Libya: The Reaction of the Left?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-27 07:14pm

I've not heard any of the usual commentary from our more liberal bretheren on the forum about the situation of the disarmament of Libya. I'd like to see what some more views are on it. Any comments?

Is this because of the invasion of Iraq or not? Was it worth it?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-27 07:30pm

None?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-27 07:32pm

I don't feel informed enough about the situation to comment.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-01-27 07:38pm

Just like Iraq i don`t think Libya has any WMD,its just another time wasted cause they want to avoid going against NK.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 07:41pm

Erm, I'm not going to go into in-depth commentary before I read more, but I assume this is another ploy to keep everyone's attention from North Korea. The Bush administration is on a witch-hunt, and they're going to stop all the people without WMDs before they go for the people that actually have them.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-27 07:54pm

The Aliens wrote:Erm, I'm not going to go into in-depth commentary before I read more, but I assume this is another ploy to keep everyone's attention from North Korea. The Bush administration is on a witch-hunt, and they're going to stop all the people without WMDs before they go for the people that actually have them.

I'm assuming you missed the part where Gadaffi let them into his nuclear facilities and how they just brought in some of the material into Oak Ridge. Libya most definitely had a nuclear program.

See the other thread on Libya.

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2004-01-27 07:54pm

Ummm...unless I'm mistaken guys, Libya's leader has flat out stated that he had been developing WMD, which is why the inspectors are heading over there to make sure they disarm.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-27 07:59pm

Shadow WarChief wrote:Ummm...unless I'm mistaken guys, Libya's leader has flat out stated that he had been developing WMD, which is why the inspectors are heading over there to make sure they disarm.

Had been devloping?

Uhm, we just flew a whole FUCKING C-17 load here.

That's sixty tons of WMD in one go.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-27 08:04pm

Shadow WarChief wrote:Ummm...unless I'm mistaken guys, Libya's leader has flat out stated that he had been developing WMD, which is why the inspectors are heading over there to make sure they disarm.

He did, which makes me wonder why the UN has never attempted to send in monitors. Libya WAS developing WoMD. Libya has harbored terrorists. Libya was a bad place. Now the question is only how long it's going to STAY bad, and if it's actually interested in cleaning up its act. From what I can tell, it wants to set itself up as being like Egypt, where it tries to pander to both sides. That's an improvement, and we'll see how long it lasts.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 08:05pm

I rescind comments due to the fact that I'm a blithering idiot. If he had WMDs and is consenting to dismantle them and send them to the States, then why the hell not?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-27 08:31pm

Libya's acting all nice because everybody knew they had their fingers in the cookie jar and the US could get a LOT more support for bitchslapping somebody who everybody already knew ahead of time was guilty as sin.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-01-27 08:58pm

Montcalm wrote:Just like Iraq i don`t think Libya has any WMD,its just another time wasted cause they want to avoid going against NK.

Look a moron. North Korea has an effective deterrent. It cannot be dealt with by military attack unless we are prepared to see several million people dead. Economic and political measures have and are going ahead to resolve the issue. Is this all too complex for you?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-01-27 09:14pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Just like Iraq i don`t think Libya has any WMD,its just another time wasted cause they want to avoid going against NK.
Look a "snip". North Korea has an effective deterrent. It cannot be dealt with by military attack unless we are prepared to see several million people dead. Economic and political measures have and are going ahead to resolve the issue. Is this all too complex for you?

And how long will the economic and political measure will last,and will the give Kim Fuck Face what he want.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-27 09:32pm

Personally, I'd like to see the US work at getting Syria out of Lebannon. They've been illegally occupying the country for about 50 years.

FREE LEBANON!

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-27 10:00pm

The UN probably didn't send a monitoring team in because there are to my knowledge no resolutions or sanctions on Libya relating to NBC weapons.

Oh, new rule- can we drop this fucking "WMD" catch phrase? It's fucking dumb and tells a lie everytime you say it.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-28 12:47am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Personally, I'd like to see the US work at getting Syria out of Lebannon. They've been illegally occupying the country for about 50 years.

FREE LEBANON!

I would, too. Frankly, I think that Syria is a bigger problem than North Korea, even, because they almost certainly have chemical weapons programs, bio-weapons programs, and they are KNOWN to be sheltering more than twenty terrorist organizations. When combined with their occupation of Lebanon and their allowing of Hizbollah guerrillas to directly attack Israeli targets, the picture just gets worse.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-01-28 02:32am

I don't doubt that Ghadaffi decided to give up the WMD after seeing what happened in Iraq. Plus we have a history of bitch slapping him in the past.

It does not in my mind give approval to the actions in Iraq, just that this was a fortunate result of that action.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-28 03:11am

The UN probably didn't send a monitoring team in because there are to my knowledge no resolutions or sanctions on Libya relating to NBC weapons.

So... why weren't there any resolutions against Libya, again? Oh, yeah, it's because the UN is a farce.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-01-28 03:22am

Master of Ossus wrote:
The UN probably didn't send a monitoring team in because there are to my knowledge no resolutions or sanctions on Libya relating to NBC weapons.
So... why weren't there any resolutions against Libya, again? Oh, yeah, it's because the UN is a farce.

Says the person whose country has used its veto 75 (ish) times, and 30 (ish) of those were to shield Israel from critisism...

Source

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-28 03:42am

Master of Ossus wrote:
So... why weren't there any resolutions against Libya, again?

Are you suggesting that the mere existence of NBC weapons in a country warrants resolutions? Should we slap resolutions on the USA, Russia, China, India, Israel, France and the UK for it then?

Oh, yeah, it's because the UN is a farce.

What Crown said.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-28 03:54am

Master of Ossus wrote:
The UN probably didn't send a monitoring team in because there are to my knowledge no resolutions or sanctions on Libya relating to NBC weapons.
So... why weren't there any resolutions against Libya, again? Oh, yeah, it's because the UN is a farce.

For some reason the UN tends to shy away from intervening in wars of agression. Tibet and Lebanon are both occupied nations, and all anybody screams about is Iraq.

FREE LEBANON!

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-01-28 04:12am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
The UN probably didn't send a monitoring team in because there are to my knowledge no resolutions or sanctions on Libya relating to NBC weapons.
So... why weren't there any resolutions against Libya, again? Oh, yeah, it's because the UN is a farce.
For some reason the UN tends to shy away from intervening in wars of agression. Tibet and Lebanon are both occupied nations, and all anybody screams about is Iraq.

FREE LEBANON!

Two points, well one really; who sits on the UN Security Council and has a permanent veto?

Answering that question will lead you to the answer why Tibet and Lebanon didn't get too far.

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2004-01-28 05:56am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Personally, I'd like to see the US work at getting Syria out of Lebannon. They've been illegally occupying the country for about 50 years.

FREE LEBANON!

Just like Israel with the Southern border and Palestina, you mean?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-28 07:56am

Montcalm wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Just like Iraq i don`t think Libya has any WMD,its just another time wasted cause they want to avoid going against NK.
Look a "snip". North Korea has an effective deterrent. It cannot be dealt with by military attack unless we are prepared to see several million people dead. Economic and political measures have and are going ahead to resolve the issue. Is this all too complex for you?
And how long will the economic and political measure will last,and will the give Kim Fuck Face what he want.

The economic and political pressure will last until Kim Long Dong does something stupid. We can slag his whole country with the push of a button. he won't do shit. Period. This time around, NK will not have the support of China and Russia, either. Kim Schlong Kong is fucked, plain and simple. he's stuck on that penninsula, his people and army are starving, and the only way he can make himself feel important and compensate for his tiny penis and short stature is to wave his nuclear dick all over the place yelling about how he'll sell the shit to the highest bidder. "Oh yeah?" Says bush, "Apparently, you don't LIKE food and gas. No problem, we'll play."

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2004-01-28 11:38am

Nathan F wrote:I've not heard any of the usual commentary from our more liberal bretheren on the forum about the situation of the disarmament of Libya. I'd like to see what some more views are on it. Any comments?

Is this because of the invasion of Iraq or not? Was it worth it?

Sorry to jump in late, but from my left perspective, perhaps Bush should have gone after Libya in the first place since it has/had an active nuclear program and hence could be a credible threat, rather than invading Iraq which would have struggled to threaten a wet paper bag in the condition it was in. If he had done that, it would not have been necessary to lie to the American people and the rest of the world.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Libya: The Reaction of the Left?

Libya: The Reaction of the Left?

Re: Libya: The Reaction of the Left?