Frazzled wrote:
I'm seeing reports of capturred, wounded and captured, and dead. None of these are bad.
His death would be convenient. A wounded and captured former dictator is a bad thing given the current climate there. When I mean climate, there are still insurgents loyal to Qaddafi, a loose coalition of rebels, and authority that is tenuously in power at best.
This is a great victory for... someone. Surely democracy will flourish now! Or possibly not. But surely these freedom fighters will be better then the last batch of freedom fighters! Or, possibly not.
Oh, and nobody say "DON'T POST THAT, ITS DISRESPECTFUL"
This man was a terrible human being, and was insane to boot. Do not feel sorry for him if someone put an icecream scooper to his eyes, instead of to one of our soldiers.
Oh, and nobody say "DON'T POST THAT, ITS DISRESPECTFUL"
This man was a terrible human being, and was insane to boot. Do not feel sorry for him if someone put an icecream scooper to his eyes, instead of to one of our soldiers.
Al-Jazeera has released images of Gaddafi allegedly being dragged along the street. Classy. I'm glad our goverments spent millions helping those guys, because they are SO not savages...
You have a leader who has oppressed you, killed your people, and has lied about it for 50 years. Then, when you say you've had enough, he sets the army on you.
Chowderhead wrote:Wouldn't you want to do that, as well?
You have a leader who has oppressed you, killed your people, and has lied about it for 50 years. Then, when you say you've had enough, he sets the army on you.
No, because I'm British. Him no longer breathing would be enough for me - I wouldn't cheapen myself by behaving like a monkey.
Chowderhead wrote:Wouldn't you want to do that, as well?
You have a leader who has oppressed you, killed your people, and has lied about it for 50 years. Then, when you say you've had enough, he sets the army on you.
No, because I'm British. Him no longer breathing would be enough for me - I wouldn't cheapen myself by behaving like a monkey.
Yes, but us Americans would tie him to the back of our Dodge Ram and drive him down Route 66.
Chowderhead wrote:Wouldn't you want to do that, as well?
You have a leader who has oppressed you, killed your people, and has lied about it for 50 years. Then, when you say you've had enough, he sets the army on you.
No, because I'm British. Him no longer breathing would be enough for me - I wouldn't cheapen myself by behaving like a monkey.
Seconded. We're not barbaric savages. This isn't the Dark Ages, we don't need to hang, draw and quarter him. A single gunshot and a burial will suffice.
Chowderhead wrote:Wouldn't you want to do that, as well?
You have a leader who has oppressed you, killed your people, and has lied about it for 50 years. Then, when you say you've had enough, he sets the army on you.
No, because I'm British. Him no longer breathing would be enough for me - I wouldn't cheapen myself by behaving like a monkey.
Seconded. We're not barbaric savages. This isn't the Dark Ages, we don't need to hang, draw and quarter him. A single gunshot and a burial will suffice.
Seriously. What ever happened to the grim satisfaction of an unpleasant job well done? I wish we still ran the world sometimes, old bean.
And we won't see the real thing because they don't want to give ammo to the practically cult-like AQ recruiting officers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From CNN:
Gadhafi's son, Mutassim, and his chief of intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, have been killed, according to Anees al-Sharif, spokesman for AbdelHakim Belhajj of the Tripoli military council.
Personally, its good that he is 'Kaput'... One less maniacal, crazy despot in the world. The good Colonel was up there with Saddam Hussien and Idi Amin...
Melissia wrote:Gadhafi's son, Mutassim, and his chief of intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, have been killed, according to Anees al-Sharif, spokesman for AbdelHakim Belhajj of the Tripoli military council.
Melissia wrote:Gadhafi's son, Mutassim, and his chief of intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, have been killed, according to Anees al-Sharif, spokesman for AbdelHakim Belhajj of the Tripoli military council.
That's going a bit to far.
Is it? This is north Africa we're talking about.
Certainly his son didn't need to die, but I'd say this is normal procedure in overthrowing a facist dictator...
Melissia wrote:Gadhafi's son, Mutassim, and his chief of intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, have been killed, according to Anees al-Sharif, spokesman for AbdelHakim Belhajj of the Tripoli military council.
That's going a bit to far.
Is it? Those two may have been responsible for the rape, torture and murder of hundreds of people. They may have been resisting capture. Let's reserve judgement.
Melissia wrote:Gadhafi's son, Mutassim, and his chief of intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, have been killed, according to Anees al-Sharif, spokesman for AbdelHakim Belhajj of the Tripoli military council.
That's going a bit to far.
They were part of the same regime, it's not hard to imagine they were killed in combat or while resisting capture. It's also not hard to imagine they were captured and summarily executed. Either way, I think the thought is that the regime must be wiped out. That is very sensible if you consider what surviving remnants of the Baath party did in Iraq.
Samus_aran115 wrote:At least we don't have to look at his atrocious uniform ever again.
Fashion crime deserves the most severe of punishments and the Libyans are the first to recognize that fact. Soon all of the middle east will be filled with well groomed and well dressed people, along with smouldering pyres of those who aren't well dressed or well groomed.
Chowderhead wrote:Wouldn't you want to do that, as well?
You have a leader who has oppressed you, killed your people, and has lied about it for 50 years. Then, when you say you've had enough, he sets the army on you.
No, because I'm British. Him no longer breathing would be enough for me - I wouldn't cheapen myself by behaving like a monkey.
Yes, but us Americans would tie him to the back of our Dodge Ram and drive him down Route 66.
Are you facepalming because you think there's a correct way to spell it? Arab names typically have no standard anglicization.
Troll on love.
The most commonly accepted name is Gaddafi. There is no Y in any of the spellings.
"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME, Newsweek, Reuters, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera
Are you facepalming because you think there's a correct way to spell it? Arab names typically have no standard anglicization.
Troll on love.
The most commonly accepted name is Gaddafi. There is no Y in any of the spellings.
"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME, Newsweek, Reuters, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera
Troll? I think I just taught you something useful. It is much like arguments over how to spell al-Qaida (al Qaeda?) or Osama (Usama?). There is no correct answer because it is all transliteration.
As for your no 'y' theory: MSNBC has used Khaddafy. Next time Google before trying to be authoritative on a subject.
Are you facepalming because you think there's a correct way to spell it? Arab names typically have no standard anglicization.
Troll on love.
The most commonly accepted name is Gaddafi. There is no Y in any of the spellings.
"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME, Newsweek, Reuters, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera
I'm pretty sure the man himself spelled it a half dozen ways when he had things written in english.
Are you facepalming because you think there's a correct way to spell it? Arab names typically have no standard anglicization.
Troll on love.
The most commonly accepted name is Gaddafi. There is no Y in any of the spellings.
"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME, Newsweek, Reuters, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera
Back before your daddy met your mommy, got drunk, and made you, it was boyo...
In the 80s the correct nomenclature typically began with a Kh and ended with a y. I think I might even have an old Newsweek somewhere with him on the cover.
'Daffi is dead. The only dispute is over what killed him. Some reports say his convoy was straffed by NATO aircraft trying to flee Sirte, others say he died in the city to small arms fire.
whigwam wrote:A mod already had to remove these images once. You might want to make an edit, Orlanth.
Oh, wait. That embrace of this horrible monster started when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Bush pushed for ending sanctions there, and Obama helped end him, instead.
But, hey, good try trying to awkwardly shoehorn in your deflective, partisan agenda anyway! I look forward to you continuing to do so no matter how tangentially related the topic.
No, actually if you would notice, the guy on the right side of that picture is actually the 44th President of the United States. Were you confused by the ears that he was somehow George Bush?
The process of normalizing relations with Libya during the Bush administration wasn't simply based on Bush deciding he liked Ghadafi, it was based on actions taken by the Libyan government, from your link:
On December 19, 2003, Libya announced its intention to rid itself of WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. Since that time, it has cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya has also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
This is what used to pass for foreign policy. When a country did something we liked we would reward them. When they didn't, we would punish them. Competency has since taken a back seat to putting on a good show.
Oh, wait. That embrace of this horrible monster started when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Bush pushed for ending sanctions there, and Obama helped end him. But, hey, good try trying to awkwardly shoehorn in your deflective, partisan agenda anyway! I look forward to you continuing to do so no matter how tangentially related the topic.
Fox News is not exactly known for being a pro Obama mouthpiece so I dont know whay they are starting now. About the only good thing Obama has done is kept his paws off this crisis and left it to the Italians, French and UK to pile on the NATO pressure. Great leadership?
biccat wrote:(personal insults redacted from quote, as usual)
I don't think calling people out on partisan hackery is a personal insult, per se. But, by all means, what were you trying to say when you showed a picture of Obama with Gaddafi? Were you trying to say something other then to try and link the president with a dictator? Enlighten me, for I wish to know.
I mean, I understand why you'd want to spin this moment, don't get me wrong. When Obama's foreign policy now includes making the calls that put Osama Bin Laden & Moammar Gaddafi in pine boxes, and the frontrunning GOP candidate's foreign policy calls for putting an electrified fence on our border) (oh wait, that was a joke) (oh wait, it wasn't), and proudly proclaiming he doesn't know and doesn't care about one of our important allies for resupplying troops in Afghanistan, well, I guess I'd be pretty desperate to deflect attention elsewhere too.
Ouze wrote:But, by all means, what were you trying to say when you showed a picture of Obama with Gaddafi? Were you trying to say something other then to try and link the president with a dictator? Enlighten me, for I wish to know.
I figured the picture speaks for itself. It's a photo of President Obama being the first president in history to shake hands with Ghadafi. Who he then helped overthrow.
When you're going to try to engage in foreign policy (emphasis on try), consistency usually seems to be a good plan. Not so for the boy-wonder.
Ouze wrote:I mean, I understand why you'd want to spin this moment, don't get me wrong.
Not at all, I think it's great that Ghadafi is dead. But unlike the president, I never shook the guy's hand. Of course, given the opportunity, I wouldn't have. Remember the "new tone"?
Ouze wrote:When Obama's foreign policy now includes making the calls that put Osama Bin Laden & Moammar Gaddafi in pine boxes, and the frontrunning GOP candidate's foreign policy...
First of all, Cain isn't the frontrunning GOP candidate. I believe the latest poll had him tied with Romney. Second, the election won't be won or lost on foreign policy. Third, the president has plenty of foreign policy failures to go along with his successes. Remember his gift to the Queen (note that I'd normally have no problem insulting the British royalty, it's when he thinks he's doing something right and completely feths it up that we have a problem)?
biccat wrote:
This is what used to pass for foreign policy. When a country did something we liked we would reward them. When they didn't, we would punish them. Competency has since taken a back seat to putting on a good show.
Is that why we spent/spend so much time punishing the Saud family for allowing so many of their subjects to fund Hamas? Or why we took military aid away from Pakistan when they refused to grant formal air space rights to our drones?
Foreign policy is much more complicated than you're indicating.
Ouze wrote:
I don't think calling people out on partisan hackery is a personal insult, per se.
Especially someone who isn't above levying similar charges.
biccat wrote:
Shockingly, Presidents have to make concessions for the sake of diplomacy.
biccat wrote:
But you're not the head of state of a G8 country with a personal wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars. A free ipod is probably pretty neat.
Diplomatic gifts are not generally of significance to the person they are given to. Usually they are prominent artifacts of the giving nation's industrial process, or things that represent the culture of the giving nation, which we can all agree is true of the iPod; considering its ubiquity (possibly in both senses). For example, Sarkozy gave Michelle Obama a Christian Dior (famous French design firm) handbag. And the Queen, in the exchange in question, gave Obama a framed picture of herself.
mattyrm wrote: Where ya been Jeb? Still rocking the tweed suit?
Well Matt, I have sold my life and livelihood to corporate America. I do wish I could contribute more here on Dakka, but I am somewhat limited on time. I will make an attempt to be more active. And yes, of course I still rock the tweed suit! Even at work sometimes
mattyrm wrote: Where ya been Jeb? Still rocking the tweed suit?
Well Matt, I have sold my life and livelihood to corporate America. I do wish I could contribute more here on Dakka, but I am somewhat limited on time. I will make an attempt to be more active. And yes, of course I still rock the tweed suit! Even at work sometimes
Ah man, that sucks. I earn a relatively small wage these days, but I work feth all hours.
I think money really isn't that important...
Well, as long as you can aford to get drunk ten times a month.
biccat wrote:
Anyway, I'm glad to see another dead terrorist, so yay for the Libyan rebels. Hopefully they don't go all theocratic like the dingbats in Egypt.
There's a distinction between an overt theocracy, and a state that is heavily influenced by religion. Actually, Egypt under Mubarak was a pretty good illustration of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I earn a relatively small wage these days, but I work feth all hours.
The trick is to find a job where you can get paid to screw around. So, basically, become a manager.
biccat wrote:
Anyway, I'm glad to see another dead terrorist, so yay for the Libyan rebels. Hopefully they don't go all theocratic like the dingbats in Egypt.
There's a distinction between an overt theocracy, and a state that is heavily influenced by religion. Actually, Egypt under Mubarak was a pretty good illustration of it.
I think he's referring to where Egypt may be heading.
Frazzled wrote:
I think he's referring to where Egypt may be heading.
Probably, but it seemed like a comment which had many similarities to the general conservative tendency to equate the influence of Islam with theocracy. A thing that has always struck me as strange given how many conservatives will defend the validity of Christian influence on the American system of government.
Not that there aren't legitimate reasons to suspect that Egypt will become a theocracy, there certainly are, its just a little premature to call it one way or the other.
Frazzled wrote:
I think he's referring to where Egypt may be heading.
Probably, but it seemed like a comment which had many similarities to the general conservative tendency to equate the influence of Islam with theocracy. A thing that has always struck me as strange given how many conservatives will defend the validity of Christian influence on the American system of government.
Wo, that went off on a tangent.
The trick is to find a job where you can get paid to screw around. So, basically, become a manager.
So, since we seem to have run the course on this thread, lets ask this:
Do you think it was right for the US to go into Libya to begin with?
I'm aware this may paint me as the worst sort of hypocrite (and hell, maybe I am), since I clearly am pleased with the results, but I'll be honest anyway. At the time I thought it was a bad idea. I didn't think it was our fight. I didn't see why it was right for us to justify using force to help overthrow this bad man, when there are so very many bad men out there that we will happily embrace if we need them in some way. We certainly are willing to overlook the human rights abuses in countries we can't use (like Syria or Yemen) or that we cannot bully (like China). So what right did we have to risk the lives of US servicemen here (even if we did it in the most risk-free way humanly possible)? Is it that we have a duty to help spread democracy everywhere it might be flourishing? Even skipping the fact that we obviously don't do that, how is that different then some adherents of Islam claiming it should be spread by the sword?
I realize that peaceable discourse on this thread may be difficult due largely to my earlier, probably disproportionate vitriol, and I do regret that I went there, for what it's worth.
In response to Ouze, I'd say that our countries intervened in Libya because they saw an opportunity to rid themselves of an odious little man who's been a thorn our sides for many years, indeed, has murdered our citizens. I think it's got little to do with spreading democracy, in truth.
I do actual work about 3 times more as a TA than I ever did managing a gym 80 hours per week, and I only actually work Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
I miss the private sector.
yes I have minions for that whole work thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:In response to Ouze, I'd say that our countries intervened in Libya because they saw an opportunity to rid themselves of an odious little man who's been a thorn our sides for many years, indeed, has murdered our citizens. I think it's got little to do with spreading democracy, in truth.
true dat. Also a lot to do with protecting BP and Total.
but he's a killer, a killer of Americans and Brits, so its good he's gone. Zombie Reagan is downing a cold one in celebration.
The rebels were being hit with things they couldn't reasonably defend against. Helping only really required airstrikes. That's the kind of intervention we're quite good at.
Ketara wrote:The US went into Libya? I thought it was a French/British operation?
I swear I even remember reading Obama saying he wanted nothing to do with it.
It is a NATO operation. The US has participated in airstrikes, using everything from Tomahawk missiles to stealth bombers to UAVs. We also have a number of CIA agents on the ground gathering intelligence.
The French and British have taken the lead enforcing the no-fly zone, but the US is decidedly involved in the conflict.
I thought it was a disgrace airing video of the former dictator being dragged by his hair and kicked around by the Libyan militias. No matter he did in the past he was murdered in cold blood. The murdering of opponenets was a trait of Ghadafi and should not have been allowed to occur. I just hope this is not a sign to come for the new regime, however, I fear someone new will seize power, perhaps under the guise of democracy, but definately in one way or another.
Ketara wrote:The US went into Libya? I thought it was a French/British operation?
I swear I even remember reading Obama saying he wanted nothing to do with it.
Nope, we bombed the living hell out of them. I think I saw a report that said that the US dropped more bombs than the other two nations combined.
Makes sense, the French cant fly planes to save their lives. We had French air support twice during my 6 month in Helmand, and they were utterly fething dog gak. If it wasnt for the fact that I was there and thus the Taliban were scared witless, somebody might have got hurt!
We had the British about ten times, and they were merely good.
We had American air about 50 times, and they bombed the gak out of absolutely everything much to our delight.
And when the A-10s turned up (maybe 8-9 times) the death that they rained down was truly glorious to behold!
Sure, they might occasionally get fin lock and frag some allied soldiers, but thats gonna happpen when your dropping ten times the bombs that your allies do. You will never ever get an actual combat veteran from the British military say a single bad word about the US close air support.
They saved our asses on numerous occasions, and when we had three men down with gunshots, and Taliban engaging us from 11 different positions, we were fething praying it was Yank air, and not Frog air that turned up.
Sadly, it is supposed that a French strike that halted his convoy and led to the rebels finding and killing Ghaddafi. But Matty, if you want to we could say that they were aiming to kill Ghaddafi with the strike but missed his vehicle and hit another one.
Ouze wrote: Is it that we have a duty to help spread democracy everywhere it might be flourishing? Even skipping the fact that we obviously don't do that, how is that different then some adherents of Islam claiming it should be spread by the sword?
Well, for one, spreading democracy is (supposedly) beneficial to us, whereas the spreading of radical Islam is not.
In any case, we saw an opportunity to expedite the removal of a problematic dictator, so we took it.
Let's see Libya has a twitpot dictator send in the drones
Why not a decapitation in, lets' say for example, Zimbabwe.
What is the difference.
Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×109 m3) as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day (290×103 m3/d) as of 2006, giving Libya 23 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets. Libya would like to increase production from 1.8 Mbbl/d (290×103 m3/d) in 2006 to 3 Mbbl/d (480×103 m3/d) by 2010–13 but with existing oil fields undergoing a 7–8% decline rate, Libya's challenge is maintaining production at mature fields, while finding and developing new oil fields. Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.[1]
I think money really isn't that important...
