EPTAmerican Inaction Favors Qaddafi
Interesting read on intervention options, and how a poor grasp of the English language can understand the gravity of this situation, and ones similar.
Libyan Uprising - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
American Inaction Favors Qaddafi Interesting read on intervention options, and how a poor grasp of the English language can understand the gravity of this situation, and ones similar. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Europe is a complete mess atm, the governments have no idea about what to do with Ghadaffi. In the 80's and 90's he was evil, in the 00's he was economic partner and now he is evil again ?!!?! Or maybe he is fighting dangerous islamists ?!?! Someone has the answer ? Obama being so unsettled is kinda funny too. The comedy of Politics and morality never stops to entertain me lol. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On March 11 2011 04:40 Boblion wrote: If it wasn't for all the people getting killed i would say that the current situation is absolutly hilarious on a political standpoint Europe is a complete mess atm, the governments have no idea about what to do with Ghadaffi. In the 80's and 90's he was evil, in the 00's he was economic partner and now he is evil again ?!!?! Or maybe he is fighting dangerous islamists ?!?! Someone has the answer ? Obama being so unsettled is kinda funny too. The comedy of Politics and morality never stops to entertain me lol. Probably because morality never actually enters geopolitical decisions. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On March 11 2011 04:41 Nightfall.589 wrote: Probably because morality never actually enters geopolitical decisions. Uhmm not really. In the Western democracies the governments are elected by the herd and the herd has been brainwashed by morality since the beginning of humanity. So if you try to bomb people you will have tons of protests ( colonialists ! Imperialists ! etc ... ) but at the same time if you don't do anything the herd will think that the government is full of selfish people with no compassion ( You are not an humanist !  ). Oh and if you send them some food and medications they will call you a pussy.That's why they are so indecisive atm. First they have no idea about who will win the war ( they don't want to side with the loser ) and at the same they don't want to have to deal with protests at home. They don't have time to brainwash people into another war like for Iraq. It was unplanned and the US are too broke and busy in Afghanistan ( Euro are mostly pro peace so they won't do anything thanks to 50 years of guilt ). I predict more gaffes ! | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
People take a shit on the west anyway. If we step in we are colonial nazis, if we let them be we are letting the people die. When the fuck are people going to realize that even though we in the west have found the secret to creating a functional society, that doesn't mean it's our obligation to bring it to regions filled with people that don't want it. Or they want to have a modern society whilst also having Sharia law. The truth is we should let Lybia sort itself out. The west managed to sort itself out and if people in Lybia cant do it then it's not exactly our fault. Say all you like on morality and doing the right thing but let's not forget that these people would instantly unite if the topic was stoning a homosexual to death, these are no good people. It's an evil oppresive regime versus an evil oppresive population. Like i said, the west is going to be blamed no matter what choice we make, so why not just stand and watch whilst not wasting millions of dollars/euros when the result is the same? The middle-east should just be allowed to reap what it sows and maybe the people will start to understand the error of their ways. It's easy to root for the underdog but in this region the top dog and the under dog are both vicious, hatefull and intollerant. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I mean, colonialism never happened, nor did Irak wars, nor did Operation Condor in South America, nor did Talibans in Afghanistan, nor did African dictatorships, nor did Vietnam, nope. I think your post is quite objectively very xenophobic and a tad bit racist. I have friends from the Middle-East and they are not "bad people". But their families were oppressed by governments allied with the west and not with their own people. Stonings aren't a frequent thing in the Arabic world. All in all, you seem to be the one who is hateful and ignorant - I am very sorry if a moderator thinks this is off-topic but I feel like I need to point out the regressive and offensive character of this last post. Please keep the Vlaams Belang talk in your country and close all borders. Thank you. | ||
|
sleeepy
Canada777 Posts
Not only will a no-fly zone be quite useless, it would be an immense undertaking by foreign powers, something that Gaddafi can and will use to his advantage. To setup a no-fly zone, you need to take out the country's anti-air defenses. We don't really know how powerful Gaddafi's AA is (rumors of Russian SAMs) or where it's located, but even if it's absolute shit it must be destroyed for a no-fly zone to function. Knowing this, what's to stop Gaddafi from putting his missiles on top of schools and hospitals? He doesn't care about civilian deaths as long as he's in power. So now if NATO want to take out that AA site, they have to blow up a school, and the next day's headlines will read: "US planes bomb school; 40 children dead". That will in no way help the rebels and will help Gaddafi by giving credibility to his claim that foreign powers will destroy Libya and steal it's oil or whatever. | ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
On March 11 2011 05:17 zalz wrote: Why exactly does the west have to step in? People take a shit on the west anyway. If we step in we are colonial nazis, if we let them be we are letting the people die. When the fuck are people going to realize that even though we in the west have found the secret to creating a functional society, that doesn't mean it's our obligation to bring it to regions filled with people that don't want it. Or they want to have a modern society whilst also having Sharia law. The truth is we should let Lybia sort itself out. The west managed to sort itself out and if people in Lybia cant do it then it's not exactly our fault. Say all you like on morality and doing the right thing but let's not forget that these people would instantly unite if the topic was stoning a homosexual to death, these are no good people. It's an evil oppresive regime versus an evil oppresive population. Like i said, the west is going to be blamed no matter what choice we make, so why not just stand and watch whilst not wasting millions of dollars/euros when the result is the same? The middle-east should just be allowed to reap what it sows and maybe the people will start to understand the error of their ways. It's easy to root for the underdog but in this region the top dog and the under dog are both vicious, hatefull and intollerant. cool so are they going to send us IOU's for the tanks we gave them then? They accepted our aid, our military technology and equipment. Its our responsiblity to manage that when its used in the slaughter of civilians. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 11 2011 06:01 purecarnagge wrote: cool so are they going to send us IOU's for the tanks we gave them then? They accepted our aid, our military technology and equipment. Its our responsiblity to manage that when its used in the slaughter of civilians. No, it isn't. Are you saying "the world" needs to be babysat by the west? | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On March 11 2011 05:17 zalz wrote: Why exactly does the west have to step in? People take a shit on the west anyway. If we step in we are colonial nazis, if we let them be we are letting the people die. When the fuck are people going to realize that even though we in the west have found the secret to creating a functional society, that doesn't mean it's our obligation to bring it to regions filled with people that don't want it. Or they want to have a modern society whilst also having Sharia law. The truth is we should let Lybia sort itself out. The west managed to sort itself out and if people in Lybia cant do it then it's not exactly our fault. Say all you like on morality and doing the right thing but let's not forget that these people would instantly unite if the topic was stoning a homosexual to death, these are no good people. It's an evil oppresive regime versus an evil oppresive population. Like i said, the west is going to be blamed no matter what choice we make, so why not just stand and watch whilst not wasting millions of dollars/euros when the result is the same? The middle-east should just be allowed to reap what it sows and maybe the people will start to understand the error of their ways. It's easy to root for the underdog but in this region the top dog and the under dog are both vicious, hatefull and intollerant. I believe the issue lies in the notion that the 'rebels' are asking for help from other nations. They consider how these nations entered (and remain) in some arab states when they absolutely were not wanted, and yet they do nothing here when they are wanted. When you look at other internal conflicts such as Yugoslavia, atleast there, the warring states had adequate military strength to fight each other. It was when the atrocities against civilians began to take notice that NATO stepped in twice to help end conflicts. I think its gaddafi's lack of an all-out-onslaught of the rebellion that has kept the west and NATO at bay; the rebel's ability to take control of cities and fight back should indicate they are capable of solving the issue on their own. However based on some recent newspieces it seems gaddafi has been holding back and that his military might make the move to crush the rebellion. That would be an atrocious loss of life in the name of dictatorship and something other countries cannot ignore. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
It's not like the west interfered with the rest of the world, not at all. You say it like it's a bad thing, and if you believe it's a bad thing then why would you want the west to continue to interfere? I mean, colonialism never happened, nor did Irak wars, nor did Operation Condor in South America, nor did Talibans in Afghanistan, nor did African dictatorships, nor did Vietnam, nope. Ooh sure it did, nobody is denying that. If we go into Lybia then people will only add Lybia to that list no matter how well inteded. How exactly is the Taliban the American's fault? Why ooh why must people in the middle-east never carry the blame for their own actions? If you want to blame the US for the Taliban then you can effectively blame the west for everything. At times you have to realize that whilst the guns might be American (given the popularity of the AK not an accurate statement) but that the people wielding them are responsible. It's not that the majority of the world is kind-hearted and that all evil is done by a trickery few. We have to admit that there are plenty of countries out there where the majority of the population have ideas that can be classified as evil from a western perspective. I think your post is quite objectively very xenophobic and a tad bit racist. I have friends from the Middle-East and they are not "bad people". But their families were oppressed by governments allied with the west and not with their own people. Stonings aren't a frequent thing in the Arabic world. All in all, you seem to be the one who is hateful and ignorant - I am very sorry if a moderator thinks this is off-topic but I feel like I need to point out the regressive and offensive character of this last post. The people were oppressed by the Shah and the people are now oppressed by the Iranian theocracy. The west is not responsible for the governments of the middle-east nor the treatment of the people there, they are themselves responsible for their own state. The west is not the global police force. In some cases there can be a direct link between governments and the west (like the Shah government), but more often then not it's vague accusations that just attempt to liberate the poor "have nots" from the burden of responsibility. Meanwhile in the west we are expected to take on far more responsibility and feel responsible for all the wrong doings in the world. I don't care how many Arabic friends you have. When the majority of men beat their women in Pakistan i don't have to doubt that the majority of the people there are in my book evil. No not 100% of the men in Pakistan beat their wife, but it is still the vast majority. You may believe that humans are at their core kind spirited but the truth is that people are the result of their environment and some people grow up in fucked up places and grow up to be fucked up people with fucked up ideas. Please keep the Vlaams Belang talk in your country and close all borders. Thank you Vlaams Belang would be Belgium. As for Holland the party you are most likely looking for is the PVV run by Geert Wilders. The PVV however has never made a single racist comment, unlike the Vlaams Belang and is purely anti-islamic. I didn't vote for them, despite what you may believe. This racism accusation is uncalled for, mostly because i have given no comment of the sorts. I respect all people and all races. Infact i respect the Arabs enough to hold them to the same standards that i would anyone else. I do not treat them as children that cannot be held accountable for their actions, i treat them as equalls that deserve blame when they do wrong. And no, there isn't any idea in this world that 100% of the people support, so stop pretending like i believe anything of the sorts. However i don't think it's wrong to call out a countries population when the majority believes a certain thing wich i deem as evil. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
I believe the issue lies in the notion that the 'rebels' are asking for help from other nations. They consider how these nations entered (and remain) in some arab states when they absolutely were not wanted, and yet they do nothing here when they are wanted. True, but i do not support the invasion of Iraq, i consider it a massive mistake wich in the end has only pushed a people further towards fanatacism and provided them with a joke of a democracy. The invasion of Afghanistan was a must. Right after 9/11 the Taliban openly defied the west and said they would harbour terrorists, even those directly responsible for the attacks. Had they not done or said anything of the kind we would have let them play "rape the population" without giving a damn. You cannot allow some tribal state to become a free haven for terrorists. Iraq was uncalled for and a massive mistake, Afghanistan was needed but we should leave the country imo. Afghanistan is a tribal nation, it will never obtain a democracy in our life time, we need to realize this and step out. Perhaps leave weapons for all the tribes that want to defend themselves from the Taliban. Again, that is their fight, not ours. When you look at other internal conflicts such as Yugoslavia, atleast there, the warring states had adequate military strength to fight each other. It was when the atrocities against civilians began to take notice that NATO stepped in twice to help end conflicts. True, but atrocities against civilians have not begun in Lybia. Gaddafi is waging a very disgusting war in wich many civillians die, but