Libya

[Ke1t]

If Gaddafti says he's going to win.

 

Then he's going to win.

 

 

I can't help but like him.

 

Weren't his personal bodyguard a bunch of hand-picked chicks?

 

He's definitely living the dream.... like Charlie Sheen.

 

Winning.

 

Edit: And here they are... the dorty, dorty, lucky b*stard.

 

[TheG_L_A]

He's great.

[Bluto10]

has he bombed anyone yet?

[Jocky Balboa]

Brilliant find, JB. Ron Paul nails it in that speech and his references to constitutional authority and the UN-Nato relationship were missed by the subsequent poster.

 

Lecture one in year one of any law school the world over includes Constitutional Law and the definitions of the functions of state.

 

These are threefold, namely Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. If the state passes bad law, the judiciary is there to interpret and re-define it.

 

The problem with the UN is that like the League of Nations, it's role is confused and it's effectiveness is less than useless. It's a farce organisation that purports to have a legislative function but in reality, in the absence of judicial review, it lacks any credibility whatsoever by the very model which the west calls "democracy".

 

Ron Paul is absolutely right that the US contribution to the imposition of a no fly zone lacks any US constitutional authority and is therefore illegal.

 

Ron Paul is a true Libertarian. I don't always agree with him (i.e. his advocating of Free Market economics) but he's given a real thought provoking argument here.

[TheG_L_A]

I reckon Gaddafti could take Cameron in a fight.

 

 

I can just imagine him slapping the c**t over the heid with a sandy slipper

[dervish]

Gaddafti is Sheen with guns.

But really who give a f**k, we are entering a civil war for political reasons. Japan? Wasn't that last week?

[diamondsr4ever]

The world is definitely enriched by mental people like him. He is lovable in a mentalist sort of way.

 

is it not ironic that the same people now saving Libya from its mad tyrant, are the same people who have supported him for the last 42 yrs? give or ake a few bombs here and there.

 

and anymore of these "experts" and "analysts" and I think I'll buy a tweed jacket.

[Ke1t]

Ron Paul is a true Libertarian. I don't always agree with him (i.e. his advocating of Free Market economics) but he's given a real thought provoking argument here.

 

He talks a lot of sense... but then so did Obama, and of course he was full of sh*t.

 

It's best to work on the assumption that politicians are lying through their teeth, and I see little reason to consider Ron Paul a special case.

 

Certainly if you're gay, looking for an abortion, a non-English speaker.. well, any one of a number of demographics he's voted against, you likely wouldn't consider him particularly Libertarian.

 

And I would reckon him all but unelectable (from a presidential standpoint) so long as he runs under the Republican banner.

[Oklahoma 1903]

 

And I would reckon him all but unelectable (from a presidential standpoint) so long as he runs under the Republican banner.

Why would that be?

 

 

[Ke1t]

Why would that be?

 

Specifically things like his refusal to come down against forced repatriation of illegals, his fence-sitting on gay issues, his refusal to spout pure rhetoric on terrorism, his advocating dialogue with Iran when Bush and Cheyney were prepping for war, his adult position on the reasons for 911 as opposed to jumping on the "They hate us for our freedoms" nonesensical bandwagon.

 

That's just scratching the surface on where he differs from an electoral base that thought, and largely still thinks, that George Bush and Neoconservatism were the sh*t.

 

If he didn't have a problem with blacks he might be more successful on a Democratic ticket, but that's not going to happen... and Independent will place him precisely nowhere.

[daytripping]

Since when does a no fly zone mean bombing feck out of a nation.

 

It's a civil war, let them get on with it.

[Jocky Balboa]

Specifically things like his refusal to come down against forced repatriation of illegals, his fence-sitting on gay issues, his refusal to spout pure rhetoric on terrorism, his advocating dialogue with Iran when Bush and Cheyney were prepping for war, his adult position on the reasons for 911 as opposed to jumping on the "They hate us for our freedoms" nonesensical bandwagon.

