|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 18 2011 10:51 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 10:46 Kukaracha wrote:
I don't get people bitching about this. So it's all or nothing? Wow, what a subtle approach my dear friends!
I hope your chair is comfy. You don't understand the implications of what this intervention means. It's as simple as that.
No, you don't understand that governments are not ignorant fools and that this was well-thought - more than you could.
And no, it wasn't about the oil. Libya is a strategic point in the way to Europe (immigration, jihadism). The west needs Libya to be an ally. Oil is a small factor among others.
And for God's sake stop comparing Iraq to Libya! Did you even follow the events in Iraq? Everyone knew that the intervention motives were bogus, the world disapproved the US and France veto'ed that war in the UN council. And that's just in terms of legitimacy.
|
Finally, someone does something against Gaddafi slaughtering his own people! Not all hope is lost, then.
|
So is germany against it because any other reason than Angela not wanting more shit because she's hanging lose?
Anyway, good work UN for once.
I don't care for what reason they're doing it, atleast they are. The people getting bombed by Ghadaffi won't care why they're being saved.
|
I'm happy as hell that the UN is finally doing what its supposed to do. I don't get how anybody can be against this. So there are future political implications. There are future implications if u don't help too. Weigh the pros and cons. If not in this case then I ask the naysayers when? What use is the UN if not for helping an under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher? The UN security council should be disbanded if they never intervene.
|
On March 18 2011 18:56 Pika Chu wrote:
This is horrible news. The world is going into a mess again.
Please, next time you see terrorist attacks in europe don't fucking ask yourselves why. This is why. Everyone is going to yell, omg innocent people dieing, you think the war on libya won't kill innocents? If you do think so you're out of your minds.
Sad day for the world, just as sad as the day we turned Iraq into a mess.
Why the fuck would you even go there? Don't be ridiculous.
What I find mildly hilarious (read: stupid as fuck and actually not remotely funny) is how much Khadafi must appreciate the Japan crisis. Everything going in his favour, while media attentin is mainly looking at Japan since the tsunami and obviously with the nuclear issue he can pretty much do what he wills with his people. Unfortunate case of incidents for Libyans, if there ever was any.
Edit: Would like to chip in that my mind will be blown a thousand times if the UN does something major over in Libya.
|
On March 18 2011 18:56 Pika Chu wrote:
This is horrible news. The world is going into a mess again.
Please, next time you see terrorist attacks in europe don't fucking ask yourselves why. This is why. Everyone is going to yell, omg innocent people dieing, you think the war on libya won't kill innocents? If you do think so you're out of your minds.
You're right. Clearly we should just let Gaddaffi bomb his own population. That way no innocents die. Oh wait...........
What are you saying? That you support Gaddaffi's actions? Then its you who is out of their mind
|
On March 18 2011 18:56 Pika Chu wrote:
This is horrible news. The world is going into a mess again.
Please, next time you see terrorist attacks in europe don't fucking ask yourselves why. This is why. Everyone is going to yell, omg innocent people dieing, you think the war on libya won't kill innocents? If you do think so you're out of your minds.
Sad day for the world, just as sad as the day we turned Iraq into a mess.
Extactly what I was talking about! It has NOTHING to do with Iraq! Nothing! Justs stop saying this please.
And there has always been civilian casualties and friendly fire. Just check the estimated numbers of soldiers who died from friendly fire and you'll see that no, it doesn't make the big news, even though it's a tremendous amount.
We had 2 options: Ghadaffi, or no Ghadaffi. First one would've crushed the opposition, and THEN you get the development of underground organizations like Al-Qaida.
Ghadaffi had little support from the population. We could've sacrificed the population for the leader. But the situation would've been worse.
To all of those whining and trying to be smart about this, please provide possible alternatives instead of blindly comparing a dinosaur to a cat.
|
Terrible descision by UN, it will lead only to more destruction and nothing else. Italy and France are scared that Kadaffi will get out not some pleasing facts for Sarcosi and Berslusconi (he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections) and are doing what they can to stop this. Pathethic.
|
|
|
On March 18 2011 18:48 dafunk wrote:
I still do think its an oil problematic. Not as bad as what Americans did in Irak, attacking a country based on false accusations (that every governement knew of, thats why France did refuse to engage in this war).
