As usual, you twist shit for your ultimate tripe. But here's the thing that really matters as to your 'purpose' and 'contribution'...

Regarding your Soviet/Russian legacy, you've been a central player causing the problems in the very places you are mentioning (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc) by invading, arming and/or dealing with the worst types without conscience for selfish ends. You have done nothing to help rectify that for all its problems and victims that it has caused and instead interfere with and mock seeking to rectify such damages of which you have played a significant role.

Your contribution to the world is a net negative. You help nobody, don't rectify a harm, and only get involved usually to seize things, hurt people, etc, for your own gains and greeds.

You want to be useful? Help the Libyan people getting shot up by your arms and roles in making Gaddafi who he is rather than lecture and mock others trying to help the victims of that stay alive from it. It's the same for Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, where you played terrible roles. Nobody else is a saint, but your shit clogs a toilet. Rather than rehabilitate that, you've chosen to be counterproductive once again, and that's less than worthless.

Judging by your rant, you do recognise that YOUR country that so passionately desired to save the world from Iraq's WMD (AFTER WMD was already destroyed) was the very same country that supplied Saddam with WMD in full knowledge of how he was using them.


PS
You are right, no one is a saint, but US-Israel tandem is an absolute evil.

Pftt. Yeah, counting computers as dual purpose, botulism for scientific purposes used illegally and by deceit, etc...stuff you'd know if you actually looked at facts to honestly evaluate and investigate facts to know what you're talking about in detail rather than seek to abuse facts for a predetermined intent to bash the US, the West, etc.

. . . The United States exported support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war|over $500 million worth of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program.[29] The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples of anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism to Iraq up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. A number of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[30] . . . Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was no rant...it's the facts too. Your contribution to anything good is once again lacking and, worse, consistent with the malevolent approach you Soviet types have always had towards others, never mind your own people by the mega-millions. If you're not intent on being useful and just another form of humanity warts on the humanity body, that's your 'contribution.'

Why don't you start now turning the leaf so you bring credit to your kind for once...try suggesting something positive going forward for these situations and explain why and that includes you actually being productive in it. I'd be interested in discussing that and credit you for it. If you're here just to be gnat on what you played a role as a gnat in causing, then just getting swatted as a gnat is all that's due and proper for being gnat.

OSB, why discuss?, one of your quality mods has deemed this topic "irrelevant". http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Computers for dual purpose? that were used "by deceit"? http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Read it again paying attention to the FULL KNOWLEDGE of US officialdom as to how Saddam was using US supplied WMD components.

US/Israel swatted so many people as if they were gnats in so many countries around the world just to make money for your corporations, banks and power clans that the only positive suggestion as a way forward for humanity would be dismantling your countries, but I doubt you would find it interesting to discuss.

Bullshit. Alma laid out facts, you didn't refute a single one but simply twisted them to support what we're doing now. Your third para, in fact, could easily describe what we're doing now

The main fact is that once again we are attacking an oil rich country because its own government dared to put down a rebellion in its own sovereign territory. We didn't have the campaign of lies leading up to it like in Iraq because this was just an opportunity Obama seized instead of an idee fixe that had been laid out way back in the 90's. (Though it's beginning to look more and more like a part of that doctrine every day). That can come later, I suppose.

Bullshit...she didn't read a thing honestly in that link and its links therein from which to get more links in research to get a grasp on it...she just took things to fit her intended attack out of context with no investigation at all. She never intended to discuss the issue honestly at all.

Which surprises me by your comment given you have the intelligence to know better so don't shortchange it. Do some homework yourself on it before talking this smack. That especially so given you're American. If your country is in the wrong say so. "America Right or Wrong" is not the right way to do things. But don't let someone else wrong the US and assume they're telling it right just because they say so. There's enough anti-US smearmongers out there--like her--without having US lapdogs to it.

Do some investigation into the whole Iraq arms issue in depth. It was widely discussed here in major depth back then. I'm not going to go through it again in detail because her intents are not sincere and you are taking her side without doing your own homework.

I never said the US was a saint in it...it's not. But this bullshit that the US was his armer is complete horseshit. That's not polishing a sin of the US...it's simply not assuming more sins than it didn't do, and letting those who did sins to get away with it by pinning their sins on the US is rightly called out.

Oh really? "[I]t's own government dared to put down a rebellion in its own sovereign territory"...? Since when is a vicious dictator like him supposedly a legitimate leader of those people according to what I assume you consider your rights? Since when is threatening mass abuse and slaughter of civilians by such dictators in recent times not an international crime? I guess that talk about in the US Constitution and rights, consent of the governed, etc, is just applicable to yourself or other cafe crowds in already safe and secure democracies, is that it?

If we wanted the oil, we would have backed Ghaddafi and let him crush them quick. The oil would have flowed just like their blood and he would have appreciated the US support as it would have been in his interest. He's certainly said so saying any oil deals are off except for those who didn't back those people he was targeting, e.g. Russia--you know, Alma's 'higher values', etc.

But then again, I guess the US is a bad guy for backing these dictators 'for oil,' but remove them and try to help the people under them get a democracy, they're bad guys 'for oil' once again, eh? It's a bad guy if the US does it alone and it's a bad guy if the UN requests it, etc. It seems clear to me that you hold the US out to be a bad guy either and any way it goes.

Is that OK that I read a different "link"? Or should we all read only what you tell us to read?

