That exactly what happened. And that`s why members of Congress have recourse to the Law. Ron Paul on Lawsuit: ‘It’s Time for the President to Obey the Constitution’
The conflict in Libya was initiated by Qaddafi. Also: you are against the Revolutionary War, Civil War and (by your logic wherein joining an open conflict amounts to "initiating" it) both World Wars? Also: against the wars themselves, or against the American goals in such? Those often being very different things.
Bollocks. You are starting to sound like the Washington Post. Libya started NO conflict with any nation. The Libyan government cracked down on demonstrators to prevent anarchy and civil war, as have the governments in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, China, etc. Foreign intervention has fueled the flames of civil war. Notably, attempts at diplomacy have not been sincerely attempted by USNATO. Pardon - I meant external wars. In this day and age we should be talking not fighting. I am against any war of aggression by any nation against another nation. The very notion (that Bertrand Russell railed against) - that engaging in war to achieve peace is an utter lie. :m:
not if you kill them all . There dogs and cats or any animal or livestock , plus burn there cities to the ground . You have to get every last one of em though . Just like the bug person and cockroaches. I am not advocating that cause I think there is something , a mystery to uncover in every culture of the world and it provides interest and diversity in humanity as a whole . Plus the genetic stalk I believe is good for the health of our future offspring . Just saying that tribe of Indians in California were the last person from the tribe lived at the turn of the century in about 1909 . Last Man standing found in the wilderness of California . He had no one to rally with so he died and that was that . The world for the most part would say "Who " because there all dead "extinct culture of people" See I was raised in California and I don't know who is even responsible for the deed ? ( I imagine it was either Spaniards of the English . Just a guess . God I can almost remember the name of the Tribe . Starts with a Y
Fine by me, I suppose. It's not my favorite news publication by any means, but it's basically a respectable center-left publication with a storied history of impressive journalism. And these days, it seems to have become some sort of bug-bear for paranoics who see a neo-con plot under every rock (which, again, seems fitting here). Not what I said, now is it? Qaddafi initiated an armed conflict within the Libyan nation, including the use of massed, mechanized warfare against civilians. You may recall that the UN and Arab League authorizations for external intervention were premised on protection of civilians, and not on addressing some armed conflict between Libya and some other nation. You should address this aspect if you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously. US unilateralism, this is not. They initiated a civil war by doing so. And I reject outright the supposition that the alternative to Qaddafi's brutal repression is anarchy. That is nothing more than a cheap rationalization for authoritarian violence, violating the basic right to self-determination of the Libyan people. Libyans are capable of peacefully governing themselves, without any need for an oppressive dictatorship - to suggest otherwise borders on racism. You are uncritically shilling for a nasty dictatorship here, and so forfeit any moral standing. Again, you are a gleeful shill for nasty authoritarian dictatorships that proudly, systematically violate the basic human rights of their subjects. Which, okay, I guess... but how on earth do you expect anyone to take your supposedly liberal pacifist stances seriously when you keep turning around and applauding naked repression and open, violent disrespect for human rights? Is your anti-Americanism so craven that you'll climb into bed with monsters? Not really - it's kept the lid on such, and prevented thousands of civilian casualties at the hands of Qaddaffi's tank and artillery divisions. Not an assertion I'll buy into without some actual argumentation to substantiate it. Likewise, I'm not seeing where Qaddafi has pursued sincere diplomacy - he resorted to force at the first challenge, and has sworn to fight to the death, no? A nice enough sentiment, but one overtaken by events. Once Qaddafi was sending tank columns to attack civilian population centers, that choice was made. Perhaps you can address these complaints to him, though. Well, sure, obviously. How is it that you figure that intervention in Libya is a "war of aggression" against Libya? Is Libyan territory being usurped by some other nation, or... ? Do you even have a working definition of what a "war of aggression" is, or are you just throwing around whatever easy slogan is nearest to hand? That's great and all, but what's the relevance? Did someone claim to be making war to achieve peace, here? The rationals are all pretty clearly about protecting civilians, etc. Why don't you address that stuff, instead of these strawman? Meanwhile, secure, long-lasting peaces have indeed been the outcome of various wars in history. Europe has been at peace for decades, as a direct result of the nastiest war ever fought - how does that fit into your "utter lie?"
You certainly have a way with words. Come on. He did not initiate. He responded to events. He attempted to quell an uprising, call it civil unrest, comparable to other instances in the region, and innumerable examples from history. Enforcing a no-fly zone to protect civilians does not equate to taking sides, regime change or targeted assassinations. Gaddafi & Co warned time and again that the uprising would lead to civil war. Well well the alternative is reality. There is certainly a level of anarchy in Libya today - with atrocities being committed by both sides. Pardon? To suggest that Libyans cannot undergo a revolution without foreign intervention reeks of imperial racism. Please, lets just bury the notion that foreign intervention was initiated for moral and humanitarian reasons. The agenda is oil/regime change/control. I shill for the truth (as opposed to disinformation and hypocrisy) and the curtailing of imperialism. For a host of reasons. Where did I applaud oppression? Exposing hypocrisy and realities does not equate to applauding oppression. Imperialism and Zionism are the agents of industrial scale oppression. How about the violent disrespect for human rights that US drones rain on innocents? How about Gitmo, torture, respect for international law, blindness to Saudi and Zionist human rights violations? Is your indoctrination into the evil of empire and racism so complete that you miss the wood for the trees? Picking and arming sides fuels conflict. Not to mention this is all illegal under the US resolution. There have been calls from the Gaddafi camp for ceasefires, negotiations and elections. These have been rejected outright by the rebels (rationale-vested interests) and NATO with absolutely no investigation into how viable this may be as an alternative to further violence & conflict that draws blood on a daily basis. (here) So the only solution is to engage, encourage and expand a full scale conflict with predictable results? No attempt at EU, Russian, Chinese, AU mediation and dialogue? Because whatever the original intentions were, currently its stated objective is ousting Gadaffi aka "regime change". The relevance (as clear as daylight) is that US & NATO foreign policy agendas are being m ilitarily pursued under the guise of humanitarian intervention. Indeed? The lies are clearly visible in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. :m:
Quit playing cheap semantic games. When a dictator sends out the troops to "respond" and "quell" a peaceful uprising, that is exactly the initiation of the use of force. Who do you think you're fooling? Qaddafi is a dictator and a thug. Sure it does. That would be "threatened" not "warned." The fact that Qaddaffi spent decades undermining Libyan institutions and otherwise cultivating a situation where Libya would descend into chaos absent his repression, puts the responsibility squarely at his feet. He did that exactly to prevent challenges to his rule. Yeah, that's what decades of dictatorial repression and corruption get you. Why is that an argument for siding with a brutal tyrant again? Well, no, not necessarily. It only requires a sober assessment of the arsenal commanded by the regime, vs. that available to the revolution. That's why we're arming the revolution, backing them up with air strikes, etc. Maybe if I'd suggested that Libyans were culturally incapable of such, you'd have a point. But the supposition is otherwise: that the revolution doesn't have the material arms and money and stuff it needs to resist state repression. Since when are those mutually exclusive? And let's note that Qadaffi has been happily selling the West all the oil we want for years now. If it was just a matter of oil, we'd presumably be quite happy for him to remain in power by whatever means - like in Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, this is a large country right next to Europe. The refugee flows are already overwhelming Mediterranean European countries. There are plenty of Realpolitik motivations that fall under "humanitarian," we should note. LOL You do it everywhere - all these glowing commendations of nasty repression. The crap about Qadaffi being forced to act to fend of anarchy and so on. The part earlier where you pre-emptively endorsed state repression in Yemen, China, Syria, etc. It's disgusting. Too bad that's not what you do. What you actually do, is to leap whole-heartedly to endorse the hypocrisy and brutality of nasty oppressors. What about them? The point remains that your criticisms of such are undermined by your blaseity towards (hell, open endorsement of) industrial-scale oppression in Libya, Syria, China, etc. I've been pointedly suggesting that you actually stick to your principles there, and not just use them as a cheap anti-American cudgel, for a long time now. LOL Which is a good thing, when said conflict is about destroying an oppressive government. Since when are you into stability at any price? So what? It's a regime that needs to change. Given that said agendas seem to add up to preferring self-determination and democracy for Libyans, over buying cheap oil from a brutal dictator, I can't say that particularly bothers me.
