Dear Mr Gadaffi

[ShrikeHawk 384]

An awful lot of the actions by the United States depend on the occupant of the White House at the time. Such as Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton, when you match their terms of service, to our head in the sand type of problem resolution. Their years of service become apparent

 

Did my statements about the war in IRAQ fall on deaf ears ?

 

I heard it. I've been saying for a long time Iraq DID have WMDs. It took us so damn long to be in position to actually look for them, Hussein had plenty of time to pitch the evidence out the window, so to speak. WE KNOW they had chemical weapons because WE GAVE some to him to help him fight Iran. So there's no doubt whatsoever that the weapons were there.

 

The US gov't has done many things that were lacking in "moral fibre." I freely admit it. Then again, show me a government without flaw and then they can cast the first stone. It is true we've supported Mid-Eastern Tyrants before and that wasn't cool. People claim that makes us no better than the tyrant; that's kinda true. But if the alternative was far greater instability and far more civilian deaths, well I think we chose the least of many evils.

 

We (USA) could easily have tossed Mubarak out on his ear along with a bunch of other dictators. and then installed a "nice guy" to rule the country. Would anyone have seen him as a nice guy? They would have seen him as a "puppet" and hated him no matter what he did. The USA can do "no right thing" in the world right now. No matter what we do, somebody will think it was all wrong. My thinking has always been, "if the people REALLY don't like their leader they will do something about it." At last, we're finally seeing it. Frankly, I'd rather have the people of a nation toss out a dictator rather than "require" the USA to do it. It seems "righter" to me.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Shrike::

But if the alternative was far greater instability and far more civilian deaths, well I think we chose the least of many evils.

Just the opposite. The "stability" we have sought is dictators keeping their nations' souls crushed under a boot, with the resulting poverty and local warfare causing civilian deaths. We have a history of forcibly taking out democratically elected governments, and installing puppet dictators to do just that -- ensure "stability." The Shah of Iran was a fine one. In the short term, this may seem to benefit us, but in the long term it will hurt: Iran turn radical for example. Here at home, the collapse of the system's debt is now visibly destroying American men and women.

 

Granted its nothing new. The empires of the British, French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, German, Russian, Soviet, etc...endless list...have all destroyed wealth in order to confiscate a small portion of it. I like the take of Nightwatch, 9 Jan, on the early Algerian protests::

 

 

Comment:

:

:

The IMF is notorious for prescribing economic austerity measures that benefit bankers, but impoverish workers. Nothing has changed.

:

:

~ http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_11000007.aspx

 

I will add, however, that this also impoverishes local business and wealth creation. Its not just evil, but biblically evil. This stuff goes back a very, very long time. To paraquote the Bible: There's nothing new under the SF sun.

[+EricJ 4,144]

 

It was much the same story with Saddam in IRAQ, except he didn't even answer. Soo GWB had to go in and find out positively. Now the wiseguys on the LEFT will say. .IRAQ Never had a Nuclear Program. You my friend have been reading too many comic books, and buying the Liberal Lies . . Hook, Line, and Sinker

 

And his name was "Curveball" an Iraqi source who told the CIA that Saddam did have WMDs all because he wanted Saddam overthrown.

 

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-20/curveball-admits-he-lied-about-iraqi-wmd-wilkerson-implicates-bush-and-cheney

 

Besides GWB wanted something to provide a reason to go in and "Curveball" was the reason and GWB was all too happy to go in. So it's not "Liberal lies" it's the fact that he took it and ran with it and it didn't work out.

 

And even then I spent my year either kicking in doors, getting shot at, and other assorted "fun" with the country during OIF II and never spent one millisecond looking for WMDs.

 

Besides this has nothing to do with the protests in the Middle East right now, keep it on topic.

Edited February 24, 2011 by EricJ

[+Spillone104 553]

My only concern is how soo an "Operation Eldorado Canyon II" colud be done. Possibly hitting a couple of objective in my country after the main operation is over.

