Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO is now trying to kill Mommar Ghadhafi, has killed Saif

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Let me see here, You shell civilians in their homes and shoot them if they come out into the street, denying them the basics of what they believe are rightfully theirs and you didnt plan on the safety of your own family first before starting this crisis?

    Even Saddam was smarter then this.

    Did he not think NATO meant business when they called upon him to cease attacking and shelling civilians?

    A shame they are dead if they really are but IMO, This could have been avoided if Daffy chose to do so.

    IMO, I wouldnt trust what Daffy says. I would want proof they were killed and not spare of the moment possibilities of propaghanda. Would you trust him?
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 May 11,, 06:29.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • #17
      Ghadafi has done a lot to modernize and improve Libya, ilbeit not very democratically. NATO has reversed all that progress with brute force that goes against their very principles and reason for forming the alliance in the first place. No one knows who the rebels are loyal to, no one knows who they are or their intentions. The government in Libya was built around Ghadafi, if you take him out Libya is in anarchy, no one's life is any better, the rebels are unorganized and ambiguous. This is a nightmare. This will turn out like Somalia did, its already too late. No matter what anyone does now, Libya has been thrown into a state of anarchy, the least NATO can do is stop wasting its money and the lives of innocent Libyans. This war was a mistake and will put the country further behind than it was, but the sooner it ends the sooner it might be able to recover. These interventions never lead to success and never will, as long as the intentions behind them are political and not in the interests of human rights like they say they are, because you can't be successful in a mission if you are kidding yourself about what you want out of it the whole time, if only for that reason alone.
      Bog visoko, a Rusija daleko.

      Comment


      • #18
        One would think that "IF" the US really wanted him dead then there is no way he would have survived the Ronald Reagan era. Even that bombing didnt change his ways. Time to go this time!

        The days of these dictatorships are coming to a close.;)
        Last edited by Dreadnought; 06 Jun 11,, 19:00.
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mirko R View Post
          Ghadafi has done a lot to modernize and improve Libya, ilbeit not very democratically. NATO has reversed all that progress with brute force that goes against their very principles and reason for forming the alliance in the first place. No one knows who the rebels are loyal to, no one knows who they are or their intentions. The government in Libya was built around Ghadafi, if you take him out Libya is in anarchy, no one's life is any better, the rebels are unorganized and ambiguous. This is a nightmare. This will turn out like Somalia did, its already too late. No matter what anyone does now, Libya has been thrown into a state of anarchy, the least NATO can do is stop wasting its money and the lives of innocent Libyans. This war was a mistake and will put the country further behind than it was, but the sooner it ends the sooner it might be able to recover. These interventions never lead to success and never will, as long as the intentions behind them are political and not in the interests of human rights like they say they are, because you can't be successful in a mission if you are kidding yourself about what you want out of it the whole time, if only for that reason alone.
          So that is an excuse to keep the freak in power? That he can kill his own people better than anyone else?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mirko R View Post
            Ghadafi has done a lot to modernize and improve Libya, ilbeit not very democratically. NATO has reversed all that progress with brute force that goes against their very principles and reason for forming the alliance in the first place. No one knows who the rebels are loyal to, no one knows who they are or their intentions. The government in Libya was built around Ghadafi, if you take him out Libya is in anarchy, no one's life is any better, the rebels are unorganized and ambiguous. This is a nightmare. This will turn out like Somalia did, its already too late. No matter what anyone does now, Libya has been thrown into a state of anarchy, the least NATO can do is stop wasting its money and the lives of innocent Libyans. This war was a mistake and will put the country further behind than it was, but the sooner it ends the sooner it might be able to recover. These interventions never lead to success and never will, as long as the intentions behind them are political and not in the interests of human rights like they say they are, because you can't be successful in a mission if you are kidding yourself about what you want out of it the whole time, if only for that reason alone.
            I'm fairly certain if NATO decided to cease all operations and let the NTC and Qaddafi slug it out on their own, you're going to end up with even more death and destruction. Also, please elaborate on "a lot to modernize and improve libya". Because apparently some people would beg to differ.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              So that is an excuse to keep the freak in power? That he can kill his own people better than anyone else?
              Who are we to decide that he cannot be in power? Unless he has specifically attacked us and not pay the price for it, it has to be decided by the people of Libya, not us.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                Who are we to decide that he cannot be in power?
                The powers enforcing the UNSCR 1973. I don't like it but them's the rules.