 

That's just scratching the surface on where he differs from an electoral base that thought, and largely still thinks, that George Bush and Neoconservatism were the sh*t.

 

If he didn't have a problem with blacks he might be more successful on a Democratic ticket, but that's not going to happen... and Independent will place him precisely nowhere.

 

He runs on a Republican ticket precisely because of the two-party duopoly that keeps the Libertarian Party from getting anywhere. I did acknowledge above that I don't agree with all he stands for (him and his son Rand both oppose abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, while I am pro-choice. I also am not convinced on unregulated economic markets) but he does stand out as a principled man and certainly a breath of fresh air from the usual ZOG claptrap that infects American politics.

[Ke1t]

He runs on a Republican ticket precisely because of the two-party duopoly that keeps the Libertarian Party from getting anywhere. I did acknowledge above that I don't agree with all he stands for (him and his son Rand both oppose abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, while I am pro-choice. I also am not convinced on unregulated economic markets) but he does stand out as a principled man and certainly a breath of fresh air from the usual ZOG claptrap that infects American politics.

 

Yeah, as I said he'd have to be mental to run as an independent... he might get elected locally, but in a national election no independent is going to be becoming president. Not unless some really mad shift in politics occurs.

 

It surprises me that he runs as a Republican, though, given his politics are closer to Democratic ideals, in my opinion. But maybe that's the whole black thing. Just don't think he likes the brothers at all.

[Bebo]

Here's something for the conspiracy theorists.

 

 

An ex-dutch military guy has been recording the airwaves of flight data, and picked up a small passenger jet registered to Wells Fargo Bank flying from Washington and landed in Tripoli while the UN was voting on the no-fly zone.

 

http://audioboo.fm/boos/306622-mystery-flight-n799ww-landing-mitiga-libya-hllm

 

It is a BD-700-1A10 serial 9092 registered to Wells Fargo Bank Northwest NA, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company.

The same subsidiary is the trustee for the aircraft with the tail number N168BF, a Raytheon Hawker 800XP with Serial # 258373 that allegedly has been used for extraordinary rendition flights.

[diamondsr4ever]

Here's something for the conspiracy theorists.

 

 

An ex-dutch military guy has been recording the airwaves of flight data, and picked up a small passenger jet registered to Wells Fargo Bank flying from Washington and landed in Tripoli while the UN was voting on the no-fly zone.

 

http://audioboo.fm/boos/306622-mystery-flight-n799ww-landing-mitiga-libya-hllm

 

was this at Anderson air base, did you order the code red.

 

you cant handle the truth...

[madjockmcferson]

As always it is a nuanced affair and isn't as clean cut as people would like to think. This article is as good as any I've seen re: the endgame in Libya.

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85505/libyas-coming-insurgency

 

Today the world's attention is riveted by the U.N. strikes on Libya and the battle for Benghazi, as that nation's future hangs precariously in the balance. But whatever happens in the coming weeks or months, one thing is clear: The chances of a drawn-out insurgency in Libya are very high.

 

History offers a number of sign posts that an insurgency will occur. Unfortunately Libya has almost all of them. At this point the political objectives of the government and anti-government forces are irreconcilable. Each side wants total victory

[Ke1t]

As always it is a nuanced affair and isn't as clean cut as people would like to think. This article is as good as any I've seen re: the endgame in Libya.

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85505/libyas-coming-insurgency

 

Now THAT was a good article.

 

Funny that he's suggesting western 'advisors' train the rebels, in light of SAS troops training Gaddafi's troops.

 

I reckon the west should definitely supply the rebels with everything they need to at least defend themselves. People should have the right to self-defence.

[madjockmcferson]

If the aim of western policy is establishing a democratic Libya and protecting civilians then the west will need to train the 'rebels' under 2 scenarios

 

1) The rebels win. They will need training to avoid them falling into extremists hands and to help them avoid reprisals against pro-Gadaffi forces.