 

just my 2 cents for the day.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I heard it. I've been saying for a long time Iraq DID have WMDs. It took us so damn long to be in position to actually look for them, Hussein had plenty of time to pitch the evidence out the window, so to speak. WE KNOW they had chemical weapons because WE GAVE some to him to help him fight Iran. So there's no doubt whatsoever that the weapons were there.

 

The US gov't has done many things that were lacking in "moral fibre." I freely admit it. Then again, show me a government without flaw and then they can cast the first stone. It is true we've supported Mid-Eastern Tyrants before and that wasn't cool. People claim that makes us no better than the tyrant; that's kinda true. But if the alternative was far greater instability and far more civilian deaths, well I think we chose the least of many evils.

 

We (USA) could easily have tossed Mubarak out on his ear along with a bunch of other dictators. and then installed a "nice guy" to rule the country. Would anyone have seen him as a nice guy? They would have seen him as a "puppet" and hated him no matter what he did. The USA can do "no right thing" in the world right now. No matter what we do, somebody will think it was all wrong. My thinking has always been, "if the people REALLY don't like their leader they will do something about it." At last, we're finally seeing it. Frankly, I'd rather have the people of a nation toss out a dictator rather than "require" the USA to do it. It seems "righter" to me.

 

Sounds about right to me Shrike!

(just noticed your sig...thanks m8..lol)

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Hmmm. So how did he get away from the Saudis? If they had him in handcuffs they must've not liked him either.

 

Who let the dog out?

[ShrikeHawk 384]

They had to set him free,

 

They "had" to? Why? "Only" Clinton could've stopped him? Wouldn't the Saudis have more rights to determine his fate than Clinton? He's a Saudi national, yes? Why would Clinton have more power over him than the Saudis? Why heap all of it on Clinton if the Saudis already had him in custody?

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know, every interview I've seen with Rumsfeld as he's promoting his memoirs has had the interviewer mention Curveball.

[Silverbolt 104]

gosh i am watching his speech online ...he is more skippy than a f***ing eel.

[GwynO 16]

There were plenty of opportunities to track down and eliminate several bogey men like OBL over the years, and a hell of a lot of lives might have been saved. Sadly though, what can seem perfectly "intelligent" even to some Politicians no doubt, would be deemed "unethical" and perhaps even indictable by the vast majority of people in the country, and even in the Military bureaucracy. Clinton refused to authorise assassinations of non US nationals on foreign soil, seems pretty standard fair to me, I don't hear the same complaints about tough guy leaders not taking the countless oppertunities to take out various rebel leaders, terrorists, even state players, that could be done easily in many cases and avoid all kinds of bloodshed.. for example, Maggy was ok with sinking the fleeing Belgrano, but not with the spies recording the time, place, and colour of Galtieris sh!ts to just drop him some poison over dinner? The Ninja way of warfare is often decried as unethical, lacking in the "honour" of the Samurai way (who were many times little more than rent collecting thugs with their iconic weapons perfectly optimized for slicing through unarmed and unarmoured peasants) Which is really the path with most "honour", dragging all and sundry from peasant to Samurai onto a battlefield and fighting it down to the last man, or sneaking over the castle wall and strangling a SOB in his bed in the middle of night? We live in a strange world..

 

So given the impracticalities of countries just going around and assassinating people it doesn't like whenever and wherever it feels like, what to do when there really isn't much choice in a region as FUBAR as the Middle East? Dual containment perhaps? Regan was hardly a soft liberal by any means, nor Bush Snr, but they both adhered strongly to Dual Containment until circumstances changed. When faced with two threats next door to each other as happened with the Iranians and Saddam, here are some options to consider:

A) Assassinate one or both leaderships and hope that "something" sensible comes to replace them... bearing in mind we are talking about Iraq and Iran here sat on the mother of all theological faultlines between Sunni and Shia Islam.. whatever came to replace Saddam in particular was going to cause massive ructions on that fault line as we saw in 2003.

