This is extremely important.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
This is extremely important.

Important for putin who the soviet people hates.

D2, you are tediously robotic.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
D2, you are tediously robotic.

thinking is not about melodrama. You see vast conspiracies emanating from across the pond that is guiding the US to antagonize Russia and China. Well, I am not even going to ask the source since that has more convolutions than your cerebellum.

Putin talks like a AFC/APNU supporter. Just lies and more lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Guyana1:
Putin talks like a AFC/APNU supporter. Just lies and more lies.

Can you give an example of where Putin is lying? The New York Times reported that a decision to kill Qaddifi was made at a White House meeting. Here's a link.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by Guyana1:
Putin talks like a AFC/APNU supporter. Just lies and more lies.

Can you give an example of where Putin is lying? The New York Times reported that a decision to kill Qaddifi was made at a White House meeting. Here's a link.

Henry....Guyana1 talk like Jagabat or one of eeee thiefman.....Lies, Lies and more lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by Guyana1:
Putin talks like a AFC/APNU supporter. Just lies and more lies.

Can you give an example of where Putin is lying? The New York Times reported that a decision to kill Qaddifi was made at a White House meeting. Here's a link.

You're either an intellectual bantamweight or a bloody lying fool. Where in the article does it state that a decision was made to kill Qaddafi?

There is no report in this article that a decision was made to kill Qaddafi and it certainly does not state that the US planned to kill him like Putin is claiming.


October 24, 2011


Before Qaddafi’s Death, U.S. Debated His Future

By MARK LANDLER


WASHINGTON — Last Wednesday evening, the White House convened a 90-minute meeting to tackle a looming, delicate question: What should be done with the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, if he were captured alive, either in Libya or in a neighboring country?

Less than 24 hours later, the debate was moot. Colonel Qaddafi was dead, after being pulled alive from a drain pipe and succumbing later to gunshot wounds. The Libyan authorities have now pledged to investigate how he was killed.

But the White House session — part of an exercise to game out Libya’s future — and a meeting two days earlier between Libya’s interim leaders and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attested to the deep sensitivity of the issue and the ambivalence it stirred on both sides.

There were sharp divisions within Libya’s Transitional National Council about what to do with Colonel Qaddafi, according to American officials. Some argued that he should be tried in the country; others said it would impose too big a burden on an interim administration dealing with so many other problems.

The ambivalence was mirrored on the American side, with some in the administration concerned that Libya did not have the resources to conduct a proper trial, while others worried that pressuring the Libyans to send him to an international tribunal in The Hague would be viewed as encroaching on their sovereignty.

“The delicate question was how to balance Libyan sovereignty with a frank assessment of their capability to hold a fair trial with international standards,” said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “We were trying to walk a fine line.”

Mrs. Clinton, officials said, laid out the options for Libya, explaining the principles behind the International Criminal Court, to which the United States does not belong but with which it has worked more closely under President Obama. She told the Libyan officials that the decision of where to hold a trial was up to them.

The United States is offering the Libyans help in putting in place a justice system that could handle a trial of that magnitude. It also made plans for how the international community should react if Colonel Qaddafi obtained sanctuary in a third country, like Chad or Equatorial Guinea.

The administration was drawing on lessons from past cases: Charles Taylor, the former Liberian leader accused of war crimes, who was returned to Liberia by Nigeria, where he had fled, and put on trial in The Hague; and Laurent Gbagbo, the deposed leader of Ivory Coast, who is awaiting trial at home.

Putting the colonel on trial, either in Libya or The Hague, was one of a host of situations for which the administration planned; others included securing chemical weapons and portable antiaircraft missiles and preventing a humanitarian disaster if Colonel Qaddafi poisoned the water supply in Tripoli.

Derek Chollet, senior director of strategic planning for the National Security Council, who ran the White House task force, described the challenge as “trying to anticipate things, and see around every corner we possibly could.”

Many of the issues were similar to those that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Obama administration is eager to contrast its approach to that of the Bush administration, where a lack of planning for the aftermath of toppling Mr. Hussein contributed to looting and rampant lawlessness.

“It was unlike Iraq, where we actually owned the process,” Mr. Chollet said, alluding to the thousands of American troops and billions of dollars of aid in Iraq. “We had to persuade and push other people.”

The national security adviser, Tom Donilon, instituted the planning meetings in March, the same month Mr. Obama decided on a limited role in the NATO air campaign to support the rebels.

The group, consisting of officials from the State Department, Justice Department, the Pentagon and other agencies, broke into smaller teams to focus on specific problems, like the looting of portable antiaircraft missiles, which could be used to shoot down civilian planes, from bunkers seized by the rebels.

When anti-Qaddafi forces swarmed into the capital in late August, Mr. Chollet said, the group had already set out the top 10 decisions that the president needed to make. Though Mr. Obama came under criticism for the length of the Libya campaign, officials said it was helpful to plan for every conceivable outcome.

The killing of Colonel Qaddafi, they said, was one of the three scenarios considered last Wednesday.

quote:

The killing of Colonel Qaddafi, they said, was one of the three scenarios considered last Wednesday.

It was considered according to the article. However the Libians took care of this themselves killing him like a dog after pulling him out of a drain pipe.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:

quote:

The killing of Colonel Qaddafi, they said, was one of the three scenarios considered last Wednesday.

It was considered according to the article. However the Libians took care of this themselves killing him like a dog after pulling him out of a drain pipe.

Henry said that a decision was made to kill Qaddafi. Big difference to considering the scenario that he would be killed. Furthermore, it does not say that the US decided to kill him. It only states that they were discussing the scenario where he would end up dead. It could also mean being killed by the Libyans or anyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:

quote:

The killing of Colonel Qaddafi, they said, was one of the three scenarios considered last Wednesday.

It was considered according to the article. However the Libians took care of this themselves killing him like a dog after pulling him out of a drain pipe.

This doesn't happen without the consent of the US. As carefully worded as the NYT article was, the meaning was unmistakable, and Putin's words are correct.

At the close of WWII, there was a debate among Britain, Russia and the US about how to deal with Nazi war criminals. The US prevailed, arguing that unless there was a fair trial for them, the victorious nations would have descended to the same moral level as their conquered foe. That was a proud moment for the US. The Obama administration has been one long moment of shame.

quote:

Originally posted by André:

Henry said that a decision was made to kill Qaddafi. Big difference to considering the scenario that he would be killed. Furthermore, it does not say that the US decided to kill him. It only states that they were discussing the scenario where he would end up dead. It could also mean being killed by the Libyans or anyone else.

Knowing Henry's agenda, that is close to the truth as possible that you can squeeze of of that boy. These folks thrive on conspiracy theories when it comes to the US. The US is bogey man that keeps them united.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

This doesn't happen without the consent of the US. As carefully worded as the NYT article was, the meaning was unmistakable, and Putin's words are correct.

At the close of WWII, there was a debate among Britain, Russia and the US about how to deal with Nazi war criminals. The US prevailed, arguing that unless there was a fair trial for them, the victorious nations would have descended to the same moral level as their conquered foe. That was a proud moment for the US. The Obama administration has been one long moment of shame.

Of course, the US is responsible for all ills in the world just as the PPP is responsible for all evil in Guyana.

For those who might be a wee bit slow on the uptake, the article says that the White House discussed three options, those being:

1. try Qaddafi in Libya
2. try Qaddafi at the Hague
3. kill him

And, options 1 and 2 were ruled out. That leaves option 3.

Why were options 1 and 2 ruled out? I would surmise that those options would involve considerable embarrassment for the US and Britain, because of their previous, very cozy relationship to Qaddafi. You don't want to put former assets, such as Osama bin Laden, Qaddafi, or al-Awlaki on trial, because they may tell tales.

In the same way the Americans want to Kill Assad, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Hu Jintao and Putin.

Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi indeed he died under suspicious circumstances

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
For those who might be a wee bit slow on the uptake, the article says that the White House discussed three options, those being:

1. try Qaddafi in Libya
2. try Qaddafi at the Hague
3. kill him

And, options 1 and 2 were ruled out. That leaves option 3.

Why were options 1 and 2 ruled out? I would surmise that those options would involve considerable embarrassment for the US and Britain, because of their previous, very cozy relationship to Qaddafi. You don't want to put former assets, such as Osama bin Laden, Qaddafi, or al-Awlaki on trial, because they may tell tales.

Would you please take off your tin foil hat for a few minutes and point out for us exactly where in the article it states that the US made a decision that they were going to kill Qaddafi.

Andre, I fear your brain must be made of exceptionally high density material, impervious to thought.

The world is a better place without Arab dictators. Arabs are now charting their own course of history and we must let them decide what is good for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
Andre, I fear your brain must be made of exceptionally high density material, impervious to thought.

Andre asked you to clarify a point, the misunderstanding about which points to you being unable to think independently being a cult member of the hate America first contingency.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by cain:

quote:

Originally posted by chameli:
does anyone know what time the results will be made public?

Sometime later

There may be projections announced today, but with polling places in the interior there is no way everything will be counted for at least a few days.

You are truly out of touch. The results will be in tonight.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by cain:

quote:

Originally posted by chameli:
does anyone know what time the results will be made public?

Sometime later

There may be projections announced today, but with polling places in the interior there is no way everything will be counted for at least a few days.

You are truly out of touch. The results will be in tonight.

I was not wrong on what was customery. I was wrong that their was a peculiarity in the behavior of the GECOM administration that delayed it for that long. Predictions are based on evidence of history and that events adhere to logical expectations not illogical behaviors.

Now, that digression was deliberately diversionary. Please address the silly attempt at insulting Andre when he spoke to material posted above.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:
I was not wrong on what was customery.

You are just habitually wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:
I was not wrong on what was customery.

You are just habitually wrong.

I do not deny in your delusional, cultist world reality is turned on its head and all is reduced to what you see alone. In that solipsistic setting I can indeed be habitually wrong indeed.