Let's arm Libya, then dodge our own bullets
 

Have a look at who armed Libya's Gaddaffi, and then look at who's leading the charge to get rid of him. Just sayin' folks. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif



EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi? | News | guardian.co.uk
Data summary
EU arms exports to Libya
Value of export licenses granted. All figures in €m. Click heading to sort. Download this data
Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
SOURCE: EUROPA

Total 72.19 59.03 108.8 250.78 343.73 834.54
Italy 14.97 56.72 93.22 111.8 276.7
France 12.88 36.75 17.66 112.32 30.54 210.15
UK 58.86 3.11 4.63 27.2 25.55 119.35
Germany 0.31 2 23.84 4.18 53.15 83.48
Malta 0.01 79.69 79.7
Belgium 0.21 0.45 22.32 23.02
Portugal 6.88 14.52 21.4
Spain 3.82 3.84 7.69
Slovakia 1 4.41 5.41
Bulgaria 3.73 3.75
Czech Republic 1.19 1.92 3.11
Poland 2.03 2.03
Austria 1.81 1.83
Slovenia 0.14 0.27 0.11 0.53
Latvia 0.25 0.25
Greece 0.03

I dont remember seeing anything about arming Libyans in the UN res.

Saying what? It is irrelevant.

Exactly.

Saddam Hussein was armed by the US in the eighties, when Iran was considered the bigger threat.

Haven´t seen many posts from the OP in the past complaining about that little fact...

Wow. I never knew that Saddam Hussein was the leader of Libya!

Thanks for clarifying that.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

I know you guys don't have much to say when Bush isn't involved, but could you at least make a minimal effort to understand the thread topic?

Matt

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

Not to get too off topic, but the Danes sent Saddam more arms during the 80's than the US. According to the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, the US was 7th on the list, after USSR, China, France, Brazil, Egypt, Denmark respectively.

Oh, it's irrelevant that France sold them a shitload of weapons that Gadaffi's forces is using against France and the rest of the UN forces? No shit, huh?

As long as there is money to be made, arms dealings will happen.

As long as there is money to be made, war will happen.

Us fighting our own weapons is nothing new, and it will continue to be like this as long as we have a large military industrial complex and Europe (including Russia) has a large small arms industry.

It is irrelevant. Tough to wrap your head around, I know. As far as I know France hasn't developed a crystal ball that allows them to see into the future.

I think it's tough for you to wrap your head around, Thor. You
don't neeed a crystal ball with Gaddaffi.

You do realise that, prior to this civil war, Gaddaffi was an ally in the war on terror and that he actively fought al-Qaeda in North Africa, don't you?

And it was still a good idea to sell those arms, regardless of which country did it, as Iran was viewed as bigger threat at the time.

The same with Libya. The western countries were looking out for their own interest and Libya was (until a short time ago) a stabilizing factor in that region of the world.

This whole "look at what those weapons are being used for now" shrieking is pointless. You cannot judge actions of the past through the lens of the present political and military situation. It's not comparable.

But these peaceful protesters do need weapons to defend freedom and democracy!

ARE THEY REALLY peacful protesters in Benghazi Libya??? !!!!!!!!!! - ZOCIAL.tv

http://comrade-vader.livejournal.com/28594.html#cutid1

I'll try to make you notice that, independently from your opinion or it's validity, the videos you use as sources aren't credible. They aren't even suitable as a source of information. Their manner to convey their information is suspicious : one video is a street scene devoid of context ; another is a diaporama with music. They count on emotions to convince, they're meant to be sensational, not rational. As for their content, I'll use three comparisons :
- France often has manifestations and protests, and more than often during those vandalism occurs. But vandalism is only due to a tiny group of either extremists or opportunists, while the vast majority cannot be reproached anything.
- The Tea Party in the US has been pictured as an angry mob.
- Union members have been presented as gangsters or equivalent - videos, more or less like yours, were used to "prove" it.
To say it from my perspective, that argument is a syllogism of which each premise is a particular, at best a Celarent. It cannot and shouldn't be generalized.

Even if it isn't the right thread to do it, I would also like to answer you specifically :
- NYT - NATO warns Libyan rebels...
- EUobserver - NATO frets over civilian casualties...
- middle east online - NATO probes report of Libyan civilian deaths
- CTVNews - NATO commander warns...
Asking you to be cautious about it, as I didn't check all of those sites to see if they looked serious - from first glance I believe they are. It's mostly what I found about the coalition's position on the rebels and civilian casualties : they acknowledge civilian deaths by their strikes and they warn the rebels not to harm civilians. I won't enter the details, I just hope you can assume from this, possibly, that the coalition's position toward those rebels is more nuanced than you believe.
Also, I could add that some people in Europe and the US do share your opinion on what the rebels are - just not for the same reasons.

These videos show Libyans dressed in military uniform been murdered in front of a crowd of peaceful people who were filming it on their mobiles. In one of the videos peaceful people even brought their children to have fun beating up the corps. That's all.

And if you remember, according to Western media peaceful protesters at the very start of the "revolution" did take over a few police/military buildings... so, that's what it looked like from a mobile camera of one of the people who was filming the events alongside others...

Awww.... Did they also say "Ooops!... sorry"? Like they do in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan?

Awww... how sweet...

Not really actually. Some dual use stuff was sold to him (stuff that could be converted into such uses but not primarily intended for such uses) but it came mostly from Europeans and others.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that was on the WMD stuff. On non-WMD, the Russians were a heavy armer as were some European nations once again and others.

Contrary to popular belief given repetition of the claim, the US never had a good relationship with Hussein. It was relatively cool even during the Iran-Iraq War and certainly beyond repair once Gulf War I happened.

So, essentially, a large portion of the UN was demanding proof of the weapons it had the receipts for in the buildup to the invasion.

Pretty much so and anything else he may have obtained via secret means. The WMD material was destroyed following the Persian Gulf War as part of the peace terms of ending it. UN inspectors were in the process of confirming compliance via a UN resolution to confirm compliance when Bush and his 'coalition of the willing' commenced the Iraq war. It wasn't argued whether or not Hussein ever had them...hell, everyone knows he used them and that's why he and some of his henchmen have been hanged by the Iraqis afterwards for doing so. He just didn't have them by the Iraq war.

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing

etc.,etc., etc...

You are right, US never had a good relationship with Hussein, supplying him with WMD was strictly business.