Gaddafi forces capture and torture BBC news crew

[irishScott]

You seem very hung up on the Geneva Conventions, as if they're going to be as strictly enforced as a school dress code. The truth is there's no one to enforce them, and they are only loosely adhered to as many sections are way out of date.

I've walked through Afghan villages and seen the battle damage caused by shelling them with white phosphorous artillery shells in violation of the Geneva Convention. I've also seen soldiers and marines issued expanding and fragmenting small arms ammunition in violation of the Hague Convention.

Rules of war are silly things that people come up with when they're not fighting a war. When they're fighting a war, you just want to make the other guys dead and keep your guys alive. Libya is fighting a war, and frankly it's none of our business.

Have you read the pleas of the rebels for a no-fly zone? Today they're asking for us to directly strike Gaddafi's forces. The irony? All these requests are coming from rebel fighters named Mohammed, Ramdan, and Abdel-Hafidh. As if we haven't figured out those are bad guy names by now.

I say again, none of our fucking business.

Just because the laws aren't usually followed doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Or that they don't apply. By your logic the only laws that should be followed are ones where you're guaranteed to get punished. Enforcement only applies to those who don't enforce themselves.

As for it being none of our business, that's why we should go in (in the sense of air strikes and a no-fly zone) at the rebels' request with a UN or NATO mandate. We won't be the only ones going in, and it will be a shared responsibility. Last I checked France and the UK are already moving on it independent of us. It wouldn't be Iraq (1 or 2) or Afghanistan. Boots on the ground would be minimal if even present. Other Arab nations are also behind the idea.

As for why we should even care, promoting democracy is in our interest. Democracies are less likely to sponsor terrorism and less likely to attack others in general. I should also point out that during our Civil War the Confederates attempted to ally with the British, and in the Revolutionary War we got serious help from the French. Asking for outside help (and the granting of said help) is hardly a new concept for rebellions or out-of-place in a civil war.

 

[Nebor]

I agree, the US has little place in a Libyan civil war.

As much as I think Gadaffi should catch the short end of a big bomb it isn't the US's place to send it at him.

Agreed. There is no significant US interest there.

 

[Nebor]

Just because the laws aren't usually followed doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Or that they don't apply. By your logic the only laws that should be followed are ones where you're guaranteed to get punished. Enforcement only applies to those who don't enforce themselves.

As for it being none of our business, that's why we should go in (in the sense of air strikes and a no-fly zone) at the rebels' request with a UN or NATO mandate. We won't be the only ones going in, and it will be a shared responsibility. Last I checked France and the UK are already moving on it independent of us. It wouldn't be Iraq (1 or 2) or Afghanistan. Boots on the ground would be minimal if even present. Other Arab nations are also behind the idea.

As for why we should even care, promoting democracy is in our interest. Democracies are less likely to sponsor terrorism and less likely to attack others in general. I should also point out that during our Civil War the Confederates attempted to ally with the British, and in the Revolutionary War we got serious help from the French. Asking for outside help (and the granting of said help) is hardly a new concept for rebellions or out-of-place in a civil war.

Both sides in Libya HATE us. They're trying to cozy up because they want our help. Arming them and assisting them would be a mistake. There are over a billion Mohammeds in the world. If some of them want to kill one another and I'm not stuck in the crossfire, more fuckin' power to 'em.

And I also contend that most people have no idea what a no-fly zone entails. Plenty of rebels would be killed in the establishment of a no-fly zone. We would be at WAR with Libya. And for what? It's not worth it.

Come on, I love projecting US power around the world, but this one is totally senseless. We have NO interests there.

 

[irishScott]

Both sides in Libya HATE us. They're trying to cozy up because they want our help. Arming them and assisting them would be a mistake. There are over a billion Mohammeds in the world. If some of them want to kill one another and I'm not stuck in the crossfire, more fuckin' power to 'em.

And I also contend that most people have no idea what a no-fly zone entails. Plenty of rebels would be killed in the establishment of a no-fly zone. We would be at WAR with Libya. And for what? It's not worth it.

Come on, I love projecting US power around the world, but this one is totally senseless. We have NO interests there.

So you're bigoted towards Muslims. Got it. Nice to know your motivations.

As for going to war with Libya, that can be eliminated by wonderful things called "planning" and "forethought". We work with the rebels to demolish their air defenses on the ground with no rebel casualties. They refuse, we don't go in. Not that it would be a simple matter, but it's doable. Especially with NATO or UN support. You make it sound like we'd be starting WWIII.

And I pointed out our interests. Any democracy >>>>> Gaddafi. And the new Libyan government would be in debt to us. Most of Pakistan also hates us, but thanks to some support and aid our supply lines still run straight through them. I suppose you think we should cut our support to them and find a new Way into Afghanistan. Perhaps you think we should just snip those lines an find another way in that doesn't involve Brown people. Maybe China? Lol.

 

[Nebor]

The rebels are going to demolish their air defenses while they're getting pounded by Gaddafi's air power?