B) Do nothing and hope they all just calm down and have a cup of tea and we'll all just be alright.

C) Join one of the sides, become their best friend for life and stick by them through everything because we're such good, real, genuine friends

D) Support the weaker side that hasn't a hope of winning but only just enough to keep it in the fight long enough to weaken the other, once they've both realised neither of them are strong enough to win decisively, sit back and watch....

E) Assuming you chose option D), you watch the lesser of the two threats go apes**t and invade a much smaller neighbour that had massive oil wealth. Now Saddam, once the lesser of two evils, looks intent on provoking as many Arab countries as possible to join in support of his pan Arab Iraqi Baath movement, which if successful, would make the Iranian revolution look like a damp fart seeing as the Iranian Revolution is Shia led and essentially no other existing country in the Middle East is even remotely majority Shia, the Iranians have good relations instead with minority Shia groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, in contrast to the Baath movement which governed Iraq and Syria at the time and was theoretically an option for pretty much any and all Arab countries in the entire Middle East with the sole exception of Iran. The lesser of the two evils has now become the greater, so go back to the beginning and start again all over from A)... or do as Bush Snr did and acknowledge that Dual Containment had failed, the kak had hit the fan, and something needed doing and doing quickly...

 

There aren't many fluffy easy options in life, reality is not a Disney cartoon. We on a personal one to one level, and much more so on an international, diplomatic level, owe it to ourselves to look after our own interests, deal with the lesser of two evils at time, change our tack according to the changing circumstances, and effectively try our best to balance what is "intelligent" to do, with what is "emotionally" or ethically "acceptable" for us to be caught doing by our own peers.. sometimes dropping a bit of Polonium into the entire Kim Jong Ill family's kimchi might seem like a perfectly rational thing to do, that could end up saving millions of lives.. but we can't always know how these things turn out.. we can't always trust that the resulting power vacuum can be filled with something even half way better in the long run, the risks of consequences and of getting caught just don't add up to justify outright diplomatic Ninjitsu.

 

We could have disposed of Gaddaffi a long time ago, get him out of the way, but we didn't.. even though we had plenty of good reason to over the years from Berlin to Lockerbie to the PIRA ,INLA etc, but because what kind of civil war would we have on our hands then in Libya with the all to distinct possibility of Gaddaffi's forces losing control over their yellowcake, Uranium pentafluoride, SCUD missiles and so on, the risk just wasn't worth it. These aren't areas of the world where we can expect the kind of transition that East Germany went from when they got freedom from the Soviet regime, as we can see now, tribes loyal to Gaddafi will not just sit there quietly letting the opposition take "democratic" control of the country, and back then when the Muslim Brotherhood et al were a lot stronger, taking despots like Mubarak or Gaddafi out just was not an option.. they truly were the lesser of two evils because they were fighting tooth and nail to maintain their own house of cards in power by keeping a death grip on the fundamentalists in their own back yards (preferring instead to assist said fundamentalists away from home)

 

But.. times change. Begrudgingly, and in no small part thanks to Tony Blair's rictus grinning diplomatic performances, Gaddafi gave up the most dangerous material we had to worry about. Over the years he was left in power, rictus grinning diplomacy in full swing, the Islamist options in Libya were pretty much crushed to dust.. similarly in Egypt under Mubarak, his Stasi like security crackdowns while not getting rid of the Islamist groups had forced them to go on the back foot and try alternative methods such as a bit of their own rictus grinning diplomacy in order to try and look and sound a bit less mental. The revolutions couldn't have come at a better time in a way, over the tenure of both Mubarak and Gaddafi, any sooner and the resulting chaos would almost certainly have resulted in enormous, and bad, consequences for all, as it is now, we finally have the option to drop the rictus grins and support a new lesser of two evils should any emerge, and hopefully they will, once the dust starts to settle. While the dust is in the air however, you can bet your left nut that it's not just our diplomats that are frantically Ninjitsuing away trying to work out just who or what is coming next, there will be Matroska doll ninjas, Mandarin ninjas, Cheese eating surrender ninjas, the world and their Uncle will be seeking knowledge and influence in these days, so that on the other end, Politicians and Military Bureaucrats can decide what possible options they have on where they go from here day by day. I doubt these revolutions will be half as scary as they would have been only 10 years ago, but it's still not going to be easy work, then again when was life ever easy?

Edited March 8, 2011 by GwynO

[dsawan 624]

I feel for the average Libyan suffering, but the US should stay out of a civil war and focus on its own people. Unemployment does not last and its bad enough people here are being forced onto the street or living in cars because they cant pay rent. None of this no-fly zone bull. Just moral, refugee and munitions. thats it.

[sparkomatic 7]

Hi UK Widowmaker ,

I agree with all you say , good luck to the people of Lybia and all countries that are oppressed . Any leader of a country that uses lethal force against there own citizens does not deserve to be a leader . " power to the people " :-) .

 

 

 

Not to start a flame war, but respectfully: you, sir, are no student of history...so the British EMPIRE never used lethal force on people that did not want to be ruled by them?

 

Hey America, we did it also, first to our own people (its called a civil war, but was anything but civil) and the US has used lethal force on plenty of people that would have preferred we did not.

 

I am no dove, but we should all choose our words carefully.

 

Besides, we have no business in Libya; have we stopped chanting "no blood for oil"? That is our only interest in that country.

 

And of all people, one would think Qadaffi would have jumped at the chance to blame America, who put a bomb in his house (still un-repaired by the way) and killed one of his sons. But he is not blaming the US for this, instead he is blaming al-Qaeda. Maybe, just maybe he is correct.

 

Think about these "revolts", Egypt (big US ally and moderate, not run by extremists), Tunisia (didnt bother anybody and again, not run by zealots), now Bahrain (HQ of 5th Fleet, obviously an ally), and Iran. Of those, only Iran has been anything but helpful in the global war on terror. And, from many accounts, the Iranian people have no hatred of America, it is only a few in power that sponsor terror and blame America, the same that want Iran to be Arabian when it is Persian at heart.

 

Why are we even thinking about getting involved? There are no nukes, no American hostages, no vital interests. Saudi Arabia already began increasing oil production to cover the losses and can more than compensate. We are not even out of Iraq and Afghanistan yet.

 

If anything, we should have supported Iran's uprising, but we were too afraid. We should leave Libya alone to sort out its own problems lest we do EXACTLY what we are accused of, interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

 

Cheers

[+Brain32 265]

Not to start a flame war, but respectfully: you, sir, are no student of history...so the British EMPIRE never used lethal force on people that did not want to be ruled by them?

 

Hey America, we did it also, first to our own people (its called a civil war, but was anything but civil) and the US has used lethal force on plenty of people that would have preferred we did not.

 

I am no dove, but we should all choose our words carefully.

 

Besides, we have no business in Libya; have we stopped chanting "no blood for oil"? That is our only interest in that country.

 

And of all people, one would think Qadaffi would have jumped at the chance to blame America, who put a bomb in his house (still un-repaired by the way) and killed one of his sons. But he is not blaming the US for this, instead he is blaming al-Qaeda. Maybe, just maybe he is correct.

 

Think about these "revolts", Egypt (big US ally and moderate, not run by extremists), Tunisia (didnt bother anybody and again, not run by zealots), now Bahrain (HQ of 5th Fleet, obviously an ally), and Iran. Of those, only Iran has been anything but helpful in the global war on terror. And, from many accounts, the Iranian people have no hatred of America, it is only a few in power that sponsor terror and blame America, the same that want Iran to be Arabian when it is Persian at heart.

 

Why are we even thinking about getting involved? There are no nukes, no American hostages, no vital interests. Saudi Arabia already began increasing oil production to cover the losses and can more than compensate. We are not even out of Iraq and Afghanistan yet.

