I've seen the interview. It didn't look in the least like gloating to me.
I'm sure that she would have been much happier if Gaddafi had been captured and extradited to the US to be tried for his part in the Lockerbie plane bombing.
Sadly the people who were rebelling against him got to him first.
An invented "fact" that doesn't need any excuse. No amount of anti-Clinto spin can make that interview look as if Clinton was gloating about Gaddafi's death.
Somebody who was gloating would have had quite a bit to gloat about - the manner of Gaddafi's death might even have got mentioned. It had been widely reported at the time.
And Hillary and Obama? What, they can't think for themselves? America has no foreign policy principles, we just follow France, of all countries? ROFL
Yes she did, we have video of her doing exactly that.
Like most well-informed Americans she was conscious that Gaddafi was responsible for the 1988 Lockerbie tragedy, which killed 243 passengers and 16 crew in the plane that went down, and 11 more people on the ground where it hit.
She gloated and she and Obama were involved in killing him. The Lockerbie attack was decades prior. More imporantly, Gaddafi had recently COMPLIED with exactly what the US, UN, and NATO were demanding. He ended his WMD programs, turned over his WMDs and Obummer and Hillary responded by going to war and killing him! That message was noted by Iran and NK. Comply, turn over your nukes, then they take you out, attack you, kill you. We even have the video of Hillary gloating.
BS. Trying to put down a rebellion in your own country, using your military is not "terrorism". In fact, just as in Iraq, the terrorist were the ones on the other side.
Using terror tactics against your own population probably doesn't count as state sponsored terrorism - you are doing it rather than sponsoring it, but it's not an activty to be encouraged.
And who's the biggest voice in NATO? Which country is NATO a joke without? Which country spends more on military than all those other NATO countries combined?
I see, so some countries could bomb Chicago, London or Sydney, help rebel terrorist organizations overthrow the govts, and as long as they don't follow with invasion, it's OK.
Woooosh! Right over your head. The point is that Iran and NK aren't going to be stupid and stop developing nukes and WMDs. When you have nukes, then you don't get attacked.
As usual, you're misinformed.
a
Back to that again? It's not about Lockerbie, it's about taking out a guy who handed over his uranium, ended his nuke/WMD programs, and COMPLIED with what the US/UN/NATO demanded he do. THAT is the big picture, the message Obama/Hillary sent. And look at what Libya has become since. The US just evacuated personnel again because the conditions there are so bad and this is how many years later? Hillary didn't learn a damn thing from Iraq.
Because she sent the clear message to the world, to Iran, to NK, that if you comply with US/UN/NATO demands and end your nuke programs, end your WMD programs, allow inspections, then they come and attack you and kill you. That's why. Then they expect Iran and NK to repeat the same mistake Gaddafi made?
Gadaffi's death meant the hostilities
Except of course that the hostilities haven't wound down. The US just evacuated personnel last week because the conditions have worsened. And it wasn't happiness, she was GLOATING over his death.
The Arab Spring - that lead to the rebellion against Gaddafi and a lot of o ther disorder in the Arab world - probably has something to do with the ref ugee crisis.
Gaddafi got taken out by Libyan rebels. They might not have got him if NATO hadn't taken to shooting up military convoys moving around in Libya as a d evice to slow down Gaffadi's terrorising of his rebellious former subjects, but NATO didn't intend to take him out, and only found out that they'd hel ped in his demise well after the event
As if they could have done anything to head off the Arab Spring.
They might have done more to restore order in the Arab world after the rebe llions and unrest had got underway, but that would have meant some boots on the ground, and Dubbya had made that a non-option.
Actually it mean that the petrobuck would not be replaced by the Africa gol d dinar, a currency which he was starting - for that purpose.
That's why all the shit he may have done for years and years was just fine until one day he became a grave threat all the sudden.
Sponsored by your (well US anyway) tax dollars. They did it that way so it wouldn't be apparent who was behind it.
If the dinar had succeeded, which is not a sure thing, we would have Iran, Russia, China and a few other places using it and sending those petrobucks home which would have caused hyperinflation here.
Qadahffi was a progressive and he was all buddy buddy until one day he did something they don't like. Things like signing leases and agreements with o il companies and things like that. That's almost always what it is. If not, the US military would be in a whole bunch of different places. Parts of Af rica. INSIDE North Korea. It's not like they're too big to bully like China and whatever, what is their excuse ? How come something isn't being done a bout these tragic trespasses f human rights ?
Answer: There's no money in it.
I have personally found correlations between the actions of the US military and natural resources in all but one case, and many people who know more t han Fox News agree the main exception was Korea, like during MASH days Kore a. The consensus there is that it is a strategic location, and back then we weren't all too friendly with China and Korea stuck in their craw for a ti me.
To really figure it out you would have to know many details of the time, we re there any pipelines. The US can't stand a pipeline anywhere they don't h ave their fingers into. Supply and major trucking routes. Not just how much coast but WHAT is that coast like ? You can't just tell from a map without a ton of specific information.
Much of that information is available in books, stick to the ones written b efore 1970 or so. But you have to read and read and read and none of us hav e time for that. I am happy not to know why the US attacked Korea.
I mean, we know that the north quickly seized the opportunity to attack onc e the south was left unguarded. Why were we in the south in the first place ?
Well, let's let our colleagues decide on that. Here's the relevant clip:
formatting link
Sloman is not merely ill-informed, arrogant and pompous, but downright evil as well.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Right again. Maybe I should start calling you "Right Again" in the same vein as the divisive children were name calling, with the exception that your nym is of a positive nature.
BS. The intervention was to try to topple Gaddafi and we didn't care that on the other side were terrorists, ie Al Qaeda and ISIS.
She shouldn't be proud because Libya is another terrorist hell hole, full of violence, death, Al Qaeda, ISIS, refugees fleeing to Europe. And can't you read? It sent a message that the US can't be trusted. Cooperate, turn over your WMDs, end your nuke development do what we ask, and then we bomb and kill you. If you have nukes, eg NK and probably soon Iran, then we don't f*ck with you. Got it now? Even if you don't, NK and Iran sure do.
And they didn't learn, even with the recent experience in Iraq. Worse still, it sent the message the if you turn over WMDs, give up nuke programs, allow inspections, do what the US asks, then we stick a knife in your back, kill you and gloat about it. NK and Iran sure took notice.
other disorder in the Arab world - probably has something to do with the r efugee crisis.
TO hadn't taken to shooting up military convoys moving around in Libya as a device to slow down Gaffadi's terrorising of his rebellious former subject s, but NATO didn't intend to take him out, and only found out that they'd h elped in his demise well after the event
ROFL.
NATO goes to war with Libya on the side of rebels and then, well, we're shocked that it works, that Gaddafi is dead. It's like the movie Casablanc a, cop walks into the bar and says he "shocked" that gambling is going on here .
Who's responsible for massive misery and chaos? By your logic, everyone alive in the past?
No, the 'Arab spring' unrest wasn't caused by Gaddafi or events around him. That's a lie.
No, their US foreign policy played no role in creating refugees. That's a lie.
Kicking refugees while they're down is a cowardly act. You acknowledge the misery and chaos that caused them to flee, but you're also encouraging neighbors to add to their misery and create more chaos?
Your rhetoric is designed as a meme to create misery and chaos. Stop that, troll!
Nonsense; gloating is an attitude, cannot be video'ed as if it were an event. One can talk about any number of non-politically-correct stances, and paint them onto any available public figure with the skimpiest of support.
Worse than nonsense, it's a very old political trick.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. ---Cardinal Richelieu
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
of other disorder in the Arab world - probably has something to do with the refugee crisis.
NATO hadn't taken to shooting up military convoys moving around in Libya as a device to slow down Gaffadi's terrorising of his rebellious former subje cts, but NATO didn't intend to take him out, and only found out that they'd helped in his demise well after the event
NATO didn't go to war with Libya.
formatting link
It ran a "military intervention" in Libya to implement UN resolution 1973.
It was certainly warlike, but the aim was to impose a ceasefire on Libya to end to regimes attacks on civilians, which were seem as constituting crime s against humanity. Nobody was planning to conquer the place, or even insta ll peace-keeping forces (which might have been a good idea, but they are ex pensive, tend to get killed from time to time and have to spend so long on getting the occupied area back to political stability that nobody wants to get stuck with the job).
Gaddafi's death was just collateral damage.
ed" that gambling is going on here.
Not exactly. Gaddafi's death was an unexpected and unplanned incident in a decidedly messy situation. The gambling in the bar in Casablanca was a regu lar thing - illegal but tolerated by the police.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.