• 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

Sherman123 said:
Pretty much. Up with democratic hegemony, down with dictatorship, and onwards with the new liberal world order. Democratic states can deal with each other on an equitable basis. Autocratic states have no rights except those which are expedient to this purpose. That others take international law seriously is important because of how it creates binding norms that both restrain and produce pretexts.
Click to expand...

What are these ****ing "norms" to which you speak. US policy of attacking weak ME countries on fabrication of lies?
 
Montecresto said:
What are these ****ing "norms" to which you speak. US policy of attacking weak ME countries on fabrication of lies?
Click to expand...

What norms? A whole cavalcade of norms. The norm of non-democracy being a negative thing, the norm of inter-state conflict being heavily stigmatized, the norms of human rights standards, the norm of nuclear weapons non-proliferation, etc, etc. These things are all reinforced by a general belief that there is an international code that must be adhered to. It has proven extremely useful in the spread of democracy, the suppression of illiberal actors, and the cultivation of peace.
 
Sherman123 said:
They report a documented total of 55. Maybe it is higher, maybe not I don't know. What I do know is that the figure is miniscule compared to those slain by the continuance of the civil war, and those killed by Gaddafi's suppression campaign. It is also indicative of the nature of the NATO campaign which did its utmost to avoid such casualties over it's nearly eight month duration.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-medi...strikes-must-be-properly-investigated-2012-03
Click to expand...

That's because those are the civilians killed by proxy in covert operations on the ground, aid, logistics, satellite imagery, weapons and direction given to the rebels to aid them in the overthrow of the Libyan government.
 
Sherman123 said:
What norms? A whole cavalcade of norms. The norm of non-democracy being a negative thing, the norm of inter-state conflict being heavily stigmatized, the norms of human rights standards, the norm of nuclear weapons non-proliferation, etc, etc. These things are all reinforced by a general belief that there is an international code that must be adhered to. It has proven extremely useful in the spread of democracy, the suppression of illiberal actors, and the cultivation of peace.
Click to expand...

But you have already positioned yourself in not believing in international codes (are they secret codes, or are they law), unless they support US goals of imperialism, then of course they are just fine.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Global research?
Click to expand...

Although NATO explicitly stated that it had "no intention of deploying land forces anywhere in Libyan territory," the New York Times asserts that this was not the case. A NATO diplomat and another NATO official confirmed to the Times today that "Britain, France and other nations deployed special forces on the ground inside Libya to help train and arm the rebels." The NATO special forces troops almost certainly also coordinated close air support as rebel units advanced into the capital.
 
Al Jazeera this week aired footage showing 11 armed Europeans meeting with Libyan rebels. U.K. newspapers reported that the men were former British special forces working for a private security firm hired by the British government to help the opposition topple Moammar Gadhafi. Officially, the British government says it has no personnel in Libya, but a senior military source told the Daily Mirror that the men "are representing Britain." Is NATO overstepping the United Nations mandate to protect civilians, and inching into a ground war to destroy the Gadhafi regime?


http://theweek.com/article/index/215945/are-nato-troops-already-on-the-ground-in-libya
 
Montecresto said:
That's because those are the civilians killed by proxy in covert operations on the ground, aid, logistics, satellite imagery, weapons and direction given to the rebels to aid them in the overthrow of the Libyan government.
Click to expand...

Not only were the bulk killed by Gaddafi with his superior arsenal and use of such weaponry on Libyan cities, but the war would never have lasted as long as it did if the dictator in Tripoli had stepped down.
 
Montecresto said:
Al Jazeera this week aired footage showing 11 armed Europeans meeting with Libyan rebels. U.K. newspapers reported that the men were former British special forces working for a private security firm hired by the British government to help the opposition topple Moammar Gadhafi. Officially, the British government says it has no personnel in Libya, but a senior military source told the Daily Mirror that the men "are representing Britain." Is NATO overstepping the United Nations mandate to protect civilians, and inching into a ground war to destroy the Gadhafi regime?


Are NATO troops already on the ground in Libya? - The Week
Click to expand...

Thankfully they were! =D
 
Sherman123 said:
Not only were the bulk killed by Gaddafi with his superior arsenal and use of such weaponry on Libyan cities, but the war would never have lasted as long as it did if the dictator in Tripoli had stepped down.
Click to expand...

What government on earth would "Step Down" because a band of thugs backed by a group of nations demanded so. I think this boils down to what we long ago had understanding of. International law and the UN is nice for formalities and official hearings and such. But they have little bearing on US interests. The West grabbed the resolution and ran with it, missiles flying before the ink had dried and never bothered with its details and restrictions. You are ok with that, I'm not. What else is there to debate between us? Nothing.
 
Sherman123 said:
Thankfully they were! =D
Click to expand...

Like I said, your cool with the violation of international, until that is, it's by someone or country you don't like or disagree with. And then, it has full relevance and power.
 
Montecresto said:
What government on earth would "Step Down" because a band of thugs backed by a group of nations demanded so. I think this boils down to what we long ago had understanding of. International law and the UN is nice for formalities and official hearings and such. But they have little bearing on US interests. The West grabbed the resolution and ran with it, missiles flying before the ink had dried and never bothered with its details and restrictions. You are ok with that, I'm not. What else is there to debate between us? Nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not saying it would be rational for a dictator to surrender power when he's enjoyed nearly a half century of unchallenged personal rule. Unlike you I'm not overly burdened by the 'rights' of dictators or their 'governments' instead my sympathies are with the democrats.
 
Montecresto said:
Like I said, your cool with the violation of international, until that is, it's by someone or country you don't like or disagree with. And then, it has full relevance and power.
Click to expand...

Yep! It advances a superior agenda and end. Of course the illusion needs to be maintained and thankfully it is.
 
Sherman123 said:
It is a conspiracy and crack pot website. Everything from 9/11 Truth to Chem Trails.
Click to expand...

I guess the question was more rhetorical, because I am familiar with the site. But yeah, their on par, or even maybe worse, than WND.
 
Sherman123 said:
Oh I'm not saying it would be rational for a dictator to surrender power when he's enjoyed nearly a half century of unchallenged personal rule. Unlike you I'm not overly burdened by the 'rights' of dictators or their 'governments' instead my sympathies are with the democrats.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to stick your cheap shot in there, but that's because that's all you've got. Can you quote me giving sympathy to Gaddafi? My point from the beginning with you has been a sympathy for rule of law, international law, UN oversight. My main concern is in how the US is going about its business. Which is by deceit, in disregard for international law and by entering sovereign states and fomenting, enabling, and supporting uprisings to topple governments. It's bull****, whether or not you like it. And it makes the US less safe not more.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I guess the question was more rhetorical, because I am familiar with the site. But yeah, their on par, or even maybe worse, than WND.
Click to expand...

I provided you with other sources concurring. You too denying special ops forces were operating inside Libya before and during the uprising?
 
Montecresto said:
You keep trying to stick your cheap shot in there, but that's because that's all you've got. Can you quote me giving sympathy to Gaddafi? My point from the beginning with you has been a sympathy for rule of law, international law, UN oversight. My main concern is in how the US is going about its business. Which is by deceit, in disregard for international law and by entering sovereign states and fomenting, enabling, and supporting uprisings to topple governments. It's bull****, whether or not you like it. And it makes the US less safe not more.
Click to expand...

I don't have to quote it, it is the default position you are establishing for yourself.
 
Sherman123 said:
Yep! It advances a superior agenda and end. Of course the illusion needs to be maintained and thankfully it is.
Click to expand...

I know that some people feel that way about it.
 
Sherman123 said:
I don't have to quote it, it is the default position you are establishing for yourself.
Click to expand...

Well it was obvious you would fail at that, because you wont find it. Your positions are clear. You are pro-war, killed civilians are collateral damage. Law is good when its on your side, and taking out a dictator is good regardless of the cost, as long as doing so will advance corporate interests. So don't feign that faux handwringing of humanitarian abuses.
 
Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gaddafi claimed he would implement the UN-mandated ceasefire but never did, and instead blew smoke at the rebels, promising terrible vengeance. War crimes against civilians were a given tactic of his (he used civilian hospitals as shields for his troops). He was the primary obstacle to peace, and like Milosevic during the Kosovo intervention, he and his regime needed to be whipped into submission. At least Slobo was smart enough to eventually give up and go with the ICTY; Gaddafi probably believed he had taken the right course of action right up until he died.

Also, I'm not sure why you place so much stock in Russian and Chinese opinion on the Libya. First, they're at least as driven by economic and imperial interests as we are, if not much more. Second, we factor international law into our decisions - Russia cited a treaty and "coalition" (or council; I forget what it was called at the moment) that they had previously bullied Georgia into through their Ossetian puppet rebels and in which they unfairly outnumbered Georgia by 3:1 to justify their occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation. In any case, Georgia had no hope of taking their case to the Russian-dominated Security Council. When they had the audacity to reassert their territorial integrity by force in response to Ossetian militia firing upon them, Putin invaded unilaterally and bombed Tbilisi until Georgia couldn't fight anymore. Did the Russians at any point even ask the United Nations for permission to do this? They did not, and they wouldn't because they're the ones who truly bend international law to suit imperial designs, not us. Similarly, China refuses to let the United Nations deal with North Korea, and they simply declared their possession over islands that they haven't occupied since the Qing Dynasty because of the presence of resources (oil?) around those islands.

So they really have no right to be lecturing us about obeying international law, and their expansionist hypocrisy should not be taken as a legitimate opinion when we decide our foreign policy.
 
MadLib said:
Gaddafi claimed he would implement the UN-mandated ceasefire but never did, and instead blew smoke at the rebels, promising terrible vengeance. War crimes against civilians were a given tactic of his (he used civilian hospitals as shields for his troops). He was the primary obstacle to peace, and like Milosevic during the Kosovo intervention, he and his regime needed to be whipped into submission. At least Slobo was smart enough to eventually give up and go with the ICTY; Gaddafi probably believed he had taken the right course of action right up until he died.

Also, I'm not sure why you place so much stock in Russian and Chinese opinion on the Libya. First, they're at least as driven by economic and imperial interests as we are, if not much more. Second, we factor international law into our decisions - Russia cited a treaty and "coalition" (or council; I forget what it was called at the moment) that they had previously bullied Georgia into through their Ossetian puppet rebels and in which they unfairly outnumbered Georgia by 3:1 to justify their occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation. In any case, Georgia had no hope of taking their case to the Russian-dominated Security Council. When they had the audacity to reassert their territorial integrity by force in response to Ossetian militia firing upon them, Putin invaded unilaterally and bombed Tbilisi until Georgia couldn't fight anymore. Did the Russians at any point even ask the United Nations for permission to do this? They did not, and they wouldn't because they're the ones who truly bend international law to suit imperial designs, not us. Similarly, China refuses to let the United Nations deal with North Korea, and they simply declared their possession over islands that they haven't occupied since the Qing Dynasty because of the presence of resources (oil?) around those islands.

So they really have no right to be lecturing us about obeying international law, and their expansionist hypocrisy should not be taken as a legitimate opinion when we decide our foreign policy.
Click to expand...

As is the case in nearly every confrontation (war) my criticisms have very little to do with the why (although, I check that as well) but the how. If a thing is right, if it has merit, if there isn't underlying ulterior motive and or advantage, present the "facts" as they may be and let Americans decide, leaving out, hype, exaggeration, and even lies. This is where I focus my criticisms. As to China and Russia's own motives, sure they have reasons for not wanting to see the US destabilize this region. Whether or not there criticism is based on humanitarianism or not. I don't have as much of a problem with the US imperialism, hegemony, and aggressive foreign policy if its owned up to and admitted. My problem is the smoke that's blown up people's asses that America is a shinning city on a hill, the defender and promoter of democracy and protector of humanitarian rights. For lots of reasons, but in this particular case, while there was so much handwringing over alleged mass rape and torture, something that AI was on the ground at the time saying not only was there no evidence, there were at times examples of the rebels making up lies at the time to gain support. At about the same time we had a similar, popular citizen uprising in Bahrain that received no State Department outcry, and worse, for Saudi support in Libya, we looked the other way when they went in to crush that uprising. So we have a credibility problem, at least.
 
Montecresto said:
Yep! Obama has been teaming up with al Qaeda elsewhere s in the region, too!
Click to expand...

Without question he has .. and will continue to do so. Obama conducts the Bush foreign policy on steroids. America is now considered the most dangerous nation on the planet .. under the Nobel Peace prize Winner for .. :0) Peace.

What a joke that would be if it wasn't for the horrors of Obama's draconian policies that have absolutely failed.

Had it not been for Putin, Obama was preparing to use his Al Wueda posse to destroy Syria just as he did Libya.
 
Montecresto said:
Correct, and neither Doctors Without Borders, or Amnesty International found evidence of widespread rape, torture and killing as reported by Obama. They said often the claims were outright discredited. This is why I can't understand how people fail to see the connection made by Russia who saw clearly that the allegations were false, they had been monitoring events on the ground via satellite and said they too saw no evidence of the claims. They also pointed out that we were targeting structures with high levels of civilians in or nearby, and, that instead of just protecting a no fly zone, the coalition was targeting the Gaddafi government. And this leads directly to the reason that Russia and China vetoed all attempts by the US to secure a resolution to use force in Syria, the US can't be trusted!!
Click to expand...

Simple question .. why Benghazi?

Benghazi has long been known as THE hotbed for international terrorism by intelligence agencies all over the world. It's where Al Queda called home. It's where most of the foreign fighters in Iraq came from.

West Point CTC's Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq
West Point CTC's Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq

search on the Sinjar Records

Why could Obama and Hillary Clinton become so comfortable with the organization that was supposedly behind 9/11 that they would end up all sleeping in the same bed?
 
MadLib said:
Gaddafi claimed he would implement the UN-mandated ceasefire but never did, and instead blew smoke at the rebels, promising terrible vengeance. War crimes against civilians were a given tactic of his (he used civilian hospitals as shields for his troops). He was the primary obstacle to peace, and like Milosevic during the Kosovo intervention, he and his regime needed to be whipped into submission. At least Slobo was smart enough to eventually give up and go with the ICTY; Gaddafi probably believed he had taken the right course of action right up until he died.

Also, I'm not sure why you place so much stock in Russian and Chinese opinion on the Libya. First, they're at least as driven by economic and imperial interests as we are, if not much more. Second, we factor international law into our decisions - Russia cited a treaty and "coalition" (or council; I forget what it was called at the moment) that they had previously bullied Georgia into through their Ossetian puppet rebels and in which they unfairly outnumbered Georgia by 3:1 to justify their occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation. In any case, Georgia had no hope of taking their case to the Russian-dominated Security Council. When they had the audacity to reassert their territorial integrity by force in response to Ossetian militia firing upon them, Putin invaded unilaterally and bombed Tbilisi until Georgia couldn't fight anymore. Did the Russians at any point even ask the United Nations for permission to do this? They did not, and they wouldn't because they're the ones who truly bend international law to suit imperial designs, not us. Similarly, China refuses to let the United Nations deal with North Korea, and they simply declared their possession over islands that they haven't occupied since the Qing Dynasty because of the presence of resources (oil?) around those islands.

So they really have no right to be lecturing us about obeying international law, and their expansionist hypocrisy should not be taken as a legitimate opinion when we decide our foreign policy.
Click to expand...

If what you suggest was even remotely true, why would the Libyan people overwhelmingly support Gaddafi against the Al Queda 'rebels?'

Are you aware the the UN was about to bestow an award for human rights on Gaddafi?

Are you aware that Libyan women had more freedom then Arab/Muslim women throughout the Arab world?

Are you aware that Libyans got more from their government then you get from yours?

Did you know that Mandela and African leaders throughout the continent adored Gaddafi .. and do you know why?

Do you have cradle-to-grave free healthcare and education?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom