So sick of these moronic meatsacks interrupting their guests to twist their words whenever something is said that contradicts the fantasy version of the world they're trying to sell.

The CIA traditionally has been used to teach torture.

I agree. I find it hard to believe that they know anything about the topic which they are discussing. Like beauty pageant contestants talking about world politics. They probably cry when they break a nail, but feel no empathy when a bomb drops on a family's home in the name of "democracy".>> ^acidSpine:

So sick of these moronic meatsacks interrupting their guests to twist their words whenever something is said that contradicts the fantasy version of the world they're trying to sell.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by vaporlock.

the ownage really picks up near the end.

The fact that she flat out states that our economy has nothing to do with foreign relations and the wars we're involved in is laughable at best, and absolutely terrifying at worst.

Who the hell is this woman and why is she a news caster?

She got so schooled at the end it's almost uncomfortable to see how she starts stuttering trying to save face or change the subject as fast as she can.

I have troubles cheering a guy who declares the better solution was never go at all. Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition if that advice were taken. I have issues with anyone calling that 'better'. Doubly so when the reason it is better is because stopping that genocide created more anti-western Arab sentiments than allowing it would have.

I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.

Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.

This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:

"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"

>> ^bcglorf:

I have troubles cheering a guy who declares the better solution was never go at all. Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition if that advice were taken. I have issues with anyone calling that 'better'. Doubly so when the reason it is better is because stopping that genocide created more anti-western Arab sentiments than allowing it would have.


thing is you can try to stop the specifc potentail genocide but ultimetly get boged down in a total fuck up situation that has a good chance of endding up with just as many people dead.

Or how about you dedocate resources and money to situations where your actions are not qustionable nd have a far lesser chance of fucking things up. for example instead of droping bombs you could have thousends of aid workers go to africa or spend milloins on malaria research or ways of reducing aids that would have a far grater effect on human suffering as a whole and probably have no blow back. allso would probably cost less.

Is there a channel for *stupid twats on TV?

CNN host? You mean those two hookers?

>> ^vaporlock:

I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"



Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

I would vote twice for this if I could. I could listen to this guy embarrass newscasters all day long and not get bored.

Boobs, duh.>> ^Tymbrwulf:

The fact that she flat out states that our economy has nothing to do with foreign relations and the wars we're involved in is laughable at best, and absolutely terrifying at worst.
Who the hell is this woman and why is she a news caster?

Go go gadget MisogynySift.

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).

Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).

I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

>> ^bcglorf:

I have troubles cheering a guy who declares the better solution was never go at all. Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition if that advice were taken. I have issues with anyone calling that 'better'. Doubly so when the reason it is better is because stopping that genocide created more anti-western Arab sentiments than allowing it would have.

The road to hell is oft paved with good intention.
-Saint Bernard of Clairvaux,Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, Sir Walter Scott, Søren Kierkegaard, and Karl Marx

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

No, the better choice would be to stop all of the mass killings that are taking place everywhere, but that is unrealistic; meaning not the better choice. Indeed, the better choice is to leave well enough alone.

Meaning the better choice is to not stop any of the mass killings anywhere? I disagree.

I believe Gaddafi was on the verge of starting the genocide he said he would. I can not accept that simply watching it would have been better than stopping it.

>> ^vaporlock:

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.



like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context

Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.

In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.

The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.

You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.

Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.

It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.

As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech.

I never justified the action in Libya because Gaddafi was 'corrupt'. I think you are missing or forgetting my original point.

Gaddafi was about to commit a genocide. He had stated it was his intention to do so. His history had already made this threat credible. Past actions by similar dictators in similar circumstances made this threat even more credible. His immediate actions following the speech turned his threat into actions and made his intentions undeniable. Does anyone deny, in the face of this, that Gaddafi was on his way to executing the genocide he threatened?

Unless you have arguments against that, I don't care much what you think of Gaddafi. I care that a genocide was about to happen, and the UN sanctioned actions, lobbied for by the Arab League, prevented that genocide.

My point is simply that stopping the genocide was better than taking this guys advice and doing nothing.


Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes.

Even if that meant they no longer had to gamble, but knew that 100% of the time they could get away with human-rights crimes? I disagree and I suspect if you think it over an extra second you will too.

ya,
he's not getting invited back anytime soon.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is there a channel for stupid twats on TV?


Eh? We don't even have a channel for stupid twats -here-, why would we have one on TV?

I'm glad they mentioned the CIA training of militant groups in Afghanistan in the 80's and how that impacted NYC 20 years later.

