Asmo's Libya rant

[fester30]

Let me see... I'm in opposition to the current government in my country. For that reason, I am justified in taking up arms and having Zimbabwe side with me and bomb the government forces trying to end my rebellion, yes..?

Yes if the government is killing it's people or you can offer us some cheap oil.  I don't think Norway's killing exceeds accepted spoilage and breakage levels.  But you do have oil so we may be able to arrange something.

Norway can look to Yugoslavia for an example of a country that hosted a winter Olympics, then later turned to inner armed conflict.

[terranus]

On the other hand, when the world freezes them billions and directs rockets at the named dictator... Well, if I was one, I'd go out in flames. Something to remember with dread for decades to come... But that may be just me... And Ghadaffi...

Pretty sure that his assets were only frozen and rockets aimed at him AFTER he started bombing and killing his own people. You seem to be forgetting that small factoid in your reasoning. Using your logic, I suppose we should have let him murder his fellow countrymen. Good for reducing the overall human population, bad for promoting responsible government.

[Asmodean]

Pretty sure that his assets were only frozen and rockets aimed at him AFTER he started bombing and killing his own people.

Armed rebels. Calling them people does not change THAT little factoid. As the head of state, his response to an armed rebellion was reasonable enough.

Using your logic, I suppose we should have let him murder his fellow countrymen. Good for reducing the overall human population, bad for promoting responsible government.

Yes, we should. It is an internal affair. And what exactly is a "reasonable" government? Because I think there are as many answers to that question as there are people if you go deep enough into detail and for some, "reasonable" may very well include using the military against rebel forces. It's not an uncommon tactic, really.

You may dislike the regime all you want, but the UN's way of trying to remove it is still disgustingly dishonest... "Protecting civilians" yeah, right! I'm yet to hear about the UN bombing the rebels who put civilian lives in danger.

[KebertX]

Let me see... I'm in opposition to the current government in my country. For that reason, I am justified in taking up arms and having Zimbabwe side with me and bomb the government forces trying to end my rebellion, yes..?

How is that right, exactly?  

[terranus]

Armed rebels. Calling them people does not change THAT little factoid.

They didn't start off "armed rebels", they started off as civilians staging a peaceful protest. After Gaddhafi got violent, then they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

[Asmodean]

They didn't start off "armed rebels", they started off as civilians staging a peaceful protest. After Gaddhafi got violent, then they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

There is another truth floating around: There were peaceful protests with minor clashes with the police and other security forces with some use of sharp ammunition here and there. (That did not begin until the protestors got a "no" from the regime, but wouldn't take a hint) Then the protestors realised that they were shouting at a wall and, pissed off at their own ineffectiveness, they grabbed some AKs.

However, regardless of how it started, they are now armed rebels and are their government's problem, not the UNs. Unless of course Ghadaffi invited the UN over to help get things in order, which he didn't.