The Facts...

[thewiseguy]

Reading DU this morning prompted me to make this thread just to reiterate the facts about Libya and Ghaddafi.

1- Ghaddafi bombed the US airliner Pan Am Flight 103.
2- Ghaddafi used his jets and shells to bomb people in the cities of Tripoli, BenGhazi, Misrata, Brega, Zawiya,...
3- Ghaddafi hired mercenaries and deployed them in cities all over Libya to shoot at citizens, rape, and harass citizens...

This conflict is not about oil. No, this is not another Iraq. In Iraq's Saddam at the immediate moment we attacked he was not shelling his citizens and killing them in mass numbers. There is a sense of urgency to this conflict. To stop a mad man before he kills off more of his people.

This is not Bahrain either or Yemen. Again the magnitude of this disaster is much worse. Now why Libya and not Ivory Coast or Sierra Leon. I think that has to do with the media. They picked up on the story and made it become front and center prompting the international community to take some sort of action.

To those who oppose war. How are you justifying inaction? Would you rather see Ghaddafi bomb and shell an entire country and commit genocide right in front of our eyes? Perhaps that does explain why some now have chosen to accept Ghaddafi as a lesser evil or a good man who is misrepresented by our media! That makes opposing this war a much easier pill to swallow.

There will be civilian casualties in any war but the numbers will be less than the bloodbath Ghaddafi had started as of few weeks ago.

[grahamhgreen]

1. Whose gonna pay for it? Not those already suffering in the US.

[thewiseguy]

3. I am talking about a blood bath and you are concerned about who is going to pay for it?

[grahamhgreen]

20. Yes. People in this country are dying from lack of healthcare, housing, and heating, programs

that are being cut.

Who is gonna pay for it?

I'll tell you what, if we raise taxes on the wealthy, and the corp's, to the rates of the US during WWII, then we can have the discussion.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. and they would still be regardless of whether we signed on or not

if you don't recognize that sick reality, you aren't thinking clearly.

It's about money in your mind? "raise taxes ....then we can have the discussion".

:shrug:

sad.

[grahamhgreen]

49. No, the money spent on this will be taken from those that need it. Just like the money for the

tax cuts passed in Dec.

If we took the money from the wars and spent it on the people they would not be dying, would they?

[jus_the_facts]

44. Our own gov't insidiously does the same sort of thing...under the guise of *democracy*

....it's all done in a manner that's much slower and not so blatant...but they fuck our citizens just the same.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds...never has.

I say this in agreement with your assessment.

[Green_Lantern]

50. oh come on...our govt. doesn't open fire on people rallying in DC..

And when it happened at Kent State or Seattle WTO heads spin.

Also this is't about taking out Ghaddafi but getting him to abide by a ceasefire. He can't just kill off everyone rallying for democracy.

Secondly, when did the UN pass a resolution mandating a no-fly zone in the US?

[Bandit]

51. Where were you when the Hutu's were chopping up the Tutus with machetes?

There will always be some madman somewhere killing the people that live in their country. Should the USA intervene every single time?

[Green_Lantern]

54. the UN did intervene in Rwanda for one thing and secondly

No I don't support unilateral US intervention.

[Wilms]

2. Re: "Ghaddafi bombed the US airliner Pan Am Flight 103"

You may want to google Flight 103 and add words like CIA and FBI tampering/withholding evidence.

Just sayin'.

[thewiseguy]

4. Oh dear god...

[Wilms]

16. Don't be frightened, just google it. n/t

[didact]

73. LMAO

Here ya go....got just the place for ya!

www.godlikeproductions.com

[Codeine]

5. We have a Dungeon for that sort of goofiness. nt

[Wilms]

17. "for that sort of..." what? Did you google it? n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

77. Hey I'd advise you to Google "Barack Obama" and "born in Kenya"

OMG! There's a lot of hits so it's obviously true!

[MikeW]

110. and the earth is really flat

:wow:

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Or also to look at the Libyan ambassador to the US (who is supporting the opposition to Gaddafi)...

who has claimed Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.

Libya's ambassador to the United States told U.S.senators from New York and New Jersey today that Moammar Gadhafi personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.

But the ambassador, Ali Suleiman Aujali, said in a private meeting in Washington that he had no evidence in his possession that could be used to help prosecute Gadhafi.

The senators said Aujali told them he was relying on information he received from Libya's former justice minister, who resigned last week and said he had proof that the Libyan dictator ordered the bombing.

more

[Wilms]

18. A lot of people claimed that.

And as my post noted, there's some other information out there.

Ignore it at will.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Until now none of them were within the Libyan government though.