You really have to step away from basing all your arguments against military action in Libya on the US attempting to usurp their oil reserves. It's just a little silly... Especially considering the US joined with air support strikes (as has Canada) in a supplemental role after the intervention was initiated by Britan, France and others. The world has had to intervene in Gadhafi's violent antics in the past on different ocassions and this latest foray will be the last. It's his own doing. He has been an active terrorist for years, but did a "turnabout" in 2003 after Saddam was ousted. He saw new opportunity in reinstated himself as a friend to the world after this and systematically began to distance himself from his terrorist ties. This included surrendering all his WMD, and openly condemning terrorism while proclaiming himself an agent of peace in the middle east. This radical turnaround was actually welcomed by the world and saw Libya get elected (155 votes out of 198 countries) to the UN Human Rights Council. Now, in February of 2010, Ghadafi's Minister of Justice, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was sent to negotiate the release of prisoners being held by rebels. While Jalil was there, he defected to the side of the rebels. The first (known) from Ghadafi's government to do so, although many followed. Jalil, then contacted the Brits and told them he has proof of Ghadafi ordering the bombing of the Pan Am flight that blew up over Scotland killing a few hundred innocents. Then we have the growing support of the people, which led to protests in the street. No doubt fearing he may lose control, Ghadafi orders the killing and arresting of these protestors. By the way, he instated a law by which execution in the punishment for political dissidence some time ago. How else would you expect the UN council to vote concerning the newly elected member of the recently formed (2007) Human Rights Council? *edit* - with respect to involving the UN nations militarily in Libya. This is not a military incursion into a harmless regimes business for the goal of pilfering their oil supply by the US.... at all.
Only, if one applies your obsession with semantics. :m: I mean in the present context. Reality - Libyans enjoyed the highest per capita income in Africa as well as the highest standard of living. Furthermore, I am not siding with anyone, I am pointing out various flaws around standard representations of this invasion. All of which are contrary to the UN resolution. see & see Then a new UN resolution should be passed (via vote) based on such and agenda. Why the issue with following due process? And the West has been morally comfortable with accepting said oil sales. As they do from SA. Until an opportunity for effecting an existing agenda arises. Hypocrisy 101. Again, I did and do not defend Gaddafi or any other supposed tyrant, crux - if one omits due process, embrace militarism and favour the employ of war and conflict to obtain outcomes - and thus refrain from exhaustive diplomatic initiatives, we enter the era of barbarism - which is clearly the case. The blase casualness of the use of arms as a first resort, rather than a last resort seems lost on most folk. Best you quote me here. Oh boy. So in order to refrain from an anti-American stance, I should ignore the the reality presented? Do you seriously believe there are no ulterior/Imperial agendas involved in US foreign policy? Any double standards regarding the notion above voids the potential integrity and moral imperative. Any double standards regarding the notion above voids the potential integrity and moral imperative. Thus the US&NATO initiative is no less an evil that the tyrant Gaddafi. As above - when can we initiate said agenda for the Palestinians?
Perhaps it would be a bit silly if it were not for the precedent as we see in the invasions and violations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. Obviously, additional to oil, the agenda includes expanding the US&NATO influence in the ME. Initially, I sat on the fence regarding this intervention, however the expanding nature of this operation and flexible goalposts are indicative of said agendas. Sadly - predictably so. Gaddafi is an idiot. That the West jumped at the chance to buy cheap oil from this murderous idiot is indicative of the double standards and moral decay I repeatedly point out. There is as yet no evidence to corroborate this story. Disgusting, no argument. No? Why then do we note that the most brutal tyrants are still on very good terms with the US&NATO? :m:
Sorry Straw, I don't know how to separately quote each of your points as you did mine, haha, I'll have to figure it out... I'm new. I'll try and address each in a separate paragraph for now. 1. Oil aside for the time being, I would agree that there most definitely has been some opportunistic clamouring to intervene in ME matters on behalf of the UN on many occasions. As to this being ultimately harmful... We would have to discuss each on it's own merit. 2. I support the UN's intervention thus far. However, it's not over yet so, I can't say that I will continue to support it. 3. The price of oil was once wholly regulated by OPEC but that changed in the 80's. Now it is susceptible to supply and demand daily fluxuation as is any other globally traded commodity. OPEC attempts to regulate pricing by limiting supply however, not all parties follow through with their promises to them. That aside, other than securing long term supply, the US does not get the oil at "cheap" rates. Plus it has more than enough supply from other sources. 4. I suppose that's true. I haven't seen any release of official evidence as of yet. 5. Glad you agree. 6. That is a great point and one that if difficult for most people to understand, myself included. I may be wrong here but, it is my opinion that these evil tyrants and despots cannot simply be dealt with systematically. The UN must take advantage of timing and opportunity with respect to each. Now is the prime time for Ghadafi. Hopefully next will be Zimbabwe's Mugabe or Omar al-Bashir from the Sudan, or Ethiopia's Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam plus many, many others.
No worries, you will get the hang of it. Welcome to Sci. Of course. Fair enough. IMO, civilians are suffering enough already, without NATO ordinance adding to the toll. The gung ho - too late for talking attitude in regard to overtures regarding ceasefires and elections from Gaddafi should be replaced with all options investigated and pursued. The issue runs deeper than oil price. There is a finite amount of oil available. Whoever controls the ME, controls the bulk of the supply. No problem with your logic and obviously each circumstance is unique. The short answer is clearly that US foreign policy has less to do with democracy and freedoms and way more to with compliant US friendly governments. In order for the US to regain any moral integrity, at the very least it should voice its concerns with such dictatorships and publicly state its game plan in addressing the issue. IMO, in our current unipolar world, waging war has become the method of choice used by the dominant power for enforcing regime/ideological change on nations that do not comply with the accepted way. This mindset has become so pervasive that the average western Joe accepts it as normal. If we are to claim civilization as our foundation and thrive as a brotherhood of human beings, this has to change. War should be the very last resort. We need dialogue, dialogue and dialogue. :m: Something along these lines: (source)
@ Quad & Ellis More on the Libyan agenda from a perspective other than StrawDog. :m: A reality sampler... "In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war" "And yet, we need only reflect on three obvious facts: while UN Resolution 1973 did authorise a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians, Nato is now openly seeking regime change and rejecting all peace overtures out of hand. The UN did not authorise regime change." "Patrick Cockburn: Don't believe everything you see and read about Gaddafi"
Amnesty & Human Rights are far left organisations that are, naturally, anti war and, in my humble opinion, anti establishment. I take what they say with a pinch of salt. By the same token I cannot explain why the Allies are involved in what was an internal national affair in a foreign country. I like the way the previous writer calls their observers 'honest' - no they are not, they see what they want to see, as do NATO observers. My views are strictly non political and I hope unbiased by any governmental policy which cannot be said for a few of the correspondents in this forum. Even a persons religion dictates opinion. Lets face it that's all it is - a persons opinion as this is mine. It was not until AFTER the fighting inside Libya had erupted did the Allies intervene. So saying, who organised the rebels into erupting into violence? Is this another of those so called CIA Black Ops we often hear about after the fact or intimated in Hollywood style films? Gadaffi Duck is a nutter and deserves all he gets. I have a particular reason for hating his damn guts, he helped terrorists in N Ireland to kill friends and colleagues of mine (As did people (Noraid) in the USA). Who can forget Lockerbie or the killing of a police woman from inside the Embassy? His demise will cause a power shift in the region, possibly towards fundamentalism, so if the CIA/NATO whatever can get rid of him and install a pro western government all the better, for some. I see the UK government yesterday recognised the Rebels as 'official government' of Libya. They have also ejected the remaining Gaddafi people from their embassy in London and invited rebels representatives to come to the UK and form the staff. This is both premature and hardly relevant as they are not, yet. Getting rid of dictator governments seems to be in vogue at present, especially involving the USA/UK, so who is next? Cuba?