If Khadafi take control of Libya again, European countries would be obliged to take some actions like an embargo (because of peoples opinion), that would have affected our oil importations and prices. Therefore we have to prevent Khadafi from doing it by attacking or at least force him to negociate.
It's just "realpolitik" with some sort of "moral" to back up our actions. We have to not be naive about these kind of operations.
Iraq wasn't about oil at all. It was a popular idea when the war first began but if people just take a look at the facts you just can't keep those claims up.
Did the USA take any oil? Did the US force Iraq into signing off the rights to the oil?
Was Saddam refusing to sell the oil?
The oil situation for the US did not improve at all with the invasion of Iraq. The US could have been BFF's with Sadam in a year if they wanted to and he never stopped selling oil. People pretend like the US moved in like vikings and stole all the oil, it's just not fucking true.
It's so frustrating, you people just keep bringing up the oil argument but there isn't any shred of proof to it. You people refuse to learn that Libya produces 1.7 million barrels per day wich makes it's production non-vital.
You people make up illogical arguments like how the EU has to take down a dictator that wants to sell them oil...so they can get to the oil? I want to buy an apple so i think ill bash the fruit vendors face in and burn his store down, then ill have a steady supply of apples.
Terrible descision by UN, it will lead only to more destruction and nothing else. Italy and France are scared that Kadaffi will get out not some pleasing facts for Sarcosi and Berslusconi (he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections) and are doing what they can to stop this. Pathethic.
I am sure Gadaffi isn't full of shit, ooh wait...
He might have given some money but it's not like he was shaking hands whilst pushing piles of money into their hands and giving a suggestive wink.
Sarcosi and Berlusconi, despite what you may believe, are not on Gaddaffi's paycheck. The guy is insane and will yell out whatever he wants.
I mean honestly? There isn't any proof but the word of a mass murderer is enough for you?
|
On March 18 2011 19:01 pylonsalad wrote:
I'm happy as hell that the UN is finally doing what its supposed to do. I don't get how anybody can be against this. So there are future political implications. There are future implications if u don't help too. Weigh the pros and cons. If not in this case then I ask the naysayers when? What use is the UN if not for helping an under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher? The UN security council should be disbanded if they never intervene.
I am against this and i don't understand how someone can be pro this.
I stated my motives many times and the only motive most have to intervene is this romantic way of viewing the situation "under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher". When will people realize this is bullshit and this is going to turn into a big can of worms long term?
Why is intervening in Libya prioritary to intervening in Bahrain? This is stupid hypocrisy.
And we're allowing a stupid compromise to go with this, you don't see it? Why do you think China/Russia abstained from voting instead of vetoing? It's a deal made where China/Russia won't have any problems of beating the crap out of anyone in tibet/other former urss republics who wanna be free because everyone else will close eyes.
|
All humanitarian intervention is risky - the results are impossible to predict, and it's very hard not to get further embroiled than planned. Helping in Libya isn't necessarily a good idea.
Having said this, the constant comparisons to Iraq are ludicrous.
In the current case we have a people fighting their own democratic revolution and calling out for support. We have the international community as united as they can ever practically be. We have (against all my personal expectations) an incredibly strong UN resolution.
It might still be a mistake, but it's just not the same as Iraq.
|
On March 18 2011 19:06 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +Terrible descision by UN, it will lead only to more destruction and nothing else. Italy and France are scared that Kadaffi will get out not some pleasing facts for Sarcosi and Berslusconi (he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections) and are doing what they can to stop this. Pathethic. I am sure Gadaffi isn't full of shit, ooh wait... He might have given some money but it's not like he was shaking hands whilst pushing piles of money into their hands and giving a suggestive wink. Sarcosi and Berlusconi, despite what you may believe, are not on Gaddaffi's paycheck. The guy is insane and will yell out whatever he wants. I mean honestly? There isn't any proof but the word of a mass murderer is enough for you?
Mass murderer? I dont know. I dont trust what media says. Exactly the opposite. I think twice before believing anything written or said by mainstream media.
As I said already in this thread my relatives have worked in Libya for many years. When I was a child I was also there for few months. Never seen anyone who hates Kadaffi, neither my aunt or uncle or grandmother who have worked there for 10 years know anyone who wants Kadaffi out.
Let Libya deal with its own problems.
|
On March 18 2011 19:10 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:01 pylonsalad wrote:
I'm happy as hell that the UN is finally doing what its supposed to do. I don't get how anybody can be against this. So there are future political implications. There are future implications if u don't help too. Weigh the pros and cons. If not in this case then I ask the naysayers when? What use is the UN if not for helping an under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher? The UN security council should be disbanded if they never intervene. I am against this and i don't understand how someone can be pro this. I stated my motives many times and the only motive most have to intervene is this romantic way of viewing the situation "under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher". When will people realize this is bullshit and this is going to turn into a big can of worms long term? Why is intervening in Libya prioritary to intervening in Bahrain? This is stupid hypocrisy. And we're allowing a stupid compromise to go with this, you don't see it? Why do you think China/Russia abstained from voting instead of vetoing? It's a deal made where China/Russia won't have any problems of beating the crap out of anyone in tibet/other former urss republics who wanna be free because everyone else will close eyes.
I ask you again then: why not just dissolve the UN if this is your approach?
|
On March 18 2011 19:06 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 18:48 dafunk wrote:
I still do think its an oil problematic. Not as bad as what Americans did in Irak, attacking a country based on false accusations (that every governement knew of, thats why France did refuse to engage in this war).
If Khadafi take control of Libya again, European countries would be obliged to take some actions like an embargo (because of peoples opinion), that would have affected our oil importations and prices. Therefore we have to prevent Khadafi from doing it by attacking or at least force him to negociate.
It's just "realpolitik" with some sort of "moral" to back up our actions. We have to not be naive about these kind of operations. Iraq wasn't about oil at all. It was a popular idea when the war first began but if people just take a look at the facts you just can't keep those claims up. Did the USA take any oil? Did the US force Iraq into signing off the rights to the oil? Was Saddam refusing to sell the oil? The oil situation for the US did not improve at all with the invasion of Iraq. The US could have been BFF's with Sadam in a year if they wanted to and he never stopped selling oil. People pretend like the US moved in like vikings and stole all the oil, it's just not fucking true. It's so frustrating, you people just keep bringing up the oil argument but there isn't any shred of proof to it. You people refuse to learn that Libya produces 1.7 million barrels per day wich makes it's production non-vital. You people make up illogical arguments like how the EU has to take down a dictator that wants to sell them oil...so they can get to the oil? I want to buy an apple so i think ill bash the fruit vendors face in and burn his store down, then ill have a steady supply of apples. Show nested quote +Terrible descision by UN, it will lead only to more destruction and nothing else. Italy and France are scared that Kadaffi will get out not some pleasing facts for Sarcosi and Berslusconi (he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections) and are doing what they can to stop this. Pathethic. I am sure Gadaffi isn't full of shit, ooh wait... He might have given some money but it's not like he was shaking hands whilst pushing piles of money into their hands and giving a suggestive wink. Sarcosi and Berlusconi, despite what you may believe, are not on Gaddaffi's paycheck. The guy is insane and will yell out whatever he wants. I mean honestly? There isn't any proof but the word of a mass murderer is enough for you?
Well said mate. I didnt want to get into the whole oil debate, but you've said most things I would have done.
The only other thing worth mentioning is that if the US only wanted Iraqi oil, they could simply have removed the sanctions which were the only thing keeping the oil off the international market in the first place.
Back to Libya: Gaddaffi has announced that he will begin attacking civilian targets in the med (he mentions attacking passenger planes) if the Un attacks
|
On March 18 2011 19:05 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 18:56 Pika Chu wrote:
This is horrible news. The world is going into a mess again.
Please, next time you see terrorist attacks in europe don't fucking ask yourselves why. This is why. Everyone is going to yell, omg innocent people dieing, you think the war on libya won't kill innocents? If you do think so you're out of your minds.
Sad day for the world, just as sad as the day we turned Iraq into a mess. Extactly what I was talking about! It has NOTHING to do with Iraq! Nothing! Justs stop saying this please. And there has always been civilian casualties and friendly fire. Just check the estimated numbers of soldiers who died from friendly fire and you'll see that no, it doesn't make the big news, even though it's a tremendous amount. We had 2 options: Ghadaffi, or no Ghadaffi. First one would've crushed the opposition, and THEN you get the development of underground organizations like Al-Qaida. Ghadaffi had little support from the population. We could've sacrificed the population for the leader. But the situation would've been worse. To all of those whining and trying to be smart about this, please provide possible alternatives instead of blindly comparing a dinosaur to a cat.
I am comparing to Iraq from a different point of view, try to comprehend it. It's not the reasons, it's opening a can of worms for a long while.
No, we had the option of not interfering. So if it's Ghaddafi what? At least under Gaddafi the country was stable, and for crying out loud Al-quaida is already supporting the rebelion.
I think Gadaffi has more support from population than you believe. If even 10% of the population supports him, they aren't going to give up.
I'm not supporting Gadaffi's actions, i'm thinking from a very objective point of view how it's better for everyone (a geopolitical stand and for the population of libya).
|
On March 18 2011 19:14 pylonsalad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:10 Pika Chu wrote:On March 18 2011 19:01 pylonsalad wrote:
I'm happy as hell that the UN is finally doing what its supposed to do. I don't get how anybody can be against this. So there are future political implications. There are future implications if u don't help too. Weigh the pros and cons. If not in this case then I ask the naysayers when? What use is the UN if not for helping an under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher? The UN security council should be disbanded if they never intervene. I am against this and i don't understand how someone can be pro this. I stated my motives many times and the only motive most have to intervene is this romantic way of viewing the situation "under-armed democracy-seeking population get rid of a butcher". When will people realize this is bullshit and this is going to turn into a big can of worms long term? Why is intervening in Libya prioritary to intervening in Bahrain? This is stupid hypocrisy. And we're allowing a stupid compromise to go with this, you don't see it? Why do you think China/Russia abstained from voting instead of vetoing? It's a deal made where China/Russia won't have any problems of beating the crap out of anyone in tibet/other former urss republics who wanna be free because everyone else will close eyes. I ask you again then: why not just dissolve the UN if this is your approach?
You don't understand UN's role. UN is a table where the big players negotiate and make deals which put their interest on everyone else.
I ask you, why do we support such hypocrisy from it? Why are we going to help rebels in Libya but not in Bahrain?
|
On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:05 Kukaracha wrote:On March 18 2011 18:56 Pika Chu wrote:
This is horrible news. The world is going into a mess again.
Please, next time you see terrorist attacks in europe don't fucking ask yourselves why. This is why. Everyone is going to yell, omg innocent people dieing, you think the war on libya won't kill innocents? If you do think so you're out of your minds.
Sad day for the world, just as sad as the day we turned Iraq into a mess. Extactly what I was talking about! It has NOTHING to do with Iraq! Nothing! Justs stop saying this please. And there has always been civilian casualties and friendly fire. Just check the estimated numbers of soldiers who died from friendly fire and you'll see that no, it doesn't make the big news, even though it's a tremendous amount. We had 2 options: Ghadaffi, or no Ghadaffi. First one would've crushed the opposition, and THEN you get the development of underground organizations like Al-Qaida. Ghadaffi had little support from the population. We could've sacrificed the population for the leader. But the situation would've been worse. To all of those whining and trying to be smart about this, please provide possible alternatives instead of blindly comparing a dinosaur to a cat. I am comparing to Iraq from a different point of view, try to comprehend it. It's not the reasons, it's opening a can of worms for a long while. No, we had the option of not interfering. So if it's Ghaddafi what? At least under Gaddafi the country was stable, and for crying out loud Al-quaida is already supporting the rebelion. I think Gadaffi has more support from population than you believe. If even 10% of the population supports him, they aren't going to give up. I'm not supporting Gadaffi's actions, i'm thinking from a very objective point of view how it's better for everyone (a geopolitical stand and for the population of libya).
Libya isn't stable now, that's the point. Doesn't fucking matter what happened yesterday, the problem is here today. You (and I) have no idea what would happen if there was a major effort to remove Khadaffi and he was removed, that wil simply be speculation but you can't compare the Libya situation to just any other. Hell, compared one nations crisis to another is overall a stupid idea as there are so many factors at play no one has any clue about.
I cannot, however, see how it's objectively better to let Khadaffi murder half his population and turn a blind eye.
Oh and stop the bullshit about hypocrisies. Do you think we'd be better off doing nothing at all?
|
On March 18 2011 19:14 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:06 zalz wrote:Terrible descision by UN, it will lead only to more destruction and nothing else. Italy and France are scared that Kadaffi will get out not some pleasing facts for Sarcosi and Berslusconi (he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections) and are doing what they can to stop this. Pathethic. I am sure Gadaffi isn't full of shit, ooh wait... He might have given some money but it's not like he was shaking hands whilst pushing piles of money into their hands and giving a suggestive wink. Sarcosi and Berlusconi, despite what you may believe, are not on Gaddaffi's paycheck. The guy is insane and will yell out whatever he wants. I mean honestly? There isn't any proof but the word of a mass murderer is enough for you? Never seen anyone who hates Kadaffi, neither my aunt or uncle or grandmother who have worked there for 10 years know anyone who wants Kadaffi out.
Lets be honest im going to believe the newspapers over the "my uncle say so" type of argument.
Did you just refuse to turn the tv on over the past few weeks then? Oh I forget, you dont trust "main-stream" media. Clearly mr murdoch must have hired actors to pose as demonstrators.
|
(he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections)
He's claiming it since weeks and still has nothing to backup it. Wouldn't it be the time to reveal everything ? The guy is insane if you didn't notice...
And just to make it clear : I'm all against Sarkozy. But can't be against him on this one.
On March 18 2011 19:06 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 18:48 dafunk wrote:
I still do think its an oil problematic. Not as bad as what Americans did in Irak, attacking a country based on false accusations (that every governement knew of, thats why France did refuse to engage in this war).
If Khadafi take control of Libya again, European countries would be obliged to take some actions like an embargo (because of peoples opinion), that would have affected our oil importations and prices. Therefore we have to prevent Khadafi from doing it by attacking or at least force him to negociate.
It's just "realpolitik" with some sort of "moral" to back up our actions. We have to not be naive about these kind of operations. Iraq wasn't about oil at all. It was a popular idea when the war first began but if people just take a look at the facts you just can't keep those claims up. Did the USA take any oil? Did the US force Iraq into signing off the rights to the oil? Was Saddam refusing to sell the oil? The oil situation for the US did not improve at all with the invasion of Iraq. The US could have been BFF's with Sadam in a year if they wanted to and he never stopped selling oil. People pretend like the US moved in like vikings and stole all the oil, it's just not fucking true. It's so frustrating, you people just keep bringing up the oil argument but there isn't any shred of proof to it. You people refuse to learn that Libya produces 1.7 million barrels per day wich makes it's production non-vital. You people make up illogical arguments like how the EU has to take down a dictator that wants to sell them oil...so they can get to the oil? I want to buy an apple so i think ill bash the fruit vendors face in and burn his store down, then ill have a steady supply of apples. Show nested quote +Terrible descision by UN, it will lead only to more destruction and nothing else. Italy and France are scared that Kadaffi will get out not some pleasing facts for Sarcosi and Berslusconi (he already said that he had sponsored Sarcosi for the last elections) and are doing what they can to stop this. Pathethic. I am sure Gadaffi isn't full of shit, ooh wait... He might have given some money but it's not like he was shaking hands whilst pushing piles of money into their hands and giving a suggestive wink. Sarcosi and Berlusconi, despite what you may believe, are not on Gaddaffi's paycheck. The guy is insane and will yell out whatever he wants. I mean honestly? There isn't any proof but the word of a mass murderer is enough for you?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/05/the_ministry_of_oil_defense
HAVE FUN
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