Which is the essential difference and why this information is worthy of notice (should the ex-Libyan justice minister have the evidence he claims to).

[Wilms]

22. That doesn't suggest your further inquiry would be unworthy of your time, however. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. You're assuming I'm unfamiliar with the claims you're mentioning...

which is a mustaken assumption. The claims that Megrahi, the accused and convicted "Lockerbie bomber" was fitted up by the CIA and MI6 are things which I am aware of; however the claim from a member of the Libyan government that a) Megrahi was in fact involved and that b) Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing make such claims irrelevant IF the evidence supports it. (Which would make it at worst a case of arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.)

[Wilms]

37. You do raise an interesting point.

For instance, (to use a different issue) it is possible that bin Laden ordered 9/11, hired 19 knuckle-heads to do it, and wound up enjoying the support of independent agents who feared the plan could not be accomplished without their aid.

[Aerows]

19. It's surprising how many people...

...aren't aware of that fact. CIA would be a really good search term to go along with it.

[Wilms]

24. Worse, is being made aware and sticking ones head in the sand.

It's not like one would have to believe the official story" of 103 in order to support the current military action.

Yet the first reaction the posters above had had next to nothing to do with my suggestion.

Thanks for being among those fearless enough to research and think.

[Green_Lantern]

52. the current action has nothing to do with Lockerbie..

Secondly just because some dumb conspiracy theory can be googled doesn't make it true.

One of my favorite shows on National Geographic lays it all out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGKNW4mL9lQ


Can you refute that?

[MikeW]

111. its also suprising how many people google something and take it as the absolute truth

almost cult-like

[DutchLiberal]

57. If it's on the internets, it's true.

[BeFree]

6. You do admit this is an act of war, right?

That we have declared war on Gaddafi?

[Green_Lantern]

42. no...we didn't declare war on Libya...Ghadaffi started it by breaking

A ceasefire and a UN resolution declaring Benghazi off limits by Ghaddafi's forces.

The UN action isn't about taking out Ghadafi but getting him to abide by the ceasefire.

This is about eliminating anti-air craft capabilities so a no-fly zone can be established.

We won't be bombing Tripoli because if we back him into a corner he could just unleash everything he has on the opposition.

[joshcryer]

7. He explicitly said anyone is his target and he will have no mercy. That's what made the UN act.

[BeFree]

15. Yep

And that is EXACTLY what our last president said and did.
And a million died.

How many this time will die from American involvement? Any idea?

[joshcryer]

34. Less than would have died if Gaddafi was allowed free reign.

[BeFree]

38. heh

Didn't you claim a couple of days ago that the US wouldn't even be involved?
That it was all French and British and no US?

So why should I believe anything you say now? Eh, Josh?

[joshcryer]

40. Wait and see, the US will not be involved. I didn't mean to get your hopes up.

It was a given that the US would take out SAM sites.

[BeFree]

41. So

You admit that you were wrong before?

You did nothing except to prove to me yours are just useless words on my screen.

Didn't believe you then and don't now. Never will.

[Green_Lantern]

53. Bush didn't just enforce a no-fly zone and certainly didn't have..

A UN resolution.

[Starry Messenger]

8. If we were really going in for humanitarian reasons (ha!)

we would have gone in when this all started. Which was weeks ago. No, we suddenly got a case of conscience when there was a power base to support over there. I'm sure deals are being cut. Sorry, one can deplore Ghaddafi as a rotten human being and also deplore the NATO naked oil-grab. It's called being an adult.

[Ikonoklast]

33. Psst...The EU got most of Libya's oil, anyway,

NATO has nothing to do with it...when this is all over, the EU will still purchase most of Libya's energy exports.

All that will change is that maybe the people of Libya will benefit from it, and not a lunatic murderer.

Do you think that Western oil companies just pumped oil out of there for free?

Do you think they'll be able to do that after all this is over?

No, they'll pay Libya, just like before.

[Green_Lantern]

56. oh lord...people need to watch Rachel Maddow.

We didn't go in weeks ago because the UN resolution was just passed. Also Libya was already selling us oil.

[DutchLiberal]

59. No, it's called 'being intellectually lazy'...

In the real world (not your oversimplified black-and-white fantasy world), it takes time to get all major players in the international community on board. It's called diplomacy. Two weeks is considered fast in the diplomatic circuit.

[mmonk]

9. Can we sit any war out? Yes, when none of our "interests" are involved.

If you don't feel oil is a factor, state your case other than he is a bad guy. There are bad guys all around.

[Green_Lantern]

58. read UN resolution 1973...

How about you tell us how this helps us get oil.

[patrick t. cakes]

10. see you in ten years.......nt

[snappyturtle]

12. I agree that Ghaddafi has done 1-3. Please explain to me why it

seems that we always have to be in on the shooting? Can't countries in the area take care of the situation? We're so stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and at home that I can't see our involvement as anything but
bad for the U.S. I disagree with you about the oil. Too many despots and atrocities have been ignored by us but throw in oil and we're johnny on the spot.

edit: imho

[Green_Lantern]

63. the Arab League brought it before the UN...

Are you saying we shouldn't contribute to UN efforts?

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. How do I justify the U.S. not getting involved?

DEBT:

As of February 28, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.19 trillion and was 96.8% of calendar year 2010's annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.66 trillion. Using 2010 figures, the total debt (96.3% of GDP) ranked 12th highest against other nations.<snip>

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

DEFICIT:

WASHINGTON — A surge in oil prices helped push imports up at the fastest pace in 18 years in January, giving the country the largest trade deficit in six months.

The Commerce Department said Thursday the January deficit increased 15.1 percent to $46.3 billion. <snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42005784/ns/business-eye_on... /

UNEMPLOYMENT:

The number of unemployed persons (13.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.9
percent) changed little in February. The labor force was about unchanged over
the month.<snip>

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

HOMELESSNESS:

In a recent approximation USA Today estimated 1.6 million people unduplicated persons used transitional housing or emergency shelters. Of these people, approximately 1/3 are members of households with children, a nine percent increase since 2007. Another approximation is from a study done by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty which states that approximately 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2007).<snip>

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_Many.htm...

INFRASTRUCTURE:

<snip>
“How bad is our nation’s infrastructure deficit? A recent report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that it will cost $2.2 trillion over a five-year period to raise the U.S. infrastructure grade from poor to acceptable. Measure this against the roughly $100 billion from the 2009 “stimulus” legislation that had in fact gone toward infrastructure construction projects as of last fall. Deficit-ridden cities find putting off preventive maintenance and replacing obsolete equipment as tempting ways to cut budgets. Henry Petroski, professor of civil engineering and history at Duke University, warns: “Potholes know no politics….Bridges will corrode and collapse. Pipes will crack and burst. The physical foundations of our civilization will crumble under the weight of our complaints about it and our neglect of it. It will happen so fast it will be impossible to keep up with its repair.”

“The dilemma posed by infrastructure spending was seen in microcosm last fall when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie stopped work on a new commuter-train tunnel that would run under the Hudson River into Manhattan. A federally-assisted project that was supposed to cost $8.7 billion faced a revised cost of $11 billion to $14 billion. “I can’t put taxpayers on a never-ending hook,” Christie said. The fact that the nation can’t even afford to build a railroad tunnel under a river highlighted the failure of government to bring the nation’s infrastructure up to 21st century standards. This includes America’s out-of-sight network of water systems, some of them built by our great-grandparents and now threatening public health and safety.

“Meantime, many nations around the world look to the future by developing critical infrastructure. China plans to spend $295 billion in the next decade to build a high-speed rail network, totaling 10,000 miles, that will connect its major cities. A World Bank report last July praised the project, saying it could speed passenger traffic, free up overloaded freight routes and reduce dependence on autos. One route, between Shanghai and Beijing, could cut travel time from 10 hours to four at speeds up to 302 mph. And China will spend $10 billion to connect the inland cities of Chengdu and Xi’an with a 320-mile railroad that will cut travel time to two hours from the current 13. Contrast this with the decision by the newly elected governors of Wisconsin and Ohio to forgo $1.2 billion in stimulus money for passenger-rail projects in their states. And a high-speed rail project in California that would connect Los Angeles and San Francisco has been derided by critics as “a train to nowhere” because the first leg would connect L.A. with the inland city of Bakersfield.

“While the United States is in retreat from big public works projects, on the grounds of can’t-afford-it, other nations with equally bad debt problems have taken a different course. Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, cut dozens of social and military programs when he took office last fall. But he also unveiled a National Infrastructure Plan, a blueprint for spending $316 billion of public and private money over five years in his country’s railways, power stations, roads, internet access and scientific research. “The government is keen to point out,” said The Economist (Oct. 30, 2010), “that unlike many of its predecessors it has avoided the temptation to slash capital spending during a downturn, a habit that helps explain the current ropy state of the national infrastructure.”<snip>

http://kgab.com/infrastructure-decay-in-the-united-stat... /

COST of LIVING:

U.S. cost of living hits record, passes pre-crisis high
By John Melloy, CNBC

One would think that after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Americans could at least catch a break for a while with deflationary forces keeping the cost of living relatively low. That's not the case.

A special index created by the Labor Department to measure the actual cost of living for Americans hit a record high in February, according to data released Thursday, surpassing the old high in July 2008. The Chained consumer price index, released along with the more widely-watched CPI, increased 0.5% to 127.4, from 126.8 in January. In July 2008, just as the housing crisis was tightening its grip, the Chained consumer price index hit its previous record of 126.9.

"The Federal Reserve continues to focus on the rate of change in inflation," said Peter Bookvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. "Sure, it's moving at a slower pace, but the absolute cost of living is now back at a record high in a country that has seven million less jobs."

The regular CPI, which has already been at a record for a while, increased 0.5%, the fastest pace in 1-1/2 years. However, the Fed's preferred measure, CPI excluding food and energy, increased by just 0.2%. <snip>

U.S. CITIZENS WHO HAVE NO HEALTH CARE INSURANCE:

Number of uninsured Americans rises to 50.7 million

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

A record rise in the number of people without health insurance across the nation is fueling renewed debate over a health care law that could to work better at boosting coverage than controlling costs.

More than 50 million people were uninsured last year, almost one in six U.S. residents, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. The percentage with private insurance was the lowest since the government began keeping data in 1987.

The reasons for the rise to 50.7 million, or 16.7%, from 46.3 million uninsured, or 15.4%, were many: workers losing their jobs in the recession, companies dropping employee health insurance benefits, families going without coverage to cut costs. Driving much of the increase, however, was the rising cost of medical care; a Kaiser Family Foundation report shows workers now pay 47% more than they did in 2005 for family health coverage, while employers pay 20% more.

SENIORS: Despite recession, they see income gains

Although the health care law signed by President Obama in March is designed to insure an additional 32 million people in public and private programs, it doesn't fully kick in until 2014. For the next few years, experts say, the problem could get worse. The average cost to insure a family of four is already about $14,000.<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-17-uninsure...


TEACHER SALARIES IN THE UNITED STATES:

Every few years the American Federation of Teachers releases a Teacher Salary Trends report about teacher salaries across the United States. This information helps teachers decide where to teach and how much they should earn. The latest report indicated that the average teacher salary was $47,602. The Federation indicated that unfortunately, teachers are struggling to find housing in their areas that they can afford on their salaries. As more teachers pursue additional education after receiving their bachelor’s degree, their student loan debt increases dramatically. New teachers may not start at an average teacher salary and could therefore struggle even more than veteran teachers, who may have higher salaries.<snip>

http://www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teach... /

CONDITION of U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

Schools

Spending on the nation’s schools grew from $17 billion in 1998 to a peak of $29 billion in 2004. However, by 2007 spending fell to $20.28 billion. No comprehensive, authoritative nationwide data on the condition of America’s school buildings has been collected in a decade. The National Education Association’s best estimate to bring the nation’s schools into good repair is $322 billion.<snip>

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/scho...

UNION BUSTING BECAUSE THE STATES ARE BROKE:

Governors who are less prone to macho posturing than Walker are pleading poverty – "we're broke!" they say. And indeed, they are.<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011...

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA LETS U.S. CITIZENS GO HUNGRY:

Record numbers go hungry in the US

Government report shows 50m people unable to put food on the table at some point last year.<snip>

<snip>
The number of children living in households where there were shortages of food at times rose by nearly one-third to 17 million. The report says that most parents who did not get enough to eat ensured their offspring received sufficient food but that more than 1 million children still suffered outright hunger.

The worst affected states are in the south with Mississippi having the largest proportion of its population enduring shortages of food followed by Texas and Arkansas. More than half of those affected are minorities, principally black people and Hispanics.<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hu...

COST OF IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN WARS:

Jan 14 (Reuters) - The cost to U.S. taxpayers of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 has topped $1 trillion, and President Barack Obama is expected to request another $33 billion to fund more troops this year.

Over two-thirds of the money has been spent on the conflict in Iraq since 2003. This year is the first in which more funds are being spent in Afghanistan than Iraq, as the pace of U.S. military operations slows in Iraq and quickens in Afghanistan.

HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT ALREADY?

Congress has approved $1.05 trillion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan budget research group that has a continuously running war cost counter on its website.

The tally topped $1 trillion last month, when U.S. lawmakers approved the fiscal 2010 defense spending bill that included $128 billion to be spent on the two conflicts through Sept. 30. The trillion-dollar total includes war-related costs incurred by the State Department, like embassy security.<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/14/afghanistan-i...



Okay....explain it away. Go ahead.

[grahamhgreen]

23. MUST READ! Well done.

But he's gonna say something like, "I am talking about a blood bath and you are concerned about who is going to pay for it?".

Of course, we already have a blood bath here in the US. People who have no health care, housing, or heat, die.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Thank you.

:hi: It's been pretty much ignored by the pro-war masses here.

[grahamhgreen]

28. Do you have it as an OP?

And can I still rec it?

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. I do and you can. :) Here's a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x693957

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

30. how sad-

that you think all this would simply go away if we didn't agree to the UN resolution.

And that you seem to be saying what I've known many ....less than liberal individuals to say, which goes something like "let them worry about themselves, we need to take care of our own".

Is it all about the money then for you?

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. It's all about taking care of OUR citizens for a change.

Why do YOU begrudge OUR kids food and a home? Why do you accept the fact our country is BROKE yet we have money for war any time we want to go to war ...$756,000 per missile fired. Why do you accept the fact that our Unions are being busted because states are broke, but we have money for war? Why do you accept the fact that our teachers make $47,000 a year and people want them to make LESS because the country is broke? Why is it you accept that we have HOMELESS people and no one cares to spend money on them because we're broke, but we have money for war? Why do you accept our HORRENDOUS failed health care system which could be fixed with more money, but WAR is more important to you? They're trying to get rid of SS and Medicare because we don't have the money to fund them, but we have money for WAR. Why do you accept our crumbling infrastructure that can't be repaired because we don't have the money, but you support spending money on another war?

I'M SICK OF IT. I'm sick of the American people giving and giving and giving our tax dollars for WARS and NEVER getting anything for OUR dire needs and they ARE dire.

If you think that's sad, tough shit.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. I don't "accept" it-

and I'm actively working to fight it, and suffering with the reality of it myself.

But your argument that because of MONEY- we shouldn't involve ourselves in this situation, is indeed really a very sad statement.
We have the money in the US to take very good care of our citizens. There is no excuse for the state we are in.

Using the excuse of 'money' is very disapointing.

[DutchLiberal]

61. Not only that, it's a false dilemma...

Like you pointed out, there *is* enough money it the US to fix all those problems; it's just not distributed well. Actions against Qaddafi did not cause does problems, nor will they delay solving those problems. It's a false dilemma, it;'s intellectually lazy, and it's nationalism in its ugliest form that you would expect to find only on FreeRepublic.

[Green_Lantern]

68. it sounds like Scott Walker

"Sorry unions, the state is broke."

[TorchTheWitch]

48. beautifully said n/t

[Green_Lantern]

67. so you oppose sending disaster aid to Japan then?

Nt

[fascisthunter]

99. well stated

[Wait Wut]

79. Ah ha!!

"let them worry about themselves, we need to take care of our own".

This is what triggered a rant to my husband Saturday! First, I wish there were other solutions. I hoped we would not get involved. I knew where it would lead...BUT...

People are being slaughtered by their own "leader". He has stated he will continue to murder them without mercy. I've read the messages from the people of Libya and some of the rebels and they reduced me to tears. Is this the solution I was hoping for? Not at all. Do I give a damn about oil or money? Not at all.

What I quoted from you comment nails it. I told my husband that so much of what I hear from the far left sounds like the same crap I hear from the far right. Just switch the names of the "victims", "sources", etc. and it sounds all too familiar.

Instead of worrying about their own families (like the far right), the far left claims to be concerned with our own citizens. Screw the citizens of the world. They aren't as important as us.

[fishwax]

89. do you not think the money to pay for this action will come from those on the bottom?

Yes, you're right that all that would not simply go away if we didn't agree to the resolution. At the same time, though, what we're doing will very likely exacerbate those issues, and at the very least divert resources that could have been used to correct them. What we're doing will cost money. How much depends on how long this thing continues. That money will likely come from social programs and so on.

[sabrina 1]

39. Don't worry about it. They will just take it out of the Social

Security fund, and then claim that SS is the cause of the deficit. See? It's simple!

Thank you for an excellent post.

We are there for the oil, the whole world, except for a few people in the U.S. know it.

In Britain the people are already out demonstrating against this new war for oil. They are not as easily fooled as Americans are.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. You're welcome.

:hi:

It amazes me that this has been accepted. ESPECIALLY here at DU.

[Green_Lantern]

69. it amazes me you want us to ignore UN security council resolutions

Are you?

[DutchLiberal]

60. And letting Libyans get murdered is going to solve all that... how?

[piedmont]

76. I doubt you'll get an answer for that. nt

[Green_Lantern]

66. well we are still the richest nation in the world...

Do you support sending aid to Japan?

[Jamastiene]

72. I wish there was a Rec link for this post.

Well done. :thumbsup:

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Of course it's not about oil.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/21/501364/main20034420.shtml
February 21, 2011
EU, oil companies begin evacuations from Libya
Governments, businesses evacuate personnel as unrest mounts; 300 reportedly dead in anti-government clashes

(CBS/AP) European countries sent planes and ferries to Libya on Monday to evacuate their citizens, and some international oil and gas companies pulled their foreign staff out and suspended operations, as anti-government protests spread to Tripoli for the first time.

Many countries had already urged their citizens to avoid nonessential travel to Libya or recommended that those already there leave on commercial flights. But as the bloody protests moved to Libya's capital countries and companies alike stepped up their contingency plans.

Oil companies, including Italy's Eni, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, U.K.-based BP and Germany's Wintershall, a subsidiary of BASF, were evacuating their expat workers or their families or both. BP and Wintershall said they were temporarily suspending operations; Eni said production continued normally.

Libya is one of the world's biggest oil producers and has the largest proven oil reserves in the whole of Africa. Eni, Italy's largest natural gas and oil company, is the biggest oil company operating in Libya, where it has at least six contracts alongside the Libyan state oil company.

That was a busy day in Libya.

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpps/news/libyan-justice-minister-resigns-dpgonc-20110221-gc_11981415
Libyan Justice Minister Resigns
Updated: Monday, 21 Feb 2011, 7:14 AM PST
Published : Monday, 21 Feb 2011, 7:08 AM PST
TRIPOLI, Libya -- (NewsCore) - Libyan justice minister Mustapha Abdel Jalil resigned Monday amid violent clashes between protesters and security forces, newspaper Quryna reported.

Jalil reportedly resigned in protest over "the excessive use of force" used against demonstrators during anti-regime uprisings across the country.

Human Rights Watch said that 233 people had been killed since last Thursday in the protests against the rule of Libyan leader Moamar Ghadafi.

In a televised speech to the nation late Sunday, Saif al Islam Ghadafi, the leader's son, warned of an impending civil war.

Draw your own conclusions.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Libya is one of the world's biggest oil producers and

has the largest proven oil reserves in the whole of Africa.

Would you look at that!!! I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!:eyes:

[Green_Lantern]

71. so you oppose stable oil prices?

That's not a bad motive for ceasefire.

I didn't support Iraq.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

29. Here is the fact: every time a gun is fired or a bomb is dropped, someone makes money.

[Taitertots]

45. You actually fell for that bullshit this time

After seeing the exact same bullshit played out at least twice in your lifetime (Iraq, Afghanistan).

"How are you justifying inaction?"
I've already seen what happens the last two times we did this. We are going to murder orders of magnitude more people that Qaddafi ever could have, rape their natural resources, and leave them worse off than they are now.

[DutchLiberal]

65. Get over the fact that your last president was a liar and a war criminal...

And finally start getting your facts straight about Libya.

[Union Scribe]

75. One is as one does.

[Taitertots]

82. I don't want my current President to be one as well, based on the same lies

What "facts" did I get wrong?

[DutchLiberal]

85. What are "the same lies"? Please enlighten us, 'cause we don't know...

Is the insurgency of the rebels a lie? Is the fact that they asked us for our help a lie? Are over 6,000 deaths a lie? Is the fact that Qaddafi is a known sponsor of terrorism and war crimes a lie? Where are these so-called lies? Not every war is the same. That's an oversimplification.

[Balbus]

46. Such a sweet kid...

[joe_sixpack]

55. What Ghaddafi is doing is horrible, no doubt.

No one likes it, or thinks it is justified or wants to excuse it. But can the U.S. actually afford to fulfill the role of moral policeman across the world? If these actions we take inspire more fervent actions by the protesters in Bahrain and Yemen or actually give hope to others to begin new ones, such as Iran or elsewhere, than all the good will we have built up by using force in Libya, will be quashed if we don't take actions in those places as well.

[Green_Lantern]

70. we aren't policing Libya...it is a UN no-fly zone ...

Do you want our jets shot down?

The Libyan opposition called for the no-fly zone.

[joe_sixpack]

78. Of course I don't want our planes shot down.

How did you gather that from my post? I'd be willing to bet that after all is known, we did a little bit more than take out targets to protect our aircraft. But that's fine. Call our actions whatever you wish. We are in essence taking sides in a civil war. That's okay, but let's quit the parsing of words and let's get a consistant foreign policy and quit the BS.

If it's the right thing to take action whenever a group is threatened with extreme violence by an oppressive force, then let's just go in and do it right. So if the Bahrain, Iranian, Chinese, Yemen, ____________ (fill in the blank) opposition request similar actions in the future, let's do it. I'll support it because we'll all know that there is no ulterior geographical, geological or political motive involved. And if it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do whether the UN supports it or not.

