And now, Libya...

thehackercat · Post by **thehackercat** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:09

I prefer action over bitching and moaning.

Keeper · Post by **Keeper** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 19:50

I don't know if you've heard about what Gadaffi did to six medics from my country.

They were accused of infecting hundreds of children with HIV, kept imprisoned for 9 years and sentenced to death by firing squad.

The medics were, of course, innocent, and the whole trial was an obvious farce. Gadaffi used them to extort Europe and receive all sorts of political and financial benefits.

In light of this, I am really glad his regime was toppled. It's PAYBACK TIME!!!

I sincerely hope they find him and punish him accordingly. It would be poetic justice if his trial takes place in that same courtroom (which is brand new, by the way - it was built specifically for the HIV trial).

kuliwil · Post by **kuliwil** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 14:03

Keeper wrote:I don't know if you've heard about what Gadaffi did to six medics from my country.

They were accused of infecting hundreds of children with HIV, kept imprisoned for 9 years and sentenced to death by firing squad.

The medics were, of course, innocent, and the whole trial was an obvious farce. Gadaffi used them to extort Europe and receive all sorts of political and financial benefits.

In light of this, I am really glad his regime was toppled. It's PAYBACK TIME!!!

I sincerely hope they find him and punish him accordingly. It would be poetic justice if his trial takes place in that same courtroom (which is brand new, by the way - it was built specifically for the HIV trial).

Sadly, that kind of manipulation was not confined to Bulgaria. As the "King of Africa" he had a fair whack of power!

Scarlet wrote:
StupidBunny wrote:The US has done some horrible things in the name of various causes or ideologies. I guess since I and every other American are evil greedy imperialists who are responsible for everything our government does we should accept justice and let everybody we've attacked come kill us and bomb our cities
The masses may be blind sheep that are ignorant to what is going on. But what else do you suggest be done to stop this raping of the world?

Once again, you seem to be against something and combating it by doing the thing that you don't like.

And hey, if it's so important why keep the people blind?

Also, I didn't read your last replies to my post; I didn't feel like getting angry.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:52

Once again, you seem to be against something and combating it by doing the thing that you don't like.

I wouldn't do that. I'm just saying that by using NATO's logic, one ought to bomb the garg out of NATO. They've been slaughtering civilians in more than just Libya. They're an offensive military organization that does harm, not good.

Just look at how NATO member states treat their minorities - Turkey has basically done genocide to their Kurds. Yet nobody in NATO cares. "cause ya know, it's okay if NATO does it, but not if someone who NATO does not like does it.

Keeper · Post by **Keeper** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:48

Scarlet, you seem to have forgotten why NATO was created in the first place - to counter the threat of the Warsaw Pact. So, it is no wonder that it is an offensive military organisation. It had to be, if it were to protect the west from the Soviet steamroller.

I don't agree that they do more harm than good. Sure, some civilians have died... but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?

Every conflict has its necessary losses. That is the sad logic of warfare.

Think, for a second, what it would have been like if Gadaffi had won. The rebels and their families - tortured and executed. The city of Benghazi - razed to the ground. Gadaffi - triumphant and continuing to support international terrorism.

Is that what you prefer?

kuliwil · Post by **kuliwil** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:10

I'm not saying that I think NATO is the best thing in the world. Large parts of my family are Serbian - of course I don't. Kosovo is a part of Serbia. (Not saying I support the genocide in any way, just proving that I don't take NATO's word as the be all and end all.)

Keeper is on the mark, and I'd add an example to back what he said up: look at what Gadaffi's reigeme did when fleeing - hundreds of people killed in hospitals and in many other places. Bodies burned, covered in lime. It's horrific. Granted it's a war, but it's a civil war and NATO is doing a pretty good job of respecting the wishes of the rebels/NTC.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 17:22

Scarlet, you seem to have forgotten why NATO was created in the first place - to counter the threat of the Warsaw Pact. So, it is no wonder that it is an offensive military organisation. It had to be, if it were to protect the west from the Soviet steamroller.

Its purpose of existence ended in 1991.

I don't agree that they do more harm than good. Sure, some civilians have died... but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?

You're quoting a nazi? Wow.

Think, for a second, what it would have been like if Gadaffi had won. The rebels and their families - tortured and executed. The city of Benghazi - razed to the ground. Gadaffi - triumphant and continuing to support international terrorism.

Think of what happens to all of Gadaffi's supporters? He has lots of supporters. They are all scheduled to be killed.
And that is what we call supporting democracy?

There is only one reason why NATO has gone in. Because everyone who knows a thing about Gadaffi knows that Gadaffi is not a pawn of the West, and that he uses his wealth to reinvest it into Libya and into the third world. The west wants a garg regime like in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia that will reinvest the wealth back into the West.

Libya was the African Switzerland. It was a great place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

look at what Gadaffi's reigeme did when fleeing - hundreds of people killed in hospitals and in many other places. Bodies burned, covered in lime. It's horrific. Granted it's a war, but it's a civil war and NATO is doing a pretty good job of respecting the wishes of the rebels/NTC.

The Rebels are not any bit better than Gadaffi. They openly reject democracy.

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 17:58

Scarlet wrote:You're quoting a nazi? Wow.

This quote is often attributed to Hermann Goering, as well as Stalin, but there's no evidence Goering said it and the phrase goes back much further than that. Both W. H. Taft and Robespierre used or are alleged to have used variations of the quote and it probably goes back further still. I think it's kind of a callous thing to say in any kind of situation discussing civilian deaths but bringing Nazis into this discussion really wasn't necessary or relevant.