I don't know if his accusation that she's carrying water for Obama is fair. I honestly believe that she just isn't bright enough to make the connections. I'm not big on quoting people, but Napoleon said, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." Instead of malice he was ascribing partisanship to her, but you get the point.

At the end their she called that a long and exhaustive interview.......

That's like getting to work, sitting down, turning on your computer, stretching, deciding you've had a long day, powering it down and going home.

I really do hate trying to get information via "news" stations anymore.

I actually think this was a pointless interview. We gained no great insights, we heard no new information, etc... All of what was said has been said for weeks AND has been said better, i.e. reasons to be there and reasons not to be there.

Plus, I don't consider the CIA to be anything more than a tool anymore and hopefully it stays that way; as in the past you could make a case that the CIA was GETTING us involved in wars and shaping internal politics. I'm sure they still do this, but enough whistle-blowers came forward to create an environment were the CIA must tread carefully. Especially, after their complete and utter fuck-up of the century for the last Iraq war.

I appreciate this man's council, but in the end he has as much experience in leading a country as I do (armchair generals). He's very well informed in some international dealings, but his answer of "do nothing" is an old answer and it needs to be done away with to some degree. As it's an answer that does nothing; in fact it shows you the shear amount of apathy that our country feels is O.K. to use (like Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.). The problem as I see it is that the U.N. passed a unanimous security council resolution on Libya, a U.N. member. Libya said it would comply and then went on to do exactly what @bcglorf has said.

The solution I see is that NATO shouldn't be the watch dog here. The problem is that the U.N. is a useless body without fangs. It NEEDS fangs. The fact that EVERY security council member is not involved in this situation/resolution to me means that their "security club membership" should be nullified. I'm tired of people abusing the U.N. . It's perhaps our best way to solve many of these problems. But, when the military action is ALWAYS carried by NATO at the end of the day, I begin to believe that members that don't participate in resolutions THEY PASSED need to be kicked out of their position (I'm looking at you China).

Until the U.N. gains some fangs and the ability to enact resolutions that are passed UNANIMOUSLY (5 abstains for the countries too scared to take a stance), we will continue to carry the weight via the U.S. Armed Forces or NATO; otherwise, we let innocent people die. We could do nothing, but if we did do nothing the media needs to put the blame squarely at the feet of U.N. Security members that abstain; make them swim in the blood they've spilled by their political maneuvering called "abstain"... We don't do this, but I think it's time we did. If China wants to be a big boy, they need to learn about responsibilities related to their direct inaction. Likewise, Russia needs to learn that the Cold War is dead; holding their feet to the fire internationally might do that.

Eventually, this comes down to the media getting the story right and being willful enough to put countries to the question: Why?

Don't bring up the "reverse angle" of death and destruction. I know it will happen, but this is the cost of choosing and FIGHTING for any side. Death is everywhere; it doesn't make it right, but it makes it true...

Here is the vote for, Resolution 1973:

U.S.-Y*
Lebanon-Y
France-Y*
U.K.-Y*
Bosnia and Herzegovina-Y
Columbia-Y
Gabon-Y
Nigeria-Y
Portugal-Y
South Africa-Y

Abstained (the eternal worthless permanent security council members: China-they never do ANYTHING, and The Russian Federation-who seem to vote just to be contrary); I'll put a mark next to permanent members that abstained^:

^The Russian Federation-NA*
^China (as usual)-NA*
Brazil-NA
Germany-NA
India-NA

I find it hard to keep Russia and China on the security council (they'd whine like babies if removed) as they almost always abstain AND they don't help; in fact they do nothing. The other members are not permanent and may be cycled out in the upcoming year; making me not very concerned with their attitude.

*Permanent Security Council Members

So take it or leave it; but, I think our worldwide diplomacy from every country still revolves around the Cold War and WWII. It's terribly sad to me that we are still stuck on such ridiculous fears and ghostly machinations...

Has the world become a deus ex machina to politicians? Do they believe complex problems can be solved with the smallest of effort? This is what it seems to be coming to and it's scary to see people like Donal Trump in the runnings for president. Sarah Palin is a walking and breathing Captain Catherine Janeway in the sense that she believes she has answers and solutions that are easy to implement and as ridiculous as every piece of deus ex machina "Voyager" ever used. AND she is not alone...

I see this in our country and in others. Simplistic leanings that help no one except to further their own agenda. It's as though politicians and leaders use Rube Goldberg machines, yet these do have a purpose: they grab your attention, they pacify, they cause you to become their disease--ready to even spill the blood of what they hate. It's true in every country on the planet. So when Russia and China take the easy way out, that is what I think of them. It is also why they should NEVER be given leadership, as they seemingly don't know what it truly is or they abuse it.

