BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:59 PM

Agreed. We'll let the fact that Teribus wears a blinker over one eye rest for now. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:41 PM

I fail to see what the Israelis have to do with this thread--no offense to anyone. The pro-con Israeli positions are clear for damned near everyone who's ever posted on a thread to do with the mid-East.

Hell, I could go back to older threads and c and p what most posters think--including myself--and I'd bet a buffalo head nickel that you'd not recognize the difference from an old post and one from today. imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:33 PM

In which case then Mr.Shaw answer my question:

"What countries has Israel attacked willy-nilly?"

Lebanon provocation entering od Israel by Hezbollah to kidnap two Israel soldiers followed by rocket attacks.

Israeli attacks on Gaza? 8,600 rocket attacks in the course of 8 years?? How would you respond?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:14 PM

Some nice misrepresentations there, Teribus. To take but one example, no mention of the atrocities committed in southern Lebanon in 2006 such as leaving tens of thousands of (American) cluster bomblets all over the countryside to blow children's legs off for years to come. You could also have referred to the illegal use of white phosphorus in Gaza and the deliberate targeting of civilians, not to speak of the brutal and pointless siege of Gaza. However, as has been said, 'tain't an Israel thread. My point was that we should not be supplying arms to countries who use them irresponsibly. And that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict was, until recent months, at the root of all middle east conflict for many decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:39 PM

I got into a slagging match with Steve a while back. We then traded a few messages and guess what? He's really a nice guy. Although I disagree with him about how we're handling Libya, I remembered that I once supported the invasion of Iraq based on the necessity for it as promulgated by those bastards in the White House and their friends in the media. I may have done so again regarding Libya, but maybe not.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:11 PM

Charley Noble: The media evidently has not picked up on the latest conspiracy theory posted by GfS. Where did this one come from or did you think it up yourself? Could you restate it? I'm not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic. I do hate to encourage you but I am genuinely puzzled."

Actually I got it off the media...and when I get more time, when I get back from town, tonight, I'll give you more info about it, unless someone else picks up on it, and fills you in.
I know, I was blown away, when I heard the 'ins and outs' of the details!..but when I heard it, it made complete sense..you know, like those things you hear, that says, "Yeah, that's it!"
Gotta go...last post I can do now...I'm late!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:32 PM

Steve: "You condemn Iran (a country that has never invaded another) for being cowardly in getting others to do its dirty work, whilst there's not a word from you about the egregious manner in which the US is doing exactly that by providing for Israel's massive army, and on a scale many times greater."

Steve, I'm glad to see a more serious post from you...that being said, Iran and the Iraqi war, in which killed over a million people, would seem to contradict some of you post. This was mostly a 'religious based conflict, (at least that's what was reported), but Iran did invade Iraq. Out of it, the U.S. supported Iraq, and it was not until the hostage taking in Iran, that we supplied Iraq, with arms (missiles), to secure their release. The cover story at that time was the swearing in of Ronald Reagan. If anyone can remember, that during the swearing in, the crawler beneath the video coverage, ran the hostage release story..but it had NOTHING to do with him being sworn in, but an arms deal in which Iraq threatened to, in effect, blackmail the U.S. based on their piecing together a lot of documents, both shredded, and not, that they had, when they took over the embassy. There are more details to in, but this should suffice to say, what took place, in an overview. By the way, the present leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of the organizers, and participants of the hostage takers...and just like the U.S. does support military efforts, to fight its proxy wars behind the scenes.
But, really Steve, it was good to see you post a 'less than sarcastic' post.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:24 PM

Please, if we're going bring up Israel .... let's don't bring up the history of Israel and it's past conflicts. I should have kept my mouth shut .... anyway, if we are going to brigng up Israel let's stay focused on the current concerns and how the events going on in the Arab countries, and world opinion will put Israel in a precarious position.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:06 PM

"If you're giving enough aid to enable a country to attack its neighbours willy-nilly and illegally occupy or besiege Palestinian land, not simply give it the wherewithal to defend itself, you are overdoing it in my book."

Which countries, what neighbours has Israel attacked "willy-nilly"?

1948: Israel itself was attacked inside the borders of the Territory that was then known as Palestine. The Jews of Palestine had accepted the UN's Plan proposed in 1947 and the Arabs of Palestine had rejected it, so when Israel declared itself an independent state the Arabs of Palestine assisted by the Arabs of Jordan, Syria and Egypt invaded the mandated Palestine Territory.

- The Israeli's fought to protect their borders,
- The Jordanians grabbed the West Bank and East Jerusalem and occupied them until 1967
- The Egyptians grabbed the Gaza Strip and occupied them until 1967

How is your argument about taking land from others by force of arms holding up?

1949 - 1956: Raids and attacks on Israel from Syria, Jordan and Egypt

1956: Nasser nationalises the Suez canal closing it to Israeli shipping. Under the terms of the UN Charter it is an Act of War to close or restrict an international water-way, which the Suez canal most definitely is. The UK and france retake the canal and Israel clears the Egyptians from Sinai. UN place a Peacekeeping Force in Sinai to prevent further Fedayeen attacks on Israel from Egypt.

1957 - 1967: Attacks on Israel continue and the rhetoric is ramped up several notches. Egypt orders the UN Peacekeeping Force out of Sinai and the Arab world parks five armies on the borders of Israel vowing to drive the Jews into the sea. Egypt closes the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

1967: The Six Day War which Israel wins convincingly. Jordanians are booted out of the land they themselves illegally took and held by force in 1948 and the Egyptians are once again cleared out of Gaza and the Sinai. The Syrians lose the Golan Heights from where they had been shelling Israel for years. Two times now Israel and her Arab neighbours had signed UN brokered cease-fire agreements and on neither occasion had the Arabs lived up to their end of the bargain, so this time there was no automatic return to the ante-bellum borders, this time Israel was clear - Land For Formal Peace Treaties.

1973: The Yom Kippur War where Egypt and Syria carry-out an unprovoked attack on Israel to recapture land they had lost. Again Israel defeats her attackers convincingly.

1979: Egypt/Israeli Peace Treaty

1986: Israel having intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to stop PLO attacks on Northern Israel establishes a "buffer zone" in southern Lebanon, which it voluntarily withdraws from in 2000

1987: Palestinian Arabs declare the First Intifada

1994: Jordan/Israeli Peace Treaty

2000: Camp David Peace Proposals rejected by Arafat and the Second Intifada is declared by Arafat.

2005: Israel unilaterally withdraws from the Gaza Strip

2006: Attacks on Israel from South Lebanon and from the Gaza Strip

2008: Turkey acts a mediator in secret peace talks between Syria and israel

2008: Israel attacks Gaza (Between 2001 and 2008 8,600 rockets had been fired indiscriminately at Israel civilian centres of population).

There is no such country as "Palestine" - there never was. "Palestine" is a construct of Yasser Arafat, the greatest gangster and opportunist that the Arabs of palestine have ever had to suffer under (and by Christ his uncle took some beating, but good ol' Yasser managed it).

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 11:16 AM

"The resentment against Israel is growing at a fast pace in the western world. The fashion now is to blame Israel for all the issues happening in the mideast."

Hell as like, it may however be the fashion amongst the illiterate, the ignorant, the impressionable, the gullible and the easily led.

Well, it's hard to see how Israel could take the rap for recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc., but it's impossible to deny that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is at the root of nearly all the unrest in the region before that. In turn, by far the biggest factor helping to perpetuate that conflict is the unconditional bankrolling of Israel's military by the US. Without that, we would not have Hezbollah or Hamas. You condemn Iran (a country that has never invaded another) for being cowardly in getting others to do its dirty work, whilst there's not a word from you about the egregious manner in which the US is doing exactly that by providing for Israel's massive army, and on a scale many times greater. I'm not one of those who would wish Israel to be wiped off the map, neither do I think that the west shouldn't have friendly relations with Israel. But I do think that military aid should be conditional on responsible and legal military behaviour, and I think there should be far less of that aid. If you're giving enough aid to enable a country to attack its neighbours willy-nilly and illegally occupy or besiege Palestinian land, not simply give it the wherewithal to defend itself, you are overdoing it in my book. I don't think for one second that there are significant threats looming on Israel's borders because of recent events. But the biggest threat to Israel is going to come from Israel itself, and that may well happen in the not too distant future when they attack Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:21 AM

Interesting that a Libyan owned oil company is demanding the return of British oil workers to start up it's oilfields - if they don't go, their contracts will be terminated. The person I spoke to will be telling them to get stuffed!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:04 AM

"This action (UN action in Libya I presume) gives precedent to allow Israel to be invaded by the other middle eastern anti Israel countries, with the support of the U.N., including us, whether it would be justified, or not."

What complete and utter tosh. In what way does this set a precedent that would allow military action to be taken against Israel? On what grounds? Military action by whom? Care to run through the likely candidates?

Lebanon:
Highly unlikely, Lebanon is just gearing itself up for the next chapter in it's own bloody civil war. If Hezbollah in Lebanon attempted anything against Israel they would be destroyed, along with much of southern Lebanon.

Syria:
Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'athist Party in Syria have got other things on their minds at the moment. Besides the Syrian Army or Air Force have never been a match for the IDF and they are fully aware of that. In 1973 Damascus was completely open to capture and all of Syria knew it - No Syria is not going to invade Israel.

Jordan:
The only Jordan that might invade Israel might be the British Z-list celebrity with the silicone boobs. King Abdullah II certainly isn't going to throw over the Peace deal with Israel signed by his Father because of any concern for "The Palestinians" (Pssst Remember it was his father King Hussain of Jordan that threw the bastards out of Jordan in 1970 after Yasser Arafat tried to take over his Kingdom)

Egypt:
They have just undergone a revolution of their own that their Army is at present quietly sitting on and watching very carefully. No they will not throw away the peace they signed with Israel.

That leaves who else??

Turkey:
Naw, not a hope, they are not that stupid

Iran:
Nope far too cowardly to fight anyone directly, they conduct all their dirty work by proxy, they prefer to pay others to die on their behalf.

"The resentment against Israel is growing at a fast pace in the western world. The fashion now is to blame Israel for all the issues happening in the mideast."

Hell as like, it may however be the fashion amongst the illiterate, the ignorant, the impressionable, the gullible and the easily led.

"For those who speak of genocide well, we have not seen anything yet. If the door is opened to legally sanction the military intervention against Israel all hell will break lose ... we are going to see acts of violence of man against man that we have not seen in decades."

No-one in their right minds in the middle-east, or anywhere else, is going to even propose military action against Israel let alone sanction it. The USA has a bilateral defence pact with Israel that is inviolate, anyone proposing military action against Israel in the UN Security Council will come up against a US Veto.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 09:32 AM

"I doubt whether the families of three quarters of a million dead Iraqi civilians would agree with you."

What three quarters of a million dead Iraqi civilians?

According to those responsible for clearing up the bodies and burying the dead in Iraq the number stands at somewhere around the 150,000 mark, most of those (between 67% and 75%) killed by fellow Iraqi's who were members of insurgent groups, sectarian militias or criminal gangs, a fair number were also killed by foreign jihadi "fighters" who came to Iraq to fight and kill the invading foreign infidels. Unfortunately for these "brave freedom fighters for Islam" they discovered very early on that the evil invading foreign infidels tended to fight back rather successfully, so those "brave freedom fighters for Islam" went back to what they do best, i.e. killing defenceless unarmed civilians, not caring a toss whether they were muslim or not.

Daily average death toll related to civilians in Iraq has been reduced by a factor of 87% when compared to the daily averages batted by Saddam Hussein in his 24 year reign.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 09:00 AM

GfS .... you got it. I can not help but beleive the door is now open to to justify military action against Israel (right or wrong). The resentment against Israel is growing at a fast pace in the western world. The fashion now is to blame Israel for all the issues happening in the mideast (sadly to say).

For those who speak of genocide well, we have not seen anything yet. If the door is opened to legally sanction the military intervention against Israel all hell will break lose ... we are going to see acts of violence of man against man that we have not seen in decades. I just hope the western world has the logistics and economics to perform a massive airlift. I also hope the western world has the humanity to take in to their countries the lucky ones who get out.

Hopefully I'm wrong with my predictions, but unfortunaly I can't see any hope with all that is going on.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 08:53 AM

So now that Obama has handed over leadership to NATO for implementing UN resolution 1973 on schedule, the Republicans now accuse him of lack of leadership. I guess in their minds, GWB's unilateral action on Iraq still rings true.

Of course US forces will still be involved within NATO and continuing to provide important functions. But now other countries, including Arab countries, are more willing to join in the effort.

Not a bad result for what a week ago looked like another bloodbath.

And so far reports of "collateral damage" seem relatively modest, even if all the claims by Gadhaffi's spokespeople turn out to be true.

GfS-

The media evidently has not picked up on the latest conspiracy theory posted by GfS. Where did this one come from or did you think it up yourself? Could you restate it? I'm not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic. I do hate to encourage you but I am genuinely puzzled.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:51 AM

When the USA and the UK act in concert things do happen, things do get done usually to the advantage of the people affected and in saying that I do include Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt whether the families of three quarters of a million dead Iraqi civilians would agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 04:48 AM

Mistake(typo) Third paragraph it should not be "poster" but 'posted'
Fix it, if you could, thank you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 04:00 AM

OK..It is being reported, that we already have 'boots on the ground'.(Special Forces, 'painting the target').

Also, this action has little to do with Qaddafi, or his abuses on his people. These are the cover story, and excuse. It has more to do a power play to take down Israel and the western economic system. This action gives precedent to allow Israel to be invaded by the other middle eastern anti Israel countries, with the support of the U.N., including us, whether it would be justified, or not.

Whether you support that idea or not, is really up to you, though, as I poster previously, this is a huge mistake! Obama was ill advised, and America is in the process of selling out our relationship with Israel.

That's all, but at least you heard it here first(maybe), on the good ol' Mudcat Forum.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:15 AM

"Frankly I'd like to see 'botg' in the Cote d'Ivoire, but is seems skin colour still matters in this world."

There are "botg" in the Ivory Coast - a UN Peacekeeping Force under French "command".

Not being very effective because they are severely constrained by UN rules relating to UN Peacekeeping Forces. Counter to popular misconceptions:

- UN Peacekeeping Forces do not "sort out situations"

- UN Peacekeeping Forces are limited as to what arms they can deploy, they have no tactical air cover, no artillery and no armour. In short they can just about defend themselves.

- UN Peacekeeping Forces do not in fact enforce a peace, they monitor it. The warring factions in any situation must have already stopped fighting before a UN Peacekeeping Force is deployed, i.e. there should already be a truce or ceasefire in place.

- Historically if that truce or ceasefire breaks down the UN Peacekeepers are withdrawn.

The US should stand aside from police actions if only to show its detractors what happens in bad situations where they do not intervene. Rest assured China and Russia will not intervene to save human life and protect civilians, they will wait for the dust to settle then go in and exploit the situation to their advantage. The French will intervene but will be extremely ineffective. When the USA and the UK act in concert things do happen, things do get done usually to the advantage of the people affected and in saying that I do include Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that there are many people in countries such as Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan (Darfur) and The Ivory Coast wish that the US and UK had got more involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 11:03 PM

Also, anybody who thinks a 38-year old LSE grad can smoothly slip into Gadhafi's many roles needs to read further.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 10:49 PM

Ah yes.   And there are in fact striking similarities between Gadhafi and Hitler:   specifically the structure of governance and and attitude towards dissent.    Gadhafi doesn't need to push for Lebensraum, both because of the small population, but also because he can and does exert much pressure in the region through "soft power"---specifically oil money.

And of course as far as I know he doesn't base aggression on race theory.

But a mass-murdering dictator he is-- and a rich one. Even with $30 billion-plus frozen outside Libya, he still has at least $5 billion in gold in Libya. And now he has every incentive to try to acquire nuclear weapons.   We have to certainly make sure he never even has a shadow of a claim to the $30 billion.   Having him shuffle off this mortal coil early would solve the problem neatly.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 10:36 PM

"Ron has not replied".    So sorry i have a life outside Mudcat.   You might want to try it sometime, LH. (Yeah, I know you're kidding. Sure you are.)   But it sure is interesting that you seem to be on Mudcat all the time.   Must have a rather undemanding job--and no other demands on your time by others in the house.



The question is if I have time to address all the specious arguments on the thread.

The answer is:   just enough now for a few points.

"lynch mob". Right.   For a mass-murdering dictator.

Good thing Churchill did not have this attitude.    And it was in fact very much in evidence at the time. The SIS did not take kindly to the SOE, which Churchill established 16 July 1940.    The SOE field included "terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders." Killing Hitler p 195.



And it's certainly not necessary to announce the $10 million bounty for Gadhafi.   Just see to it that the word gets to Gadhafi's own mercenaries. That's the main goal.


That's it for now. Have fun. I know you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 12:32 AM

What I've gathered from here and there:

Of the 22 towns/cities in north Libya, a few days back only three were held by the rebels. As of today, 10 were held by the rebels with three towns/cities being actively contested. People are expecting a humanitarian crisis as hospitals run short of supplies and people run short of food and water. NATO can't decide yet who's gonna take over command from the US. A naval blockade is being actively enforced.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 11:10 PM

Hmmmm. Any reports from the front?

Benghazi does have the reputation of sending more volunteers to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan than any other city in North Africa. One of their senior members Hakim Al Sady is part of the rebel governing council and would should assume that he would be deeply suspicious of the involvement of France, the UK, and the United States in the UN coalition but he might also be very grateful that they were able to chew up Gadhafi's armored column before it made mincemeat of Benghazi's rebellious residents.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: number 6
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 11:08 PM

999 ... I remember that line from MASH ... good one ... :-)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 11:06 PM

"no, it's not a war ... it's what they use to call a 'police action'"


I recall a line from the TV show, MASH. I think it was Pierce who said, "If this is a police action, why didn't they send cops?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 11:02 PM

FDR went to Congress and got an official declaration of war on Japan after Pearl Harbour. He later got the same Congressional approval to go to war against Germany and Italy. And that was the last time an American administration went through the proper constitutional motions of going to war...which require certain governmental and legal formalities and the consent of Congress (which represents the people).

Presidents since FDR have found it much more convenient to have wars which are not declared....and that means that what they have really done is to act like kings who launch wars by decree, in effect, as a solitary commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces. This may be convenient, but it is not constitutional...and it is the epitome of hypocrisy to claim that these bloody "police actions" are not wars. They are wars, with all the physical features that characterize a war.

The General Staff plans attacks and issues orders. Ships go to sea, aircraft take to the air, guns are fired, bombs are dropped, battles are fought on foreign land, and people die. That's a war. You can call it by any other name you want, you can say you were "asked to go in" by someone (and the Germans used to say that too...), but it's still a war, and the power to wage war is supposed to be given by Congress not by presidential will.

The reason the Constitution was set up that way was to prevent American presidents from becoming, like most European Kings, absolute rulers and dictators, because it is simply too dangerous to entrust the decision to go to war to one man. If you can't get it authorized by the elected Congress of the nation, it should not be allowed to go ahead at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: number 6
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 10:27 PM

"Quite agree bobad, the United States of America is currently at war with no-one - FACT"

ok ... it's not a war ... even though the FACT is military bombs have been dropped from planes and 158 cruise missiles have been fired at an enemy ... is it politically correct to call them an enemy if it isn't a war?

.
.

no, it's not a war ... it's what they use to call a 'police action' .. ;-]

good grief

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 08:17 PM

I agree. But think how happy the arms industry must be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: pdq
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 08:13 PM

I agree with you on most of what you said in the last few post. Certainly there is no reason to argue at any lenght.

I say Iraq, Afhganistan and now Lybia constitute "wars" and with two unfinished ones, having cost the US taxpayers $1.12 trillion dollars in the the last 9 1/2 years, should have kept us from starting a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 08:02 PM

I wasn't saying it was "imperialism", pdq, I was just saying it happened in various places during the colonial era, that's all. Whether one should call it imperialism or not is a whole different discussion.

If I'd been running the UK at the time, I might have done the same thing, after all. Who knows? But I'm saying that the boundaries drawn for many of those countries in Africa and the Middle East after WWI were probably drawn without full awareness of what the cultural aftereffects would be for the local people. To say this is not to be insulting "the West", it is simply to state what happened.

Larger powers always end up determining the future of various indigenous populations in weaker areas...for better or for worse. If we're going to argue about whether or not to call it "imperialism", it would be well to remember that there was a time not too long ago when every great power was proud to speak of its "empire". "Empire" was not a dirty word then, it was a badge of pride. When I was born in 1948, the British Empire still spoke proudly of itself and celebrated the fact that "the sun never sets on the British Empire".

Now, tell me....how can an empire NOT be imperial???? ;-) All empires practice imperialism, pdq, because to have an empire at all necessitates the practice of imperialism....and people used to be proud of themselves for doing it! Read some Rudyard Kipling, and you'll see that right away, although he was not blind to the aspirations of the subject races. He just honestly felt they were better off under British rule....and he may even have been partly right about that! After all, the British were good administrators, weren't they? And they kept the different ethnic groups under their rule from slaughtering each other. Look what happened when they finally left...not exactly a lovely scene, was it?

Yet, I believe it was inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: pdq
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 07:41 PM

"lines on a map, but without regard to the different tribal or cultural groups who would share that land under the colonial administration..." ~ Birdfeathers

No, you keep trying to paint all Western attempts at peace as being imperialism. They are not.

The British were given the job of building a viable country called Iraq out of three disparate regions, one dominated by Kurds, one by Sunni Arabs and the third by Shiites.

The thankless job was awarded to the Brits by the League of Nations after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in WW I. That job eventually fell to the US, and things are going better than most expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 07:27 PM

Very interesting info about the tribal affiliations in Libya, Teribus. It's another case of an artificial country created, like Iraq, by a colonial power that drew some nice lines on a map, but without regard to the different tribal or cultural groups who would share that land under the colonial administration...and after it left them to themselves.

I note that Ron has not replied to any of this with any "evidence" of his own...probably because he has none. ;-) He is thus hoist on his own petard.

****

I don't agree that the USA is not at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, because I don't particularly care about the arcane legal distinctions which politicians use to label one armed conflict or occupation as being "at war" and another one as something else. I think it's just lawyer's trickery, that gambit, and a war is a war, period, regardless of legal chicanery to the contrary, and anyone with half a grain of sense can see it's a war. But I don't expect we'll ever agree on that one, and who really gives a toss if we do, right? ;-) I know I don't. But it's something to talk about if one has the time and the inclination.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: pdq
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 07:26 PM

The United States Congress has not used the term "declaration of war" to authorize a military conflict since 1942. Still, we have had wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan and probably other nations.

I believe that the 1949 Geneva Conventions are so restrictive that no country wants to make a formal declaration of war and subject themselves to the onerous restrictions.

Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lybia have the regular US military squaring-off against the military of a sovereign country, not a terrorist group.

If anyone really thinks that is not "war", they need to do a better job of explaining why.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 07:12 PM

Ake, I think you and Steve Shaw are right to do so. There are aspects of UN 1973 that make this old boy a bit nervous. It actually mentions 'boots on the ground'.

Frankly I'd like to see 'botg' in the Cote d'Ivoire, but is seems skin colour still matters in this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 07:03 PM

Come on T, you know me better than that!

I'm simply pointing out the contradictions in our policy/adventure.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 06:41 PM

Billions in gold, currency and in property stowed away in various accounts and banks spread all over the world in Gaddafi and his familiy's names atests to the "kleptocracy" part.

Here's a bit more information on Muammar Gaddafi for you Akenaton, you being such an admirer of the man and his form of "government":

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

It makes interesting reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 05:07 PM

...the people of Libya want an end to a tribal kleptocracy that has been running the country for the last 40 years.

That may be true, or it may not be. Stating it doesn't prove it to be true.

It is clear that there are a lot of Libyans who want to get rid of him, but also that there are a lot of Libyans who support him. Which lot are more numerous is unclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 05:05 PM

Further to my post above, regarding Col Gadaffi's governance of Libya.

UN Human DevelopementReport 2010,rates Libya far higher than any other North African state, in terms of Health, Education and Income.

Libya...53rd. Tunisia...81st. Algeria...84th Egypt...101st. Morroco...114th.

"Moreover, Col Gadaffi probably does think that Al Quaeda is behind the rebellion in East Libya....as he has passed the names of hundreds of Islamic extremists to the CIA."

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 04:41 PM

Quite agree bobad, the United States of America is currently at war with no-one - FACT

Iraq:
US Forces present in the country at the specific request and agreement of the Iraqi Government

1. US forces withdrawn from the streets of Iraqi towns and cities 29th June, 2009.

2. US troops ended combat missions in Iraq on 31st August, 2010

3. US troops will all have left Iraq by 31st December 2011.

Afghanistan:
US & ISAF troops operating in Afghanistan under a United Nations Mandate and at the specific request of the Government of Afghanistan

1. October 2006 US-OEF Forces in Afghanistan reassigned from direct CENCOM command to ISAF Command

2. July 2011, first five Provinces to be handed over to ANSF troops who will assume sole responsibility for security.

3. December 2014 all 34 Afghan Provinces will be under the direct control of ANSF, with remaining ISAF troops in training and support roles.

Libya:
US, UK, French, Canadian, Norwegian & Danish forces operating under UN Mandate requested by the Arab League and by the GCC.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 04:27 PM

Someone, I cannot recollect who said that Gaddafi retains the support of the majority of his people.

Well if was left to Gaddafi that sentence would definitely be true as by the time he had finished the "opposition" and their families, second cousins and their pet tortoises would all be dead, most certainly leaving the majority support claimed.

This conflict has got nothing whatsoever to do with "democracy" the people of Libya want an end to a tribal kleptocracy that has been running the country for the last 40 years. What may well happen is that Libya will fragment and split in the three former "states" - Tripolitania (North-West); Cyrenaica (East); Fezzan (South-West). If that happened each would be independently wealthy as the oil & gas fields seem fairly evenly distributed with:

- Tripolitania having both onshore and offshore fields

- Fezzan obviously only onshore but it would have to export it's product through the two existing pipeline systems that run to the coast through Tripolitania

- Cyrenaica onshore fields, but with its own export facilities

The Libyan population consist of members of the following tribes:

Berbers (north-western Tripolitania)
Touaregs (south-western Fezzan)
Tebou (South Cyrenaica)
Arabs & Arab-Berbers (western and eastern across Tripolitania and Cyrenaica)

The latter group consists of the following tribes:
Siann (Tripolitania)
El Magarha (Tripolitania)
El Hasauna (Fezzan)

The above Arab-Berber tribes could be viewed as being in Gaddafi's camp.

Mugharbah (Cyrenaica)
Zuwayah (Cyrenaica)
Awaqir (Cyrenaica)
Abid (Cyrenaica)
Fawakhir (Cyrenaica)
Barasa (Cyrenaica)
Arafah (Cyrenaica)
Darsa (Cyrenaica)
Abaydat (Cyrenaica)
Majabrah (Cyrenaica)
Awajilah (Cyrenaica)
Minifah (Cyrenaica)

The above mentioned "eastern" Arab-Berber tribes mainly constitute the revolt.

The whole thing is further complicated by the aforementioned tribes being split even further into a collective number of some 140 "clans" with all ot those tribes

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 04:27 PM

"The sustained attacks by the US military on the sovereign nation of Libya constitute a declaration of war."

Um, not really, it is the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 03:39 PM

The assumption that most Libyans want rid of Gaddafi is just that, an assumption. It may be a correct assumption, but nobody in public life or the media appear to have any interest in examining or testing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: pdq
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 01:55 PM

The sustained attacks by the US military on the sovereign nation of Libya constitute a declaration of war.

The United States is now at war with three Muslim-dominated countries at the same time. That is a big mistake no matter how much we dislike Khaddafi.

George Bush went before Congress and got full legal authorization to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991.

George W. Bush got full Congressional approval to oust the Taliban and attack al-Queda, headquartered in Afghanistan, back in 2001.

GWB again got full legal approval for Phase III of the Gulf War, the ouster of Saddam Hussein's government.

In contrast, Bill Clinton had our military attempt to bomb Serbia back to the Stone Age with no approval, as required by the United States Constitution.

Obama has started a war, also without any attempt to get Congressional approval.

In fact, most members of Congress knew nothing about it. Obama seems to have ordered the attacks from a tent while visiting Brasil.

Dennis Kucinich is quite correct on this one. Obama's actions here are unconstitutional.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 12:51 PM

Why is the gadaffi renta mob always jumping up and down? Could it be that they have taken medicine and forgotten to shake the bottle???

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 12:28 PM

Go to Libya? Hell no problem.

Ron wants evidence? Yet offers none to support his own view of what would happen if Muammar Gaddafi shuffled off his mortal coil.

Is the Libyan State even remotely like Nazi Germany? - No it is not, the Nazi Party was essentially a political party. The Libya of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is "tribal", basically the Arab-Berber tribes (three off) and the Touaregs of the west up against the umpteen Arab-Berber tribes and Touben of the East and the South.

Now let me recall what happened in Syria when old man Assad died? Oh yes his son Young Assad stepped right into his shoes and that was a society that was both tribal and modelled on Hitler's Nazi Party, as was the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein whose sons were both groomed to take over from their father.

Now let us have another look at Libya, who has been acting as spokesman? The Prime Minister?? Nope. Any other "Government" Minister apart from the Foreign Minister who did the comedy act ceasefire declaration - That was immediately violated?? Nope. What about Gaddafi's eldest son, Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi, oh yes we have seen him broadcasting messages to the people of Libya and to the rest of the world. Meanwhile what is his other son doing? He is leading armoured units of the Gaddafi forces so he is too busy to talk to television reporters.

Naw Ron, LH, Max no need to send me to Libya all the indications are there as plain as a pike-staff who would take over should anything happen to Muammar Gaddafi.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

Acutally, maybe we should all start learning to shout "AHUA!" at the tops of our voices..

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 12:11 PM

They just needed the SAS to go in, that was all...

If they'd been there last night, when The Crazy One was spouting off madly, just a short clean shot, BANG!

"Oops, we seem to have lost The President!"

Then the people would take over..and the supporters would disappear because all the money he's been giving them would have stopped...

This way, The Mighty Jihad may well come riding across many deserts on his Camel...and then, Allah Help Us All...

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: number 6
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 11:40 AM

An interesting interview with Dennis Kucinich .... ok, ok it's a FOX production and the guy is a loudmouth, but regardless listen to Dennis, he has some interesting concerns to say.

Dennis speaks out

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: number 6
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM

That is correct ake ... that explains why there are many diehard supporters now fighting for his side.

To bad Gadaffi was over taken by illusions of grandeur and evil, (very evil) madness.

biLL