Civil War in Libya

**Tellos Athenaios** · 09-04-2011, 03:57

Netherlands have been “kingdom” from 1806-1810, then on from 1812-1848 when it became a “constitutional monarchy” but with power firmly in the hands of parliament.
The constitution of 1848 is largely based on the 1798 one, Thorbecke admitted to putting a thin veneer of monarchy on top of that one as it were...

**Fragony** · 09-04-2011, 04:54

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Netherlands have been ?kingdom? from 1806-1810, then on from 1812-1848 when it became a ?constitutional monarchy? but with power firmly in the hands of parliament.
The constitution of 1848 is largely based on the 1798 one, Thorbecke admitted to putting a thin veneer of monarchy on top of that one as it were...

Our reversed political evolution, surely you as a D66 voter you must want this family out of the government. The power she has must be taken from her no? They are mobsters, the locals dread the vist of a representive of the royal family, Beatrix van Amsberg Lippe-Biesterfet feels she's above paying, screw her and her stupid son with his juntawhore

**Banquo's Ghost** · 09-04-2011, 08:25

Gentleman, fascinating though Dutch politics and history may be, this is a thread about Libya.

Please return to topic.

Thank you kindly.

**Fragony** · 09-04-2011, 10:49

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Gentleman, fascinating though Dutch politics and history may be, this is a thread about Libya.

Please return to topic.

Thank you kindly.

Well it kinda is, we lost a chopper because princess Mabel van Bruinsma tot Amsberg is very close to Ghaddafi's son and had to be evecuated from Libya which didn't go all that well. Dutch royal family have been arming the regime for years

**Papewaio** · 09-04-2011, 23:24

Was arming Libya illegal?...seems there might be American and British intelligence agencies helping Gadaffi... I think they preferred him over a new terrorist... better the devil you know.

I'm pretty sure the US was trying to get Gadaffi to swap all his long range Scuds for short range (US if possible) missiles... can't beat him, try and chip away at their power and make a profit out of the bargin too... possibly one of the cases of smarter realpolitek around.

**Montmorency** · 09-05-2011, 00:32

This doesn't seem particularly significant.

The ban on U.S. military exports to Libya officially ended on June 30, 2006, but the possibility of military exports to Libya remained a controversial subject for many policymakers in the United States, and little was done to establish significant military ties. Rather, in the time frame before the 2011 uprising, the Obama Administration only requested $250,000 in Foreign Military Financing and $350,000 for IMET for Libya in FY2011. This approach indicated that only the most tentative and limited military cooperation was moving forward, and all cooperation was discontinued following the anti-Qadhafi uprising and the imposition of a UN-sponsored “No-Fly Zone” (NFZ) over Libya. It is doubtful that the Libyan rebels of the Transitional National Council (TNC) will resent previous U.S. ties to the Qadhafi regime since they were so shallow and occurred for only a brief period of time.

**rory_20_uk** · 09-05-2011, 16:36

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Was arming Libya illegal?...seems there might be American and British intelligence agencies helping Gadaffi... I think they preferred him over a new terrorist... better the devil you know.

I'm pretty sure the US was trying to get Gadaffi to swap all his long range Scuds for short range (US if possible) missiles... can't beat him, try and chip away at their power and make a profit out of the bargin too... possibly one of the cases of smarter realpolitek around.

I am so pleased that MI6 does what is best for the UK. The enemy of my enemy is someone to deal with at a later date.