2) The rebels are beaten back. They will need training to prevent Gadaffi from winning and continuing his murderous onslaught against civilians

 

Either way the west's input here isn't limited to military action. They will have to provide humanitarian assistance at the very least and will (eventually) have to provide training and assistance to the rebels.

 

Libya is ripe for an insurgency as both sides are determined to fight to the death and neither wants to compromise....it could get messier.

[Crossbow]

What is happening in Libya could be classed as a civil war. We have no right to decide which side has more right on its side, no business trying to decide which side will win and no legal say in who runs another country so while it wouldnt be 'the Christian thing to do' to leave them to sort it out themselves and then deal with the consequences it is the right thing to do. Its been proven time and time again that Western involvement in Arab affairs only ends in the West being vilified and a new, usually more dangerous leader emerging in that Arab state or worse a new international terrorist organisation being born from the aftermath. We created the Taliban, we created Al Quida, we gave and backed Saddam's power, The Saudi's now own the US, we propped up the Egyptian regime while it suited us... The list of the Wests forays into the Arab nations is endless and the end result is always the same. A new, more dangerous and more extreme version of what went before. So yes, while it doesnt sit well sitting by watching while someone in a country bombs his own people it has nothing to do with us so we should leave well alone until its time to deal with the fall out. We should be there to assist in the end, not assist the end coming.

 

What Zimbabwe being land locked has to do with the UN sitting by and doing nothing needs a bit of explaining please. If we can send jets to Libya directly from the UK and France to enforce a no fly zone I'm sure we could do the same from air craft carriers based off Madagascar to help the people of Zimbabwe. If we are going to police the world then the laws have to be for everyone and not just those countries that have black stuff within their borders.

 

 

 

 

last point first - in order to get to Zim we'd need to overfly other states - that would require their blessing - which I suspect isn't on offer - I'm all for dealing with Mugabe as he has shown absolute contempt for his people but the real world politics do make it far more challenging. Sadly US humanitarianism does not extend to Zim and the UK is simply not potent enough to make it happen. Realpolitik.

 

Libya - you have a leader who has pointedly indicated that he will eliminate the opposition (and that is a very open group) - this is hardly the first time this has happened - nor will it be the last - but the reality of Libya is that he has a track record of being a brutal despot and a recent record of being a brutal despot who has shelled his own poeple. We can wash our hands of it and say it is not our problem and watch the tragic deaths of men, women and children at the guns of Gaddafi. The deaths of those people are someone elses fault, we don't need to care. We could have done that in Yugoslavia but ultimately didn't. We have done that in so many places. There are many reasons why countries do things and not all are laudable.

 

At its basics for me is the fact we can either stand and watch Gaddafi kill people and say it is not our problem because they are from somewhere away from my home or we can say it is wrong to kill people and when we can try and stop those who are hell bent on that action from doing it. There are lots of straw men in this situation; our government is not completely benign and our governmental motives and those of our allies are probably not solely whiter than white but to say we should just stand back and let Gaddafi get on with butchering the innocent seems wrong and morally bankrupt.

 

We can do something here; there is a big enough international consensus to permit it. I don't know how the Libyan revolution will play out but permitting Gaddafi to indiscriminately shell and bomb cities when we can stop it cannot be right.

[tup]

Summary of the Libyan 'crisis'

 

1. We help ourselves to their oil for years, and pay people from over here vast, tax-free fortunes to drain it.

2. We install Gadaffi, an alcoholic and, by the nick of him, drug fiend, to keep the Libyans in check should they question us.

3. We provide Gadaffi with the means to flex his muscles, military equipment and weapons, and charge him a king's ransom for it.

4. The Libyans, due to information technology, are more aware of the West's nefarious activities in their country, and are understandably annoyed about it.

5. The air strikes commenced as a direct result of 'rebel' attacks on oil related installations. They have absolutely no basis in humanitarian issues.

6. We, predictably, need a 'good guy' 'bad guy' situation, as we have in all children's cartoons and all movies. The slavering moronic masses demand it. Gadaffi fits the role like a glove, therefore he's getting it. The news programmes ham it up about our selfless role in the whole thing.

 

In reality we are guilty of imperialistic theft, arms profiteering, threats leading to outright violence, and finally devastating military force in response to any queries on our shady motives for being there.

[The Boofon]

Apart from a few tools working offshore, who gives a f**k?

 

It's a total desert.

 

Gaddafi farts like f**k after a good meal.

 

 

Aye and there are loads of folk "offshore" in the desert.

 

What a bellend you are.

[tup]

Aye and there are loads of folk "offshore" in the desert.

 

What a bellend you are.

 

Well in the f**king oil industry then you pedantic c**t, I still don't give a f**k about them, f**king Hollywood welders and their ilk, all f**king snakeskin shoes and leather jaikits and big cigars in their mooths, dicks, to a man.

[Jonty]

Summary of the Libyan 'crisis'

 

1. We help ourselves to their oil for years, and pay people from over here vast, tax-free fortunes to drain it.

2. We install Gadaffi, an alcoholic and, by the nick of him, drug fiend, to keep the Libyans in check should they question us.

3. We provide Gadaffi with the means to flex his muscles, military equipment and weapons, and charge him a king's ransom for it.

4. The Libyans, due to information technology, are more aware of the West's nefarious activities in their country, and are understandably annoyed about it.

5. The air strikes commenced as a direct result of 'rebel' attacks on oil related installations. They have absolutely no basis in humanitarian issues.

6. We, predictably, need a 'good guy' 'bad guy' situation, as we have in all children's cartoons and all movies. The slavering moronic masses demand it. Gadaffi fits the role like a glove, therefore he's getting it. The news programmes ham it up about our selfless role in the whole thing.

 

In reality we are guilty of imperialistic theft, arms profiteering, threats leading to outright violence, and finally devastating military force in response to any queries on our shady motives for being there.

 

 

1. There was an oil embargo on the import of Libyan oil until 2004.

2. Gadaffi rose to power in Libya in a coup, backed by the Libyan army. Nobody "installed" him.

3. Although the Oil Embargo was lifted in 2004, other sanctions have been in place since then, including the banning of sales of arms. Libya remains on the Washington list of states sponsoring terror.

4. Libyans themselves rose up against Gaddafi, and those from the East of the country appear in favour of western support.

5. The air "strikes" commenced as a direct consequence of Gaddafi threatening to and then attacking his own people. Read the UN resolution.

6. Whatever you think of everybody else, Gaddafi and his family are a bunch of c4nts and getting what they deserve.

[tup]

1. There was an oil embargo on the import of Libyan oil until 2004.

2. Gadaffi rose to power in Libya in a coup, backed by the Libyan army. Nobody "installed" him.

3. Although the Oil Embargo was lifted in 2004, other sanctions have been in place since then, including the banning of sales of arms. Libya remains on the Washington list of states sponsoring terror.

4. Libyans themselves rose up against Gaddafi, and those from the East of the country appear in favour of western support.

5. The air "strikes" commenced as a direct consequence of Gaddafi threatening to and then attacking his own people. Read the UN resolution.

6. Whatever you think of everybody else, Gaddafi and his family are a bunch of c4nts and getting what they deserve.

 

I see you buy the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

 

We have very close ties with Libya. Read the Megrahi documents.

 

UN resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on.

[TheG_L_A]

 

UN resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on.

 

Like New Years resolutions.

 

Full of sh*te.

[tup]

Like New Years resolutions.

 

Full of sh*te.

 

Aye, same as folk who say on a Monday 'I'm never drinking again'. They say it every f**king week.

 

Yes you are drinking again, dinna come the sh*te.

