Chavez blasts Libya strikes on his 'friend' Gaddafi

[Turborama]

Source: AFP Via The Straights Times

Apr 27, 2011

CARACAS - VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez accused Nato on Tuesday of trying to kill his 'friend' Muammar Gaddafi after the alliance bombed the strongman's compound and called it a legitimate target.

'You know that Gaddafi is our friend, but this has nothing to do with friendship. Who has the right to drop bombs like this? They are looking for Gaddafi to kill him,' said the leader of Latin America's radical left and Libya's closest ally in the region.

'We don't agree with everything Gaddafi is doing or has done, but who has the right to drop bombs on him each morning? They have been dropped on a commercial centre, a hospital, a university. All that for regime change.'

Mr Chavez repeated his opposition to the strikes during a meeting of Latin American and Caribbean diplomats in Caracas. Allied warplanes struck Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli on Monday in what Nato called a 'precision strike' on a communications centre that did not seek to kill the Libyan leader.

Read more: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_661636.html

[99th_Monkey]

1. Oh no! Please Hugo, don't go there.

I was wondering about this just yesterday, if Hugo would be so
stupid as to insert himself into the Libyan debacle ... and
sure enough ... damn.

[harmonicon]

4. insert himself?!

You think this is him inserting himself, but those whose militaries are interfering in a sovereign country's internal affairs are ok?

[johnroshan]

12. "sovereign country's internal affairs"

What a nice diplomatic cover-up for mass murder!

Sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.

[EFerrari]

21. Vultures always have an excuse for their predations.

[harmonicon]

39. Mass murder?

I don't think that "mass murder" started until an armed insurrection was mounted against the government. Fuck, do you also refer to the War of Northern Aggression?

[Turborama]

44. Don't try to rewrite history, the revolution was started by unarmed civilians peacefully protesting

...and getting gunned down. For peacefully protesting.

Their subsequent reaction was not to just let him continue gunning them down, but to fight back with seized weapons (or those given to them by defectors), in the same way they are now.

Here's a few refreshers...

The 1st video posted on DU about this on February 17 (notice how many replied to it): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=554439">Police Fire Live Rounds At Protesters In Benghazi, Libya (Graphic)

Another one a few days later (notice again how many people replied to it): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=556257">"Non-stop" Gunfire In Tripoli, Libya's Capital

It could be argued that the first stirrings of unrest this year were in January: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4697432">Citizens storm residential units in Libya

Ignored LBN article from February 16: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4736194">(At least 2) Protesters die in Libya unrest

Another ignored one from the 17th: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4737047">Libya's antigovernment protests escalate on 'day of rage' against Muammar Qaddafi

Even though the headline of the OP was 20, the death toll increased to over 200 on the 17th: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4737916">Libya protests leave 24 dead

[harmonicon]

76. Yes, as you say, a revolution.

It is none of our fucking business to be involved.

[99th_Monkey]

47. I like Chavez, and think he's good for Venezuala & Latin America

kadafi? not so much.

[harmonicon]

75. I don't think many people like him, for many good reasons.

I just reject the idea of someone suggesting that Chavez is "inserting himself" is way off bass. The guy is an influential president with lots of influence within both Latin America and oil producing countries like Libya. Of course he wants peace - who wouldn't? Suggesting that he might be able to help restore piece sounds a lot less like interference than does bombing the place.

[99th_Monkey]

90. Pssst. The RW & MSM absolutely salivate at any and every opportunity

.. in case you hadn't noticed .... to paint Chavez as some LoonyToon caricature of DICTATORSHIP-IN-ACTION ... OUTRIGHT REPRESSIVE COMMUNISM in "our" hemisphere... EEeek!

Are you not aware of this?

QUESTION: Why would Hugo (or you for that matter) want to feed into this outlandish characterization of Chavez by championing his intervention on behalf of Qaddafi, a blatent mass-murderer of his own people?

This inquiring mind wants to know.

[EFerrari]

97. Chavez is very clearly denouncing murder, not championing Gaddafi.

Inquiring minds could read more carefully.

[99th_Monkey]

99. I can read just fine. I just have a different opinion about the wisdom of Hugo

... accusing Nato on Tuesday of trying to kill his 'friend'.

where is Hugo's denunciation of Gaddafi's mass-murdering his own people?
*Crickets* He only point fingers at NATO in this regard, which is absurd given
that NATO is there supporting the anti-Gaddafi resistance fighters & to minimize
his ability to kill his own people.

[EFerrari]

101. There is no evidence Gaddafi has engaged in mass murder.

And a careful reader could read his statements and notice he voiced disagreement with Gaddafi.

Maybe those are your crickets and not his.

[99th_Monkey]

103. Whatever. Like I said, we simply disagree. Which is fine. So be it. Have a nice life. ~nt

[joshcryer]

104. And if such evidence does come out? Will you admit you were wrong about Gaddafi?

All of those people reportedly disappeared after the revolution.

[Very_Boring_Name]

2. Dictators have to stick together. n/t

[dameocrat67]

74. that explains our support for bahrain

and the saudis. n/t

[Iterate]

3. Thank You Hugo Chavez

People have written and wondered for millennia about the tragic meaning of the last soldier's life, the last to die for a lost cause; John Kerry did it, famously.

To my shame though, I must admit I've never once considered the life of the last person to join or cheer for a lost cause, let alone the cause of a person that history will not treat kindly.

There must be a screenplay in that idea. I'm just not sure whether to admire the loyalty or loathe the thoughtlessness.

[goodnews]

98. It's simple

Chavez understands the West's meddling in Libya to get better terms on oil concessions. The head of the Rebels is a US janissary who has already given a wink and a nod or two to the US oil companies. Chavez just realizes as many of us do that the West's meddling in this is what makes this "rebellion" more like a corporate backed coup attempt. You will note that Chavez did not call the ousted Egyptian leader Mubarak, the Bahrain royalty, or Yemeni leader Saleh a friend.

Qadaffi is being depicted the same way Saddam Hussein was depicted before we "liberated" Iraq.

The one thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from History.

[harmonicon]

5. Anyone else remember when assassination was frowned upon? nt.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. In fact it was illegal.

But that was now a long time ago. We killed one of Gadaffi's kids the last time we tried to assassinate him by airstrike.

[Hannah Bell]

8. yes. i remember when they constituted committees to investigate the possibility.

of course, we did assassinations - but only on the sly.

because the mythology was that americans didn't so such dirty undemocratic things, unlike russians.

now it seems assassination *is* the democratic thing -- if it's for "freedom".

no one is ashamed of it anymore.

[harmonicon]

40. It's the lack of shame that really amazes me, I guess.

This used to have to be covert ops, but now we just come right out and admit it. I guess it was 10 or 15 years ago that the US/Israel came up with the great new speak term "targeted killing" to soften up assassination, but it bothers me that it's now so widely acceptable.

[Hannah Bell]

7. good.

[Turborama]

9. You support Gaddafi, as well? n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DonCoquixote]

11. I may be against the Libyan war

But does that mean I have to like what Qaddhafi is doing, or that I like Chavez putting his foot in his mouth? Anti-American does not always equal Good.

[Turborama]

14. I'm a 'basher' of anyone who supports brutal dictators, and Chavez is not immune from criticism.

Your barrel scraping insults didn't answer my question. You support Gaddafi, as well?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

29. You think I'm afraid to say

I'll raise a drink when a bullet finds that prick? Now that I've made my feeling clear, why are you supportive of a mass murdering dictator who blew an American plane out of the sky?

[Turborama]

38. No, the issue here is Chavez' support for Gaddafi.

I'm not tarring anybody and, exactly the same as any other leader of any other country, Chavez is not (and should not be treated as if he is) immune to criticism.

If anyone says "good" in response to what he said in defense of Gadaffi, it's a legitimate next question to ask if they support Gaddafi, as well.

With regards to whether or not I support the assassination of Gaddafi...

I would much prefer for him to face trial at the ICC, but I also wouldn't be shedding any tears if a revolutionary or a member of his inner circle took him out.

[EFerrari]

48. Yes, the issue is assassination. That is what Chavez is speaking to.

There are principles that are larger than individuals. It's difficult to see how one can claim to support a democratic movement and also support assassination. That should cause massive cognitive dissonance.

[Turborama]

51. If a brutal dictator who has held power for 42 years is standing in the way of democracy...

...and he is taken out (assassinated) by a revolutionary fighting for democracy, I can't see why intelligent people would suffer from any cognitive dissonance at all.

The cognitive dissonance comes in when people who are supposed Democrats support brutal totalitarian autocrats, for reasons only known to themselves.

As you said, there are principles that are larger than individuals.

Democracy is a principle which is much larger than Gaddafi and his sons.

[EFerrari]

53. People who oppose murder don't necessarily support Gaddafi.

Imagine that.

[Turborama]

55. Where do the people who don't support the revolutionaries stand, if they also don't support Gaddafi?

Do they support a power vacuum?

Maybe multiple cases of cognitive dissonance are occurring at once?

Or is there a lot of denial going on of who they really sympathize with?

[EFerrari]

58. This isn't a game where people put on either a black hat or a white one.

Good grief.

[Turborama]

59. Actually, the ones I gave are the pretty much the choices

Ridicule it or answer it, it's up to you.

I'm genuinely confused by people who say they don't support the revolutionaries or Gaddafi.

What sort of outcome are they hoping for then?

A power vacuum?

A spaceship to just come and beam them all up and whisk them away to somewhere else?

Maybe a natural disaster will sort it all out?

Endless war? Nah, couldn't be that.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harmonicon]

80. because negotiation never works....

Of course it must be one side or the other. Compromise is meaningless, there is no point in discussion, law means nothing, etc., etc.

[Turborama]

81. Thanks for answering.You think the Gaddafis can be negotiated with in good faith...

...and they are capable of compromise?

What do you think this negotiated compromise would consist of?

A two state solution for Libya? Fair and free elections? Something else?

[harmonicon]

82. When I'm hired by the state department, I'll tell you.

You realize that our government has negotiated with him many times, and just before all of this started considered him to be an ally and were giving him money, right? As others have pointed out to you, things are not just black and white. I do know that it really isn't a matter of choosing sides, other than being on a the side of peace.

[Turborama]

83. This constant accusation that I think everything is black & white is just a convenient way to avoid

...answering difficult questions.

And yes, I do know that from 2003 up until recently he was being brought in from the cold and from 2004 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696024">multinational oil corporations were setting up shop there. That stopped as soon as he started openly murdering his own citizens for peacefully protesting - (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4828927&mesg_id=4829474">a short history of which I gave you above).

In fact, they were clearly warned this would happen back in 2006, but they went ahead with the demonstrations anyway:

Gaddafi urges supporters to 'kill' enemies

AgenciesPublished: 00:00 September 1, 2006

Tripoli: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, marked the 37th anniversary of the coup d'etat that brought him to power by urging his supporters to "kill enemies" if they asked for political change.

The hardline comment, made in a speech on state television, on Thursday, runs counter to recent hopes of political reform.

=snip=

"Our enemies have been crushed inside Libya and you have to be ready to kill them if they emerge anew," he said.

"Our political path is the correct one as it grants freedom to the whole people, sovereignty, power and wealth to the whole people," Gaddafi said, referring to Libya's Jamahiriya direct democracy system, which opposes Western liberal democracy and criminalises the creation of opposition parties.

Full article: http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/gaddafi-urges-supporters-to-kill-enemies-1.253497

[harmonicon]

84. but you're just laying out another black/white dichotomy.

You choose to highlight "if the enemy shows up, you must finish it off" instead of , "the enemy appears to exterminate you." Is any civil war ok with you? Just, no matter what, if there's a civil war, you're on the side of those fighting the government? Should governments just roll over for those who want them to? I'm really failing to understand your position here. Seriously, I just don't fucking get it. The internal affairs of that country should never have been our business, but now - because we made it so - we're using the US military to destroy the Libyan military, which is armed with US weapons, and then maybe giving more US weapons to other Libyans if that doesn't work, so that some other people can have control over the Libyan military. Anything that happens after that is a mystery. Somehow I don't think I'm the irrational one for saying we should stay the fuck away from it.

[Turborama]

85. No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the revolutionaries knew what was coming if they rose up.

But they went ahead and did it anyway.

My position is quite straightforward, all you had to do was ask.

My support for revolutionaries against their dictators has always been and shall remain very consistent. I have supported all the revolutions since the Tunisia uprising, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=201793">which I was pretty much the only person to report on here until Ben Ali actually left the country, and I was one of the key posters of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x334809">the revolution in Egypt.

Unlike some, my support for the revolutionaries did not stop the moment http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/">R2P was being discussed. In fact, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x531827">I was against foreign intervention until http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/17/141999.html">Gadaffi told Benghazi he would "show no mercy"...




Is that clear enough for you?

Just now http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4828927&mesg_id=4830376">you agreed that it's a revolution, now you're describing it as a civil war. You do know the difference between the two, don't you?

[harmonicon]

86. The difference between a revolution and civil war is a difference of semantics.

The victors write the history, and all of that.

You ask if your position is clear to me, and it is not. Over and over you use the word "support", but I don't think you mean it. Have you been sending arms to these people? Are you some master of international counter-intelligence and are getting them info on their opposition? Otherwise, you are not supporting them. You may sympathize with them, but that's pretty different.

My only involvement is as a US citizen (and I suppose occasional UK taxpayer) who doesn't want my government to be violently interfering with another country's internal matters.

[Turborama]

87. OK, here you go. I'm going to spell it out again for you using words you'll hopefully understand.

My position is quite straightforward, all you had to do was ask.

My moral support/sympathy/empathy for revolutionaries against their dictators has always been and shall remain very consistent. I have morally supported/sympathized/empathized with all the revolutions since the Tunisia uprising, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=201793">which I was pretty much the only person to report on here until Ben Ali actually left the country, and I was one of the key posters of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x334809">the revolution in Egypt.

Unlike some, my moral support/sympathy/empathy for the revolutionaries did not stop the moment http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/">R2P was being discussed. In fact, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x531827">I was against foreign intervention until http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/17/141999.html">Gadaffi told Benghazi he would "show no mercy"...



Is that clear enough for you, now?

Just now http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4828927&mesg_id=4830376">you agreed that it's a revolution, now you're describing it as a civil war. The difference between the two is much more complicated than just "semantics".

[harmonicon]

88. It's not clear to me, and if it's clear to you, I think you're confused.

Tunisia is not Libya, and suggesting that revolutionaries in one of the countries are equivalent to revolutionaries in the other is a false equivalence. Libya is not Tunisia, is not Egypt, is Not Afghanistan, is not Nepal, etc.

I also don't think you should equate support with empathy or sympathy. These things are really very different. As long as you continue to do so, your position will not be clear. If you are really for bombing Libya, a good way to demonstrate that would be to join the air force/navy/whoever and somehow request that assignment. Short of that, we're only involved in a discussion about it, and that being the case, I don't think we should let that discussion make us too upset. Since it is a discussion, I only suggest that you clarify your language, because it's all we have to go on (ourselves not likely to meet on the front lines, etc.).

[Turborama]

89. Look, if it's not clear to you by now then I think we're just wasting each other's time

I'm not upset, but I am annoyed by your bickering about semantics, suggesting I don't know what the revolutions in the Arab World have been about - even though I have been putting a lot of time into consistently posting news about them on DU since the very beginning (by the way, this thread is the first time I've seen you discuss anything about it).

Continuously taking this discussion off into a tangent about me, instead of debating the topic in hand, has succeeded in putting me off communicating with you.

Good bye and have a great life, anonymous random person who I'll never meet. :hi:

[EFerrari]

96. It's not a matter of hoping for an outcome.

It's a matter of assessing the situation and trying to predict possible outcomes.

Gaddafi may pull this off and stay in. Not likely but still possible. That will be bad for the most visible Libyan collaborators with NATO. Also, he'll like re-start his WMD programs.

If he goes and this council packed by the West takes over, it's likely a civil war, fueled by global powers working through proxies, will continue. After 40 years of Gaddafi, it's unlikely that local stakeholders will simply sit back and allow Libya to become anyone's puppet.

It's possible that he goes, the TNC comes into power and they transition to a representative democracy. But it's also possible I will win the lottery this week, too.

[joshcryer]

102. The TNC has the support of 90%+ of the eastern polled population.

That's 1/5th the entire population of Libya (they did not poll Misrata or the other towns in the west that wish to be liberated). Your presumption that their "civil war will continue" in the absence of Gaddafi is preposterous at best.

[harmonicon]

105. And as soon as Saddam Hussein is caught, Iraq will be free!!

You see, that country is being oppressed by their dictator and longs to be free. No chance of civil war if we eliminate Hussein. We are doing the right thing here, fighting for freedom.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

93. Qaddafi won't be assassinated by a revolutionary

who is fighting for democracy.

If it happens, it'll be done by the bombs or bullets of a NATO air force or army.

The revolutionaries, or rebels, still seem to be a disorganized motley of people who can't shoot, can't conserve ammunition, can't really accomplish anything except to celebrate victory after NATO pounds Qaddafi positions.

If all NATO did was to enforce a no-fly zone, the rebels would be wiped out in no time.

We are stupidly sucked into fighting someone else's war. Again.

[rayofreason]

43. Shame on you...

...for chiming in to express support for a murderous dictator.

The sooner K-Daffy is dead, the better. The same for Assad, Kim Jong Il, and Mugabe.

Brutal, incompetent rulers for whom there is no peaceful, electoral or reformist path to removal provide only one path to retirement. That is the difference between them and other incompetent leaders with disastrous ideas and policies, of which we have had plenty in the rest of the world - they can (and have been) removed from office peacefully. Somebody like Mubarak is in between. No clear peaceful path to removal, but a reformist, essentially Mameluke, one did exist since he was unwilling (or unable) to commit mass murder to hang on in the face of strong popular opposition. Same for Tunisia.

But back to my original comment: Shame on you!!!

[EFerrari]

49. Apparently there are posters who don't see murder as a political solution. n/t

[rayofreason]

54. Hitler is a nice case in point.

Saddam is another. The only way those guys were going out was at room temperature.

If you have other options, use them. So my statement does not mean that you just assassinate people with whom you disagree, even if you are certain that their policies are a complete failure and responsible for much suffering. Plenty of people (myself included) think that Chavez is a megalomaniacal blowhard and his policies are wrecking the Venezuelan economy. But there is an obvious path for him to be removed via an electoral process. When a majority of the Venezuelan people have had enough they will use that option and I will celebrate the day. No such luck in Syria or Libya or the DPRK. Those folks have only one option, since in all three cases you have dictators and their cronies willing to use mass murder to stay in power and continue to oppress the people.

Keep your eyes on Syria. Another Hama is brewing. A hellfire up Assad's stovepipe would be much preferable. And if he were certain that that would be the outcome, there would be no repeat of Hama.

[EFerrari]

57. dictators and their cronies willing to use mass murder to stay in power and continue to oppress the

people are just fine with our government if they are our sonuvabitches.

It's difficult to understand why anyone believes this kind of action leads to anything but more criminality. It never has led to anything else and it never will.

[Turborama]

62. So, let's get this straight: It's better to let dictators & their cronies use mass murder to stay...

...in power and continue to oppress the people.

Otherwise, "this kind of action" inevitably leads to "more criminality"?

[EFerrari]

63. False dilemma.

I understand that you are invested in Libya and want this "intervention" to succeed.

But it doesn't follow that this is the only kind of intervention that could have been attempted.

And more simply, if you oppose Gaddafi's oppressive barbarity, it shouldn't be that big of a leap to oppose barbarity, period.

I said the same thing about hunting Saddam down like a dog and about the murder of his sons.

[Turborama]

64. I was trying to translate what you said, it wasn't very clear. Let me ask you what I asked Hannah...

Considering we are where we are now, what do you think is the best outcome for Libya?




Oh, and by the way, it's not "the intervention" I want to succeed, it's the freedom fighting revolutionaries I want to win. They're the ones I've invested a lot of time and effort in supporting from the very beginning.

[EFerrari]

95. I was and have been clear.

As it stands now, Libya will be struggled over by two or three mafias, Gaddafi's is only one of them. The "revolution" has been co-opted by the Western powers for their own purposes, if it ever really existed as a movement in the first place.

I'm afraid I don't see a good outcome for Libya, no matter who manages to claim the real estate.

After watching our government under these last two presidents support if not create the incredible corruption in Kabul and Baghdad, in Tegucigalpa and in Port Au Prince, it's pretty much impossible for me to understand how anyone can possibly believe the US or NATO or the UN gives a damn about Libyans. And I'm probably leaving someone out of that list.

This is a very corrupt moment in the history of our country and also, of the modern international community. I don't see what can be done about that except to fight it in any way we can. Which includes calling out the lies of global capital when they are dressed up in the rhetoric of democracy or humanitarianism. As they always are.

[Turborama]

61. I think you're right. He's been watching Gaddafi & seen how he's managed to cling on to power

Both have taken notes from Iran and how they ruthlessly smashed the massive protests that were taking place there.

As there are no reporters on the ground in Syria and scant attention from mainstream news as it is, I have a feeling something could be planned for this weekend when the worlds' attention is distracted by the shiny object in London.

[christx30]

50. My favorite quote:

"Those that make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolutions inevitable"

[EFerrari]

13. Good.

[Prometheus Bound]

15. Chavez is asking the right questions. Who has the right to drop bombs on Gaddafi?

What gives them the right?

[johnroshan]

16. Responsibility to Protect - UN framework.

Here is a timeline of the R2P framework and its evolution.
http://r2pcoalition.org/content/view/22/48/

To answer your question directly, we the people of the United Nations have the right to intervene. This right is bestowed upon us by the collective decision of the people of all the countries included in the United Nations.

Its not just a right to protect, it is a responsibility. Sovereignty is not a privilege, it is a responsibility. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

[Prometheus Bound]

17. But this is not the collective decision of all the people of all countries in the UN.

As far as I remember only five members of the Security Council voted for enforcing a no-fly zone.

[oberliner]

You are wrong - the vote was 10-0 in favor, with 5 abstentions

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary

Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

[Prometheus Bound]

25. Thank you for that. So that's 10 countries out of 192 UN members who actually voted for 1973.

[oberliner]

31. No, it was 10 out of 15

The whole General Assembly does not vote on Security Council resolutions.

Who is to say how many of those countries support this action?

[Prometheus Bound]

35. Exactly. Who's to say? Shouldn't we find out before bombing places to smithereens?

And anyway, this is in response to the statement above:
"This right is bestowed upon us by the collective decision of the people of all the countries included in the United Nations."

My point is obvious. Ten countries do not represent the collective decision of the people of 192 countries in the UN.

But I know you agree.

[EFerrari]

26. That's farcical. There was a rush into Libya

into a situation that looks to have been manipulated from even before the protests started.

And no, "we the people of the United Nations" have no right to assassinate a head of state in an extra judicial execution.

The only thing manifest here is that the US saw Gaddafi as low hanging fruit and decided he could be taken out. And save the rhetoric about the "international community". There was no good faith attempt at diplomacy here.

[johnroshan]

36. I never supported extra-judicial assassination of Gaffadi.

I only supported intervention to neutralize Gaffadi's armed forces capability which he was using to murder the protesters.

The rush into Libya is justified. It took nearly a month for the UNSC to agree on the resolution and call for a cease-fire(which the dumbass completely ignored). R2P allows intervention when there is a clear and present danger to a large number of civilians. When Gaffadi laid seige to the city and told that a massacre awaits them tomorrow, the UN had a clear case for intervention.

Even a single veto in the UNSC could have dropped the resolution, which didn't happen.

[Prometheus Bound]

18. Here is UNSC Resolution 1973 in full. Nothing about assassinating the country's leader.

Libya: UN resolution on no-fly zone

Here is the full text of UN resolution 1973 imposing a no-fly zone and other sanctions on Libya.

"The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,

Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),

Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,

Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,

Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,

Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,

Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High-Level Committee on Libya,

Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note further of the Secretary-General's call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate ceasefire,

Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,

Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,

Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,

"Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,

"Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul Ilah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,

"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;
Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;
No-fly zone

6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;

8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;

10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;

11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;
Enforcement of the arms embargo

13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : "Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections";

14. Requests Member States which are taking action under paragraph 13 above on the high seas to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General and further requests the States concerned to inform the Secretary-General and the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) ("the Committee") immediately of measures taken in the exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 13 above;

15. Requires any Member State whether acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 13 above, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspection, the results of such inspection, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee, at a later stage, a subsequent written report containing relevant details on the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;

16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;
Ban on flights

17. Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing;

18. Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing;
Asset freeze

19. Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and directs the Committee to designate such Libyan authorities, individuals or entities within 30 days of the date of the adoption of this resolution and as appropriate thereafter;

20. Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

21. Decides that all States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or subject to its jurisdiction, and any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, if the States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians;
Designations

22. Decides that the individuals listed in Annex I shall be subject to the travel restrictions imposed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of resolution 1970 (2011), and decides further that the individuals and entities listed in Annex II shall be subject to the asset freeze imposed in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011);

23. Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply also to individuals and entities determined by the Council or the Committee to have violated the provisions of resolution 1970 (2011), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, or to have assisted others in doing so;
Panel of Experts

24. Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts ("Panel of Experts"), under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:

(a) Assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution;

(b) Gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;

(c) Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures;

(d) Provide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel's appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;

25. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;

26. Decides that the mandate of the Committee as set out in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall also apply to the measures decided in this resolution;

27. Decides that all States, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions;

28. Reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011);

29. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819

[johnroshan]

24. In the OP, you can see that the NATO's statement about not seeking to assassinate Gaffadi.

IMO, it would be a good thing if Gaffadi was captured and tried in the ICC.

[Prometheus Bound]

28. Sure, jonroshan. I just know you believe the spokesperson.

Bombing his home.

[johnroshan]

30. It might be true, maybe not.

That doesn't change the fact that the intervention is justified. I would like to see Gaffadi tried for his crimes, but I don't know if the UN task force shares my wish.

The UN hasn't yet authorized assassination of the Libyan dictator, but I do have the inkling that assassination is probably the end NATO forces are looking at unofficially.

[chrisa]

20. The fact is, the US had no right to intervene in an internal conflict in Libya.

But Chavez is a nutjob, so it's only logical that he would support another nutjob.

[johnroshan]

22. I don't know about the US, but the UN and all nations in it has the responsibility

to abide by the UN resolution to intervene and protect civilians.

[EFerrari]

27. Escalating an armed conflict is arguably not protecting civilians.

Bombing Tripoli is not protecting Tripoli unless you take "protecting" to mean bombing.

[johnroshan]

33. I don't think bombing Gaffadi's military installations in Tripoli is "Bombing Tripoli".

If a policeman shoots an murderer in a shopping mall, you wouldn't say "policeman shoots up a mall".

[EFerrari]

46. Do we know how many people not Gaddafi have died as a result

of NATO's attempts at assassination?

Plua, there's another aspect to this that will come back to bite us in the backside.

How the 'Humanitarian' Intervention in Libya Made Our World Infinitely More Dangerous
Conn Hallinan

North Korea's lesson from Libya is that if you give up your WMD programs peacefully, you may have lost your best defense from invasion.
April 26, 2011 |


Coming to terms with NATO’s intervention in the Libyan civil war is a little like wresting a grizzly bear: big, hairy, and likely to make one pretty uncomfortable no matter where you grab a hold of it. Is it a humanitarian endeavor? A grab for oil resources? Or an election ploy by French President Nicolas Sarkozy?

But regardless of the motivations — and there are many — the decision to attack Muammar Gaddafi’s regime has global consequences, some of them not exactly what NATO had in mind. Certainly, the Libyan intervention means we should forget the idea of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. Moreover, a global push for wider adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) now seems crippled.

The humanitarian rationale was the one that brought the Arab League and the United Nations on board, although it is not entirely clear that such a humanitarian crisis existed. Gaddafi’s blood-curdling rhetoric not withstanding, there is no evidence of mass killings of civilians.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150754/how_the_%27humanitarian%27_intervention_in_libya_made_our_world_infinitely_more_dangerous?page=entire

[chrisa]

32. It is a civil war

We shouldn't be helping the rebels. There would have been a large massacre, but it was never in our interest to stop it. This is especially true when we are already arming two of our future enemies.

Gaddafi is nuts, but Libya is a sovereign country. We have no right invading and denying Libya's sovereignty.

[johnroshan]

34. Please read the following report which lead to R2P being adopted by the UN.

Responsibility to Protect
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY

www.iciss.ca/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf

[chrisa]

41. The UN isn't always correct. In addition, it should not be our responsibility

to protect any nation of the world that is having problems. If push came to shove, these nations would not help us.

I'm not arguing that this war is illegal. However, this war is morally wrong, and we should leave those people alone.

[Fool Count]

66. "There would have been a large massacre"?

Even that is very doubtful. If it wasn't for NATO intervention the anti-Qaddafi resistance in Benghazi would have just faded away as it did
elsewhere in the country with very minimal casualties. There would have likely been less than 100 deaths total, probably even much less.
All the extra lives taken and to be taken in this prolonged conflict is squarely on NATO. They, not Qaddafi, are the real murderers.

[joshcryer]

68. As it did elsewhere? Are you paying attention to the west?

Did you pay one drop of attention to Misrata?

Geez.

[Fool Count]

69. Geez-shmeez. Destruction of Misrata is fully on NATO too.

They would have just dropped their weapons and gone back to their peaceful lives with hardly any casualties if not for foreign meddling.
There is a special place in hell for the NATO murderers.

[joshcryer]

72. NATO did not intervene until after Misrata was besiged for 5 weeks.

They would not have "just dropped their weapons and gone back to their peaceful lives."

Many of the tanks taken out were by the Misrata people.

[Prometheus Bound]

23. UN Resolution 1973 with text analysis

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity...

Analysis: These first two highlighted sections emphasise that this is all about defending the civilian population in Libya from attacks by its own government. One of the conditions for action set out by Nato countries has been "a demonstrable need" to intervene.

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

Analysis: The overriding stated aim is to halt the fighting and to achieve a ceasefire. It does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi though one can assume that this is what the countries promoting this resolution would like. Many of their leaders have said so quite explicitly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972

[Ash_F]

37. This war is about old royalist vs new nationalists.

To put it short, Benghazi is the haven of the royalists. Tripoli is for the nationalists. Gaddafi led a rebellion against the royalists(who were loyal to Britain) decades ago and in this way he is similar to Chavez. They were posterchildren of rebellion in the age of new imperialism. Just some background as to why Chavez would call him a friend.

[rayofreason]

42. K-Daffy, Assad....

Nice friends you got there Hugo.

I am sure when the DPRK really starts to fall apart good 'ole Hugo will express his support for the Kim Kleptocracy as well.

[Uncle Joe]

45. If NATO seriously wanted to kill Gaddafi, he would be dead.

Thanks for the thread, Turborama.

[joshcryer]

67. Correct. NATO cannot kill Gaddafi, it would sully the revolution, and they have orders...

...to take it easy and just go after the fighters.

In some ways it's good that they're following the requests of the rebels (no troops on the ground, rebel-guided attacks), but in other ways it's tragic because NATO could end it much quicker, but the repercussions from that would be vast, as even the rebels have said that if NATO troops land they will fight NATO as hard as they're fighting against Gaddafi.

[PufPuf23]

92. Except there were NATO Special Forces on the ground prior to the UN Resolution

Specifically, UK's SAS in media.

One is naive or dishonest not to believe that the USA and other Nations lacked operatives on the ground.

The USA/NATO has likely insured more casualties and damage and regime change compared to the conflict was held internal to Libya.

The West had somewhat rehabbed Qadaffi since 2003.

One could compare Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Libya and see the inconsistency in policy.

[naaman fletcher]

52. I agree with Chavez on this one. nt.

[David__77]

56. Hugo Chavez is a great progressive! Thank you!

His role internationally has been very positive. I am glad he is among the few voices against imperialism.

[joshcryer]

65. Everyone agreeing with Chavez must agree with the Transitional Council, as this is their position.

It's hilarious, to be sure, everyone here agreeing with this position is inadvertently agreeing with the rebel representatives.

:rofl:

[Prometheus Bound]

70. Everyone disagreeing w/Chavez must disagree with the Transitional Council,as this is their position.

It's hilarious, to be sure, everyone here disagreeing with this position is inadvertently disagreeing with the rebel representatives.
:rofl:

[joshcryer]

71. The Transitional Council is against killing Gaddafi by NATO.

Sorry if it came off as unclear.

Of course we can all still continue to be disgusted with Chavez calling Gaddafi his friend. :hi:

[Prometheus Bound]

73. You know joshcryer, I suspect there's not a lot of distance between people who are disagreeing here.

Or between, say, Chavez's views and yours about bombing Gaddafy.

But pretending this is all black and white, you're with us or against us, and so forth, leaves no opportunity to find common ground. I suppose it is about assumptions. You're working on the assumption that the bombing support is strictly humanitarian, whereas others work on the assumption that it is hypocritical, vindictive and ultimately self-serving.

I don't know if we can move beyond these incompatible assumptions to have a normal discussion without it just deteriorating into sarcasm back and forth. Likely impossible. That's not the way these discussion boards work.

[joshcryer]

78. No, I have never held that position.

The world does not act for humanitarian ends, there's always something to gain. I am glad it is being done under humanitarian shield*, because otherwise it wouldn't be done, but I am not naive to underlying motives to act, I merely think those motives are irrelevant toward the people on the ground fighting for their lives. There is an argument thread here talking about how NATO wants to kill Gaddafi and how Chavez is oh so right in that regard, that it's wrong, etc. The rebels themselves don't want it, so here we have a grey area (note: not black any white, as you claim), where both Chavez and the rebels agree, and people are arguing over whether Chavez is right or not.

Chavez would never of course admit that he agrees with the rebels because he likely doesn't know that he shares their position (and wouldn't want anyone to know that this position is shared because they would be on the same side of a given dispute; the "armed insurgents" are on the same side of Chavez on this issue! They'd certainly disagree about NATO intervention, though!).

(* and I will not change my position that Benghazi I believe would've turned into another Misrata, and we'd have had two cities with a months long battle against Gaddafi, I do think he would've "sewed it up" as it were, in a few months, maybe half a year, at the cost of many lives and hundreds of thousands of refugees to Egypt; which btw would've had repercussions for the Egyptian revolution)

[Turborama]

79. Is anyone in this thread saying NATO should assassinate Gaddafi? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

91. no, they all maintain plausible deniability.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

100. Wow, I am really continually amused by the insinuation and innuendos.

If someone doesn't say something they actually implied it or otherwise that is their position. No evidence, naturally, just insinuation. The article is short, personally I think he probably should've used less paragraphs for copyright reasons. There's no evidence that the OP "selectively chose" those paragraphs to "highlight" Chavez' statements and "imply" support for NATO killing of Gaddafi.

Now, I do admit I have seen at least two posters (who will remain unnammed) who do hold the position that NATO should kill Gaddafi (or otherwise seal teams should sneak in and kill him). I do not see them posting at all in this thread.

[dameocrat67]

77. We have dictator friends too

Chavez plays no role in the middle east unlike America. We also befriend regimes that kill protesters. Like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel.