[TheRealVille]

I am sure that the rebels took a vote to determine which of them got the honor of executing Gaddafi, an injured and defenseless prisoner of war, without the benefit of a trial. Look around the world. How many democratic Muslim nations do you see? Libya has no democratic tradition and it is extremely unlikely that they will form a democratic government. If they do, it will revert to form within a very few years.

How do you know that the new people in charge won't hold the gunman that killed him accountable, or even that they know who did it? They are claiming that crossfire between the rebels and Gaddafi's supporters was what killed him. One report even said that his own supporters were the ones that got him when they started firing. The truth is, we can only go on their word right now on what happened in the last minutes of his death. We can also only go on their word that they want democracy, and a relation with the US. They haven't shown anything against the US since he was ousted. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Hoot Gibson]

How do you know that the new people in charge won't hold the gunman that killed him accountable, or even that they know who did it?

There is video showing him injured, confused, and in the custody of the rebels. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what happened to him.

They are claiming that crossfire between the rebels and Gaddafi's supporters was what killed him. One report even said that his own supporters were the ones that got him. The truth is, we can only go on their word right now on what happened in the last minutes of his death.

The rebels have been treating Gaddafi's body like a stuffed lion bagged on a safari. The truth is, people who murder defenseless prisoners often lie about the circumstances of death.

We can also only go on their word that they want democracy, and a relation with the US. They haven't shown anything against the US since he was ousted. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Without the US funding the war against Gaddafi, the rebel leaders would probably not be alive today. Pit bulls sometime go for years without biting the hand that feeds them- but stop feeding them and see how long it takes for them to turn on you. I think the fact that the rebels are refusing to extradite the Pan Am Flight 103 bomber is a pretty good indication of which direction the new Libyan government will take. When American money and arms stop flowing into rebel hands, their attention will turn toward the infidels who helped bring them to power.

I expect that the political developments in Libya, Egypt, and other Muslim nations that have participated in the "Arab Spring" will get little media coverage until after the 2012 elections so that Obama can claim foreign policy triumphs in his stump speeches. When the media finally focuses on the mess that has been left behind in Egypt, and most probably in Libya as well, liberal Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure of democracy to take hold in those countries. The truth is, democracy has never been an Islamic tradition, and it never will be. It is incompatible with sharia law.

[TheRealVille]

There is video showing him injured, confused, and in the custody of the rebels. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what happened to him.

The rebels have been treating Gaddafi's body like a stuffed lion bagged on a safari. The truth is, people who murder defenseless prisoners often lie about the circumstances of death.

Without the US funding the war against Gaddafi, the rebel leaders would probably not be alive today. Pit bulls sometime go for years without biting the hand that feeds them- but stop feeding them and see how long it takes for them to turn on you. I think the fact that the rebels are refusing to extradite the Pan Am Flight 103 bomber is a pretty good indication of which direction the new Libyan government will take. When American money and arms stop flowing into rebel hands, their attention will turn toward the infidels who helped bring them to power.

I expect that the political developments in Libya, Egypt, and other Muslim nations that have participated in the "Arab Spring" will get little media coverage until after the 2012 elections so that Obama can claim foreign policy triumphs in his stump speeches. When the media finally focuses on the mess that has been left behind in Egypt, and most probably in Libya as well, liberal Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure of democracy to take hold in those countries. The truth is, democracy has never been an Islamic tradition, and it never will be. It is incompatible with sharia law.

The almighty, omniscient one has spoken, so be it.

[vundy33]

I did not mean to imply that the deaths of Libyan civilians was deliberate but friendly fire deaths are a part of war. Libya was a sovereign nation, Gaddafi was its head of state, and Gaddafi's army was Libya's army. We inserted ourselves into a civil war, the outcome of which would have been quite different without our military intervention. I don' see how you cannot call what happened in Libya war.

The issue of whether Obama violated the War Powers Act does not hinge on whether Gaddafi posed a serious threat to our military. Deliberately attacking amd killing the troops of a sovereign country is an act of war, regardless of the justification.

It's not that I'm not trying to call it war, it's that I'm not calling it "war with Libya", because Gadhafi was it's deposed head of state, not the head of state we recognized and granted our support to, just like the rest of NATO did.

NTC have shown nothing but their thanks for U.S. and NATO intervention, they have worked with us fully. How do the rebels actions indicate ANYTHING about what type of government they'll have? They are fighters, not legislators, the leaders of NTC, who have shown nothing but competence throughout this conflict, will in my opinion be as pro-U.S. as possible.

Hoot, not everything that is on the news is put there for a party's advantage...Libya sure as heck isn't being covered so it will be an advantage in the eyes of voters for Pres. Obama and the Dems, and it's not being covered to "show the Obama Admin's problems" or anything else political.

They are refusing to release the Pan Am bomber because he's already been extradited on the basis of bad health! From what I've heard, he's in pretty bad health anyway, and even if he weren't, so what? Is that really what we are going to focus on to try to discredit them?

There is no indication that Libya's leaders are going to "turn against us", or that the ones that actually fought for this would. THEY DO NOT CARE. They cared about Gaddafi being gone, because they were at war with him, if they would've stopped, they all would've died. They want their country, and that's it. They're not worried about America.

"liberal Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure of democracy to take hold in those countries."

^^^That kind of stuff is what you're doing right now man...

And I can't believe that you are really taking up for Gaddafi...who cares if he got executed. He didn't get tortured, he didn't get beheaded and his body dragged through the streets...their mission was to find and kill him. They did just that. If it'd had been our mission, we'd have done the same thing, but he probably wouldn't be recognizable because of all the lead in his facial/upper body area.

Me thinks you are just using this as something you can use against Pres. Obama...the same way when Republican's get asked about it, the first thing they go to is how Obama is/was wrong or whatever. If he was wrong, do something about it the right way instead of the first thing that comes out of your mouth is how wrong our President was, when he wasn't. A government asked for our help, two big allies asked, and we could provide that help with minimum U.S. risk, and we did.

[vundy33]

There is video showing him injured, confused, and in the custody of the rebels. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what happened to him.

The rebels have been treating Gaddafi's body like a stuffed lion bagged on a safari. The truth is, people who murder defenseless prisoners often lie about the circumstances of death.

Without the US funding the war against Gaddafi, the rebel leaders would probably not be alive today. Pit bulls sometime go for years without biting the hand that feeds them- but stop feeding them and see how long it takes for them to turn on you. I think the fact that the rebels are refusing to extradite the Pan Am Flight 103 bomber is a pretty good indication of which direction the new Libyan government will take. When American money and arms stop flowing into rebel hands, their attention will turn toward the infidels who helped bring them to power.

I expect that the political developments in Libya, Egypt, and other Muslim nations that have participated in the "Arab Spring" will get little media coverage until after the 2012 elections so that Obama can claim foreign policy triumphs in his stump speeches. When the media finally focuses on the mess that has been left behind in Egypt, and most probably in Libya as well, liberal Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure of democracy to take hold in those countries. The truth is, democracy has never been an Islamic tradition, and it never will be. It is incompatible with sharia law.

Now that's just ridiculous...

[Hoot Gibson]

It's not that I'm not trying to call it war, it's that I'm not calling it "war with Libya", because Gadhafi was it's deposed head of state, not the head of state we recognized and granted our support to, just like the rest of NATO did.

NTC have shown nothing but their thanks for U.S. and NATO intervention, they have worked with us fully. How do the rebels actions indicate ANYTHING about what type of government they'll have? They are fighters, not legislators, the leaders of NTC, who have shown nothing but competence throughout this conflict, will in my opinion be as pro-U.S. as possible.

Hoot, not everything that is on the news is put there for a party's advantage...Libya sure as heck isn't being covered so it will be an advantage in the eyes of voters for Pres. Obama and the Dems, and it's not being covered to "show the Obama Admin's problems" or anything else political.

They are refusing to release the Pan Am bomber because he's already been extradited on the basis of bad health! From what I've heard, he's in pretty bad health anyway, and even if he weren't, so what? Is that really what we are going to focus on to try to discredit them?

There is no indication that Libya's leaders are going to "turn against us", or that the ones that actually fought for this would. THEY DO NOT CARE. They cared about Gaddafi being gone, because they were at war with him, if they would've stopped, they all would've died. They want their country, and that's it. They're not worried about America.

"liberal Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the failure of democracy to take hold in those countries."

^^^That kind of stuff is what you're doing right now man...

And I can't believe that you are really taking up for Gaddafi...who cares if he got executed. He didn't get tortured, he didn't get beheaded and his body dragged through the streets...their mission was to find and kill him. They did just that. If it'd had been our mission, we'd have done the same thing, but he probably wouldn't be recognizable because of all the lead in his facial/upper body area.

Me thinks you are just using this as something you can use against Pres. Obama...the same way when Republican's get asked about it, the first thing they go to is how Obama is/was wrong or whatever. If he was wrong, do something about it the right way instead of the first thing that comes out of your mouth is how wrong our President was, when he wasn't. A government asked for our help, two big allies asked, and we could provide that help with minimum U.S. risk, and we did.

Gaddafi was Libya's head of state when NATO, mostly the US, began air strikes. He was deposed as a result of our aid to Libya. We did not begin supporting the rebels after Gaddafi was overthrown. I am not defending Gaddafi at all. His death was a good thing and I know that it may be a cliche, but the ends do not necessarily justify the means.

There is nothing that you can say that will make the way that Obama personally waged war on Libya without asking for Congressional approval in accordance with the War Power Act. Every president has complied with that law since it was passed, regardless of which party controlled Congress. Bush sought and received approval of Congress, including a Democratic-controlled Senate, before he committed US troops to war in Iraq. He was heavily criticized for the flawed intelligence that resulted in that approval, but the truth is the decision had widespread public support - and that is why the invasion of Iraq received bi-partisan support.

As to the blue passage of your post, you could not be more wrong. As I said before, Gaddafi was the head of the Libyan government when Obama agreed to support the rebels, and the only legitimate government that could have asked for our help was the Libyan government.

I am not anti-war and certainly not anti-military. I have praised Obama for not keeping his campaign promise for the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq and I supported his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. I even support his program of killing terrorists with drone attacks to avoid having to decide which court to try them in. So, as bad as you may want to make my harping on Obama's failure to follow the law during the war on Libya a case of political bias, that dog won't hunt. Had the adventure into the Libyan civil war taken "days not weeks," as Obama promised, then the War Powers Act would not have applied. Once that law's 60-day limit passed, Obama was violating federal law every single day that force was being used in Libya.

When Nixon tried to place himself above the law, both parties slapped him down for it. When Obama does the same thing, Democrats rally around him and say that the law doesn't matter and Republicans hardly make a whimper. Congress has set a dangerous precedent by not making Obama's actions in Libya a bipartisan issue. What really bothers me is that I believe a majority of both Democrats and Republicans would have given Obama the green light had he simply complied with the law and made the case for deposing Gaddafi.

[Hoot Gibson]

The almighty, omniscient one has spoken, so be it.

Is that all you've got? Pure sarcasm with no response to having each and every one of your arguments shot down with facts? Fish in a barrel mount a stronger defense.

[TheRealVille]

Is that all you've got? Pure sarcasm with no response to having each and every one of your arguments shot down with facts? Fish in a barrel mount a stronger defense.

Shot down huh? What facts? You have guessed at the last several posts you have made. You have no idea of their intentions, other than your guesses. What about, as you have said in other conflicts the US has been in, our interests in that country? They are very rich in oil. You are a hack of the highest order.

[vundy33]

Gaddafi was Libya's head of state when NATO, mostly the US, began air strikes. He was deposed as a result of our aid to Libya. We did not begin supporting the rebels after Gaddafi was overthrown. I am not defending Gaddafi at all. His death was a good thing and I know that it may be a cliche, but the ends do not necessarily justify the means.

There is nothing that you can say that will make the way that Obama personally waged war on Libya without asking for Congressional approval in accordance with the War Power Act. Every president has complied with that law since it was passed, regardless of which party controlled Congress. Bush sought and received approval of Congress, including a Democratic-controlled Senate, before he committed US troops to war in Iraq. He was heavily criticized for the flawed intelligence that resulted in that approval, but the truth is the decision had widespread public support - and that is why the invasion of Iraq received bi-partisan support.

As to the blue passage of your post, you could not be more wrong. As I said before, Gaddafi was the head of the Libyan government when Obama agreed to support the rebels, and the only legitimate government that could have asked for our help was the Libyan government.

I am not anti-war and certainly not anti-military. I have praised Obama for not keeping his campaign promise for the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq and I supported his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. I even support his program of killing terrorists with drone attacks to avoid having to decide which court to try them in. So, as bad as you may want to make my harping on Obama's failure to follow the law during the war on Libya a case of political bias, that dog won't hunt. Had the adventure into the Libyan civil war taken "days not weeks," as Obama promised, then the War Powers Act would not have applied. Once that law's 60-day limit passed, Obama was violating federal law every single day that force was being used in Libya.

When Nixon tried to place himself above the law, both parties slapped him down for it. When Obama does the same thing, Democrats rally around him and say that the law doesn't matter and Republicans hardly make a whimper. Congress has set a dangerous precedent by not making Obama's actions in Libya a bipartisan issue. What really bothers me is that I believe a majority of both Democrats and Republicans would have given Obama the green light had he simply complied with the law and made the case for deposing Gaddafi.

Hoot, Gaddafi was shelling his own people, entire cities! NATO was created to keep things like that from happening!

I know what you support and what you don't, I've paid attention, and on Iraq and Afghan we have agreed almost always. I'm not criticizing you for criticizing Pres. Obama and his admin for how they went about Libya, I am talking about the fact that you always talking about how the Dems try to make the Republican side look bad purposely by overstating certain events, over and over, when you are doing the same thing. You can't compare Pres. Bush going before congress to receive approval before "committing" troops to Iraq to our part in the conflict in Libya...we INVADED Libya, we staged hundreds of thousands of troops in Kuwait and the build-up took months. The conflict in Libya was alot faster, and the international community had to do something. He was ordered to stop shelling and killing his own people, he refused, so NATO stepped in. Not the U.S., NATO. Yes, U.S. units were under NATO command, but you can hardly call cruise missiles and airstrikes "at war with Libya". And it wasn't "NATO, mostly the U.S." that began airstrikes. It was as much the British and French as it was U.S., and if the U.S. did have more forces in the first few days/weeks than the Brits and French, it was because of our first-strike capabilities that are much bigger and better than any other country on earth. Pres. Obama made perfectly clear that we did not want to be involved in this and weren't to be involved in it for very long, and that was the case.

There is hardly anything comparable about the conflict in Libya and the war in Iraq, there just isn't.

Pres. Obama would have surely went before Congress for approval if he would've had the time. If you remember, this was a conflict that was getting worse day by day, and something needed to be done. You are acting like we were in it alone or something...the British and French were easily the top players in this and in wanting to intervene in Libya, not the United States.

[TheRealVille]

Hoot, Gaddafi was shelling his own people, entire cities! NATO was created to keep things like that from happening!

I know what you support and what you don't, I've paid attention, and on Iraq and Afghan we have agreed almost always. I'm not criticizing you for criticizing Pres. Obama and his admin for how they went about Libya, I am talking about the fact that you always talking about how the Dems try to make the Republican side look bad purposely by overstating certain events, over and over, when you are doing the same thing. You can't compare Pres. Bush going before congress to receive approval before "committing" troops to Iraq to our part in the conflict in Libya...we INVADED Libya, we staged hundreds of thousands of troops in Kuwait and the build-up took months. The conflict in Libya was alot faster, and the international community had to do something. He was ordered to stop shelling and killing his own people, he refused, so NATO stepped in. Not the U.S., NATO. Yes, U.S. units were under NATO command, but you can hardly call cruise missiles and airstrikes "at war with Libya". And it wasn't "NATO, mostly the U.S." that began airstrikes. It was as much the British and French as it was U.S., and if the U.S. did have more forces in the first few days/weeks than the Brits and French, it was because of our first-strike capabilities that are much bigger and better than any other country on earth. Pres. Obama made perfectly clear that we did not want to be involved in this and weren't to be involved in it for very long, and that was the case.

There is hardly anything comparable about the conflict in Libya and the war in Iraq, there just isn't.

Pres. Obama would have surely went before Congress for approval if he would've had the time. If you remember, this was a conflict that was getting worse day by day, and something needed to be done. You are acting like we were in it alone or something...the British and French were easily the top players in this and in wanting to intervene in Libya, not the United States.

Hoot's never wrong, so don't expect him to admit it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Shot down huh? What facts? You have guessed at the last several posts you have made. You have no idea of their intentions, other than your guesses. What about, as you have said in other conflicts the US has been in, our interests in that country? They are very rich in oil. You are a hack of the highest order.

You sir, are truly clueless. Must be all that time that you spend on the Daily Kos and/or the Democratic Underground. You are a fool of the lowest order - one who is wilfully ignorant of current events, yet one who insists on a regular public display of said ignorance.[INDENT]

Muammar Gaddafi's 'trophy' body on show in Misrata meat store
Libyans queue to see dictator's body as wounds appear to confirm he was killed in cold blood

[Image: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guar...---007.jpg]Libyans take photos of Gaddafi's body in Misrata, where a guard let small groups in to a meat store to view the dead dictator. Photograph: Balkis Press/Abaca/PA Images

Bloodied, wearing just a pair of khaki trousers, and dumped on a cheap mattress, Muammar Gaddafi's body has become a gruesome tourist attraction and a macabre symbol of the new Libya's problems.
Hundreds of ordinary Libyans queued up outside a refrigerated meat store in Misrata, where the dead dictator was being stored as a trophy. A guard allowed small groups into the room to celebrate next to Gaddafi's body. They posed for photos, flashing victory signs, and burst into jubilant cries of "God is great."
<<SNIP>>

The NTC faces questions from international rights organisations. On Thursday, Jibril claimed that Gaddafi had been killed from a bullet to the head received in crossfire between rebel fighters and his supporters. He was dragged alive on to a truck, but died "when the car was moving", Jibril said, citing forensic reports.

Gruesome mobile phone footage obtained by the Global Post undermines this account. It records the minutes after Gaddafi's capture, when his convoy came under Nato and rebel attack. He is dragged out of a tunnel where he had been hiding. Blood is already pouring out of a wound on the left side of his head.

A group of fighters then frogmarch him towards a pick-up truck. There are shouts of "God is great" and the rattle of gunfire. At one point Gaddafi keels over; a fighter kicks him and scuffs dirt over his bloodstained clothing. The rebels prop Gaddafi back on his feet and propel him onwards.

Gaddafi is clearly dazed and wounded – but is alive, conscious, and pleading feebly with his captors. Fighters at the scene said that he was injured in the shoulder and leg when he was found. Fresh blood is also flowing from a head injury.

The evidence has prompted Amnesty International to call on the NTC to investigate. It said that if Gaddafi were deliberately killed, this would be a war crime. The NTC's position is that it will support an investigation because the new Libya is a law-abiding country, but officials seemed sceptical that it was necessary. "Even if he was killed intentionally, I think he deserves this," Mohammed Sayeh, a senior official, told the BBC. "If they kill him 1,000 times, I think it will not pay back the Libyans what he has done."

Amnesty also called for an investigation into the unexplained, violent death of Gaddafi's son Mutassim. Video footage that surfaced shows him calmly smoking a cigarette after his capture. Soon afterwards, someone appears to have shot him. His body is now on show in another freezer unit in Misrata.

[/INDENT]

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, Gaddafi was shelling his own people, entire cities! NATO was created to keep things like that from happening!

I know what you support and what you don't, I've paid attention, and on Iraq and Afghan we have agreed almost always. I'm not criticizing you for criticizing Pres. Obama and his admin for how they went about Libya, I am talking about the fact that you always talking about how the Dems try to make the Republican side look bad purposely by overstating certain events, over and over, when you are doing the same thing. You can't compare Pres. Bush going before congress to receive approval before "committing" troops to Iraq to our part in the conflict in Libya...we INVADED Libya, we staged hundreds of thousands of troops in Kuwait and the build-up took months. The conflict in Libya was alot faster, and the international community had to do something. He was ordered to stop shelling and killing his own people, he refused, so NATO stepped in. Not the U.S., NATO. Yes, U.S. units were under NATO command, but you can hardly call cruise missiles and airstrikes "at war with Libya". And it wasn't "NATO, mostly the U.S." that began airstrikes. It was as much the British and French as it was U.S., and if the U.S. did have more forces in the first few days/weeks than the Brits and French, it was because of our first-strike capabilities that are much bigger and better than any other country on earth. Pres. Obama made perfectly clear that we did not want to be involved in this and weren't to be involved in it for very long, and that was the case.

There is hardly anything comparable about the conflict in Libya and the war in Iraq, there just isn't.

Pres. Obama would have surely went before Congress for approval if he would've had the time. If you remember, this was a conflict that was getting worse day by day, and something needed to be done. You are acting like we were in it alone or something...the British and French were easily the top players in this and in wanting to intervene in Libya, not the United States.

When the Japanese launched air strikes against Pearl Harbor, we were at war with Japan. NATO was not created to settle civil wars and overthrow governments around the world. It was created as a counterbalance to the military force of the Soviet Union. It has been repurposed following the collapse of the Soviet Union to keep it relevant, but operations like the one in Libya are outside of the scope of its original mission.

The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". - Wikipedia

The War Powers Act did not require President Obama to go before Congress for approval before using military force against Libya. It required him to do so within 60 days of the onset of hostilities. Surely, Obama could have taken enough time out of his busy schedule to go to Congress at some time during those 60 days after hostilities began, if he was too busy to do so beforehand.

More than 70 percent of member defense expendures on NATO come from the US, so when our president, whether it be Bush or Obama, says that a campaign will be conducted by NATO, it means that most of the cost will be borne by US taxpayers. In this case, the UK and France's national interests (mostly Libyan oil and their citizens employed in the oil industry) were clearly more at stake than ours. But, the French and British, as you point out, have historically been among our strongest allies, so we could not have very well said no if we expect them to participate in future operations that do involve our own national interests.

All Obama had to do was follow the law, which he took an oath to do. Very few Republicans would have turned their back on the British or French (especially the British), considering the support that they have provided to this country in other areas of the world in the past. The fact that Obama refused to follow the law and obtain Congress's approval in accordance with the law and past precedent - when their answer would almost certainly have been "yes," should concern every American.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot's never wrong, so don't expect him to admit it.

Spoken by one who is rarely right. (You do agree with me occasionally, so I cannot say that you are never right.) Don't worry, nobody expects you to to begin admitting your mistakes.

[vundy33]

lol..I can't believe you used Pearl Harbor of all things to relate to that...

[Wildcatk23]

Stop making the worst president of all time look good. WAIT A MINUTE!

[Wildcatk23]

Do you really think he deserved to be treated any other way hoot?

[Hoot Gibson]

lol..I can't believe you used Pearl Harbor of all things to relate to that...

Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that carried little risk to the Japanese pilots who carried it out. It's not a perfect analogy but close enough. The difference is that we had the ability to respond in a way that did put the Japanese military at risk, where the Libyans did not. My point is that from the receiving end, the bombings constituted war, regardless of whether the target's ability to counter attack was present or not. The argument that bombing Libya did not constitute war because our military personnel faced little risk just does not hold water. When Highlands pummels an opponent 68-0, 77-0, and 79-0 on successive weekends, nobody claims that they did not play football on those nights. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you really think he deserved to be treated any other way hoot?

Yes. He deserved a trial before being hung or shot dead. I can understand why his captors shot him in the head but the rebels' actions turned them into war criminals. They passed on an opportunity to send the world and the Libyan people a clear message that things will be different in Libya as a consequence of Gaddafi's removal.

[Wildcatk23]

Yes. He deserved a trial before being hung or shot dead. I can understand why his captors shot him in the head but the rebels' actions turned them into war criminals. They passed on an opportunity to send the world and the Libyan people a clear message that things will be different in Libya as a consequence of Gaddafi's removal.

He was a mass murderer. Treated his people like dirt and just because u kill a murderous dictator doesn't make your new leaders murderers.

[Hoot Gibson]

He was a mass murderer. Treated his people like dirt and just because u kill a murderous dictator doesn't make your new leaders murderers.

Yeah, it does, if the killings were ordered or condoned by those leaders. Civilized countries do not shoot POWs in the head without trying them first. One problem with toppling governments in countries like Libya is that thugs like Gaddafi set a bad example for their successors. There are no Thomas Jeffersons there waiting in the wings to form a democratic government.

[Wildcatk23]

Yeah, it does, if the killings were ordered or condoned by those leaders. Civilized countries do not shoot POWs in the head without trying them first. The problem with toppling governments in countries like Libya is that thugs like Gaddafi set a bad example for their successors. There are no Thomas Jeffersons there waiting in the wings to form a democratic government.

And we have no idea if they was?


You know this to?

Where do u get your INTEL? Its clearly better than the rest of the worlds.

:dudecomeon:

[Hoot Gibson]

And we have no idea if they was?


You know this to?

Where do u get your INTEL? Its clearly better than the rest of the worlds.

:dudecomeon:

If you read the articles to which I have already linked, then you will see that the rebel leaders do condone Gaddafi's killing. In fact, they said that if their men killed him in the manner of which they are accused, then it is okay because Gaddafi deserved that fate 1,000 times over. This debate thing really works better if you read a little before responding with insults.

If you need more evidence that the rebels killed Gaddafi, here's an article from Reuters:[INDENT]

Clues to Gaddafi's death concealed from public view

MISRATA, Libya (Reuters) - Libyan forces guarding Muammar Gaddafi's body in a cold storage room let in members of the public to view the deposed leader for a second day on Saturday, but the wounds that may hold the clue to how he died were covered up.
Gaddafi's body lay on a mattress on the floor of the cold room, as it did Friday when hundreds of members of the public filed in to see for themselves that the man who ruled Libya for 42 years was dead.

