Gadhafi dead?

[Nebor]

The US handed Saddam over to his sworn enemies the Shia, who duly executed him, big surprise there.

He had a lengthy trial, and plenty of appeals. He chose to act like an ass clown throughout the entire process, biasing everyone against him even more than they already were.

 

[Nebor]

The last thing on earth the US wants is democracy in places like Egypt. They know their business (MIC, financial et al) interests would take a huge hit, not to mention the US Zionist foreign policy would go to hell.

That's why the US, as per normal, supports the Egypt military takeover after the ousting of Mubarak.

The recipy is standard. Deal with a handful of fat cats (like Mubarak), give them a huge cut but pocket the real money for yourselves, then send in the IMF for 'austerity measures' for the people, who are being robbed blind with no say whatsoever in the matter. Business as usual.

True, we are clever white devils. :biggrin:

 

[rchiu]

As a dimocrat, its hard to feel sorry for Gaddafi who was in inhumane monster who murdered, tortured, his own people on a routine basis. And in numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

Yet what is hard to understand is the premise of this thread, sure it would have been noble if some detachment of Libyan rebels had treated the captured Gaddifi in a humane manner, but how it becomes a total indictment of the entire Libyan rebel movement is dubious. When the end question is and remains, will the people of Libya end up replacing one tyrant with another equally bad tyrant, or will the governance of Libya vastly improve? We don't know yet but it can hardly be worse.

In related news, Tunisia, the first jewel of the Arab spring, finally held elections and moderate forces won. As a democratic government replaces a dictatorship.

What is so hard to understand? You can blame the murder of Gaddafi without trial on the heat of the moment, but parading Gaddafi and his son's body in meat locker for all to see for days against their very own Sharia law? That is planned with a nod from the very top of the new leadership. That is a sign of barbaric people who talk about Sharia and rule of law on one hand and totally disregard the rule of law on the other.

Maybe it will turn out for the better, but from all evidence we have until today, things are not looking good. And no, things can easily be worse. Instead on strong man stealing/killing, there could be many strong man stealing and killing in Libya if the country plunge into civil war.

 

[bfdd]

you guys leave jst0rm alone, he likes being sheltered from the real world.

 

[JSt0rm]

you guys leave jst0rm alone, he likes being sheltered from the real world.

please. The real world is full of people desensitized to violence? As I said, its a choice we all make, at least I've made a conscious decision regarding violence.

Not all places on this earth are full of violent people. But then those places arent in the news so your simple mind probably doesnt think about them.

 

[gevorg]

Ask her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNeW9UhhO0

 

[Texashiker]

Ask her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNeW9UhhO0

To rejoice in the death of another person is sickening.

 

[kage69]

Would Ghaddafi still be dead if an American UAV hadn't spotted his convoy and called in the pain?

I seem to recall many Obama haters wanting us to pull the support from Libya post haste.

 

[kage69]

The most articulate response yet was by conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan

Ouch!

 

[RampantAndroid]

Ouch!

By that guys crappy logic, Reagan would have REPLACED Rushmore, for his policies that ultimately toppled the USSR.

 

[dabuddha]

To rejoice in the death of another person is sickening.

I'm sure you were sad when bin laden was killed.

 

[zinfamous]

By that guys crappy logic, Reagan would have REPLACED Rushmore, for his policies that ultimately toppled the USSR.

wait, what?

lol.

 

[RampantAndroid]

wait, what?

lol.

600 ship navy. Star wars. Those are two of the huge ones. We dumped money into building a giant navy. USSR tried to match. We did star wars (and hey look - people called it impossible. It's been deployed in alaska, and it works) - the USSR was already a bit unstable and didn't have the resources to spend on building up their armed forces. Reagan also worked with Gorbachev quite a bit.

Here, this seems to cover a decent amount of info well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#End_of_the_Cold_War

What's more impressive - being a major player in ending the cold war, or doing a few surgical strikes? It's not like Obama led the attacks, either. He just gave the go ahead.

 

[zinfamous]

600 ship navy. Star wars. Those are two of the huge ones. We dumped money into building a giant navy. USSR tried to match. We did star wars (and hey look - people called it impossible. It's been deployed in alaska, and it works) - the USSR was already a bit unstable and didn't have the resources to spend on building up their armed forces. Reagan also worked with Gorbachev quite a bit.

Here, this seems to cover a decent amount of info well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#End_of_the_Cold_War

What's more impressive - being a major player in ending the cold war, or doing a few surgical strikes? It's not like Obama led the attacks, either. He just gave the go ahead.

lol, first line in that section:

Reagan spent lots of his presidency time trying to stop the cold war.

I guess this was written by the typical illiterate Reaganite.

The Soviet Union was brought down by internal mismanagement, dissatisfaction amongst the elite--particularly with Gorbechev, which ultimately lead to the attempted coup--and revolution amongst the many occupied territories of the Soviet Union, especially the Baltic States.

It was a process that began before Regan was in office and was well underway and unavoidable. Reagan was around to give support to his "pal" Gorbachev, seen by those who suck at the nutsack of Reagan as some sort of hero, but seen by those occupied under Soviet tyranny as a monster for, you know--sending tanks into their country to murder them when they dared revolt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

here's an article about the soviet union. I'm sure a happy Reagan article is gong to paint the picture it wants to paint--it will certainly never be accurate.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Reagan was around to give support to his "pal" Gorbachev

Sorry, stopped reading there. The "reagan had no effect" idea is based mostly on Christopher Jones writing...which has since been largely written off as ignoring the facts. Was the USSR going to collapse on it's own? Yes. Did Reagan speed it up? Very definitely.

But you can go back to your lala land now.

 

[zinfamous]

Ah, you're a big Reagan guy. damn...thought you were a real Conservative.

Reagan was more liberal than Clinton, you know.

And yes, he was buddies with Gorby.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

The USA strung up Saddam. How civilized of us.

Dictators usually face violent deaths. Either at the hands of the people they've oppressed or the people seeking to supplant them.

you're an idiot.

 

[BarneyFife]

The new government will be nice to us for a few years while send in billions we don't have and replace all their bombed out buildings. Then they will turn on us after they got their infrastructure and oil flowing. While the rest of you fools will be demanding we cut the pay of government workers and lay them all off. Got to love how fucked up this country is.

 

[bfdd]

please. The real world is full of people desensitized to violence? As I said, its a choice we all make, at least I've made a conscious decision regarding violence.

Not all places on this earth are full of violent people. But then those places arent in the news so your simple mind probably doesnt think about them.

there's a difference between being desensitized to violence and being so sheltered your world view shatters when you see it. violence is terrible, but it has its place and there's no good you do yourself or anyone else from hiding it from yourself. just show how weak of an individual you are.

 

[peonyu]

wait, what?

lol.

Reagan took down the USSR. And he did so without resorting to violence...Its well known that he did that.

 

[zinfamous]

Reagan took down the USSR. And he did so without resorting to violence...Its well known that he did that.

there isn't a facepalm large enough to capture the fail in this comment.

the kind of bullshit here, is so asinine, as to completely discredit--and very much insult--the populations of the occupied and tyrannized that fought for decades--on their own--for their own freedom.

without violence?

were you on the streets in Talin or Riga or Vilnius when Gorby sent in his tanks?

Reagan gave some speeches. The process was well on its way, before that. He really did nothing but use the momentum to deflect attention from his selling weapons to our enemies in Iran, and the fact that he cut the CDC HIV team, as he very much saw the burgeoning AIDs epidemic as an easy solution to "the gay problem."

 

[mshan]

"Mlegta said his information came from intelligence sources who told him that Saif al-Islam and Senussi were trying to broker a deal to surrender to the court through a neighboring country, which he did not name. They had concluded that it was not safe for them to remain in Libya, or to go to Algeria or Niger, two countries where Gaddafi family members are already sheltering.

"They feel that it is not safe for them to stay where they are or to go anywhere," Mlegta said.

In any case, they said that Niger was asking for too much money for them to stay."

http://news.yahoo.com/gaddafi-son-intelligence-chief-want-surrender-icc-152418513.html

Guess they don't want a stick rammed up their arses, or more likely fear being torn to pieces by the angry mob that finds them...