I'm not the one claiming anything, asshat.
Routan is a good example of why the west needs to develop alternatives to oil QUICKLY and cut itself off from the Muslim world. The west can do no good. Trying to help is lose-lose.
How is one worse than the other? Don't both have the potential to be equally exploitive of their people?
If your "reports" are so accruate, would you mind informing us all how many civilians have died in the NATO bombing?
A large component of the so-called rebels were part of the Gaddafi regime. If people like you proclaim that the Gaddafi regime was responsible for looting, rape and pillage, I am quite skeptical that members of his former regime were not involved then, and not involved now.
That number can never been known. NATO will claim few, Gaddafi will claim millions. And it's completely irrelevant to my point.
I'm not making any claims. You are. You should be the furnishing some sort of proof of thuggery. You cannot, which is why your just blabbing an opinion over and over again.
Obviously they are thugs. They are hired by the NATO to fight against Gaddafi. They arent professional, else I would call them mercenaries. They've destroyed Libyan property, all over. You want to prove they are looters and rapists to satisfy the claim of them being thugs? If they loot, they'd be looters, not thugs. If they rape, they'd be rapists, not thugs.
wtf you on about
A wolf in sheep's clothing is way worse than a wolf without a costume.
How is being eaten by one wolf better than being eaten by another wolf?
The infidels making money off of Libya are certainly not benevolent and charitable; that's not how business works. Libya has certain needs it cannot fulfill on its own. It has the choice of offering accumulated wealth to corporations within another country in exchange for fulfilling these needs, or squatting in its squalor and allowing those needs to go unfulfilled. This is how capitalism and the free market works to increase everyone's standard of living; both parties trade something they have for something they perceive to be of greater value to themselves. Both parties gain.Of course central to the above argument is that the "infidels" making money off of the Muslim country are benevelont and charitable
Thats how it rolls, isnt it possum? NATO is supplying arms and bombing the shit out of Libya because they "care" ^_^
Again, you have a half-cocked narrative with nothing more than opinions and some wordplay to back it up. These guys might be "hired" by NATO, or they might have genuinely been fed up with being ruled by a dictator who seemed to have few problems murdering them when he felt like it. Until you or anyone else can provide evidence of the former, the latter seems far more likely. Gaddafi was unpopular. People were fed up with him.
As for proving points, you're the one out here trying to convince people that the rebels are thugs, I'm not. How about you start with telling us what you mean by thugs, seeing as the exemplary thug behavior I've provided doesn't constitute a thug.
1) you repeatedly refer to the rebels as "thugs". What is the factual basis for this?
2) you repeatedly claim the rebels were just hired by NATO to fight Gaddafi. You conveniently ignore the fact that the people started rebelling and fighting for freedom and against Gaddafi and his military without any NATO involvement. NATO got involved when it became clear Gaddafi was going to use his military might against civilians. It simply doesn't fit your "hired guns of NATO" narrative.
3) NATO could have invaded or otherwise crushed Libya and Gaddafi anytime they wanted to. They did not. When the people of Libya itself stood up and said "enough", NATO assisted them. Now the NTC wants to thank those who stood up for them. This is somehow a strange concept to you?
You can twist it any way you like, but the people of Libya are going to be free of a tyrant. Whether the new government / leaders are any better remains to be seen, but the downfall of a tyrant is always a good thing.
The infidels making money off of Libya are certainly not benevolent and charitable; that's not how business works. Libya has certain needs it cannot fulfill on its own. It has the choice of offering accumulated wealth to corporations within another country in exchange for fulfilling these needs, or squatting in its squalor and allowing those needs to go unfulfilled. This is how capitalism and the free market works to increase everyone's standard of living; both parties trade something they have for something they perceive to be of greater value to themselves. Both parties gain.
As far as NATO, its member nations decided out of some combination of idealism and enlightened self interest to aid these rebels, to provide them with sufficient arms, intel, and military assistance to allow them to succeed. NATO takes a chance, the rebels take a chance. NATO and the rebels both risk getting a regime even more inimical to their interests, but both see enough potential benefit to themselves to make the risk worthwhile. NATO may end up better off, or worse. The rebels may end up better off, or worse. But ideally both NATO and the Libyan people gain from this deal. At the very worst, the Libyan people will end up with a new dictator with a less firm boot on their collective neck.
No one from Libya CHOSE NTC. Just because some other shit country recognizes it doesnt mean it is the representative of the Libyan people.
Another long-winded nonsense narrative.
Needs are fulfilled by an open transparent process that does not benefit any one party over another. That is not an alien concept. In fact, that is what capitalism and "free-market" is.
The rebels are not representative of Libya. They did not win Libyan mandate. If they want to reward NATO for helping them, I am all for free market. They can pay NATO off with their own money. Doing so with Libyan wealth is nothing less than trading off a dictator with NATO thugs.
You are quite stupid.
Uh, I dont know what "proof" you require. The weapons WERE provided by NATO. That is a fact. They have previously, and have again, said that they will "reward those who helped them" with reconstruction contracts.
I do not recall any significant Gaddafi murderous rampage prior to the "revolt" that was highlighted by any international media. Infact, I recall this as of 2006
http://malta.usembassy.gov/libya.html
So, while you go by your perception of "behavior" and obviously bullshit, I will continue to base my thoughts on facts.
There's no doubt that they've liberated their country from a ruthless dictator. The question now is whether they'll replace him with a democracy or another ruthless dictatorship.
That was a rude, pointless, nasty post promoting militarism.
Libya, like Iraq, was not a bad country. Nearly 1st world status. Iraq is a cesspit now. So will be Libya in a few years.
The infidels making money off of Libya are certainly not benevolent and charitable; that's not how business works. Libya has certain needs it cannot fulfill on its own. It has the choice of offering accumulated wealth to corporations within another country in exchange for fulfilling these needs, or squatting in its squalor and allowing those needs to go unfulfilled. This is how capitalism and the free market works to increase everyone's standard of living; both parties trade something they have for something they perceive to be of greater value to themselves. Both parties gain.
As far as NATO, its member nations decided out of some combination of idealism and enlightened self interest to aid these rebels, to provide them with sufficient arms, intel, and military assistance to allow them to succeed. NATO takes a chance, the rebels take a chance. NATO and the rebels both risk getting a regime even more inimical to their interests, but both see enough potential benefit to themselves to make the risk worthwhile. NATO may end up better off, or worse. The rebels may end up better off, or worse. But ideally both NATO and the Libyan people gain from this deal. At the very worst, the Libyan people will end up with a new dictator with a less firm boot on their collective neck.
1. answered previously
2. what nonsense. NATO got involved because Gaddafi might use his military might against civilians? do you even know what you are saying
the NTC has no claim whatsoever to the wealth of the Libyan people. If they want to thank those who helped them, they are free to pay of their own pockets, not out of Libyan resources. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?
Pretty sure that the USA is involved in here somewhere, that being said, I don't imagine any of you idiots would actually accept any responsibility.....
Same can be said of Gaddafi and his 40 year rule.