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

[Officer of Engineers]

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 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.

Son,

You are in the wrong forum using inaccuracy and innuendos to support your arguments. A lot of us here lived through those times and some of us saw what Qaddafy's hands have done.

You have no proof that Libyans suffer anything from the West, least of all, worst than Qaddafy. Qaddafy plunged his country into war against Chad only to have his ass whipped. The series of unrest that lead to this Civil War was of Qaddafy's own doing, the result of his disastrous economic policies.

And we bombed Qaddafy AFTER he attacked Berlin and he did Lockerbie after that.

If we get rid of Qaddafy, we can be certain he won't be doing anymore terrorists attacks.

And we never gave any weapons to Al Qaeda. They weren't even around until the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Get your facts straight or get your posting ass handed to you.

[Mirko R]

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?

Libya has no government, it was built around Ghadafi, the opposition is unorganized and Ghadafi still has many supporters. There is no government structure in place if Ghadafi is gone so there is not way a government can be formed neatly by any stretch of the imagination. You should read about what happened in Somalia in 1993, and you will understand why I think what I think. You seem fairly certain that violence will increase if NATO leaves, which is an equally unjustified view if mine is unjustified at all, because in my experience international intervention increases violence tremendously, but then Libya is not Iraq Afganistan Kosovo or Somalia, it just very closely resembles these conflicts in many ways.

[Officer of Engineers]

Libya has no government, it was built around Ghadafi, the opposition is unorganized and Ghadafi still has many supporters. There is no government structure in place if Ghadafi is gone so there is not way a government can be formed neatly by any stretch of the imagination. You should read about what happened in Somalia in 1993, and you will understand why I think what I think. You seem fairly certain that violence will increase if NATO leaves, which is an equally unjustified view if mine is unjustified at all, because in my experience international intervention increases violence tremendously, but then Libya is not Iraq Afganistan Kosovo or Somalia, it just very closely resembles these conflicts in many ways.

That is so ludicrous that I wonder did you even pass highschool? Municipal governments don't answer to Qaddafy.

[Blademaster]

Misrata was all Libyans.

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.

Good Lord. Now I am afraid of Murphy's Law. What happens if some of those mercs get captured by Gaddafi and gets paraded around or worse gets paraded Fallujah style?

There is no other outcome after the first bomb dropped. We cannot allow another Lockerbie.

This is a result of the short sighted thinking of President Sarkozy. In a bid to boost up his ratings, he decided to become all gung ho and started going after Gaddafi. Gaddafi was neutralized and he wasn't gonna do another Lockerbie. Now we have released the genie from the bottle. Now we have to go in deeper to kill Gaddafi all in an attempt to avoid another Lockerbie. Great strategic thinking, Mr. Sarkozy.

[ace16807]

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.

Libya's GDP per capita (pre-civil war) is comparable to that of Turkey's. I'm sorry, but you can't argue the standard of living in Libya was remotely close to that of Turkey.

There is extensive corruption regarding oil buy every country that uses it,

You like marginalize the problems Libya has by stipulating that the problem exists worldwide and therefor it's a non-issue. But that's like arguing that just as there's crime in Singapore, the issue of crime in Somalia vis-a-vis piracy is a non-issue. The extent to which corruption existed in the Libyan oil industry was significant enough to severely hamper growth reflected by increases in standards of living, infrastructure, etc. More so than other cases.

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.

When did I ever say that oil corruption was a reason for NATO involvement? See OoEs posts for reasons of the bombings.

The civil war would not have been a war without NATO the rebels were too poorly equipped,

Feb 24th:
Fighting breaks out in Az Zawiyah.
Pro-Quadaffi forces attack rebels protecting the airport outside Mistra.

Feb 27th:
Trans-national Council forms, declaring it to be the representive of the uprising.
Fighting continues in Az Zawiyah.

Feb 28th:
Az Zawiyah and Mistra attacked by govt. forces. They are repelled.

March 2nd:
Quadaffi tries to retake Marsa Brega. Is repulsed by rebel forces.

Not only until March 17th does the UN implement a no-fly zone. NATO officially takes comand only a few days after that. So if it wasn't a civil war before hand, what was it? Why did NATO getting involved suddenly turn it into a civil war?

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.

You just restated "the fighting might cease once NATO ceases operations". You're not really explaining why you think that will happen.

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.

Sure they are protecting the interests of its member states to a significant extent. I would classify removing a nutjob just across the Med. from power as being one of their interests. It also happens to coincide with the interests of the NTC. Also, that current status and purpose of NATO isn't the question at hand.

[Mirko R]

Son,

You are in the wrong forum using inaccuracy and innuendos to support your arguments. A lot of us here lived through those times and some of us saw what Qaddafy's hands have done.