But unlike the previous day, Gaddafi's body was covered by a blanket that left only his head exposed, hiding the bruises on his torso and scratch marks on his chest that had earlier been visible.

And, crucially, a Reuters reporter who viewed the body said, Gaddafi's head had been turned to the left. That meant a bullet hole that earlier could be seen on the left side of his face, just in front of his ear, could no longer be seen.

[/INDENT]

[vundy33]

Hoot, who are you to say Gaddafi deserved a trial? You weren't effected in any why by anything he did, and you weren't part of the war against his forces. It's a totally different country, and people. I guarantee that not one part of the Geneva Convention would stick if anyone tried to prosecute..

Hell, we don't even know if that's exactly what happened before...it all happened within minutes. Also, Libya isn't a civilized country right now, they've been at war for most of this year. And how in the world can you say that the NATO's no-fly zone, and then their direct intervention constituted war? Gaddafi's Army constituted that by killing his own people!

[vundy33]

If you read the articles to which I have already linked, then you will see that the rebel leaders do condone Gaddafi's killing. In fact, they said that if their men killed him in the manner of which they are accused, then it is okay because Gaddafi deserved that fate 1,000 times over. This debate thing really works better if you read a little before responding with insults.

It's fine that they said that, because it is the truth. He was wanted dead or alive...you really think that those JSOC troops that killed Bin Laden even thought for a single second about taking him as a prisoner? Of course not!

I don't even think he was executed, or shot in the head from the pics and vids I've seen. Looks more like a shrapnel wound to me, but ehh...he's gone and the war is over, and that's all that matters to Libyans.

[Wildcatk23]

If you read the articles to which I have already linked, then you will see that the rebel leaders do condone Gaddafi's killing. In fact, they said that if their men killed him in the manner of which they are accused, then it is okay because Gaddafi deserved that fate 1,000 times over. This debate thing really works better if you read a little before responding with insults.

If you need more evidence that the rebels killed Gaddafi, here's an article from Reuters:[INDENT][/INDENT]

Never said they didn't. But condoning someones death is far different then giving an order to have it done. From the article u posted it said a going rebel was excited and shot him. What does the leaders suppose to be? Bring the kid to trial for killing the most hated man there? That's asking for a civil war.

Plus I didn't insult u in any way.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, who are you to say Gaddafi deserved a trial? You weren't effected in any why by anything he did, and you weren't part of the war against his forces. It's a totally different country, and people. I guarantee that not one part of the Geneva Convention would stick if anyone tried to prosecute..

Hell, we don't even know if that's exactly what happened before...it all happened within minutes. Also, Libya isn't a civilized country right now, they've been at war for most of this year. And how in the world can you say that the NATO's no-fly zone, and then their direct intervention constituted war? Gaddafi's Army constituted that by killing his own people!

What are you saying, Vundy? That you want to live in a country where the President of the United States has the sole authority to overthrow foreign governments without consulting Congress before or after the fact? That NATO's wishes or UN resolutions trump our Constitution? Because by making the case that Obama did not do anything wrong by ignoring the War Powers Act that certainly seems like the case that you are making.

Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom died from Iraqi nerve gas. Is this not the same president who condemned his predecesor for invading Iraq? Were you in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein to prevent further slaughter of his political enemies? Why did we not intervene in Darfur? Rwanda? Why are we not taking action against Iran for the many atrocities that its leaders continue to take against its political opponents and for taking Americans hostage? What about Syria's brutal crackdown against its dissidents, should we launch cruise missiles and drones into Damascus? North Korea? Should we only employ air power against governments who are killing their citizens who are not strong enough to pose a threat to us, or should the humanitarian considerations trump concern for our military's potential casualties?

Do you really want one person to have the sole right to make these decisions and to be accountable to no one? Because that is what has happened in the case of Libya and Obama's poll numbers have risen slightly in the latest Gallup poll.

Do you really want the POTUS being the sole decision maker when it comes to taking our nation to war? And do you really want him deciding what constitutes war and which federal laws apply to him and which ones that he should be free to ignore?

I personally don't want to live in a country where our president is not bound by federal laws and my opinion will not change after Obama is voted out of office.