How some Northern Africa shithole is governed is not a significant interest to the United States. There are tons of fucked up countries in Africa and the Middle East. We can't save 'em all. And really pushing democracy world wide ended with the Cold War.

Pakistan is a terrorist safe haven and actively supports international terrorism, plus they're a nuclear loose cannon. I'd sooner go to war with Pakistan than Libya, at least there are clear security and logistical interests there.

My point is, as one of the guys that goes to the wars, I wouldn't risk a Navy pilot's life for a million Libyan lives or a Libyan democracy. It's not worth it. Not our business.

 

[irishScott]

The rebels are going to demolish their air defenses while they're getting pounded by Gaddafi's air power?

How some Northern Africa shithole is governed is not a significant interest to the United States. There are tons of fucked up countries in Africa and the Middle East. We can't save 'em all. And really pushing democracy world wide ended with the Cold War.

Pakistan is a terrorist safe haven and actively supports international terrorism, plus they're a nuclear loose cannon. I'd sooner go to war with Pakistan than Libya, at least there are clear security and logistical interests there.

My point is, as one of the guys that goes to the wars, I wouldn't risk a Navy pilot's life for a million Libyan lives or a Libyan democracy. It's not worth it. Not our business.

It's that and let us handle Gaddafi's air power (which is only significant because the rebels have nothing) or continue to get pounded by said. I think they'd be agreeable enough.

No we can't save them all. Libya is a special case as they have an active rebellion that effectively controls half the country. I already outlined our interests. One more ally, or even a nation that just owes us serious favors, is in our interest. So is a Democracy over a dictatorship.

And I love how you'd rather go to unilateral total war with a Nuclear power than impose a no-fly-zone, with international approval and allies, over less than half of a 3rd world dictatorship with no air power to speak of. You seem to have a pretty binary view of war. Also kinda undermines your argument about risking US lives. You'd sacrifice thousands if not tens of thousands to secure supply lines to Afghanistan and fight terrorism but refuse to risk even one for Libya to gain another ally.

 

[DesiPower]

New world's best friend, China, did the same few days back and the world said nothing. So stop bitching idiots.

 

[Nebor]

It's that and let us handle Gaddafi's air power (which is only significant because the rebels have nothing) or continue to get pounded by said. I think they'd be agreeable enough.

No we can't save them all. Libya is a special case as they have an active rebellion that effectively controls half the country. I already outlined our interests. One more ally, or even a nation that just owes us serious favors, is in our interest. So is a Democracy over a dictatorship.

And I love how you'd rather go to unilateral total war with a Nuclear power than impose a no-fly-zone, with international approval and allies, over less than half of a 3rd world dictatorship with no air power to speak of. You seem to have a pretty binary view of war. Also kinda undermines your argument about risking US lives. You'd sacrifice thousands if not tens of thousands to secure supply lines to Afghanistan and fight terrorism but refuse to risk even one for Libya to gain another ally.

I don't really see a point in arguing with you, but you're just plain wrong, SECDEF and POTUS are both against using military power in Libya. There's no US interest.

 

[kage69]

We should have dropped in a hundred Chinese Stinger clones the night the rebels took Benghazi. Things aren't looking good.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Stop acting like you know what the Geneva conventions say. You don't and just look like an idiot.

Stop acting like lemon law who swears by the all powerful UN and use your freaking head....which ever head you are using for the moment!

Nobody gives a rats ass except for you about the Geneva convention!
Get your head out of the sand!
Genevea Convention this Geneva Convention that.....the cold hard fact are nobody gives a crap about the Geneva convention when it comes to winning a civil war...grow up dude, open your eyes smell the truth!!

 

[davmat787]

Are any other countries actively discussing participating in a NO FLY ZONE? And I am not talking just wargaming it, but actively considering it.

Too bad there is no African wide version of NATO that would naturally be looked to in a situation such as this.

 

[irishScott]

Stop acting like lemon law who swears by the all powerful UN and use your freaking head....which ever head you are using for the moment!

Nobody gives a rats ass except for you about the Geneva convention!
Get your head out of the sand!
Genevea Convention this Geneva Convention that.....the cold hard fact are nobody gives a crap about the Geneva convention when it comes to winning a civil war...grow up dude, open your eyes smell the truth!!

Yes, because the only laws that matter are the ones you give a crap about.

 

[irishScott]

I don't really see a point in arguing with you, but you're just plain wrong, SECDEF and POTUS are both against using military power in Libya. There's no US interest.

Well that's where we differ. And POTUS isn't against using military power per-se, he's just leaving it up to the UN and/or NATO. As he should.

 

[Nebor]

Well that's where we differ. And POTUS isn't against using military power per-se, he's just leaving it up to the UN and/or NATO. As he should.

The president didn't know what a no-fly zone was. Not gonna happen.

 

[davmat787]

I get what people are saying about the geneva convention, and I know Libya is a signee, but what good did it do for Pan Am Lockerbie? I don't get why it is an issue with a north african dictator, what am I missing here?

