first, my responses were to pookie's points, so bear with me, given that im sure you dont both agree on everything
1)Those articles don't indicate Gaddafi was planning a genocide, only that he was planning to attack rebel troops. Of course, it's very likely innocent civilians would get caught in the crossfire, but this is no signal that he intended to committ genocide.
Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on what Colnel Gaddaffi, responsible for brutal repression of the Libyan people for 40 years, heavily implicated in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, pursuing chemical and biological weapons for years (until 2003) meant by Showing No Mercy. I think his record speaks for itself.
Don't know what this is in relation to or how it is relevant.
Pookie made a point about the UN mandate, in response to Pookie i posted a link to the UN website to explain this.
This is a totally unfounded inferrence and unrelated to the subject of discussion.
The US/UK has a history of war crimes in that region. Of course, you would learn nothing of this if your only source was the BBC.
For a more accurate understanding of the intervention in Bosnia, see here:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html
And more here and here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ap...goto-a22.shtml
http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2...war-nato-serbs
See my above post, i misread the original post by Pookie, probably by trying to do too many things at once, and i have corrected myself.
A dictatorship that was backed by the US, a dictator who was trained by the US, a dictator who was funded by the US. Yes, he's gone, but all that has replaced him is a military dictatorship. One wonders how a military dicatatorship is any better than a Mubarak led one was.
Pookie said that the US and UK only get involved to ensure friendly regimes survive - One good example of that is Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. But now he's gone. What do you think of the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, seeing as all I seem to be doing is answeringg questions like im the only person who has to justify my position.
I put the same points to you, where do you stand?
There is nothing in Pookie's posts to suggest he is a libertarian, I suspect you don't understand the meaning of this term. Then you make a totally unfounded assertion that Pookie was unreasonably demanding the world change to his own expectations from an armchair, when he did nothing of the sort and only asked reasonable questions which you are not able to fully answer.[/quote]
I was making a joke based on previous posts, seeing as i have 3 of you to deal with. This debate may be more humourless than the front row of a My Bloody Valentine gig, but you cant blame me for trying. Incidentally, isolationism is a core Libertarian principle in many circles which is why so many American Libertarians opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
Once again, im not the only one who has to justify my position, are you willing to justify yours?