• 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!

Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK

There is a conspiracy section elsewhere on these boards.

And it was a conspiracy that left a trail of evidence in mainstream media! But, that's how MSM simplifies and distills complex issues into easy, simple soundbites that they want to fill the heads of their low-info audience. They just keep repeating the same crap over and over again, and no one on the news mentions the irony of John Kerry's statement about 'invading a sovereign nation being a violation of international law.'
 
They just keep repeating the same crap over and over again, and no one on the news mentions the irony of John Kerry's statement about 'invading a sovereign nation being a violation of international law.'

Actually, half the people I've seen talk about it have brought that irony up.

There's no conspiracy.
 
So...

Am I to understand you believe in revenge, over an incident that was never proven to be under his direction?

Doesn't sound like you are interested in justice.

The word of one man, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, claiming Gaddafi ordered it... That because a prominent part of the restructuring? maybe he had an agenda.

Jalil's testimony is good enough until evidence surfaces to refute his claim. Besides, Gaddafi was a destabilizing and anti-Western force in more instances than just Lockerbie.
 
Jalil's testimony is good enough until evidence surfaces to refute his claim. Besides, Gaddafi was a destabilizing and anti-Western force in more instances than just Lockerbie.

So you're ok with Americans being hoodwinked by the government, just as long as you're in favour of what they're doing, or expanding the operation beyond the UN resolution, if you like the purpose of the expansion. Or maybe you're just generally ok with US intrigue, conspiracy, deceit, disregard for national sovereignty, human rights, international law, respect for our ally's, everything , if you think it advances American interests, dispute the fact that they are rarely if ever going to be your interests. Unless you happen to own a large international corporation, happen to own a defense contacting corporation etc.
 
This started with me pointing out that another poster is concerned about the death of civilians until its US drone strikes killing them (not terrorists) until you polluted it

You were making a false moral equivalence, comparing non-targets accidentally killed in a legitimate operation to protests being fired upon by armed policemen (some of them using snipers).

By the way, the protests were originally peaceful until the Ukrainian government used riot police to disperse them.
 
So you're ok with Americans being hoodwinked by the government, just as long as you're in favour of what they're doing, or expanding the operation beyond the UN resolution, if you like the purpose of the expansion. Or maybe you're just generally ok with US intrigue, conspiracy, deceit, disregard for national sovereignty, human rights, international law, respect for our ally's, everything , if you think it advances American interests, dispute the fact that they are rarely if ever going to be your interests. Unless you happen to own a large international corporation, happen to own a defense contacting corporation etc.

Qaddafi was guilty. No conspiracy required. The world is a better place without him.
 
So you're ok with Americans being hoodwinked by the government, just as long as you're in favour of what they're doing,
Don't you remember when I condemned the WMD lie?
or expanding the operation beyond the UN resolution, if you like the purpose of the expansion.
The UN resolution was irrelevant, considering the Libyan government that we recognized gave us permission to conduct airstrikes.
Or maybe you're just generally ok with US intrigue, conspiracy, deceit, disregard for national sovereignty, human rights, international law, respect for our ally's, everything , if you think it advances American interests, dispute the fact that they are rarely if ever going to be your interests. Unless you happen to own a large international corporation, happen to own a defense contacting corporation etc.

I see that you're trying to paint me as some establishment hack, which I'm clearly not. I've condemned Vietnam, Iran-Contra, the NSA scandal, etc., but when I believe a foreign policy action is just I will support it. Everyone benefits when a dictator who blows up planes is overthrown.
 
So you're ok with Americans being hoodwinked by the government, just as long as you're in favour of what they're doing, or expanding the operation beyond the UN resolution, if you like the purpose of the expansion. Or maybe you're just generally ok with US intrigue, conspiracy, deceit, disregard for national sovereignty, human rights, international law, respect for our ally's, everything , if you think it advances American interests, dispute the fact that they are rarely if ever going to be your interests. Unless you happen to own a large international corporation, happen to own a defense contacting corporation etc.

