The Arab League

Albereth said:
Pull out of where? Libya? They aren't there so, by your argument, it has nothing to do with oil.
Click to expand...

Pull out of any involvement.
The 1973 bill states no occupation, but says nothing of any ground troops. Perhaps it will be exploited.
I guess we will have to wait and see what motives the US will come up with next the find a reason to occupy territories within Libya.
 
Nick333 said:
Ok, I haven't been following that closely, so my first question is which countries have been condemning it, why and why should we care? Just condemning something doesn't make it wrong.

As to the rest, time will tell. The country will be better off without the dictator regardless. It will be democratic and secure and able to govern itself far sooner than Iraq so America will have no excuse to stay long.

At even the most cursory glances the similarities with Iraq are almost non existent, especially considering there was no open and popular uprising against Sadam when America invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

Almost every country has condemned the use of military force.
Ghaddaffi is still a dictator but has built the country around him, he goes, everything goes. A bullet in his head will not solve the countries issues, it will create way to much unrest in an already unstable region.

Errrr as soon as the world realised there were no WMDs in Iraq there new purpose was liberating the Iraqis. Its been 8 years already.
 
[Quattro];5801515 said:
Pull out of any involvement.
The 1973 bill states no occupation, but says nothing of any ground troops. Perhaps it will be exploited.
I guess we will have to wait and see what motives the US will come up with next the find a reason to occupy territories within Libya.
Click to expand...

You know that if someone was picking on me I'd want the biggest guy in the school to be on my side. It doesn't mean that he wants my lunch money, just that the crap will be over a lot quicker and a lot less painfully than if the debating team got involved.
 
[Quattro];5801555 said:
Ghaddaffi is still a dictator but has built the country around him, he goes, everything goes. A bullet in his head will not solve the countries issues,
Click to expand...

But it's a good start.
 
[Quattro];5801515 said:
Pull out of any involvement.
The 1973 bill states no occupation, but says nothing of any ground troops. Perhaps it will be exploited.
I guess we will have to wait and see what motives the US will come up with next the find a reason to occupy territories within Libya.
Click to expand...

Bill? Resolution, you mean.
 
Alan said:
Yeah because removing one dictator who policies resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands was wrong but poor Gaddafi can't crush a rebellion and taking out a few thousand and the war drums start beating..


At least Quattro is consistent.
Click to expand...

Hey, if the Iraqis showed some willingness or even ability to govern themselves peacefully I'd have said go for it.

Hell if Sadam had some WMDs or was a threat to world peace or something...

Let's not forget the reason for Iraq was WMDs and support for terrorism which we now know where lies. You don't get to change your justifications after causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
 
Nick333 said:
Hey, if the Iraqis showed some willingness or even ability to govern themselves peacefully I'd have said go for it.

Hell if Sadam had some WMDs or was a threat to world peace or something...

Let's not forget the reason for Iraq was WMDs and support for terrorism which we now know where lies. You don't get to change your justifications after causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of thousands - you are talking about the masses that Saddam had killed?
 
Albereth said:
But it's a good start.
Click to expand...

Well all the other American puppets seem to be thrown out by their own people. Ghaddaffi, not an American puppet being forced out.
The entire region under new leadership...

Killing Ghaddafi especially with a red white and blue bullet, not a very good start.
 
[Quattro];5801593 said:
Well all the other American puppets seem to be thrown out by their own people. Ghaddaffi, not an American puppet being forced out.
The entire region under new leadership...

Killing Ghaddafi especially with a red white and blue bullet, not a very good start.
Click to expand...

You are right - full metal jacket so much better.
 
[Quattro]: there are educated people, then there are uneducated ones, and then there are ones like you. The ones like you, science calls "evolutionary dead ends".
 
Nick333 said:
Hey, if the Iraqis showed some willingness or even ability to govern themselves peacefully I'd have said go for it.
Click to expand...

The Shia did rise up and were crushed. What makes you think the Libyans will govern themselves peacefully after Gaddafi is gone?

Hell if Sadam had some WMDs or was a threat to world peace or something...
Click to expand...

He was far more of a threat to the world than Gaddafi was or ever will be. How many nations has Gaddifi attacked? Saddam attacked 6 of his neighbours in the region

Let's not forget the reason for Iraq was WMDs and support for terrorism which we now know where lies. You don't get to change your justifications after causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Click to expand...


The October, 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
* Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Click to expand...

Of course killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through sanctions with Saddam still in power was far more preferable....

Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [26][32] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[33] A short listing of estimates follows:

* Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[26][34]
* Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[8]
* Iraqi Baathist government: 1.5 million.[24]
* Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) [35]
* "probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[36]
* 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[37]
* "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[38] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[39]
* Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., The Lancet (1995, estimate withdrawn in 1997):567,000 children.[11]
* Editor (then "associate editor and media columnist") Matt Welch,[40] Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[24][39]
* Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).[41]
* British Member of Parliament George Galloway: "a million Iraqis, most of them children."[42]
* Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children."[11]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X