How many years has Libya been a thorn in the side of the World?

[DainBramaged]

Qaddafi came to power via uprising and eventually takeover, now he is being threatened (does the movie Red Dawn seem all to real now), Ronnie Raygun bombed his ass and he quieted down till recently, now that his 'people' are tired of his bullshit, he thinks, like all dictators, killing them will make them submit.


Personally, we should have taken his ass out decades ago, but, dictators serve Democracies when Democracies can't be dictatorial states but want to go past the boundaries of humanity.


Knowing what we know about the way our government is run, I really wonder if this isn't just the need to stabilize the price of oil more than the need to prevent more deaths in the region.......

[tabatha]

1. What reason would there have been to take him out before?

And is not that the thinking that it was OK to take out Saddam?

Saddam targeted his own people; but the US killed far more of them with boots on the ground.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. good questions-

and your last sentence is so sadly true.

[DainBramaged]

6. Hmmm, PanAm Flight 103 maybe?

Pan Am Flight 103: Qaddafi ordered it bombed, says Libyan minister


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0223/Pan-Am-Flight-103-Qaddafi-ordered-it-bombed-says-Libyan-minister

[Bluerthanblue]

8. didn't he cop to that and pay compensation before the Libyan

minister's accusation?

Like, a few years ago?

[David__77]

2. "Taken out?" There is a jingo virus on the loose.

I agree that the US should cease aid to reactionary, oppressive governments. I disagree that the US should seek to overthrow them. How about the US start acting like a responsible state that respects other states' sovereignty and seeks constructive cooperation. I bet in that case you'd see far fewer problems on the international scene, AND the US would be behaving morally.

[tabatha]

11. constructive cooperation

is exactly what many countries - UK, France, Germany, US - did in fact do with Gaddafi.

[David__77]

12. I don't support "coalition of the willing" cooperation.

I support cooperation based on sovereignty, not destruction of nation-states.

[tabatha]

13. I am not talking about today.

I am talking about when Bush got Gaddafi to get back into dealing with European and other countries - after which many invested in Libya.

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html

THAT IS THE COOPERATION I was talking about.

[Rozebella]

3. Of corrupt, oil-seeking governments

Does any one else remember Obama clearly proposing that government funds given to oil-drilling companies be given instead to green-technology research? How did that work out in the end? (this is a genuine question, not a failed attempt at sarcasm)

As America is not quite the super green machine, I'm guessing not so well. It's quite possible that we're trying to secure a nice, fat source of oil to fuel American traffic. But despite the ineptitude of many government officials, I don't think we're quite that stupid. If America went after the oil, then so would all the other countries who have even the slightest amount of influence in Libya. As long as we keeps up the we're-just-here-to-help gig, then everyone else has to refrain as well to avoid being nagged by the rest of the world. A scramble for oil in Libya would quickly escalate to violence, and nothing would be solved at all.

Also, we couldn't possibly just spontaneously bash Qaddafi to pieces because he acted like a dictator, smelled like a dictator, and thus so must be a dictator. The same way you can't shoot your neighbors because they play creepy music.

[Catherina]

5. Rec'd. You don't see the "take Gadafi out crowd" even breathing a word

Rec'd. You don't see the "take Gadafi out at all costs crowd" even breathing a word about the atrocities elsewhere. Something's quite wrong with this sudden passion to fight atrocities.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. where is this "take gadaffi out at all costs crowd" ?

Am I just blind, or is there really one here?

I agree that there are atrocities all over the place that should elicit the notice and condemnation of the world. I don't think that "we've" (the US) excitedly and enthusiastically jumped at the opportunity to "take Gadafi out"- People are complaining that we 'waited too long'-

:shrug:

can't win for losing in this place.

[WatsonT]

9. Not our responsibility to take down dictators

and if it were Qaddafi wouldn't be near the front of the list.

[old mark]

10. It is not "us"-it is NATO and the UN...France is doing the first fighting,

we might be using missiles against the air defense system, and the Brits are ready to do air attacks.
I am SURE we have special forces types on the ground and have for some time now.

I think we will get around to some of the other dictatorships as well.
We should have done this 30 years ago.

mark

[lonestarnot]

14. Dafur, don't they have any oil, or are they just tooo brown over there?

[Initech]

16. Maybe they're enacting George Carlin's "bigger dick foreign policy" theory.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. well Gaddafi's been somewhat involved in Darfur-

for awhile now.

http://www.africanews.com/site/Gaddafis_seeds_of_hatred_in_Darfur/list_messages/23381

[Initech]

15. If you want to stabilize the price, ban speculation.

[DainBramaged]

17. That would mean friend's of the Administration would become poor.....

:sarcasm: :hi: