^^^^
so true

cap28:

^^^^
so true

Yes, but neither the west nor the african leaders care as long as they are well off at the
end of the day.

for africa to move on all the old leaders have to be killed off because they are like giant iroko trees
with deep, wide-spread demonic roots.
Off with their heads i say.

Our leaders are the worst in the world and africa remains the dark continent.

there's a bit of similarity. in libya, ghadaffi has ruled for 40 years, in nigeria the same groups of families have ruled for 50 years.

Kadhafi is lucky that America is having demo president.

This crisis will not end now but will spread to the arab world. Now Iran will develop an Atomic Bomb by fear of western attacks.

The UN and the West have ended up shooting themselves in the foot as there is credible information that Alqueda and Hezbollah have infiltrated the rebels they are seeking to arm to drive Ghaddafi out



Nice thread though, good to see majority of posters have opened their eyes to see what is really going on

Enough of the 'conspiracy' theories about Western desires for oil.

Let me give an 'insiders' view on this matter. Most western companies did get lucrative oil deals with Libya/Ghaddafi, and many were investing hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration activities, hoping to produce in the next 4-5 years and make some of that money back. With Ghaddafi's acceptance, the going was extremely good.

As recently as early February, the western companies were optimistic that the unrest would not get into Libya and they would continue business as usual, producing/exploring for oil and going about their business - there was NO INTEREST in getting the same 'revolution' in Libya. Most even said it would never happen.

Foreign oil workers were moving to Tripoli to live with their families, while in neighbouring Algeria, workers were only allowed to come alone without families due to perceived insecurity and threat to life.

Bottom line: the oil companies and other western companies had little/nothing to gain in inciting violence or arming rebels. They had nothing to gain in removing Ghaddafi as they had signed good deals and were progressing rapidly, without the insecurity faced in places like Iraq and Nigeria.

There is little or no commercial benefit being obtained from this war - companies have had to pull out their workers, suspend billion dollar exploration programs, continue paying hundreds of Libyan employees not doing any work, rescue families etc. 4-5 year plans have been disrupted, with no sign of when they will be able to recommence.

Most of the western commercial companies would rather deal with Ghaddafi than go through this logjam - they don't really care who is ruling as long as they can go about their business without disruption. That's the truth.

ENI/Agip was even telling the EU NOT to place sanctions on Ghaddafi so they could continue producing oil and gas, and the Italians are offering exile for him in Italy so they can continue their business unhindered - anything to resume business and not prolong the conflict.

To think the west is sponsoring this is sheer stupidity. Mubarak was the US’ best friend - they didn’t want him out till it emerged the Egyptian citizens would not stand him any longer.

Western economies are LOSING as a result of this conflict - paying higher oil and gas prices, and spending heavily militarily in a time of budget austerity. How that translates to 'replenishing' their 'stressed out' economies is beyond me.

Even in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the new production revenue goes to the Iraqis, with western companies making on average $3 per barrel, while the Iraqis make $50+ per barrel.

How will it end? I suspect will be a long drawn out conflict just like Iraq, with the country partly divided like Northern Iraq and the rest of Iraq controlled by Saddam, with an eventual push to get rid of Ghaddafi.

Enough of blaming the west - it is the greedy ones among us that support these corrupt dictators and keep them in power that should be blamed. We are our own worst enemies.

Yeah, they are doing it to liberate the people of Libya Indeed

Glad to hear Ghadaffi's regime is startingto crumble from within, so that they can get it over with and go save the other Countries at the mercies of their dictator leaders

Heheheh. . . .did I say they were doing it to 'save' the Libyans?

There are many motivating factors here:

1. The French: They were accused of being too cozy with the Tunisian 'leaders', even flying on their private jets and accepting holidays. Ditto with the Egyptian dictators. As a result, they now feel a need to 'redeem' themselves and side with the ordinary people instead of the dictators, and show they can actually put the interests of people above their own benefits.

2. Ghaddafi has a reputation - the last time this type of 'rebellion' happened, he killed thousands without mercy. The last time it happened, they bombed him temporarily and sent a signal. If the West refused to intervene this time, the commentary will be 'it's because they've signed fat lucrative oil deals that they are now looking the other way as Ghaddafi does what he does best'. The classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

3. Libya is VERY CLOSE to Southern Europe. Already immigrants flowing through Libya has been a recurring issue over the years. If you allow Ghaddafi to start killing people off for fun, the exodus into Southern Europe will be massive, causing further strain on already immigrant-heavy and increasingly intolerant societies. A classic case of a stitch in time saves nine - you either stop the problem in Libya or deal with it when it arrives on your doorstep. They have simply taken the lesser of two evils.

I actually believe the West were fooled by Muammar. They thought he had 'changed' and had 'repented'. If they kept him isolated, perhaps there would be less talk about being complicit with the regime initially, selling them arms, signing contracts and and now trying to appear to be holier than thou when the regime does what it's always done.

debosky i take it then that you beleive that the intervention was done on humanitarian grounds?

if this is the case - can you explain why in 1999 shell preferred to call in govt troops to shoot and kill unarmed ogoni protesters -  how come shell and the UK govt were not interested in protecting the lives of civillians in that instance?

why were the govt troops who were responsible for killing, raping and maiming civillians in ogoni on shell's payroll?  

also why did the british govt not intervene to stop the extra judicial execution of ken saro wiwa by the abacha regime?

Debosky vs Cap28

Ehn hen, this is one debate between two of my fav people that i'd even pay to watch, oya roll on the whacchumacallit, ding dong round one, no hitting below the belt for my sake though

@ cap28

Read my post above - I never claimed it was 'humanitarian' as such.

cap28:

can you explain why in 1999 shell preferred to call in govt troops to shoot and kill unarmed ogoni protesters -  how come shell and the UK govt were not interested in protecting the lives of civillians in that instance?

why were the govt troops who were responsible for killing, despoiling and maiming civillians in ogoni on shell's payroll?  

also why did the british govt not intervene to stop the extra judicial execution of ken saro wiwa by the abacha regime?

While I cannot 'explain' official Shell or UK govt's positions, I can point out the differences between the two situations.

Ken Saro Wiwa was 'convicted' by a court - that is completely different from the Libya case.

In my own opinion it is ultimately a numbers game - tens of protesters are killed regularly in countries all over the world (like Ogoni) without Western intervention.

Those cases are completely different from a brutal dictator telling an entire city of over a million people that  'we are coming to get you - we will fish you out and deal with all the traitors'. Someone who has pedigree for killing thousands without blinking an eye is completely different from the above example.

debosky:

@ cap28

Read my post above - I never claimed it was 'humanitarian' as such.

While I cannot 'explain' official Shell or UK govt's positions, I can point out the differences between the two situations.

Ken Saro Wiwa was 'convicted' by a court - that is completely different from the Libya case.

In my own opinion it is ultimately a numbers game - tens of protesters are killed regularly in countries all over the world (like Ogoni) without Western intervention.

Those cases are completely different from a brutal dictator telling an entire city of over a million people that  'we are coming to get you - we will fish you out and deal with all the traitors'. Someone who has pedigree for killing thousands without blinking an eye is completely different from the above example.

Ken Saro Wiwa  was tried by way of a military tribunal - an indpendent observer had this to say about the proceedings:

A Report into Saro-Wiwa’s trial written by leading British counsel, Michael Birnbaum QC,
concluded “It is my view that the breaches of fundamental rights are so serious as to arouse grave
concern that any trial before this tribunal will be fundamentally flawed and unfair”.

and yet shell and the british govt were quite happy to look the other way while he was sentenced to death and executed by this kangaroo court

Gadaffi has not killed anywhere near the number of people that successive nigerian govts have killed  - have you forgotten the biafran war ? whose side did the british govt arm and protect? - igbos who were being massacred in their thousands in the north or the northerners who colluded with them to appropriate the oil reserves.
also isnt it hypocritical for the US to accuse gadaffi of killing armed rebels who are trying to overthrow his govt when they are in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan using drones to kill unarmed civillians?

by the way gaddafis' threats were directed at the rebels and not the entire city of benghazi,  if you are guilty of trying to overthrow a legitimate govt the penalty is usually death.
how many coup plotters do you know of in nigeria who have ever been spared execution ?

