|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 14 2011 01:36 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:35 bananafever wrote: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?
dont understand you 100%.. you mean it's not worth taking the millions of people on the streets seriously cause it's "systemic" ???
pls explain more precisely..
|
On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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..
You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality.
The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome.
The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult.
The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy.
|
On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy.
If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life.
Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest.
This is not to say that Libyan revolution, if it succeeds won't be betrayed. Most revolution, if not absolutely all of them get betrayed.
|
On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest.
I agree.
But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should?
|
On March 14 2011 02:06 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. I agree. But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should?
Of course the West (NATO) should intervene. If they don't intervene here what must happen till they do?
Both the rebels as well as the arab league have asked for an no-fly zone. It's not like they would invade or smth similiar.
|
On March 14 2011 02:16 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:06 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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:
[quote]
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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. I agree. But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should? Of course the West (NATO) should intervene. If they don't intervene here what must happen till they do? Both the rebels as well as the arab league have asked for an no-fly zone. It's not like they would invade or smth similiar.
The rebels were only recently in favor of a no-fly zone. Also I don't think people realize how costly a no fly zone is to maintain.
Even then, Gaddafi's aircraft are only a part of the issue. The real problem is the armor and artillery. The rebels only have small arms and manpower. It would be suicide for them to cross large swaths of desert without armored support or cover.
|
On March 14 2011 02:06 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. I agree. But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should?
Definitly not directly.
A revolution is the moment a people take its own destiny in hands. A western intervention would transform what I see as an extremely positive event into an other pseudo colonial war.
I have to say, though, that it would probably be a good thing if the insurgent could be indirectly helped. Diplomatic pressure is great, but maybe giving them some weapons wouldn't harm. I don't know... The African Union also have more legitimacy to do something than France or US.
|
On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. This is not to say that Libyan revolution, if it succeeds won't be betrayed. Most revolution, if not absolutely all of them get betrayed.
What about the revolutions that don't end in democracies, like Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam? Remember, Gaddaffi came into power with popular support too. Democracy and human rights are not principle human needs; they are only desired when survival is guaranteed, thus only when the country is developed enough to provide for its citizens. When the people's survival are jeopardized to the point where a revolution occurs, democracy is definitely not the end goal. There is no guarantee if this revolution succeeds, a democracy will be set up, unless the west interferes.
|
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..
Is that so? Im pretty sure you are enormously wrong in that respect.
I agree that likely the rebels will lose, and I offered no opinion either way on what action should be taken aside from a moral standpoint.
While you might not necessarily agree with some of the examples, but there ARE dozens of examples of people fighting for freedoms that the libyan people are fighting for now.
Tianmen Square, China (thousands of civilians are killed by the army)
Buddhist March, Burma (thousands of unarmed monks arrested and executed while demanding democracy)
Red March, Thailand (a million people last year marched on the capital and demanded democracy, clashing with the army, The only difference is the Thai leader wasnt a lunatic and attacking his own people. Eventually he did killing hundreds)
Afganistan North alliance which fought the taliban for almost two decades of civil war for freedom from their regime.
I could come up with dozens of more examples. On top of that, there are hundreds of examples of people fighting for what they would call freedom, if not democracy.
To be clear, I never suggested intervention wasnt necessarily needed, or that I was against it. Merely that the situation is lose lose for the west.
|
On March 14 2011 02:30 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. This is not to say that Libyan revolution, if it succeeds won't be betrayed. Most revolution, if not absolutely all of them get betrayed. What about the revolutions that don't end in democracies, like Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam? Remember, Gaddaffi came into power with popular support too. Democracy and human rights are not principle human needs; they are only desired when survival is guaranteed, thus only when the country is developed enough to provide for its citizens. When the people's survival are jeopardized to the point where a revolution occurs, democracy is definitely not the end goal. There is no guarantee if this revolution succeeds, a democracy will be set up, unless the west interferes.
Cuban, Russian, Chinese and Vietnamese revolution have been betrayed, and have been the victims of the contradiction inherent to the party-state stream of Marxist theory. I still consider Russian revolution in itself as something positive just because of the fact that russian fought against the oppressive regime of the Czar.
The cconsequences have been terrible, but the revolt had an absolute legitimacy. So I would separate radically the revolution as an always positive event, and the new system which is set up afterward.
There is no reason to consider that liberal democracy is the only path a people can chose. That's our path, not necessarly the one of Libyan people. If they chose something else, so be it. Western world doesn't have any right to impose its system to people who haven't chosen it. otherwise, it's called a colonial war, nothing else. "Nation building" is the most arrogant, despiseful and silly concept ever invented in politics. Nation are built by their own people.
Now, Gadhaffi is a dictator, and is ruling against his own people. That's enough to make this revolution legitimate.
|
On March 14 2011 02:30 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote: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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. This is not to say that Libyan revolution, if it succeeds won't be betrayed. Most revolution, if not absolutely all of them get betrayed. What about the revolutions that don't end in democracies, like Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam? Remember, Gaddaffi came into power with popular support too. Democracy and human rights are not principle human needs; they are only desired when survival is guaranteed, thus only when the country is developed enough to provide for its citizens. When the people's survival are jeopardized to the point where a revolution occurs, democracy is definitely not the end goal. There is no guarantee if this revolution succeeds, a democracy will be set up, unless the west interferes.
I'm still fairly bitter about Tiananmen Square. The student protesters were completely disorganized and refused negotiations. They grid-locked the country for almost two months. What did they expect the government to do? After martial law was declared and the protesters were wiped out, China regressed heavily.
ALL the reformers in the CCP were subsequently purged and China's liberalization movement was set back two decades. I don't blame the students for protesting, but they really should have had a plan. Because they failed so hard, they sabotaged any immediate hope for real reform in China. Look at how China responds to protests today.
These Libyans better have a plan, lest they be reduced to a force for chaos.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 14 2011 02:32 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 01:35 bananafever wrote: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.. Is that so? Im pretty sure you are enormously wrong in that respect. I agree that likely the rebels will lose, and I offered no opinion either way on what action should be taken aside from a moral standpoint. While you might not necessarily agree with some of the examples, but there ARE dozens of examples of people fighting for freedoms that the libyan people are fighting for now. Tianmen Square, China (thousands of civilians are killed by the army) Buddhist March, Burma (thousands of unarmed monks arrested and executed while demanding democracy) Red March, Thailand (a million people last year marched on the capital and demanded democracy, clashing with the army, The only difference is the Thai leader wasnt a lunatic and attacking his own people. Eventually he did killing hundreds) Afganistan North alliance which fought the taliban for almost two decades of civil war for freedom from their regime. I could come up with dozens of more examples. On top of that, there are hundreds of examples of people fighting for what they would call freedom, if not democracy. To be clear, I never suggested intervention wasnt necessarily needed, or that I was against it. Merely that the situation is lose lose for the west.
Tiamen square was not thousands, more like 500-1000 tops, yes it was handled poorly and is considered(even admitted by PRC) to be one of the worst mistakes in the history of the PRC. But don't overexxegerate your numbers. The reason people are asking America is because they have a (perhaps flawed) image of a perfect democracy in America, the land of hope, wealth and money. America is also known to intervene in such countries in the past, hence why people are asking for America to do it.
|
But having chaos brought upon the Libyan people will sooner or later hit the west back. The realpolitik applied to third-world countries is clearly showing its limits. Leaving the people to boil in their cages while the leaders spoil the country's ressources - ok, they're pro-west but also highly unreliable, as we have plenty of examples of Ghadaffi, Mubarak or Ben Ali's international thievery.
We should intervene because we need to change our course of action. It's similar to stopping immigration by heavy border surveillance; in the end, what works best is investing in the country of origin.
