Libya - UN resolution

7

798686

Guest
By who? BP and and Whitehall? Tony Blair and Cameron? You are joking I hope. It's been a disgusting show to watch the British government go down on that old terrorist to suck a bit of crude oil. If eastern Libya wasn't sitting on a lake of oil, the coalition would give two shits about the Colonel's repression of the revolt. They never ceased being a rogue state.
Thought it was western Libya that was oil rich?
(Farigh, Gialo and Waha oilfields, all seem to be in the south-west, or off the north-west coast, as far as I can find out).

What do you think about the plight of the Libyan people then? Should the rebels/protesters just be left to their own devices to be wiped out by Gadaffi? Or...is the situation less dire than has been reported?

Tbh, I am surprised by the level of military action (as are the Arab League, it would seem), since I'd been expecting just the policing of a no-fly zone to protect the people. But...I guess anti-aircraft capabilities need to be taken out in order for this to be possible? See what happens, I guess. :/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm all for going into rescue people under threat from tyrants and genocidal maniacs. I can't think of a better use to put all the billions of dollars/euros/rubles/yuan/whathaveyou we waste on weapons. What pisses me off is that we, "the west" only do so when our own interests are somehow perceived to be threatened. Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burma, et al, don't have much to offer us. But if it is Iraq or Libya... well, the poor suffering masses of the oppressed suddenly become our prime interest. Worse, we are best buddies with King Abdullah and the other depots of the region who also happen to be sitting on seas of crude. If there are revolts or even demonstrations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the security forces there will make Gadaffi look like a pussy. Why haven't we "taken out" the air defenses of Bahrain? Or at least the HQ of the police force (composed of mostly Pakistanis btw), who are raiding hospital emergency rooms and detaining doctors for treating wounded protesters?
 
Last edited:

D_Scotty Bagpipe

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Posts
57
Media
0
Likes
29
Points
93
It is such a disappointment that the supposed insights provided by the assorted news media (including AJE and AlJaz Arabic, which does have a very obvious agenda) and political analysts and commentators is a) so basic and b) not rubbished more and replaced by analysis which at least demonstrates a little fundamental understanding of both the problem and the framework (i.e. the realities of international relations).

The usual question; 'if Libya why not Bahrain, if Iraq why not Zimbabwe" is so off the mark I can't quite believe how many editors allow this off the press.

Of course oil and energy are influences on policy decisions; why do people get so worked up about this? This is the reality we face, one that we have mostly created for ourselves, most poignantly demonstrated by one poster who doesn't care about the price of his fuel as his government is able so subsidise this cost.

And why not Bahrain, Oman, Saudi? Because despite the oppression and various states of iron rule they impose, they are mostly trusted. Gaddafi is and never was. His complicity in numerous acts of terror and unpredictability are not acceptable or conducive to anyone's interests (economic growth, stability).

For the people who want the Arab league to lead from the front and the Americans that don't want to get involved: get real. The USG possesses the most advanced and sophisticated military capability humanity has ever known; with such technology comes the responsibility of leadership and also the expectation - whether the various members of the current operation in Libya have participated with the US in military interventions or operations in the past is irrelevant; they have contributed via trade, access and security co-operation which has in some way or another benefited the interests of the US and it's people. And for those that reject action on cost grounds - you think that firing cruise missiles (at a cost of $500,000 a shot) is some how damaging to your economy need to look at how many people the defence industry employ, let alone all the other various global economic benefits (money markets, hard/soft commodities, cost of consumer goods how much you didn't pay for that nice Sony flat screen TV) that come from attempting to reduce instability in complicated countries and regions. It pays for itself.

The most interesting part of what we have seen with regards to Libya is the initial inertia of the USG and the abstention of Germany on the UNSC - the medium term wider ramifications of this will be most interesting.

Additionally, a cynic might think that Sarko's gusto for action might be a rouse addressing the various deficits he and the RF currently face and HMG motivations? One imagines there are similarities here too - war, or military intervention strengthens political support, (despite what the media agenda might be 'telling' you) it's a text book shot of Redbull for governments that need a short term poll boost.

But crucially, what is the real end game here? Surely it must be is disposal. We all know that Gaddafi cannot be allowed to remain in power or some might even argue; live. He will seek revenge if allowed to - the question is; is such a revenge acceptable to governments engaged the current enforcement of UNSCR1973 for whatever they expect to gain from our intervention and assistance.

Rant over.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Does anyone doubt what level of reprisals he would have taken on the East (Cyrenaica)?

Does anyone doubt what level of reprisals the rebels would taken on government supporters? They're the one's engaged in insurrection, which along with trying to kill one's head of state, is fairly defineable as treason.

Treason - New World Encyclopedia

We were trading along with them nicely until a few weeks ago, & now they're the force of darkness in the world again? Who's next?

Putin likens U.N. Libya resolution to crusades | Reuters

China, & Iran are also amping up their military expenditure. The message is clear - unless you're the West's bitch, don't degrade, but upgrade your defensive capabilities for a future conflict.

There's zero sign of any ceasefire on the rebel side, no talk of talks from them either. All we are getting is lying propaganda from both.

The UN clearly recognises the right to self determination, & the suspension of human rights in times of emergency.

The Resource : Part II. International Human Rights System, 11/11

Aren't the Coalition already killing innocents & so called insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan daily? How the hell is Gadaffi any different, apart from the fact that he was about to get the job done.

If Bush & Blair can get away with killing hundred's of thousands of foreigners in a far off land, why can't a sovereign state police, or just sort out their own problems?
 
Last edited:
7

798686

Guest
Great post, dachristopher.

Cameron has already admitted that there are dual purposes - protection of the Libyan people, and also national self-interest.

I do think (as you say) the 'why not Zimbabwe, etc.?' question is simplistic, and ridiculous. There are various reasons 'why not' these other countries, and oil is only one of them. To intervene in Zimbabwe would require the support of other African nations in the region, which is the opposite of their current stance. Without that, it would be pointless and disastrous.

Bahrain - as you say, is more trusted - plus, the level of atrocities against the people doesn't seem comparable (plus the uprising isn't as strong there). And the Saudis have already intervened (in the wrong direction?) meaning our intervention would have to include taking them on too - which is unrealistic (partly because they're much stronger military and economically, and partly because they're trusted for various reasons).

Libya is simpler - the people need protecting after the brutal attempt to crush the uprising there. There is also the oil question, plus the fact that Gaddafi has been a dangerous pain in the arse for decades, and poses a big threat to the wider world as well as to his own people (and could never be welcomed back into the international community after his handling of this crisis). There's also the fact of the Arab Spring, and the precedent set by Egypt, etc., and the weight of current public opinion in those countries towards liberation.
Add to this the fact of UN backing, and a large number of countries on board (US, UK, France, Lebanon, Spain, Sweden, Denmark (I think?), Italy, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Canada, etc...), plus abstentions from Germany, Russia, China, etc.

I'm not addressing this @ you btw, dachristopher, more getting it off my chest as an extension to your own post. :)

Germany is interesting, yup - I think self-interest is part of that too. 'Why get involved in something like this, when we have euro problems, and can continue building the strength of our own country, instead? And nevermind the people in Libya, because someone else will probably intervene anyway'. :/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Bahrain - as you say, is more trusted - plus, the level of atrocities against the people doesn't seem comparable (plus the uprising isn't as strong there).

Warning! This links to a site that contains footage of the Bahrain forces murdering protestors

US-backed Bahraini monarchy slash dictatorship gunning down protesters in cold blood
/

The Saudi (just bought $64BN hardware fro the US) backed Bahranians(safe haven for the US fleet) are just as big a bunch of shits as anyone on the planet.

Exactly how many current atrocities are we seeing in Libya? Exactly how much worse are they? The rebels in Libya are armed - these guys weren't!

Is humanitarianism based solely on how much someone is liked or disliked? There is no moral high ground in attacking Libya at all.

I do think (as you say) the 'why not Zimbabwe, etc.?' question is simplistic, and ridiculous... To intervene in Zimbabwe would require the support of other African nations in the region, which is the opposite of their current stance. Without that, it would be pointless and disastrous.
/

The African Union doesn't support the Coalition attacking Libya at all. Getting rid of Mugabe himself wouldn't have taken much effort whatsoever, & neither would sequestrating his overseas assets NOW.

The truth is, we're there to divvy up the spoils of war, because running a Tornado at a cost of £200,000 a go from Norfolk to Libya, has to be paid back somehow.

Maybe we'll get our carrier back!

Hundreds of SAS troops have been operating in Libya for 3 weeks!http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...gaddafi-weapons-inside-libya-115875-23002207/

I wonder how much more fiction we're going to hear - think "babies slaughtered in Kuwait by Iraqi soldiers", & "Genocide in Kosovo".
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There is no moral high ground in attacking Libya at all.

There is rarely or never moral high ground. The moral abyss is easier to define - often it is doing nothing.

Morality is about choices, difficult ones. With this present choice (as with all choices) it is not a relevant analogy to say that a wrong choice has been made or is being made elsewhere, therefore a similar wrong choice should be made everywhere. Maybe there are equally strong humanitarian arguments for us getting involved in Libya and (say) Yemen - and we have made the decision to get involved in Libya but not in Yemen. So (perhaps) we are right in one and wrong in the other - but each moral case should be looked at separately. It is better to get one right than none right.

It is quite possible that we might sometime soon see brutality by rebels against Gaddafi forces. If this happens it will be wrong and should be condemned. But it in no way lessens the moral guilt of Gaddafi's regime, nor would it negate the rightness of the present international action.

Nations like the UK and USA cannot go through the world as moral virgins. We're in the world and have to live in it, and yes we do have to get involved in areas where the morality is difficult. Right now I see our actions in attacking Libya as less morally reprehensible than doing nothing would be. No this is not the moral high ground - but it is not the moral abyss either.
 
7

798686

Guest
Is humanitarianism based solely on how much someone is liked or disliked? There is no moral high ground in attacking Libya at all.
Stepping in to prevent people being massacred by Gaddafi is surely better than standing by and doin nothing?
His recorded message to Benghazi as he was closing in was 'We're coming tonight - to search for all the scum and traitors, who will be shown no mercy'. Nice.

The African Union doesn't support the Coalition attacking Libya at all. Getting rid of Mugabe himself wouldn't have taken much effort whatsoever, & neither would sequestrating his overseas assets NOW.
No-one said the African Union supported the coalition.

Getting rid of Mugabe wouldn't have taken much effort whatsoever?!! Really?
If that was the case, we'd have done it long ago. It's a complicated situation, and stepping in would mean going against the other African nations who support him - which could destabilise the region and definitely our relationships in that area. The most we could reastically do is try and support Tsangirai - or have you got better ideas as to how to solve the problem?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

D_Relentless Original

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Posts
16,745
Media
4
Likes
245
Points
133
Gender
Male
How can the Uk have double standards and a holier than thou attitude when they supplied ;
Arms trade: The British Government agreed a £5m package with Libya in 2007. That deal included armoured personnel carriers and water cannon. Tens of millions of pounds has been sold to Gaddafi's regime since then.
Read more: How can Britain sell arms to Gaddafi in Libya then bleat about democracy? | Mail Online

The UK needs to get its own house in order before the riots start here.Its also disgusting that majority of our soldiers etc are fighting for our country and being served redundancy notices. Sickening!
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The UK's attitude towards Libya in the last decade or so certainly needs a review.

There is a strong case to be made in favour of constructive engagement with nations. The idea of Blair bringing Gaddafi in from the cold is a powerful one. Had Libya developed into a less repressive society I'm sure we would all be seeing Blair as the hero - and even now it has gone wrong we may not wish to criticise his actions. But there is also a strong case to be made in favour of expressing opposition to the acts of tyrants. It may be that we should have kept Gaddafi at arms length, and it may be that the release of the Lockerbie bomber to buy favour with Gaddafi should be criticised. We do need a proper discussion in the UK around just these issues. But we have to look at the decisions people made at a time, not what we now know were the consequencies. I don't know where the balance lies.

Of course the UK has double standards - every nation on the globe does. That is not relevant. Personally I've serious issues with the arms trade, but that's my hang up. No the UK doesn't need to get its own house in order first - by that argument it will never have its house in order and never do anything. And the parallels that some have sought to draw between prostest in the UK and protest in Libya belittles the sacrifice of the Libyan people. In the UK we have local, national and EU democracy, checks by the courts, numerous pressure groups, freedom of speech, a functioning society. Libya has none of this. I am utterly fed up with the spirit of cheap and thoughtless digs against the UK (or the USA, or any other country that actually bothers to try to address these difficult issues). So we can read the papers and find something the government has done that we don't agree with? And then compare the mess in Libya. Or anywhere in the Arab world. Or the former USSR. Or South/Central America. Or India. Or China. Or Africa. Where is this perfect country whose house is in order? Morality is messy. What matters is that the UK is seeking to help.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
There is a strong case to be made in favour of constructive engagement with nations.

Former MI5 head, Eliza Manningham-Buller, said today that we should talk with Al-Qaeda & the Taleban - who are both worse than Gaddafi!

Where is this perfect country whose house is in order? Morality is messy. What matters is that the UK is seeking to help.

Come on Jason, it's seeking to impose its will, & its belief structure on a sovereign state.

How can the Uk have double standards and a holier than thou attitude when they supplied (weapons)

Nothing worse than getting shot by your own weapons. The UK has however, dropped from supplying 8% to 5% of all arms exports.

Stepping in to prevent people being massacred by Gaddafi is surely better than standing by and doin nothing?
His recorded message to Benghazi as he was closing in was 'We're coming tonight - to search for all the scum and traitors, who will be shown no mercy'. Nice.

Gadaffi also has said that he will crush America, he will raise a holy war, & all rebels are drinking drugged milk. It's laughable. All Arab leaders seem to lead by empty rhetoric - tough talk meant to scare - remember Comical Ali -" the Americans are slaughtering themselves on our gates"?

The rebels have helicopters, warplane, tanks, artillery etc. Far from being defenceless, thanks to the nice coalition, we've allowed them to advance. Food supplies are also coming in through Bengazi, but nowhere else in Libya.

Sooner or later, some of Gadaffi's tribal allies will defect, & the population may revolt as supplies become scarce, & the West keeps bombing just one side. There are only 6.5 million in Libya - it's not hard to ensure one side wins.

There's absolutely no sign of massive popular support outside of the East - like any revolt, the majority will be keeping their heads down. If the rebels win Gadaffi & his allies will be a traitor, & vice versa.

Getting rid of Mugabe wouldn't have taken much effort whatsoever?!!

Hardly - we did sell him a ton of arms, advise him on his defences, & most tactical military positions seem given through a tribal basis, not competence. Small team - surgical strike - poof!

If that was the case, we'd have done it long ago. It's a complicated situation, and stepping in would mean going against the other African nations who support him - which could destabilise the region. Have you got better ideas as to how to solve the problem?

Actually, they probably only support him in a coalition of despots. Mandela warmly greeted both Mugabe & Gadaffi. It's difficult to imagine how a lot of Africa could be much worse.

Here's how you solve an internal problem in another country. Keep out. It's their business - the rebels started a fight with no particular flashpoint, failed to achieve critical mass, & they'll either win (of course they will with the West behind them) or stalemate.

Individual nations must sort their own crap out.

Transpose the situation to the UK. There are going to be demonstrations leading into riots all over Europe, starting in the Spring, & possibly going on to September. The success of the Jasmine revolutions is going to encourage a lot more people to protest in the West. High youth unemployment, plus huge fee, tax, fag, fuel, food hikes, whilst paying massive amounts of bunce to older generations in pensions, let alone the possibilty of in concert action with other disaffected groups, make it an overwhelming probability.

Would you protest against a police crackdown? Anti terrorism laws being used. I myself was illegally detained for 8 hours before.

In a fantastical world, imagine that battalions of soldiers & police getting given the boot- defect, & suddenly a potentially armed rebellion is at hand, demanding an end to cuts, & an immediate election.

What would happen then? If no election was called, & rebels took over Milton Keynes(haha)? Would you support sending the army in. Would you support other countries arming & siding with the rebels?

Gadaffi didn't have a policy of genocide before the insurrection as far as we were concerned. How many civillians died in Iraq? 0.5-1 million, collateral coalition damage. No one takes on any government without being aware of the consequences. Both sides have brought this on themselves. Let's not kill anymore for them.
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
They may not be a moral high or low ground in all of this, but there is a rank odor about the ease of which Western powers can label a non-Western leader good one day, and bad the next. Ghadaffi was an international terrorist, and pariah (yet hilariously he managed to register Billy Carter as a Libyan agent..), until he wasn't, mainly because he supported the Iraq War. This was merely out of self interest, since he calculated he was next on the unofficial "Axis of Regime Change List," after Saddam. By renouncing his WMD program, the West pronounced him rehabilitated to the world. At best that's called expediency.

Unfortunately, even though it may save thousands from slaughter, the UN resolution carries little legal, direct military, or perhaps in the end, practical weight. If Ghadaffi uses human shields, the "saving thousands of lives" moral authority behind the UN order may look hypocritical in hindsight.

What all democratic countries, and their elected representatives should respect is the right to self determination, which means the ability to remove tyrants from power by a nation's own hand. Of all the elected Presidents and Premier's statements, ironically Putin's makes the most sense to me. It's really pretty eloquent, and I am not usually a fan of Vlad. Sarko seems to be grasping for an issue to shore up his pre-election ratings, Cameron perhaps assuaging UK guilt for selling arms to the "reformed" now 'Col. Ghadaffi,' and Obama appears to be lurching from "tough war time President" in Afghanistan, to AWOL even on basic support for democracy when the revolution came to Tunisia/Egypt, and now back to "tough war time President." None are models of consistency. Neither is this air strike.

A "no fly zone" should mean exactly that, no Libyan air cover for Ghaddafi loyalist ground troops, not air strikes, which may kill civilians. The moralist overtones of the "why we should strike" argument are inconsistent with our behavior in the rest of the non oil-rich world, and the rest of the world sees clearly the West's inconsistency as having the bias it does. The bias isn't even, whether or there is oil, it's more "Can We Do Business With Those Who Control It."

The Arab League should show some gumption, and take the lead in supporting their fellow Arabs for a change. They are always ready to scream bloody murder when the West intervenes, or doesn't, depending on which pov suits their self interest on any given day. Rarely, if ever, are they accountable to their own. The Saudi crack down, as is also the case with Bahrain, and Yemen, has religious as well as political overtones, which makes the subject even emotionally charged for them. Instead of the Arab Street blaming that uprising on the West, blame is now shifted to Iran, whom the Sunni feel are intent on bringing Shia domination of the region, and religion. Iran has been brutally repressive of it's own uprising, yet the not one western nation called for a no fly, or another other zone in the UN. Unlike the truth, which is a double edge sword, "See No Evil" looks like the universal government shield.

Thus endeth the rant.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Pretty much agree with you Duc - apart from Iran. I remember all that fuss about alleged rigging in their 09 election, & it turned out that the Western pollsters had actually predicted the poll accurately, then verified it, post election too.

That didn't stop a heap of well organized protests in the one place that the incumbent didn't win - Tehran - & they're still at it. There's massive youth unemployment all over the developing world, which oddly enough is a product of all the financial/medical aid & invention we gave them, & is a direct cause of dissent

Their economic problems won't be resolved whatsoever by any action they take unfortunately.

