Pages

Jump to bottom

13 comments

1 Bulworth  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 1:00:28pm
Can We Stop Iran or Libya?

Fox: "Hey, Iran, Libya...whatever man. All them middle east countries sound the same to me."

2 Destro  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 1:06:23pm

re: #1 Bulworth

Fox: "Hey, Iran, Libya...whatever man. All them middle east countries sound the same to me."

All them Aye-rabs look the same mentality of conservtives. Brought to you by the party that gave us George (there are two different kind of Muslims?) Bush.....

3 researchok  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 1:23:00pm

re: #2 Destro

No, Libya was brought to you by the Obama administration.

4 dragonath  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 1:48:59pm

re: #2 Destro

I thought you were blaming what happened in Mali on America's recent involvement with Libya.

5 Destro  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 1:56:24pm

re: #4 dragonath

I thought you were blaming what happened in Mali on America's recent involvement with Libya.

I disagreed with the armed overthrow of Qaddafi as it was carried out. I would have wanted NATO airstrikes to prevent Qaddafi's forces from attacking civilians but I would not have helped the local militias and have NATO serve as their airforce.

With that said, the chaos of the overthrow of Qaddafi did in fact create the current Mali situation but the current govt of Libya is not an "enemy" that needs to be "stopped".

What happened was that Qaddafi armed Bedouin Mali rebels to fight for him.

When Qaddafi lost the Bedouin renewed the war they lost in Mali and while they were secularists they joined up with Islamists. The Islamists than threw out the Bedouin rebels.

Please don't call it my opinion. I was reporting what others have analyzed:

[Link: www.bbc.co.uk...]

Gaddafi's influence in Mali's coup

22 March 2012 Last updated at 16:36 ET

By Thomas Fessy

BBC News, West Africa correspondent

It did not take long for the Libyan conflict to spill over borders in the Sahel region - and now Mali seems to have paid the highest price so far following a coup by disgruntled soldiers.

The trouble began when hundreds of Malian combatants who had fought to defend the late Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, fled back home with weapons at the end of last year and formed the most powerful Tuareg-led rebel group the region has known - the Azawad National Liberation Movement (MNLA).

Mali's Tuaregs have long complained that they have been marginalised by the southern government and have staged several rebellions over the years.

Joined by young recruits and former rebels who had been integrated into the Malian army in recent years, the MNLA fighters took over several key northern towns in just two months.

...snip...

Some Malian officials have blamed Nato for the crisis in the north after it helped Libyan insurgents topple Col Gaddafi.

"Western powers have underestimated that getting rid of Gaddafi would have severe repercussions in the Sahel region," Mr Kebe says.

Northern Mali has long become a rear base for drug traffickers, al-Qaeda fighters and other Islamist combatants sharing ground with Tuareg rebels.

Heavy weaponry and arsenals left over from the Libyan war simply reinforced their positions.

Seizing power will not change the extreme difficulty of the army's task as it attempts to combat all of the above.

6 ProGunLiberal  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:41:35pm

re: #5 Destro

And, showing your ignorance, yet again.

The Tuaregs are not even Arabs. They belong to the Ancient Berber Ethnic group. In regards to the nations responsible, Iyad Ag Ghaly (head of Ansar Dine) has been supported by Algeria, a client state of the People's Republic of China. But, of course, you must think this is a good thing, just like what Qaddafi would have done to Benghazi. As the other people here can attest to, this is the wrong subject to cross me on.

How about learning something before expelling anything from that gapping orifice you call a mouth?

7 Destro  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 4:14:05pm

re: #6 ProGunLiberal


My bad, I wrote Bedouin when I meant Berber as you can clearly see from the BBC post that followed.

And I am not seeing you deny that overthrowing Qaddafi pretty much destroyed Mali and North Africa's cultural history.

Some fucking Americans seem to act like Team America's puppets. They get the bad guy while blowing up the entire fucking place around them.

Hey, thanks to NATO serving as the insurgent's airforce and thus emboldening militias to start a destructive war against Qaddafi's whacky but tamed regime (they gave up WMD and were opening up to the west) the end product was a re-emerged Malian ethnic civil war with an Islamist al-Qaeda link that leads to the fall of a historic city and the destruction of ancient holy tombs and worse to come.

But hey! We got that Qaddafi guy. Just ask the Malians how happy that makes them we did this.

America! Fuck Yeah!!!

8 ProGunLiberal  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 4:37:06pm

re: #7 Destro

No. If you looked at history, Mali has been having issues with the Tuareg for decades. Yes, in the final moments of Qaddafi's regime, weapons did start falling into bad hands. But, you seem to miss Algeria's influence in this, namely that Ansar Dine seems to be Algeria's Equivalent to the Taliban. Despite what your insipid little mind thinks, there is more than just America=bad. The situation in Mali is a damn hell more complicated than that.