[Green_Lantern]

80. this wasn't unilateral like Iraq...the UN called for the no-fly zone

This isn't taking anyone's side...this is to keep the ceasefire Gaddhafi himself called for intact.

He is trying to wipe out his opposition so he can say the Libyan people support him....yeah, after he kills anyone who opposes him.

[Taitertots]

84. Which is in no way different from what the insurgents and the US are doing

After we murder all the Qaddafi supporters, we are going to claim that Libyans support us.

[Green_Lantern]

88. oh please spare me...even Gaddafi doesn't believe that

You actually think the freaking UN is going to go in and murder people and hand Libya over to the US?

So did the CIA stage all these Libyans protesting Gaddafi and being slaughtered?

Please show us anything that supports your outrageous defense of poor victimized Gaddafi.

[Taitertots]

91. Spare me your straw man non-sense

The US and insurgents are going to murder all the Qaddafi supporters and claim that Libya supports them. Exactly what Qaddafi is being accused of.

[Green_Lantern]

93. probably not but that's one reason we need to put it in UNs

Hands. Because the "poor Gaddafhi" crowd will play the America conspiracy card.

Why so much love for him? Because he dislikes the US?

[Taitertots]

95. It is the only thing that any reasonable person could expect

What alternative future could be expected?

Lets see what the general assembly thinks, not a cabal of allies with vested interests. Lets see if the people of the world find continued war for resource domination acceptable.

I don't need to love Qaddafi to know that hegemony for western resource domination is wrong.

[Green_Lantern]

97. the UN doesn't need a vote by every member to take action to

Stop slaughter of people by mercenaries.

This isn't about oil since Gaddafi was already selling it to us.

[Taitertots]

102. They don't need to, but it doesn't give the results any credibility

It is still resource exploitation orchestrated and implemented almost exclusively by the US. It still isn't supported by the majority of the worlds population or nations.

It is not enough just to be buying the oil, multinational energy conglomerates need to control oil from well to final use. It is all about how much gets produced and who gets to control it and profit from it.

The only people being slaughtered were the insurgents fighting a civil war against the Qaddafi government.

[Green_Lantern]

105. well it's only been 4 days and the black/white crowd are already..

Playing Monday morning quarterback. All of this depends on how this ends. It's no more a civil war than the Hutus massacring Tutsis.

History looks very kindly on that intervention...same with Bosnia.

[Taitertots]

107. Your comparison is unwarranted

It is not like Rwanda, so your comparison is unwarranted.

[Taitertots]

83. The best way to stop them from getting shot down is to avoid going to war for no reason

Do you want our jets shot down?

[Green_Lantern]

86. who is going to war for no reason?

You are missing the point. Let me lay it out for you.

The UN Security council instituted a no-fly demilitarized zone to keep Gaddafi from helicoptering mercenary forces into Benghazi and massacring thousands.

The US is a UN member state and thus contributes to patrolling the no-fly zone. Are you advocating for the UN to be ignored?

I don't want our jets shot down which is why they're taking out anti-aircraft capabilities.

We aren't "going to war" we are just keeping Gaddafi from attacking his opposition.

[Taitertots]

90. Who abstained? China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Germany

The only people who were allowed to vote for it were Bosnia, Colombia, France, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, Britain and of course the US. All while the US does the vast majority of the bombing. This was concocted almost entirely by America for western resource exploitation.

"Are you advocating for the UN to be ignored?"
If the US didn't cause this to happen than the UN wouldn't be being ignored.


"We aren't "going to war" we are just keeping Gaddafi from attacking his opposition"
We are taking sides in a civil war to pick the side favorable to American interests. We are "Going to war" when the American military is going aboard and murdering people.

[Green_Lantern]

92. not only are we wrong to intervene but murdering people in Libya now

No...actually we are stopping Ghaddafi from massacring his people.

Please go ahead and cry for him.

Also...Russia and China weren't forced to abstain and could've vetoed the resolution. I don't think the UN should only act when every nation supports it.

It isn't just the US picking a side that favors us...we can't be neutral when one side is massacring people peacefully protesting.

[Taitertots]

94. We are murdering people, what do you think happens when we bomb other nations?

The insurgents are not peaceful protests, but a violent civil war. We are picking sides in an armed conflict between two armed groups.


" I don't think the UN should only act when every nation supports it."
I don't think people should pretend the UN supports this when the vast majority of the worlds population don't. Especially when the vast majority of nations were not even consulted. This action is the creation of the US and a tiny cabal of our close allies who share the same obvious conflict of interest. All with the vast majority of the offensive military attacks being carried out by US troops.

[Green_Lantern]

96. the UN Security council did pass a no-fly zone and the reason the

US is carrying out the major part of the bombing is because the purpose of the bombing is to disrupt Gaddafhi from shooting down jets enforcing the no-fly zone and we had the greatest capability to do so.

Who says the vast majority of the world opposes this?

[Taitertots]

98. UN Security Council, totally orchestrated by the US

The vast majority of the worlds population is in countries which abstained or were not consulted about it. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Germany are not behind this. This is a product of US foreign policy and not international cooperation.

"US is carrying out the major part of the bombing is because the purpose of the bombing is to disrupt Gaddafhi from shooting down jets enforcing the no-fly zone and we had the greatest capability to do so."
Exactly, this is orchestrated and executed almost entirely by the US. And it isn't upholding a no-fly zone, it is destroying all their land based defense systems. We are destroying their military so our favored side in their civil war will win.

[Green_Lantern]

101. none of what you're saying is an accurate description of

What's happening.

What this is called rule of international and stopping a tyrant from massacring his people.

The US didn't orchestrate the Libyan uprising and until Gaddafhi is elected President he has no real claim to rule Libya.

Just be honest and say you think UN resolutions should be ignored.

[Taitertots]

104. Your interpretation of the situation is incorrect

"What this is called rule of international and stopping a tyrant from massacring his people."
No it isn't. This action was orchestrated and executed almost solely by the US. The vast majority of the worlds population either abstained or were not consulted.

With regards to the alleged massacres, Libya is in the middle of a civil war. Those people allegedly massacred are fighters, not civilians.


"Just be honest and say you think UN resolutions should be ignored"
When they are unconstitutional and unjust they certainly should be ignored. The US should also stop pretending that orchestrating a UN security council vote means there is any sort of international consensus.

[Green_Lantern]

106. you would've said the same thing about Rwanda...

"The Hutus were just killing rebel Tutsis."

Your defense of Gaddafhi hurts your credibility.

[Taitertots]

109. You probably said the same thing about Iraq

Your war cheer leading is hurting your credibility.

[highplainsdem]

62. K&R

[jtown1123]

64. Don't forget he funded the genocide in the Sierra Leone and Darfur

[Union Scribe]

74. Oh, look. The justification is shifting already.

I thought it was about the PEOPLE. Now it's revenge for Pan Am?

You say it's not another Iraq as you use the exact same progression of bullshit as the Iraq War.

(Prediction: next we're going to find Al Qaeda in Libya!)

[Green_Lantern]

81. I really doubt this is revenge for Pan Am 103...we already gave Libya

Immunity on that.

Does anyone here know what a no-fly zone is?

This is about preventing war.

[fascisthunter]

100. something, anything....

there will always be reasons for attacking other countries, I just do not buy the humanitarian reasons given so far. I do however believe posters here do want to invade/attack for humanitarian reasons, I just do not think we as a nation are in any shape to do so, nor do I trust our military and our government's use of it.

[Green_Lantern]

103. unilaterally we shouldn't but when the UN Security council..

Authorizes it and the people being butchered request it we should.

Knee jerk dislike of our military is what it's about, I'm afraid.

[Romulox]

87. "He tried to kill my dad!!!11!!!1!!!" nt

[Rex]

108. We all knew the man was a piece of shit decades ago.

It didn't take Reagan bombing his tiny country for me to know that even before that...the man is no different that Saddam or Kim and he proved it by breaking the peaceful streak and opening fire on his own people - en mass. That caused the western spheres to ca-ca all over their $100 briefs and call an emergency meeting, 'hey France you know how we historically hate you...but hey, lets go kill Omar for old fucks sake'! And off we went, now there bombing a new set of people that never did anything to us...I know, collateral damage is what we call it. They die.

So yes, the evil fuck needs to die. Did we need to do it? It will always be a question and especially now with all the pullouts and denial of air bases. Of course America is always a Coalition of One. Ask any other country we've bombed. So this was all over to stop the NEXT revolution from being a bloodbath (didn't work), but I understand the 'knee-jerking' by the WH and Congress and frankly would have been more surprised if we would have stayed out of the conflict.

It is about MONEY and RESOURCES and POLITICAL POWER. That summaries all contemporary wars or war period.

If we are not making MONEY are we getting any RESOURCES? If we are not gaining any POLITICAL POWER are we at least making MONEY? If we are not allocating any RESOURCES can we at least get in with the POLITICAL POWER (then we can make some MONEY).

And on and on it goes...