|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 13 2011 10:18 Ilfirin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2011 09:19 gosuMalicE wrote:
Well when the US NEEDS to invade countries to ensure the survival of capitalism then maybe capitalism is wrong? Just saying. opinion incoming... + Show Spoiler +Capitalism is wrong either way. It forces people to be greedy and take from those who have less and takes the power from the people and puts it into the hands of corporations that basically become their own entities outside of our control that exist by feeding of of us. That said, I don't think anybody is saying the US should invade, but a no-fly zone and aid/food/weapons for the rebels are probably necessary for the survival of the people of the country.
You can call it "feeding off us", but i really doubt anyone here minds that. After all if we are being honest then we have to admit that this "feeding off" is being expressed by providing people with houses to live in, with cars to drive, with internet to discuss over.
Capitalism is not bad, it is in fact the only right thing to do. People should have the tools to improve their own lives and capitalism allows people to work to improve their own situation.
Hating on corporations seems easy when most of them provide a service we are eager to pay for. The internet company isn't feeding off me when they provide me with internet acces. There are even many laws against things like "price-fixing-schemes" where companies can be prosecuted if they attempt to pump up the price illegally.
Competition is essential for an economy and i believe that we only truly find that in capitalism.
|
On March 13 2011 10:18 Ilfirin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2011 09:19 gosuMalicE wrote:
Well when the US NEEDS to invade countries to ensure the survival of capitalism then maybe capitalism is wrong? Just saying. opinion incoming...
You need to understand that the basic situation is where everyone is piss poor and a few people possess literally 100% of the wealth of a society. This is the base level. Systems like capitalism, communism, etc are supposed to be a solution to this. Solving this problem is one of the main problems of and reasons for civilization.
Second, it is basically irrelevant to discuss what is on paper or what capitalism/communism are in theory. They are never ever put in practice. There is always a big tug of war going on between the general population and a certain group of elite or wannabe elite. This is always true and the elite distort the implementation of your nice theoretical solution.
What we have in the west right now is not capitalism at all. If you are going to judge if capitalism is good or not, looking at reality tells you nothing.
The idea behind capitalism is that pure free markets lead to pure freedom. We don't have free markets. The best country for free markets is Somalia.
Every country that ever became industrialized did it while not having markets that were anywhere near free.
US doesn't have free markets. Not even close. Organizations that are set up to create free markets basically strive to do the opposite.
What the US has is shifting power towards corporations. US is corporatism. The Fortune500 govern the country and they strive to gain more power. This means citizens will have less rights and freedoms. Same is true in many other countries.
This means that a large part to most of the power structures in those countries is unaccountable for, like a dictator or a monarch would be. The general population has no say in what they do.
Important to note is that the interests of the Fortune500 are often opposed to those of the general public. Even more paradoxically, the interests of corporations and multinationals sometimes are opposite of the interests of the people that make up the Fortune500. There is a corporate power structure that only serves itself and has no disregard for any human or ideology of any kind.
Through this the CEO of Shell can be a supporter of Greenpeace and struggle to make his own company 'greener'. Even the CEO is a slave of the corporation. He has no power. He does what the system demands. As does everyone else in a corporation.
Once people in a corporation try to do something for society, they break the law. Corporations have a responsibility towards their shareholders. They are not allowed to engage in charity. It's a breach of contract.
Corporations have personhood and have more rights than humans. They are also immortal. If corporations were persons they would be locked up as corporations by definition are psychopaths. If they aren't, they break the law.
US politics partly serve the Fortune500. This is why Obama got elected and this is why he bailed out Wall Street.
Obama is also a slave of the system. The personal opinion or political views of no CEO or no president matters at all in these systems. They are all trapped.
|
US politics partly serve the Fortune500. This is why Obama got elected and this is why he bailed out Wall Street.
It could not possibly have anything to do with preventing the destruction of the global economy. No it has to be corporate overlords that go home every night to sacrifice a virign to the dollar.
The system, The corporation.
You make it sound like they are alive and thinking.
|
What the financial sector did was intentional and a logical result of the way the system works. They gamble with other people's money. They get a percentage of the profit. When they don't profit, they just don't get any bonuses. When they lose all their money, they are bailed out.
Now, try to figure out the correct strategy to play that game to maximum profit. Yes, take insane risks. Only if you take insane risks you have a good chance of getting insane profits. Even when an insane profit is unlikely, the expected profit will be largest. It's the best bet. And this perfect strategy is the one that will lose the economy as a whole a lot and a lot of money.
So insane gambling with other people's money is what they did.
Wall street right now is booming. They are making more profit than before. Also, Wall Street doesn't contribute to the economy at all. They are like poker players. They bet on the financial market. And they draw some of the most talented people. It's a brain drain. In Scandinavia right now they are concerned about their most talented people playing power. One should be concerned about the financial sector being a brain drain even if it wouldn't crash the economy.
The financial sector is a huge drag on the world economy. We are better off with it being gone. We almost lost it, which would have been a great benefit of the crisis. Yet they were bailed out.
Remember, nothing changed. We are going to have another crash eventually.
The US pushed a certain economic system on their client states in the middle east. Egypt is a good example. The economy there was growing while the middle class was being wiped out and the poor got even poorer. This neoliberal economic policy did a lot of damage there, contributing hugely to the wave of revolts. The US economy and society has similar damage yet the lack of proper media allowed the tea party to hijack this anger of the people. US is not immune for a revolt against the neoliberal elite similar to those in the middle east.
|
Please stop making this thread a discussion about the financial system etc. It's made for the protests in Lybia.
|
On March 13 2011 17:02 Alshahin wrote:
The idea behind capitalism is that pure free markets lead to pure freedom. We don't have free markets. The best country for free markets is Somalia.
Every country that ever became industrialized did it while not having markets that were anywhere near free.
US doesn't have free markets. Not even close. Organizations that are set up to create free markets basically strive to do the opposite.
The idea behind capitalism is a certain conception of freedom which comes from liberal tradition (Locke, Smith, etc...) You can agree with, personnaly I strongly disagree, because this purely formal definition of freedom seems very weak compared to the freedom of Republican (NOT the party, which is economically ultraliberal) tradition that nobody in America carries at all, but which is still present in Europe, and in France in particular.
America today is the accomplishement of liberal capitalism. Free market means the state, the public power doesn't interfeer in economic area. That's the case in US. America has a free market. The fact that it's control by few people is just a natural consequence, the same way that if you remove all laws, you have the strongest people into power.
Anyway, on topic. The idea that capitalism + representative democracy is the best system and should be extended everywhere is just another Messianic madness of Western world. Hope Lybia can decide its fate without being invaded by a foreign power. All succesfull revolution have been done without exterior "help".
|
Yeah, Internet debates do very little whereas news will always be news... please don't go off-topic.
|
On March 13 2011 22:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway, on topic. The idea that capitalism + representative democracy is the best system and should be extended everywhere is just another Messianic madness of Western world. Hope Lybia can decide its fate without being invaded by a foreign power. All succesfull revolution have been done without exterior "help".
I agree that you can't say "capitalism and representative democracy is the best so let's get it in place everywhere" even if it actually is. However, the latter part about successful revolutions never having had outside help is incorrect. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Other_participants
|
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good.
|
On March 13 2011 23:08 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2011 22:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway, on topic. The idea that capitalism + representative democracy is the best system and should be extended everywhere is just another Messianic madness of Western world. Hope Lybia can decide its fate without being invaded by a foreign power. All succesfull revolution have been done without exterior "help". I agree that you can't say "capitalism and representative democracy is the best so let's get it in place everywhere" even if it actually is. However, the latter part about successful revolutions never having had outside help is incorrect. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Other_participants
Actually most if not all successful revolutions have had outside help. I'm not sure if cap+demo is a bad direction, the other options don't seem to be what the rebels want, though that's hard to determine.
|
On March 13 2011 23:08 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2011 22:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway, on topic. The idea that capitalism + representative democracy is the best system and should be extended everywhere is just another Messianic madness of Western world. Hope Lybia can decide its fate without being invaded by a foreign power. All succesfull revolution have been done without exterior "help". I agree that you can't say "capitalism and representative democracy is the best so let's get it in place everywhere" even if it actually is. However, the latter part about successful revolutions never having had outside help is incorrect. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Other_participants
It is the best system if you have western values. Saying that western values are better than other doesn't even mean anything.
The thing with French in American revolution is that La Fayette didn't even had order from the king, and fought from his own initiative with his own money. My statement may be absuive, but my point is that revolution are always done physically and ideologically from the within.
A revolution were europeans and americans would come with thir army to ensure Libya would become a liberal democracy would not be a revolution anymore. Actually it is not sure that libyan revolution, it succeed will end up on a democratic or capitalist country.
|
On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good.
Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't?
Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa?
Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses.
America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help?
I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out?
People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping?
The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done.
Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair.
Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why?
|
On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why?
because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side..
in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are..
besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on..
|
On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on..
What is this 'defining culture' you claim to represent?
America/NATO has used always used the excuse of humanitarian intervention as a guise for foreign strategic campaigns. This sort of disingenuous justification is backfiring on them right now.
Rest assured, there will be no military intervention - especially since the rebels look to be losing.
|
On March 14 2011 01:25 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on.. What is this 'defining culture' you claim to represent? America/NATO has used always used the excuse of humanitarian intervention as a guise for foreign strategic campaigns. This sort of disingenuous justification is backfiring on them right now. Rest assured, there will be no military intervention - especially since the rebels look to be losing.
it's the culture of values like constitutional legality, democracy and human rights our society is based on.. (kinda sad i have to explain) ..
what is the other option besides a military intervention.. watching how this psycho murders the libyan people who stood up for freedom and democracy in an overwhelming fashion, with his army of mercenaries? if that's your choice you imo make yourself guilty aswell..
|
On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on..
While i dont necessarily agree with the extremism of his comments, he is right to a certain extent. We help the rebels and later they accuse of us meddling. We stand by and we are condemned for "allowing" it to happen. Its pretty much a lose lose situation.
It has happened dozens of times throughout history, even in the last 30 years, Nato helps stop a massacre or supports rebels against an agressor and they come to hate you for it, or become an enemy later fighting you with your own weapons. I dont believe the lybian situation will be any different.
From a moral standpoint, I think it is an obligation to help those in need. We just have to hope that a religious theocracy or unstable terrorist breeding ground doesnt emerges from the ashes. Because if they do, then we have another country like Afgansitan (before the war) or Iran on our hands.
Very tough situation. All I can hope for is Gaddafhi is ousted, and the National council of the rebels can maintain control of the country. But only time will tell if they actually have the skills to do so.
|
On March 14 2011 01:28 bananafever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:25 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on.. What is this 'defining culture' you claim to represent? America/NATO has used always used the excuse of humanitarian intervention as a guise for foreign strategic campaigns. This sort of disingenuous justification is backfiring on them right now. Rest assured, there will be no military intervention - especially since the rebels look to be losing. it's the culture of values like constitutional legality, democracy and human rights our society is based on.. (kinda sad i have to explain) .. what is the other option besides a military intervention.. watching how this psycho murders the libyan people who stood up for freedom and democracy in an overwhelming fashion, with his army of mercenaries? if that's your choice you imo make yourself guilty aswell..
Big talk for someone who has no experience with nation building.
You are seriously ignorant. You really think that the West can just erect a democracy in a country like Libya?
As as for the murder of innocent people, do you know how many innocent people die from sectarian violence in sub-Saharan Africa? Why aren't you guilt-tripping other people over that humanitarian tragedy?
Get over yourself.
|
On March 14 2011 01:30 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on.. While i dont necessarily agree with the extremism of his comments, he is right to a certain extent. We help the rebels and later they accuse of us meddling. We stand by and we are condemned for "allowing" it to happen. Its pretty much a lose lose situation. It has happened dozens of times throughout history, even in the last 30 years, Nato helps stop a massacre or supports rebels against an agressor and they come to hate you for it, or become an enemy later fighting you with your own weapons. I dont believe the lybian situation will be any different. From a moral standpoint, I think it is an obligation to help those in need. We just have to hope that a religious theocracy or unstable terrorist breeding ground doesnt emerges from the ashes. Because if they do, then we have another country like Afgansitan (before the war) or Iran on our hands. Very tough situation. All I can hope for is Gaddafhi is ousted, and the National council of the rebels can maintain control of the country. But only time will tell if they actually have the skills to do so.
i tell you there is no chance for the libyan people to get rid of their psycho dictator with his army of mercenaries without help from outside..
you said there are dozens of examples.. NOWHERE have the people stood up for freedom and democracy like they did in libya..
|
On March 14 2011 01:35 bananafever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:30 Darpa wrote:On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on.. While i dont necessarily agree with the extremism of his comments, he is right to a certain extent. We help the rebels and later they accuse of us meddling. We stand by and we are condemned for "allowing" it to happen. Its pretty much a lose lose situation. It has happened dozens of times throughout history, even in the last 30 years, Nato helps stop a massacre or supports rebels against an agressor and they come to hate you for it, or become an enemy later fighting you with your own weapons. I dont believe the lybian situation will be any different. From a moral standpoint, I think it is an obligation to help those in need. We just have to hope that a religious theocracy or unstable terrorist breeding ground doesnt emerges from the ashes. Because if they do, then we have another country like Afgansitan (before the war) or Iran on our hands. Very tough situation. All I can hope for is Gaddafhi is ousted, and the National council of the rebels can maintain control of the country. But only time will tell if they actually have the skills to do so. i tell you there is no chance for the libyan people to get rid of their psycho dictator with his army of mercenaries without help from outside.. you said there are dozens of examples.. NOWHERE have the people stood up for freedom and democracy like they did in libya..
Uh... you do realize that this 'revolution' thing is systemic right?
|
On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:28 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:25 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 00:47 zalz wrote:On March 13 2011 23:19 Kukaracha wrote:
On topic, rebels are slowly losing ground and there is still no reaction from the UN... I Ghadaffi ever massacres half of the country and goes back in power, we are guaranteed to have a strong Al-Qaida channel right in Benghazi and a very bad image in North-Africa.
"Ghadaffi, friend of the West and a national thief just killed thousands and got away with it." Doesn't sound good. Why exactly does the West have to step in? And why is the west to blame if we don't? Why for example not the middle-east? Or North-Africa? Why do we have to take care of every single problem and are we called responsible for every time a bunch of people decide to go ahead and give into their murderous impulses. America is thousands of miles away so it can't be geography. Why aren't people asking China to help? Why aren't people asking India to help? I allready pointed out that these people are hardly pro-western, so it can't be that we have to help like-minded people. Honestly can someone explain why people call the west imperialist whilst demanding we sort everyone's problems out? People are actively bashing on the west for not helping. Where are all the people being critical of the middle-east for not helping Libya? Where are the people bashing China for not helping? The reality is that if it was up to the west there would have been a no-fly zone. It is Russia that has been blocking this. We have to solve every damn problem and support rebels that only call for help out of self intrest and probably spit in our faces once all is said and done. Libya's revolution will not be the triumph of a dictator over a freedom loving people, it will be a cruell dictator striking down opponents that would in practicality only differ in terms of their facial hair. Please, can anyone that supports a no-fly zone or even a direct military intervention, explain to me why? because we are the defining culture and that others don`t do anything doesn`t legitimate a non-acting from our side.. in the netherlands islamic people enjoy religious freedom even tho christians in islamic countries don't have that freedom.. if we don't do anything because others are doing nothing either we are as stupid as they are.. besides that your statements about the rebels beeing against the west and that the people of libya will spit in our faces once we helped them are not worth to comment on.. What is this 'defining culture' you claim to represent? America/NATO has used always used the excuse of humanitarian intervention as a guise for foreign strategic campaigns. This sort of disingenuous justification is backfiring on them right now. Rest assured, there will be no military intervention - especially since the rebels look to be losing. it's the culture of values like constitutional legality, democracy and human rights our society is based on.. (kinda sad i have to explain) .. what is the other option besides a military intervention.. watching how this psycho murders the libyan people who stood up for freedom and democracy in an overwhelming fashion, with his army of mercenaries? if that's your choice you imo make yourself guilty aswell.. Big talk for someone who has no experience with nation building. You are seriously ignorant. You really think that the West can just erect a democracy in a country like Libya? As as for the murder of innocent people, do you know how many innocent people die from sectarian violence in sub-Saharan Africa? Why aren't you guilt-tripping other people over that humanitarian tragedy? Get over yourself.
ugliest posting ever..
nation bulding experience..?? you have that experience cause you are american? ..
you`re trying to put a dictator who murders people who stood up for democracy into perspective by naming any violent action happend in africa..
man, i'm gonna ignore you from that point on, i`m not capable of discussing with you honestly and taking your statements seriously.. i`m sorry..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