And to anyone saying that the west intervenes too much, well I think that the moment isn't really well chose to abandon all military bases abroad and all economical interests all over the world (and I highly doubt anyone will ever do that).
Letting Ghadaffi continue his mass murder could work on the short term, but in the long run it's just asking for a bigger problem. North Africa is Europe's neighbour...
|
On March 14 2011 03:00 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:32 Darpa wrote:On March 14 2011 01:35 bananafever wrote: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.. Is that so? Im pretty sure you are enormously wrong in that respect. I agree that likely the rebels will lose, and I offered no opinion either way on what action should be taken aside from a moral standpoint. While you might not necessarily agree with some of the examples, but there ARE dozens of examples of people fighting for freedoms that the libyan people are fighting for now. Tianmen Square, China (thousands of civilians are killed by the army) Buddhist March, Burma (thousands of unarmed monks arrested and executed while demanding democracy) Red March, Thailand (a million people last year marched on the capital and demanded democracy, clashing with the army, The only difference is the Thai leader wasnt a lunatic and attacking his own people. Eventually he did killing hundreds) Afganistan North alliance which fought the taliban for almost two decades of civil war for freedom from their regime. I could come up with dozens of more examples. On top of that, there are hundreds of examples of people fighting for what they would call freedom, if not democracy. To be clear, I never suggested intervention wasnt necessarily needed, or that I was against it. Merely that the situation is lose lose for the west. Tiamen square was not thousands, more like 500-1000 tops, yes it was handled poorly and is considered(even admitted by PRC) to be one of the worst mistakes in the history of the PRC. But don't overexxegerate your numbers. The reason people are asking America is because they have a (perhaps flawed) image of a perfect democracy in America, the land of hope, wealth and money. America is also known to intervene in such countries in the past, hence why people are asking for America to do it.
And the fact that America is the only country that can unilaterally project military power from the other side of the world.
|
On March 14 2011 02:23 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:16 Keniji wrote:On March 14 2011 02:06 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:28 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:25 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:15 bananafever wrote:
[quote]
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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. I agree. But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should? Of course the West (NATO) should intervene. If they don't intervene here what must happen till they do? Both the rebels as well as the arab league have asked for an no-fly zone. It's not like they would invade or smth similiar. The rebels were only recently in favor of a no-fly zone. Also I don't think people realize how costly a no fly zone is to maintain. Even then, Gaddafi's aircraft are only a part of the issue. The real problem is the armor and artillery. The rebels only have small arms and manpower. It would be suicide for them to cross large swaths of desert without armored support or cover.
source? I'm pretty sure the rebels have asked for a no-fly zone for quite some time now. Basically from the time the air attacks started/they had some "spokesman".
The arab league just have asked recently, yes
And money shouldn't be the main issue
|
On March 14 2011 03:06 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 02:23 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 02:16 Keniji wrote:On March 14 2011 02:06 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:28 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:25 Consolidate wrote:
[quote]
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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. I agree. But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should? Of course the West (NATO) should intervene. If they don't intervene here what must happen till they do? Both the rebels as well as the arab league have asked for an no-fly zone. It's not like they would invade or smth similiar. The rebels were only recently in favor of a no-fly zone. Also I don't think people realize how costly a no fly zone is to maintain. Even then, Gaddafi's aircraft are only a part of the issue. The real problem is the armor and artillery. The rebels only have small arms and manpower. It would be suicide for them to cross large swaths of desert without armored support or cover. source? I'm pretty sure the rebels have asked for a no-fly zone for quite some time now. Basically from the time the air attacks started/they had some "spokesman". The arab league just have asked recently, yes And money shouldn't be the main issue
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Clinton-Says-All-Options-Open-on-Libya-117155238.html
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congressmen Libyan rebel factions fighting Muammar Gadhafi’s government oppose outside military intervention on their behalf."
|
I'm pretty sure the no-fly zone was demanded just a few days after; I'd say around the fifth, but I have no source. But it was demanded before the Arab league did, as the rebels encountered heavy weaponry coming from Syrte and were losing the cities next to Tripoli.
The no-fly zone should be a start. If anything, the rebels need heavier equipment to match Ghadaffi's artillery and armored vehicles. However, they should already have such support near Benghazi (captured ennemy tanks/equipment from Benghazi military base) Preventing bombings would allow those forces to move in the open towards the front.
Ghadaffi's firepower has also often been exaggerated. One should not forget that a great part of his arsenal is composed of outdated cold-war equipment (which was sadly partially renovated not long ago).
|
Either way as the world talks Gaddafi keeps advancing, think this editorial cartoon sums it up perfectly:
![[image loading]](http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/img/photos/2011/03/07/03-07_Adam_Zyglis_t607.jpg)
|
On March 14 2011 03:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Either way as the world talks Gaddafi keeps advancing, think this editorial cartoon sums it up perfectly:
You really think the US is hesitant because of oil?
Not two weeks ago the rebels were directly opposed to the idea of any foreign intervention.
You really think that it would be wise for the US to unilaterally intervene without properly assessing the situation?
|
On March 14 2011 03:16 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 03:06 Keniji wrote:On March 14 2011 02:23 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 02:16 Keniji wrote:On March 14 2011 02:06 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 14 2011 01:53 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:40 bananafever wrote:On March 14 2011 01:34 Consolidate wrote:On March 14 2011 01:28 bananafever wrote:
[quote]
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.. You lack perspective. All events, no matter now dramatic or romantic, should be viewed within the context of sober reality. The reality is that there is Libya is probably going to be worse off after this 'revolution' regardless of the outcome. The reality is that all developed states have severe domestic concerns with regard to their own internal affairs. They have neither the political capital nor will to engage in significant military operations on the behalf of Libyan rebels. It doesn't help that Libyan rebels are disorganized and coordination with them would be extremely difficult. The cause of these revolutions is due to rising food prices, inflation, and high rates of unemployed youth. It is difficult to believe that people all across the Middle East were suddenly compelled to revolt due to a spontaneous desire for a constitutional democracy. If people hadn't be dying of hunger and extremely angry against the monarchy because of its insolent wealth, there wouldn't have been a revolution in France. You could say that the revolution of 1789 didn't happen because of a spontaneous desire for the Republic, democracy and the enlightment ideals, but because of misery, hunger, and hard life. Result is the same. Revolutions happen both for negative and substantial reasons. People are smart enough to know that tyranny is the cause of their misery, and that democracy (not necessarly liberal democracy though) is their interest. I agree. But my main point is that the West will not intervene. Do you think they should? Of course the West (NATO) should intervene. If they don't intervene here what must happen till they do? Both the rebels as well as the arab league have asked for an no-fly zone. It's not like they would invade or smth similiar. The rebels were only recently in favor of a no-fly zone. Also I don't think people realize how costly a no fly zone is to maintain. Even then, Gaddafi's aircraft are only a part of the issue. The real problem is the armor and artillery. The rebels only have small arms and manpower. It would be suicide for them to cross large swaths of desert without armored support or cover. source? I'm pretty sure the rebels have asked for a no-fly zone for quite some time now. Basically from the time the air attacks started/they had some "spokesman". The arab league just have asked recently, yes And money shouldn't be the main issue http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Clinton-Says-All-Options-Open-on-Libya-117155238.html"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congressmen Libyan rebel factions fighting Muammar Gadhafi’s government oppose outside military intervention on their behalf."
Well ok, your newspost is from the 1st of march. I think the rebels asked for a no-fly zone from the 6th or 7th of march. (that the earliest reports I can find right now)
We probably just have a different opinion of what recently is. (tho I thought they asked even earlier, but seems like I was wrong).
Edit:
I actually don't know how long they have asked. The rebels "claim" they have asked "from day one" for a no-fly zone. At least Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Libyan Council, says so
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