/My long two cents with a little drama to get a dialogue started...

Basically if another country isn't threatening your country, you shouldn't be invading or helping civil wars unless you have significant investments there. China and Russia aren't taking the easy way out, they are taking the correct way, it's none of their business and they have enough problems themselves. America are way too far into international conflicts, it's going to be a devastating bite back soon enough.

Wait... did that schmuck just refer to Turkey as an Arab dictatorship whose people hate them? This guy is out to lunch. He's had a little too much of the Ron Paul kool-aid.

Further, you intervene where you can, not to be consistent. A handful of tomahawk missiles stood no chance of doing anything in Yemen, or Bahrain. Also, we may yet pay Al-Assad a visit depending on how the situation progresses there. Gaddafi was shelling cities of his own citizens. A couple tomahawks stands a better chance of ending that than stopping police forces from firing on a handful of demonstrators. To me, the solution here is to try and quickly organize talks to settle with a multi-state solution. US ground troops are off the table. Obama has been clear on this. If anyone goes in, it'll be the limeys and the frogs, and a few token Arabs. It's their war. They needed our air/cruise missile support to quickly slow the march, but that's all we agreed to do.

This isn't about American oil at all. It's the Europeans that get 85% of Qaddafi's oil. This is about western Europe's energy independence from Moscow, and trying to position NATO as in support of the recent wave of Arab uprisings.

@bcglorf

what you say is true, but the US doesn't care about genocide. it only acts in it's own interests. and those interests are corporate in nature.

what you say is true, but the US doesn't care about genocide. it only acts in it's own interests. and those interests are corporate in nature.

I don't much disagree with you. I still support America being a part of stopping the genocide Gaddafi was about to commit. I still insist that stopping the genocide was better than watching it happen. That isn't negated if those acting to stop the genocide only do so because it benefits them personally.

if(Obama == Bush){
bombLibya();
}

private function bombLibya():void{
disguiseItAsHumanitarian = true;
}

Why do people keep saying US? This is Sarkozy's war.

What is it with americans calling the guy Kaddafi???

none of this is real if you ignore it

>> ^Mazex:

Basically if another country isn't threatening your country, you shouldn't be invading or helping civil wars unless you have significant investments there. China and Russia aren't taking the easy way out, they are taking the correct way, it's none of their business and they have enough problems themselves. America are way too far into international conflicts, it's going to be a devastating bite back soon enough.


Um, I don't know if you're American or not, but if you are, you might want to rethink your viewpoint. You do realize that without the direct and indirect support of the French, Spanish, and Prussians, Americans would still be speaking the Queen's English, don't you? Have a read about how the international community basically ensured the birth of America at this site.

I'm certainly against invading another country (i.e. with the intent to control it after hostilities cease) but I'm also completely against condemning a relatively defenseless population to death simply because an intervention wouldn't be economically profitable. I think maybe you should read more about what happened in both Rwanda and Darfur to fully appreciate what happens when the world collectively shrugs at genocide.

America's military action in the world has caused way more deaths that Gaddafi's supposed genocide. Not to mention the amount of death that has resulted from Western powers selling weapons. I dont believe that those actions saved more lives than they cost either.

Lets be honest to the international community it's not a matter of shrugging at genocide, it's a matter of what can we gain, what are we going lose, how much money can we gain from defence contracts, what influence can wield, what can we control etc etc. Due the recession there's been calls to lower defence budgets, cut out jobs etc, this war gives governments the excuse to not cut defence budgets and instead spend more money just bombing the crap out of places for their own gain.

Really all Gaddafi has done is defend his country against an armed rebellion, which any country should be able to do.

Also the current International situation is a bit different than it was back in the American Revolution. I don't really see it being the same as the Libiyan Conflict.

>> ^bcglorf:

Gaddafi was about to commit a genocide. He had stated it was his intention to do so. His history had already made this threat credible. Past actions by similar dictators in similar circumstances made this threat even more credible. His immediate actions following the speech turned his threat into actions and made his intentions undeniable. Does anyone deny, in the face of this, that Gaddafi was on his way to executing the genocide he threatened?
Unless you have arguments against that, I don't care much what you think of Gaddafi. I care that a genocide was about to happen, and the UN sanctioned actions, lobbied for by the Arab League, prevented that genocide.
My point is simply that stopping the genocide was better than taking this guys advice and doing nothing.


