[Closed] Gaddafi's death

I do now, thanks to Wiki. Doesn't change my opinion though.

I'll be very surprised if in 2 to 3 years time when we look at Libya that we don't simply think "ah, more of the same."

Now how about a popular uprising here to impose democracy?

We have an unelected upper house.

Many of our laws are made at the behest of large corporations to whom our supposedly democratic representatives are beholden.

We are subjects, not citizens.

Do you think we could get the French to send in a few air strikes?

It's perhaps not surprising that 42 years of torture/repression/murder and denial of human rights, has resulted in an explosion of violence towards those held responsible (and those deemed so by association) without genteel recourse to courts of law.

War is hell.

Another day, another round of pathetic weasleing from TJ. I'd love to see you tell an audience of Libyans they were better off under Gadaffi.

a country with a low mortality rate, good food security, good medical care etc - perhaps one of the most prosperous and stable counties in Africa

Libya has nothing but oil, nothing. Gadaffi and his vile clan monopolised the nation's wealth for their own ends but you think thats fine because he didnt spend all of it on gold AK47s, built some hospitals too and that makes him an OK guy. More weasel moral relativism.

Do you think we could get the French to send in a few air strikes?

i think you are vastly overestimating north sea oil reserves

Oh no its all been a big mistake , they've gone and shot Sylvester Stallone's mum Jackie !!!!!!

It's perhaps not surprising that 42 years of torture/repression/murder and denial of human rights, has resulted in an explosion of violence towards those held responsible (and those deemed so by association) without genteel recourse to courts of law.

War is hell.

Oh well that's ok then. Surprising no, but it makes all the claims that we were helping them in the name of human rights ring very hollow.

I'd love to see you tell an audience of Libyans they were better off under Gadaffi.

Well it seems all the black and dark skinned LIbyans were a lot better off under Gadaffi, not being murdered and abused and all.

Take a look at that photo of Gaddafi's face. Keep looking at it. Are you still thinking that "it serves him right"? Keep looking. Think about how it must have felt, after his astonished and bemused realisation that he was bleeding, as he was battered kicked punched and bludgeoned until he became the broken-faced doll-thing that you are looking at.

Keep looking at it. Think about all the Libyans he had reduced to exactly that state during his reign. Think about how he has become one of them at last.

"ok then"?

No. Not at all.

War is hell.

Well it seems all the black and dark skinned LIbyans were a lot better off under Gadaffi, not being murdered and abused and all.

Try again. You wish we (NATO) had stayed out of it entirely and that therefore Gadaffi would have been free to put down the revolt and stay in power? Thats what you are saying Grum? There is no halfway answer here.

I believe that would have led to less deaths. There is no way of proving this but its my belief

libya will now be a divided country in a state of civil war. Islamic extremists will take over some areas, tribal rivalries will ensure the civil war is perpetuated.

What right do we have to bomb the shit out of a country miles away - killing many civilians in the process?

Would it be crass to mention Germany..................

Many less would have died IMO without our intervention as the civil war would not have lasted 6 months plus. I actually doubt it would have started.

What, like in Syria? That's still going.

libya will now be a divided country in a state of civil war. Islamic extremists will take over some areas, tribal rivalries will ensure the civil war is perpetuated.

Thats all entirely possible, I hope it doesnt happen. Do you?

Its what [i]is[/i] happening. I wish it wasn't but its clear to see what is happening and has been for months.

Are you asserting that with the same certainty as your claim that it wouldn't have started without air support?

Do you think we could get the French to send in a few air strikes?

I think you'll find that since April 2011 and september the 22nd the french flew 6,745 sorties of which 2,225 resulted in direct air strikes. a total of 33%

where as the combined total of sorties flown by American and English planes was 12,300

This resulted in 801 direct Airstrikes by American planes,

And 700 direct strikes by English Planes for a combined total of 26%

As of 18/10/2011 The MoD confirmed the numbers and revealed that the UK has in fact conducted 12 per cent of all sorties overall.

I cant understand why France would take such an active role in the freedom of Libya, carrying out 3 x more strikes than the uk.

Maybe in 2005 when the Licences for oil were being sold by Gaddafi, France didn't think they got a fair deal.

Then On 2/09/2011 the french press reported that the TNC ratifies an agreement ceding no less than 35% of Libya's total crude oil production to France in exchange for "humanitarian" support.

The letter is addressed to the office of the emir of Qatar (the go-between for the TNC and France from the beginning)

I think the term used is "Petro-Terrorism"

There have been interviews with educated and articulate Libyans in exile in the UK who now feel empowered to return to Libya and seem very upbeat about helping to organise a democratic, pluralistic and tolerant society where all are equal under law.

Sounds a lot more encouraging than TJ's morbid predictions to me.

And 700 direct strikes by English Planes for a combined total of 26%

Time will tell Woppit. I'd bet my shirt I am right tho

Forgive my ignorance British Planes

we have English planes now FFS when did the Union break and why did no one tell me?

I think Lybya has a chance of a stable government, not guaranteed by any means, but a good chance non the less

Without the air strikes and advice from NATO, the conflict would have been greatly drawn out with [IMO] a much greater risk of various factions breaking off to do their own thing and fighting each other

Time will tell Woppit. I'd bet my shirt I am right tho

Without being able to turn the clock back and try again without air strikes, you'll never know

I'd bet my shirt I am right tho

Try again. You wish we (NATO) had stayed out of it entirely and that therefore Gadaffi would have been free to put down the revolt and stay in power? Thats what you are saying Grum? There is no halfway answer here.

If there was an armed revolt in this country backed by foreign powers, what do you think would happen - how would the government respond?

The action 'we' took also went well beyond the supposed aim of minimising civilian casualties - regime change was always clearly the motive. I would have thought all the evidence that has come out about Iraq, (ie oil companies meeting with the government months before we supposedly knew we were going to war, deciding how to carve up the oil industry post-invasion) would make people a little less naive about all this, but clearly not.

How do people know if Libya is better off?

We took sides in a civil war without knowing who we were supporting, but it was against 'that bad man' so we were right. Flying Rodent had it spot on:

[url= http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-responsibility-to-protect.html#links ]What is responsibility to protect?[/url]

and

I think my favourite part was the bit when Britain went to the United Nations to seek permission for a preventative No-Fly Zone over the country, and mysteriously emerged with a mandate to smash **** out of whoever and whatever we liked, providing we sort-of pretended that we were "protecting civilians" while we did it.

Thus did we get the final orgy of violence, destruction, mayhem and humanitarian civilian protection that was the assault on Sirte, during which Nato helped the NTC to protect seven shades of shit out of the city and what remained of its populace. Watching the pictures of a bombed-out Sirte on TV, you can see how we protected that place to ****ing rubble, house-by-house. Now, what does that remind me of?

Well. More cynical voices than mine will say that our noble intervention in Libya has led to a death toll that outstrips even the worst of the Arab Spring crackdowns by a factor of at least ten; that our undoubtedly sincere intentions were not entirely selfless in nature, and that the whole thing may just reek more of a hitjob than a humanitarian enterprise**.

[url= http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/10/no-mercy-for-tyrants.html#links ]No Mercy For Tyrants[/url]

If there was an armed revolt in this country backed by foreign powers, what do you think would happen - how would the government respond?

More meaningless whataboutery. Stick to the question, stop fantasising.

You wish we (NATO) had stayed out of it entirely and that therefore Gadaffi would have been free to put down the revolt and stay in power? Thats what you are saying Grum? There is no halfway answer here.

Have another go at the question.

libya will now be a divided country in a state of civil war. Islamic extremists will take over some areas, tribal rivalries will ensure the civil war is perpetuated.

Excuse me TJ, but isn't this precisely where Gaddafi came in, and also right where the NTC came in too. For that reason I'm not sure how you can blame that on the actions of NATO currently. I can live with the colonial aspect of it being at fault, but not NATO now, in fact I'd go as far to say that there is a strong argument as yet unutilised that the current NATO campaign could arguably be seen as righting some of the colonial wrongs done in the past.

mcboo - not meaningless at all, I'd like to know whether a country's ruler has, in your opinion, got the right to put down an armed rebellion using force?

Have another go at the question.

I'd have liked to see us stick to the original aims of the UN resolution (protecting civilian life), not use them as a mask for strategically motivated regime change.

in fact I'd go as far to say that there is a strong argument as yet unutilised that the current NATO campaign could arguably be seen as righting some of the colonial wrongs done in the past.

Or alternatively as a continuation of some of the colonial wrongs of the past.

Just seen the front page of the Sun. Shameful even by the standards of the gutter press.

mcboo - not meaningless at all, I'd like to know whether a country's ruler has, in your opinion, got the right to put down an armed rebellion using force?

Well I dont know about you but I believe in liberal democracy, and liberal democracies (characterised by free elections, speech, press, association, worship all defended by an independant judiciary) are worth fighting to defend. It's why I once wore a uniform.

Gadaffi was a gangster whose people had every right to over-throw. You can join TJ in lecturing Arabs about how they don't deserve to enjoy the freedoms that we have.

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power. Do you think he did? Answer please, no weaseling away on this very specific point.

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power.

Because he was unelected? So any uprising against an unelected leader should be supported, no mattter how many civilians get killed, or how many UN resolutions we abuse, how many human rights are trampled on along the way?

Well I dont know about you but I believe in liberal democracy

Like what we've achieved through our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan you mean?

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power. Do you think he did? Answer please, no weaseling away on this very specific point.

Already answered in my edit. You love talking about weaseling don't you - also making deranged accusations of racism like the other day. You're 'weaseling' out of most of my questions BTW.

So in reference to your above question, no Gadaffi had no right to use force to try and stay in power. Do you think he did? Answer please, no weaseling away on this very specific point.

Still waiting for your answer.

Stop flapping.

Gadaffi. Specifically Gadaffi.

He had the same right as Assad does in Syria, or the rulers of Bahrain do.

He didn't have the 'right' to do anything as he was unelected - but that isn't usually a problem for us is it. What I'm asking you very specifically (no weaseling) is - what would have been an appropriate response from him to the rebellion? What 'right' do the rebels have to do what they've done?

No weaseling remember.

what would have been an appropriate response from him to the rebellion?

In the spring I would have settled for him leaving the country unmolested by the International Criminal Court. Italy, Zimbabwe, Saudi, his choice. That clear enough?

You're putting yourself on the side of dictators. That is pretty depressing if you really mean it.

Weaseling. Still waiting for your answer.

Mainly to this one - What 'right' do the rebels have to do what they've done?

You can join TJ in lecturing Arabs about how they don't deserve to enjoy the freedoms that we have.

1) - point to where I ever said that
2) they will not get the freedoms we have from this civil war - they will be far worse off. Have you seen what we have done to the infrastructure of the country? The country will now be either partitioned or undergo civil war and large parts of it will heave Islamic fundamentalist governments.

The chances of any sort of democracy that encompasses the whole country here are precisely zero. aopart from anything else its not in the wests intrests to have a strong government.

Look at Iraq. Afghanistan. Look to all the lessons from history.
Iraq is a real case in point. A million plus people have died that wouldn't have done since 1990. The lot of the average person is far worse than under Saddam. Life expectancy is decades less than it was.

Every right! I'm a democrat. I'm not a pacifist. Some things are worth dying, and killing for.

Brilliant argument - probably about as good as the one Gaddafi used when he seized power by force. Oh, except his coup was bloodless.

I see you've edited now. So they have the 'right' because you agree with their supposed politics, which we have imposed so successfully on Iraq and Afghanistan?

Let's look at one of the new leaders of the glorious democratic revolution, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - he was the man who played a key role in sentencing innocent foreign nurses to death for supposedly infecting Libyan children with HIV. What a man, I'm so glad we supported the 'good guys'.

Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.

conversly we had no right at all to bomb the shit out of Sirte - a war crime. This is what we are responsible for. 30 000 people dead, 50 000 injured at a bear minimum.

[img] [/img]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15330364

mcboo - Member

Every right! I'm a democrat. I'm not a pacifist. Some things are worth dying, and killing for.

really - what is worth dying for? What is worth killing people for? Have you served? Why not? Why are you not over their fighting for democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

Have you served?

Yes.

I'm off to the pub. See you later.

Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.

Jeezuz christ.

the report of the International Center for Research and Study on Terrorism and Aid to Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT) and the French Center for Research on Intelligence (CF2R) warning that "only a minority of Libyan NTC members are true democrats." The rest of them are mixed factions of "monarchists, Islamic extremists and former fixtures of the Qaddafi supporters who defected to the rebels for various reasons."

http://www.thebulgariannews.com/view_news.php?id=132174

Of course he was McBoo - welcomed to the UN, handshakes with many world leaders.

Oh look - at the UN
[img] [/img]
Shaking hands with Obama
[img] [/img]

he had as much legitimacy as The house of Saud for example.

So when did you serve then? What theatre of war? seen people killed have you?

Regardless of what I know him to have done and not done I am totally sick of the media saying 'his death'

Why don't they tell it like it is and call it 'his killing'?

Why do they have to rebrand and spoon feed us everything?

@ billysugger

Completely agree, was the same with the Gilad Shalit captured/kidnapped (saw kidnapped a lot more than captured).

I think that one of the advantages of a liberal capitalist democracy like ours, is that the more loopy and bizarre modes of political thinking are kept at the entertaining edges of the debate.

Majority opinion tends to gravitate towards the median part of the bell curve - where the grown-ups live.

We've had some fruit-loopery on STW before but today we have reached absolute rock bottom.

Majority opinion tends to gravitate towards the median part of the bell curve - where the grown-ups live.

Yes, mainstream opinion is always right isn't it - just like when everyone 'knew' that Saddam had WMDs.

We had some fruit-loopery on STW before but today we have reached absolute rock bottom.

I agree.

McBoo you going to answer the questions? ~When did you serve - what theatre of war?

I ask because generally people who understand what killing is all about are much less gung ho.

Also I'd like to know at what point Gaddaffi lost his legitimacy as leader? 2009 addressing the UN and shaking hands with Obama.

Gonig to miss his dress sence though 😉

[img] [/img]

Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.

McBoo you going to answer the questions?

[img] [/img]

Thats your beloved UN TJ. Some of us didnt just sit behind a keyboard whining and gobbing off. Actually risked our necks to defend it's principles.

Fat tanky 😀

McBoom! 😀

Have you served?

Yes

I'm off to the pub. See you later.

Oh, are you a barman then?

Pint of wheat beer for me please, ta.

piss poor start for Libyan 'democracy', that's for sure..

I'm stunned that you seem to be defending him. Yes they may have enjoyed all those things but at what price?

It amuses me how some people appear to believe that the alternative to Gaddafi's 42 year dictatorship was a liberal democracy such as ours. There is not the slightest reason to believe that. The alternative to Gaddafi was a US/Western backed [i]dictatorship[/i] - just like every other country in the region.

Gaddafi was brutal, repressive, unpredictable, and quite mad. He interfered in the internal affairs of other countries and supported terrorism, and whilst this was never on the scale of the CIA, it was still nevertheless, wholly unacceptable.

However there is little doubt that the Libyan people did considerably better under Gaddafi than they would have done under a US/Western backed dictatorship - the only possible alternative.

The fact that it took 8 months and 26,000 air missions by NATO to topple him is testament to that. US/Western backed dictatorships have been toppled within days without any outside interference due to overwhelming public opposition .... although they now are busy trying to establish new US/Western backed dictatorships to replace the old ones.

It would also be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, how some people appear to automatically assume that the replacement for Gaddafi's 42 year rule will be a liberal democracy - what exactly is that based on, apart from 'wishfully thinking' ?

I truly hope that the Libyan people build themselves a more tolerant society than existed under Gaddafi, and one which doesn't make the sort of appalling mistakes he made. I fear however that they are very likely to end up with one which is equally intolerant, but without the positive achievements which occurred under Gaddafi.

Western military involvement in Libya was never about 'saving civilian lives'. It was for economic and strategic reasons. Furthermore the West has not got a clue who they've backed - they're just hoping it was "the good guys". None of this bodes well, specially when the behaviour of the anti-Gaddafi forces, which includes substantial elements of the old regime and a significant Al-Qaeda presence, is considered. Including repeated condemnations over many months by human rights organisations.

Given TJ's views on the legitimacy of the rebels I can't wait for the debate about independence for Jocklandia, when he realises that the legitimate government by his terms is the UK as a whole and that there would therefore be less than no chance of the jocks hsving their way other than us, "the legitimate authority" getting bored with their whining, which to be fair is not to big a leap of the imagination.

Get grip for Christs sake, the guy with the big stick gets to write the rules, the history and the constitution. It was ever thus, and ever will be. You benefit from it hugely, live with it or stop yer whining and sling your hook and prepare for new rules, history and constitution to be imposed upon your worthless backside. 😉

I fear however that they are very likely to end up with one which is equally intolerant, but without the positive achievements which occurred under Gaddafi.

Why? Because they are Arabs? Muslims? What is it about the population thats convinces you they are incapable ever of creating for themselves a civilised society?

Lincoln had it

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that[b] government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [/b]

mcboo

Why? Because they are Arabs? Muslims? What is it about the population thats convinces you they are incapable ever of creating for themselves a civilised society?

Copy and paste the bit where I said that [i]"they are incapable ever of creating for themselves a civilised society"[/i]

And if you are interested in knowing why I think it is "very likely" that they'll end up with an equally intolerant society after Gaddafi, why don't you read my post again properly, instead of quoting Abraham Lincoln......I don't see the point of repeating myself.

Live by the sword, die by the sword . . . . . .

Where's my ****ing beer?

Useless..... 🙄

Live by the sword, die by the sword . . . . . .

Ah yes, Matthew verse 26:52 ........ [i]"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"[/i]

This was of course said to a disciple who drew his sword to protect Jesus.

I never had you down as a religious person who quotes the bible Oxboy ........ do you draw much moral inspiration from the bible ? Good for you.

It would also be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, how some people appear to automatically assume that the replacement for Gaddafi's 42 year rule will be a liberal democracy - what exactly is that based on, apart from 'wishfully thinking' ?

The intention of educated and articulate Libyan exiles to return and work for it. The desire of western Governments to enable it. The intent of multinational companies to open and exploit the new market created by it. The will at the U.N. to make it happen.

For starters.

Get the buggers signed into the €urozone, what with all that oil and it's not that far away... Several birds and one stone.

The intention of educated and articulate Libyan exiles to return and work for it.

Seems as if it's almost buttoned-up then.

The desire of western Governments to enable it.

🙂 Like they have also desired in every other country in the region ? Before Britain left Libya after the mandate, it invented a monarchy so that a dictatorship could be established to serve it's best interests.

The intent of multinational companies to open and exploit the new market created by it.

😀

The will at the U.N. to make it happen.

I don't think you understand the role of the UN. It is not the job of the UN to dictate to countries how they should be governed. None of the Arab countries in the UN are liberal democracies.

I understand the role of the U.N. perfectly, thankyou. Majority vote, isn't it? Finagled in the way these things usually are, I would imagine, given the desire to cooperate on advancing the cause.

Tunisia on Sunday is going to be a useful bell-weather prediction on how the situation in the Maghreb and therefore the rest of the "Arab world" is likely to move, given time and encouragement. Personally, I prefer to be more optimistic, not having any "Marxist"-type axe to grind and a wish to see it all go t1ts up.

Hopefully, as don has suggested, let's get it sorted and everybody can make a few bucks out of it and move forward. * (Smiley emoticon to indicate whatever...).

* Opportuity for segueing into a rant about "Capitalism" there, if you like.

I understand the role of the U.N. perfectly, thankyou.

Obviously you don't. You proved that by claiming that the UN will decide how Libya will be governed.

Personally, I prefer to be more optimistic, not having any "Marxist"-type axe to grind and a wish to see it all go t1ts up.

Optimism is great, and I'm all for it, but it's useful if it's based on something. The evidence exists that it is "very likely" Libya under the new regime will not be a tolerant society.

Serious human rights violations, documented for some time by human rights organisations - without a "Marxist-type axe to grind", in areas controlled by the NTC does not bode well. Nor does the behaviour of the NTC itself which has repeatedly acted in a highly dubious manner, including the arrest of it's own military leader who was then murdered whilst in custody; the repeated lies and misinformation they have released; and the rescheduling of promised elections. And of course the actual composition of the NTC is also a cause of serious concern.

And btw, far from wanting wishing "to see it all go t1ts up", the complete reverse is true. The overwhelming evidence is that public opinion in the region is deeply hostile to Western hegemony. It is for this very reason that the Western powers have installed and propped up over many decades highly repressive regimes in the region. Allowed to freely choose their own governments, without interference, it is highly unlike that the people in the region will freely elect governments which will serve the best interests of Western multinational companies.

It is for this very reason that Western governments are extremely unlikely to allow the people in the region to freely choose their own governments without interference. And why they are now rushing to help themselves to Libya's vast wealth without even the Libyan people's consent - there is always the possibility that elections might eventually be held, and there's always the possibility that despite the best effort to do so, these elections might not be manipulated sufficiently to produce the desired result. So best fill yer boots before anyone asks the Libyan people if they mind.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/british-firms-libya-business ]British firms urged to 'pack suitcases' in rush for Libya business[/url]

I have far more idealogical commitment to democracy in the region than Western governments Woppit.

Obviously you don't. You proved that by claiming that the UN will decide how Libya will be governed.

It is interesting to note that, whilst you often complain that others misinterpret and misquote what you have written, you are quite prepared to engage in misquoting others, yourself.

Nowhere did I say that the U.N. will "decide" how Libya will be run.

The rest of your suppositions are just suppositions, although I take your points about the NTC. It is interesting that, despite their objectionable past behaviour, they are being portrayed as the "Mr Clean" option for the transitional phase.

I have no objection to "The West" trying to engineer the situation to it's advantage. Having a lot of oil and being able to sell it is good for Libya and potentially good for us. I am "intensely relaxed" with the idea that the nations who supported the revolution would get preferential status with regard to those sales and other investment opportunities. If it takes an engineered liberal capitalist democracy to do it, so much the better.

The argument for a government that supports Western interests, is stronger inside the North African debate than you seem to give it credit for, in my opinion, although of course there are other voices - nationalistic/Islamic/anti-capitalist and so forth.

I still prefer to remain optimistic at this stage, despite the evidently poor record of Western-created governments "longevity falures" in the past. Setting up a democracy which is open to influence could be a much better bet than setting up a "Monarchy" or a "Dictatorship" as has been the habit in the past.

'engineered liberal capitalist democracy' I feel sick.

It is interesting to note that, whilst you often complain that others misinterpret and misquote what you have written, you are quite prepared to engage in misquoting others, yourself.

Nowhere did I say that the U.N. will "decide" how Libya will be run.

You want to read what you post, me ol fruit.

I suggested that it was wrong to [i]"automatically assume that the replacement for Gaddafi's 42 year rule will be a liberal democracy"[/i]. You responded to that with, amongst other points, [i]"The will at the U.N. to make it happen"[/i]. It is not the role of the UN to 'make happen' liberal democracy. None of the other countries in the Arab League are liberal democracies, despite being members of the UN.

Of course if you didn't mean what you said then that's another story, but I don't see the point of accusing me of 'engaging in misquoting' ....I actually copied and posted your whole sentence.

Yes, shame the world wags the way it does, isn't it. Still, the engineered thingummy is infinitely preferable to, say, an Islamic Monarchy such as Saudi Arabia, in my opinion (yes, yes, I know - we sell them arms and all that...) or an engineered Chile or the like.

One day I daresay we'll all join hands all over the world and everybody will love everybody else and it will all be celebrated in the song that you'd like to teach the world to sing, eh billy?

Until then, just keep taking the Gaviscon.

Fair enough, Ernesto.

Is your blood pumping Mr Woppit?

Every thread descends into some form of cloaked/backhanded insult when clearly we all know absolutely naff all about each other.

Maybe one day when this capitalist democracy way has been shown only to create greedy people and a 'them and us attitude' some country that's not living on it's past will come and impose their regime onto the UK.

Is your blood pumping Mr Woppit?

Apparently, I'm still concious.

Every thread descends into some form of cloaked/backhanded insult when clearly we all know absolutely naff all about each other.

Does it? Oo-er. Seems a bit silly. Didn't mean to come across as insulting - just attempting humour old boy. Must remember to use the emoticon - should have been 😉 or something. Sorry.

Maybe one day when this capitalist democracy way has been shown only to create greedy people and a 'them and us attitude' some country that's not living on it's past will come and impose their regime onto the UK.

Seems a bit of a long shot but, O.K. then.

It's an interesting debate though - whether or not to "interfere" in another country's affairs. The argument that one should just stand back and let others get on with their own affairs seems seductive and morally "right"but, isn't there an echo of Chamberlain's "Chekoslovakia is a small country a long way away and is nothing to do with us" in that approach?

remembers what a supercilious humourless male hen whoppit is and just walks away shaking his head.

.....isn't there an echo of Chamberlain's "Chekoslovakia is a small country a long way away and is nothing to do with us" in that approach?

😀 Yes the similarity between the situation today in North Africa/the Middle East, and Germany's lebensraum policy of the 1930s, is obvious !

Tell me if I've "misquoted you" Woppit ........ won't you ?