Interesting discussion about this *news here: http://videosift.com/video/RT-Gaddafi-is-ready-to-die-in-Tripolis-Breaking-News-War

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by notarobot.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, August 22nd, 2011 6:39am PDT - promote requested by original submitter bcglorf.

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by ant.

Breaking news: Democracy is now people throwing their hands in the air repeatedly while people in the background hold guns and fireworks go off.

>> ^ghark:

Breaking news: Democracy is now people throwing their hands in the air repeatedly while people in the background hold guns and fireworks go off.


Snide comments have their place, but in this context your just sympathizing with a deposed tyrannical dictator.

A ruthless dictator's brutal multi-decade rule has finally been brought to an end by what started as protesters demanding nothing more than the right to vote for their leader and the freedom to express their displeasure with their current leadership.


If that isn't breaking news of a victory for democratic values over tyranny, what is?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:


protesters demanding nothing more than the right to vote for their leader and the freedom to express their displeasure with their current leadership.?


Protesters? You mean the ones that sold $100 million USD in oil to NATO were simply doing so to "express their displeasure with their current leadership"?
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/09/148413.html

with a little help from NATO bombs?
http://ozyism.blogspot.com/2011/05/nato-tries-to-destroy-evidence-of-rebel.html

I'm not going to bother with the sarcasm tag, you sicken me.

>> ^bcglorf:
Snide comments have their place, but in this context your just sympathizing with a deposed tyrannical dictator.


Says the cheerleader for Western colonialism and imperialism.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:


protesters demanding nothing more than the right to vote for their leader and the freedom to express their displeasure with their current leadership.?

Protesters? You mean the ones that sold $100 million USD in oil to NATO were simply doing so to "express their displeasure with their current leadership"?
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/09/148413.html
with a little help from NATO bombs?
http://ozyism.blogspot.com/2011/05/nato-tries-to-destroy-eviden
ce-of-rebel.html
I'm not going to bother with the sarcasm tag, you sicken me.


I'm glad I sicken you. Anyone supporting a regime like Gaddafi's, and mourning it's loss is someone I WANT to hold me in contempt and disdain. Your ideas of what is best for the Libyan people is diseased beyond imagination.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
Snide comments have their place, but in this context your just sympathizing with a deposed tyrannical dictator.

Says the cheerleader for Western colonialism and imperialism.


You say that like Gaddafi's fall is a bad thing...

Oh right, you believe that. In case you haven't noticed, the world is wising up and rejecting your kind en mass. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have already thrown your ilk out, and with any luck the Syrian and Iranian people will manage similar gains in the future.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Snide comments have their place, but in this context your just sympathizing with a deposed tyrannical dictator.

Says the cheerleader for Western colonialism and imperialism.

You say that like Gaddafi's fall is a bad thing...
Oh right, you believe that. In case you haven't noticed, the world is wising up and rejecting your kind en mass. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have already thrown your ilk out, and with any luck the Syrian and Iranian people will manage similar gains in the future.


You say that like NATO actually gives a damn about helping the Libyan people. You're a fool if you think that's the case.

Oil and Gold. Notice how they never targeted any of the oil infrastructure with the bombings? No, they targeted residential areas and civilian infrastructure. Lol, and you think they're there to help the people. They're there to help themselves! Bomb and pillage.

@bcglorf

You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.


Don't be stupid.

You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?

What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Snide comments have their place, but in this context your just sympathizing with a deposed tyrannical dictator.

Says the cheerleader for Western colonialism and imperialism.

You say that like Gaddafi's fall is a bad thing...
Oh right, you believe that. In case you haven't noticed, the world is wising up and rejecting your kind en mass. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have already thrown your ilk out, and with any luck the Syrian and Iranian people will manage similar gains in the future.

You say that like NATO actually gives a damn about helping the Libyan people. You're a fool if you think that's the case.
Oil and Gold. Notice how they never targeted any of the oil infrastructure with the bombings? No, they targeted residential areas and civilian infrastructure. Lol, and you think they're there to help the people. They're there to help themselves! Bomb and pillage.


What's wrong with you?

I said Gaddafi's defeat is good for the Libyan people. Do you agree with that or not? It's a simple question.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?


I don't support either, did I not make that clear?

Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.

On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

I don't support either, did I not make that clear?
Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.
On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?


So, I ask:
Gaddafi's defeat is good for the Libyan people. Do you agree with that or not?

And your answer is....

Neither?

Are the semantics giving your troubles, or the language in general?

If I were living under a dictator like Gaddafi, I would be optimistic about an outside nation providing air support and cover to local rebels trying to overthrow him. His defeat would be better for me than his continued rule, so a good thing. It doesn't mean Libyan's will be living the good life now. It means a less worse life. Thins might deteriorate once again, but there was zero chance for them to get better so long as Gaddafi remained.

@bcglorf

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.

You're planning on bombing every other country that has people that need a "less worse life" I presume?

You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off. Is Iraq better off than before America invaded? Perhaps we can ask the 100,000 dead civilians (and counting)? Gotta love the regime change business, I hear it's very profitable.

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.

Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.

You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.

Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?

Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?

Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.

Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.

>> ^bcglorf:

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.
Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.
You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.
Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?
Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?
Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.
Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.


Look I admire the fact you're giving this a go and putting on your thinking cap, I really do; but let's look at each of your points.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620

Overall - the economy is worse, it has next to no industry or farming, health outcomes/life expectancy are worse, while education has improved. So even with this brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, the country was doing better in many areas than it is now, and this is not even looking at the subjective elements such as the hundred thousand dead civilians at the hands of US soldiers and assorted explosive devices. However even though things were perhaps marginally better with Saddam in power, I do agree that his dictatorship was brutal, and things were pretty horrific for many in Iraq. But guess what? Saddam's Ba'ath Party was put in power by the CIA - this is a well documented fact, feel free to look it up. America objected to the fact the previous ruler wanted to nationalize it's own oil reserves. So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives (subvert Gaddafi's genocide) you're being extremely naive. There are far better ways of saving lives than invading a country with bombs, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

@ghark, you are fool who is completely blinded by their hatred for America.

Everything in thread was praising the victory of Libyan rebels over Gaddafi. Joy that all of Gaddafi's promises to exterminate them house by house like cockroaches would no longer come to pass. That is good.

Then you come along and declare that the rebels have some loose ties to the satanic forces of the empire, so their victory over Gaddafi is no victory at all. In fact, you seem to suggest that association makes their victory over Gaddafi even worse for Libyans than Gaddafi's continued rule.

You are insane, or possibly even in the employ of the likes of the regime. I don't really care much which, I'm done with you and your madness.

Congratulations to the Libyan people, may your gains now be as long lived as possible.

>> ^bcglorf:

@ghark, you are fool who is completely blinded by their hatred for America.
Everything in thread was praising the victory of Libyan rebels over Gaddafi. Joy that all of Gaddafi's promises to exterminate them house by house like cockroaches would no longer come to pass. That is good.
Then you come along and declare that the rebels have some loose ties to the satanic forces of the empire, so their victory over Gaddafi is no victory at all. In fact, you seem to suggest that association makes their victory over Gaddafi even worse for Libyans than Gaddafi's continued rule.
You are insane, or possibly even in the employ of the likes of the regime. I don't really care much which, I'm done with you and your madness.
Congratulations to the Libyan people, may your gains now be as long lived as possible.


What I've given you are facts, the fact that you find them hard to digest doesn't make the facts wrong, it makes you closed minded. In return you've tried to pass off the Iraq invasion as 'an improvement' and called those that question the improvements the "ignorant masses". Refuting history is important for the likes of you because it allows you to more easily justify what's just happened to our friends in Libya. I'm also happy for the Libyans that wanted this, however I see both sides, something you seem closed to and I can't help you there obviously.