• 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:
Special Forces & Advisers =/= Occupation Force.
Click to expand...

Special forces troops! Occupying Libyan soil. DO NOT trivialize that fact, your trying to split hairs to legitimize going beyond the resolution. No, NO forces, of ANY FORM or PART of Libyan soil. NO BOOTS, NONE, NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
 
Sherman123 said:
Changed that for you to make it more accurate. Let's not pretend a just and legitimate government was toppled.
Click to expand...

The only one pretending is another pro war, hawk that's pretending that Western powers didn't abuse their power, in violating the terms and intent of resolutions 1970 and 1973.
 
Montecresto said:
Sorry. But that is completely false. Do not categorize the UN as some ceremonial formality. It AUTHORIZED conditional use of force, conditions that the US and NATO failed to follow!!!!
Click to expand...

Well I do characterize the UN as a ceremonial formality personally, which isn't to say it isn't important. In this instance the UNSC authorization provided the necessary pretext for operations that were already morally and legally justifiable. Legally because a government doesn't need to go to the UN to invite foreign troops and support into the country. The United States, France, and Britain (among others) had all transferred diplomatic recognition to the TNG prior to the intervention.
 
Montecresto said:
The only one pretending is another pro war, hawk that's pretending that Western powers didn't abuse their power, in violating the terms and intent of resolutions 1970 and 1973.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all clear on what you are trying to say.
 
Montecresto said:
Special forces troops! Occupying Libyan soil. DO NOT trivialize that fact, your trying to split hairs to legitimize going beyond the resolution. No, NO forces, of ANY FORM or PART of Libyan soil. NO BOOTS, NONE, NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
Click to expand...

Being present =/= Occupying. The resolution did not forbid the presence of military personal and other specialists on the ground in Libya. Not that it matters either way, they were invited in by the government that most of them had diplomatically recognized as the legitimate one of free Libya. In any event the willingness of the international community to not allow the law to be used as a shield for dictators is very positive.
 
Sherman123 said:
Well I do characterize the UN as a ceremonial formality personally, which isn't to say it isn't important. In this instance the UNSC authorization provided the necessary pretext for operations that were already morally and legally justifiable. Legally because a government doesn't need to go to the UN to invite foreign troops and support into the country. The United States, France, and Britain (among others) had all transferred diplomatic recognition to the TNG prior to the intervention.
Click to expand...

That's more apologetic bull ****. The government of Libya did not invite foreign troops into Libya. That would have been counter productive.
 
Sherman123 said:
Being present =/= Occupying. The resolution did not forbid the presence of military personal and other specialists on the ground in Libya. Not that it matters either way, they were invited in by the government that most of them had diplomatically recognized as the legitimate one of free Libya. In any event the willingness of the international community to not allow the law to be used as a shield for dictators is very positive.
Click to expand...

No it's not, that too is false. Just because a few western powers with a deliberate agenda to overthrow the government of Libya decided to "recognize" the rag tag rebels made up of "freedom fighters" armed civilians, al Qaeda, etc., doesn't make them legitimate anything. The US and western powers VIOLATED the UN resolution authorizing use of force with restrictions, one of which was no boots on the ground on ANY part of Libyan soil and another of which was no supplying arms to the rebel fighters. Nor did the resolution have any language whatsoever authorizing the overthrow of the Libyan government. Russia was clear about this at the time, and this is why they vetoed any resolution for use of force in Syria. And there was no willingness of the international community, unless in your egotistical mind that the international community exists of western powers only. Several big countries opposed what was happening, including Brazil, China, Russia, India, and South Africa. And what law do you suggest shielded the Libyan government.
 
Montecresto said:
That's more apologetic bull ****. The government of Libya did not invite foreign troops into Libya. That would have been counter productive.
Click to expand...

Of course it did. The legitimate government of Libya (the TNC) and their representative at the UN both called for and eventually invited foreign assistance.
 
Montecresto said:
No it's not, that too is false. Just because a few western powers with a deliberate agenda to overthrow the government of Libya decided to "recognize" the rag tag rebels made up of "freedom fighters" armed civilians, al Qaeda, etc., doesn't make them legitimate anything. The US and western powers VIOLATED the UN resolution authorizing use of force with restrictions, one of which was no boots on the ground on ANY part of Libyan soil and another of which was no supplying arms to the rebel fighters. Nor did the resolution have any language whatsoever authorizing the overthrow of the Libyan government. Russia was clear about this at the time, and this is why they vetoed any resolution for use of force in Syria. And there was no willingness of the international community, unless in your egotistical mind that the international community exists of western powers only. Several big countries opposed what was happening, including Brazil, China, Russia, India, and South Africa. And what law do you suggest shielded the Libyan government.
Click to expand...

Nope. You aren't the arbiter of who a country chooses to recognize, moreover it was hardly just a collection of Western powers. The newly constituted legitimate government of Libya asked for foreign assistance and received it. Whether China or Russia recognized that government has no bearing on whether or not France or Qatar did. By the end of August most of Europe, the Arab League, and the rest of North Africa, not to mention the United States had switched recognition to the TNC. These countries provided much needed assistance in the defeat of the illegitimate dictatorial regime operating out of Tripoli. It is a crying shame that more support was not forthcoming to help established a firmer state in Libya after the operation came to a close. An international peacekeeping force and a civic development assistance fund would have been fantastic.

As to your other point no I don't care about the 'international community' when it comes to the opinion of all concerned. I care about democratic hegemony and the creation of a democratic world order. The democratic powers have a right to behave hypocritically if it advances that agenda while simultaneously using international law as a leg iron to restrain the behavior and activities of dictatorial and illiberal regimes. This isn't about playing fair it's about winning.
 
Sherman123 said:
Nope. You aren't the arbiter of who a country chooses to recognize, moreover it was hardly just a collection of Western powers. The newly constituted legitimate government of Libya asked for foreign assistance and received it. Whether China or Russia recognized that government has no bearing on whether or not France or Qatar did. By the end of August most of Europe, the Arab League, and the rest of North Africa, not to mention the United States had switched recognition to the TNC. These countries provided much needed assistance in the defeat of the illegitimate dictatorial regime operating out of Tripoli. It is a crying shame that more support was not forthcoming to help established a firmer state in Libya after the operation came to a close. An international peacekeeping force and a civic development assistance fund would have been fantastic.

As to your other point no I don't care about the 'international community' when it comes to the opinion of all concerned. I care about democratic hegemony and the creation of a democratic world order. The democratic powers have a right to behave hypocritically if it advances that agenda while simultaneously using international law as a leg iron to restrain the behavior and activities of dictatorial and illiberal regimes. This isn't about playing fair it's about winning.
Click to expand...

That's a pittance of the countries in the world and did not make it legitimate and the only reason why its moot now is of course because in violation of the resolution to protect civilians, the Gaddafi government was overthrown.
 
Montecresto said:
That's a pittance of the countries in the world and did not make it legitimate and the only reason why its moot now is of course because in violation of the resolution to protect civilians, the Gaddafi government was overthrown.
Click to expand...

So? This isn't an election or popularity contest Mr. Sovereignty. Each country gets to make its own determination in this regard, and thankfully most of the countries of quality and the bulk of the regionally relevant countries made the right choice. The UNSC resolution is legally irrelevant because it wasn't necessary for military action to take place.
 
Sherman123 said:
Of course it did. The legitimate government of Libya (the TNC) and their representative at the UN both called for and eventually invited foreign assistance.
Click to expand...

Your talking about an end run around the resolution because of a plan for regime change that dates back many years.
 
Montecresto said:
Your talking about an end run around the resolution because of a plan for regime change that dates back many years.
Click to expand...

There was no need for the resolution in the first place. All of the countries involved had the right to intervene on behalf of the new government formed in Benghazi. The UNSC resolution provided the political cover and pretext for the NATO resolution that followed.
 
Sherman123 said:
There was no need for the resolution in the first place. All of the countries involved had the right to intervene on behalf of the new government formed in Benghazi. The UNSC resolution provided the political cover and pretext for the NATO resolution that followed.
Click to expand...

You speak of war as though you speak of business. Yet it's people's lives at stake!


On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:

"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.



In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.

Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.

A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," [Wiki] saying:

"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2011/032111Lendman.html
 
Montecresto said:
Such things weren't happening when Gaddafi was there.
Click to expand...

BINGO

That, and the country was not devastated and destroyed before Cowboy Obama came to town.

What we did in Libya is a crime against humanity.
 
Montecresto said:
You speak of war as though you speak of business. Yet it's people's lives at stake!


On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:

"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.



In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.

Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.

A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," [Wiki] saying:

"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."

Print view: Imperial War on Libya
Click to expand...

Of course we created contingencies and plans for possible scenarios and eventualities. It would be irresponsible not to. The Libyan resistance movement however came about independent of foreign intervention, that it was supported by the West (among others) is laudable. I'm not surprised however that your sympathies seem to be more with the deposed dictator than the people who deposed him.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
BINGO

That, and the country was not devastated and destroyed before Cowboy Obama came to town.

What we did in Libya is a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...

It was devastated and destroyed by the monstrous campaign to suppress the democratic resistance movement, not by NATO bombardment. What happened to international brotherhood and solidarity? Some socialist you are.
 