In my personal opinion, they are giving a dog a bad name so they can hang it.

All of a sudden Ghadaffi is a mad man who is bombing his own people. Right. . . . . What next Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez?

In my opinion, he was attacking rebel forces that wanted to overthrow his government. I am sure this is allowed in any sovereign country.

He is a dictator? Then they need to start invading a lot of African countries with dictators in power for years.

Humanitarian grounds? Then we should focus on China or Ivory Coast for example where there seems to be more need for humanitarian responses for oppressed people.

Forget the conspiracy theory guys. . . . don't let it distract us. Still, we should be wise enough to see beyond the political facade being painted for us.

cap28:

Ken Saro Wiwa  was tried by way of a military tribunal - an indpendent observer had this to say about the proceedings:

and yet shell and the british govt were quite happy to look the other way while he was sentenced to death and executed by this kangaroo court

The point is that he was convicted in a legal process. There is no comparison between this incident and the Libya case of summary killings.  

The British did not interfere in this process in the same way they don't interfere with convictions in other countries where they don't think justice has been done. Besides, sanctions were imposed on Nigeria - they didn't just 'look away'.

Gadaffi has not killed anywhere near the number of people that successive nigerian govts have killed  - have you forgotten the biafran war ? whose side did the british govt arm and protect? - igbos who were being massacred in their thousands in the north or the northerners who colluded with them to appropriate the oil reserves.

Let’s not distract from the issue at hand here - Biafra was a civil war precipitated by tribal/religious killings, not by a dictator intending to repress all its citizens to retain control and carrying out routine killing of any opposition. This is not the case in Libya.

I do not know of cases in Nigeria where 1,200 political prisoners have been killed in one go simply because of their opposition to the government. I don’t know cases where mercenaries and snipers are sent into Nigerian cities to pick off civilians whose only crime was to say ‘we don’t want you as leader’.

also isnt it hypocritical for the US to accuse gadaffi of killing armed rebels who are trying to overthrow his govt when they are in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan using drones to kill unarmed civillians?

Again you are distracting from the issue at hand - if you want to debate civilians being killed worldwide regardless of motive/aim, do that on a separate thread. The US intent is not to kill unarmed civilians but to attack armed insurgents intent on killing others or engaging in acts of terror. This is again different from Ghaddafi who has killed thousands of innocent civilians for the sole purpose of retaining control against the people’s will.

by the way gaddafis' threats were directed at the rebels and not the entire city of benghazi,  if you are guilty of trying to overthrow a legitimate govt the penalty is usually death.

The Ghaddafi regime is not legitimate - it is unelected and was never chosen by the Libyan people. Ghaddafi has sent snipers, mercenaries and others to kill innocent civilians and shelled hospitals. Those acts were not directed at ‘rebels’.

This is the KEY difference between Libya and the other middle eastern ‘protests’ - those countries removed their elected leaders by popular revolt, without being attacked by their own government, while Ghaddafi has chosen to kill his own people simply to retain power.

silentc:

In my personal opinion, they are giving a dog a bad name so they can hang it.

All of a sudden Ghadaffi is a mad man who is bombing his own people. Right. . . . . What next Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez?

Is Castro bombing his people? Is Chavez? Are they paying mercenaries wearing yellow hats to kill their own people Castro and Chavez  hold different ideologies, but are not quelling rebellion with mass killings in their thousands. Chavez is democratically elected and Castro isn't killing his own people in their thousands.

In my opinion, he was attacking rebel forces that wanted to overthrow his government. I am sure this is allowed in any sovereign country.

Ghaddafi's clearly isn't considered legitimate - neither by its own people nor by outsiders. Not only by the west but by fellow Arabs as well.