BTW - are there any world leaders with a successful record in peace?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
If we abandon the movement for self determination in the region, we abandon it for another generation.

Was Libya the right place to draw the line in the sand? Well, if you want to support the movement, then I can't think of anywhere better.

The West can't and shouldn't enforce change in the region, but I don't see why we shouldn't be clear as to the end game that we would like to see; namely a self confident, self determining, freer environment taking its place in the modern world. Of course this isn't in everyone's interest in the West, hence the dithering in some camps.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
If we abandon the movement for self determination in the region, we abandon it for another generation.

Was Libya the right place to draw the line in the sand? Well, if you want to support the movement, then I can't think of anywhere better.

The West can't and shouldn't enforce change in the region, but I don't see why we shouldn't be clear as to the end game that we would like to see; namely a self confident, self determining, freer environment taking its place in the modern world. Of course this isn't in everyone's interest in the West, hence the dithering in some camps.

Err, isn't this completely at odds with your opposition to self determination, or nationalism in the EU?:wink:

I hope Ireland (& the UK) throw off the bonds of oppression soon too!

Meanwhile, here's an article with nice points:

"The British media hate opposing wars, until they go wrong. "

"Lawrence was right. The west has no moral superiority in telling these countries how to conduct their politics".

"There is no British interest in this war, and opinion will tire of it. No foreign state is threatened. No international treaty or boundary is breached."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/22/cameron-home-front-media-gamble
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
To judge the UK popular reaction to Libya see "The Sun". I think a fair summary would be that there is no settled popular view. People might be persuaded either way.

If Gaddafi is forced out quickly then I'm sure "The Sun" will see it as a Great British triumph (with just a little help from others). If the UK and France play a lead role in the command structure then "The Sun" will see this as vindicating the Ango-French defence alliance. If it all goes messy then "The Sun" will say we should have kept out of this US-led war.

Right now parliament is firmly behind the UK part in the Libyan event (what do I call it? it's not a war). The people might easily follow. The Falklands War showed the capacity for a war to have enormous impact on the electoral fortunes of the government. Lets say Gaddafi packs his bags and goes on holiday in Zimbabwe, and there is a rebel victory in Libya. The impact on British politics would (I think) be quite a boost for Cameron - just before the local council elections, in which he should expect a mid-term loss of councils.
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
773
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I remember reading several years ago that Gaddafi abandoned some kind of chemical, atomic or other weapons program completely due to finally wanting to bury the hatchet with the West and not have anymore issues with them. I apologize in advance for failing to give more detail on this but it has been many, many years since I read that article and do not remember too much of it, but what stayed with me from it was Gaddafi`s insistance that he wanted no more trouble with anyone, and that he even encouraged other leaders to act similarly to avoid anymore unecessary problems.

And so far as I can see he has stayed away from involvement in any type of terrorist activity unlike in the past, and while his handling of the situation in his country leaves a lot to be desired, I do not see any legitimate reason for any other country to get involved in Libyas affairs. How would the Americans here feel if a civil war started in your country and suddenly the Russians and Chinese decide to impose a no-fly zone over your skys supposedly to keep the civilians and rebels safe from airstrikes from your govnt?

Would you want foreigners in your skies and eventually on your land to help you deal with what is an national issue, not an international one? I can tell you that for myself I do not want any foreigners in my country under any circumstance whatsoever no matter how bad things may get, some things need to be dealt with by the people themselves and not by the intervention of foreign governments, especially when it is clear as day that the only reason they are getting involved is to secure future resources and how to exploit the newly liberated countrys resources for themselves, sorry but fuck that noise as far as I`m concerned.

Libya is none of our goddamn business and what goes on there does not concern us, if the people there want change bad enough they will topple Gaddaffi one way or another and it should be done by themselves not by us for them. Besides, hasn`t the USA gotten involved in enough foreign adventures over the last decade anyway? Why get involved in yet another one that doesn`t even concern them? Oh yes of course, its all about the $$$$$$ silly me how could I forget.

Anyway, just my 0.02$