On August 23 2011 08:36 Saji wrote: Interesting article about the Libyan money (1.5 billion dollars) that was frozen and how the US Government basically wanted to give it to itself.
500 000 000 dollars to humanitarian organizations of its choice "to address ongoing humanitarian needs and those that can be anticipated, in line with the call of the United Nations and its foreseeable updates";
500 000 000 dollars to "companies supplying fuel and vital humanitarian goods";
500 000 000 dollars to the Temporary Financial Mechanism (TFM) for "salaries and operating expenses of Libyan civil servants, food subsidies, electricity and other humanitarian purchases." From this amount, 100 000 000 dollars will be provisioned to be subsequently allocated for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people in areas not controlled by the National Transitional Council (NTC) once it will have established "a credible, transparent and effective" mechanism for handing over the funds.
and in layman's terms
the United States informed the Sanctions Committee of its intention to help itself to $ 1.5 billion, of which one-third would be earmarked for their own humanitarian services (USAID ...), another third would go to their own multinationals (Exxon, Halliburton etc..), and the rest would be given to the TFM, a LIEM office, which happens to be an informal body created by Washington and endorsed by the Contact Group to administer Libya
This shows again and again that this support and reason for NATO (USA) helping the rebels is all about money and power and nothing about democracy and freedom.
Aah fuck it, you saw right through the plan. They defeated Gaddaffi for the grand spoils of war totalling 1.5 billion dollars.
Such a vast booty simply could not be passed up by the NATO.
What ever will we spend this new found fortune on? Half a road?
Look i never said this was their plan.... this is was just an opportunity they had once the war started.
Did i ever claim i knew their plan? Where did i say that this was "their plan" Why are you even implying i know their plan I'm as clueless about it as you. Or do you know the whole grand plan?
Wait wasn't its suppose to be about peace and protecting civilians right? but aren't their actions contradicting with what their saying. (you haven't responded about the uranium enriched (depleted) ammo (don't know the English term) that they have been using. how is that suppose to help the Libyan people?...
You act as if I'm an ignorant fool while you keep saying that NATO involvement is all about peace and protecting the onslaught of innocent people. While at the same time their country is bomb by the so called protectors with stuff that makes it impossible to live a healthy live.
Want to reply about that??? or do you just want to ignore that and keep on replying with straw mans?
P.s. I said it to other guy if you want to make a point you don't have to be a dick and don't make up things, and then claim as if i said that.
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
Gaddafi had massively superior military equipment, he would have crushed the opposition in a matter of months, probably leaving a bloody trail behind. But might makes right in your opinion, I guess?
So you would have been fine if Gaddafi would have massacred the opposition in eastern Libya? Or are you one of the people that would blame the west afterwards for protecting their oil-buddy Gaddafi?
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
Gaddafi had massively superior military equipment, he would have crushed the opposition in a matter of months, probably leaving a bloody trail behind. But might makes right in your opinion, I guess?
So you would have been fine if Gaddafi would have massacred the opposition in eastern Libya? Or are you one of the people that would blame the west afterwards for protecting their oil-buddy Gaddafi?
So what? When in germany some people start attacking police station, acquiring guns and marching towards berlin, what would you guess our gourverment would do?
"Oh, maybe they are right, lets go and let them do the job" Seriously? Then I should try it.
But the war seems to come to an end (soon). So lets look how the new, democratic republic of lybia evolves.
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
the mandate: Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
So no the bombing was not illegal at all. They had the mandate to protect the civilians at all costs except ground troops. NATO thought and I agree that if Gadaffi would have stayed to power he would have killed a lot more people than the civil war that has been going on ever would which is why they supported the rebels and not Gadaffi.
And you think about what you´re saying, Gadaffi shot his people when they were peacefully protesting if you do something like that you lose your legitimacy. I don´t see the dutch government killing people peacefully protesting.
There are several reasons the NATO isn´t there for oil. For one if they cared about the oil they would have let Gadaffi deal with it since Gadaffi already traded their oil with Europe. 2 this civil war only caused to oil prices to go up and as you might know that is quite bad for the economy as a whole. 3 they don´t know if the new Lybian government will ever give western companies the chance to get the oil out of the ground there for all we know the new government will do it themself.
and about the uranium bombs I can´t respond on that because I didn´t do any research on it.
edit:
So what? When in germany some people start attacking police station, acquiring guns and marching towards berlin, what would you guess our gourverment would do?
"Oh, maybe they are right, lets go and let them do the job" Seriously? Then I should try it.
But the war seems to come to an end (soon). So lets look how the new, democratic republic of lybia Last edit: 2011-08-23 19:10:52 evolves.
Your analogy is wrong because that´s not how it happened. Your ananlogy would be correct if it was: When in Germany people peacefully protest and get killed by the army for doing that, acquire guns to fight back and then march on Berlin what would you guess UN and NATO would do?
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
Gaddafi had massively superior military equipment, he would have crushed the opposition in a matter of months, probably leaving a bloody trail behind. But might makes right in your opinion, I guess?
So you would have been fine if Gaddafi would have massacred the opposition in eastern Libya? Or are you one of the people that would blame the west afterwards for protecting their oil-buddy Gaddafi?
First of all what you are saying was never proven. Where is the evidence that he would massacre all these people??? There have been so much contradicting reports about this matter. It looks more like a false flag operation.... Let me refresh your mind look up how the coup vs Chavez went and how the media coverage was. That is why I'm skeptical about the whole fact that Gaddafi would slaughter these people.
Secondly The western countries have been slaughtering people through the world for over 200 years (government are never in the business of protecting people outside their country). Read a book (i recommend Open Veins of Latin America). Dig up some info about the Iranian revolution and how it was hijacked by the CIA. Read about what has happened in central America Nicaragua etc... between 1940 and 1970 Then you will see how much bullshit it its to claim that western countries would help these 3rd world countries.
My point is that you believe in the false premise (that we actually care about people in other countries far away) that we in the western country are helping people in other countries by dethroning dictators while our governments and our foreign policy itself is based on the support of foreign dictators, i urge you to read some historical material about this matter specially if its about the foreign policy of USA. go watch the documentary war on democracy : and tell me after watching me if you still believe the shiiiiit that western governments are saying:
(I.E. Iraq, Afghanistan the same argument you made have been made for these 2 countries and what is the aftermath tell me is it better now than it was before?)
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
the mandate: Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
So no the bombing was not illegal at all. They had the mandate to protect the civilians at all costs except ground troops. NATO thought and I agree that if Gadaffi would have stayed to power he would have killed a lot more people than the civil war that has been going on ever would which is why they supported the rebels and not Gadaffi.
And you think about what you´re saying, Gadaffi shot his people when they were peacefully protesting if you do something like that you lose your legitimacy. I don´t see the dutch government killing people peacefully protesting.
There are several reasons the NATO isn´t there for oil. For one if they cared about the oil they would have let Gadaffi deal with it since Gadaffi already traded their oil with Europe. 2 this civil war only caused to oil prices to go up and as you might know that is quite bad for the economy as a whole. 3 they don´t know if the new Lybian government will ever give western companies the chance to get the oil out of the ground there for all we know the new government will do it themself.
and about the uranium bombs I can´t respond on that because I didn´t do any research on it.
OK now lets assume he did slaughter these innocent people right and we are there to protect these people. How is bombing cities infrastructures, hospitals, farms, how is that protecting the Libyan people???
What I'm trying to say is, if we really wanted to protected them we wouldn't have been bombing Libya the whole fucking time. By that logic cant you see that the whole argument about " we are protecting the Libyan people" is bullshit. and therefore we have no right in being there. because apparently that's the sole reason according to the majority of people here that we are in Libya.
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
the mandate: Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
So no the bombing was not illegal at all. They had the mandate to protect the civilians at all costs except ground troops. NATO thought and I agree that if Gadaffi would have stayed to power he would have killed a lot more people than the civil war that has been going on ever would which is why they supported the rebels and not Gadaffi.
And you think about what you´re saying, Gadaffi shot his people when they were peacefully protesting if you do something like that you lose your legitimacy. I don´t see the dutch government killing people peacefully protesting.
There are several reasons the NATO isn´t there for oil. For one if they cared about the oil they would have let Gadaffi deal with it since Gadaffi already traded their oil with Europe. 2 this civil war only caused to oil prices to go up and as you might know that is quite bad for the economy as a whole. 3 they don´t know if the new Lybian government will ever give western companies the chance to get the oil out of the ground there for all we know the new government will do it themself.
and about the uranium bombs I can´t respond on that because I didn´t do any research on it.
OK now lets assume he did slaughter these innocent people right and we are there to protect these people. How is bombing cities infrastructures, hospitals, farms, how is that protecting the Libyan people???
What I'm trying to say is, if we really wanted to protected them we wouldn't have been bombing Libya the whole fucking time. By that logic cant you see that the whole argument about " we are protecting the Libyan people" is bullshit. and therefore we have no right in being there. because apparently that's the sole reason according to the majority of people here that we are in Libya.
Give me numbers on how many civilians got killed by the bombings then. Indeed there will be some deaths involved with the bombings that is unavoidable but obviously NATO thought there would have been a lot more deaths if they didn´t. Also give me evidence of this so called bombing on hospitals and farms. NATO bombed strategical targets and yes infrastructure can also be a strategical target in a war.
Invade and go for ground combat...? Bomb only 100% military targets for several years being totally innefective and prolonging the bloody war/rebellion?
I really wonder what exactly you would have wanted the Nato to do (if we/you assume that they "had" something to do).
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
Gaddafi had massively superior military equipment, he would have crushed the opposition in a matter of months, probably leaving a bloody trail behind. But might makes right in your opinion, I guess?
So you would have been fine if Gaddafi would have massacred the opposition in eastern Libya? Or are you one of the people that would blame the west afterwards for protecting their oil-buddy Gaddafi?
First of all what you are saying was never proven. Where is the evidence that he would massacre all these people??? There have been so much contradicting reports about this matter. It looks more like a false flag operation.... Let me refresh your mind look up how the coup vs Chavez went and how the media coverage was. That is why I'm skeptical about the whole fact that Gaddafi would slaughter these people.
Secondly The western countries have been slaughtering people through the world for over 200 years (government are never in the business of protecting people outside their country). Read a book (i recommend Open Veins of Latin America). Dig up some info about the Iranian revolution and how it was hijacked by the CIA. Read about what has happened in central America Nicaragua etc... between 1940 and 1970 Then you will see how much bullshit it its to claim that western countries would help these 3rd world countries.
My point is that you believe in the false premise (that we actually care about people in other countries far away) that we in the western country are helping people in other countries by dethroning dictators while our governments and our foreign policy itself is based on the support of foreign dictators, i urge you to read some historical material about this matter specially if its about the foreign policy of USA. go watch the documentary war on democracy : and tell me after watching me if you still believe the shiiiiit that western governments are saying:
(I.E. Iraq, Afghanistan the same argument you made have been made for these 2 countries and what is the aftermath tell me is it better now than it was before?)
I have read lots and lots of historical material and I am well aware how business was done around the world. Just because things were done like this in the past doesn't mean everytime the western countries are involved they are on the wrong side. There are people in western governments that have moral standards, believe it or not.
There is plenty of evidence for what Gaddafi does to opposition members, hell he even had Libyans living in exile here in europe liquidated. Google for it. Also the Libyan ambassador to the UN was one of the first to defect, you can listen to his plead for help on youtube, maybe he knows more about Ghaddafi than you do.
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
the mandate: Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
So no the bombing was not illegal at all. They had the mandate to protect the civilians at all costs except ground troops. NATO thought and I agree that if Gadaffi would have stayed to power he would have killed a lot more people than the civil war that has been going on ever would which is why they supported the rebels and not Gadaffi.
And you think about what you´re saying, Gadaffi shot his people when they were peacefully protesting if you do something like that you lose your legitimacy. I don´t see the dutch government killing people peacefully protesting.
There are several reasons the NATO isn´t there for oil. For one if they cared about the oil they would have let Gadaffi deal with it since Gadaffi already traded their oil with Europe. 2 this civil war only caused to oil prices to go up and as you might know that is quite bad for the economy as a whole. 3 they don´t know if the new Lybian government will ever give western companies the chance to get the oil out of the ground there for all we know the new government will do it themself.
and about the uranium bombs I can´t respond on that because I didn´t do any research on it.
OK now lets assume he did slaughter these innocent people right and we are there to protect these people. How is bombing cities infrastructures, hospitals, farms, how is that protecting the Libyan people???
What I'm trying to say is, if we really wanted to protected them we wouldn't have been bombing Libya the whole fucking time. By that logic cant you see that the whole argument about " we are protecting the Libyan people" is bullshit. and therefore we have no right in being there. because apparently that's the sole reason according to the majority of people here that we are in Libya.
Give me numbers on how many civilians got killed by the bombings then. Indeed there will be some deaths involved with the bombings that is unavoidable but obviously NATO thought there would have been a lot more deaths if they didn´t. Also give me evidence of this so called bombing on hospitals and farms. NATO bombed strategical targets and yes infrastructure can also be a strategical target in a war.
I cant give you a definitive answer i wish i could:
and that's before the heavy bombardment that took place in Tripoli these last few day. Which the Libyan government official claims 1300 dead and 5000 injured (have no other sources for this so for now lets assume its speculation)
" Indeed there will be some deaths involved with the bombings that is unavoidable but obviously NATO thought there would have been a lot more deaths if they didn´t. "
If you recognize this fact how can you claim we are there to protect people???? also your statement reveals how you do not understand the seriousness of bombing..... (try saying this to someone who just lost one of the loved one by bombs) hey sorry were here to protect you but we shit happens... riiight do you think a person would accept this blatant bullshit??
Also in your wording you say as if you know for a fact what would happened if NATO wasn't there..
On August 23 2011 19:15 RvB wrote: There are several reasons the NATO isn´t there for oil. For one if they cared about the oil they would have let Gadaffi deal with it since Gadaffi already traded their oil with Europe. 2 this civil war only caused to oil prices to go up and as you might know that is quite bad for the economy as a whole. 3 they don´t know if the new Lybian government will ever give western companies the chance to get the oil out of the ground there for all we know the new government will do it themself.
When people talk about fighting for Oil it's always about in which Currency do they sell their oil.
When they don't want to sell it in USD then they are invaded(Irak) or threatened (Iran)
The Simple reason is, letting that happen and spread (selling Oil on world market in other currencies than dollar) it could possibly destory the Dollar and with it our whole financial system.
Saji, 1. Please be less emotional. You may be banned(not a threat, but a warning) 2. I can see you have learn some history and you can find some analogy between past and present. But the most people does not know history and they simply cannot understand. Some background is required to understand an alternative point of view . 3. Everything you write is no for zalz or RvB(you cannot change their mind), but for silent readers. For them NATO and rebels equal to democracy and freedom, Gaddafi and loyalists equal to dictatorship. Bombing or not, oil or no interest in oil, money, political interest - all this is not important. Whatever you say, it does not change the fact that democracy is good, freedom is good, dictatorship is bad.
On August 23 2011 17:41 RvB wrote: You guys realise NATO only attacked on a UN mandate of saving lifes in Lybia ( so not to give out condomes and blankets in Africa) and apparently they thought he best way to do that is to get rid of gadaffi.
Sure there might be more reasons but that is all speculation especially his oil bullshit again which we've heard a million times well surprise surprise if they really cared much about oil they would've let gadaffi win since then the oil prices would have been lower for months. You guys don't realise how bad a high oil price is for the economy...
Besides gadaffi lost his legitimacy as leader the moment he shot on his own people.
I don't understand the logic of your last sentence because if you apply that logic to every country than every country has lost its legitimacy.... think through what your saying.
And the mandate was a no fly zone. It never implied: bombing, taking side, supplying ammo, supplying financial support....... NATO has willing ignored so much legal ruling. Its laughable hardly any main stream media is reporting this.
But then again it fits the selective cherry picking that's going on in the west, which is apparent even within its own population. I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that one of the reasons they are there is because of the oil and say that if the west wanted oil they would have kept Quadaffi and yet at the same time believe that by bombing is equal to protect civilians??
Bombing doesn't protect shiiiiit it destroys. Either you don't want to see that or you simply don't understand what it means to be bombed or what it means to protect for that matter.
Gaddafi had massively superior military equipment, he would have crushed the opposition in a matter of months, probably leaving a bloody trail behind. But might makes right in your opinion, I guess?
So you would have been fine if Gaddafi would have massacred the opposition in eastern Libya? Or are you one of the people that would blame the west afterwards for protecting their oil-buddy Gaddafi?
First of all what you are saying was never proven. Where is the evidence that he would massacre all these people??? There have been so much contradicting reports about this matter. It looks more like a false flag operation.... Let me refresh your mind look up how the coup vs Chavez went and how the media coverage was. That is why I'm skeptical about the whole fact that Gaddafi would slaughter these people.
Secondly The western countries have been slaughtering people through the world for over 200 years (government are never in the business of protecting people outside their country). Read a book (i recommend Open Veins of Latin America). Dig up some info about the Iranian revolution and how it was hijacked by the CIA. Read about what has happened in central America Nicaragua etc... between 1940 and 1970 Then you will see how much bullshit it its to claim that western countries would help these 3rd world countries.
My point is that you believe in the false premise (that we actually care about people in other countries far away) that we in the western country are helping people in other countries by dethroning dictators while our governments and our foreign policy itself is based on the support of foreign dictators, i urge you to read some historical material about this matter specially if its about the foreign policy of USA. go watch the documentary war on democracy : and tell me after watching me if you still believe the shiiiiit that western governments are saying:
(I.E. Iraq, Afghanistan the same argument you made have been made for these 2 countries and what is the aftermath tell me is it better now than it was before?)
I have read lots and lots of historical material and I am well aware how business was done around the world. Just because things were done like this in the past doesn't mean everytime the western countries are involved they are on the wrong side. There are people in western governments that have moral standards, believe it or not.
There is plenty of evidence for what Gaddafi does to opposition members, hell he even had Libyans living in exile here in europe liquidated. Google for it. Also the Libyan ambassador to the UN was one of the first to defect, you can listen to his plead for help on youtube, maybe he knows more about Ghaddafi than you do.
" Just because things were done like this in the past doesn't mean everytime the western countries are involved they are on the wrong side. There are people in western governments that have moral standards, believe it or not."
When did the change happened tell me? what triggered it? So what you are suggesting is that the one in power either radically changed in their standards or that some other people with moral standards have come into power?? show me? who with moral standards is in actual power?
I.e. IF people in government (the ones making the decision) truly have moral standards how come nothing has been done to the banking world (they have looted and get compensated for that) if we cant deal with domestic issues how can you deal with foreign issue, you cant have selective moral standards because that's not having moral standards its just a charade.
And it seems you want to believe in this charade but, I cant, i have eyes i see and read what government are doing and none of their actions have any sense of moral standard (at least not here in The Netherlands or USA for that matter)
(a bit off topic but i want to show you how many times goverment lies to its people and why should it be different now?)
And show me the evidence about Gaddafi assassinating people abroad. p.s. have you read in to the Lockerbie case?? if you have you should be aware how many false accusation were made vs Libya ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2009603.ece )
On August 23 2011 19:58 Gaga wrote: When people talk about fighting for Oil it's always about in which Currency do they sell their oil. When they don't want to sell it in USD then they are invaded(Irak) or threatened (Iran)
The Simple reason is, letting that happen and spread (selling Oil on world market in other currencies than dollar) it could possibly destory the Dollar and with it our whole financial system.
Good one, Gaga All these talks about wars for oil... Why bother? Just print money and exchange them for oil.
On August 23 2011 20:09 GeyzeR wrote: Saji, 1. Please be less emotional. You may be banned(not a threat, but a warning) 2. I can see you have learn some history and you can find some analogy between past and present. But the most people does not know history and they simply cannot understand. Some background is required to understand an alternative point of view . 3. Everything you write is no for zalz or RvB(you cannot change their mind), but for silent readers. For them NATO and rebels equal to democracy and freedom, Gaddafi and loyalists equal to dictatorship. Bombing or not, oil or no interest in oil, money, political interest - all this is not important. Whatever you say, it does not change the fact that democracy is good, freedom is good, dictatorship is bad.
I'm not really emotional actually, and i don't see how I would get banned either way If i might get banned I hope i get a warning before it happened.
Could you explain point 3 a bit more? I don't quiet follow it.
On August 23 2011 20:17 Saji wrote: Could you explain point 3 a bit more? I don't quiet follow it.
Look, it is simple. I am trying to give you a point of view of an "average" man. 1. NATO and rebels = democracy and freedom 2. Gaddafi and loyalists = dictatorship. 3. democracy and freedom = good 4. dictatorship = bad zalz and RvB are not "average". They follow the conflict and have good knowledge. And you cannot prove something to them, just accept it. Instead try to wrap your information for an "average" man, this is the way your writings maybe be useful. It must be short, easy to understand, better if graphical or short video. Almost no one is going to watch long sometimes boring "unveiling" videos or read articles.
On August 23 2011 20:17 Saji wrote: Could you explain point 3 a bit more? I don't quiet follow it.
Look, it is simple. I am trying to give you a point of view of an "average" man. 1. NATO and rebels = democracy and freedom 2. Gaddafi and loyalists = dictatorship. 3. democracy and freedom = good 4. dictatorship = bad zalz and RvB are not "average". They follow the conflict and have good knowledge. And you cannot prove something to them, just accept it. Instead try to wrap your information for an "average" man, this is the way your writings maybe be useful. It must be short, easy to understand, better if graphical or short video. Almost no one is going to watch long sometimes boring "unveiling" videos or read articles.
On August 23 2011 20:13 Saji wrote: And show me the evidence about Gaddafi assassinating people abroad.
I posted it already in this thread: Chancellor Schmidt was approached by Ghaddafi in the 80s with threats to take german workers in Libya hostage - some of them were already arrested - if members of the Libyan opposition that had fled to germany would not be extradited or he would at least get the right to assassinate them in germany.
EPT