Exactly.

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

As far as I'm concerned, any other argument against intervention given the context is all but irrelevant.

Really all Gaddafi has done is defend his country against an armed rebellion, which any country should be able to do.

Stop making yourself an apologist for a genocidal dictator, you might very well regret such actions as you get older and understand things better.

You even deny that Gaddafi was in the process of implementing a genocide he promised to commit by referring to it as his supposed genocide!

Gaddafi did NOT defend his country from an armed rebellion. He defended himself from his own people's peaceful and unarmed uprising by sending his army to shoot them with guns, tanks and even aerial bombings. Your description of events however blames the peaceful demonstrators for eventually deciding to defend themselves against the multiple targeted killings Gaddafi launched against them after he promised to hunt them down house by house.

Remember all the agreeably terrible things America has done in the world. remember the selfish gains America and NATO might see in their actions in Libya. But for heaven's sake don't at the exact same time forget about the Libyan people that would almost certainly already have been executed en mass had nobody acted to stop Gaddafi's advance!

A "genocide" is against people of a particular ethnicity or religion. What Gadhafi's doing is against a group that has declared a coup attempt against his government, so let's stop throwing that loaded term around. How could you blame the guy for saying he's going to kill all of them, and assure his supporters that it will be thorough? Of course he did, same as your government would do. I don't see the issue.>> ^bcglorf:

I have troubles cheering a guy who declares the better solution was never go at all. Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition...

>> ^messenger:

A "genocide" is against people of a particular ethnicity or religion. What Gadhafi's doing is against a group that has declared a coup attempt against his government, so let's stop throwing that loaded term around. How could you blame the guy for saying he's going to kill all of them, and assure his supporters that it will be thorough? Of course he did, same as your government would do. I don't see the issue.>> ^bcglorf:
I have troubles cheering a guy who declares the better solution was never go at all. Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition...



The Libyan protesters were overwhelmingly PEACEFUL when Gaddafi announced his intentions to cleanse them house by house. Their peaceful nature was inspite of already having been targeted for killing by Gaddafi's forces at this point already.

You are apologizing for a genocidal dictator and should be ashamed. The riots during the Vietnam war in America where every bit akin to the Libyan uprising, and contrary to your claim there was no promise of a house to house slaughter of all hippies that would include even the peaceful ones.

Read again. You're misquoting me all over the place.

I'm not apologizing. I'm criticizing your characterization of it as a "genocide". Killing lots of people is not a genocide. That's all. In fact, it's a civil war. The people have organized and publicly declared themselves against a well-armed government which is notorious for killing dissenters and disregarding civil rights in general. Just about everyone outside Libya sides with the rebels and hope they succeed in toppling a ruthless douchebag dictator, but it does not change the fact that the rebels are trying to overthrow a government which is bound to fight back.

Your comparison with Vietnam protesters is a poor choice. Those hippies weren't trying to overthrow the government, just change the government's foreign policy, which is anyone's legal right. I think you'll agree that if they had tried to actually overthrow government, they'd all have been arrested and/or killed. Besides, the government did kill some Vietnam protesters.>> ^bcglorf:

The Libyan protesters were overwhelmingly PEACEFUL when Gaddafi announced his intentions to cleanse them house by house. Their peaceful nature was inspite of already having been targeted for killing by Gaddafi's forces at this point already.
You are apologizing for a genocidal dictator and should be ashamed. The riots during the Vietnam war in America where every bit akin to the Libyan uprising, and contrary to your claim there was no promise of a house to house slaughter of all hippies that would include even the peaceful ones.

I'm criticizing your characterization of it as a "genocide". Killing lots of people is not a genocide.

From your own link to the wiki article on Genocide:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

As you admitted later in your own post, the Libyan opposition is a very broadly supported national group that Gaddafi intended to deliberately and systematically destroy.

To deny that would have been a genocide IS being an apologist.
To deny that was exactly what was already being started IS being an apologist.

^
800,000 Rwandans were already dead while people like you rallied against intervention wringing their hands over not using the 'loaded term' of genocide, and how it applied to a very specific set of circumstances. And if that wasn't enough, it was a civil war too boot and getting involved might make it worse. 800,000 Rwandans died while the world listened to advice identical to yours.

I thank the heavens Libya has enough oil that enough nations cared to bother stopping a genocide this time around. I'd much prefer a world were nations would intervene even without self interests involved, but if we can at least stop genocides in places the west cares about it's better than no help at all.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is there a channel for stupid twats on TV?


Yep, it's called *news.