Other parts of Africa, like Darfur? Too bad the US didn't take any action, either on it's own or as a part of the UN to try to help the conflict.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1564 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just face it, you just like to bitch and complain. If the US did intervene in Darfur with military action, or any other conflict for that matter, you would start spouting off how it is only about oil.

You seem to have this self-righteous sense that you're the only one in the world who is against the people of Africa and the Middle East having to endure oppression and suffering. But when anything is done to help, you complain about ulterior motives. While their may be ulterior motives, if even the slightest bit of adancement can be made to help relieve the citizens who are suffereing, then we should atleast try to look for a silver lining, seeing as how we can do nothing to change the way our government is going to respond to international conflict.

I'm going to pose a very simple question that even a person like you can understand: In what way does the West benefit "though oil" by intervening in Libya?

Now I'm going to ask you a bit more complicated question, but I hope your intellect can grasp it anyway: What exactly do you mean, "by oil", in these circumstances? The West will steal the oil? The West will ensure that the oil price is lowered? That it's raised?

Again with more assumptions. Give it a rest. If they actually took action in Darfur I would not complain at all.

Please never talk about intellect and spell incorrectly because it just makes you look like an ass.
They put someone in power who they can trust they will benefit.

Yet you complain when they take action in Libya. Quite the conundrum...

Jesus are you seriously overlooking what I said earlier? I gave a reason why they are getting involved with Libya. There is no benefit for the US for intervening with Darfur.

So you see possibly 'getting oil' as a benefit (which will not happen, as we will actually end up paying MORE for oil during a conflict with an oil-producing nation), but you see no benefit of intervening in Darfur and stopping millions of innocent citizens from being raped, mutilated, and killed? And while you see no benefit for intervening in Darfur, you say that you would not be against it?

:banghead: you are either just extremely stupid or trying to put words in my mouth to be obnoxious.

Actually neither. I'm trying to understand your thought process, which appears to be quite contradictory.

Actually it is not, but you continue to think it is.

Maybe you should explain yourself better then.
All I've seen you do in this thread is say 'it's about oil' and then go on to personally attack people or ignore any questions put to you by whoever disagrees with you.

OR maybe it is a lack of reading comprehension skills.

Guess you skimmed through because I brought up Darfur as well.

If this was not about oil, but about being humanitarians the US would intervene in Darfur which the government does not do since it does not benefit them. Clearly the US government does not care about people other than its own unless it financially benefits us over time.

It irks me that people refer to countries as if they're people. Of course "The U.S." isn't going to play hero just for the sake of being noble. The country is run by hundreds of people, each with their own motives and desires yet sharing one common interest, "What's good for us?" How could it be any other way?

One motive for one desire. Money. The root of most problems.

They could trust Gaddafi, he always sold oil to the west. So why would they destroy that reliable source of oil if their motives are, as you say, "oil"? If that was the case they should've helped Gaddafi destroy the rebels. I'm not suggesting that the West has purely humanitarian goals with all this, I think it's also very much a deal of improving one's status. Sarkozy in particular seems very eager to make France a big player in international relations.

Just read through the whole bloody thing. It seems to me that every time Buzzov*en joins a debate the level of civility drops dramatically.

i'm sorry i don't understand the ceausescu word. i thought he's a person who'll replace Gaddafi.

My guess would be that siding with a murdering thug like Gaddafi would be political suicide, while siding with the rebels at least might give the US, France, Britain, etc some influence in who eventually prevails.

:laughing:

It's a reference to Nicolae Ceaușescu, the brutal ruler of Romania who was publicly executed in 1989. The title of this thread is basically asking if the Libyan people are going to capture and execute Gaddafi or not.

You think this will help it remain civil if you think I am the cause of it?

Pretty much.

oh, ok. thank you for the info. i'd say it would be very interesting. i'm a very peace loving person and i'm against violence or killings of all forms but it would be fun seeing Gaddafi's public execution, don't you think?

Not really. I would rather not see anyone be executed in public (or executed at all).

Depends if you take it as advice or as an insult. Do you think you would stop if no one said anything? Probably not.

EDIT: But if you want me to ask nicely, then I will. Will you please try to control yourself in this thread?

Russia calls for halt to Libya attack - UPI.com

BBC News - Russia announces Libya arms deal worth $1.8bn

It looks like Russia is getting annoyed at the US' intervention in Libya. With that enormous arms deal between them, do you guys think that Russia or Libya may have seen this (or something similar) coming?

i agree but on the contrary, i wish anyone who does me wrong gets executed or tortured right in front of my very own eyes

That's a little disturbing.

it is disturbing but what's more disturbing is the fact that Gadaffi is actually harming those civilians. i believe he deserves to be punished, and if people wants to execute him publicly, then so be it.

Oh man....

:laughing:

You think responding to violence by using violence is a wise decision? I agree that he needs to be "dethroned", but I don't think we should allow a bunch of angry, armed civilians to go in and do it. So far the U.S.'s objective is to not take down Gadaffi (which has not been fairly unpopular decision), but I think if we were to then we should do it by the use of the court system. After all, we are a country of laws.

i understand your point but have you seen Gadaffi interviews? he's insane. he's mentally unstable and to give him oppurtunity with these court system process will just give him more time to plan the next inhumane attack. he's the root cause of their country's poor economy and people deserves to see that root cause be dead. that's justice.

Don't mean to quote the Bible but: "those who do not sin cast the first stone"

Your point? The U.S. is still a country of laws. People get a fair trial regardless of his or her sanity. If we didn't give people a fair trial, then we wouldn't be a civilized nation.

And these laws are created by humans who are very much prone to mistakes. Trust me, Gadaffi does not deserve the good treatment.

No one deserves to be killed. I really don't believe it. That whole "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" nonsense is very primitive and ridiculous. We've come a long way since then, and it would be nice to see people actually evolve into something a little more civilized when I know they have the capacity to do so.

Nobody is saying that he deserves good treatment. I'm saying he deserves fair judgement.

i agree. but have you read the news that Gadaffi spent 1 million dollars just to have Beyonce perform 2 hours at their family gathering/occasion? Sometimes, giving people fair trial will just give them ways to cover their corruptness and greed. Surely, a civilized nation needs equality and due process, but at this very specific Libya incident, it's not worth it for their leader.

If we bend the rules then we're devolving in terms of our humanity. Also, it's not really up to you to make that call.

i know. it's best to always note in your head that everything posted here are just opinions.

keep telling yourself that.

This is a clear sign that you have mental problems. You cannot vilify Gadaffi for his actions, and then condone those same action.

Well said.:clap:

@ The Virgin

All I hear from you is illogical nonsense that I might expect to hear from Gaddafi himself. At what point should the rule of law be disregarded just to serve your own personal satisfaction? At what point does a person give up human consideration? Perhaps at the point where they stop believing that other people deserve human consideration? Take a look in the mirror before you start spouting off knee jerk reactions and passing them off as legitimate arguements.