                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                Unless he has specifically attacked us and not pay the price for it, it has to be decided by the people of Libya, not us.
                The people of Libya has decided on civil war. We've just chosen sides ... mainly because we've never forgotten what the bastard did to us.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  So that is an excuse to keep the freak in power? That he can kill his own people better than anyone else?
                  No, but its not an excuse to destroy the country either. The west has supported far worse dictators, Libya is anarchy without Ghadafi, like I said the right thing would have been to not go in, now Libya is destroyed either way.

                  Originally posted by ace16807 View Post
                  I'm fairly certain if NATO decided to cease all operations and let the NTC and Qaddafi slug it out on their own, you're going to end up with even more death and destruction. Also, please elaborate on "a lot to modernize and improve libya". Because apparently some people would beg to differ.
                  Ghadafi nationalized resources and improved the standard of living for many Libyans, this is not a disputed fact by anyone who studies African politics. Killing Ghadafi will do nothing either, there is nothing anyone can do to reconcile the situation, but taking out Ghadafi and calling it victory is dumb, because NATO destroyed that country, not Ghadafi, and plus who is to say the rebels will be any better? If international intervention stops, maybe the fighting will stop because NATO escalated the violence to a large degree. No one can really predict what will happen, but having studied Somalia and Africa in great depth and having had the honor of dealing with NATO "intervention" myself I think it hurt more than it helped. Its not anyone's job to be the policemen of the world, not least a biased military alliance with a specific political agenda which they use as a guise for moral values.
                  Last edited by Mirko R; 06 Jun 11,, 20:45.
                  Bog visoko, a Rusija daleko.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    The powers enforcing the UNSCR 1973. I don't like it but them's the rules.

                    The people of Libya has decided on civil war. We've just chosen sides ... mainly because we've never forgotten what the bastard did to us.
                    And we are fighting the battle for the rebels. Before, it was just to protect the civilians. Now we are attacking the leadership and interdicting government troops who were battling rebels, not civilians. Now we are adding attack helicopters to the mix. This is mission creep. I think Britain and France are hoping to pull off the success that US had in Afghanistan in Oct. and Nov. 2001 against the Taliban where they used the North Alliance as the ground troops while B-52s pounded the Taliban from above.

                    By the way, I read UNSCR 1973. No where it says that it provides for the removal Qaddafi.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      And we are fighting the battle for the rebels.
                      Misrata was all Libyans.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Before, it was just to protect the civilians. Now we are attacking the leadership and interdicting government troops who were battling rebels, not civilians. Now we are adding attack helicopters to the mix. This is mission creep. I think Britain and France are hoping to pull off the success that US had in Afghanistan in Oct. and Nov. 2001 against the Taliban where they used the North Alliance as the ground troops while B-52s pounded the Taliban from above.
                      You've got the latest? Former SF/SOF mercs, hired by the Arab league, is helping out the rebels. Quasi legal but it's getting messier and messier.

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      By the way, I read UNSCR 1973. No where it says that it provides for the removal Qaddafi.
                      There is no other outcome after the first bomb dropped. We cannot allow another Lockerbie.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mirko R View Post
                        No, but its not an excuse to destroy the country either. The west has supported far worse dictators, Libya is anarchy without Ghadafi, like I said the right thing would have been to not go in, now Libya is destroyed either way.


                        Ghadafi nationalized resources and improved the standard of living for many Libyans, this is not a disputed fact by anyone who studies African politics. Killing Ghadafi will do nothing either, there is nothing anyone can do to reconcile the situation, but taking out Ghadafi and calling it victory is dumb, because NATO destroyed that country, not Ghadafi, and plus who is to say the rebels will be any better? If international intervention stops, maybe the fighting will stop because NATO escalated the violence to a large degree. No one can really predict what will happen, but having studied Somalia and Africa in great depth and having had the honor of dealing with NATO "intervention" myself I think it hurt more than it helped. Its not anyone's job to be the policemen of the world, not least a biased military alliance with a specific political agenda which they use as a guise for moral values.
                        Technically, yes, they had significant economic growth. Technically, yes he provided some sense of equality. Technically, yes there was an increase in the standard of living. But considering the amount of oil revenue and the small population of Libya, it's fairly clear that the standards of living could be substantially better. It is also an indisputed fact among anyone who studies African politics and many Libyans that there is extensive corruption, especially regarding oil revenues. Money is siphoned off to an significant extent. So while their GDP per capita is relatively high, it is by no means reflected in the population.

                        Also, your speculation that fighting might stop once NATO ceases operation is just that- speculation. The Civil War initiated sans NATO involvement, so why would you think it would stop the second NATO leaves?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mirko R View Post
                          No, but its not an excuse to destroy the country either. The west has supported far worse dictators, Libya is anarchy without Ghadafi, like I said the right thing would have been to not go in, now Libya is destroyed either way.
                          Those dictators didn't do Lockerbie or Berlin Disco or other hijackings and bombings on Western civilian targets.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Those dictators didn't do Lockerbie or Berlin Disco or other hijackings and bombings on Western civilian targets.
                            So you admit that its entirely political. Violence breeds violence. I wonder who has suffered more at the hands of who, Libyans at the hands of the west or the west at the hands of Ghadafi. Obviously the former. Also note, Berlin probably wouldn't have happened if you didn't bomb Ghadafi and kill his son, bombing Libya to shit again will not ensure that it never happens again. We gave weapons to Al Queda to fight the Russians, and look at them now.
                            Last edited by Mirko R; 06 Jun 11,, 21:11.
                            Bog visoko, a Rusija daleko.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ace16807 View Post
                              Technically, yes, they had significant economic growth. Technically, yes he provided some sense of equality. Technically, yes there was an increase in the standard of living. But considering the amount of oil revenue and the small population of Libya, it's fairly clear that the standards of living could be substantially better. It is also an indisputed fact among anyone who studies African politics and many Libyans that there is extensive corruption, especially regarding oil revenues. Money is siphoned off to an significant extent. So while their GDP per capita is relatively high, it is by no means reflected in the population.

                              Also, your speculation that fighting might stop once NATO ceases operation is just that- speculation. The Civil War initiated sans NATO involvement, so why would you think it would stop the second NATO leaves?
                              NATO bombing Libya to shit is not making the standards of living better its making it worse, the standard of living could be better in every country in the world, maybe we should kill every government leader for not doing their job. There is extensive corruption regarding oil buy every country that uses it, its sitll not a reason to bomb a sovereign state, it was a violation of international law that the UN only made an exception for because Libya has no friends with permanent seats on the security council. The civil war would not have been a war without NATO the rebels were too poorly equipped, I don't think the fighting will stop if NATO leaves, but less people will die and at least there is a chance that it could stop. NATO is not there for the people of Libya, it is there to pretect the interests of its member states, and frankly it should be disbanded, the cold war is over.
                              Bog visoko, a Rusija daleko.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mirko R View Post
                                Libya is anarchy without Ghadafi.
                                You seem fairly convinced of this. Care you explain your reasoning? A unified political entity, the National Transitional Council, is recognized as either a political entity or the official representative of the people of Libya by many countries. Certainly it would be prudent to further study and assess the intentions and goals of the NTC, but as of now, there don't seem to be massive underlying rifts that I know of. So please, explain why you would believe that once Quadffi is removed from power, why Libya will undoubtedly fall into chaos and anarchy?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X