France and Britain wouldnt carry out this type of intervention without first securing approval from the U.S. And the U.S. would not go along with France and Britain if it were not in their best interest. So the intervention was entirely dependent on the U.S. whatever went on behind the scenes.

I dont think anyone pointing out the main U.S. role has said that France and Britain are the good guys, if thats what you are worried about.

Why would France and Britain need to secure approval from the US? Last I checked they were both independent countries.

Fun facts about Libya: they ranked 67th of the World's Happiest Countries according to Forbes, 53rd in Human Development according to the UN, and International Living magazine gave them a 48 out of a hundred. Doesn't sounds like much of a utopia. After all if Libya was such a great place to live then why were so many Libyans moving to Italy?

Edited October 27, 2011 by Corp

[Mr.United_Nations]

The U.S. were not the sole driving force, then they weren’t with Afghanistan and Iraq either. What can be sure is that the U.S. were the main driving force - not only were the U.S. initially in command of strikes and the leading source of funds, but France and Britain wouldn’t carry out this type of intervention without first securing approval from the U.S. And the U.S. would not go along with France and Britain if it were not in their best interest. So the intervention was entirely dependent on the U.S. whatever went on behind the scenes.

I don’t think anyone pointing out the main U.S. role has said that France and Britain are the good guys, if that’s what you are worried about.

What are the hell are you talking about?

[bee]

Grow up. Gaddafi deserved this death. Besides, who cares what that piece of **** Obama thinks? He is a liar and NOTHING that comes out of his mouth is worth the air it vibrates on.

beep beep....troll alert......

[bee]

Fun facts about Libya: they ranked 67th of the World's Happiest Countries according to Forbes, 53rd in Human Development according to the UN, and International Living magazine gave them a 48 out of a hundred. Doesn't sounds like much of a utopia. After all if Libya was such a great place to live then why were so many Libyans moving to Italy?

Libya was an Italian Colony until 1947.....historic connection I suppose.

What exactly is your point?

Japan is 81st on the Happiest Country list

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

maybe if some Japanese citizens get p***ed off with their government we should go in and bomb the crap out of them?

oh...wait....

edit to add happy country list and here's the Human Development one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

.

Edited October 27, 2011 by bee

[Little Fish]

why did gaddafi deserve to die? what were his alleged crimes?

[Q24]

Why would France and Britain need to secure approval from the US? Last I checked they were both independent countries.

It is not a question of independent status but of military power. It is apparent you are not up to speed on the current shape of British forces and where they are headed. Let’s just say Britain as a world power is not what it used to be.

Last year’s U.K. government Strategic Defence and Security Review listed five priorities that were deemed essential to future security of Britain, two of those being: -

• our pre-eminent defence and security relationship with the US
  
• NATO as the bedrock of our defence
  

A couple more excerpts of which there are others similar: -

• “We and our NATO Allies consciously depend on each other for particular capabilities.”
  
• “Should we need to conduct major operations overseas, it is most likely that we will do so with others”
  

The backdrop, in conjunction with the above, is large cuts in defence spending, reducing the scope of Britain’s armed forces capability. To sum it up, a line borrowed from the Daily Mail: “Britain will never be able to fight another war alone after drastic defence cuts were announced by David Cameron yesterday.”

Ok, perhaps the above is slightly sensationalist. The Telegraph puts it better: “The SDSR all but ruled out the possibility of Britain ever mounting a major independent operation again, saying that future wars will be fought alongside allies like the US and France.” You get the idea.

Whilst reasonable sized short-term deployments can be made, the scale and/or sustainability of any long-term operation is limited. Even an equivalent to the U.K. peak contribution in Afghanistan is not likely to be seen again. And the capability of the French military is roughly on a par with that of Britain.

An operation carried out by Britain and France alone would not be anywhere near the level of intense and swift action we have seen. This would carry a risk of it becoming a sustained operation. With action more limited and prolonged even with Britain and France pushed to their reasonable limit, there is greater risk of the operation ending in failure.

That is all to say - you can be sure they wouldn’t be fighting unnecessary wars, like that in Libya, without iron cast U.S. support and participation from the outset.

Side note to anyone interested: there is a section in the U.K. SDSR which discusses “ability to access secure, diverse and affordable supplies of energy” and “growing dependence on imports of fossil fuels at the same time that global demand and competition for energy is increasing.”

But rest assured… we went to Libya to save the civilians.

[Habitat]

I think you can take it as read, that humanitarian motives are rarely prominent as a motive for war, particularly when the people suffering are within the borders of the target country. Simply by reason of the fact he denied his people a free political system, Gaddafi failed, but I don't see the likes of Mugabe being subjected to the same treatment. Zimbabwe's oil stocks don't warrant it.

[Q24]

On the subject of U.S. influence, an article in The New Yorker headlined “Leading From Behind” (a phrase used by a White House advisor) discussed the policy.

Here is where the article cuts to the chase: -

“So despite the funny phrasing, at the heart of the idea of leading from behind is the empowerment of other actors to do your bidding or, as in the case of Libya, to be used as cover for a policy that would be suspect in the eyes of other nations if it’s branded as a purely American operation.”

Sorry Obama, you’ve been sussed - it wasn’t much of a cover to be fair.

[bee]

On the subject of U.S. influence, an article in The New Yorker headlined “Leading From Behind” (a phrase used by a White House advisor) discussed the policy.

Here is where the article cuts to the chase: -

“So despite the funny phrasing, at the heart of the idea of leading from behind is the empowerment of other actors to do your bidding or, as in the case of Libya, to be used as cover for a policy that would be suspect in the eyes of other nations if it’s branded as a purely American operation.”

Sorry Obama, you’ve been sussed - it wasn’t much of a cover to be fair.

the whole thing is very transparent...including the use of the Arab League as a cover

also from your link

So now we’re gonna see whether the Security Council will support the Arab League. Not support the United States! Support the Arab League. That is a significant difference.

Frankly, what Obama did was a massive bait and switch. He used the Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone to win United Nations support for a far larger military intervention. The debate about the merits of this style of leadership should also take into account what was accomplished.

Of course Obama is just the figurehead of the administration and would only do and say what advisory groups and agencies agreed to.

[bee]

These are going to be 'delicate' times for the military involved in ousting and killing Gaddafi.

Obviously a united and bold front will be in place...but there are some things that quite frankly

beggar belief about the whole sorry affair

for example....

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fears-al-qaeda-could-gaddafi-weapons-153128382.html

A senior British military figure has warned that weapons used by Colonel Gaddafi's forces could fall into the hands of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups - if they hadn't already.

as the following has already been made public

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

In effect....the British, French and US et al...were knowingly fighting along side and in support of (in part, albeit from above)...al Qaeda.

You couldn't make this stuff up....crazy!

edit to add the word 'knowingly'.....as the above article was written in March.

.

Edited October 28, 2011 by bee

[bee]

also from the same article...(published yesterday)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fears-al-qaeda-could-gaddafi-weapons-153128382.html

As questions continue to be asked as to the manner in which Col Gaddafi met his end, Sir Stuart was adamant that Nato forces had acted in accordance with the United Nations Security Council mandate.

He claimed that the convoy carrying Col Gaddafi away from Sirte had been targeting civilians.

"On that day the fighting was very intense in and around Sirte.

"That convoy was shooting at people, and our mission is to protect those people, therefore attacking that convoy was inside the Nato mandate.

"The legality of that mission is absolutely clear to me, and the legality of all the attacks we have undertaken is clear to me. Right to the end the people in that convoy were shooting at civilians, and that's a fact."

Do they think we are stupid!

So in the heat of battle we are supposed to believe that the Gaddafi convoy was taking pot shots at civilians?

not the rebel forces who were closing in?

The rebel forces who then revelled in his abuse, sodomized him, dragged him around by his hair wounded,

and then shot him.

Then his dead body was stuck in a freezer and gawped at by thousands of people including children.

what is this world coming to when we pay taxes to fund a military who are complicit in all this?