[Hoot Gibson]

Never said they didn't. But condoning someones death is far different then giving an order to have it done. From the article u posted it said a going rebel was excited and shot him. What does the leaders suppose to be? Bring the kid to trial for killing the most hated man there? That's asking for a civil war.

Plus I didn't insult u in any way.

In a civilized country that is exactly what happens. Maybe a jury (or military court-martial panel) would find the shooter not guilty or decide to sentence him to a minimal prison term but when laws are broken, there should be a process to dispense justice.

Are you familiar with Allan West's experience in Iraq involving his intimidation of a prisoner? Col. West made a command decision to violate the rules of engagement in an attempt to gain safety for the troops under his command. He threatened the prisoner and fired his pistol near the prisoner's head to elicit information about the location of his comrades, who had attacked Col. West's unit moments before.

When West returned to his base, he immediately informed his commander that he had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice in an effort to protect his men. West later faced an Article 15 action, was fined $5,000, and retired from the Army. He later said that faced with the same decision again, he "would walk through hell with a gasoline can to protect his men." He knowingly violated the rules but immediately confessed and accepted the consequences of his actions.

Discipline is extremely important in the military and it is important that everybody from the top to the bottom of the chain of command understand that fact. Our military has a very complex justice system that parallels our civil justice system.

The Libyan rebels don't have the benefit of an established UCMJ but not shooting prisoners in the head is a pretty basic and widely accepted principle of managing POWs.

[vector]

In the early morning hours of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the small Caribbean nation of Grenada
Reagan attempted to confuse the American people and the world by claiming that the Grenadian government was in fact building that the Soviet and Cuban military base in the Caribbean region. That was totally false. Also by using the fact that there were American medical students on the island, claiming that their lives were threatened by the Grenadian authorities. That was totally false
Reagan didn't ask congress for approval to put troops in grenada

On December 20, 1989, over 27,000 U.S. troops invaded the small Central American country of Panama.
The U.S. President, then George Bush, Sr., said he was removing an evil dictator, General Manuel Noriega, who was brutalizing his own people.
Meanwhile, this same Noriega was actually on the CIA payroll (right up to invasion), and the main reason for the invasion was to make sure that the Panama Canal remained under U.S. imperialist conrol.
Bush Sr didn't ask congress for approval to put troops in panama
Despite his involvement with drugs, at least until his indictment in 1988,
Noriega was considered by the United States both as an asset and a liability. When he committed crimes and abused his power, Washington looked the other way.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War,
as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran, included
several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of
dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military
intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct
involvement in warfare against Iran.
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was
frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and
House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel
reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly
clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes
throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the
financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's
Iraq into" the power it became and "Reagan/Bush administrations
permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural
credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.

In mid-1980, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs

[vector]

you get the ideal what's been going on for the last 30 or so years

the republican's are like a big elephant but the democrat's are

realiy like the little guy with a shovel because there alway's

going in behind them with a shovel to clean up all the mess

when they leave

[Hoot Gibson]

In the early morning hours of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the small Caribbean nation of Grenada
Reagan attempted to confuse the American people and the world by claiming that the Grenadian government was in fact building that the Soviet and Cuban military base in the Caribbean region. That was totally false. Also by using the fact that there were American medical students on the island, claiming that their lives were threatened by the Grenadian authorities. That was totally false
Reagan didn't ask congress for approval to put troops in grenada

On December 20, 1989, over 27,000 U.S. troops invaded the small Central American country of Panama.
The U.S. President, then George Bush, Sr., said he was removing an evil dictator, General Manuel Noriega, who was brutalizing his own people.
Meanwhile, this same Noriega was actually on the CIA payroll (right up to invasion), and the main reason for the invasion was to make sure that the Panama Canal remained under U.S. imperialist conrol.
Bush Sr didn't ask congress for approval to put troops in panama
Despite his involvement with drugs, at least until his indictment in 1988,
Noriega was considered by the United States both as an asset and a liability. When he committed crimes and abused his power, Washington looked the other way.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War,
as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran, included
several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of
dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military
intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct
involvement in warfare against Iran.
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was
frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and
House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel
reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly
clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes
throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the
financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's
Iraq into" the power it became and "Reagan/Bush administrations
permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural
credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.

In mid-1980, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs

What is it with extreme left wingers and plagiarism? Is copying other people's work and posting it without attribution a requirement for you people? At least TheRealVille admits to posting material from socialist web sites like the Daily Kos. :biglmao: