2011 March 12 Saturday
An Argument For Knocking Off Gaddafi
Whoever controls Libya is going to sell the oil. So that's really not an issue in the Libyan civil war. But a point rarely mentioned should be a major factor in choosing American policies toward the combatant factions: Muammar did order the Pan Am Lockerbie terrorist attack after all.
Jalal Elgallal, a Benghazi businessman educated in Britain who supports the revolution, added: "I lived in Britain for years, I admire Britain - as most Libyans do - and I would expect Britain to help the underdog. If we get a no-fly zone he can't bomb us, and our fighters could march on Tripoli and end this.
"We need your help to get rid of Gaddafi. Just think about what he has done to you in the past - Lockerbie, Yvonne Fletcher, terror attacks.
"This is your chance too to get rid of him. We could get rid of him quickly with some foreign help, otherwise doing this could cost tens of thousands of lives."
For that reason alone I say send in special forces to knock him off or supply anti-tank weapons and some anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels. Do what it takes to tip the scales against Khadafy. When he dies celebrate the death of the Lockerbie killer.
Col. Klink is Italy's creature, let them take care of him. Let them fix him up with a villa & some local lovelies in Portofino or some such, and then cut some deals with whoever is answering the phone in Tripoli.
I do not know who these rebels are. Maybe they are democrats, maybe they are al Qaeda/Mahgreb division. But after Somalia, I know that libs don't have the follow-through necessary to finish a war that their flamin' "consciences" get us into. I know that if we are shown video of our dead soldiers being dragged through streets of howling Muslims, libs will barely stifle a yawn.
Dear Mr. Parapundit !
It is always very interesting to read yor posts.
I have just encountered a Washington Post article "Why I'm hopeful about the Middle East uprisings" By Natan Sharansky:
It looks like he is keeps "the Blank Slate" model of humanity in his mind:
Change the social system, without changing actual population,
and everything will be hunky-dory.
Respectfully yours, Florida resident.
The Lockerbie evidence may not be real:
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
Lockerbie evidence 'was tampered with, destroyed and overlooked'
Lockerbie evidence withheld from defence
Pan Am Flight 103
Does the U.S. have the agreement from the United Nations?
Is the U.S. in danger of being invaded by Libya?
Invading other countries for profit is illegal before International Law. Before the Law, no argument stands, so there's no argument for invading or bombing Libya or any other country.
Here is an important comment by John Derbyshire:
Yeah, today is the 20th and the attack is already here! When I heard the news I was like, "No, really?, The U.S. attacking another country for oil? Get out of here! Who'd've guessed..."
Next is the invation, I suppose. I'm just wondering if the neanderthal soliders soon to move in will also be giving candies to the Libyan kids, like those in Irak. That was just lovely, wasn't it? Hey, perhaps these neanderthals have already learnt a different tune than the usual "The Roof is on Fire" Maybe they have already learnt a different command than their typical "Get on the fucken floor", when breaking into family houses...
How many countries does the U.S. need to suck oil from?? Where's Roger Waters by the way? C'mon Roger, sing your song, baby. We love you man!
What happens when you get protagonists on the international political scene with serious problems at home? In a word, trouble. Like the western media, these politicians got the Libya story wrong from day number 1, raising serious questions as to their capacity to perform in their positions.
Why, for instance, have the western media been caught lying about air strikes that never existed, about bombing of civilians when the buildings they were supposed to have bombed are still in pristine condition; why have there been stories about "Gaddafy" turning the full weight of his heavy weaponry against "unarmed civilians" when what we can see clearly is marauding gangs of terrorists and thugs committing acts of savagery, arson and wanton destruction?
Why have David Cameron, Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy failed to mention - even once - the massacre of supporters of Muammar Al-Qathafi in Benghazi? Not one or two people, not soldiers, but no less than 212 (two hundred and twelve) unarmed civilians - these, yes, were indeed unarmed - in Benghazi (where else)? Murdered in cold blood.
Why have they failed to mention - even once - the origin of all the mercenaries fighting in Libya - not only to support the government forces but also fighting alongside the "rebels" from Benghazi - a separatist region. Britain and France both experienced long and bloody fights against separatists, in Northern Ireland, in Brittany, in Corsica.
Why have Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy failed to mention the fact that the Libyan Government welcomes an international peace plan proposed by President Chavez of Venezuela and the setting up of an International Peace Commission, why have they failed to mention the fact that Muammar Al-Qathafi suggested that a team from the UN Human Rights Commission should come to Libya to make an investigation into what happened?
Why have they failed to mention the fact that Libya's oil wealth has been ploughed back into the economy, giving the Libyans the best standard of living in Africa, with the best human development indicators in the continent? Why have they failed to mention that before Al-Qathafi took over, Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, with per capita income at less than 50 USD a year?
Why have they failed to mention that Libyans have free housing, free healthcare and free education services? Have they implemented such policies in their countries? Why have they failed to mention that those who wish to set up a farm are given land for free, plus livestock, seeds and equipment - plus a farmhouse?
Let us be honest. On the domestic political front, Cameron, Clinton and Sarkozy want and need a Falklands, a Kosovo, an Afghanistan or an Iraq, they need to find a "tinpot dictator" who "oppresses his people" who is easy to isolate, to take the eyes off their own oppressive policies at home as they destroy the social fabric of their countries and render the futures of millions of young people hopeless.
Let us be honest, on the commercial front, their oil companies wish to renegotiate their contracts under their own terms - and not just in Libya, but in the whole of Africa. It is as one of the fathers of the African Union and one of the architects of African Unity where Al-Qathafy has angered the western vested commercial interests, so used to imperialistic and colonialist policies which saw Africa's resources going one way - their way.
Now that Al-Qathafi is trying to change that trend, he is called a monster and "has to be removed because he is a threat". THEY are the threat. They always have been.
By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey