Libyan Civil War

[marharth]

i wouldn't get into political discussions but as i saw this, i knew i must spread this.

 

As you can remember, short before the "Arabic spring", this wave of facebook(What means NSA) revolutions started, Ghaddafi was a well seen guest and buddy of many western leaders including Sarkozy, Schroeder, Berlusconi the list goes on and on. His army had a record of non-attacking the own Population(other than the USA for example) since his takeover, and now the media tells us, that his airforce shoots on protesters and there are rape gangs on viagra. I guess they tell us next that Lybian soldiers throw babies out of incubators.

 

A few weeks ago, they talked in the media about, that the rebels maybee have done a few war crimes. What these "rebels", these forgein Al Quaida Mercs and Tribals have done can you see here:

Warning: Sick, sick, sick, sick pictures in the videos.

http://www.obamaslibya.com/

 

So, and to help these psychos should be an humanitarian mission? At the beginning of the "rebellion", they run into an turkish owned factory and killed the black coloured workers. Anyone speaks about that? No, western warlords don't care, they talked about giving weapons to these... names...

 

Don't get me wrong, i don't have a dog in this fight, i'am no Ghaddafi fan or such thing. But i, as a german living in middle europe, have absolutly no interessts in helping a bunch of psycho Al Quaida phony freedome fighters taking over a country on the other side of the Mediterranean.

I guess they would get rid off ghaddafi since he nationalized the oil production and used Gold Dinar as currency. Saddam did nearly the same thing before ... you know what happend. And i hope you could also remember when it happend, when it started.

 

By the way. I guess most of your guys know that the most rebel leaders came from the states, where they studied on universities. Short after the insurgency, there leaders foundet a central bank. Which kind of rebels found a central bank?

The first Americans shoot Hamilton for doing such a thing, and now Obama supports something that is not just total anti-freedom, but also anti-american?

What?

 

Al Qeuda didn't do anything with the revolutions, what proof is there for that?

[Utyran]

Al Qeuda didn't do anything with the revolutions, what proof is there for that?

 

The Jerusalem Post: Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message

The Telegraph:Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

The LA Times: Libyan rebel's story shows links to Taliban, Al Qaeda, NATO

 

Al Quaida hasn't to do anything with this revolutions? Al Quaida means CIA Mercenarys. And many of those who kill american troops in iraq, and even more iraqis, are from the eastern part of lybia.

[marharth]

Al Qeuda didn't do anything with the revolutions, what proof is there for that?

 

The Jerusalem Post: Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message

The Telegraph:Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

The LA Times: Libyan rebel's story shows links to Taliban, Al Qaeda, NATO

 

Al Quaida hasn't to do anything with this revolutions? Al Quaida means CIA Mercenarys. And many of those who kill american troops in iraq, and even more iraqis, are from the eastern part of lybia.

Your seriously saying Al Qeuda are CIA mercs?

[HeyYou]

Al Qeuda didn't do anything with the revolutions, what proof is there for that?

 

The Jerusalem Post: Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message

The Telegraph:Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

The LA Times: Libyan rebel's story shows links to Taliban, Al Qaeda, NATO

 

Al Quaida hasn't to do anything with this revolutions? Al Quaida means CIA Mercenarys. And many of those who kill american troops in iraq, and even more iraqis, are from the eastern part of lybia.

Your seriously saying Al Qeuda are CIA mercs?

 

Our buddy Osama was originally supplied/supported by the US when the Russians invaded afghanistan. The US basically enable the creation of Al Queda.

[Aurielius]

As a minor note , the provisions of the War Powers Act have now kicked in but our fearless leader doesn't think that providing logistical support qualifies,, so he won't ask for Congressional sanction. If the prior president had taken this position ( he did get approval on both conflicts) poor old W would have been crucified in the press, what do we hear now?......silence.

[HeyYou]

As a minor note , the provisions of the War Powers Act have now kicked in but our fearless leader doesn't think that providing logistical support qualifies,, so he won't ask for Congressional sanction. If the prior president had taken this position ( he did get approval on both conflicts) poor old W would have been crucified in the press, what do we hear now?......silence.

 

Only so far. As far as I am concerned, firing ordinance into a foreign country most certainly qualifies as "hostilities", and that is NOT merely logistical support. This is BS. He is spending our tax dollars, on someone else's civil war. Get approval, or get out. (preferably, Get out.)

[Aurielius]

As a minor note , the provisions of the War Powers Act have now kicked in but our fearless leader doesn't think that providing logistical support qualifies,, so he won't ask for Congressional sanction. If the prior president had taken this position ( he did get approval on both conflicts) poor old W would have been crucified in the press, what do we hear now?......silence.

 

Only so far. As far as I am concerned, firing ordinance into a foreign country most certainly qualifies as "hostilities", and that is NOT merely logistical support. This is BS. He is spending our tax dollars, on someone else's civil war. Get approval, or get out. (preferably, Get out.)

I agree the waffling about logistical support was Obama's excuse not my view. Though in all fairness there has not been a president who has been willing to challenge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act since it's inception, I frankly believe that it is unconstitutional but only the Supreme Court could make that final judgment and no sitting president has wanted to risk an adverse decision on that matter. Obama should go before Congress and make his case or take it to the Supreme Court, IMO.

[Nintii]

I'd like to look at the Libyan Civil War from a slightly different angle ... the African angle.

For a start, the "rebels" for want of a better word are not strong enough and Africa won't help.

 

The unfortunate thing - if you're anti-Gadaffi - is that Africa by and large is not really backing the U.S and the E.U in getting rid of the current Libyan regime.

They won't lift a finger to help.

As always Africa is not always a willing participant in condemning other African nations (their leadership) when they cross the line of human rights issues.

The reason being that most of them are partly guilty of human rights violations themselves or plan to be, if they don't win at the election polls the next time they take place.

 

When the international court - I think it was, I stand under correction - recently issued a warrant of arrest against Gadaffi and others for crimes against humanity, African leaders

condemned this action.

Why ?

Because they themselves might be guilty of the same thing in time to come and they realise that a warrant of arrest could be issued against them as well, so they condemn it.

It is because of this very reason, that such actions - the issueing of warrants of arrest - MUST BE issued against murderous leaders that kill their own and others.

 

People must realise that they will pay for their actions, not in the sweet bye and bye but in the rotten here and now.

This WILL cause people like Gadaffi to think twice about what actions they will take in a situation like this.

 

If the U.S and the E.U really want to see a change in Libya, then they should make a concerted effort by putting together an army and go into Libya and "just get

Gadaffi out".

This dilly-dallying, half-hearted, half-cocked "involvement" must come to an end, and a decisive decision should be made.

Africa won't help, so if you really want change then "make it happen".

 

Who is going to pay for the effort you may ask ?

Libya will, with their oil and so the U.S and the E.U won't be left carrying the can (especially the U.S and her Allies as usual).

 

This post is not complete and so I'll come back another time to further furnish my point, depending .....

Edited June 29, 2011 by Nintii

[HeyYou]

I'd like to look at the Libyan Civil War from a slightly different angle ... the African angle.

For a start, the "rebels" for want of a better word are not strong enough and Africa won't help.

 

The unfortunate thing - if you're anti-Gadaffi - is that Africa by and large is not really backing the U.S and the E.U in getting rid of the current Libyan regime.

They won't lift a finger to help.

As always Africa is not always a willing participant in condemning other African nations (their leadership) when they cross the line of human rights issues.

The reason being that most of them are partly guilty of human rights violations themselves or plan to be, if they don't win at the election polls the next time they take place.

 

When the international court - I think it was, I stand under correction - recently issued a warrant of arrest against Gadaffi and others for crimes against humanity, African leaders

condemned this action.

Why ?

Because they themselves might be guilty of the same thing in time to come and they realise that a warrant of arrest could be issued against them as well, so they condemn it.

It is because of this very reason, that such actions - the issueing of warrants of arrest - MUST BE issued against murderous leaders that kill their own and others.

 

People must realise that they will pay for their actions, not in the sweet bye and bye but in the rotten here and now.

This WILL cause people like Gadaffi to think twice about what actions they will take in a situation like this.

 

If the U.S and the E.U really want to see a change in Libya, then they should make a concerted effort by putting together an army and go into Libya and "just get

Gadaffi out".

This dilly-dallying, half-hearted, half-cocked "involvement" must come to an end, and a decisive decision should be made.

Africa won't help, so if you really want change then "make it happen".

 

Who is going to pay for the effort you may ask ?

Libya will, with their oil and so the U.S and the E.U won't be left carrying the can (especially the U.S and her Allies as usual).

 

This post is not complete and so I'll come back another time to further furnish my point, depending .....

 

We tried that in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we see how well that turned out..... Trillions of dollars down the tubes. In the end, we accomplished nothing.

 

The US, the EU, and the UN, should just stay the hell at home. We aren't accomplishing anything in Libya, or Yemen either. Just wasting yet more money.

 

The UN is a powerless, good-for-nothing entity, that has no authority, and no credibility. Another waste of taxpayer money.

[JimboUK]

I'd like to look at the Libyan Civil War from a slightly different angle ... the African angle.

For a start, the "rebels" for want of a better word are not strong enough and Africa won't help.

 

The unfortunate thing - if you're anti-Gadaffi - is that Africa by and large is not really backing the U.S and the E.U in getting rid of the current Libyan regime.

They won't lift a finger to help.

As always Africa is not always a willing participant in condemning other African nations (their leadership) when they cross the line of human rights issues.

The reason being that most of them are partly guilty of human rights violations themselves or plan to be, if they don't win at the election polls the next time they take place.

 

When the international court - I think it was, I stand under correction - recently issued a warrant of arrest against Gadaffi and others for crimes against humanity, African leaders

condemned this action.

Why ?

Because they themselves might be guilty of the same thing in time to come and they realise that a warrant of arrest could be issued against them as well, so they condemn it.

It is because of this very reason, that such actions - the issueing of warrants of arrest - MUST BE issued against murderous leaders that kill their own and others.

 

People must realise that they will pay for their actions, not in the sweet bye and bye but in the rotten here and now.

This WILL cause people like Gadaffi to think twice about what actions they will take in a situation like this.

 

If the U.S and the E.U really want to see a change in Libya, then they should make a concerted effort by putting together an army and go into Libya and "just get

Gadaffi out".

This dilly-dallying, half-hearted, half-cocked "involvement" must come to an end, and a decisive decision should be made.

Africa won't help, so if you really want change then "make it happen".

 

Who is going to pay for the effort you may ask ?

Libya will, with their oil and so the U.S and the E.U won't be left carrying the can (especially the U.S and her Allies as usual).

 

This post is not complete and so I'll come back another time to further furnish my point, depending .....

 

I can't see it happening in the near future, we don't have the resources or the money to acquire them. Also people are sick and tired of pointless wars, not just because of the cost in lives but also the cost in monetary terms. The U.S and E.U have enough problems as it is, we don't need another ground war.