Gaddafi is history! Tripoli is free!
- Thread starter Cheetah
- Start date
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
KaiserElectric
Total Freakin Besties
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,461
Both of them are Anti-American loons anyway. 
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,999
harping on with the same thing Seyfülislam will avoid showing too much initiative . His father might have been funny and a sociopath / pyschopath but to have him dragged around in chains would cheapen those whom he has hated for an eternity . He is certainly not an Hussein of Jordan but has never wavered . Incredible , you know , for a politician .
meanwhile the information arm of the Arabic Reconquista , Al Jazeraa has reported execution of the son that was hostaged , never doubt the channel to cover up for the surprises and boost morale . And as an inevitable return to the previous thread that got out of hand , channels report a Scud shot down . NATO reads CFC . And , sorry , but can Virgin Galactic do that ? Hah , even one Libyan Colonel is supposed to have ranted against Star Trek on Al Jazeraa , but didn't see it myself .
will not deny a chance encounter , a Spitfire over Netherlands was in the immediate vicinity when a V-2 was launched and he gave it a burst , the pilot might have become a BBC presenter after the war . Otherwise if this is a real event all the propellerheads are looking to hear it more from the boys . Yeah , the senior citizen got away and this immediately got into the food chain . Impressive . Aviation experts will avoid deriving any conclusions from this , ı am worthless and it is hard peacemaking in hostile lands . As my goverment is learning day by day , they hear on TV that Trablus is falling , they arrange a flight so that Sarkozy will not get true satisfaction of denying every contract we could ever hope to get , and Seyfülislam gets his city-tour . Yesterday , some pro-goverment analysts were even pushing Somali where , it is told , we are only for humanitarian reasons and those who eat from golden trays are nowhere to be seen . Yeah , good that we have the 17th largest economy of the world , we can afford both helping Somali and losing Libya . No need to ask for outside help , orchestrating a campaign somewhere else only ended with ridiculing of the UN envoy . Angelina rules . And with all due respect , Voight before Winslett .
meanwhile the information arm of the Arabic Reconquista , Al Jazeraa has reported execution of the son that was hostaged , never doubt the channel to cover up for the surprises and boost morale . And as an inevitable return to the previous thread that got out of hand , channels report a Scud shot down . NATO reads CFC . And , sorry , but can Virgin Galactic do that ? Hah , even one Libyan Colonel is supposed to have ranted against Star Trek on Al Jazeraa , but didn't see it myself .
will not deny a chance encounter , a Spitfire over Netherlands was in the immediate vicinity when a V-2 was launched and he gave it a burst , the pilot might have become a BBC presenter after the war . Otherwise if this is a real event all the propellerheads are looking to hear it more from the boys . Yeah , the senior citizen got away and this immediately got into the food chain . Impressive . Aviation experts will avoid deriving any conclusions from this , ı am worthless and it is hard peacemaking in hostile lands . As my goverment is learning day by day , they hear on TV that Trablus is falling , they arrange a flight so that Sarkozy will not get true satisfaction of denying every contract we could ever hope to get , and Seyfülislam gets his city-tour . Yesterday , some pro-goverment analysts were even pushing Somali where , it is told , we are only for humanitarian reasons and those who eat from golden trays are nowhere to be seen . Yeah , good that we have the 17th largest economy of the world , we can afford both helping Somali and losing Libya . No need to ask for outside help , orchestrating a campaign somewhere else only ended with ridiculing of the UN envoy . Angelina rules . And with all due respect , Voight before Winslett .
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
I find it funny he's still swearing victory or death. He has really got to be one of the most delusional leaders in our entire world. Why does Iran and NK get all the bad rep?!
Says a lot about Chavez' moral fiber if you ask me. It's only bad if the United States supports dictatorships, isn't it?
Says a lot about Chavez' moral fiber if you ask me. It's only bad if the United States supports dictatorships, isn't it?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,338
Yes, it does tell a lot, that he hadn't yet changed recognition depending on which side the wind seems to be blowing. What did that said about "moral fiber" of other governments anyway?
In any case it's not about moral fiber. It's about condoning or condemning the recent trend of foreign military meddling into the affairs of other sovereign states. Chavez is not going to condone that for obvious reasons - what with the US building up its military presence in Colombia and all.
And also about "moral fiber": when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, Margaret Thatcher kept, with american blessing, the SAS passing on military support to the Khmer Rouge (this is post-real-genocide, mind you). The very moral western governments were all for the genocidal government (backing it in the UN into the 1990s), because it wasn't pro-soviet. Now in Libya they were all against the existing government ... over an alleged intention of "genocide". And that was also after, lets keep in mind, the french foreign minister offered "cooperation" to Tunisia in trying to stop any rebellions there. It turned out that the tunisian government then collapsed to an internal revolution too fast for that. But if the french were supplying the weapons and perhaps even the troops, then I guess any repression wouldn't be "genocide", would it? Kind of like when Saudi Arabia, just a little while later, sent its troops to suppress the rebellion in Bahrain?
Moral fiber...
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
That they recognise a government that could potentially be a democracy over a dictatorship. Sounds like the morally superior option if you ask me, as it supports the right of human beings to choose their own destiny.
