How many refugees have been fleeing from NATO countries to get into Libya?
Libya: Seriously, where is this going?
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
How many refugees have been fleeing from NATO countries to get into Libya?
Snorrius
Librivorator
I presume this question have some hidden message but unfortunately you failed to deliver it. NATO's countries are not bombed right now nor there are foreing-funded civil wars so this question does not make any sense.
Refugees were leaving Libya before the war started.
However..! I will reply to your retort - people in Northern Ireland were getting bombed throughout the troubles - and who was financing this civil war?
Yes - Libya!
Snorrius
Librivorator
Your "arguments" still does not make sense but shall I presume you disagree with me about something?
Gaddafhi financed the civil war in Northern Ireland. This lead to people being bombed.
Do you still wish him good luck?
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
*Waits for Glenn Beck to make some ridiculous comment about the Libyan Civil War*
Benefactor
Beneficial
YAH RLY. He was bombing Libya until he was stopped, he was/is funding a civil war; he has to be as he is one side in it, and he is/was paying mercenaries to kill his own people.
If he truly is as popular and benevolent as he (and some people on here) claim him to be then why not set up the democratic government, run on a platform of putting everything back how it was before and hold an election? Sure fire win....
Snorrius
Librivorator
But had he and his minions from African Union bombed UK to stop it from killing its citizens and oppressing of opposition?
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
What???
Snorrius
Librivorator
Indeed this is a question I say often when reading another piece of Western propaganda.
Benefactor
Beneficial
Wait... I didn't know the Northern Irish where upset about her Majesty's brutal and repressive dictatorial rule over these fair Isles? Or that Northern Ireland suddenly burst into open Rebellion, or that these two situations are even remotely comparable...
EDIT: Or that British Bombers attacked Irish protesters, or that French mercenaries where hired to put down any protests.
EDIT2: Or that British Government controlled the media and used it to create propaganda, rather than the media so often controlling British Government.
His minions in the IRA carried out the bombings and it lead to the deaths of thousands of people. To date, I don't think that thousands have yet died in Libya. And yes, the government was bombed too - they even tried to kill the Prime Minister and nearly succeeded.
Is that enough information? Do you still think this is a one-sided struggle of Gaddhafi-the-good versus NATO-the-bad? Will you still be cheerleading him?
Snorrius
Librivorator
Obviously. While he may funded IRA (which was fighting for independance which is a good deed by modern Western standards so we may now understand if not accept his position) his army and armies of his friends from African Union did not made airstrikes, did not bombed (using fighting jets and bombers) UK's cities, nor he have started world-wide propaganda campaign about atrocities of Royal Crown or installed sanctions against United Kingdom to hurt its economy.
His deeds is incomparable to the sins of NATO which have destroyed lifes of tens of millions in numerous countries during its "humanitarian" campaigns. Obviously Gaddafi is not a saint but as long as he fights against the Great Evil he should be supported.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Qaddafi is a (war) criminal now and has been for decades (Lockerbie, anyone?). You can measure the love his people have for him right now, in towns like Benghazi or Misrata.
NATO's failure doesn't lie in action, but in the lack of a decisive action. The civil war could have ended months ago if NATO wasn't too scared to commit ground troops.
NATO's failure doesn't lie in action, but in the lack of a decisive action. The civil war could have ended months ago if NATO wasn't too scared to commit ground troops.
Snorrius
Librivorator
Most countries' rulers are criminal in some way or another. If he lose he will become war criminal for sure but if he wins only losers will call him like this.
I agree with your analysis. If NATO wanted to overthrow Gaddafi and to install puppet goverment they should have start land operation.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Libya and Boston, yes
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Not even the losers, not even them. The only purposes of the so-called "international courts" is to provide some casus beli, or to justify wars a posteriori, or to get rid of deposed but still inconvenient heads of state. If a war goes wrong and the target doesn't get deposed, then said target gets "rehabilitated" for the sake of diplomatic and trade relations. International courts, to put it simply, are kangaroo courts, always have been, always will. Even the ones set up after WW2 notoriously failed to persecute the war criminals from the winning side (Winston Chruchill, Arthur Harris?), and only selectively prosecuted the ones on the losing side (von Braun?).
As for the situation in Libya, I'll just ask this (again): how do you think Qaddafi has maintained the "mercenaries" fighting for him after months of predictions of imminent defeat, bombardments, international siege, and frozen financial assets? No, those cannot be just mercenaries. He may be a bastard, but he has genuine support in a large portion of Libya. That much has been understood already in Paris and London, that's why they're desperately seeking a way out of the war without losing too much face. But not only did they misjudge the willingness of supporters of the Lilyan government to resist, they misjudged Qaddafi also (A difficult fear, after 40 years of watching him). That early ploy to get him to flee the country ("he's fled to Venezuela!") was very badly thought out, and since then they've been insisting on either killing him or convincing him to surrender, as if he was one of the usual crop of arab or African dictators. He isn't - he's not in it for the money, not willing to flee with his loot to Paris or some other european exile. He's in it for the power and for his own delusions of self-importance, and can't even think of surrendering or fleeing.
I have to admit that I think there was more stupidity than malice in the franco-british-american involvement with this particular war. The outcome and the vision of the intelligence and military strategists is surely the usual (weaken and divide the target, so as to control some future puppet government), but the idea of the politicians who authorized it must have been that it would be a quick and easy war.
And now the military and intelligence establishments gets to push for a land invasion, with the argument that "it's either that or losing!", though they knew very well that it would come to it because bombing alone would fail to overthrown the government of Libya. That establishment thrives on this kind of thing: have their numbers not been growing enormously over the past few years? Are not defense budgets the only untouchable thing in the midst of the economic crisis?
pob
Deity²
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 410
Have you a source for that? I thought the flood of refugees only started once the Libyan border guards were removed to mobilize to fight the rebels a couple of days into the uprising (and even then it took some neighbouring countries time to open the borders and many refugees were left waiting in no mans land).
Snorrius
Librivorator
I know that the idea of installing "democratic government" is a really obsession of the West these days just like the installing of people's democracies all over the world was the obsession of East some time ago, but allow me please to destroy these delusions.
You can not just "set up democratic government" in country which have long way to develop. To install democratic government you have to meet a lot of conditions which lack in the country like Lybia. You can not just walk into the country consisting of number of tribes and clans and where population have very different values from the countries with successful democracies, and just "set up democratic government". No, you can, but it will fail very soon as numerous examples show us. Africa is one big example of why you should not just apply Western-style democracy to anyone.
Under Gaddafi Lybia had decent economy and income comparing to the neighbours and it is quite a big achievement for any country in this region.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Hey! Lets be fair in pointing out the evils of Ghaddafi.
He also funded and armed the UVF just as much.
Similar threads