Also, comparing the Libyan Jamahiriyah to Switzerland seems misguided, since Libya was not built to be a stable state without Gaddafi's presence; he pursued a method of government which invested all power in the hands of himself, his tribe and his revolutionary old guard. By simultaneously centralizing and dividing the country and its institutions he went out of his way to ensure that Libya wouldn't have a state without his personal rule. The Jamahiriyah Sector, the portion of the government which might have worked as a democracy, was pretty much irrelevant given that it was overshadowed by this sort of absolutist commanding structure he created over it.

Gaddafi accomplished some progressive things in Libya, and the country has better human development statistics than anywhere else in Africa, and he should be commended on some level for that. But don't forget that his regime also has a long and brutal history of public executions, disappearances, torture, promoting of terrorism, nepotism, corruption, ruthless suppression of the free media, and all sorts of other unsavory things. I don't object to criticizing NATO and the NTC, as both are responsible for human rights abuses as well, but stop talking about Gaddafi as if he were some kind of a saint.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 19:55

Gaddafi accomplished some progressive things in Libya, and the country has better human development statistics than anywhere else in Africa, and he should be commended on some level for that. But don't forget that his regime also has a long and brutal history of public executions, disappearances, torture, promoting of terrorism, nepotism, corruption, ruthless suppression of the free media, and all sorts of other unsavory things. I don't object to criticizing NATO and the NTC, as both are responsible for human rights abuses as well, but stop talking about Gaddafi as if he were some kind of a saint.

Your goal is to eliminate any discourse that suggests that Gadaffi was good in any way. That is the goal all along of the anti-Gadaffi and Western camps.

Compared to Western buddy countries, such as for example Turkey, Gadaffi is not bad at all. The Turks have displaced millions of kurds and killed tens of thousands of them. Yet NATO openly supports this. Do you see the disgusting double standards?

Do you have case against the accusation that the West prefers a colonial like puppet regime as in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, which would reinvest their money back into the West rather than back into their own country and the third world?
Has any pro-Western government developed in the third world via the western prescribed free market? The answer is no. Hence the rebels want to enslave Libya.

Keeper · Post by **Keeper** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 19:55

Scarlet wrote:You're quoting a nazi? Wow.

This idiom is quite old - it certainly predates Nazis.

So yeah, the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991... but there were lots of new threats in the world (Gadaffi being just one of them), so NATO definitely has a purpose.

NATO's new purpose is to act as a global "scarecrow", ensuring that dictatorial regimes have something to restrain them. The fear of retaliation keeps them from goign into excesses.

Without a scarecrow, there would be nothing to stop them. And lots of people will suffer.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 19:58

Keeper wrote:
Scarlet wrote:You're quoting a nazi? Wow.
This idiom is quite old - it certainly predates Nazis.

So yeah, the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991... but there were lots of new threats in the world (Gadaffi being just one of them), so NATO definitely has a purpose.

NATO's new purpose is to act as a global "scarecrow", ensuring that dictatorial regimes have something to restrain them. The fear of retaliation keeps them from goign into excesses.

Without a scarecrow, there would be nothing to stop them. And lots of people will suffer.

That purpose of NATO is pure garg. NATO's only purpose is to go about colonizing countries that do not agree with it. Venezuela is next, mark my word.
At the same time, as I said in my previous post, NATO openly supports dictatorial regimes that make Gadaffi look like a saint.

There is absolutely no need for NATO. It is an offensive organization that does more harm than good to the world. The UN should be able to do stuff, but NATO prefer to butt in instead and to kill as many innocent civilians along the way.

Post by **Ceilick** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 21:08

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 21:19

Scarlet wrote:Do you have case against the accusation that the West prefers a colonial like puppet regime as in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, which would reinvest their money back into the West rather than back into their own country and the third world?

I have no case against that at all. In fact I think it would be incredibly naive to say that Western governments aren't and haven't been concerned with realpolitik-style maneuvers designed to ensure that pro-Western governments are put in power. Look at Mobutu in Zaire, the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Mubarak in Egypt, Hussein in Iraq, Thieu in South Vietnam...I could go on and on. Western countries have a long and shameful history of propping up crooked regimes in their own interest, I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

I also don't doubt that Gaddafi accomplished positive things as leader of Libya. You missed the point I was making. My point wasn't that Gaddafi is an infinitely vile Satan who did nothing but kill civilians, blow up airplanes and keep his tribesmen and loyal cadres fat and happy, I'm just reminding you that these are things he did. You acting like Gaddafi was only good for Libya is just as narrow-minded as western media and the rebels saying he was only bad for Libya.

EDIT: Ceilick beat me to it.

Keeper · Post by **Keeper** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 22:43

Scarlet wrote:NATO's only purpose is to go about colonizing countries that do not agree with it. Venezuela is next, mark my word.

Before we continue this argument any further, you should know that I have a degree in Political Science. Some of my research projects were related to NATO's strategic policy and Gadaffi's regime... so, I am pretty sure I am a lot more knowledgeable on these subjects than you are

As a professional I can tell you this - overthoriwing Gadaffi was the right decision. Regimes, such as his, tend to become stagnant and complacent over time, which ultimately leads to the country's decline (economic and social).

In other words - this revolution was inevitable. Even if it didn't happen now, it would have happened in 5, 10 or 15 years. With or without the support of NATO or any other organisation.

It is fortunate that the revolution happened earlier - the country will recover and get on the right track faster. International support will make this process even easier.

And more revolutions will follow. Information is the greatest enemy of any dictator... and we live in the age of communications. You cannot hide anything anymore.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 23:14