Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Panda

Invading other countries for domestic financial gain is seen by most fair minded people as in fact playing the role of the biggest bully and not particularly popular with most voters in a democracy. Hence the routine practice of politicans selling the myth that the wars they choose to pursue are on the basis of either some imminent threat or on humanitarian grounds.

It's just a question of how you interpret these things. I know of no invasion that could be attributed simply to financial gain (domestic of otherwise) although I can see that some view things that way. Political and longer term strategic interests are much more complex that simple financial gain however.

This myth is enhanced by the fact that obviously, some individuals and groups do profit from military operations. Regimes that are hostile and pose long term instability threats to whole regions that are of strategic interest need to be dealt with. If all other efforts to deal with them fail, then military action can be justified. We can always sit around and wait until one day they get strong enough and bold enough to do some really serious damage to our interests..financial or otherwise. This is the point where all the liberals and" peace activists" start screaming at their governments for not protecting their interests.

If for example Winston Churchill had listened to the "electorate" Britain would have sat out world war 2. (Polls showed that 69%+/- of the public were against any more war with Germany---they were still in shock from world war 1. They were also ignorant of the magnitude of the future threat to them and their cozy little island. That's why we need "leaders"....you can not manage a country by referendum....you can not always do what the voting public think they want...and that is one of the biggest problems all democracies face today...not to mention the fact that everybody wants something different, and many countries can not even manage to elect a majority government...so you get fence sitting, dithering non-leadership with no clear direction.

How many UN resolutions did the regime in Iraq violate over many years prior to the final invasion? How many "human rights abuses" was that regime responsible for. How many international terrorist organizations has Libya funded.?

I could go on and on, but its a bit pointless because so many can only view the world through a kind of anti-American fog, so they default to blaming everything on the USA and allies. We are by no means perfect; we sometimes make poor decisions, but I will support my tribe against any of the others out there any day.

There are times when attack is the best means of defense....and that has been a fact of life since men crawled out of the caves to compete for Mammoth meat with the men in the other caves.... The world has not changed that much since those days; how ever much we like to think that it has. The veneer is nice enough but it's pretty thin.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by koman

The USA also shows up frequently to help in famine relief, floods, EQ's and all kinds of other disasters around the world.....but that's not newsworthy and nobody bitches. So basically the USA is expected to look out for everybody's interests, but never their own....that is considered immoral.

The merkins spend less than Italy on Oversaea development as a percentage of GPD.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/52/42458612.pdf

But since they are the largest economy in the world and also hold the keys to the printing press of the worlds international trading currency, the USA wields huge political power through handing out cash or withholding it to selected leadership patrons in other countries. And backing up that bribery carrot there is also the extortion threat as USA also has by far the largest and most advanced military in the world. But an empire in decline and these days thier forays into foreign lands is funded only by how much money they can borrow from other countries. Even to the point of sacrificing their own citizens standards of living to subsidize this world financial and military empire. Its a losing formula for sure, although it worked pretty well for a while. Such is the reason why people like Koman and Donald Trump are now so desperate to drum up support for the more blatant "rape and pillage" style of empire expansion seizing a conquered nations material assets.
Its a formula sure to stir up nationalistic sentiment, especially if the people are suffering and they believe their country has the military might to pull it off. Not so unlike the Nazi regime or Japanese military empire expansion leading up to WW2.

At least Koman and Donald Trump are coming out and saying it like it really is.

Originally Posted by Carrabow

The merkins spend less than Italy on Oversaea development as a percentage of GPD. Equal last with Japan at 0.18%

From the chart you provided with the link; they give more than any other country.

So is someone being greedy here? As far as our GNI based off of what is donated is really no one's business. There also is another option and ask them "How does it feel to want?"

No pun intended

Whether overall the number is largest it is the percentage of their immense reported wealth that is important. This is what shows how generous the US is.

Originally Posted by koman

It was the Soviet communist armies advance into Germany which ended the European portion of WW2.

Bullshit...and who supplied the "communist armies of the soviet union" with the arms and other materials to do their portion of the job......have you heard of the Murmansk convoys? My Mother lost two brothers in the Baltic---so that your soviet armies would not be flattened by the German advance. (oh dear, was that illegal ?)