Sherman123 said:
Of course we created contingencies and plans for possible scenarios and eventualities. It would be irresponsible not to. The Libyan resistance movement however came about independent of foreign intervention, that it was supported by the West (among others) is laudable. I'm not surprised however that your sympathies seem to be more with the deposed dictator than the people who deposed him.
Click to expand...

The so-called rebels were Al Queda ..many of whom had admittedly killed US Forces in Iraq. They made Benghazi home .. and that is who Gaddafi was fighting.

Obama and Al Queda destroyed Libya .. a once prosperous nation .. where Libyan citizens got more from their government then you get from yours.
 
Sherman123 said:
It was devastated and destroyed by the monstrous campaign to suppress the democratic resistance movement, not by NATO bombardment. What happened to international brotherhood and solidarity? Some socialist you are.
Click to expand...

Some 'thinker' you are. Gaddafi was a socialist ..but you don't know that.

THIS is the work of a socialist ..



I'm not real sure that you want to continue down this road brother .. you don't appear to have enough information to do so.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The so-called rebels were Al Queda ..many of whom had admittedly killed US Forces in Iraq. They made Benghazi home .. and that is who Gaddafi was fighting.

Obama and Al Queda destroyed Libya .. a once prosperous nation .. where Libyan citizens got more from their government then you get from yours.
Click to expand...

The rebels were demonstratively not al-Qaeda. Only certain factions and militias were Islamists, even today they are not a majority and though they have caused deep grief for the new Libyan republic they have been unable to overthrow the state or remove its democratic foundation. The workers and people of Libya deserved better than a plutocratic dictatorship and have taken a step forward despite the problems they now face. Again you don't sound like much of a socialist you seem to be missing the international brotherhood part. Socialism means more than criticizing the alleged machinery of US Imperialism.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Some 'thinker' you are. Gaddafi was a socialist ..but you don't know that.

THIS is the work of a socialist ..



I'm not real sure that you want to continue down this road brother .. you don't appear to have enough information to do so.
Click to expand...


Gaddafi was a dictator with a cult of personality who hijacked Islamic, Socialist, Republican, and Ethnic verbiage and symbols to suit his purposes over his 42 year rule. You need to reevaluate.
 
Sherman123 said:
The rebels were demonstratively not al-Qaeda. Only certain factions and militias were Islamists, even today they are not a majority and though they have caused deep grief for the new Libyan republic they have been unable to overthrow the state or remove its democratic foundation. The workers and people of Libya deserved better than a plutocratic dictatorship and have taken a step forward despite the problems they now face. Again you don't sound like much of a socialist you seem to be missing the international brotherhood part. Socialism means more than criticizing the alleged machinery of US Imperialism.
Click to expand...

Oh really ..

THIS is one of the largest demonstrations in world history, 1/3 of the entire country .. THIS is the Libyan people standing in protest AGAINST NATO bombing and FOR Gaddafi ..



AND by the way .. Obama's lie about Gaddafi is exposed just 15 seconds into the video.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Oh really ..

THIS is one of the largest demonstrations in world history, 1/3 of the entire country .. THIS is the Libyan people standing in protest AGAINST NATO bombing and FOR Gaddafi ..



AND by the way .. Obama's lie about Gaddafi is exposed just 15 seconds into the video.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't. It was several thousand demonstrators who were brought out by fear, inducement, and ethnic affinity.
 
Sherman123 said:
Gaddafi was a dictator with a cult of personality who hijacked Islamic, Socialist, Republican, and Ethnic verbiage and symbols to suit his purposes over his 42 year rule. You need to reevaluate.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you need to educate yourself, not just swallow whatever they stick in your face.

You keep talking, but you aren't explaining what I'm sticking in your face. If Gaddafi was so hated by his people, explain the massive demonstration for him.

If he was so terrible .. do you get free education and healthcare .. cradle-to grave? Libyans did under Gaddafi. Explain the video.

If you intend to just shout down evidence you don't know, can't explain .. that won't work.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
With all due respect, you need to educate yourself, not just swallow whatever they stick in your face.

You keep talking, but you aren't explaining what I'm sticking in your face. If Gaddafi was so hated by his people, explain the massive demonstration for him.

If he was so terrible .. do you get free education and healthcare .. cradle-to grave? Libyans did under Gaddafi. Explain the video.

If you intend to just shout down evidence you don't know, can't explain .. that won't work.
Click to expand...

I'm well educated, however I suspect you are less than well informed on the subject. I'm also fascinated by your logic: Free education & Healthcare = Dictatorship is acceptable? Using that metric I assume you have no qualms whatsoever with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The delivery of services to a people does not change the character of the government. Which in this case was a kleptocratic dictatorship centered around a personality cult.

I think you need to change your tag. You clearly aren't a socialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom