january. and who made the decision not to treat this as an act of war because it was a terrorist act and in short order we knew it came from libya. in 1991 we charge libyan intelligence official and we charge a libyan airline official for being complicit in what we re defining as a crime. but going back to 86 in april of that year, a nightclub in germany in berlin was bombed by libya. one soldier was killed and 20 or 30 about 50 were wounded and other germans as well. nine days later we conducted a massive attack against libya based on some hard intelligence with 100 airplanes. bases, barracks and gadhafi s headquarters. it was treating a terrorist act as an act of war and giving us
and one of the problems is that, you know, berlusconi, who was in and out over the 2000s, and by the way, one of her partners in the governing coalition, a convicted criminal, and he was one of the first to detain migrants and demonize migrants in all of its government, so the other governing partner, he actually called for, quote, mass cleansing of immigrants. and so when you have so this is the problem, when you have such extremes and people actively promoting racist and violence against immigrants, and berlusconi loved to make deals with other despots and made a deal with gadhafi and sent all the boats back, that skewed the whole debate. and when you ve got these extremists, it s very difficult to have a kind of centrist option prevail.
presidthe president there. within 16 months, he couldn t steal enough votes to stay in power. within 25 months, he was in the hague. many people thought it would be impossible. in other cases such as libya, president gadhafi died hiding in the battlefield, he was indicted 45 days after the icc gained jurisdiction. there could be charges relatively soon. it s a question of how challenging it is to put the cases together. there are two types. bombardment of mariupol, which may, according to the mayor, have more than 10,000 dead. whether that can be shown to be a war crime or whether those are legitimate targets that were shot. then we have the crimes of murder and rape and torture like we have seen in your reports. of course, attributing those to the high command, they will argue those are rogue elements doing those things. of course.
right, one has to say. saddam hussein and assad and mubarak did protect the questions. like tito in yugoslavia. there s always an army like gadhafi can hold strong minorities together and protect them. but the fact there are other factors at work which are driving them out. the rate at which they were leaving is absolutely shocking. there s not many censuses done, but let s take iraq. there were something like 1.5 million christians at the last census, which was in the time of saddam. now the numbers are between somewhere ten 150,000 and 300,000. we don t know but more towards 150,000. do you think part of this is people in the west particularly have a conception of christianity and christians which is entirely western and white, if i may say so, and the truth is the original christians, jesus, was a middle
nuclear weapon could be hazardous to yourself. that was the lesson some took after the fall of saddam or gadhafi. and they may decide in this world reliance upon others is simply too uncertain to be a real security policy. a scary proposition but a possibility no doubt. david, why do you think americans should pay closer attention to what s happening in ukraine. so i m going to give the standard argument that president biden and his team have been making but it strikes me as being correct. the rules-based order, to use the afraid in quotation marks, on which the united states is partners but really the whole world has relied since 1945, the