International Criminal Court

[Crocefisso]

Breaking news: the International Criminal Court has ordered an arrest warrant for Libyan despot Muammar Qaddafi.

 

Good. Though the "massacres" of civilians of late are largely a bunch of lies (the 'civilians' he was allegedly killing just so happened to be holding guns and riding around in pick up trucks with machine guns on the back), Qaddafi has ruled over Libya for 41 years and really needs to go as it stands. The prosperity he gave Libya in the 1980s - living standards higher than those of the USA - has been eroded by UN sanctions (late 80s-early 2000s), nepotism and corruption, and he's really lost his touch as a leader. I don't really care about democracy. For the first 18 or so years of his rule, Qaddafi made the Libyan people far richer, and so in my books he was a good national leader. Alas, his leadership has since stagnated.

 

But the ICC picks its fights in accordance with US and NATO policy, and its this kind of corrupt subservience that sickens me.

 

Do the ICC decide to prosecute Mubarak? No, he was a US ally after all. Do the ICC bring charges against the Libyan rebels? No; the west likes them, so their systematic genocide on black Africans are not war crimes at all. But Qaddafi - who dared to use tear gas on protesters who burnt cars in Tripoli - is a pantomime villain, allegedly.

 

Do the ICC prosecute Israel, a supremacist state that far exceeds its right to self defence with its attempts at ethnic cleansing and occasional murders of Palestinian civilians? Of course not; Israel is a 'victim', in the eyes of the ICC.

 

Instead, only the leaders - who just so happen to be all African - that cross the west are put on the ICC list of targets.

 

Qaddafi was a pariah for decades. Prior to this, in 1970, he forced western companies to renegotiate oil contracts to give a fairer price to the Libyan people, something that was responsible for the meteoric rise in Libyan living standards. You don't have to be a genius to see just why France and the UK are getting involved. Getting rid of Qaddafi means more profits from the multi-billion pound oil investments we have in Libya; after all, a democratic government is easier to pressure.

 

To conclude: The International Criminal Court: Criminals prosecuted by criminals, with help from other criminals.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Let's just clear this up now: there really isn't any doubt that Gaddafi is using illegal weapons of war on non-belligerents, including some alleged incidents of rape as a means of torture. Multiple international news agencies have confirmed this, many of them holding a commitment to neutrality in their reporting.

[Danqazmlp]

That first post just reeks of over biased anti-USA, anti-Nato, anti-West thought. It's quite easy to pick a couple of good points about one country/person, bad about another then throw them into one post making somebody sound like an angel.

 

I simply can't trust a single thing you said as fact with so much opinion being thrown around. Please show me the sources.

 

Also, two sentences on the situation in Israel? Very thought out and argumentative there.

[Giordano]

It's all true. Bet your ass it's true.

 

However: what can we do about it?

[Dheginsea]

That first post just reeks of over biased anti-USA, anti-Nato, anti-West thought. It's quite easy to pick a couple of good points about one country/person, bad about another then throw them into one post making somebody sound like an angel.

 

I simply can't trust a single thing you said as fact with so much opinion being thrown around. Please show me the sources.

 

Also, two sentences on the situation in Israel? Very thought out and argumentative there.

Exactly this, your statements on Israel do not exactly show both sides or even give a tiny proportion of the entire picture.

 

You seem to be trying to say that Qaddafi was acting nice and then the big bad UN caused all the problems.

 

Also I highly doubt that you were the one who wrote this as most people don't start of by saying (unless in an article)

Breaking news: the International Criminal Court has ordered an arrest warrant for Libyan despot Muammar Qaddafi.

so please show me the source.

[Omar]

Here you go, Doubting Thomas: one result on Google and it's from TIF.

[sees_all1]

I don't approve of the ICC, but I don't agree with you.

[Furah]

For the first 18 or so years of his rule, Qaddafi made the Libyan people far richer, and so in my books he was a good national leader.

True, but Hitler brought Germany out of depression and also effectively gave the world the modern production line, yet I don't hear you going on about how you don't care that he waged war as he was a good national leader.

[sees_all1]

For the first 18 or so years of his rule, Qaddafi made the Libyan people far richer, and so in my books he was a good national leader.

True, but Hitler brought Germany out of depression and also effectively gave the world the modern production line, yet I don't hear you going on about how you don't care that he waged war as he was a good national leader.

And by "far richer," that's a pretty easy target when you're sitting on 41.5 billion barrels of oil. If he was as good as you say, you'd expect his country to be like the UAE.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Also, "rich" is a very broad measure of wealth. Without confusing the presumption that economic power must lead to democracy, I'm not for believing that wealth per capita has improved all that much over Gaddafi's rule. In fact, we know this because unemployment in Libya is sky high.

 

This rebellion has as much to do with poverty as it does civil rights.

[Furah]

A better measure of wealth would be relative economic mobility.

[Will H]

Let me get this straight; the OP makes quite a lot of controversial assertions on international affairs. Then, the OP demands that we get rid of the organisation that is there to determine whether those very assertions are true or not.

That just sounds to me like someone who can't handle truths which don't agree with their world-view.

 

I have my doubts on the possibility of an unbiased International Criminal Court as well, but these kinds of arguments can't be made on opinionated terms (I don't agree with what the ICC said, therefore they don't deserve to exist etc.).

[Crocefisso]

Let's just clear this up now: there really isn't any doubt that Gaddafi is using illegal weapons of war on non-belligerents, including some alleged incidents of rape as a means of torture. Multiple international news agencies have confirmed this, many of them holding a commitment to neutrality in their reporting.

 

I don't doubt that he has, but on a very small scale compared to a great many other nations.

 

I'll use Israel as a reference point:

 

On the one hand, there are reports of Qaddafi using cluster bombs in this war. But where did he find them? They were sold to him by the Spanish government, using an Israeli design. This is just as verified as what Qaddafi is doing. Furthermore, let us not forget that Israel used so many cluster bombs in the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war that many parts of southern Lebanon are uninhabitable to this day, owing to unexploded bombs.

[Crocefisso]

For the first 18 or so years of his rule, Qaddafi made the Libyan people far richer, and so in my books he was a good national leader.

True, but Hitler brought Germany out of depression and also effectively gave the world the modern production line, yet I don't hear you going on about how you don't care that he waged war as he was a good national leader.

And by "far richer," that's a pretty easy target when you're sitting on 41.5 billion barrels of oil. If he was as good as you say, you'd expect his country to be like the UAE.

 

 

First, in response to Furah: a) war always drives industry, so any leader can get industry going if they just wage war, and b) comparing Hitler to Qaddafi is totally disproportionate. Qaddafi, though a tyrant, is responsible for what - 1,000 or so deaths -, compared to Hitler's 10 million.

 

In response to sees:

The key difference between Libya and the UAE is, of course, the fact that Libya is made up of Libyans, whereas the UAE has over a population which is over 90% transient. As such, it's very easy to generate wealth when rich businessmen are circulating in and out of a country continuously. Building a nation from the ground up - as per Libya - takes far more time and effort. The UAE is like a larger version of Monaco or Andorra.

 

Similarly, oil does not equate to wealth unless its revenues are used in a certain way. Algeria and Nigeria have oil, but they do not benefit in the same way as Libya remotely. In this sense, Qaddafi did do a very good job at first, and I don't think many can reasonably deny this. But this great achievement has soured over time.

[Furah]

First, in response to Furah: a) war always drives industry, so any leader can get industry going if they just wage war, and b) comparing Hitler to Qaddafi is totally disproportionate. Qaddafi, though a tyrant, is responsible for what - 1,000 or so deaths -, compared to Hitler's 10 million.

 

In response to sees:

The key difference between Libya and the UAE is, of course, the fact that Libya is made up of Libyans, whereas the UAE has over a population which is over 90% transient. As such, it's very easy to generate wealth when rich businessmen are circulating in and out of a country continuously. Building a nation from the ground up - as per Libya - takes far more time and effort. The UAE is like a larger version of Monaco or Andorra.

 

Similarly, oil does not equate to wealth unless its revenues are used in a certain way. Algeria and Nigeria have oil, but they do not benefit in the same way as Libya remotely. In this sense, Qaddafi did do a very good job at first, and I don't think many can reasonably deny this. But this great achievement has soured over time.

Sure, but no leader has brought around such a revolutionary advancement in the past 100 years as Hitler did. Wait until Qaddafi invades a single nation.

 

The corrupt leaders of Algeria and Nigeria aren't as smart as leaders such as Qaddafi and Hitler. If a people have nothing and you give them everything; education, shelter, food, clean water, safety, then they will die to protect you and will display Stockholm syndrome.

[Furah]

Sure, but no leader has brought around such a revolutionary advancement as Hitler did.

 

Napoleon

Whoops, was meant to write in the past 100 years, fixing now.

[Lenticular_J]

Sure, but no leader has brought around such a revolutionary advancement as Hitler did.

 

Napoleon

Wouldn't call that advancement. France was hardly backwards, Napoleon just picked up what was left after the mess of the Revolution.

[Range_This11]

Granted, though, that both countries were pretty much in shambles (for different reasons) when their respective leaders began the turnaround. I think that is what he was going for, not that Napoleon had any say in the Revolution.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Hitler is one example of how human rights violations frankly don't matter too much when it comes to civil disobedience so long as people's quality of life is improving and maintained. Germany at the time was the hub of European art and education, the Germans themselves were hardly stupid; it's implausible to believe that ordinary Germans didn't know where the Jews, the gays and political activists they outed to the State were 'disappearing' to. But so long as Hitler was moving the country as far away from the Wall Street crash as possible, they didn't care.

 

For a modern example, look at China. Week after week we hear more stories about crackdowns and abuse on political activists, but so long as the middle class keeps growing and the country is developing as rapidly as it is, there isn't any real movement against the government at all. A businessman in Shanghai isn't going to care one iota about a farmer some 500 miles away being forced of his land by force without being offered compensation if the Party presents this modernisation as meaning he can buy a new car, or a fancy new apartment, or a wider variety of food and drink than his family have ever experienced before.

 

Gaddafi's downfall, like Hitler's on the rare occasion he faced dissent in pre-1939 Germany, is that he's focused too much on guns and not enough on butter. In a strange and twisted way, he hasn't been nice enough. To say he's made the Libyan people richer overall is slightly incredulous when you see the scenes in Misrata everyday. They're not killing their fellow countrymen because they feel they're too rich.

[Lenticular_J]

Granted, though, that both countries were pretty much in shambles (for different reasons) when their respective leaders began the turnaround. I think that is what he was going for, not that Napoleon had any say in the Revolution.

France was still fairly powerful. Libya had been beaten down for centuries, France was one of the most powerful nations in the world less than twenty years before Napoleon.

 

But I do understand the comparison. And I know practically nothing about Libya, so I will keep my head down.

[Range_This11]

They may have been powerful twenty years earlier, but the Revolution left them without a central authority and essentially without the means to project the power they previously had on a global level. I am not saying that they were in the same situation economy-wise as Germany was, but a nation without a central government has almost no power or influence outside its borders.

[Dheginsea]

Here you go, Doubting Thomas: one result on Google and it's from TIF.

 

 

Well I stand corrected.

[tml]

Breaking news: the International Criminal Court has ordered an arrest warrant for Libyan despot Muammar Qaddafi.

 

Good. Though the "massacres" of civilians of late are largely a bunch of lies (the 'civilians' he was allegedly killing just so happened to be holding guns and riding around in pick up trucks with machine guns on the back), Qaddafi has ruled over Libya for 41 years and really needs to go as it stands. The prosperity he gave Libya in the 1980s - living standards higher than those of the USA - has been eroded by UN sanctions (late 80s-early 2000s), nepotism and corruption, and he's really lost his touch as a leader. I don't really care about democracy. For the first 18 or so years of his rule, Qaddafi made the Libyan people far richer, and so in my books he was a good national leader. Alas, his leadership has since stagnated.

 

Hahaha. On paper we may be rich, in reality, something I'm afraid you're far removed from, we're poorer then the Egyptians who have over 15 times our population and little oil. We've always been poorer, since the 70s and 80s, its just never been as apparent as it is today with satellite tv and the Internet.

 

The only ones who ever saw our wealth were African dictators and your own leaders.

 

 

Qaddafi, though a tyrant, is responsible for what - 1,000 or so deaths ...

 

Try 3000+ in Tripoli alone, with the decisive battle for it yet to begin.

 

Seriously, heartless bastards like you really piss me off.

 

Watch at 2:04. Show me guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl4b-rHsOJU&feature=player_detailpage#t=116s

 

As for us opposing NATO strikes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUys_sztVFM

[Crocefisso]

 

Gaddafi's downfall, like Hitler's on the rare occasion he faced dissent in pre-1939 Germany, is that he's focused too much on guns and not enough on butter. In a strange and twisted way, he hasn't been nice enough. To say he's made the Libyan people richer overall is slightly incredulous when you see the scenes in Misrata everyday. They're not killing their fellow countrymen because they feel they're too rich.

 

I must add something that I and the rest of us on this thread seem to have forgotten, something that has a very big influence on what is going on in Libya which makes it very different from Syria, Egypt or Tunisia: tribal hegemony is coming into play.

 

It is no coincidence that, in the Fezzan tribal region from which Qaddafi comes, there have been no uprisings at all. In Tripolitania, a tribal region which differs from Qaddafi's but has beneftief from his rule, opinion is split. In Cyrenaica - the region of Qaddafi's predecessor, King Idris, which has benefited least over the past 41 years - the entire region is under rebel control.

 

I think we all need to be careful when approaching the Libyan Civil War from a western perspective. It is not simply a tribal conflict, but it is not a straightforward fight for democracy. Libyan society is stuck somewhere between the strong tribality of Yemen and more western-style societies, e.g. Egypt, with a large middle class and so on. This conflict has already been plagued by cultural misinterpretations (the "massacre of Benghazi" idea is the biggest example of this), and I think it's very important, for Libya and the west, that these are kept to a minimum.

 

I'm not saying everyone fighting either for or against Qaddafi is doing so for tribal reasons. Equally, I think any reasonable person will have to accept that a significant proportion - maybe 40%, maybe 60% - are. After all, it's no coincidence that the rebel flag just so happens to be the same one as Libya under King Idris. But to present Libya in the polarised way that applies to Tunisia or Egypt is wrong. Arab geopolitics are not so simple.

[Crocefisso]

Breaking news: the International Criminal Court has ordered an arrest warrant for Libyan despot Muammar Qaddafi.

 

Good. Though the "massacres" of civilians of late are largely a bunch of lies (the 'civilians' he was allegedly killing just so happened to be holding guns and riding around in pick up trucks with machine guns on the back), Qaddafi has ruled over Libya for 41 years and really needs to go as it stands. The prosperity he gave Libya in the 1980s - living standards higher than those of the USA - has been eroded by UN sanctions (late 80s-early 2000s), nepotism and corruption, and he's really lost his touch as a leader. I don't really care about democracy. For the first 18 or so years of his rule, Qaddafi made the Libyan people far richer, and so in my books he was a good national leader. Alas, his leadership has since stagnated.

 

Hahaha. On paper we may be rich, in reality, something I'm afraid you're far removed from, we're poorer then the Egyptians who have over 15 times our population and little oil. We've always been poorer, since the 70s and 80s, its just never been as apparent as it is today with satellite tv and the Internet.

 

The only ones who ever saw our wealth were African dictators and your own leaders.

 

 

Qaddafi, though a tyrant, is responsible for what - 1,000 or so deaths ...

 

Try 3000+ in Tripoli alone, with the decisive battle for it yet to begin.

 

Seriously, heartless bastards like you really piss me off.

 

 

I must point out a number of factual errors in your post, tml.

 

First, if Egypt really is a better place to live than Libya, please explain to me why 1/3 of the Libyan population - aka 2 million people - is made up of migrant workers from Egypt. I don't think it fits with the general pattern of migration for people to migrate somewhere in search of worse living conditions.

 

Second, thought the casualties for the war as a whole far exceed 1,000 - at around 10,000 or so - most of these are what NATO calls "collateral", or civilians who have died in the fighting. Let us not forget that Qaddafi has not been killing civilians in Tripoli - a massive support base for him - but in fact civilian deaths there have been caused by the no-fly zone. I'm not saying Qaddafi hasn't been killing civilians, but so has NATO, and I don't really think either has a moral highground. But certainly your figures for the deaths caused by Qaddafi are totally erroneous.