What a shame maybe next time.
NATO air strike possibly kills Gaddafi's son
- Thread starter raikesi
- Start date
What a shame maybe next time.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
so when did nato decide it's ok to kill civilians? I'm sure gadaffis' grand children wanted nothing to do with the war and the son spent most of his life in germany.
who is the lesser of 2 evils, a man in a 40 year regime trying to cling to power or a collective of people wanting to serve their own purpose?
it's not nato's business, if it was, then nato should be invading china and russia too but no.
who is the lesser of 2 evils, a man in a 40 year regime trying to cling to power or a collective of people wanting to serve their own purpose?
it's not nato's business, if it was, then nato should be invading china and russia too but no.
Well we could've not 'invaded' and stayed his BFF if we wanted the oil rights
Funny, that.
The uprising provided an opportunity to get rid of someone who is not friendly to the West and was beginning to negotiate future oil contracts with China. Im sure they thought they could get rid of him quickly by providing a platform for the rebels which would make a future government grateful to us.
I'm no fan of Gaddafi but I think it stinks that we use humanitarian excuses to further our own interests. If we want to police the world we need to our interests aside and act like a police force - impartial and fair. Or we should just come out and say I want that and I'm happy to use whatever means to get it.
I'm certainly not a supporter of Gaddafi or his regime and I would welcome a peaceful regime change or even by justified civil war in Libya but, where is this illegal interference in other country's affairs by primarily the USA & GB going to end?
They are behaving themselves like international terrorists and using defence of civilians as an excuse to carry out their foreign policies which we can be assured has security of oil supplies behind all the smoke of protecting civilians!
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, American foreign policy has been allowed to run riot without the balance of detante/status quo - regime change or assassination of a sovereign leader should NOT be part of any mandate or condoned by NATO or the UN and those who are authorising it should be held to account in the Hague! Trying Blair and Bush for war crimes would be a good start!
Is there any wonder that Islamic fundamentalist groups and international terrorism is thriving after seeing what are mostly attacks on Islamic countries by the USA and GB - which are now two of the most hated democratic countries in the world?
I dislike all forms of religion but I can empathise how such as Islamic followers would equate Western interference as attacks on Islam.
Far from making our world better and safer, acts of aggression like this for undoubtedly dubious political ends are only going to fuel more terrorism and make our security even less safe in the future.
They are behaving themselves like international terrorists and using defence of civilians as an excuse to carry out their foreign policies which we can be assured has security of oil supplies behind all the smoke of protecting civilians!
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, American foreign policy has been allowed to run riot without the balance of detante/status quo - regime change or assassination of a sovereign leader should NOT be part of any mandate or condoned by NATO or the UN and those who are authorising it should be held to account in the Hague! Trying Blair and Bush for war crimes would be a good start!
Is there any wonder that Islamic fundamentalist groups and international terrorism is thriving after seeing what are mostly attacks on Islamic countries by the USA and GB - which are now two of the most hated democratic countries in the world?
I dislike all forms of religion but I can empathise how such as Islamic followers would equate Western interference as attacks on Islam.
Far from making our world better and safer, acts of aggression like this for undoubtedly dubious political ends are only going to fuel more terrorism and make our security even less safe in the future.
un resolution doesnt allow regime change as a a goal so bombing gaddafi dirctly should be illegal.
dont let that stop nato though
especially when they could have split the country in 2 and told the rebels to stay behind ajdabiya.....
its never been about protecting civilians but most people seem to realise that anyway
for a few years he was trying, obama even met him, everyone was queueing up to sell him weapons ...
Its a cruel world, but there are obvious economic reasons why Libya is getting targeted. The resolution was worded as it was because it would have been vetoed if it was anything stronger - as long as its being adhered to 90% of the time, nobody can really do anything about it and the parties involved (US, UK and France mostly) know this.
Getting rid of Gaddafi solves a number of problems for many countries, and 'accidentally' killing him in a bombing run is essentially the easiest way to achieve it. Its very crude, but thats life.
Getting rid of Gaddafi solves a number of problems for many countries, and 'accidentally' killing him in a bombing run is essentially the easiest way to achieve it. Its very crude, but thats life.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
You do realise our meagre armed forces are pretty much maxed out by this, Afghanistan, and other commitments?
yea i can see china starting to sell of its 1 trillion + worth of us treasury bills if america makes them angry enough though.
i wonder if americas economy could handle it
Unfortunately if Gaddafi leaves he'll be hunted down and tried for "war crimes" so for him he may as well die in power than step down... Not to mention no money due to frozen assets...
Maybe I missed something but Libya had just recently signed a massive contract with BP for exploration and extraction of oil within new basins. Where does this China thing come from?
Also what's with the US bashing, AFAIK they didn't want to be part of this to begin with, it was a European thing... Us and the French to be specific.
I'm pretty sure Chinas economy couldn't handle it either, though.
I never mentioned the US!
When I say us i mean the British! 
I'll get you some links for the Chinese links once I've watched the footy.
I never mentioned the US!
I'll get you some links for the Chinese links once I've watched the footy.
That part wasn't aimed at you bit a few of the other posters in this thread.
EDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...cts-in-Libya-still-valid-despite-turmoil.html
Last edited: