Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Meanwhile in Bahrain, the military is not attacking armed rebels, it is attacking protesters. Saudi Arabia and the UAE just invaded Bahrain. Where is the US? I thought they had parked the 6th or whatever-th fleet in the country? All the West sees is potential privatisation of oil fields.

Bahrain fires at protesters; 2 dead, 150 injured

(CNN) -- Bahrain security forces fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters in the southern city of Sitra on Tuesday, killing at least two protesters and wounding at least 150 people, according to medical officials on the scene Tuesday.

"They are killing everybody," one official said. "They attacked us -- even medical personnel."

The man, who asked to be identified only as a medical official for fear of reprisals, said he was riding with patients in an ambulance as he spoke.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2


Gaddafi Says European Friends Betrayed Him

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said he felt betrayed by former European allies like Italy's Silvio Berlusconi who have turned against him and said business links with Europe risked lasting damage.

Gaddafi dismissed demands by world powers for a no-fly zone over Libya or the possibility of airstrikes, telling Tuesday's edition of the Italian daily Il Giornale that: "We will fight and win. A situation of that type will only serve to unite the Libyan people."

The Libyan leader said French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has officially recognized the rebel Libyan National Council and called for targeted airstrikes, had a "mental disorder."

In the interview, Gaddafi said the criticism of his rule from Europe, culminating in a demand by EU leaders that he leave power, had threatened ties.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42084554?__so...ext|&par=otbrn

[Federate]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

So having so many civilians in arms, sacrificing their lives against Gaddaffi's more advanced army is not justified enough for Gaddaffi's immediate removal? When a leader is forced to bomb his own people and respond the way he responded, he loses the right to govern that people. If he was a leader truly worthy of leading his people, this bloodshed wouldn't have happened.

However that still doesn't have to do with the point I've been making in my last few posts.

Yes, it's a civil war, these things happen just like they happen in the history of all civil wars. Ghazafi is not bombing civilians, he is bombing armed fighters who have all the weaponry he has (stolen from army bases). They even have some air power as evidenced by today's rebel bombing of a Libyan ship. They are simply whining and wh0ring themselves out to the West because they do not have as much air power/experience so they want a no-fly zone to balance the equation.

Don't believe everything you hear from these Western outlets. Russia Today's interview with the UN envoy seems more accurate, so does the views of Francis Boyle in the interview I posted and that radio host interviewed by RT.

Meanwhile in Bahrain, the military is not attacking armed rebels, it is attacking protesters. Saudi Arabia and the UAE just invaded Bahrain. Where is the US? I thought they had parked the 6th or whatever-th fleet in the country? All the West sees is potential privatisation of oil fields.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

So having so many civilians in arms, sacrificing their lives against Gaddaffi's more advanced army is not justified enough for Gaddaffi's immediate removal? When a leader is forced to bomb his own people and respond the way he responded, he loses the right to govern that people. If he was a leader truly worthy of leading his people, this bloodshed wouldn't have happened.

However that still doesn't have to do with the point I've been making in my last few posts.

Where is your proof of any statements against Gaddafi? Who are these rebels? Who are they loyal to? Are they really acting in the interest of all of Libya's people or are they a pack of thugs hired by outsiders?

[Mos]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

No, it takes a certain type of individual to do nasty things as not everyone is inherently capable of it. Gaddafi is falsely being blamed for things that aren't true so that Western powers can further exploit the people of Libya. I'm certainly not saying Gaddafi is a good ruler with good intentions towards the people of Libya but the alternative can certainly be a lot worse for the people of Libya. Russia agrees Gaddafi has got to go but they also realize there is a time and place for everything and up until now, Gaddafi hasn't done anything and his removal by force would be premature and unjustifiable.

So having so many civilians in arms, sacrificing their lives against Gaddaffi's more advanced army is not justified enough for Gaddaffi's immediate removal? When a leader is forced to bomb his own people and respond the way he responded, he loses the right to govern that people. If he was a leader truly worthy of leading his people, this bloodshed wouldn't have happened.

However that still doesn't have to do with the point I've been making in my last few posts.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Neither was the British Empire a "nation" or some of the other powers mentioned, but that's besides the point I wasn't talking about Libya in my post but about the false notion that America is the only power to have exploited its position of power and in fact this exploitation has been milder than what other powers have done when they were in a similar position of power. US has done some wrong things, that's a given, but it's important for people to see all this in historical context and realise any country in such a position of power will naturally do some nasty things. As I've said power naturally corrupts governments and countries.

No, it takes a certain type of individual to do nasty things as not everyone is inherently capable of it. Gaddafi is falsely being blamed for things that aren't true so that Western powers can further exploit the people of Libya. I'm certainly not saying Gaddafi is a good ruler with good intentions towards the people of Libya but the alternative can certainly be a lot worse for the people of Libya. Russia agrees Gaddafi has got to go but they also realize there is a time and place for everything and up until now, Gaddafi hasn't done anything and his removal by force would be premature and unjustifiable.

[Mos]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

I think you fail to understand that America is not a nation and neither is Libya. The country known today as Libya has only existed since the end of World War II, and was the product of a shotgun marriage of the three “provinces”: Tripolitania, in the West, Cyrenaica, in the East, and Fezzan in the South. “Libya” was created, first, by the Italians in 1933, who sought to incorporate the three distinct areas into a unified colony. After the defeat of the Axis powers, the British took control and installed an “emir” in Cyrenaica.


Ottoman Provinces Of Libya

Actually, I’m surprised Gaddafi hasn't proclaimed himself as the Libyan Abraham Lincoln, a heroic leader who will stop at nothing to save the sacred unitary state.

The Western powers want a single state to deal with and exploit, and it is doubly unacceptable to the Arab League, because it opens up a whole new can of worms, throwing into question the borders of states created in the wake of the Ottoman Empire's collapse. If Cyrenaica can secede from Tripoli, then why can’t the Kurds secede from Iraq? – and the Shi’ites of the Saudi Kingdom’s Eastern province rid themselves of their Sunni overlords?

Neither was the British Empire a "nation" or some of the other powers mentioned, but that's besides the point I wasn't talking about Libya in my post but about the false notion that America is the only power to have exploited its position of power and in fact this exploitation has been milder than what other powers have done when they were in a similar position of power. US has done some wrong things, that's a given, but it's important for people to see all this in historical context and realise any country in such a position of power will naturally do some nasty things. As I've said power naturally corrupts governments and countries.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

First off, that is very different from president killing his own people. Second off, the US is not alone in some of the mistakes and crimes it has done. Every nation in its height of power has committed crimes against humanity. Look at the Britain during it's height of power, the crimes they committed in their colonisation dwarfs the crimes USA has committed today. Look at Napoleon's Empire or the Mongols or the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the list goes on. I understand you are on a anti-USA agenda, but just remember to keep everything in context and remember what other powers have done during their height of power. It's not like the "evil American imperialists" are the first country to ever invade another country unjustified or to meddle in other countries affairs when they don't have to. In fact, any country in America's position of power would do that, no doubt, and history proves that. It doesn't make their acts justified, but just puts everything in context.

I think you fail to understand that America is not a nation and neither is Libya. The country known today as Libya has only existed since the end of World War II, and was the product of a shotgun marriage of the three “provinces”: Tripolitania, in the West, Cyrenaica, in the East, and Fezzan in the South. “Libya” was created, first, by the Italians in 1933, who sought to incorporate the three distinct areas into a unified colony. After the defeat of the Axis powers, the British took control and installed an “emir” in Cyrenaica.


Ottoman Provinces Of Libya

Actually, I’m surprised Gaddafi hasn't proclaimed himself as the Libyan Abraham Lincoln, a heroic leader who will stop at nothing to save the sacred unitary state.

The Western powers want a single state to deal with and exploit, and so does the Arab League, because if the state was to split up, that opens up a whole new can of worms, throwing into question the borders of states created in the wake of the Ottoman Empire's collapse (including what the hell happened to Western Armenia?!?!?!).

If Cyrenaica can secede from Tripoli, then why can’t the Kurds secede from Iraq? – and the Shi’ites of the Saudi Kingdom’s Eastern province rid themselves of their Sunni overlords?
__________________________________________________ ____________

Also, some more history about "modern" US involvement in North Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the North African Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco and Tripoli, which were a quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War
The Second Barbary War (1815), also known as the Algerine or Algerian War, was the second of two wars fought between the United States and the Ottoman Empire's North African regencies of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis, known collectively as the Barbary States. The war between the Barbary States and the U.S. ended in 1815.


Terrorism In Early America
The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States
To End International Blackmail and Terrorism

Almost 180 years ago our infant country attacked Tripoli under circumstances that are eerily similar to contemporary times. That conflict, immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn, "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" called the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Pirate War, came shortly after we gained our independence from England. The United States chose to fight the pirates of Barbary, rather than pay tribute, as did all the other nations who traded in the Mediterranean Sea. The decision was bold, but the eventual victory by the tiny United States Navy broke a pattern of international blackmail and terrorism dating back more than one hundred and fifty years.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2.../terrorism.htm

[Mos]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

No, every US president has lied about other regimes killing their people in order to launch air strikes on other countries. Civilian deaths are noted as "collateral damage".

First off, that is very different from president killing his own people. Second off, the US is not alone in some of the mistakes and crimes it has done. Every nation in its height of power has committed crimes against humanity. Look at the Britain during it's height of power, the crimes they committed in their colonisation dwarfs the crimes USA has committed today. Look at Napoleon's Empire or the Mongols or the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the list goes on. I understand you are on a anti-USA agenda, but just remember to keep everything in context and remember what other powers have done during their height of power. It's not like the "evil American imperialists" are the first country to ever invade another country unjustified or to meddle in other countries affairs when they don't have to. In fact, any country in America's position of power would do that, no doubt, and history proves that. It doesn't make their acts justified, but just puts everything in context.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Every US president has killed his own people and ordered air strikes on his own civilians?

No, every US president has lied about other regimes killing their people in order to launch air strikes on other countries. Civilian deaths are noted as "collateral damage".

[Mos]

Re: Muammar Gaddafi and Libyan crisis

Wait, are you talking about Gadaffi or every U.S. president since the inception of American land?

Every US president has killed his own people and ordered air strikes on his own civilians?

Actually in recent years the West and Gadaffi have become rather close - relations have been mending, of course a major reason for that being oil. For the West, it would be better for Gadaffi to stay at this point - they have decent relations with him - and most importantly, the oil if flowing. Who knows what the rebel government might entail. But I'm not looking for any sides interests, I'm looking for these people to have a ruler who doesn't with disregard massacre his people - plus he's had a very nasty regime and taken people out according to his will.