[Closed] Gaddafi's death

Would it be crass to mention Germany..................

Many less would have died IMO without our intervention as the civil war would not have lasted 6 months plus. I actually doubt it would have started.

What, like in Syria? That's still going.

libya will now be a divided country in a state of civil war. Islamic extremists will take over some areas, tribal rivalries will ensure the civil war is perpetuated.

Thats all entirely possible, I hope it doesnt happen. Do you?

Its what [i]is[/i] happening. I wish it wasn't but its clear to see what is happening and has been for months.

Are you asserting that with the same certainty as your claim that it wouldn't have started without air support?

Do you think we could get the French to send in a few air strikes?

I think you'll find that since April 2011 and september the 22nd the french flew 6,745 sorties of which 2,225 resulted in direct air strikes. a total of 33%

where as the combined total of sorties flown by American and English planes was 12,300

This resulted in 801 direct Airstrikes by American planes,

And 700 direct strikes by English Planes for a combined total of 26%

As of 18/10/2011 The MoD confirmed the numbers and revealed that the UK has in fact conducted 12 per cent of all sorties overall.

I cant understand why France would take such an active role in the freedom of Libya, carrying out 3 x more strikes than the uk.

Maybe in 2005 when the Licences for oil were being sold by Gaddafi, France didn't think they got a fair deal.

Then On 2/09/2011 the french press reported that the TNC ratifies an agreement ceding no less than 35% of Libya's total crude oil production to France in exchange for "humanitarian" support.

The letter is addressed to the office of the emir of Qatar (the go-between for the TNC and France from the beginning)

I think the term used is "Petro-Terrorism"

There have been interviews with educated and articulate Libyans in exile in the UK who now feel empowered to return to Libya and seem very upbeat about helping to organise a democratic, pluralistic and tolerant society where all are equal under law.

Sounds a lot more encouraging than TJ's morbid predictions to me.

And 700 direct strikes by English Planes for a combined total of 26%

Time will tell Woppit. I'd bet my shirt I am right tho

Forgive my ignorance British Planes

we have English planes now FFS when did the Union break and why did no one tell me?

I think Lybya has a chance of a stable government, not guaranteed by any means, but a good chance non the less

Without the air strikes and advice from NATO, the conflict would have been greatly drawn out with [IMO] a much greater risk of various factions breaking off to do their own thing and fighting each other

Time will tell Woppit. I'd bet my shirt I am right tho

Without being able to turn the clock back and try again without air strikes, you'll never know

I'd bet my shirt I am right tho

Try again. You wish we (NATO) had stayed out of it entirely and that therefore Gadaffi would have been free to put down the revolt and stay in power? Thats what you are saying Grum? There is no halfway answer here.

If there was an armed revolt in this country backed by foreign powers, what do you think would happen - how would the government respond?

The action 'we' took also went well beyond the supposed aim of minimising civilian casualties - regime change was always clearly the motive. I would have thought all the evidence that has come out about Iraq, (ie oil companies meeting with the government months before we supposedly knew we were going to war, deciding how to carve up the oil industry post-invasion) would make people a little less naive about all this, but clearly not.

How do people know if Libya is better off?

We took sides in a civil war without knowing who we were supporting, but it was against 'that bad man' so we were right. Flying Rodent had it spot on:

[url= http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-responsibility-to-protect.html#links ]What is responsibility to protect?[/url]

and

I think my favourite part was the bit when Britain went to the United Nations to seek permission for a preventative No-Fly Zone over the country, and mysteriously emerged with a mandate to smash **** out of whoever and whatever we liked, providing we sort-of pretended that we were "protecting civilians" while we did it.

Thus did we get the final orgy of violence, destruction, mayhem and humanitarian civilian protection that was the assault on Sirte, during which Nato helped the NTC to protect seven shades of shit out of the city and what remained of its populace. Watching the pictures of a bombed-out Sirte on TV, you can see how we protected that place to ****ing rubble, house-by-house. Now, what does that remind me of?

Well. More cynical voices than mine will say that our noble intervention in Libya has led to a death toll that outstrips even the worst of the Arab Spring crackdowns by a factor of at least ten; that our undoubtedly sincere intentions were not entirely selfless in nature, and that the whole thing may just reek more of a hitjob than a humanitarian enterprise**.

[url= http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/10/no-mercy-for-tyrants.html#links ]No Mercy For Tyrants[/url]

If there was an armed revolt in this country backed by foreign powers, what do you think would happen - how would the government respond?

More meaningless whataboutery. Stick to the question, stop fantasising.

You wish we (NATO) had stayed out of it entirely and that therefore Gadaffi would have been free to put down the revolt and stay in power? Thats what you are saying Grum? There is no halfway answer here.

Have another go at the question.

libya will now be a divided country in a state of civil war. Islamic extremists will take over some areas, tribal rivalries will ensure the civil war is perpetuated.

Excuse me TJ, but isn't this precisely where Gaddafi came in, and also right where the NTC came in too. For that reason I'm not sure how you can blame that on the actions of NATO currently. I can live with the colonial aspect of it being at fault, but not NATO now, in fact I'd go as far to say that there is a strong argument as yet unutilised that the current NATO campaign could arguably be seen as righting some of the colonial wrongs done in the past.

mcboo - not meaningless at all, I'd like to know whether a country's ruler has, in your opinion, got the right to put down an armed rebellion using force?

Have another go at the question.

I'd have liked to see us stick to the original aims of the UN resolution (protecting civilian life), not use them as a mask for strategically motivated regime change.

in fact I'd go as far to say that there is a strong argument as yet unutilised that the current NATO campaign could arguably be seen as righting some of the colonial wrongs done in the past.

Or alternatively as a continuation of some of the colonial wrongs of the past.

Just seen the front page of the Sun. Shameful even by the standards of the gutter press.

mcboo - not meaningless at all, I'd like to know whether a country's ruler has, in your opinion, got the right to put down an armed rebellion using force?

Well I dont know about you but I believe in liberal democracy, and liberal democracies (characterised by free elections, speech, press, association, worship all defended by an independant judiciary) are worth fighting to defend. It's why I once wore a uniform.

Gadaffi was a gangster whose people had every right to over-throw. You can join TJ in lecturing Arabs about how they don't deserve to enjoy the freedoms that we have.

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power. Do you think he did? Answer please, no weaseling away on this very specific point.

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power.

Because he was unelected? So any uprising against an unelected leader should be supported, no mattter how many civilians get killed, or how many UN resolutions we abuse, how many human rights are trampled on along the way?

Well I dont know about you but I believe in liberal democracy

Like what we've achieved through our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan you mean?

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power. Do you think he did? Answer please, no weaseling away on this very specific point.

Already answered in my edit. You love talking about weaseling don't you - also making deranged accusations of racism like the other day. You're 'weaseling' out of most of my questions BTW.

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power. Do you think he did? Answer please, no weaseling away on this very specific point.

Still waiting for your answer.

Stop flapping.

Gadaffi. Specifically Gadaffi.

He had the same right as Assad does in Syria, or the rulers of Bahrain do.

He didn't have the 'right' to do anything as he was unelected - but that isn't usually a problem for us is it. What I'm asking you very specifically (no weaseling) is - what would have been an appropriate response from him to the rebellion? What 'right' do the rebels have to do what they've done?

No weaseling remember.

what would have been an appropriate response from him to the rebellion?

In the spring I would have settled for him leaving the country unmolested by the International Criminal Court. Italy, Zimbabwe, Saudi, his choice. That clear enough?

You're putting yourself on the side of dictators. That is pretty depressing if you really mean it.

Weaseling. Still waiting for your answer.

Mainly to this one - What 'right' do the rebels have to do what they've done?

