>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is there a channel for stupid twats on TV?


Yep, it's called *news.

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.

>> ^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.

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...

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^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?

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?

Your video, Former CIA Analyst Schools CNN Host, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^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?

>> ^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

I think that the more important question here is why Libya? Why not Bahrain? Why not Yemen? Why not Syria? Why not any other number of countries where there is revolution?

The problem with becoming involved in Libya is that the risk of Blowback is much more dangerous than actually helping. Which is what the gentleman, former CIA analyst, is saying.

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.

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.

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?