And the we have gotten a reward in Libya, as we are well-liked in the country. Tell me, would you have been happy if Benghazi had been overrun, instead of the French coming in like Modern Day Calvary? With a democide in that city, like Qaddafi had said he was going to do?

You seem to value ideas more than people. How many people would have died if Qaddafi would have made it into Benghazi, or into Misrata, and the Berber Mountain areas. I will certainly criticize my own country on various issues. But you criticize everything in favor of you hoping some authoritarian, Chavezista-esque revolution occurring. And, by the way, if you are skeptical of Algeria supporting Ansar Dine, consider this: Algeria supports the Totalitarian Polisario Front, and both of them supported Qaddafi til his karmic death.

Yes, things are bad in Mali. Which is why we need to support ECOWAS, with troops if we have too. That goes for France too.

Iraq was a stupid war. Libya, like Bosnia and Kosovo, was a good war in my opinion. And Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all gave their seal of approval, by joining in. Considering the politics of all three, that is a stamp of approval.

9 Destro  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 4:50:29pm

re: #8 ProGunLiberal

I guess Bosnia and Kosovo were "good wars" even though in the end the Serbs were the ones ethnic cleansed out of Krajina and out of Kosovo (almost 300,000 in all) and it is ironic a war started to end ethnic cleansing led to the largest ethnic cleansing since WW2. But it's OK because the ethnic cleansed Serbs were the bad guys, right?


America, FUCK YEA!!!!

10 ProGunLiberal  Mon, Oct 22, 2012 5:47:29pm

re: #9 Destro

What did you think was going to happen, exactly?!? Serbia had committed massive crimes against humanity, which, included Genocide, Organized Rape Camps, Organized Concentration Camps, and Ethnic Cleansing. What do you think the other side would do after facing this trauma? In all of human history, when something like this happened, there was always a backlash. You are essentially decrying Human Nature.

Did you want the Bosnians and Kosovars to be annihilated or completely forced out, as that seems to be what you are suggesting. Again, I do not support America blindly, as stated by the fact that I do not agree with what we did in Iraq, or several other wars for that matter. In the case of both Bosnia and Kosovo, it was either one side, or the other. We supported the side that did not initiate massive crimes against humanity. You seem quite willing to have people die in order to satiate an irrational form of Anti-Americanism.

Oh, and when you try to debate in the Pokemon style, where you repeat the same phrase over and over, you aren't impressing anyone, you are just acting like a cartoon. A rather unintelligent thing, don't you think?

11 Destro  Tue, Oct 23, 2012 6:41:56am

re: #10 ProGunLiberal

Go fuck yourself. You are OK with ethnic cleansing as long as the other side is ethnic cleansed? So Serbian children and women and non combatants were guilty of association and deserved to be ethnic cleansed?

I am not saying don't stop the 'evil" Serbian war machine, I am saying America got involved to stop ethnic cleansing and solved the problem by creating an even larger ethnic cleansing solution on the Serbs.

Fuck you, war monger.

12 ProGunLiberal  Tue, Oct 23, 2012 6:58:34pm

re: #11 Destro

No, I am saying one side or the other was going to get it. Do you think the Bosnians would have actually stopped. And, perhaps you should be aware that the Serbs had cleansed at least equally, maybe more than the Bosnians, Croats, or Kosovars.

What those parties did was bad, but the Serbs did far, far worse. There is literally no precedent in history for a backlash not occurring. This is just knee-jerk Anti-Americanism. You would right now be probably be condemning the US if we did nothing. Peace should not come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and millions of homeless for the need of one nation to go into hyper-nationalist irredentism. And the conclusion I come to here is that you would have been just fine with the pushing out/annihilation of the Bosnians, Croats, and Kosovars.

And we had damn little to do with the Ethnic Cleansing in either location. That was a local backlash to it. Hell, the Kosovars had been victimized twice in the same century.

Also, real rude to tell me to "go f--- myself" and accuse me of supporting what happened to Serbia. What happened to Serbia was backlash, as has happened countless times in history. You are not a constructive member of this site.

13 Destro  Wed, Oct 24, 2012 12:17:21am

re: #12 ProGunLiberal

Damn right it is rude. The USA when it gets involved in a war is like Godzilla wrecking the place trying to defeat the other monster.

The USA could have prevented the ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs but carried out a policy of ethnic cleansing on purpose as a solution.

The USA chose the side with one side over others when those other sides were equally evil - yes equally evil.

Croatia was ruled at the time by a Hitler era admiring fascists named Tudjman and Bosnia was ruled by an Islamist who was equally fascistic to match the fascism of the Serbs.

Instead of the USA not allying itself with any side actually chose to continue the war so it could get a geopolitical outcome favorable to American foreign policy needs. A totally cynical position masked as a humanitarian war.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 458 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1