|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 18 2011 08:03 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 07:53 Ocedic wrote:On March 18 2011 07:49 Elegy wrote:On March 18 2011 07:47 Ocedic wrote:On March 18 2011 07:45 s.a.y wrote:
I was hoping China would vote yes.
Lets hope that Gadafi does go away soon. Seems like it would be smart to vote yes if you're going to abstain from a sure-win vote anyways. In a purely pragmatic sense, at least you don't look like the bad guys, even if for whatever reason you don't actually support it. No way, China voting yes on this invalidates decades of Chinese foreign policy goals, same for Russia. Abstaining is the best they could hope for, voting yes would be both hypocritical and have negative consequences down the road in terms of setting precedent also LOL @ the American lady, St. Patrick's Day much? She has a terrible voice though  What would be those foreign policies that make them abstain/vote no? I'm not arguing, I'd just like to learn more about world politics. Supporting NK for one... And albeit not a foreign political subject, China isn't really a democracy either so should protests arise the Chinese government would be in quite a pickle...
China has nothing to lose by abstaining(they probably asumed correctly that it would be adopted anyway) and they have some things to lose. Such as political relations with countries(which means economic, like oil ofcourse).
All in all Abstaining the vote is the best thing to do for China.
Edit: On the one hand it is amazing to see them celebrate, on the other hand I am scared shitless that Khadafi might just bomb that area right now.
|
US rep looks worried by Russian words.
|
On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision.
Seriously?
|
On March 18 2011 08:06 jello_biafra wrote:Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
|
On March 18 2011 08:07 RxN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 08:06 jello_biafra wrote:On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision. Seriously? Yes, seriously.
might explain?
|
On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision. The US was strong-armed into this by the oil-grubbing European powers.
Not really lol. Italy and Germany didn't want to mess with Libya and they are the most concerned about the Libyan oil :S
|
Russian feels the changes in the resolution were made to fast. Use of force is not well limited. And the resolution goes further then the request of the arab ligue. Furthermore legimit concerns of russia that were made during the creation of the resolution were not answered.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Ugh, looks like Egypt won't join, but I think that is understandable seeing as Egypt is not 100% stable yet.
|
http://skynewslivestream.com/
Skynews coverage of the events. Time to celebrate for the Libyan people, and for the dictator to plan an escape or go even more extreme.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision. The US was strong-armed into this by the oil-grubbing European powers.
Fuck, I can't believe the US would agree to military action out of humanitarian need rather than strategic interests.
The US doesn't get strong armed into decisions like this. Removing Gaddafi and preventing that massacre is an important step for international security, especially because the US didn't lead the charge.
That said, it remains to be seen who will actually enforce it. I see no reason why the ALA shouldn't spearhead something like this.
|
Maybe gaddafi will bomb some planes like the last time... who knows ?
His options are severely limited now.
|
On March 18 2011 08:07 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 08:07 RxN wrote:On March 18 2011 08:06 jello_biafra wrote:On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision. Seriously? Yes, seriously. might explain?
To keep it short: It's a civil war, for starters. Libya is of no strategic value to the US. Libyans, by and large, hate the US and will go right back to doing that after we rescue them. Eastern Libya is loaded with jihadists and the eastern town of Darnah sent more foreign fighters to Iraq than any other town or city in the world (and that includes Riyadh). The English and French don't actually care about the people, they care about the oil they've negotiated for (i.e., the British being involved in the release of the Lockerbie bomber). The US, even if we let the Europeans do the rest of the legwork, will still be the focus of Muslim rage and continually labeled as "imperialists". And most of all, I don't want to risk US lives to further other's interests.
I'm not a fan of Gadaffi by any means but I've long grown tired of people chastising the US for playing world police and then looking for us to lead the calls for military intervention anytime it falls in line with their agenda. And to top it off, this is two weeks too late.
Are we going to get involved in every civil war now? Maybe we can swing through Iran and then make our way through Africa and up through South America on our way home.
|
Italy have offered their airfields for use by British and French planes, Germany and Turkey are refusing to participate and no one knows what American intentions are so so far the UK and France are only ones confirmed to be implementing it.
|
United States22883 Posts
Weird double post. Comcast is being terrible. :/
|
On March 18 2011 08:06 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 08:03 Ghostcom wrote:On March 18 2011 07:53 Ocedic wrote:On March 18 2011 07:49 Elegy wrote:On March 18 2011 07:47 Ocedic wrote:On March 18 2011 07:45 s.a.y wrote:
I was hoping China would vote yes.
Lets hope that Gadafi does go away soon. Seems like it would be smart to vote yes if you're going to abstain from a sure-win vote anyways. In a purely pragmatic sense, at least you don't look like the bad guys, even if for whatever reason you don't actually support it. No way, China voting yes on this invalidates decades of Chinese foreign policy goals, same for Russia. Abstaining is the best they could hope for, voting yes would be both hypocritical and have negative consequences down the road in terms of setting precedent also LOL @ the American lady, St. Patrick's Day much? She has a terrible voice though What would be those foreign policies that make them abstain/vote no? I'm not arguing, I'd just like to learn more about world politics. Supporting NK for one... And albeit not a foreign political subject, China isn't really a democracy either so should protests arise the Chinese government would be in quite a pickle... China has nothing to lose by abstaining(they probably asumed correctly that it would be adopted anyway) and they have some things to lose. Such as political relations with countries(which means economic, like oil ofcourse). All in all Abstaining the vote is the best thing to do for China. Edit: On the one hand it is amazing to see them celebrate, on the other hand I am scared shitless that Khadafi might just bomb that area right now.
So you quoted me to say that you agreed? Okay 
Btw, DK FIGHTING! We got 1 (lol yeah we are terrible) F16 in Sicily... Wonder why we haven't sent them all...
EDIT: Let me correct that... We sent 4 F16 on Sicily!
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Confirmed btw, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia and China abstained.(not South-Africa)
I hope more countries will work together to make this work, I hope that Italy will not only support with its airfield but also with air support.
Frankly, I wouldn't be suprised as Italy will do as much as it can to avoid additional refugees to Italy.
|
On March 18 2011 08:13 RxN wrote:
Are we going to get involved in every civil war now? Maybe we can swing through Iran and then make our way through Africa and up through South America on our way home.
Lol it's actually exactly what the US did during the Cold War (or almost). Nothing new...
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On March 18 2011 08:07 RxN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 08:06 jello_biafra wrote:On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision. The US was strong-armed into this by the oil-grubbing European powers. Seriously? Yes, seriously.
Come on. You get to shoot the sky clear of Cold War Soviet tech, WITH a UN resolution for the GOOD cause! For 70 years you spend unthinkable amounts of money on all those toys, be happy you can finally use them on what they were designed for. OK I should stop with this.
Anyway, the oil grubbing European powers were getting oil just fine from Ghadaffi before. If we were after oil we should start bombing the rebels. A regime change will certainly impact oil output form Libya heavily.
|
On March 18 2011 08:17 Kipsate wrote:
I hope that Italy will not only support with its airfield but also with air support.
Frankly, I wouldn't be suprised as Italy will do as much as it can to avoid additional refugees to Italy.
No they have officially stated that they won't get directly involved, same as Germany and Turkey.
On March 18 2011 08:13 RxN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 08:07 Keniji wrote:On March 18 2011 08:07 RxN wrote:On March 18 2011 08:06 jello_biafra wrote:On March 18 2011 08:05 RxN wrote:
Horrible decision. Seriously? Yes, seriously. might explain? The English and French don't actually care about the people, they care about the oil they've negotiated for
So they want to destroy the regime they negotiated that deal with in order to continue that oil deal? o_O
|
On March 18 2011 08:18 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 08:13 RxN wrote:
Are we going to get involved in every civil war now? Maybe we can swing through Iran and then make our way through Africa and up through South America on our way home. Lol it's actually exactly what the US did during the Cold War (or almost). Nothing new...
And? It wasn't right then and it's not right now. Or is it right now because it furthers the French agenda?
You French were the most adamant about this No-Fly Zone. I wonder why that was? Can't have anything to do with the fact that Europe is much more dependent on Libyan oil than we in the US are, can it?
And why do we pick and choose which protesters to help? Twice now we've thrown the people of Iran to the wolves. Where were the calls for military intervention when the Mullahs were smashing the Iranian civilians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