You can join TJ in lecturing Arabs about how they don't deserve to enjoy the freedoms that we have.

1) - point to where I ever said that
2) they will not get the freedoms we have from this civil war - they will be far worse off. Have you seen what we have done to the infrastructure of the country? The country will now be either partitioned or undergo civil war and large parts of it will heave Islamic fundamentalist governments.

The chances of any sort of democracy that encompasses the whole country here are precisely zero. aopart from anything else its not in the wests intrests to have a strong government.

Look at Iraq. Afghanistan. Look to all the lessons from history.
Iraq is a real case in point. A million plus people have died that wouldn't have done since 1990. The lot of the average person is far worse than under Saddam. Life expectancy is decades less than it was.

Every right! I'm a democrat. I'm not a pacifist. Some things are worth dying, and killing for.

Brilliant argument - probably about as good as the one Gaddafi used when he seized power by force. Oh, except his coup was bloodless.

I see you've edited now. So they have the 'right' because you agree with their supposed politics, which we have imposed so successfully on Iraq and Afghanistan?

Let's look at one of the new leaders of the glorious democratic revolution, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - he was the man who played a key role in sentencing innocent foreign nurses to death for supposedly infecting Libyan children with HIV. What a man, I'm so glad we supported the 'good guys'.

Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.

conversly we had no right at all to bomb the shit out of Sirte - a war crime. This is what we are responsible for. 30 000 people dead, 50 000 injured at a bear minimum.

[img] [/img]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15330364

mcboo - Member

Every right! I'm a democrat. I'm not a pacifist. Some things are worth dying, and killing for.

really - what is worth dying for? What is worth killing people for? Have you served? Why not? Why are you not over their fighting for democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

Have you served?

Yes.

I'm off to the pub. See you later.

Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.

Jeezuz christ.

the report of the International Center for Research and Study on Terrorism and Aid to Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT) and the French Center for Research on Intelligence (CF2R) warning that "only a minority of Libyan NTC members are true democrats." The rest of them are mixed factions of "monarchists, Islamic extremists and former fixtures of the Qaddafi supporters who defected to the rebels for various reasons."

http://www.thebulgariannews.com/view_news.php?id=132174

Of course he was McBoo - welcomed to the UN, handshakes with many world leaders.

Oh look - at the UN
[img] [/img]
Shaking hands with Obama
[img] [/img]

he had as much legitimacy as The house of Saud for example.

So when did you serve then? What theatre of war? seen people killed have you?

Regardless of what I know him to have done and not done I am totally sick of the media saying 'his death'

Why don't they tell it like it is and call it 'his killing'?

Why do they have to rebrand and spoon feed us everything?

@ billysugger

Completely agree, was the same with the Gilad Shalit captured/kidnapped (saw kidnapped a lot more than captured).

I think that one of the advantages of a liberal capitalist democracy like ours, is that the more loopy and bizarre modes of political thinking are kept at the entertaining edges of the debate.

Majority opinion tends to gravitate towards the median part of the bell curve - where the grown-ups live.

We've had some fruit-loopery on STW before but today we have reached absolute rock bottom.

Majority opinion tends to gravitate towards the median part of the bell curve - where the grown-ups live.

Yes, mainstream opinion is always right isn't it - just like when everyone 'knew' that Saddam had WMDs.

We had some fruit-loopery on STW before but today we have reached absolute rock bottom.

I agree.

McBoo you going to answer the questions? ~When did you serve - what theatre of war?

I ask because generally people who understand what killing is all about are much less gung ho.

Also I'd like to know at what point Gaddaffi lost his legitimacy as leader? 2009 addressing the UN and shaking hands with Obama.

Gonig to miss his dress sence though 😉

[img] [/img]

Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.

McBoo you going to answer the questions?

[img] [/img]

Thats your beloved UN TJ. Some of us didnt just sit behind a keyboard whining and gobbing off. Actually risked our necks to defend it's principles.