Of course of course, but if he was a true socialist, he'd support democracy anywhere and everywhere.
You can be immoral yet make moral decisions(and vice versa)... nowhere did I claim the Western governments were saints.
I understand you're a non-interventionist, but nowhere did I say our intervention is always good.
But getting rid of Qadaffi? I fail to see a downside from a moral standpoint, only one from a practical standpoint(chaos).
Yeah, Iran just puts on a good act of insanity(makes good press in the West anyway since fear of Iran can be played up). Gaddafi seems to genuinely be insane! Are his aides too afraid to tell him he's finished?
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
I say when they catch they should force him to spell his name in english, is it Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Gadafi, Gadhafi....
Winner
Diverse in Unity
In fact I don't think Iranian leaders are insane at all. Some elements in the Revolutionary Guards Corps (the Iranian Waffen-SS) may well be, but Ahmadinejad is probably a very sane (and rather skilful) politician. At least he'd won an election, unlike Gaddafi.
Yeah. It's Kaddáfí in Czech. Often the English transliterations of foreign names looks totally strange to me (like the use of "Q" instead of "K", and so on).
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Well, it's pronounced the same either way... though indeed. Establishing a standard would be nice.
Most seem to make it Qaddafi or Gadhafi from my experience. Koran, Qu'ran... same thing.
Oh, most of them likely aren't, but it makes good press to play up the idea that they are. In Iran, it makes them seem truly devoted to the ideals of radical Islam, in the West, it gives us something to be paralysed in fear over so we don't look at the other shady things politicians do.
While I agree that the West is in really no position to boast about it, but it's still a difference if you recognize a dictatorship when there's no alternative around or if you still cling to it when an alternative emerges. And some countries, like France, recognized the Provisionary Government before it was even apparent they'd win.
It's not his fault that our Latin script fails to represent Arabic.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Well he should let us know, so some people dont write Gaddafi while others write Qaddafi, it should be his last wish, he spells it as the rebels load their guns.
It can, to a certain degree. We need some standardisation though.
Rulle_Kebab
Warlord
Alif Lam Qaaf Thal Alif Fa Ya
Al Qathafi
Would be the romanization of his name.
It means "thrower" or another nice translation would be "ejaculator"
Al Qathafi
Would be the romanization of his name.
It means "thrower" or another nice translation would be "ejaculator"
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Bah, in my language "q" is pronounced as "kv". No Q's, please.
Yes, it does tell a lot, that he hadn't yet changed recognition depending on which side the wind seems to be blowing. What did that said about "moral fiber" of other governments anyway?
In any case it's not about moral fiber. It's about condoning or condemning the recent trend of foreign military meddling into the affairs of other sovereign states. Chavez is not going to condone that for obvious reasons - what with the US building up its military presence in Colombia and all.
And also about "moral fiber": when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, Margaret Thatcher kept, with american blessing, the SAS passing on military support to the Khmer Rouge (this is post-real-genocide, mind you). The very moral western governments were all for the genocidal government (backing it in the UN into the 1990s), because it wasn't pro-soviet. Now in Libya they were all against the existing government ... over an alleged intention of "genocide". And that was also after, lets keep in mind, the french foreign minister offered "cooperation" to Tunisia in trying to stop any rebellions there. It turned out that the tunisian government then collapsed to an internal revolution too fast for that. But if the french were supplying the weapons and perhaps even the troops, then I guess any repression wouldn't be "genocide", would it? Kind of like when Saudi Arabia, just a little while later, sent its troops to suppress the rebellion in Bahrain?
Moral fiber...
You do realize that the US actually tried to prevent the Khmer Rouge from taking power, right? You do understand that the bombing of Cambodja, considered by the international left a great crime, actually prevented the fall of Phnom Penh in 1973 by killing many thousands of Khmer Rouge maniacs, right?
Kissinger and Nixon backed the Lon Nol regime (much to the disgust of the Left), which the Khmer Rouge fought and eventually defeated. Clearly, Nixon and Kissinger were right and the left was wrong; it was much preferable to keep Lon Nol, but the left and the "peace movement" forced the abandonment of that regime and we all know the result.
To say that the US supported the Khmer Rouge is ridiculous and you know it. It was backed and armed by Maoist China and had moral support given by the communist fifth column in the West.
We now also know, from Soviet archives, that the Vietnamese inavsion of Cambodja was lauched with explicit request by the Khmer Rouge, being negotiated by Noun Chea himself.
Rulle_Kebab
Warlord
Well it would be the englishification then or whatever you would call it!
nonconformist
Miserable
Innon is right.
We don't know whether it's "democracy" or whatever, and to immediately start supporting one side in a bloody civil war, where we don't actually know what people want, is just opportunism, and believe me, NATO never gets involved unless there are significant advantages to that side winning; i.e we get $$$
In the words of a great man: "Freedom? That's jsut some people talkin'"
The support of the Khmer wasn't "immoral", it was downright evil.
The Yanks were supporting a regime which was responsible for 90% material destruction in their own country, and which was convenient because it was anti-Vietnamese.
The genocide was only stopped when the North Vietnamese invaded Phnom Penh. It's pretty dire when a communist dicatorship liberates a country.
Similar threads
- Locked