 

If anything, we should have supported Iran's uprising, but we were too afraid. We should leave Libya alone to sort out its own problems lest we do EXACTLY what we are accused of, interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

 

Cheers

 

Pears and apples as we here would say.

I don't see just how is all that you wrote in any way connected with the text you quoted...

Maybe you misquoted Nathan?

[+Jug 99]

Jug says let the UN decide. If they cannot get off of the dime, our national interests do not mandate that we go it alone in any sort of intervention. Besides, as I understand it, there is no Carrier Battle Group in the Med at this time, so how, exactly would we do anything? I am not sure that we have the leadership in place to do anything anyway.

 

We could drop Hillary on them, but that's another story.

 

Let's all keep in mind that our respective countries operate on a self-serving basis. Since the US appears not care to have, keep, or preserve the spoils of wars we get into, what's in it for us? Of course, any other country in the world that had taken Iraq by military might would have been just as fair, too. Right?

 

I think someone said it quite eloquently that a civil war is an internal thing, so let the Lybians sort it out themselves.

 

Is anyone really surprised that Gaddaffi would shoot his own people? It is a despot thing and goes on quite regularly round the globe. As repugnant as it is, I seem to recall China butchering its own people in some sort of big square in Beijing not too long ago. Where was the 'create a no-fly zone' arguments then?

 

Methinks it is too much ado about nothing....................

[+Dave 2,321]

Jug

 

The Enterprise is enroute.....we also have assets in Malta and Sicily. If we had to start the no fly zone tomorrow we could it.

[Silverbolt 104]

Jug

 

The Enterprise is enroute.....we also have assets in Malta and Sicily. If we had to start the no fly zone tomorrow we could it.

 

unfortunatelly the world still with this hipocrisy that allows such a person stand in power for this long opressing his poppulation and the world seems not to support any US action over there.

[+daddyairplanes 9,902]

interestingly the other side is askin for a nofly zone, just no troops. sounds kinda like Kosovo 1999.........................

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Not to start a flame war, but respectfully: you, sir, are no student of history...so the British EMPIRE never used lethal force on people that did not want to be ruled by them?

 

Hey America, we did it also, first to our own people (its called a civil war, but was anything but civil) and the US has used lethal force on plenty of people that would have preferred we did not.

 

I am no dove, but we should all choose our words carefully.

 

Besides, we have no business in Libya; have we stopped chanting "no blood for oil"? That is our only interest in that country.

 

And of all people, one would think Qadaffi would have jumped at the chance to blame America, who put a bomb in his house (still un-repaired by the way) and killed one of his sons. But he is not blaming the US for this, instead he is blaming al-Qaeda. Maybe, just maybe he is correct.

 

Think about these "revolts", Egypt (big US ally and moderate, not run by extremists), Tunisia (didnt bother anybody and again, not run by zealots), now Bahrain (HQ of 5th Fleet, obviously an ally), and Iran. Of those, only Iran has been anything but helpful in the global war on terror. And, from many accounts, the Iranian people have no hatred of America, it is only a few in power that sponsor terror and blame America, the same that want Iran to be Arabian when it is Persian at heart.

 

Why are we even thinking about getting involved? There are no nukes, no American hostages, no vital interests. Saudi Arabia already began increasing oil production to cover the losses and can more than compensate. We are not even out of Iraq and Afghanistan yet.

 

If anything, we should have supported Iran's uprising, but we were too afraid. We should leave Libya alone to sort out its own problems lest we do EXACTLY what we are accused of, interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

 

Cheers

 

And with respect to you Sir..I agree with what you say.

 

I don't think I was advocating 'Going into' Libya?...If that came across, I need to point out, that is not my view.

 

It's their issue to sort out....and would hardly make the News if it wasn't for their Oil....Civil Wars, Violence and inhumanity are widespread throughout the World..but we only ever get bombarded by it..if we have something to lose!

 

Who cares if loads of African's get wiped out in Civil Wars?...such as happens in that continent all the time?...Not Western Politicians that's for sure!!...No Money to be had there....So f*** 'em