Humanitarian grounds? Then we should focus on China or Ivory Coast for example where there seems to be more need for humanitarian responses for oppressed people.

The Arabs went to the UN and called for action - they are supporting the military action with their own forces. Africans are however supporting Libya's killing of it's own people - why should others be more concerned about your plight than you are?

With regards to China, I don't see the Chinese government bombing cities full of civilians or sending in snipers to attack hospitals. Their government is instead bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty annually. Spot the differences.

debosky:

Heheheh. . . .did I say they were doing it to 'save' the Libyans?

There are many motivating factors here:

1. The French: They were accused of being too cozy with the Tunisian 'leaders', even flying on their private jets and accepting holidays. Ditto with the Egyptian dictators. As a result, they now feel a need to 'redeem' themselves and side with the ordinary people instead of the dictators, and show they can actually put the interests of people above their own benefits.

Ok so according to your reasoning its legitimate to kill civilains, arm rebels and change a sovereign country's regime to 'redeem' ones image? If thats the case i suggest the french cabinet should go and join Pastor Adeboyes Redeemed Christian Church of God Church.

debosky:


2. Ghaddafi has a reputation - the last time this type of 'rebellion' happened, he killed thousands without mercy. The last time it happened, they bombed him temporarily and sent a signal. If the West refused to intervene this time, the commentary will be 'it's because they've signed fat lucrative oil deals that they are now looking the other way as Ghaddafi does what he does best'. The classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

who is “they”, I think you are referring to the USA's unilateral bombing in the late 80s which killed Gaddaffis daughter.  Your response is a mess with all due respect, I will tell you why:
Ghaddafi has never allowed the west to have ANY oil deal which is demeaning to his country, which is precisely why this bombing is taking place.

If you look behind Ghaddafi, when he used to make his lengthy speeches he had a picture of Nkurumah and Lumumba –  Lumumba was killed and  Nkurumah was deposed in a coup and died in exile.  Now Ghana and the Congo are now poor and completely subservient to the west - this is history repeating itself. 

debosky:

3. Libya is VERY CLOSE to Southern Europe. Already  immigrants flowing through Libya has been a recurring issue over the years. If you allow Ghaddafi to start killing people off for fun,

Killing people for fun?

debosky:


the exodus into Southern Europe will be massive, causing further strain on already immigrant-heavy and increasingly intolerant societies. A classic case of a stitch in time saves nine - you either stop the problem in Libya or deal with it when it arrives on your doorstep. They have simply taken the lesser of two evils.

You have swallowed all the propaganda, even Africa takes more refugees than Europe; secondly, to suggest that the Europeans have been idle and have not been trying to stem the flow of immigrants is ridiculous – Europe is like a fortress! Have you forgotten Morroco as a gateway to Europe?

[size=13pt]Do you think that arming wayward rebels so close to the coast of Europe will increase European security? [/size]   (UK and US confirmed they will arm them ASAP!) There is evidence that most of these terrorist, I mean rebels (we need to change their names for libya) are Mujahideen fighters who have fought all over Afghanistan and Iraq.  Infact there is evidence to confirm that the HIGHEST number of Mujahideen fighters in Iraq came from Libya.

debosky:


I actually believe the West were fooled by Muammar. They thought he had 'changed' and had 'repented'. If they kept him isolated, perhaps there would be less talk about being complicit with the regime initially, selling them arms, signing contracts and and now trying to appear to be holier than thou when the regime does what it's always done.

You have confirmed that this is all about double standards and again you have made a weak case for their actions. Subjective reasons like “I thought you had changed” is not a reason to unload 130 bombs on a country every day.  Libya was no threat to the west,  Ghaddafi's government was simply trying to quell an ilegal uprising.

2muchlogic:

Ok so according to your reasoning its legitimate to kill civilains, arm rebels and change a sovereign country's regime to 'redeem' ones image? If thats the case i suggest the french cabinet should go and join Pastor Adeboyes Redeemed Christian Church of God Church.

Did I deem it legitimate?

I stated motives and didn't discuss legitimacy. Legitimacy is as a result of UN Resolution 1973.

who is “they”, I think you are referring to the USA's unilateral bombing in the late 80s which killed Gaddaffis daughter.  Your response is a mess with all due respect, I will tell you why:
Ghaddafi has never allowed the west to have ANY oil deal which is demeaning to his country, which is precisely why this bombing is taking place.

Total produces from Libya, ENI/Agip produces from Libya. Shell and BP are exploring in Libya. ConocoPhillips recently made a discovery in Libya. Are all those not Western Companies? You are displaying an astonishing lack of logic my friend.

If you look behind Ghaddafi, when he used to make his lengthy speeches he had a picture of Nkurumah and Lumumba –  Lumumba was killed and  Nkurumah was deposed in a coup and died in exile.  Now Ghana and the Congo are now poor and completely subservient to the west - this is history repeating itself. 

So by putting pictures behind him he is no longer a mass murderer? So much for 2muchlogic

[size=13pt]Do you think that arming wayward rebels so close the coast of Europe will increase European security? [/size]   (UK and US confirmed they will arm them ASAP!) There is evidence that most of these terrorist, I mean rebels (we need to change their names for libya) are Mujahideen fighters who have fought all over Afghanistan and Iraq.  Infact there is evidence to confirm that the HIGHEST number of Mujahideen fighters in Iraq came from Libya.

Preventing mass killings by Ghaddafi will prevent mass migration of refugees.

You have confirmed that this is all about double standards and again you have made a weak case for their actions. Subjective reasons like “I thought you had changed” is not a reason to unload 130 bombs on a country every day.  Libya was no threat to the west,  Ghaddafi's government was simply trying to quell an ilegal uprising.

I am highlighting the motivations involved in the actions not 'making a case' for them - let people make up their own minds.

2muchlogic:


If you look behind Ghaddafi, when he used to make his lengthy speeches he had a picture of Nkurumah and Lumumba –  Lumumba was killed and  Nkurumah was deposed in a coup and died in exile.  Now Ghana and the Congo are now poor and completely subservient to the west - this is history repeating itself.  

Funny that John Stockwell the ex-CIA's expose, touched on this two leaders and categorically stated that the CIA ordered to have Lumumba eliminated to preserve "a half-billion- dollar investment in Zairian mineral resources and also played a major role in the overthrowing of Nkrumah


Hmmm, wonder what message Ghadaffi was trying to pass on

Debosky, under the current UNHCR convention on Refugees, Libyans are now more entitled to flee to other safe countries to claim Asylum because of these UN/FRANCE/THE WEST coalition jagbajantis currently going on in their Country, UNLESS MEASURES ARE PUT IN PLACE TO BLOCK LIBYANS FROM LEAVING THE COUNTRY


Me sef dey go claim I be libyan, I am tired of claiming I come from Bakassi, I want to relocate to Amelikka once i get discharged from yabaleft

Busy_body:


Funny that John Stockwell the ex-CIA's expose, touched on this two leaders and categorically stated that the CIA ordered to have Lumumba eliminated to preserve "a half-billion- dollar investment in Zairian mineral resources and also played a major role in the overthrowing of Nkrumah


Hmmm, wonder what message Ghadaffi was trying to pass on

Busy_body:

Debosky, under the current UNHCR convention on Refugees, Libyans are now more entitled to flee to other safe countries to claim Asylum because of these UN/FRANCE/THE WEST coalition jagbajantis currently going on in their Country, UNLESS MEASURES ARE PUT IN PLACE TO BLOCK LIBYANS FROM LEAVING THE COUNTRY

Me sef dey go claim I be libyan, I am tired of claiming I come from Bakassi, I want to relocate to Amelikka once i get discharged from yabaleft

The UN air strikes have had little or no civilian impact, so it doesn't create any reason to flee. Libyans won't leave their country unless they are attacked by Ghaddafi - they have no reason to otherwise.

Without a corrupt regime at the helm the Libyans should be rolling with the Qataris and Emiratis in terms of personal wealth.

It is an insult to the memories of Nkrumah and Lumumba to compare them to a despot like Ghaddafi.

debosky:

Did I deem it legitimate? 

I stated motives and didn't discuss legitimacy. Legitimacy is as a result of UN Resolution 1973.

I think it paramount that the rule of law should take precednce when lives are at stake don't you?

                                       You've said it yourself: --    “I stated motives and didn't discuss legitimacy”

You conviniently left out legitimacy because the actions were illegitimate

debosky:

Total produces from Libya, ENI/Agip produces from Libya. Shell and BP are exploring in Libya. ConocoPhillips recently made a discovery in Libya. Are all those not Western Companies? You are displaying an astonishing lack of logic my friend.

I will once again give a constructive, logiacal answer:
You said “BP are exploring”, that means BP are lagging behind the italian oil companies in Libya. Furthermore, billions of dollars were wiped off of BPs shares last year due to the environmental degradation caused in the Gulf of Mexico.  Now bear in mind that BP is Britains pride and joy and its biggest company but it was only allowed in because of tony Blair and was not given a free reign like in Nigeria. 

The oil hungry nations of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia were all in the cold whilst Ghaddafi had a good relationship with the Italians.  Why the Italians?  because they agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation, plus an apology for COLONIALISM! Russia's state owned oil company (stolen from its richest oligarch) has now joined up with BP and have agreed to share all profits 50/50. So that leaves China, China has secured all of Africas remaining oil wells. Do you get it now debo?

debosky:

Preventing mass killings by Ghaddafi will prevent mass migration of refugees.

Killing, to prevent  mass killings by Ghaddafi will increase mass migration of refugees and decrease the security of western europe.   

debosky:

I am highlighting the motivations involved in the actions not 'making a case' for them - let people make up their own minds.

I started this thread to listen to what people think will be the conclusion of this unfortunate episode thats all 

2muchlogic:

I think it paramount that the rule of law should take precednce when lives are at stake don't you?

                                       You've said it yourself: --    “I stated motives and didn't discuss legitimacy”

You conviniently left out legitimacy because the actions were illegitimate

The actions are legitimate as far as the legal process to authorize intervention in a sovereign country. This is covered under UN Resolution 1973. Debating legitimacy in the face of a UN resolution is redundant to me.

I will once again give a constructive, logiacal answer:
You said “BP are exploring”, that means BP are lagging behind the italian oil companies in Libya.

Is Italy not now a Western country? You claimed that no western countries were given deals by Ghaddafi and that is FALSE. At least be ‘logical’ enough to admit that.

Furthermore, regardless of whether BP and Shell are exploring or producing, they were given deals by Ghaddafi, so again, the deals have been given.

The oil hungry nations of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia were all in the cold whilst Ghaddafi had a good relationship with the Italians. Why the Italians? because they agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation, plus an apology for COLONIALISM! Russia's state owned oil company (stolen from its richest oligarch) has now joined up with BP and have agreed to share all profits 50/50. So that leaves China, China has secured all of Africas remaining oil wells. Do you get it now debo?

Canada has more oil reserves than Nigeria yet they are ‘oil hungry’? This your logic na wa oh!

What does Australia have to do in all this? Australia is not interested in Libyan oil when they are increasing discoveries in their own backyard.

The fact remains that the western oil companies were highly welcome in Libya by Ghaddafi - which removes the false notion that the attacks are because they want access to oil. They already had access to the oil already.

Killing, to prevent mass killings by Ghaddafi will increase mass migration of refugees and decrease the security of western europe.

We shall see.

debosky:

The UN air strikes have had little or no civilian impact, so it doesn't create any reason to flee. Libyans won't leave their country unless they are attacked by Ghaddafi - they have no reason to otherwise.

Without a corrupt regime at the helm the Libyans should be rolling with the Qataris and Emiratis in terms of personal wealth.

It is an insult to the memories of Nkrumah and Lumumba to compare them to a despot like Ghaddafi.

No reason to flee Is the lack of employment, lack of basic standard of living, and the other reasons the youth gave for the recent uprising going to resolve itself overnight? You mean like Japan, their roads would be rebuilt and leadership would change hands and democracy would kick in and all will be hunkydory in 6 days, just like that

I can see Iraqis have started rubbing shoulders with the Emiratis and Qataris in terms of wealth, yeah, maybe i should forgo American citizenship and claim Iraq instead What say you? You coming too

debosky:

The point is that he was convicted in a legal process. There is no comparison between this incident and the Libya case of summary killings.

im sorry but trying a civillian by way of a military tribunal and not in a criminal court before a jury of his  peers IS NOT a legitimate legal process , thats why his execution was deemed extra judicial - something the british govt were well aware of but chose to ignore, the same british govt who we are now being told wish to protect the lives of libyan civillians from a supposedly deranged dictator.  what is the difference between an extra judicial killing and alleged summary exeuctions?

The British did not interfere in this process in the same way they don't interfere with convictions in other countries where they don't think justice has been done. Besides, sanctions were imposed on Nigeria - they didn't just 'look away'.

The fact of the matter is that this was not some random isolated miscarriage of justice case, this case involved one of their biggest and most powerful multinationals the british govt  were being briefed regularly on this case but at the crucial moment when they could have stopped saro wiwa's execution they simply looked the other way.

by the way economic Sanctions have also been imposed on libya why the need to go even further with this military intervention?

after all the UN charter states that member states are not supposed to launch unprovoked military attacks on fellow member states.

Let’s not distract from the issue at hand here - Biafra was a civil war precipitated by tribal/religious killings, not by a dictator intending to repress all its citizens to retain control and carrying out routine killing of any opposition. This is not the case in Libya.

in the case of the events which led up to the biafran civil war   - unarmed igbo civillians were being massacred by northerners with the complicity of the state apparatus, the state had therefore failed in its duty to protect the safety of its own citizens and yet the british never intervened, now in the case of libya ARMED REBELS attempt to overthrow their own govt and the british scramble to protect them - can you not see that the position that the UK govt has taken is breathtaking in its hypocrisy?

I do not know of cases in Nigeria where 1,200 political prisoners have been killed in one go simply because of their opposition to the government. I don’t know cases where mercenaries and snipers are sent into Nigerian cities to pick off civilians whose only crime was to say ‘we don’t want you as leader’.

first of all the story about gadaffi shooting at unarmed protesters has never been corroborated with evidence, infact it has since been denied by the russian military, also i dont know where you are getting that figure of 1,200 from, as far as im aware the death toll in libya before the military invasion by the west was not in the thousands.

also the fact that you are not aware of the number of political prisoners that have died in nigerian prisons does not mean that they do not run in the thousands.  obasanjo instructed his troops to drop bombs on unarmed civillians in odi and gbamaratu resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives,  why didnt the UK govt intervene and impose a no fly zone over that area?

Again you are distracting from the issue at hand - if you want to debate civilians being killed worldwide regardless of motive/aim, do that on a separate thread. The US intent is not to kill unarmed civilians but to attack armed insurgents intent on killing others or engaging in acts of terror. This is again different from Ghaddafi who has killed thousands of innocent civilians for the sole purpose of retaining control against the people’s will.

Gadaffi has not been killing unarmed civillians he is merely defending his regime from overthrow by a group of armed rebels.

The Ghaddafi regime is not legitimate - it is unelected and was never chosen by the Libyan people. Ghaddafi has sent snipers, mercenaries and others to kill innocent civilians and shelled hospitals. Those acts were not directed at ‘rebels’.

ive discussed this with you already, gadaffi's govt is legitimate - he came to power through a people's revolution and he has had the backing of his people for 4 decades - if that isnt legitimacy i dont know what is, by the same token the saudi and bahraini monarchy's should also be deemed illegimate given that they too are unelected, autocratic in nature and have been around for even longer than gaddaffi's regime.

This is the KEY difference between Libya and the other middle eastern ‘protests’ - those countries removed their elected leaders by popular revolt, without being attacked by their own government, while Ghaddafi has chosen to kill his own people simply to retain power.

saudi protesters who attempted to revolt were shot and killed by their police,

in bahrain protesters were even being shot and killed by saudi police at point blank range:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-protester-shot-video_n_836468.html

In yemen protesters were also shot and killed in the streets by their police - has US/UK intervened or threatened sanctions or  no fly zones over those countries?

debosky:


Is Italy not now a Western country? You claimed that no western countries were given deals by Ghaddafi and that is FALSE. At least be ‘logical’ enough to admit that.

'logical  this', 'logical that', whats the obsession with my screen name?    its better than debby
I made it clear why  Ghaddafi was fine with the Italians, they yeilded to his legitimate demands.  The equivalent would be for Nigeria to tell Britain to pay compensation for all  attrocities committed during colonialism, with an apology before they can be awarded lucrative oil contracts that would benefit BOTH countries.

debosky:


Canada has more oil reserves than Nigeria yet they are ‘oil hungry’? This your logic na wa oh!

Don't get over excited debo, whilst canada is indeed not an oil hungry nation; however, Canada's role in this is due to its alliance with NATO just like Italy – they have no choice but to support any military action that NATO decides to carry out. Thats why Italy is trying desperately to end these attacks to protect their interests.

debosky:

What does Australia have to do in all this?

Are they not supporting NATO?

debosky:

[size=14pt]The fact remains that the western oil companies were highly welcome in Libya by Ghaddafi [/size]

well, there is no harm in dreaming

@Debosky,
it's either you are a spy on this forum, or your are completely ignorant.
The writing is on the wall.
How come even the british people seem to know more of the truth than you.
You may want to follow sky news online, bbc online etc and read all their comments.
By the way you can just shut up to save your face, when you have been enlightened.

just to add debosky how come sarkozy isnt going haywire over the massacre of civillians that is currently taking place in ivory coast as we speak? let me see - cocoa is not worth getting worked up over?

and phantom23 you are 100% spot on, here in the UK - an overwhelming 7 out of 10 people oppose the UK's involvement in libya.

also it turns out that these "rebels" are actually genocidal racist al qaeda operatives who have been on MI6 payroll since the 90s, back in 1996 they attempted to assassinate Gadaffi.

here is american historian webster tarpley giving a brief summary of who these rebels are, where they come from, and also the fact that they have been massacring black african libyans and other black africans, he goes on to make the interesting point that many black libyans are from gadaffi's tribe and if the rebels succeed in overrunning western libya there will be a bloodbath of black libyans presided over as he puts it by a black american president and a black UN ambassador (susan rice):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_vR9RswSs&feature=channel_video_title

[b]I strongly disagree with Debosky and i could conveniently conclude that your arguments are sound but very academic. Going into details will only fester a frozen argument.

This is a commercial war and the west are desperately pushing it for their own selfish interest. Within a week, some bunch of rascals were armed to teeth . As if that is not enough, they hurriedly cconferredddiplomatic recognition on a rag-tag council only known by some strange aliases. Who are the sponsor- Libyans? These rebels are flexing their muscle based on the "oil- for-logistics- deal'' packaged by the West and their cohorts.


America has been very lethargic at championing this war because the Brits are the ultimate beneficiary of the post war Libya by virtue of their 'ontributions' to the imbroglio. The recent deal signed by BP with Ghaddaf is like is a binding IPSO on successful government. The worst that would be done is to further renegotiate the deal and tight loose ends.

But the good side of the story is that AlQeda/Hezbollah have infiltrated the rebels thus souring thier "perfect deal"

Granted thatGhaddaffi is worst than perfect and should have left power a very long time ago , heaven knows that this war is in Lybia is not between Ghaddafi and his country men but against the West.

But dont worry, modern history is littered with "resource-induced war" that were never won by their instigators. This war in Lybia cannot be won by those rogues. At the end of the day, the hen will surely come home to roost but then may be at a calamitous cost to Africa, Gulf and mankind in general.

This is a decade long problem, the West better wake up to the reality and do the right thing.

Damm the hypocrite!!!!![/b]