The other little thing you might have missed was that in the Soviet workers paradise things like casualties did not matter.....they allowed wholesale slaughter of their troops just to advance faster than the allies who were moving from the opposite direction....at a more modest pace so they did not all have to die just to reach Berlin first. Yea lets hear it for the Soviet generals...real fucking humanists.

Originally Posted by koman

.have you heard of the Murmansk convoys?

How many tons of "aid" got through?

Are you aware of the indigenous arms industry that the Soviet communists had. Their rough tanks, airplanes and artillery was the reason, along with their numbers of soldiers and the weather/terrain.

More importantly is was their leadership with their "methods" good or bad which won them the war.

In the present civil war in Libya the Libyan government leaders have more balls than all the other side's leaders put together. They are fighting for their own country, their own way of life.

If the other side want to wage war "legally" let them first get permission from their national governments and then secondly go to the UNSC to rubber stamp the decision. That is what our "democratically" elected governments signed up to when they "progressed" from the "cave man mentality" and created the UN.

The reason none of them will is because they all know that the "permission" would not be forthcoming.

No worries the French are there.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Carrabow

The merkins spend less than Italy on Oversaea development as a percentage of GPD. Equal last with Japan at 0.18%

From the chart you provided with the link; they give more than any other country.

So is someone being greedy here? As far as our GNI based off of what is donated is really no one's business. There also is another option and ask them "How does it feel to want?"

No pun intended

Whether overall the number is largest it is the percentage of their immense reported wealth that is important. This is what shows how generous the US is.

We continue to everyones punching bag. I guess thats the price you pay to be on top.

Now wait and see the retorts

Originally Posted by Smug Farang Bore

No worries the French are there.

Thats funny! Keep 'em coming...

Originally Posted by Carrabow

I guess thats the price you pay to be on top.

Yep, the US and Greece, top of the league for indebtedness. The US top of the league for numbers of military deaths, top of the league for UNSC vetoes, top of the league for mortgage defaults, top of the league for falling disposal income %, ........

Originally Posted by koman

If for example Winston Churchill had listened to the "electorate" Britain would have sat out world war 2. (Polls showed that 69%+/- of the public were against any more war with Germany---they were still in shock from world war 1. They were also ignorant of the magnitude of the future threat to them and their cozy little island. That's why we need "leaders"....you can not manage a country by referendum....you can not always do what the voting public think they want...and that is one of the biggest problems all democracies face today...not to mention the fact that everybody wants something different, and many countries can not even manage to elect a majority government...so you get fence sitting, dithering non-leadership with no clear direction.

.

Thats where your argument falls down badly there Koman.
If a country is under imminent threat then the PM or President has the right to go to war, by declaring war. But when it comes to day to day political/military jousting, the leaders in a democracy have to ask the people first through parliamentary debate and permission before they are legally permitted to send their countries young men off to fight and die for any perceived goal that amounts to war.
For this reason, all out war is never officially declared these days, rather its disguised under an ever increasing escalation of military confrontations, which gives the political leaders a free hand to play their war games without having to seek parliamentary approval. Mission creep by another name.

US Congressman Ron Paul puts it very clearly.

Libyan officers and soldiers, including a general, turned themselves over to the Tunisian military - reuters

Originally Posted by Panda

Thats where your argument falls down badly there Koman.

Where does it fall down?. Britain was not under direct imminent threat. In fact the historical records show that Hitler originally did not want war with the "British Empire" at all. His vision was too build fortress Europe and then form a global alliance with Britain to take advantage of its international standing and trading partnerships etc.

Britain declared war on Germany because of its treaty obligations....you could argue for humanitarian reasons, but that might be stretching it a bit... Churchill understood the longer term implications and so in the midst of "peace in our time" speeches and a very war weary constituency he took on his "war monger" role...and was harshly criticized for it, by less clear sighted folks. Looks like he called the game pretty well though... The right guy in the right place at the right time in history.

He also had a lot to do with getting the Americans (who really wanted no part of a dumb European war) into the action....with the Japanese helping his cause of course... Like I said, real leaders are ahead of the curve...and they don't follow the crowd...that's what makes them leaders.

Anyway, my Churchill story was not meant to distract from the main argument. It's just a historical footnote...and we do live in very different times. There are mechanisms in place which are supposed to prevent countries from going to war...the trouble is that the main mechanism is badly flawed and needs a serious makeover. If it was really effective there would not be any nations ruled by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Col Gadaffi, or any of the other thugs than manage to grab power by means of force and then hide behind the diplomatic morass of the "international community" and it's mouthpiece; the impotent and almost totally useless UN.
It's better than nothing, but only just... If the UN was really effective the resolution would read something like: "All member states are free to enter Libya at a time and place of their choosing, and using whatever means are deemed necessary. They are further authorized to capture Momamar Gadaffi; all members of his family and members of his government, past and present. They are further authorized to remove the captives to a save haven to await trial for crimes against the populations of Libya and crimes against citizens of the international community" Together with the enforcement of a resolution like that, and the freezing of all bank accounts and seizure of all assets of the regime; how many thugs and dictators around the world would continue to operate the way they do??

The feudal era ended some time ago....nobody should be able to take a nation by force, hold it captive down the barrel of his hired guns and loot the treasury for his own ends. The world should be at a stage where all people are free to choose who governs them. If they choose poorly, they pay a price but they should then be free to try again with newly chosen leadership. I have no understanding of people who make excuses for thugs and dictators.....

[quote=OhOh;1737220]Option 1 from Koman

Originally Posted by koman

"All member states are free to enter Libya at a time and place of their choosing, and using whatever means are deemed necessary. They are further authorized to capture Momamar Gadaffi; all members of his family and members of his government, past and present. They are further authorized to remove the captives to a save haven to await trial for crimes against the populations of Libya and crimes against citizens of the international community"

Option 2 from Koman

Originally Posted by koman

The feudal era ended some time ago....nobody should be able to take a nation by force, hold it captive down the barrel of his hired guns and loot the treasury for his own ends. The world should be at a stage where all people are free to choose who governs them. If they choose poorly, they pay a price but they should then be free to try again with newly chosen leadership. I have no understanding of people who make excuses for thugs and dictators....

The frist option seems, to me, to allow armed invasion and all the rest.

The second option seems, to me, to indicate that armed invasion is not permitted.

Which option is it you agree with Koman?

'Now your are just being ridiculous. Option 1 as you call it was obviously a "tongue in cheek" resolution that if it were possible in a more robust UN, would allow the removal of a dictator without room for a hundred and one interpretations of what the resolution said or meant, as is clearly the case with 1973

Option 2 as you call it would create conditions where no such dictators would be in power in the first place...therefore it would not be necessary to seek resolutions to remove them. Wishful thinking I know. That's why democratic countries have elections....check it out..when Sweden needs a change in government they all go out and vote in a new one. When Libya needs a change in government....well..clean and oil the ol Ak47, dust off the rocket launcher...fill up the pickup truck; it's election time.!!

As for your rejig of the UN:

Originally Posted by koman

There are mechanisms in place which are supposed to prevent countries from going to war...the trouble is that the main mechanism is badly flawed and needs a serious makeover

The UNSC is the supposed "court of law" of the UN. The UNSC "agreed", with some not vetoing but abstaining, for a "call for a ceasefire", "no fly zone" and Help on "humanitarian grounds". If they had called for a resolution calling for "regime change" and war against a "sovereign state" it would have been vetoed. Primarily as these acts are forbidden by the UN charter.

Which is why the UN is ineffective and should probably be disbanded and replaced
There is a need for regime change, and a large part of the Libyan population is demanding it, so why fuck around with all the window dressing and pretend stuff.....oh because what is really needed would be vetoed....right...very effective court.

The crusader coalition has gone far beyond the agreed resolution and all the main parties to the crusader coalition realise, and have gone public, that there is no point in going back to the UNSC as the extended resolution would be vetoed.

You really like that crusader word, don't you...., but yes, there is no point because the "court" is dysfunctional and can not provide any remedies....so why bother. You do realize that all your favorite dictators don't pay any attention to the UNSC... but of course we have to cut them some slack don't we...they are dictators after all....

Originally Posted by Butterfly

no prize for you for obvious stupidity,

I'm going to nominate you for a Darwin award.

Canada's Involvement in the US-NATO led War on Libya: Some Important Facts

Canada's Involvement in the US-NATO led War on Libya: Some Important Facts

"Letter Addressed to Candidates in the Upcoming Federal Elections in Canada

Dear Candidate,

I am a Canadian citizen writing to you with great concern for the current state of my country.

A week before our Parliament was dissolved for the upcoming federal election, our Government committed itself militarily to enforce a No-Fly Zone in the North African state of Libya on the basis of humanitarian intervention. This is an incredibly important issue of Canadian foreign policy and it is the responsibility every single political party that is participating in the current federal election to clearly state their stance on this issue.

If in fact your political party is intending to support the military intervention in Libya, the following is a list of information on this conflict that - as my potential political representative to the Canadian Federal Government - you should seriously consider informing your party with.

Col. Muammar Qaddafi is being demonized as a dictator, a tyrant, and a mass murderer. Canadians are being told that it is for the sake of protecting innocent civilians from the Qaddafi government that we are involved in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. A brief historical background on Libyan government - and the rebels we are supporting - clearly demonstrates how flawed this argument is.

· In 1969, Muammar Qaddafi led a bloodless coup to overthrow King Idris I, a monarch imposed by the British after WWII. At the time, Libya was the poorest country in the entire world; with a literacy rate below 10%. Since then, the Libyan government has improved all aspects of their society.

· Libya now has a literacy rate above 90%.

· Libya has the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa.

· Libya also has the highest life expectancy of all of Africa.

· Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

· Libya has the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa.

· Libya has the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent.

· In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands, and again, far lower than that of the United States.

· They have free health care and treatment, and education is free of charge. Talented youth have an opportunity to study abroad at the expense of the Libyan government.

· Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech Republic, and far lower than the United States."

Continues......

Minsk slams AP over reports of Belarusian mercenaries in Libya | World | RIA Novosti

Minsk slams AP over reports of Belarusian mercenaries in Libya

"The Belarusian Foreign Ministry accused The Associated Press news agency on Friday of intentionally misquoting a UN official in a report on the presence of Belarusian mercenaries in Libya.
The Associated Press reported earlier in April that hundreds of foreign mercenaries, including from Belarus, were likely fighting on the side of both Muammar Gaddafi's forces and rebels in Libya. The agency quoted the head of UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries Jose Luis Gomez del Prado.
Belarus immediately denied the allegations and demanded an official investigation by UN officials.
"It has been established that the UN official [Jose del Prado] told the American journalist that he had no information and therefore could not confirm the presence of any Belarusian mercenaries in Libya," said Andrei Savinykh, a spokesman for the Belarusian Foreign Ministry.
"The fact can be deemed proof that The Associated Press is a hired propaganda outlet and tool," Savynykh said.
The Belarusian diplomat criticized Western journalists for their propensity to "effortlessly step over the conventional democratic standards when it is convenient to them and in line with the interests of their sponsors."
In similar circumstances, UN officials claimed in late February that Belarus had delivered three attack helicopters to the Ivory Coast in violation of a UN arms embargo. The UN later retracted the claim and apologized to Minsk for the embarrassing incident.
MINSK, April 15 (RIA Novosti)"

Obama OKs use of armed drones in Libya - Washington Times

"WASHINGTON | President Obama has approved the use of armed drones in Libya, authorizing U.S. airstrikes on ground forces for the first time since America turned over control of the operation to NATO on April 4.

It also is the first time that drones will be used for airstrikes since the conflict began on March 19, although they have routinely been flying surveillance missions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Thursday.

He said the U.S. will provide up to two 24-hour combat air patrols each day by the unmanned Predators.

Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the drones can help counteract the pro-Gadhafi forces’ tactic of traveling in civilian vehicles that make it difficult to distinguish them from rebel forces.

“What they will bring that is unique to the conflict is their ability to get down lower, therefore to be able to get better visibility on targets that have started to dig themselves into defensive positions,” Cartwright said. “They are uniquely suited for urban areas.”

He added, “It’s very difficult to pick friend from foe. So a vehicle like the Predator that can get down lower and can get IDs better helps us.”

Gates rejected the notion that the approval of drone strikes means that the U.S. will slowly get pulled back into a more active combat role, despite Obama’s promise to merely provide support for NATO.

U.S. forces played a lead role in the early days of the conflict, launching an onslaught of cruise missiles and bombs on Gadhafi’s surface-to-air missiles sites and advancing regime troops.

But with American forces stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the humanitarian operations in Japan, the Pentagon turned the mission over to NATO, saying it would only do limited airstrikes to take out air defenses. The U.S., said Obama, would no longer do airstrikes to protect the civilian population.

Gates said that bringing in the Predators will give NATO a critical capability that the U.S. can uniquely contribute."

Continues....

Originally Posted by sabang

^^^ Libya has become something of a 'cause celebre' to the 'far left' for the above reasons, plus Qadaffi's stance as a highly prominent non-aligned, and quirky, national leader. I remember another statistic too- it has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA. It certainly put some of it's substantial oil wealth to use to improve living standards and social conditions. Also to fund the IRA, Farc, Lockerbie etc, and of course enrich the Qadaffi clan.

In short, this rebellion does not arise from poverty- so why have his people risen up against him in such numbers? This was not a CIA plot, or even foreign influenced remember. Our own overall hatred for Q is a given, but we made no move against him until the majority of his own country rose up against him, and he started slaughtering them with airpower, plus arming vigilantes and importing mercenaries. To look into this is to look into the underbelly of Libya, beyond some admittedly favorible 'human development' statistics. What you then see is-
The public beheadings & hangings, and routine human rights violations
The stalinist 'cult of Qadaffi'- which doesn't play well to an increasingly educated population
The economic development of the west of the country, at the expense of the east.
Patronage, wholesale corruption, and cronyism- Q's tribe, of course, is from the west of the country
Wholesale repression of dissent or free expression, and a society riddled with spies & informants. There is absolutely no free press, or avenue for dissent or political opposition in Libya.
Socially, Libya remains backwards, in stark contrast to it's economic status. Alcohol is banned, even western music & TV etc is highly censored, if available at all.
Q's ridiculous military adventurism & Libya's appalling status in the international community has also caused much seething resentment, especially among the growing 'middle' or educated classes. There has been no avenue for expressing this resentment, or any form of dissent or opposition- in this respect, Libya resembles nth korea.

Basically, one lunatics vision of a ' socialist utopia' translates to a backwards, repressive, dystopian society to the many people living there, especially amongst the growing middle classes & urbanites. Again, it was not outsiders that fomented or even encouraged this popular revolt. The resentment has, obviously, been building for a long time. Those few that might express it were dealt with ruthlessly.

If you think "We' made a mistake getting involved, fine, but that mistake then happened early- when the popular insurrection started, and Q started slaughtering his own people and indulging in his usual insane and bloodcurdling rhetoric, rather than seeking any form of political acommodation or compromise. Probably blinded by his own insanity and the resultant arrogance- he is insane you know, every diplomat confirms that. If you hold this view, you are saying we should have just stayed quiet and let events in Libya take their course. The fact is, when we did take sides and spoke out, with Q's subsequent actions the die was cast. Now we are in a position that we cannot afford to let this insane despot remain in power. He will become the worlds largest funder of terrorism again (by some accounts he still is) with renewed vigor, and of course will 'punish' the west with Libya's oil too.

Qadaffi had the capability to contain this revolution domestically, by negotiating with the rebels and introducing well overdue social and political reforms. He didn't even try, except for some half arsed sops when it was already too late- apparently his sons visit to Rome was a combination of this, and 'buying time' through diplomacy, while the rebels were being systematically annihilated. Goodbye Colonel, your days are numbered. You will not be missed, outside of your own favored tribe and favored cronies. The 'problem' now comes down to his own irrationality- how long will it take before he realises the writing is on the wall? Impossible to say, when you are dealing with an insane despot. He might be holed up in Tripoli for some time yet, at worst, or at best might agree to flee to safety with his billions (and life) intact in the short term.

Some parallels there with Thailand and Iraq under Hussein. Not to mention Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Only difference in the way the west treats dictators is directly related to the value they are to western economic and military interests. Moralizing as to the rights and wrongs of these regimes is the stuff the western propaganda machine turns out on a very selective basis.

Trying to justify western involvement in these nations on a moralistic or humanitarian basis is a totally wasted exercise as there are so many hypocritical contradictions in the way the west treats individual dictators, particularly in the oil rich Middle East.
Bottom line is that the west and particularly USA act (or fail to act) against these dictators on motivation related solely to self interest. Musharraf, Hussein, Gaddafi, Bin Laden, were all once USAs friends and allies remember. Today they are all terrible murdering scoundrels who must be eliminated. How quickly the tables can turn if these despots dont play ball with the west.

Forget the moralizing Sabang. Take a look at Saudi Arabia and Bahrain if you want to put a case why the west should topple ruthless, corrupt dictators. But it wont happen, because they are our friends and are playing ball with western financial and military interests.

apparently, the French have already sent the Foreign Legions there and "special forces" on the ground, without disclosing to the public any of it of course

Sarko is a sad POS, a petit Bonaparte, as the wikileaks appropriately call him

[quote=koman;1737270]

Originally Posted by OhOh

Option 1 from Koman

Originally Posted by koman

"All member states are free to enter Libya at a time and place of their choosing, and using whatever means are deemed necessary. They are further authorized to capture Momamar Gadaffi; all members of his family and members of his government, past and present. They are further authorized to remove the captives to a save haven to await trial for crimes against the populations of Libya and crimes against citizens of the international community"

Option 2 from Koman

Originally Posted by koman

The feudal era ended some time ago....nobody should be able to take a nation by force, hold it captive down the barrel of his hired guns and loot the treasury for his own ends. The world should be at a stage where all people are free to choose who governs them. If they choose poorly, they pay a price but they should then be free to try again with newly chosen leadership. I have no understanding of people who make excuses for thugs and dictators....

The frist option seems, to me, to allow armed invasion and all the rest.

The second option seems, to me, to indicate that armed invasion is not permitted.

Which option is it you agree with Koman?

'Now your are just being ridiculous. Option 1 as you call it was obviously a "tongue in cheek" resolution that if it were possible in a more robust UN, would allow the removal of a dictator without room for a hundred and one interpretations of what the resolution said or meant, as is clearly the case with 1973

Option 2 as you call it would create conditions where no such dictators would be in power in the first place...therefore it would not be necessary to seek resolutions to remove them. Wishful thinking I know. That's why democratic countries have elections....check it out..when Sweden needs a change in government they all go out and vote in a new one. When Libya needs a change in government....well..clean and oil the ol Ak47, dust off the rocket launcher...fill up the pickup truck; it's election time.!!

As for your rejig of the UN:

Originally Posted by koman

There are mechanisms in place which are supposed to prevent countries from going to war...the trouble is that the main mechanism is badly flawed and needs a serious makeover

The UNSC is the supposed "court of law" of the UN. The UNSC "agreed", with some not vetoing but abstaining, for a "call for a ceasefire", "no fly zone" and Help on "humanitarian grounds". If they had called for a resolution calling for "regime change" and war against a "sovereign state" it would have been vetoed. Primarily as these acts are forbidden by the UN charter.

Which is why the UN is ineffective and should probably be disbanded and replaced
There is a need for regime change, and a large part of the Libyan population is demanding it, so why fuck around with all the window dressing and pretend stuff.....oh because what is really needed would be vetoed....right...very effective court.

The crusader coalition has gone far beyond the agreed resolution and all the main parties to the crusader coalition realise, and have gone public, that there is no point in going back to the UNSC as the extended resolution would be vetoed.

You really like that crusader word, don't you...., but yes, there is no point because the "court" is dysfunctional and can not provide any remedies....so why bother. You do realize that all your favorite dictators don't pay any attention to the UNSC... but of course we have to cut them some slack don't we...they are dictators after all....

If you are trying to play devils advocate there Koman, then you aint doing a very good job of it jumping from one side of the fence to the other.
Try to get your story straight if you want to earn any credibility.

Originally Posted by Panda

Trying to justify western involvement in these nations on a moralistic or humanitarian basis is a totally wasted exercise as there are so many hypocritical contradictions in the way the west treats individual dictators, particularly in the oil rich Middle East.

that's basically the end of it, and why Libya "revolution" shouldn't be supported by western forces

there are far worse regimes out there that would need such "assistance" and yet they get a free pass

FFS, only a few years ago, Sarko was welcoming Gaddafi and even let him put his tent on the Elysee garden