Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Ambar 1) And the Crimeans wanted Russian intervention. By the by, even if the Ukrainians wanted to be closer to the west, intervening was a violation of the Budapest Memorandum. Yanukovych was corrupt, but he was still their democratically elected leader and they didn't follow protocol.
2) Hitler attacked France and Britains ally. Gaddafi didn't. Tht's the difference. And Poland only got a guarantee of military support, because after the Munich Conference when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland he went in to the rest of Czechoslovakia. He acted in bad faith.
3) Every last country in the EU is bound to support the US. They're all allies.
4) Talk to me when Putin invades Japan. Invades Japan. Japan is America's ally. The Ukraine was allied to Russia.
@Elle 1) If Cuba wants to pursue closer claims to Russia and perhaps host Russian troops, ships and missiles would you support them?
2) It's not about Putins wishes, but what the Crimean people want.
edited 22nd Sep '16 10:59:19 PM by 940131
The families of those aboard UTA Flight 772
would disagree with you. As would those at La Belle
.
What's next, are you going to tell me that Euromaidan
really was all done by fascists?
I wish I had enough money to buy some popcorn.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
This is embarassing. You have to go back to the 1980's. If they were still sore about Gaddafi's actions, why did they wait so long to overthrow him? Since then he's met and dealt with every single President. you have something more recent?
@Rational Insanity Another person that's not adding much to the debate.
edited 22nd Sep '16 10:58:11 PM by 940131
He was asking about Libya attacking Britain, France, the US etc.
![]()
Still moving the goalposts? You're going to run out of solid ground eventually. Look at you, acting all high, mighty and rational. To quote that series you care about so much, you know nothing.
edited 22nd Sep '16 11:08:04 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
No, but it's different. He's using terrorism from the 80's to justify toppling Gaddaffi in 2011. When they brought up the German invasion of Poland I didn't have a problem with that, but you can't bring up attacks from the 1980's to justify a war 25 years later.
x2 Krieger's back and adding nothing. I guess you don't have an example of a more recent justification for war.
edited 22nd Sep '16 11:10:56 PM by 940131
"Why can't we let bygones be bygones... unless you're a First World country"
KKK flyers are starting to show up on lawns across the US
.
If we're talking Lockerbie
, here... the UK never let it lie. Every trade, every threat, every damn diplomatic packet that travelled to Libya included prodding, prodding, prodding over decades.
That this isn't known means you know bugger all about the Foreign Office and how it works over decades.
edited 22nd Sep '16 11:18:20 PM by Euodiachloris
@ Euo: More then that, Libya supplied arms to the IRA
(as did Americans via NORAID).
@ Iraq:
- Kuwait, 1990 (and an earlier threat of invasion in 1961
)
- Anglo-Iraqi War
in 1941, where the Iraqi Government sided with the Nazis.
edited 22nd Sep '16 11:29:00 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
![]()
Libyan sponsored terrorism in the 1980s: Not supposed to be a factor in the NATO intervention in Libya.
Afghanistan and Iraq: Why NATO should never do anything outside Europe again, ever.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotOr more in particular, a "legitimate" leader apparently is not and should not be held liable according to precedent, while the countries they lead and international alliances should.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@Eudio Translation They maintained diplomatic relations and cntinued to trade. An attack a quarter of century later isn't justifiable.
Look everyone! It Maumar Gaddafi and Tony Blair! They look like a chummy pair.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blairs-fond-farewell-to-gaddafi-478847
@Green Mantle What's that supposed to prove?
edited 23rd Sep '16 12:27:04 AM by 940131
The point is you can't justify an attack on Libya for something that happened way back in the 1980's. That's like saying Iran has a right to invade, because Saddam attacked Iran in the 1980's.
@sgamer82 What?
@Krieger Legitimate rulers should be held accountable to the people. If they want to rebel, they have that right, but the US has no legal right to violate their sovereignty unless they've been attacked.
edited 23rd Sep '16 12:32:28 AM by 940131

Qaddafi had, over the years, invaded his neighbours in Chad and used chemical weapons in the process, sponsored terrorism all over the world and was, at the time of his fall from power, preparing to gas the rebels who were trying to depose him. If ever a man needed to go, it was him, and no amount of whining about "legitimacy" will ever change that—especially since the people had already revoked his legitimacy.
Frankly, there's a better case for deposing Qaddafi than Hitler. Both invaded their neighbours, both committed crimes against humanity, but only Qaddafi faced a popular uprising that requested foreign assistance in getting rid of him.
Not that any of this will matter to string-of-numbers. He's got far too much invested in his "all American interventions bad, all the time" rhetoric.