[Beren]

Another non-event that proves something? ie. "If we hadn't X-ed, then Y."

Where is your proof that Y would have happened? CNN?

In reality, if NATO hadn't intervened, North Africa would have its own currency, not be paying interest to European usury operations, and would have been on its way to more independence from the European vampire financiers.



And North Africa is stable now, right? (or by "stable" do you mean almost dead and ripe for plunder?)

How can you repeat lies even after they have been proven false by real world events?
Is the penetration of propaganda that deep? The economic interests are blinding?

What if you weren't so self-righteous, pretentious and arrogant just for once? Can you even imagine not being a jerk all the time?

Gaddafi's fall was rapidly escalating and the West just cut the process short, which was like a live military drill to them. I can remember how reluctant Obama was to intervene, but he had to finally give in to Western European pressure, I wonder if they were actually panicking.

[QatzelOk]

Gaddafi's fall was rapidly escalating...

Italy, Great Britain, and Israel have been changing presidents every few days.

Does all their infrastruture need to be destroyed, Great NATO Diplomat?

[Beren]

Italy, Great Britain, and Israel have been changing presidents every few days.

Does all their infrastruture need to be destroyed, Great NATO Diplomat?

How come Libya didn't manage to do so just once in 41 years while being such a perfect society and country? All the troubles could have been avoided if they had.

[QatzelOk]

How come Libya didn't manage to do so just once in 41 years while being such a perfect society and country? All the troubles could have been avoided if they had.

Why do countries have to follow the rules of European-based colonialists?

What God told you to destroy other countries if they don't change presidents fast enough for your taste?

[Beren]

Why do countries have to follow the rules of European-based colonialists?

What God told you to destroy other countries if they don't change presidents fast enough for your taste?

Are you stupid? He should have taken care of his succession to secure his legacy for his country's and his own good, you moron.

[QatzelOk]

Are you stupid? He should have taken care of his succession to secure his legacy for his country's and his own good, you moron.

I guess Gadaffi didn't realize that NATO would destroy his country and steal all its oil... if he didn't.

The World CommunityTM really needs to publish some kind of manual for backyard leaders.

With special impossible-to-follow rules for the leaders of oil-rich countries.

[Rich]

I guess Gadaffi didn't realize that NATO would destroy his country and steal all its oil... if he didn't.

I have a real problem with names. Sometimes, I keep forgetting a name over and over. When I was at school I even forgot the name of my second girl friend. But you know the strangest thing, there's one women's name I've never forgotten over more than three decades. And its a woman I never even met.

Yvonne Fletcher!

[Beren]

I guess Gadaffi didn't realize that

he was running out of time to take care of his succession and legacy.

[Potemkin]

he was running out of time to take care of his succession and legacy.

As soon as you name a successor, you lose power. The nature of Gaddafi’s position was such that he could have no successor. Which appeared to suit him just fine.

[Beren]

As soon as you name a successor, you lose power. The nature of Gaddafi’s position was such that he could have no successor. Which appeared to suit him just fine.

He could have solved it within his own family. So what if after 35 or so years in power you lose transfer your power to (one of) your sons and retire? Then his regime could have rejuvenated and survived, it should have been natural. He could have established a dynasty, but he rather preferred making it his own degenerate one man show.

[Potemkin]

He could have solved it within his own family. So what if after 35 or so years in power you lose transfer your power to (one of) your sons and retire? Then his regime could have rejuvenated and survived, it should have been natural. He could have established a dynasty, but he rather preferred making it his own degenerate one man show.

Precisely. Gaddafi was a classic narcissist. He saw the whole world (about which he knew little) as merely the backdrop to the movie of his own life. All the world's a stage, as the Bard put it, on which Gaddafi could strut his stuff.

He got away with it for more than four decades, but once the West saw their chance, they rid themselves of him. He had just made too many enemies over the years....

[Rich]

We ended the Cold War with a completely wrong mind set. Rather than looking for a peace dividend we should have been looking at a vengeance dividend, a justice dividend and a freedom dividend. There has been a lot of debate about what promises were made to Soviet and Russian leaders about central and eastern Europe. Well no promises were made about Gaddafi. British National Honour demanded that Gaddafi die for the death of Yvonne Fletcher.

At this point I need to explain because some people seem to think I'm being inconsistent and I'm not. Khalid Sheik Mohammed had a right to a trial and due process. The case with KSM was very simple he was accused of crimes, very serious crimes, that were understood as the most serious crimes in pretty much every legal jurisdiction in the world. This wasn't like Prince Andrew being accused of having sex with a seventeen year old, which wasn't even a crime through out the United States let alone the world. In some of parts the United States you're at liberty to rape a thirteen year old girl as long as you marry her after. Note I used the past tense, the right to put KSM on trial has long passed, he now has a right to immediate release, massive compensation, amnesty for all crimes prior to his enslavement and any crimes committed during captivity, life long residency within the United States and US citizenship if he wants it.

Leaders of foreign countries should not be put on trial. Whether its Herman Goering, Gadaffi, or President Putin. Any sentences applied must be a political / diplomatic action not a judicial one. To engage in these farcical trials undermines the rule of law and brings it into disrepute. As for our own leaders the courts should be avoided as much as possible. Again political judgments should not be misrepresented as legal ones. George W Bush and Tony Blair committed no crimes, they merely took political decisions with which you may disagree. The way to constrain political leaders is not through the courts or supreme courts and elaborate constitutions. No the way to constrain political leaders is to avoid separately elected executive presidencies, governors and Mayors, frequent fixed elections and pure proportional representation.

[QatzelOk]

British National Honour demanded that Gaddafi die for the death of Yvonne Fletcher.

British National Honor has genocided hundreds of nations all over the world.

NATO seems to have acted as a white hood, hiding the spotty face of British National Honor, as it lynched another uppity slave over some blatantly made-up story.

And if you think Libya deserved to be destroyed for killing one person (Yvonne Fletcher), how many thousands of times does British National Honor deserve the same fate for all the millions that it has killed for money?

[Rancid]

As soon as you name a successor, you lose power. The nature of Gaddafi’s position was such that he could have no successor. Which appeared to suit him just fine.

That is always a fundamental issue with authoritarian systems. They always lead to a succession crisis, which is often very bloody.

[Potemkin]

That is always a fundamental issue with authoritarian systems. They always lead to a succession crisis, which is often very bloody.

Indeed….

[QatzelOk]

That is always a fundamental issue with authoritarian systems. They always lead to a succession crisis, which is often very bloody.

Well, if NATO bombs the hell out of your country, the "succession crisis" will be bloody.

Applying this "truism" to the Libyan situation is like blaming Haitians for their current predicament by saying that "slave revolts always end badly."

[Rancid]

Well, if NATO bombs the hell out of your country, the "succession crisis" will be bloody.

Applying this "truism" to the Libyan situation is like blaming Haitians for their current predicament by saying that "slave revolts always end badly."

You logical stretch on my statement doesn't make sense. Mainly because it's not logical.

My statement was not blaming anyone or anything. Other than stating the fact (proven by historical evidence) that authoritarian systems have the flaw of succession. That's basically it. You can go bullshit around your own statements by texting yourself or something.

Anyway, that's actually one of the things democratic systems are good it. Dealing with the problem of succession. It's a difficult system to maintain though, because we have a lot of Bluto's and Qatz's on this planet.

[QatzelOk]

Anyway, that's actually one of the things democratic systems are good it. Dealing with the problem of succession.

There is NO succession in our system. The same bankster families have been in charge of "Western Empires" for a thousand years.

What we have mastered in the West is the **pretend politics** of mass media and popularity contests between spokesmodels. The result: the crappiest political lineups in centuries, guided by a deep state that HATES the local populations of the countries they (secretly) rule over.

When the state itself HATES the local population, this can easily slide into a state-sanctioned genocide.

Been there, done that.