• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Egyptian embassy staff "seized" in Libya

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Another US foreign policy success.


At least four Egyptian embassy personnel have been kidnapped in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the Libyan foreign ministry says.

Another embassy official was seized in the Libyan capital on Friday.

Several kidnappings of officials in Libya recently have been blamed on militias. They are often paid by the government, but their allegiance and who controls them remain in doubt.


BBC News - Egyptian embassy staff 'seized'in Libya
 
Another US foreign policy success.


At least four Egyptian embassy personnel have been kidnapped in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the Libyan foreign ministry says.

Another embassy official was seized in the Libyan capital on Friday.

Several kidnappings of officials in Libya recently have been blamed on militias. They are often paid by the government, but their allegiance and who controls them remain in doubt.


BBC News - Egyptian embassy staff 'seized'in Libya

That seems more an Egyptian thing than "an American success".
 
That seems more an Egyptian thing than "an American success".

Such things weren't happening when Gaddafi was there.
 
Such things weren't happening when Gaddafi was there.

True. He was a discrete kind of murderer and less the kidnapping kind with foreigners. mostly.
 
True. He was a discrete kind of murderer and less the kidnapping kind with foreigners. mostly.

Right, so your diminishing the chaotic state of affairs in Libya in order to defend the US interference, I mean I'm not surprised.
 
Right, so your diminishing the chaotic state of affairs in Libya in order to defend the US interference, I mean I'm not surprised.

Actually that was a case, where the US only supported the intervention by the neighborhood. That was okay. Maybe the neighbors should have helped more and maybe not. But what is your problem? Not everything is the fault of the US even though there are lots of jerks that like to say so.
 
Actually that was a case, where the US only supported the intervention by the neighborhood. That was okay. Maybe the neighbors should have helped more and maybe not. But what is your problem? Not everything is the fault of the US even though there are lots of jerks that like to say so.

This is directly the result of the US abusing the UN resolution to use force to protect the civilians, to overthrow the Libyan government, destabilizing the country as we have been doing elsewhere s in the ME.
 
This is directly the result of the US abusing the UN resolution to use force to protect the civilians, to overthrow the Libyan government, destabilizing the country as we have been doing elsewhere s in the ME.

You don't think the UN should enforce its own norms?
And you think dictators should be allowed to use lethal military force to crush resistance against them?
 
True. He was a discrete kind of murderer and less the kidnapping kind with foreigners. mostly.

I long for the good old days of Gaddafi where planes blew up over the skies of Scotland...
 
You don't think the UN should enforce its own norms?
And you think dictators should be allowed to use lethal military force to crush resistance against them?

What are you talking about, UN norms??? The US secured a resolution at the UN to use military force to protect civilians, that's it. That resolution was abused by the Obama administration and used to overthrow the Libyan government. I don't know why your having difficulty with that. And no, I don't think any governments should use their military force to "crush resistance". But I can assure you that if there were ever a civilian armed resistance to our government, they would use military force to repel it, don't think for a minute that they wouldn't.
 
I long for the good old days of Gaddafi where planes blew up over the skies of Scotland...

I think you miss the point. Nobody supports dictators or the human rights abuses that dictators sometimes perpetrate on their citizens (well actually, governments sometimes do if it serves some "interest") the point is being made that Libya hasn't the stability it had pre US/NATO intervention.
 
True. He was a discrete kind of murderer and less the kidnapping kind with foreigners. mostly.

Yes, and he had control of his country. It's somewhat out of control now, as is Iraq as is Syria as is Egypt. You see the pattern? Things are not better in the region after more than a decade of US aggression and interference.
 
What are you talking about, UN norms??? The US secured a resolution at the UN to use military force to protect civilians, that's it. That resolution was abused by the Obama administration and used to overthrow the Libyan government. I don't know why your having difficulty with that. And no, I don't think any governments should use their military force to "crush resistance". But I can assure you that if there were ever a civilian armed resistance to our government, they would use military force to repel it, don't think for a minute that they wouldn't.

Don't get me wrong. Obama is not my favorite president. And be it from me to say his foreign policy were good. But I think he got this one relatively right. But that you do not know what norms the UN applied to the situation I am unwilling to believe.
 
Right, so your diminishing the chaotic state of affairs in Libya in order to defend the US interference, I mean I'm not surprised.

The US didn't interfere, alone. If France hadn't been chomping at the bit to intervene, Obama probably wouldn't have touched it with a 10-foot pole.
 
Suffice to say, intervention in Libya was immoral, criminal, unethical, criminal, unconscionable, and criminal. If anyone thinks otherwise, they been sucking on the Kool-aid stick too long. Nothing said here will counter their successful mind bending and they even think they are patriots. Maroons.
 
Yes, and he had control of his country. It's somewhat out of control now, as is Iraq as is Syria as is Egypt. You see the pattern? Things are not better in the region after more than a decade of US aggression and interference.

Oh, yes. It is less than smooth. But that is par for this course. Everyone knows that the transition from dictator to dictator can be messy and often is. It is the same for the period of replacement of a dictator by a democracy and sometimes it doesn't even work. So where is the advantage, you are probably asking.

Well, it is like this. Once you have a democracy the later transitions I are usually much less brutal.

That is not the most important reason to go for the democracy. But it is one of them that fits to the context.
 
I think you miss the point. Nobody supports dictators or the human rights abuses that dictators sometimes perpetrate on their citizens (well actually, governments sometimes do if it serves some "interest") the point is being made that Libya hasn't the stability it had pre US/NATO intervention.

Ghadaffi was using his military to kill his own people. Is that what you call "stability"? The problem now is radical groups that are trying to make it a religious state. The Saudi's are more to blame for Libya instability now than the US. Iran is similarly to blame for the renewed sectarian violence in Iraq. The difference in Libya was our level of involvement. Was it worth 4000 lives and a trillion dollars to hand Iraq to the Iranians? No. Was it worth a few airstrikes to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya? Easily, even with the risk of further "instability" which is always present when a regime is overthrown.
 
Don't get me wrong. Obama is not my favorite president. And be it from me to say his foreign policy were good. But I think he got this one relatively right. But that you do not know what norms the UN applied to the situation I am unwilling to believe.

Obviously you're not familiar with the resolution. So Obama abused the UN resolution, and in your opinion, he got this one right. That's typical for a hawk.
 
You don't think the UN should enforce its own norms? And you think dictators should be allowed to use lethal military force to crush resistance against them?

The UN is only concerned with how much their peace keeping forces have to pay for bananas.
 
Ghadaffi was using his military to kill his own people. Is that what you call "stability"? The problem now is radical groups that are trying to make it a religious state. The Saudi's are more to blame for Libya instability now than the US. Iran is similarly to blame for the renewed sectarian violence in Iraq. The difference in Libya was our level of involvement. Was it worth 4000 lives and a trillion dollars to hand Iraq to the Iranians? No. Was it worth a few airstrikes to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya? Easily, even with the risk of further "instability" which is always present when a regime is overthrown.

That's not what I was referring to dude! There was stability before the Arab Spring. Would you tell me that were an "Arab Spring" scenario to arrive in the US with armed civilians, do you suppose the government would step down, or repel it??? The bottom line in this is that the US abused its authority and power, again, violating the UN resolution, overthrowing the government. This is one reason why we were denied a resolution for use of force in Syria! Russians weren't going to play that game again.
 
Ghadaffi was using his military to kill his own people. Is that what you call "stability"? The problem now is radical groups that are trying to make it a religious state. The Saudi's are more to blame for Libya instability now than the US. Iran is similarly to blame for the renewed sectarian violence in Iraq. The difference in Libya was our level of involvement. Was it worth 4000 lives and a trillion dollars to hand Iraq to the Iranians? No. Was it worth a few airstrikes to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya? Easily, even with the risk of further "instability" which is always present when a regime is overthrown.

Again, there was no UN authority to overthrow a government. No UN body, or god himself, for that matter, has charged the US with the task of overthrowing governments around the world, much as we do it. Those days are coming to an end however. There are countries now, with sufficient power to menace the US and impede this imperialistic agenda, at the very least its going to become more difficult.
 
The US didn't interfere, alone. If France hadn't been chomping at the bit to intervene, Obama probably wouldn't have touched it with a 10-foot pole.

Bull ****, if Obama didn't want to touch it, all he had to do was ask congress. Then he could have told France, sorry fellas, my hands are tied. Oh he wanted it.
 
Obviously you're not familiar with the resolution. So Obama abused the UN resolution, and in your opinion, he got this one right. That's typical for a hawk.

I would have to reread the document to be totally sure of the wording. But at the time I checked it out and it seemed a good piece of work. Also it seemed happily in line with the UN's norms. What exactly is your problem with it?

And yes. I think it was good that the neighborhood took care of the problem arising from the unruly behavior of the dictator's subjects. And yes. I think it was right for Obama to give logistical support.
 
Bull ****, if Obama didn't want to touch it, all he had to do was ask congress. Then he could have told France, sorry fellas, my hands are tied. Oh he wanted it.

Be that as it may, France is as much to blame for overthrowing Kadaffi as the United States.
 
The UN is only concerned with how much their peace keeping forces have to pay for bananas.

The cost of bananas is surely an important issue, when dealing with the lives of a dictator's subjects.
 
Back
Top Bottom