So much to refute, both opinion-wise and logical-wise....all in one post. Incredible.
 
Don't you remember when I condemned the WMD lie?

The UN resolution was irrelevant, considering the Libyan government that we recognized gave us permission to conduct airstrikes.


I see that you're trying to paint me as some establishment hack, which I'm clearly not. I've condemned Vietnam, Iran-Contra, the NSA scandal, etc., but when I believe a foreign policy action is just I will support it. Everyone benefits when a dictator who blows up planes is overthrown.

The WMD lie in Iraq?! Yes. The mission in Libya however was use of force to protect Libyan civilians, not regime change. And you're quite aware that the covert work on the ground was done far ahead of time to build a unity government that we would latter public ally recognise, that would invite us to do air strikes. Americans were told it was for the purpose of protecting civilians. You also know that Mad. You also know that that is why we were unable to secure a similar resolution for Syria. Let the president tell the American people we need to go into, pick your country, and take out the dictatorship because the world will be a better place.
 
Jalil's testimony is good enough until evidence surfaces to refute his claim. Besides, Gaddafi was a destabilizing and anti-Western force in more instances than just Lockerbie.
Yep.

He wanted to be paid in gold.

What did he do in the last 20 years that deserved being taken out?

What did the Libyan people do to deserve going from 53 on the HDI to 64?

Propaganda is what convinced you that he needed to be taken out. What authoritarian country do you live in anyway? Guilty until proven innocent.

I'll bet you even approve of the way the people capturing Gaddafi killed him, without trial.

It's amazing what people are willing to support because of their biased opinions of facts.
 
Qaddafi was guilty. No conspiracy required. The world is a better place without him.
Please show us your evidence, or is his guilt just your opinion?
 
You'll just have to take my word for it. I know that's unsatisfactory. That part is out of my hands.:peace
Your snappy one liners are not sufficient proof for people who are intelligent and can think for themselves. :peace
 
What did he do in the last 20 years that deserved being taken out?
Why are you limiting it to the past twenty years? He ruled for four decades, and most of the bad stuff that he did occurred then. You clearly have an agenda by only limiting potential criticism of him to only half of his reign.

However, he was an eager customer of A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network. Even though he claimed to have gotten rid of the weapons he bought, they were uncovered after his downfall.
What did the Libyan people do to deserve going from 53 on the HDI to 64?
Libya's standing on the HDI was decreased by the civil war, not because of the NATO intervention. It would have been just as bad if Gaddafi won as it was when the rebels won.

Propaganda is what convinced you that he needed to be taken out. What authoritarian country do you live in anyway? Guilty until proven innocent.
Yes, Gaddafi's propaganda speech, in which he announced that he would go door-to-door to hunt the opposition and that he would show no mercy to the rebels, is what convinces me that he needed to be taken out.
I'll bet you even approve of the way the people capturing Gaddafi killed him, without trial.

I don't approve of it, but he deserved it.
 
You'll just have to take my word for it. I know that's unsatisfactory. That part is out of my hands.:peace
Damn strait it's not acceptable. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. If he was guilty that many years back, he should have been taken out back then. Not as a weasel excuse for what was done a few years ago. Especially since Libya was progressing so far.

Are you in favor of what the "Arab Spring" is doing?
 
But I wasn't trying to do that. Seems that's what you're working on. This started with me pointing out that another poster is concerned about the death of civilians until its US drone strikes killing them (not terrorists) until you polluted it. Find somebody else to pull that **** on, I'll not be playing your game.
Obviously you are in propaganda mode. Go ahead, throw everything you can dream up at the wall and only defend those things that look like they might stick. I wouldn’t argue with me either if I were you but I appreciate your compliment and I’m disappointed that you’re taking your toys and going home so soon.

I understand. Truth is hard to defend because it takes serious thought and steadfastness. Propaganda is easy because it isn’t anchored in truth, which takes serious thought, steadfastness and way more work than a propagandist is willing to put in.

When your propaganda tour is finished and you have time for the real world, look me up.
 
Why are you limiting it to the past twenty years? He ruled for four decades, and most of the bad stuff that he did occurred then. You clearly have an agenda by only limiting potential criticism of him to only half of his reign.
I don't care it it's 5 years or 50 years. If the facts were verifiable he was guilty, we should have assassinated him those many years back. Not use it as a sissy excuse to justify sanctioning murder in recent times.

However, he was an eager customer of A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network. Even though he claimed to have gotten rid of the weapons he bought, they were uncovered after his downfall.
Are you talking about the yellowcake they found? Whoop-te-do... It is a commodity you know. That is no proof that he didn't stop his nuclear program like he claimed. What would you do? Hide it or wait for things to settle before selling it for its value? Do you know his intent, or is it your bias that guides you?

Libya's standing on the HDI was decreased by the civil war, not because of the NATO intervention. It would have been just as bad if Gaddafi won as it was when the rebels won.
Wrong.

If we didn't intervene, making Saddam unable to respond to the factions against him, the armed factions against him would have been killed rather than so many innocent people arounf the whole process. There would have never been a civil war if we didn't make it possible. We are directly responsible for all the harm done to the people in Libya these last few years.

Yes, Gaddafi's propaganda speech, in which he announced that he would go door-to-door to hunt the opposition and that he would show no mercy to the rebels, is what convinces me that he needed to be taken out.
Would you have mercy if rebel forces in the USA started killing government officials in your state? What would you expect out government to do? Why is it OK in your view for rebels to operate in another country, but not your home town?
I don't approve of it, but he deserved it.[/QUOTE]
We seriously disagree here. The western propaganda machine convinced people he was targeting innocent people, when he was getting rid of criminal elements. You guys all fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Question...

Will a Libya be better off with the leader who replaces Gaddafi? The rebels fighting for Sharia law in Libya... Is that better than the limited tolerance Gaddafi had for others?
 
I don't care it it's 5 years or 50 years.
Then why did you say 20 years? Backtracking much?

Are you talking about the yellowcake they found? Whoop-te-do... It is a commodity you know. That is no proof that he didn't stop his nuclear program like he claimed. What would you do? Hide it or wait for things to settle before selling it for its value? Do you know his intent, or is it your bias that guides you?
I would get rid of it ASAP, since I'm supposedly collaborating with MI6 to dismantle the Khan network.

Wrong.

If we didn't intervene, making Saddam unable to respond to the factions against him, the armed factions against him would have been killed rather than so many innocent people arounf the whole process. There would have never been a civil war if we didn't make it possible. We are directly responsible for all the harm done to the people in Libya these last few years.
The civil war had already begun by the time we intervened. Alright, I'll grant that we made it last longer by preventing Gaddafi from exterminating the rebels.

BTW Saddam? :lamo
Would you have mercy if rebel forces in the USA started killing government officials in your state? What would you expect out government to do? Why is it OK in your view for rebels to operate in another country, but not your home town?
The difference is that the US isn't a repressive dictatorship with a cult of personality around our leader.

What would you do if a politician seized absolute power for 40 years and fired on protestors who criticized him? Our own precedent if anything should demonstrate the right of a people to violent revolution against tyranny.
We seriously disagree here. The western propaganda machine convinced people he was targeting innocent people, when he was getting rid of criminal elements. You guys all fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
There is no Western propaganda machine, just a sensationalist media. And even if it did exist, it hardly had any convincing to do - Gaddafi vowing to search every home in Benghazi and wipe out the rebel "rats" spoke for itself.
Will a Libya be better off with the leader who replaces Gaddafi? The rebels fighting for Sharia law in Libya... Is that better than the limited tolerance Gaddafi had for others?

Gaddafi tolerated people unless they didn't like his government.
 
Back
Top Bottom