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif Yes, from Wikipedia... http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Since "those people" said he is by standing by him and fighting despite your democratic bombings and your support of rejects and Islamists to overthrow Gaddafi! None of US business to decide for every nation under the sun how it should live. Despite what Bush said about talking directly to God, you don't have a God given right to kill and destroy peoples' lives for your own greed.

You should read all detailed and accurate information to know what you're talking about and do so sincerely, neither of which you do. I'd advise being careful about using Russian sites, though, given they're often just trying to dump viruses, porn, adware, 419 scams and other malware and junk on your computer when those seeking useful information seek it from Russian websites.

Well, you have to start simple for certain posters like yourself. You can then even check the links therein as that is why they are included and expand from there in further investigative research as people who like to learn do, but as I said, you need a genuine interest in the subject matter.

I never said I had a 'God given' right to do so. I do, however, have the right to say so given international law, human rights accords and understandings, etc. You know, the stuff people already have concluded is acceptable conduct or not right here on Earth by rational and decent people. It's a UN authorised action. And as usual, you're as useless as tits on a bull for doing almost any international missions, stopping a slaughter, etc. Don't even begin to lecture the US about being imperfect when you don't even bother to get out of the starting gate on decency on these matters.

What do the pro-Libya intervention suggest Gaddafi should have done in response to the rebellion?

You know, I did. Of course, I did not stop on your Wiki article...

Just in case you did not notice, international law was cancelled the very day the international community on US insistence recognised partitioning of Serbia.
Since UN is yet another corrupt inept self-righteous elite-serving organisation it made itself irrelevant in the eyes of the people.

It does say "protect civilians".

Now the Brits think, this could be laid out as a permittance to arm rebels to help them protect civilians as no foreign troops are allowed on the ground.

They might get away with that, as long as the UN does not implicitly disallow giving weapons to the rebels.

And they will not do that.

It does seem peculiar, that the person recording this was obviously among a crowd, he didn´t belong to, as agent of Gaddafi.
Why else would he give the recordings to Gaddafis TV.

And he had all the time in the world to film.

The first Video was actually taken in Tripolis, this was taken during the protest at the libyan TV headquarters. It was dispersed by libyan police and army.
THEY got violent and started the killings.
And the killed guy was quite obviously a protestor. Just check the right arm of the guy who stabs him.
He wears a police arm band.

I know it seems far fetched, but I still hope, that one day you´ll write the truth instead of permanently twisting it to suit your anti-West agenda.

Was it about the topic ?
I thought it was about your posts.

Might be mistaken though.

Good to know that YOU are "the people".

But since when are the totally blind able to see ?

Actually you cited no source at all.

Oh international law was cancelled...gotcha. The Geneva Conventions, Convention Against Torture, Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc, all scrapped too....you better inform the UN, ICC, ICJ, all the signatory nations, etc, to pack up and go home because they missed your memo. Tyrants, sex traffickers of children, etc, will be most pleased with you.

Ah you speak for all the people...gotcha. You really better get your memo out.

We were selling Japan airplanes, and the tools and scrap steel they were using to build their war machine, up until October of 1940.

We continued to sell them oil until July of the following year.

I do remember many liberals screaming bloody murder about the U.S. arming Iraq in the eighties during the run-up to OIF, but I don't recall any of them coming down too hard on Roosevelt for arming an enemy which actually posed a threat to the United States.

I guess this is what you might call some of that partisan duplicity.

That's a hard question as it's in response of the "rebellion", not the "protests". It means the crowd had already been fired at and violence was already in progress. I actually have little idea of how the early events unfolded, where to say the "protests" ended and when the "rebellion" began. An easy answer would be to not have used violence against protesters, as to not produce the rebellion. That would have equaled mostly to stepping down, which I guess isn't an acceptable answer.
It's also a hard question because of the context, let's say twenty years of what's been described as repression, tribal tensions and a lack of trust in his own army. Given that, another easy answer - to follow strict RoE, to avoid casualties when possible and mostly repress with "western" standards - would be flawed. Which is also a problem, because to justify a counter-insurrection the UN would have mostly expected from him a "western" behavior, unfitted to his country.

Basically your question isn't, should he have stepped down, but could he have repressed the rebellion in a manner that wouldn't have started an international effort against him. If the army in the east had proved more reliable, probably yes, he could have. If he had specialized units at hand, using his army to only fight rebels outside towns or at town's entrances, maybe... It's also probable that he couldn't do better with his media campaign, as he had to convince his country as much as the international community - and he really tried all he could.
As to repress it non violently... I truly don't know, and have to suppose it wasn't feasible.
Gaddafi couldn't do much more to... either maintain the unity of Libya or stay in power, depending on which side you support. He had to bet that the international community wouldn't intervene, and he could have succeeded. So he did nothing wrong to end the rebellion. And he has the right to counter-insurrection. But the only option left was apparently to massacre - I'll allow myself that term - which, of course, wasn't acceptable.

I have to guess, for an interventionist, the answer should be something like "he should have stepped down".

Alma may have pointed out several notable historical occurrences, but it still goes back to the fact that the Soviets have often been even worse than us when it comes to manipulating foreign nations.

I guess what makes it difficult for Alma to accept is that, when looking at a lot of human history -- very few people are the "good guys."

It's usually just varying degrees of "bad guys." We've been bad, but we haven't been as bad as some of our rivals.

It is not for nothing Israel was not ecstatic about "international community's" manipulations in Libya:

as a result of ransacking Libyan arsenals peaceful protesters found themselves in possession of chemical weapons that they are now selling to Hezbollah and Hamas...