[The Boofon]

Well in the f**king oil industry then you pedantic c**t, I still don't give a f**k about them, f**king Hollywood welders and their ilk, all f**king snakeskin shoes and leather jaikits and big cigars in their mooths, dicks, to a man.

 

 

Where's the handbag smiley when you need it? Ach this will do.

 

I've been off the drink since Sunday.

 

Beiung in Brunei helps with that though.

[spamspamspam]

last point first - in order to get to Zim we'd need to overfly other states - that would require their blessing - which I suspect isn't on offer - I'm all for dealing with Mugabe as he has shown absolute contempt for his people but the real world politics do make it far more challenging. Sadly US humanitarianism does not extend to Zim and the UK is simply not potent enough to make it happen. Realpolitik.

 

Libya - you have a leader who has pointedly indicated that he will eliminate the opposition (and that is a very open group) - this is hardly the first time this has happened - nor will it be the last - but the reality of Libya is that he has a track record of being a brutal despot and a recent record of being a brutal despot who has shelled his own poeple. We can wash our hands of it and say it is not our problem and watch the tragic deaths of men, women and children at the guns of Gaddafi. The deaths of those people are someone elses fault, we don't need to care. We could have done that in Yugoslavia but ultimately didn't. We have done that in so many places. There are many reasons why countries do things and not all are laudable.

 

At its basics for me is the fact we can either stand and watch Gaddafi kill people and say it is not our problem because they are from somewhere away from my home or we can say it is wrong to kill people and when we can try and stop those who are hell bent on that action from doing it. There are lots of straw men in this situation; our government is not completely benign and our governmental motives and those of our allies are probably not solely whiter than white but to say we should just stand back and let Gaddafi get on with butchering the innocent seems wrong and morally bankrupt.

 

We can do something here; there is a big enough international consensus to permit it. I don't know how the Libyan revolution will play out but permitting Gaddafi to indiscriminately shell and bomb cities when we can stop it cannot be right.

 

You mean like we are flying from the UK, over France, Italy, into Greek airspace, Cypriot airspace etc... We, the UK have quite strong ties with Angola and they were more than willing to allow any assistance to Zimbabwe to be launched from there grounds. There was no excuse for not entering Zimbabwe, there was no excuse for not entering Uganda either. If the Ugandan oil had been found earlier though you could guarantee we would've stopped the rape, torture and genocide there though.

 

Libya is a sovereign state, they are responsible for their own affairs. The only governments who are refusing to openly admit to this though are the UK and French. You use the term morally bankrupt, isnt it just as morally wrong for 2 countries to decide they want regime change and take advantage of a situation? News from Libya is moderated to the max by the Libyan government, so much so it is total propaganda. That doesnt give the UK the right to decide which parts are true or not though. For all we know, and we know very little when it comes to numbers for and against Gaddafi, he could hold a major majority in the country, the rebels are few and we are in fact enforcing what only 5-10% of a country actually wants.

 

Are you sure about that last statement? From the reactions I have read and seen from other countries we do not have the backing the UK government and media would lead us to believe. Against this are China, Russia, Germany, Turkey, most Arab states (the Arab League has already condemned the action), the US is on the sidelines and India have also said they are totally against any action. I'd say that group covers more than half the population of the planet so if you hold your ideas of democracy true then the action goes against the freedom we in the west are so quick to sight as a reason for invasion, installing democracy and freedom.

[tup]

Where's the handbag smiley when you need it? Ach this will do.

 

I've been off the drink since Sunday.

 

Beiung in Brunei helps with that though.

 

And I guess you love nothing better than a good root around the centre of Broon Eye of a weekend?

[The Boofon]

And I guess you love nothing better than a good root around the centre of Broon Eye of a weekend?

 

 

Like the Colonel with the missiles, I knew that was coming.

 

Nice place Brunei although it pisses with rain every night. Better place than Tripoli though. It's always been a shithole and no amount of bombs will make it any worse.