Libya Superthread

There's that doublespeak again.

Sounds more like a conscious leech to me.

PLEASE WATCH this video!!!!
[yt:kwtqaomz]avD8PGTVLgk[/yt:kwtqaomz]

Got me there. I haven't been on top of my game lately. Not sure what's up.

Someone who's willing to recognize there shortcomings, and then compensate for those is a leech? Exercising the talents of others isn't leeching, it's using what you have in a reasonable fashion.

@ler
In short you could just say:

But to call that brainwashed(negative implications) is really far fetched. A reasonable person is able to see beyond the sum of own expiriences.

see the word demanding, means that they give lybia no choice. A neutral news site would not use a word like this if it isn't the case. France is not demanding oil, they started trade treaties, i am sure lybia recieves a fair price for it. The NTC never made a secret about this from the start of the intervention, that the helping forces of nato will get prioritized in trades after the victory. Seams kind of fair to me. Or do you believe that the ntc is really all that hot to trade with china or russia, if you remember they blocked a un resulution for quite a while, enabling ghadaffi to kill the people behind the ntc and the revolution for that matter. While it is fair to asume that france and GB didn't intervene for purely altruistic reasons it probably was more of the lines: "profit(oil trade) and do something good in the process". Also if it would have ben purely for oil interest, Ghadaffi would have ben a better choice for France and GB, they allready had deals with him for a long time. But all that aside your statement of DEMANDING is just outright wrong.

Tends to happen when you reply too Cat or Ler for some reason.

A man should have to stand on his own merit, skills and know-how. Not that of others. He should be judged by what the implications of his work are rather than his market gains. He should be placed in a position where can excel and do the most good.

To do otherwise leads to mismanagement.

I've had a lot on my mind lately, and it seems like most of my bickering of late has been with them, so I guess I will chalk it up to mental overflow.

I disagree. A man who's competent enough of surround himself with good men has a talent in of itself. A lack of pride can make a good leader, and good men can often rub off, leading to a brighter future for the man himself.

Good point. I should have researched a bit before posting the link to the video. Still, since you do seem to know quite a bit about the subject how was the intervention justified? Let us remember that Gaddafi had been a thorn at the side of the West for quite a while now and while I do agree that the intervention wasn't solely motivated by oil, it was not for humanitarian aid. Yet again, I ask how was this intervention justified? Are we all just to accept that the UN can do whatever it wants without repercussions?Even to the extent that it can contradict it's own resolution and it's own policy? The airstrike on the Gaddafi convoy was a deliberate attack with the intent to kill and shows another contradiction on the resolution.

If he is truly has the ability to both organize and motivate, then he is most likely not subject to our conversation.

Depends. A simple minded man is just as capable as a intelligent man when motivating people. As for organization, he could have said advisers organized by a friend or family member, but it's still the simple act of recognizing that he needs help that makes him clear minded. Rather than be blinded by pride, he would either acknowledge he needs help, or simply be lazy, hiring better men in his stead. Does the latter make him a good leader? That's your choice to decide, but I would rather have him to lead me than the man who leads someone into darkness, based strictly on his on presumed skills and ego.

The intervention was justified to me at at least as it may have killed a few people but that would have been a small amount compared to the numbers Gaddafi would have slaughtered. An intervention was demanded by many groups around the world and the rebels themselves. So not to intervene would have made them look bad. Oil would just be a perk to it because why would a country that is free because of NATO not want to do business with NATO. With the airstrike on the Gaddafi convoy they didn't know it was Gaddafi they just knew it was armed Gaddafi vehicles, so they bombed it which is what NATO was supposed to do.

While the ability to motivate your fellow workers is defiantly something you can be proud of, one must question the practicality of putting such a person in a managerial position of an electrical grid if simply because he knows how to make friends.

He would be better suited in a position where his abilities can be maximized.

If he needs help to do his job then it would be best to put him in a position where he is entirely self-sufficient rather than devoting extra resources to keeping him afloat. Make no mistake, productivity and efficiency are important.

Presumed skills? Who said anything about that? Standing on your own merit implies you have the physical to back your claim.

" A few people" Are you fucking kidding me?!? Now let's just assume that "a few people" were killed. Look at the destroyed infrastructure, the schools, houses, etc and tell me if the bombs actually helped the Libyan people?

Again, you haven't answered my question on why NATO is bombing a 'military' convoy' and how that pertains to what the resolution says about helping innocent civilians.

Again, you haven't answered my question on why NATO is bombing a 'military' convoy' and how that pertains to what the resolution says about helping innocent civilians.[/quote:3bklfwhe]
Would you have preferred genocide? The bombs stopped the Gaddafi's government from functioning efficiently and his forces from just crushing the rebels. They are bombing a military convoy because that is what they are suppose to do it protects civilians by destroying anything else Gaddafi can use use against them.

Would you have preferred genocide? The bombs stopped the Gaddafi's government from functioning efficiently and his forces from just crushing the rebels. They are bombing a military convoy because that is what they are suppose to do it protects civilians by destroying anything Gaddafi can use use against them.[/quote:28371du1]

Do you even know what the meaning of genocide is? I did and still do agree that the no-fly zone should have been used to ensure that no deliberate massacres by either side happen to civilians,but that is it. NATO further complicated things by siding with a loose alliance of rebel groups with the objective of overthrowing Gaddafi(against resolution), they bombed loyalist cities(against resolution), they provided air support for rebels(against resolution), they provided aid to the rebels(against resolution), etc. How is bombing armed convoys that are fleeing rebels a humanitarian effort?

Do you even know what the meaning of genocide is? I did and still do agree that the no-fly zone should have been used to ensure that no deliberate massacres by either side happen to civilians,but that is it. NATO further complicated things by siding with a loose alliance of rebel groups with the objective of overthrowing Gaddafi(against resolution), they bombed loyalist cities(against resolution), they provided air support for rebels(against resolution), they provided aid to the rebels(against resolution), etc. How is bombing armed convoys that are fleeing rebels a humanitarian effort?[/quote:2dsm5hzz]
He would have massacred innocent people, that is what he said. Will just instituting a no-fly zone stop Gaddafi from massacring innocent people no it would just take away one of the ways he could do it. The only to prevent it would be to bomb his government and military.

:shock: Oh my sweet Jesus. Do I have to state for the tenth time that what the UN did was illegal?

The problem with that is that this got refuted 100 pages back allready and the will to discuss this issue has died a long time ago. Also it wasn't illegal.

The un charta forbids foreign nations to take a side in civil wars, however this does not include un sanctioned interventions. You see the un can basicly sanction any war if certain requirements are met and a army shooting on civilians basicly fullfils this. Also if you start talking about legality you have to know that Courts weigh the rights and laws against each other on a day to day basis. In this case: Whats more valuable? Human rights or the right to fight a civil war without intervention from the outside. You see since Ruwanda the perception has shifted (precedented by interventions in ex-jugoslavia). Also if we legaly talk about war, you have to know that to fullfill the legal deffenition of war both sides must have a regular army and abide to certain rules ,wich clearly where violated by ghadaffi. So you see the un acted lawfully. I could go much more into detail, but it has ben discussed here a long time ago and i don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.

But you later make a valid point. The un did nothing wrong. But the partaking members of the sanctioning parties (French/British) clearly over stepped boundries of the sanctions.
No-Fly zone
Nothing wrong with bombing aa-capabilities and taking out the airforce of ghadaffi all sanctioned

The Resolution speaks of any means possible to DEFEND civil lives
This allows for destruction of all actively used military hardware including infantry that threaten civil lives. If streched maybe even to military assets that are in preparation, also the disruption of military suplies. If a few bombs are dropped on bunkers of ghadaffi etc. who cares if it is a bit streched out that is not an issue in my books. but:
This was clearly violated when allied forces lead the ntc forces into citys by bombing them a safe passage, allowing ntc-forces to enter Tripolis and later sirte and the other town the name i don't remember right now. If the parties honored the un sanction they actualy had to stop the ntc forces from pushing into civil populated areas. But then the war would have taken way longer and could have ben way more costly(both in lives and money wise).
Also the allied forces never delliberatly targeted scools etc. There have ben 1 or 2 cases of confirmed colateral damage, and sadly this shit happens. I don't like it but it is a sad truth about war, but that doesn't make the un resolution illegal espacialy if this where mistakes. And we heared it thousends of times everytime un sanctioned forces bomb a dictator(same with milosevic), they claim they hit houses and scools and hospitals. Most of this is pure propaganda, often they even blow up the building and sites by themselfes. Yes that sounds incredibly sad and pathetic, but there are many documented cases of this.


Also the un has ben founded in the impressions after the ww2, the point was to stop wars and genocide. So don't you think the west would have ben blamed for not stepping in (like in rwanda etc.) especialy if it happens right at the doorstep of europe (agian). Simply put, it can not be tollerated that dictators gun down their population and if you happen to geographicly live near the west and lack powerfull allies then they are fucked. If Syria would be right next to the us or any other western nation, bashar al-assad would have ben allready stopped. And that is by far not a bad thing.

Well.....I guess that summed up everything pretty nicely in terms of UN legality.

Would you rather have Gadaffi in power?

I'm all for the toppling of dictators, but only when it's done by the people such as in the Russian and French revolutions. No matter how much you argue that a genocide would have taken place, or that too many people would have died doesn't matter. If everyone hates a leader enough, he will be overthrown.Revolutions need blood in order to cement it's legitimacy.No revolution needs an outside force to be successful. If you take a look at history you'll find that in every revolution where there's been a foreign power intervening it's because they either want to weaken the state, or have the possibility of a friendlier gov't towards their own,or want something else in return, or even a bit of all these three. Then again, we must remember that Libya will be a mess for years to come and many dangers lie ahead for the country.

Would Libya have been better off with Gaddafi? Only the future can say.
I suggest you all pay close attention to Libya in the following weeks and months. Worst case scenario is that another strongman takes power in all the confusion.