that happens in all wars, despite what we tell ourselves. There is no "clean war", people always lose their lives wich is exactly why it is so horrible. Perception is everything and currently to the world Lybia is divided in a civil war in wich both sides are fighting, there does not seem to be an intent to murder civillians. I think its gaddafi's lack of an all-out-onslaught of the rebellion that has kept the west and NATO at bay; the rebel's ability to take control of cities and fight back should indicate they are capable of solving the issue on their own. However based on some recent newspieces it seems gaddafi has been holding back and that his military might make the move to crush the rebellion. That would be an atrocious loss of life in the name of dictatorship and something other countries cannot ignore. If the Lybian army is that powerfull then that would mean the west would have to invade Lybia and defeat it's army to liberate the people from a vile dictator. Sounds similar to Iraq. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
The truth is we should let Lybia sort itself out. The west managed to sort itself out and if people in Lybia cant do it then it's not exactly our fault. The USA wouldn't even fucking exist if it weren't for the French intervening during the American revolution. Ooh sure it did, nobody is denying that. If we go into Lybia then people will only add Lybia to that list no matter how well inteded. No, it would go down in history like U.S. intervention in Bahrain possibly the only case of U.S. interventionism that is considered in retrospect as anything besides negative. The key difference between Libya and countries like Vietnam or Iraq is that we are supporting a popular movement. In almost every single case of U.S. interventionism in History, we didn't support anyone, we just went in with our own agendas supporting no actual popular opposition group. If the Lybian army is that powerfull then that would mean the west would have to invade Lybia and defeat it's army to liberate the people from a vile dictator. I'm sorry was Iraq in open revolt against Saddam during 2003? No. | ||
|
PhiGgoT
Vietnam151 Posts
im american / vietnamesedidnt obama say that the US would stand for freedom anywhere like a month ago during egypt. now what, i mean i know its not easy but just throwing such big words out like with no weight to them is shameful . | ||
|
shwaffles
United States117 Posts
On March 11 2011 10:37 PhiGgoT wrote: im honestly ashamed of america right now im american / vietnamesedidnt obama say that the US would stand for freedom anywhere like a month ago during egypt. now what, i mean i know its not easy but just throwing such big words out like with no weight to them is shameful . Well if you haven't noticed, we aren't doing so hot financially. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 11 2011 10:37 PhiGgoT wrote: im honestly ashamed of america right now im american Fuck that. Libya isn't worth our trouble. No fly zones are more costly than people think and can go on lasting years. Out military is already overextended. Libya is a mess. Full-blown civil war - and the rebels don't want us interfering on the ground. There are so many different tribal groups in that probably won't get along even after the fighting stops. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On March 11 2011 10:37 PhiGgoT wrote: im honestly ashamed of america right now im american / vietnamesedidnt obama say that the US would stand for freedom anywhere like a month ago during egypt. now what, i mean i know its not easy but just throwing such big words out like with no weight to them is shameful . i think you should be thankful your country is showing some restraint considering all the warmongering that has gone on for the past decade. there are alot of logical reasons why NATO hasn't intervened yet, read the past posts in this thread. | ||
|
PhiGgoT
Vietnam151 Posts
| ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 11 2011 10:51 PhiGgoT wrote: im not naive i just think its kinda wrong to say that we will stand up for freedom and have people think its a good idea to revolt against a psycho path then recieve no help at all. we should atleast try to help them a little... Freedom? What freedom? You think if gaddafi gets thrown away there will be freedom in Libya? It will probably just be a destabilized country in which tribes will fight for power. Read something about Libya's people composition to understand http://www.temehu.com/Libyan-People.htm Most people are just emotional about this, and do not understand the true implications of the current situation. Freedom sounds good and it's very romantic how all of this is portrayed mainly in the media... rebels who fight for freedom against a bloody dictator. But i doubt that's all there is. First off you can't possibly quantify how much of the libyan people is against Gaddafi and how much is with him. Second you have no guarantees that if gaddafi leaves everyone will be happy and stop the fighting, my opinion is even if gaddafi leaves some tribes who benefited from his reign will continue to fight for power. Let's not forget how Gaddafi came into power, through a coup/revolution. And from what i've read (just googled to inform myself) he was quite supported by the people at the time. Don't be so hasty about judging the situation. This needs to be thought of long term not just short term and that's why there are specialists presumably giving conciliation to governments and not just listening to opinions on forums. It's not to get Gaddafi killed that's the hard part, i'm sure a couple of western countries could do that in less than a month but what after? You want a big military presence in Libya after to act as police to make sure the tribes don't blindly fight in them for power? And how do we guarantee that instead of helping the people those western countries don't use this in their own advantage to put their hands on libyan oil and money? Angela Merkel said yesterday that they are very disappointed by France's recognition of the rebel's council as leaders of Libya, because this can be a very bad precedent for the world. Who judges who are "the bad guys" and who are "the good guys"? After all, the libyan army represents the authorities, it represents the government and it represents Libya, strictly from a legal point of view. The matter is much more complex than "hurray, the dictator is gone, the good rebels won, they won freedom and democracy happy happy joy joy" and that is why i believe this needs to be settled by libyan people itself even if it's going to take long and be bloody. When you interfere into a nation's own "poop" there's no way getting out of it, see what happened in Iraq for example which is a near constant turmoil. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
The USA wouldn't even fucking exist if it weren't for the French intervening during the American revolution. That is true, but that is also a different era when countries could still get away with that sort of thing. Today we need to realize that countries cannot simply aid whomever they want without blowback. Aiding the Americans had a positive result for the French, it weakend the British. What exactly is our positive result from defeating Gaddafi? Oke we take down Gaddafi and then? Congrats people of Lybia, you now have a civil war, enjoy. Nothing good will come from Lybia, tackeling Gaddafi will most likely not end the war, only change the factions. No, it would go down in history like U.S. intervention in Bahrain possibly the only case of U.S. interventionism that is considered in retrospect as anything besides negative. That is awefully positive. Most of the people will see Americans being militarily active in yet another Arab nation. If they don't see it then their leaders will explain it like that to them. If anything it will grind the revolutions to a halt because at that point it is no longer the people that are uprising but it will clearly be the American devil that has been behind it all. The people must do this wether they succeed or fail, it's time to have some faith that those people can fight their own fights and don't need a foreign military to fight for the wellfare of their country. This is about the Arab people dealing with the governments that have run their countries into the ground (and yes when an economy is 40%+ oil i consider it a state just waiting to fail). The US cannot react to every popular revolt because despite all attention being on Lybia, there are many more to come. The US would have to be in over a dozen wars if it kept supporting revolts at every turn. The key difference between Libya and countries like Vietnam or Iraq is that we are supporting a popular movement. In almost every single case of U.S. interventionism in History, we didn't support anyone, we just went in with our own agendas supporting no actual popular opposition group. I don't actually know how the population is split between Gaddafi and the rebels, if you have numbers i would be thankfull if you could provide them. I tried finding tribe size of the Qaddadfa but couldn't find anything on it. It is only logical that a country focusses on it's own intrests. The west has no moral obligation to help anyone. Why else would we go there and waste billions on starting a military intervention? I allready pointed out that if anything, it will grind the middle-eastern revolts to a halt. I'm sorry was Iraq in open revolt against Saddam during 2003? No. Doesn't change the fact that in that scenario the US would have to occupy the country for several years and try to keep the tribes from murdering each others. If the first thing these people want to do with their freedom is start a civil war then they can go ahead and do that. We need to let countries evolve naturally, all those interventions never work out the way we want them to, might aswell keep our money in our pockets and every nation carry the weight of it's own actions. I could be intrested in supporting a revolution if the goal was to establish a modern and secular nation but i realize that neither seems very likely. In my mind it is set that the Lybian people are going to run the country into the ground just as much as Gaddafi, i don't see a large group that has good ideas for the future. They dislike Gaddafi, that is all they have in common and it's not a healthy foundation to estbalish a government on. | ||
| ||