Yeah, I may not have lived through what Ghadafi has done to the west, but I sure have lived through what NATO is doing to Libya right now, and not one bomb or one plane, but 78 days of sustained arial assault, and I can tell you, with utmost certainty that the people of Libya are suffering at the hands of NATO. So you can say what you want about the campaign helping people but I have scars on my back from what NATO did to my country, my home - the place I was born - was burned to the ground, I even lost immediate family members as a direct result of the bombing and I am now considered a foreginer in my own city of birth. But you know the worst part...for all that, after you bombed the shit out of my country for 2 and a half months violence actually increased and more innocent people had to die, people are still missing from my home town, and Kosovo has the weakest economy in Europe as well as a corrupt government whose main form of income is drugs and weapons, war criminals are still running loose and even running for office, but the worst part, like I said, is that you didn't save any Albanians, because of NATO more people died. We will never know exactly how many people died, on either side, and there is still ethnic violence. People in Novi Sad are still suffering from the depleted Uranium that NATO caused TO THIS DAY. My only regret is that I was not killed early enough to avoid seeing NATO repeat the same crimes against humanity elsewhere around the globe, because now I know that my mom - who was by the way one of those Muslims you were trying to protect - died in vein from your bombs. As a Serb, I know the evil my country perpetrated against innocent people, and I wish it weren't so, but in the end you aided rebels against us, rebels that cut out the organs of pre-pubescent girls and sold those organs on the black market, rebels that to this day considerably enhance the drug problem Europe is facing right now, and rebels which the gunman who killed 2 US marines in the Berlin airport actively supported if not fought for. Now you are aiding rebels in Libya, whose intentions are equally uncertain, who kill innocent foreigners in Libya because they know Ghadafi hiers foreigners to fight in his army. As a Muslim living in America there is only so much I can pray that you will never experienced the grief you caused my family or the thousands of other families whose lives you permanently destroyed, but still I have prayed every day for you and for all those whose lives your hands have torn apart with your unhumanitarian political agenda. God help you.

You have no proof that Libyans suffer anything from the West, least of all, worst than Qaddafy. Qaddafy plunged his country into war against Chad only to have his ass whipped. The series of unrest that lead to this Civil War was of Qaddafy's own doing, the result of his disastrous economic policies.

And we bombed Qaddafy AFTER he attacked Berlin and he did Lockerbie after that.

If we get rid of Qaddafy, we can be certain he won't be doing anymore terrorists attacks.

And we never gave any weapons to Al Qaeda. They weren't even around until the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Get your facts straight or get your posting ass handed to you.

About the economic policies, Ghadafi actually nationalized oil to prevent the west from further exploiting their resources, which improved the economy greatly compared to other countries in the region. That's the real reason NATO is bombing, they want that oil. Anyone who studies African politics will tell you the same thing I wrote in this last paragraph lines. NATO has catagorically reversed all the progress Ghadafi has made.

Im sorry about confusing Berlin and Lockerbie, but the point stands, you killed his son, if the Rome statute is right, then the law of proportionality would dictate that he is allowed to respond with equal force, though it is a shame he targetted civilians, I agree. So my point stands. Also, if you think Ghadafi is so evil then why would you respond by attacking him the same way he attacked you? Its kind of the pot calling the kettle black. If we get rid of NATO, we can insure that no more wars will be provoked because of political agenda that uses the excuse of "humanitarian" justice to tear apart innocent countries, kill innocent people and propagate unnecessary wars for the betterment of their own pocketbooks. I would risk a terrorist attack for that, I wouldn't even mind being among those killed by one, because I bet you if NATO and the west stopped invading sovereign countries and bringing needless violence to people that are already suffering, there would be a lot less terrorist attacks in the world. In fact, I guarantee it.

Also, you gave weapons to the rebels in Afganistan and you armed Saddam, now they are using those arms against you, you play semantics with me and tell me I got terms wrong or events reversed but that still does not change the reality on the ground, Osama was once an ally and you know it, Saddam too. War is not a game of chess, it is a real thing in which real people's lives are permanently destroyed, the only difference between you and the people whose lives you are destroying is that you were born in a different place.

Now as one human being to another, do not call me son again, it is not respectful and has no place in either a discussion among peers or in a political debate.

[Mirko R]

Libya's GDP per capita (pre-civil war) is comparable to that of Turkey's. I'm sorry, but you can't argue the standard of living in Libya was remotely close to that of Turkey.




You like marginalize the problems Libya has by stipulating that the problem exists worldwide and therefor it's a non-issue. But that's like arguing that just as there's crime in Singapore, the issue of crime in Somalia vis-a-vis piracy is a non-issue. The extent to which corruption existed in the Libyan oil industry was significant enough to severely hamper growth reflected by increases in standards of living, infrastructure, etc. More so than other cases.




When did I ever say that oil corruption was a reason for NATO involvement? See OoEs posts for reasons of the bombings.



Feb 24th:
Fighting breaks out in Az Zawiyah.
Pro-Quadaffi forces attack rebels protecting the airport outside Mistra.

Feb 27th:
Trans-national Council forms, declaring it to be the representive of the uprising.
Fighting continues in Az Zawiyah.

Feb 28th:
Az Zawiyah and Mistra attacked by govt. forces. They are repelled.

March 2nd:
Quadaffi tries to retake Marsa Brega. Is repulsed by rebel forces.

Not only until March 17th does the UN implement a no-fly zone. NATO officially takes comand only a few days after that. So if it wasn't a civil war before hand, what was it? Why did NATO getting involved suddenly turn it into a civil war?





You just restated "the fighting might cease once NATO ceases operations". You're not really explaining why you think that will happen.




Sure they are protecting the interests of its member states to a significant extent. I would classify removing a nutjob just across the Med. from power as being one of their interests. It also happens to coincide with the interests of the NTC. Also, that current status and purpose of NATO isn't the question at hand.

I am not marginalizing the problems Libya had, you are marginalizing the progress Ghadafi has made for that country, I am not defending his actions I am condemning NATO's there is a a difference. Do not ever try to twist my words like that again. NATO is bombing not because of Berlin and not because of Lockerbie, not even because Ghadafi is planning another terrorist attack, because you had no proof of that. Ghadafi made the economy of Libya better by nationalizing the oil they had and protecting it from western exploitation, I bet a big reason NATO is doing what it is doing is because of the oil, maybe also to look like they care about the arab spring (when they could care less) but it is not about fear of Ghadafi, because if it was why did they wait this long, and why did we help him to power in the first place. He's been out in the open for us to kill since before most of the people on this site were conceived. Please read about Somalia or Kosovo if you wan to know why I think the violence will increase, those were similar situations and in those the violence DID increase. If NATO had not bombed the rebels would probably not be fighting, or would have lost, and Libya would still have a government even if it is not the best, who says the rebels are any better than ghadafi they are unorganized so it doesn't look like they will be able to form a government fast and you don't know anything about their intentions. When NATO aided the KLA those guys committed some disturbing crimes against humanity as I elaborated on in my other post, so I'm going off of past experiences with similar conditions. You can say how Ghadafi might have hampered the economy, but he also helped it relative to other countries in the region and NATO has just destroyed all that progress, so they're worse for Libya, technically speaking. The current status and purpose of NATO is the title of the thread, so if you think I'm off topic feel free to stop responding and well let the moderators decide.

I honestly don't think that NATO leaving will stop the violence, but its against NATO's charter to do what it is doing right now, if a similar coalition did what NATO is doing to Libya to a NATO country, NATO would jump to defend them. I think violence will increase as a result of NATO's involvement, but the only chance for peace is an end to violence which means an end to NATO violence because violence and peace can not exist together. Libya is already screwed, NATO should have gone in, I just think we should try to reconcile the situation instead of making it worse. You seem like a smart guy, even if you disagree with me, I know you understand where I'm comming from, Its okay to disagree but don't front misunderstanding to start an argument no one wants to have to moderate.

[bigross86]

Dude (is "dude" ok?), lemme make a couple suggestions:

1) Read the http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mem...val-guide.html. Don't post anything else until you read that.

2) Don't piss off Officer of Engineers. He has probably forgotten more about international warfare and politics than you know at the moment. You are young, it is your job to make mistakes. If you're smart, you'll listen to those trying to teach you. If you persist in being obstinate, you will gain nothing from your time here

3) Don't make absolute statements. Statements like "if NATO and the west stopped invading sovereign countries and bringing needless violence to people that are already suffering, there would be a lot less terrorist attacks in the world. In fact, I guarantee it. " just go to show that you are ignorant. You have little to no active military experience (being on the receiving end doesn't count, unless you fought back somehow), little to no active political experience, and not enough schooling to make such bold statements. There are many people here on this forum that have plenty military experience, plenty political experience and both. Shooting your mouth off only goes to show how badly you compare to them.

4) Same thing about conspiracy theories. Saying stuff like "That's the real reason NATO is bombing, they want that oil. " reeks of conspiracy theorist. The guiding principle in everything WAB related is proof. If you have facts and proof to back up your claim, people will debate with you for months on end. Bringing unsupported assertions like the above once again highlights your amateur status.

5) Finally, as one young human being to another: When the Colonel calls you "son", more often than not that is instead of him calling you a "f**kin' moron". Take it from experience. This goes back to the second point: If the Colonel says something, you listen. He's usually right. You can debate with him, sure, but only if you know what you are talking about. Trying to argue military matters with a Lt. Col of Engineers in the Canadian Army doesn't really reek of smarts and wisdom. If I'm not mistaken the Colonel was with K-FOR, so I'm pretty certain he knows what you are talking about, and then some.

Mirko, if you're smart, you will sit down and shut up until you grasp these points. Posting verbal spewage helps nobody and pisses off the serious members of this board.

Oh, and by the way, this is just a personal pet peeve of mine: Grammar. You live in the US, type and speak proper American English. "Also, you gave weapons to the rebels in Afganistan and you armed Iran, now they are using those arms against you, you play semantics with me and tell me I got terms wrong or events reversed but that still does not change the reality on the ground, Osama was once an ally and you know it, Saddam too" is a run on sentence. The Period/Full Stop key (.) on your keyboard is your friend. Use it

[Mirko R]

2) Don't piss off Officer of Engineers. He has probably forgotten more about international warfare and politics than you know at the moment. You are young, it is your job to make mistakes. If you're smart, you'll listen to those trying to teach you. If you persist in being obstinate, you will gain nothing from your time here

I don't need him to "teach" me about something I already lived through, I am learning quite a bit, from university professors, none of whom that I've talked to agree with anything he says. I will learn from people who can share knowledge, likewise hearing about Berlin on the news does not compare to living through a civil war wiht foreign intervention. The end.

3) Don't make absolute statements. Statements like "if NATO and the west stopped invading sovereign countries and bringing needless violence to people that are already suffering, there would be a lot less terrorist attacks in the world. In fact, I guarantee it. " just go to show that you are ignorant. You have little to no active military experience (being on the receiving end doesn't count, unless you fought back somehow), little to no active political experience, and not enough schooling to make such bold statements. There are many people here on this forum that have plenty military experience, plenty political experience and both. Shooting your mouth off only goes to show how badly you compare to them.

1.) I am majoring in Poli Sci and History and I am in the top 5% of my class in both, I am already done the poli sci major which was focused on international relations governing warfare, I'm very well educated. Furthermore, I am only stating what Osama and Ghadafi could have told you themselves if you had been listening, terrorist attacks are not random acts of violence, but revenge for western meddling in the Middle East, I learned this fact in 10 different classes, I've read statements by these men, and I've traveled to these countries, its your mistake to assume that because I am young I know nothing and I ahve experienced little.

4) Same thing about conspiracy theories. Saying stuff like "That's the real reason NATO is bombing, they want that oil. " reeks of conspiracy theorist. The guiding principle in everything WAB related is proof. If you have facts and proof to back up your claim, people will debate with you for months on end. Bringing unsupported assertions like the above once again highlights your amateur status.

Does it really, sound like a conspiracy, after what we did in Iran at the turn of the century and Iraq in 2003, which simultaneously trying to make a south stream oil route to go around Russia, does it really sound like a conspiracy that we would go to war with an anti-western dictator who is sitting on a bed of oil he is protecting from the west? Mind you, even if it does, the people I was arguing with have made similar unjustified statements.

5) Finally, as one young human being to another: When the Colonel calls you "son", more often than not that is instead of him calling you a "f**kin' moron". Take it from experience. This goes back to the second point: If the Colonel says something, you listen. He's usually right. You can debate with him, sure, but only if you know what you are talking about. Trying to argue military matters with a Lt. Col of Engineers in the Canadian Army doesn't really reek of smarts and wisdom. If I'm not mistaken the Colonel was with K-FOR, so I'm pretty certain he knows what you are talking about, and then some.

Ghadafi is a Colonel, and if he is wrong, engineers can be too. Like you said, hes forgotten alot, I just finished a term paper on this exact topic (humanitarian intervention) its probably fresher in my mind. Old people make mistakes too. Also he can say what he wants but in the end I was there, it doesn't compare in the least, and if he does know what I'm talking about let him make that clear to me, don't speak for him.

Mirko, if you're smart, you will sit down and shut up until you grasp these points. Posting verbal spewage helps nobody and pisses off the serious members of this board.

Oh, and by the way, this is just a personal pet peeve of mine: Grammar. You live in the US, type and speak proper American English. "Also, you gave weapons to the rebels in Afganistan and you armed Iran, now they are using those arms against you, you play semantics with me and tell me I got terms wrong or events reversed but that still does not change the reality on the ground, Osama was once an ally and you know it, Saddam too" is a run on sentence. The Period/Full Stop key (.) on your keyboard is your friend. Use it

If you're smart you will stop being condescending and stop assuming you know all about me and what I know, correcting my grammar and acting as though I am less serious about this topic when this very same scenario is the one that influenced my carrier path and my education is incredibly out of place and shows what an amature you are. I didn't call anyone a ****ing moron, don't put words in my mouth, don't assume you know me, and don't talk to me like I'm a lesser person or my experiences and education amount to nothing because your friends disagree with me. Its unprofessional in academia and makes you look like you are using personal insults in place of a solid argument. Bye bye.

Feel free to correct my grammar though, my English is far from solid, if you however, make an attempt to speak to me in Serbo-Croatian, Albanian, Greek, Spanish or Italian I will not be critical of you for making an effort to learn my language, but thankful that you tried. Something I learned that I would like to share with you from my experiences and my life: treat others as you yourself would like to be treated by others, it never fails, not in love, war or anything in between.

[Dreadnought]

Apparently the Russians think differently as well.

Misrata, Libya (CNN) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sent an envoy to Libya Monday to meet with rebels trying to bring about an end to Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year-rule, a move that comes after he called for the Libyan leader to step down.

Mikhail Margelov, the presidential special envoy on Africa, was expected to meet with leaders of the rebel Transitional National Council based in the eastern Libyan rebel-stronghold of Benghazi, his spokeswoman, Varvara Paal, said.

Margelov did not rule out traveling to Tripoli to meet with Gadhafi, Paal said.

"My task is to meet with rebel leaders. However, I do not rule out that I may have to go to Tripoli, too, if I get the corresponding order from the president," Margelov told Interfax, the Russian news agency.

Last month, Medvedev joined American and other European leaders in calling for Gadhafi to step down from power. The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Gadhafi, his son and Libya's intelligence chief for alleged crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile, on Monday, the Swiss government authorized the state's attorney general to open a criminal investigation into the kidnappings of two of its citizens, Rachid Hamdani and Max Goeldi, who allegedly have been held hostage in Libya for nearly two years.

The developments came as rebels on the front line in Misrata said the main station supplying electricity to the city, which had been targeted by Gadhafi forces, had been hit. The attack left some areas of the city without power.

According to various rebel fighters, Gadhafi's forces carried out an early morning offensive on both the western and eastern fronts of Misrata.

Government forces pushed 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) into the city of Dafniya on the west side of Misrata and fired dozens of Grad rockets, destroying a plastic factory which killed one person and injured at least one other.

Rebel fighters were able to stop the attacks and pushed toward the west 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) to the outskirts of the city of Zlitan, rebels said.

Two people were killed and 17 others were wounded in the fighting on the western front of Misrata, rebels said.

Libya has been in the throes of a civil war for months, since Gadhafi dug in his heels against popular efforts to force him out of power amid anti-government protests sweeping the Arab world.

NATO is operating under a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of any means -- with the exception of foreign occupation -- to protect civilians from attack or the threat of attack. It has been conducting airstrikes targeting Gadhafi's military resources.

Moscow has been a strong critic of the NATO-led mission in Libya, arguing that the scope of the organization's air campaign against Gadhafi's forces far exceeds the civilian protection mandate approved by the U.N. Security Council.

But NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Monday its mission has "made considerable progress."

"We have turned the tide of terror unleashed by the Gadhafi regime, we have saved countless lives and we have seriously degraded the ability of the Gadhafi regime to attack civilians, and we have relieved the pressure on cities, such as Misrata," he said.

Since NATO first took action just over two months ago, "we have kept up a high operational tempo, with over 10,000 sorties," Rasmussen said. "We have damaged or destroyed almost 1,800 legitimate military targets. That includes around 100 command-and-control sites -- which Gadhafi used to organize attacks on civilians."

Gadhafi "has lost his grip over much of the country," Rasmussen said. But he added that the regime "still poses a threat. Last week, the United Nations commission of inquiry reported that his forces have committed widespread and systematic war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, persecution and sexual abuse.

"It is an appalling catalogue of crimes. And those very same forces are still launching indiscriminate and illegal attacks against cities such as Zintan," Rasmussen said, referring to the shelling of the city in Libya's western mountains, near southern Tunisia.

"That's why we agreed to extend our mission by a further 90 days," Rasmussen said. "We have intensified our military pressure and we are determined to continue our operation for as long as it takes."

Russian envoy heads to Libya to begin settlement talks - CNN.com

[Officer of Engineers]

Yeah, I may not have lived through what Ghadafi has done to the west, but I sure have lived through what NATO is doing to Libya right now, and not one bomb or one plane, but 78 days of sustained arial assault, and I can tell you, with utmost certainty that the people of Libya are suffering at the hands of NATO.

78 days? I was UNPROFOR and during the worst of that clusterf_ck.

So you can say what you want about the campaign helping people but I have scars on my back from what NATO did to my country, my home - the place I was born - was burned to the ground, I even lost immediate family members as a direct result of the bombing and I am now considered a foreginer in my own city of birth. But you know the worst part...for all that, after you bombed the shit out of my country

Give me a freaking break. Your people were having coffee during the days. And no, we did not do casualties intensive bombing. Belgrade coffee shops would not be open if we were. The worst we ever did to a city was to turn off your lights.

If you want to debate the Kosovo War with me, I have the reports from both the Canadian Air Command and Gen Wesley Clarke. Both are detailed in what was hit and what was not and saved for a very few examples, civilian intensive targets were not hit and those that were were accidents.

for 2 and a half months violence actually increased and more innocent people had to die, people are still missing from my home town, and Kosovo has the weakest economy in Europe as well as a corrupt government whose main form of income is drugs and weapons, war criminals are still running loose and even running for office, but the worst part, like I said, is that you didn't save any Albanians,

Throwing them out of their homes in the middle of winter is a death sentence.

because of NATO more people died.

I like you to prove that.

We will never know exactly how many people died, on either side, and there is still ethnic violence.

And you've just disqualified your own statement.

People in Novi Sad are still suffering from the depleted Uranium that NATO caused TO THIS DAY.

I have studies that state that DU poisoning is a myth. What is correct, however, if that we punch through enough garbage, including mercury, bauxite, natural anthrax, pollution that your country accumulated for over 100s years to give anyone a toxic steam bath.

My only regret is that I was not killed early enough

You can't find a bridge somewhere to jump?

to avoid seeing NATO repeat the same crimes against humanity elsewhere around the globe,

Enforcement of a legal order is not a crime.

because now I know that my mom - who was by the way one of those Muslims you were trying to protect - died in vein from your bombs.

I am sorry for your mom and for you but this does not change the facts on the ground.