 

[irishScott]

I get what people are saying about the geneva convention, and I know Libya is a signee, but what good did it do for Pan Am Lockerbie? I don't get why it is an issue with a north african dictator, what am I missing here?

It's an issue whenever the conventions are violated IMO. Although admittedly if you want to discuss every violation we'd be here for weeks at least.

In this case it's more of an issue because they happened to violate it by abusing reporters or a major news organization, whom they then let go. Once they got home, the reporters did their jobs and distributed it via said news organization. Gotta love worldwide communications.

 

[wuliheron]

Anyone here want to cry outrage over the thousands of little kids in Africa getting raped and then their hands cut off by some local warlord?

Get real. A couple of foreign reporters who knew exactly what they were getting into got beat up. If you walk down a dark alley in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood shit happens and all the pointing of fingers and screaming of outrage will not inspire sympathy from the cops.

 

[Veliko]

Anyone here want to cry outrage over the thousands of little kids in Africa getting raped and then their hands cut off by some local warlord?

Get real. A couple of foreign reporters who knew exactly what they were getting into got beat up. If you walk down a dark alley in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood shit happens and all the pointing of fingers and screaming of outrage will not inspire sympathy from the cops.

I wish a lord of war would chop off your hands. And then chop off your man-boobs and use them as ear warmers.

 

[jonks]

Anyone here want to cry outrage over the thousands of little kids in Africa getting raped and then their hands cut off by some local warlord?

Only if they worked for the school newspaper.

 

[Triumph]

Libyan forces beat up a couple of British reporters? Good, maybe the UK can do something about Libya now that they have a reason to. Not our problem, the US should stay completely out of that country in every way, shape, and form. If the UN wants to do something about it, the British have a pretty strong military, stronger than Libyas. Have at it, just leave us out!

 

[Nebor]

Seriously, the Europeans seem far more concerned about Libya than we are. They're the ones that really want to intervene with air power. That's on them. It's a shorter fight for their war planes, go this one without us.

 

[artikk]

They're non-combatants and there is no evidence that they were spying for anyone but the BBC. When stopped at an Army checkpoint they showed their credentials without resistance. If the Army didn't want them there they should have arrested them and sent them back to a non-restricted area, where they could be ejected from the country if need be. American forces got such flack over Abu Ghraib for doing less to potentially guilty prsoners, but you're giving Gadaffi's goons a free pass for doing worse to innocent reporters?

You know I've never subscribed to this notion of civilized warfare that you bring up. Oh I know the conditions are stipulated by the Geneva Convention treaty and others but to me what they advocate isn't war, but a sport of war. In my definition, in war whoever has more power kills/defeats the other, no matter if any 'innocents' are involved or not. And that's exactly what the Gaddafi regime purported to do to civilians. Media isn't some sacred entity exempt from physical harm. They wanted to report about the situation, they will sometimes suffer the consequences.

 

[wuliheron]

I wish a lord of war would chop off your hands. And then chop off your man-boobs and use them as ear warmers.

Yeah, yeah, and I wanna million gazillion dollars. Kissy-kissy. XXOO

 

[JEDIYoda]

And I pointed out our interests. Any democracy >>>>> Gaddafi. And the new Libyan government would be in debt to us. Most of Pakistan also hates us, but thanks to some support and aid our supply lines still run straight through them. I suppose you think we should cut our support to them and find a new Way into Afghanistan. Perhaps you think we should just snip those lines an find another way in that doesn't involve Brown people. Maybe China? Lol.

The idiot(Irish Scott) keeps blabbering!!


The Western form of Democracy and Islam are not compatable and YES!! I stand up and shout to the masses beware of Islam!!
Islam is NOT what it is trying to portray to the western world!
In every European nation where the people of Islam have a large presence eventually those countries have had problems! Women demanding to cover their head because they believe their religion supersedes the laws of the country they are living in......
Muslims communities demanding their own Muslim laws...etc..etc....

How soon before we are assimilated??

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The idiot(Irish Scott) keeps blabbering!!


The Western form of Democracy and Islam are not compatable and YES!! I stand up and shout to the masses beware of Islam!!
Islam is NOT what it is trying to portray to the western world!
In every European nation where the people of Islam have a large presence eventually those countries have had problems! Women demanding to cover their head because they believe their religion supersedes the laws of the country they are living in......
Muslims communities demanding their own Muslim laws...etc..etc....

How soon before we are assimilated??

I'd expect better from you than to spread the Karl Rove version of fear the Muslims...

In Europe as well as the US there are women who cover their heads because of religious belief, so what? Are you suggesting that we should do away with freedom of religion?

How about Christian women who obey the Bible and observe the husbands word as their law? How about Orthodox Jews and their views of race mixing and honor killings? How about Indian Hindus in England who are by far overrepresented in honor killing cases?

In ALL religions Gods law is greater than any man made law and you KNOW that.

That said, Muslims really need to get their collective heads out of their arses and realise that this isn't the middle ages.