Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10120
    04 Aug '17 22:26
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Saddam expunged his WMD program, too. And the U.N. did not try to remove him.

    So not so different.
    Saddam invaded an oil rich sovereign nation. In that regard, they were different with Saddam being seen as more of a threat.

    As for the US or UN removing someone, do you think North Korea distinguishes the two?

    Both gave up their WMD's and both were removed.
  2. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45858
    05 Aug '17 10:08
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Saddam invaded an oil rich sovereign nation. In that regard, they were different with Saddam being seen as more of a threat.

    As for the US or UN removing someone, do you think North Korea distinguishes the two?

    Both gave up their WMD's and both were removed.
    Please reword - I don't understand your point.
    Thanks
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    05 Aug '17 15:23
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    If Whodey were a dictator, then he should be much more worried about 'his people' rising
    up and killing him than about his bogeyman Barack Obama arranging for his death.
    I agree with you only because Obama and congress armed Assad's "people" (he calls them terrorists of course) but it could be argued that it amounts to the same thing.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    05 Aug '17 15:26
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Saddam invaded an oil rich sovereign nation. In that regard, they were different with Saddam being seen as more of a threat.

    As for the US or UN removing someone, do you think North Korea distinguishes the two?

    Both gave up their WMD's and both were removed.
    That sovereign nation was slant drilling under Iraq and stealing their oil. The USA government basically said that is between you two and we will not get involved. That was a lie. We got involved.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    05 Aug '17 15:37
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Pretending that Obama's actions in Libya were unique and varied from prior policy is rather amusing if typically dishonest.

    You might want to check out what happened in Iraq a decade earlier.
    Libya was not accused of having WMDs.
    Gaddafi was accused of being a horrible dictator. That was the only reason officially stated. It was really because he was creating the gold dinar which was a threat to the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Gaddafi was a good dictator if you can accept any dictator as good. He was popular with most of his people and Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa. He cared about his legacy which is exactly why Hitlery Clinton kept bringing up his legacy multiple times. She was taunting him with the threat of destroying his legacy, the one thing she knew he cared about. Then she laughed when he was killed. Laughed like an evil witch really. She got off on his death. She is a psychopath!
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    05 Aug '17 16:49
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Libya was not accused of having WMDs.
    Gaddafi was accused of being a horrible dictator. That was the only reason officially stated. It was really because he was creating the gold dinar which was a threat to the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Gaddafi was a good dictator if you can accept any dictator as good. He was popular with most of his p ...[text shortened]... he was killed. Laughed like an evil witch really. She got off on his death. She is a psychopath!
    The WMD argument for invading Iraq was a fraud and those making it knew it (well maybe not GWB - he might have been that dumb). That is why they rushed to invade before allowing the inspectors to finish their job; they knew if they had, they would not have found any evidence of an existing WMD program.

    There is no such thing as a "good dictator" and the Libyan People did rise in rebellion against Gaddafi. If you think they did that because of the "gold dinar", you are welcome to to such fantasies.

    That said, I did not support Western intervention in Libya.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    05 Aug '17 16:53
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Saddam invaded an oil rich sovereign nation. In that regard, they were different with Saddam being seen as more of a threat.

    As for the US or UN removing someone, do you think North Korea distinguishes the two?

    Both gave up their WMD's and both were removed.
    I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your claim that the policy is something created by Obama.

    I don't blame North Korea for trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    06 Aug '17 18:37
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The WMD argument for invading Iraq was a fraud and those making it knew it (well maybe not GWB - he might have been that dumb). That is why they rushed to invade before allowing the inspectors to finish their job; they knew if they had, they would not have found any evidence of an existing WMD program.

    There is no such thing as a "good dictator" and ...[text shortened]... are welcome to to such fantasies.

    That said, I did not support Western intervention in Libya.
    If there is no such thing as a good dictator why does our country support so many of them?

    Calling Al Qaeda his people is a stretch at best.
    http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda

    Obama armed these so called rebels that are mostly Al-Qaeda. Hardly a rebellion without outside prodding.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Aug '17 20:39
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/fear-north-korea-us-diplomatic-ballistic-tests

    "Let’s try to understand North Korea’s actions: it sees the world as its enemy."
    --Gabrielle Rifkind

    "Material conditions have improved for some, but psychologically many North Koreans
    are still victims of their history. They constantly referred to the past – the Korean War,
    the Japanese occupation, the end of Soviet aid and the looming power of the US.
    In the Korean war alone, 20% of the population was killed. When the bombing stopped in
    1953, the US never declared a full armistice. In North Korean eyes, the Americans still
    retain the right to attack their country and they want a permanent peace treaty."

    The article does not mention the record of US war crimes (perhaps including biological warfare) in Korea.
    While the DPRK's propaganda likes to exaggerate these war crimes, the US government
    and US media typically (dishonestly) completely deny the existence of US war crimes.
    These denials don't inspire any confidence in North Koreans that the USA respects their lives
    or even, given American racism, regards them as close to being equal human beings.

    "It was hardly reported in the western media, but in January Pyongyang proposed that
    tensions could be eased if the US suspended joint military exercises with South Korea.
    North Korea would respond, they asserted, by suspending their nuclear tests.
    This freeze-freeze proposal was supported by China and Russia and more recently by
    South Korea’s new president. Washington rejected it, not wanting to acknowledge any
    equivalence between their war games and North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests."

    The USA has given hardly any reason for the DPRK to believe that it's not under the threat of
    a sudden attack by the USA, which could take place as soon as the USA concluded that the
    DPRK's few nuclear weapons could not retaliate against the USA, Japan, or the Republic of Korea.
    The DPRK understandably regards as worthless any US government promises that the
    USA would prefer not to overthrow the Kim regime.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10120
    07 Aug '17 13:341 edit
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    That sovereign nation was slant drilling under Iraq and stealing their oil. The USA government basically said that is between you two and we will not get involved. That was a lie. We got involved.
    And we were told that the US would only intervene in Libya to establish a no fly zone to protect it's citizens who might be in danger from him and that it was not about regime change.

    That was a lie as well.

    Of course, only Pubes are to blame. Dims valiantly tried to fight the Pubes and corporate America, but to no avail. 😞
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    07 Aug '17 15:40
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    If there is no such thing as a good dictator why does our country support so many of them?

    Calling Al Qaeda his people is a stretch at best.
    http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda

    Obama armed these so called rebels that are mostly Al-Qaeda. Hardly a rebellion without outside prodding.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331
    I'm not a member of the US government, so its support of certain foreign dictators is irrelevant to my posts.

    The Cockburn article, while interesting, does not support in any way a claim that the rebellion against Gaddafi was started by anyone but the Libyan People. Sure some of them were anti-Western, radical jihadists but that does not change the fact they were Libyans. The beginning of the rebellion is well known and was an outgrowth of the "Arab Spring":

    On February 15, 2011, antigovernment rallies were held in Banghāzī by protesters angered by the arrest of a human rights lawyer, Fethi Tarbel. The protesters called for Qaddafi to step down and for the release of political prisoners. Libyan security forces used water cannons and rubber bullets against the crowds, resulting in a number of injuries. To counter the demonstrations further, a pro-government rally orchestrated by the Libyan authorities was broadcast on state television.

    As the protests intensified, with demonstrators taking control of Banghāzī and unrest spreading to Tripoli, the Libyan government began using lethal force against demonstrators. Security forces and squads of mercenaries fired live ammunition into crowds of demonstrators. Demonstrators also were attacked with tanks and artillery and from the air with warplanes and helicopter gunships.

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011

    I suggest you read the rest of the article for further background.

    To repeat, I did not support Western military intervention in Libya. However, I will not deny the fact that the rebellion against Gaddafi originated with the Libyan People.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    09 Aug '17 21:39
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    I'm not a member of the US government, so its support of certain foreign dictators is irrelevant to my posts.

    The Cockburn article, while interesting, does not support in any way a claim that the rebellion against Gaddafi was started by anyone but the Libyan People. Sure some of them were anti-Western, radical jihadists but that does not change the f ...[text shortened]... , I will not deny the fact that the rebellion against Gaddafi originated with the Libyan People.
    Arming Gaddafi's enemies was why they fought against him. Saying they would have done that without being armed by my government is dishonest.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Aug '17 21:521 edit
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    Arming Gaddafi's enemies was why they fought against him. Saying they would have done that without being armed by my government is dishonest.
    You think there were no arms in Libya? Get real; as the Britannica article also mentions entire units of the Libyan army joined the rebellion.
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    10 Aug '17 20:31
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You think there were no arms in Libya? Get real; as the Britannica article also mentions entire units of the Libyan army joined the rebellion.
    I didn't say no arms. Get real. Like Syria the civil war in Libya was largely driven by arms sent by the USA government. When Cuba did that in Angola the USA government listed Cuba as a terrorist state because of it. Using the same criteria the USA is a terrorist state.

    Don't double standards suck?
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    10 Aug '17 20:38
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    I didn't say no arms. Get real. Like Syria the civil war in Libya was largely driven by arms sent by the USA government. When Cuba did that in Angola the USA government listed Cuba as a terrorist state because of it. Using the same criteria the USA is a terrorist state.

    Don't double standards suck?
    No, the civil wars in those two countries were/are driven by the People's desire to be rid of a dictator. Did the US sends arms to rebels in each? Probably, but the rebellions would have occurred whatever the US did; these weren't small scale coups done by a rather small cliques such as the ones which the US planned in Iran, Chile and other places but mass uprisings.

    There is a ridiculous tendency to think that the US government controls all things, good or evil, in the world.
Back to Top