As a Serb, I know the evil my country perpetrated against innocent people, and I wish it weren't so, but in the end you aided rebels against us,

We stopped your thugs from tossing women and children out in the middle of winter.

rebels that cut out the organs of pre-pubescent girls and sold those organs on the black market,

Female circumcision. Get the name right. A barbaric practice but an accepted cultural norm in some parts of the world. Only you will have to provide evidence that it is rampant in Kosovo.

rebels that to this day considerably enhance the drug problem Europe is facing right now, and rebels which the gunman who killed 2 US marines in the Berlin airport actively supported if not fought for.

Get this straight. There was one reason and one reason for the war - to keep the Kosovars in Kosovo and not in Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, etc. Your thugs was creating a refugee crisis that NATO could not and would not tolerate. If that meant creating a homeland for the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo instead of living on welfare in our countries, it meant absolutely that. If you're going to throw the ethnic Albanians out of Kosovo by violence, then we were going to keep them there through violence.

Now you are aiding rebels in Libya, whose intentions are equally uncertain, who kill innocent foreigners in Libya because they know Ghadafi hiers foreigners to fight in his army.

So again, you want to keep Qaddafy in power because he can kill his own people better than anyone else.

As a Muslim living in America there is only so much I can pray that you will never experienced the grief you caused my family or the thousands of other families whose lives you permanently destroyed, but still I have prayed every day for you and for all those whose lives your hands have torn apart with your unhumanitarian political agenda. God help you.

1000s? From 78 days of bombing industrial targets? Or were you one of the ones evicted by the Albanians? So, let me get this straight, you were perfectly happy to allow the ethnic Albanians to be evicted instead because those are the only two choices. Serb thugs against NATO and NATO was not going to lose.

About the economic policies, Ghadafi actually nationalized oil to prevent the west from further exploiting their resources, which improved the economy greatly compared to other countries in the region.

Foreigners and not Libyans got jobs, including the Army. Qaddafy got mercs killing Libyans and not enough Libyans to kill his own Libyans.

That's the real reason NATO is bombing, they want that oil.

Canada and Mexico has more oil than Libya.

Anyone who studies African politics will tell you the same thing I wrote in this last paragraph lines. NATO has catagorically reversed all the progress Ghadafi has made.

What progress? Unemployment?

Im sorry about confusing Berlin and Lockerbie, but the point stands, you killed his son, if the Rome statute is right, then the law of proportionality would dictate that he is allowed to respond with equal force, though it is a shame he targetted civilians, I agree.

And once again, your facts are wrong. We did not killed his son during the F-111 raid. We killed a little girl whom he posthumously adopted and then to state we killed his daughter.

And why the hell should we allow him to go unpunished?

And if you want to argue Statutes, the Law of Armed Combat, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague, all of which Libya is a signatory, then deliberately targeting civilians is a crime, if not an Act of War.

So my point stands. Also, if you think Ghadafi is so evil then why would you respond by attacking him the same way he attacked you?

There is no such thing as a fair fight.

Its kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it's a knock out punch as opposed to a sucker punch.

If we get rid of NATO, we can insure that no more wars will be provoked because of political agenda that uses the excuse of "humanitarian" justice to tear apart innocent countries, kill innocent people and propagate unnecessary wars for the betterment of their own pocketbooks.

And this from a Serb. Greater Serbia. Greater Croatia. Greater Albania. Any of this rings a bell?

I would risk a terrorist attack for that, I wouldn't even mind being among those killed by one,

I would.

because I bet you if NATO and the west stopped invading sovereign countries and bringing needless violence to people that are already suffering, there would be a lot less terrorist attacks in the world.

Or we can smash those countries harboring those terrorists. I prefer the 2nd option. I'll take the fight to them in their home, smash their home, kill their dogs than to allow them to throw a rock through my window.

In fact, I guarantee it.

False statement since you are in no position to guarrantee anything.

Also, you gave weapons to the rebels in Afganistan and you armed Saddam, now they are using those arms against you,

The shelf-life of those weapons except for AK47s are over. If you're using ammo from that era, they're more likely to go off in your face just as being a dud.

you play semantics with me and tell me I got terms wrong or events reversed but that still does not change the reality on the ground,

It makes a hell of a difference to know what, when, and where things have gone wrong. We did not kill any daughter or son of Qaddafy during the F-111 raid. He adopted her afterwards to use as propaganda.

I play no semantics. Your clear lack of understanding of the facts puts you on false ground. If you cannot say what you mean, then you shall not mean what you say.

Osama was once an ally and you know it,

No, he never was. He was a nobody. He fought one company level engagement against the Soviets with no help, no monies, no weapons, no contact from any Western source, direct or indirect.

Saddam too.

And yet we armed the Iranians against him.

War is not a game of chess, it is a real thing in which real people's lives are permanently destroyed, the only difference between you and the people whose lives you are destroying is that you were born in a different place.

I signed on the dotted line.

Now as one human being to another, do not call me son again, it is not respectful and has no place in either a discussion among peers or in a political debate.

You are not my peer.

[bigross86]

OK, slight derail from the topic, maybe I'm trying to save you from yourself, who knows?

I don't need him to "teach" me about something I already lived through, I am learning quite a bit, from university professors, none of whom that I've talked to agree with anything he says. I will learn from people who can share knowledge, likewise hearing about Berlin on the news does not compare to living through a civil war wiht foreign intervention. The end.

The Colonel can teach you about plenty. That's the benefit of life experience. It's there if you ask for it.

1.) I am majoring in Poli Sci and History and I am in the top 5% of my class in both, I am already done the poli sci major which was focused on international relations governing warfare, I'm very well educated. Furthermore, I am only stating what Osama and Ghadafi could have told you themselves if you had been listening, terrorist attacks are not random acts of violence, but revenge for western meddling in the Middle East, I learned this fact in 10 different classes, I've read statements by these men, and I've traveled to these countries, its your mistake to assume that because I am young I know nothing and I ahve experienced little.

That's great. Instead of listening to people who agree with you, listen to people that don't. You never know, they might be right. If you're looking to learn, that's how it's done.

Does it really, sound like a conspiracy, after what we did in Iran at the turn of the century and Iraq in 2003, which simultaneously trying to make a south stream oil route to go around Russia, does it really sound like a conspiracy that we would go to war with an anti-western dictator who is sitting on a bed of oil he is protecting from the west? Mind you, even if it does, the people I was arguing with have made similar unjustified statements.

Yes, it sounds like a conspiracy, though not to you, since you claim that we invaded Iraq for the oil. Not an unheard claim, but then answer why oil is at really high prices? Surely if we invaded Iraq for the oil, oil would be cheap, no?

Ghadafi is a Colonel, and if he is wrong, engineers can be too. Like you said, hes forgotten alot, I just finished a term paper on this exact topic (humanitarian intervention) its probably fresher in my mind. Old people make mistakes too. Also he can say what he wants but in the end I was there, it doesn't compare in the least, and if he does know what I'm talking about let him make that clear to me, don't speak for him.

He was also there. I'm saying these things because I'm trying help you here. Like everything, you can feel free to take my advice and enrich your time here, or ignore it and watch your time here possibly be very short.

If you're smart you will stop being condescending and stop assuming you know all about me and what I know, correcting my grammar and acting as though I am less serious about this topic when this very same scenario is the one that influenced my carrier path and my education is incredibly out of place and shows what an amature you are. I didn't call anyone a ****ing moron, don't put words in my mouth, don't assume you know me, and don't talk to me like I'm a lesser person or my experiences and education amount to nothing because your friends disagree with me. Its unprofessional in academia and makes you look like you are using personal insults in place of a solid argument. Bye bye.

Learn to read. The Colonel calling you "son" is instead of calling you a "f**kin moron". I'm not worried about you cursing anyone out, you'll be gone before you get too far with that. Rank doth have its privileges, after all. I don't deny that I'm an amateur when it comes to poli-sci, or international relations, those aren't my field of study. I will also claim that when it comes to facing an enemy on an armed field of combat I'm no amateur. The difference is, I shot back. I don't think you are a lesser person, I just think that there are smarter things to do than to mouth off to those that are smarter than you. I couldn't care less about how serious you take the topic if you sound like a teenage fanboy. Another thing: I'm not discounting you because my friends disagree with you. I'm discounting you because you're arguing like a tool. I don't understand how you can argue and debate like this and be in the top 5% of your class. I don't use nor need to use Ad Hominems when your arguments suck, and this isn't Academia, anyway.

Feel free to correct my grammar though, my English is far from solid, if you however, make an attempt to speak to me in Serbo-Croatian, Albanian, Greek, Spanish or Italian I will not be critical of you for making an effort to learn my language, but thankful that you tried. Something I learned that I would like to share with you from my experiences and my life: treat others as you yourself would like to be treated by others, it never fails, not in love, war or anything in between.

I speak perfect English and Hebrew and enough Arabic to get in and out of trouble, what's your point? This is not a language competition. However, if you're gonna speak a language, do your best to speak it properly. Like everything, you can accept the criticism and improve yourself, or ignore it and keep sounding like a moron. Up to you. If you read the Survival Guide like I suggested, you'd see that not all members are created equal. Some people will get more attention, respect and latitude than you will. Accept that, or don't, as always the choice is yours.

Everything I've said here is for your benefit. Do with it what you will. The only stupid question is the one you didn't ask, and the stupidest person around is the one that things he knows everything and needs help from no one. "Who is wise? He who learns from all people" - Ethics of the Fathers, 4:1.

[YellowFever]

"...I am learning quite a bit, from university professors, none of whom that I've talked to agree with anything he says."

At this point, I stop taking you seriously...

[bigross86]

C'mon, Yella, you have to take him seriously! He's in the top 5% of his class!

[ace16807]

I am not marginalizing the problems Libya had, you are marginalizing the progress Ghadafi has made for that country

The progress you've noted is "nationalizing the oil industry." I suppose the other one you'll note is that irrigation project that he initiated. Care to elaborate? Those signs of progress are overshadowed by his involvement in the aforementioned terrorist attacks and killing of his own people. In a sense, yes, I am "marginalizing" his progress. Just as when we say "Saddam wasn't the nicest of guys", we marginalize the progress he brought to Iraq by developing their education system etc by the fact that he was killing Kurds and invaded Kuwait because he could.

I am not defending his actions I am condemning NATO's there is a a difference. Do not ever try to twist my words like that again.

Tell me, where exactly did I say "Stop defending his actions." or some semblance of that phrase?

NATO is bombing not because of Berlin and not because of Lockerbie, not even because Ghadafi is planning another terrorist attack, because you had no proof of that.

Those events show us he isn't the most friendly local head of state. If the people he rules decide that he isn't either, why would NATO not support the NTC in some way or another?

Ghadafi made the economy of Libya better by nationalizing the oil they had and protecting it from western exploitation, I bet a big reason NATO is doing what it is doing is because of the oil,

Maybe by hoping that more competent people are put into the oil industry and corruption is cleared out. But besides increased production capacity, Libya will most likely remain a member of OPEC, and even though they can cheat the production quota a bit (everyone does), OPEC will determine what the price and approximate level of production is. Not NATO.

maybe also to look like they care about the arab spring (when they could care less) but it is not about fear of Ghadafi, because if it was why did they wait this long, and why did we help him to power in the first place. He's been out in the open for us to kill since before most of the people on this site were conceived.

What? Cite please. We didn't intervene in the coup or support the plan to reinstate the monarchy because we thought he was "anti-marxist enough", but AFAIK we certainly didn't "help put him in power". Also, while this doesn't apply to me, I suspect you underestimate the age of many active members on this forum. Although they might appreciate such an underestimation of age.

Please read about Somalia or Kosovo if you wan to know why I think the violence will increase, those were similar situations and in those the violence DID increase.

Similar situations stipulate similar causes, courses of action and effects, do they not? And in my opinion, the cause is integral in determining the outcome, and I believe that many would agree with me. So, if you would be so kind as to explain how the cases of the Somalian Civil War, Yugoslav Wars and the 2011 Libyan Civil War are similar enough such that Somalia and Kosovo may be case studies to explain why violence would continue? After all, you seem to be of the opinion that we (or perhaps just I) am uninformed regarding these two events. I would love to be enlightened.

If NATO had not bombed the rebels would probably not be fighting, or would have lost, and Libya would still have a government even if it is not the best,

You just rephrased your statement about "I think when NATO leaves the violence will stop" again. Please provide an argument. Saying it over and over doesn't count.


[/quote]who says the rebels are any better than ghadafi they are unorganized so it doesn't look like they will be able to form a government fast and you don't know anything about their intentions.[/quote]

Try establishing an interim government and military force capable of combating a trained state military force within a few months while you're in a war. Find me one instance of a revolutionary movement that was simultaneously waging a war against a state that became well-organized 3.5 months.

"The aim of the Transitional National Council is to steer Libya during the interim period that will come after its complete liberation and the destruction of Gaddafi’s oppressive regime. It will guide the country to free elections and the establishment of a constitution for Libya."

Straight from their website. That intention seems fairly clear to me. How 'bout you?

When NATO aided the KLA those guys committed some disturbing crimes against humanity as I elaborated on in my other post, so I'm going off of past experiences with similar conditions.

Please cite crimes of humanity that have occurred in the hands of both the KLA and the NTC. Otherwise, I don't see how they are similar conditions besides NATO involvement in an interstate war.

You can say how Ghadafi might have hampered the economy, but he also helped it relative to other countries in the region and NATO has just destroyed all that progress, so they're worse for Libya, technically speaking.

Yes. And I suppose that the UN, by liberating Kuwait, also happened to hamper Iraq's economy as well. So I guess we should have just let him chill there as well? I'm trying not to be the one to prove Godwin's law, but you're making it hard.

I honestly don't think that NATO leaving will stop the violence, but its against NATO's charter to do what it is doing right now,

Ok. So you admit that NATO leaving doesn't stop the violence. That's good to hear. But cite where in the NATO charter it says that this is a violation?

if a similar coalition did what NATO is doing to Libya to a NATO country, NATO would jump to defend them.

That is what NATO is for, after all.... Your point?

I think violence will increase as a result of NATO's involvement, but the only chance for peace is an end to violence which means an end to NATO violence because violence and peace can not exist together. Libya is already screwed, NATO should have gone in, I just think we should try to reconcile the situation instead of making it worse. You seem like a smart guy, even if you disagree with me, I know you understand where I'm comming from, Its okay to disagree but don't front misunderstanding to start an argument no one wants to have to moderate.

Do I understand where you're coming from? Yes. I understand that you would have a less than positive view of NATO as a result of historic events regarding your country of origin. But I, along with what I judge to be at least one other member of this board, disagree with your views of the current situation in Libya. The purpose of this board is to have a discussion. Arguments are bound to happen over disagreements and these arguments are part of the dynamic here. However, be prepared to defend your views with "absolute arguments" as bigross noted. As of right now, although I can't speak for everyone, I don't have any personal grudges against you. Against your views? Yes. But that's what WAB is partially for.