StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Well what do you expect mate, you was the one that said it...not me!

The very fact you have opposition parties in the UK and I have in my country too (whether it's opposition to state gov or the EU altogether) who can speak on medias and run for elections, proves the situation I talked about is neither the case for your country nor mine.

Lol, you and i lost our nations and our voices when your nation and mine signed up to all the EU treaties...if you don't know this simple fact then i am sorry, you don't deserve to have an opinion on the matter!

Removed

Not trying to be nasty mate, but if he cant see that hypothetical situation he gave as an example of what he would do does not work since he is already in that situation and either cannot understand it or cannot see it.

Kit-Fox wrote:I'm starting to regret updating the thread with the news of the death of Gadaffi. I mean really this is getting a bit nasty and a bit off the main topic now. which as I recall was about the war in Libya and hopefully now about what should/can happen in Libya with gadaffi and his sons etc removed from either power or life

It just struck me as ironic. In any case, what can be done with Khadafi removed from life is the same as what could have been done with him as it's leader.
Now rebuilding is necessary, where up to January 2011, Libya was one of the most advanced -socially and economically- of the North African nations.


But I agree.. I think we've said all there is to say today.

My apologies for my earlier outburst


Ps, i'm 100% with Juliet on this one.

All hail humanitarian war!!!

Regime change can be a **Filtered**. start with sanctions because of ‘humanitarian’ reasons. if they don’t work, arm ragtag mercenaries and implement a ‘no-fly zone’ through an international body. If the rebels can’t hunt down the defunct leader, then just bomb the hell out the country until a bloody carcass vaguely resembling the leader turns up. then claim that the humanitarian intervention was a wild success.

PS: Make sure you destroy enough of the infrastructure to secure a huge IMF bondage loan for reconstruction.

The before and after picture of Libya below shows what the U.S./NATO means by a humanitarian war:

Removed

[KMA]Avenger wrote:All hail humanitarian war!!!

Regime change can be a **Filtered**. start with sanctions because of ‘humanitarian’ reasons. if they don’t work, arm ragtag mercenaries and implement a ‘no-fly zone’ through an international body. If the rebels can’t hunt down the defunct leader, then just bomb the hell out the country until a bloody carcass vaguely resembling the leader turns up. then claim that the humanitarian intervention was a wild success.

PS: Make sure you destroy enough of the infrastructure to secure a huge IMF bondage loan for reconstruction.

The before and after picture of Libya below shows what the U.S./NATO means by a humanitarian war:

It was the Libyan rebels (as diversified as they are) who asked for it. Now sure we can talk about how the damages are huge, but well they asked for it (more or less)...
So it's not like NATO "forced" the destruction of nation for a hidden agenda without caring about the current situation in the nation. This intervention was asked for. (not saying we should intervene in every single civil war, am just making a point)

What would you have suggested instead to be done (or not done)?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, that's what i suggest we did.

Those so called rebels were backed with western arms and reinforced with Al-Qaeda rebels shipped in by the west from Iraq who publicly boasted they killed American troops in Iraq.

This is nothing more than western backed regime change and yet another sovereign nation invaded and destroyed by the west...

There is MUCH more going on here than a bunch of rebels demanding freedom!


Edit: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27232.html

Removed

To complete what KF said, I will point out that Morocco king Mohamad VI, the least considered as "illegitimate" in the North Africa both by inhabitants and the western nations (and probably Morocco opposition too), also faced some protests, he proposed after a bit to compromise to the demands of the people to avoid issues. He's also the least likely to face a demand of resign, and is the only one not considered as a dictator even though he's bit authoritarian.
Maybe Khadafi should have followed Morocco's king example...and he maybe wouldn't even have had to resign or anything!

Which leads me to believe Libya should get the kings dynasty back but on the other hand have a constitutional monarchy. I think it's best for these countries to have a king (but not a political regime like Swaziland, don't get me wrong!!). Not a president tempted by dictatorship, but a king, who wouldn't have issues of legitimacy. That's my opinion.

I might be french, but, I am *NOT* into that hostility-towards-monarchies nonsense. However, it should *not* be absolute monarchy, Swaziland example comes to mind..

The proof is in the link above.

Also, it's non of our business to go round the world bombing and killing indiscriminately to remove a leader we put in power in the first place-backed said leader/s when it suited us. take Egypt for example...do you know that the regime WE put in power over there is even more oppressive than the previous one? 1 example is, all forms of dissent is not tolerated. no free speech no protesting, nothing is allowed now.

At the end of the day, if a people want to get rid of their oppressive leadership/regime, then they can go right ahead without us, we are broke as it is. besides, destroying a nations infrastructure to remove 1 man and his Govt is not a good deal for the indigenous people. there are other less destructive ways....

Don't get me wrong, i am in favour of removing a dangerous regime if it has the capability and intent to threaten outside of it's own boarders. but no such threat existed in Iraq (and we knew it BEFORE we destroyed Iraq), and non existed in Libya...

So you guys can try and justify what we did but that justification exists only in your heads not the real world.

Removed

I have a question for everyone: who do you think was the legitimate power of Libya, Qaddafi who conquered power forty years ago by a "revolution", or the ruling dynasty booted by Qaddafi when he took over? (who as far as I know didn't have a say anymore since the boot)

I know as a historian I must not do that, and the similarities are very small, but wasn't Qaddafi at some level the Cromwell of Libya? Don't take it as an argument from me, just a mere observation/question.