|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On August 26 2011 04:23 Saji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 04:04 zalz wrote:Loller
Humanitarian Intervention right.
While Thousands of people are loosing their homes and hundreds if not thousands are being killed these so called leader of the free worlds and the NTC (weren't they fighting for the people of Libya?) are discussing about how the Economy should be kicking. (Primarily the oil Industry)
The most important factor for stability in every nation is the economy. But it's very brave that you are willing to take an anti-economy stance. So few people seem to speak out in favour of unemployment. We really don't have enough people that rejoice at the sight of economical decline. *bit offtopic  So freedom and and democracy aren't the most important for stability huh? Isn't economy subservient from those 2? or is freedom and democracy subservient of the economy?
No, they are a different thing. Countries can still be stable without any freedom and democracy. They are important on their own, but not for the stability of the country. Generally, people are far less probable to cause chaos if they have food, a roof over their head, and so on. All of that is a result of a functioning economy.
|
On August 26 2011 04:04 Saji wrote:
No HellRoxYa here are my points why: (The economy was already starving havent you been following news man? the NATO made sure of it. (remember the sanctions made.. money frozen...)
1. The country is in a bloody guerilla war, People dying, disorder, no government services i.e. police, hospital, food etc.
2. Therefore the economy is the least of their problem (it can't function). Except if by economy you would mean Industries (oil they have nothing else).
3. If the economy which is the oil industry (referring to the article) does start to function that means that the Libyan People that have suffered will suffer more they will see nothing from the profit made. Because how in the hell is this going to help them tell me? give them jobs? give them money? give them peace?
These are my points. Now i have a question for you
In your logic how can the economy help the Libyan people at this point?
You realize the sanctions were mainly made against Gadaffi since he had all the money now they're talking about sending his frozen assets back to the council in Benghazi. Obviously it will take time before the oil industry is back in business and we can't say anything yet about if the people will profit or not since we don't know how the Lybian government will handle it.
In NL for example the gas we sell goes back to our government so the people do profit it in that way and Lybia might do it the same or they might not but that is just pure speculation.
|
On August 26 2011 04:23 Saji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 04:04 zalz wrote:Loller
Humanitarian Intervention right.
While Thousands of people are loosing their homes and hundreds if not thousands are being killed these so called leader of the free worlds and the NTC (weren't they fighting for the people of Libya?) are discussing about how the Economy should be kicking. (Primarily the oil Industry)
The most important factor for stability in every nation is the economy. But it's very brave that you are willing to take an anti-economy stance. So few people seem to speak out in favour of unemployment. We really don't have enough people that rejoice at the sight of economical decline. *bit offtopic So freedom and and democracy aren't the most important for stability huh? Isn't economy subservient from those 2? or is freedom and democracy subservient of the economy?
The economy trumps everything.
It is the livelihood of people. To pretend that political plays take precedence over that is to lose sight of what politics is designed for. To guide human society to the most effective path.
|
On August 26 2011 04:29 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 04:04 Saji wrote:
No HellRoxYa here are my points why: (The economy was already starving havent you been following news man? the NATO made sure of it. (remember the sanctions made.. money frozen...)
1. The country is in a bloody guerilla war, People dying, disorder, no government services i.e. police, hospital, food etc.
2. Therefore the economy is the least of their problem (it can't function). Except if by economy you would mean Industries (oil they have nothing else).
3. If the economy which is the oil industry (referring to the article) does start to function that means that the Libyan People that have suffered will suffer more they will see nothing from the profit made. Because how in the hell is this going to help them tell me? give them jobs? give them money? give them peace?
These are my points. Now i have a question for you
In your logic how can the economy help the Libyan people at this point?
You realize the sanctions were mainly made against Gadaffi since he had all the money now they're talking about sending his frozen assets back to the council in Benghazi. Obviously it will take time before the oil industry is back in business and we can't say anything yet about if the people will profit or not since we don't know how the Lybian government will handle it. In NL for example the gas we sell goes back to our government so the people do profit it in that way and Lybia might do it the same or they might not but that is just pure speculation.
First of all sanctions made against Gadaffi means sanctions made against the Libyan people. (Libya need to import neccessary goods and their funds have been cut off plus nations are not allowed to supply goods thanks to the NATO sanctions)
They just use his name as a distraction. Do you really think that the affect of sanctions were just to freeze Gadaffi's personal bank account?
Oil export has dramatically been reduced since NATO started this war (this is one of the sanctions)
Do you have any understanding of how UN/NATO sanctions work?
|
On August 26 2011 04:54 Saji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 04:29 RvB wrote:On August 26 2011 04:04 Saji wrote:
No HellRoxYa here are my points why: (The economy was already starving havent you been following news man? the NATO made sure of it. (remember the sanctions made.. money frozen...)
1. The country is in a bloody guerilla war, People dying, disorder, no government services i.e. police, hospital, food etc.
2. Therefore the economy is the least of their problem (it can't function). Except if by economy you would mean Industries (oil they have nothing else).
3. If the economy which is the oil industry (referring to the article) does start to function that means that the Libyan People that have suffered will suffer more they will see nothing from the profit made. Because how in the hell is this going to help them tell me? give them jobs? give them money? give them peace?
These are my points. Now i have a question for you
In your logic how can the economy help the Libyan people at this point?
You realize the sanctions were mainly made against Gadaffi since he had all the money now they're talking about sending his frozen assets back to the council in Benghazi. Obviously it will take time before the oil industry is back in business and we can't say anything yet about if the people will profit or not since we don't know how the Lybian government will handle it. In NL for example the gas we sell goes back to our government so the people do profit it in that way and Lybia might do it the same or they might not but that is just pure speculation. First of all sanctions made against Gadaffi means sanctions made against the Libyan people. (Libya need to import neccessary goods and their funds have been cut off plus nations are not allowed to supply goods thanks to the NATO sanctions) They just use his name as a distraction. Do you really think that the affect of sanctions were just to freeze Gadaffi's personal bank account? Oil export has dramatically been reduced since NATO started this war (this is one of the sanctions) Do you have any understanding of how UN/NATO sanctions work?
What exactly did you expect would happen with a sanction?
We now place sanctions on Libya, but all foreign nations may still transport everything they want across the border.
Sanctions are used to end the war sooner. It is in the intrest of the Libyan people that they win their rebellion as fast as possible. The sooner the people of Libya defeat Gaddaffi, the sooner they can get to the real task at hand, rebuilding.
|
Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at
Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi.
Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country.
Ps
Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People?
"Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence."
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html
|
On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html
Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact.
What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen.
Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow.
|
On August 26 2011 05:09 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact. What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen. Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow.
That`s easy to say Zalz from behind you PC. You don't experienced what the Libyan people are experiencing neither are you willing to accept the fact that there is extreme suffering taking place.
About the rebels they aren't the voice of the people if they want to die for their cause it is their right but that doesn't mean that the rest have to suffer for them. That`s also a form of dictatorship.
I`m not going to reply anymore towards you.
|
On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html
I said mainly read it however you want but yes it does make life tougher that doesn't mean it's a bad thing sometimes you have to suffer short term losses for long term benefits how cruel it may sound.
|
On August 26 2011 05:19 Saji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 05:09 zalz wrote:On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact. What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen. Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow. That`s easy to say Zalz from behind you PC. You don't experienced what the Libyan people are experiencing neither are you willing to accept the fact that there is extreme suffering taking place. About the rebels they aren't the voice of the people if they want to die for their cause it is their right but that doesn't mean that the rest have to suffer for them. That`s also a form of dictatorship. I`m not going to reply anymore towards you.
It's not a dictatorship because the rebels represent the vast majority of the Libyan people.
You may indeed stop replying of you want to. I suppose being confronted with unwanted truths might cause you great strain.
|
|
|
On August 26 2011 05:33 zalz wrote:
It's not a dictatorship because the rebels represent the vast majority of the Libyan people.
How do you know that?
Gaddafi suggested to cease fire, to create constitution, to make elections. All under western supervision. This is the way how you understand the support of the leaders.
The rebels answered "no". Simply because it is not they want.
Too bad Hekisui is banned, wanted to ask when I lied.
|
20.000 dead in 6 months.
Thank you NATO for coming to protect Libyan people!
|
You really think less than 20,000 would have died without international intervention? Not only would more have died- we wouldn't have heard about it.
|
On August 26 2011 05:09 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact. What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen. Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow.
Oh my god....
If Islamic fanatics (like LIFG who is pretty much at the helm of things) in power and exploitation by foreign corporations (by far the most likely outcome of this civil war and foreign aggression) is your idea of a brighter tomorrow, then I cannot find a reason for this over-idealism and ignorance of the matter. In fact, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the rebel leader, is from LIFG and during the 90s conducted terrorism in Libya. So your idea of a bright future is a guy who has no more than murder and Islamofascism to his name? Woah.
You really think less than 20,000 would have died without international intervention? Not only would more have died- we wouldn't have heard about it.
The rebellion wouldn't have lasted nearly so long, so it's doubtful. What is 20,000 anyways? Civilians? If so, then probably fewer since it wouldn't last so long, and rebels are considered to be combatants as well.
That said, we could say that if somehow Canada became great pals with China and Russia, and stationed Chinese and Russian soldiers to invade and capture D.C. because the US is responsible well over a million civilian deaths in Iraq from warfare, one could justify it exactly the same way you are justifying that. Don't do it.
|
There were already some rebellions in the Easter Libya in the past, organized by islamists.
I do not know how many were killed, but 20.000 are way too big for a local conflict.
|
On August 26 2011 07:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 05:09 zalz wrote:On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact. What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen. Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow. Oh my god.... If Islamic fanatics (like LIFG who is pretty much at the helm of things) in power and exploitation by foreign corporations (by far the most likely outcome of this civil war and foreign aggression) is your idea of a brighter tomorrow, then I cannot find a reason for this over-idealism and ignorance of the matter. In fact, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the rebel leader, is from LIFG and during the 90s conducted terrorism in Libya. So your idea of a bright future is a guy who has no more than murder and Islamofascism to his name? Woah.
I think the NTC knows what it's doing, we're not going to see an islamist terror state set up in Libya, I still don't know why so many people think that will happen.
On August 26 2011 07:39 GeyzeR wrote:
There were already some rebellions in the Easter Libya in the past, organized by islamists.
I do not know how many were killed, but 20.000 are way too big for a local conflict.
Blame Gadaffi for that, not NATO..
|
On August 26 2011 07:42 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 07:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 26 2011 05:09 zalz wrote:On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact. What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen. Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow. Oh my god.... If Islamic fanatics (like LIFG who is pretty much at the helm of things) in power and exploitation by foreign corporations (by far the most likely outcome of this civil war and foreign aggression) is your idea of a brighter tomorrow, then I cannot find a reason for this over-idealism and ignorance of the matter. In fact, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the rebel leader, is from LIFG and during the 90s conducted terrorism in Libya. So your idea of a bright future is a guy who has no more than murder and Islamofascism to his name? Woah. I think the NTC knows what it's doing, we're not going to see an islamist terror state set up in Libya, I still don't know why so many people think that will happen. Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 07:39 GeyzeR wrote:
There were already some rebellions in the Easter Libya in the past, organized by islamists.
I do not know how many were killed, but 20.000 are way too big for a local conflict. Blame Gadaffi for that, not NATO..
LIFG is leading the charge. It comes as no surprise that the revolution sprung up in their base region in eastern Libya and that its leadership in large part comes from LIFG and related groups.
LIFG is an Islamist group.
1 and 1 make 2. It's like saying a regime installed by the US isn't going to be subservient to the US.
The two most important issues are:
1) Preventing Islamist take over.
2) Preventing foreign corporate take over of Libyan resources and industries.
There's a very slim chance either will be accomplished.
Seeing as the US put a Shi'a terrorist organization (Islamic Dawa) in power in Iraq, I don't think they'll care if LIFG takes power, as long as LIFG is not as indepedent-minded as Qaddafi, that is.
But I mean, the US fully supported Islamic fanatics with billions of dollars to overthrow a forward-minded secular democracy in Afghanistan... so, I don't think the US gives a crap, and I wouldn't rely on the NTC very much either.
|
On August 26 2011 07:12 GeyzeR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 05:33 zalz wrote:
It's not a dictatorship because the rebels represent the vast majority of the Libyan people.
How do you know that? Gaddafi suggested to cease fire, to create constitution, to make elections. All under western supervision. This is the way how you understand the support of the leaders. The rebels answered "no". Simply because it is not they want. Too bad Hekisui is banned, wanted to ask when I lied.
So did the president of Syria. Turns out that after having been lied to a million times, the people begin to distrust these words. Strangle your people with your hands and whisper sweet words into their ears as you do. Never was there any mention of "under western supervision" and the ceasefire itself wasn't even taken into account by Gaddaffi himself who continued to march onto benghazi when he suggested it.
Oh my god....
If Islamic fanatics (like LIFG who is pretty much at the helm of things) in power and exploitation by foreign corporations (by far the most likely outcome of this civil war and foreign aggression) is your idea of a brighter tomorrow, then I cannot find a reason for this over-idealism and ignorance of the matter. In fact, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the rebel leader, is from LIFG and during the 90s conducted terrorism in Libya. So your idea of a bright future is a guy who has no more than murder and Islamofascism to his name? Woah.
Ugh, so uninformed. That guy isn't leading the rebellion. There is no singular leader at this point.
There is a council wich works together with NATO in defeating Gaddaffi. Many news reports point to many possible candidates to take over the role of leader. Noone has shown to be definitive.
Is it possible that islamist take over? Ofcourse it is, it happened in Iran. Is it likely? Not really.
|
On August 26 2011 07:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 07:42 jello_biafra wrote:On August 26 2011 07:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 26 2011 05:09 zalz wrote:On August 26 2011 05:02 Saji wrote:Zalz i do not understand were you are trying to go at Im replying to RvB he apparently he thinks that sanctions on Gadaffi only affect Gadaffi. Im fully aware of what the implications of sanctions mean to a country. Ps Starving people = in the interested of the Libyan People? "Mr Ban also said that there was a food crisis inside Libya that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) expected to worsen. The WFP says Libya's food supply chain is at risk of collapse because imports have not been getting into the country and food distribution is hampered by violence." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/un-security-council-imposes-sanctions-against-libya-s-qaddafi.html Wars often lead to a shortage of food. It is a simple fact. What is your point? You would let a cruell dictator be in power because otherwise food runs out? You leave yourself at the mercy of dictators, to afraid to fight back because something bad might happen. Getting rid of trash like Gaddaffi is painfull. But the body has to get sick to develop an immune system. Libya suffers today so it doesn't suffer for the next hundred years. The rebels know the sacrifice they are making, they are putting their life on the line. They are willing to have a less bright today so they can have a brighter tommorow. Oh my god.... If Islamic fanatics (like LIFG who is pretty much at the helm of things) in power and exploitation by foreign corporations (by far the most likely outcome of this civil war and foreign aggression) is your idea of a brighter tomorrow, then I cannot find a reason for this over-idealism and ignorance of the matter. In fact, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the rebel leader, is from LIFG and during the 90s conducted terrorism in Libya. So your idea of a bright future is a guy who has no more than murder and Islamofascism to his name? Woah. I think the NTC knows what it's doing, we're not going to see an islamist terror state set up in Libya, I still don't know why so many people think that will happen. On August 26 2011 07:39 GeyzeR wrote:
There were already some rebellions in the Easter Libya in the past, organized by islamists.
I do not know how many were killed, but 20.000 are way too big for a local conflict. Blame Gadaffi for that, not NATO.. LIFG is leading the charge. It comes as no surprise that the revolution sprung up in their base region in eastern Libya and that its leadership in large part comes from LIFG and related groups. LIFG is an Islamist group. 1 and 1 make 2. It's like saying a regime installed by the US isn't going to be subservient to the US. The two most important issues are: 1) Preventing Islamist take over. 2) Preventing foreign corporate take over of Libyan resources and industries. There's a very slim chance either will be accomplished. Seeing as the US put a Shi'a terrorist organization (Islamic Dawa) in power in Iraq, I don't think they'll care if LIFG takes power, as long as LIFG is not as indepedent-minded as Qaddafi, that is. But I mean, the US fully supported Islamic fanatics with billions of dollars to overthrow a forward-minded secular democracy in Afghanistan... so, I don't think the US gives a crap, and I wouldn't rely on the NTC very much either.
Well we'll see what happens I guess, but my money's on Libya becoming a relatively safe and prosperous country once the new regime takes full control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
