|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 18 2011 19:00 Krehlmar wrote:
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.
Not really. Merkel is known for always trying to calm both sides and therefore never doing anything. Even more so now that regional votes are coming up and she had alot of trouble with guttenberg and nuclear plants.
Seems like Germany wants to increase their engagement in afghanistan, so the US can use those forces in Lybia. Mainly AWACS.
|
On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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?
No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments.
Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain?
I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing.
Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun.
|
I think we can all agree that something needs to be done ASAP in other words today. The Battle of Ajdabiya is ongoing and the Rebels could really use the help.
The U.S. backing for international action comes after several administration officials questioned the plan for providing aerial cover, with the Pentagon perhaps the most vociferous in its skepticism. It has described the no-fly zone as a step tantamount to war, and a number of U.S. officials have expressed fears that involvement in Libya could further strain America's already stretched military and entangle the country in an expensive and messy conflict in another Muslim country.
The details of any U.S. military action were still unclear. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told Congress it would take as much as a week to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
After the resolution, President Barack Obama spoke with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron and the leaders "agreed that Libya must immediately comply with all terms of the resolution and that violence against the civilian population of Libya must cease," according to a White House statement.
"The leaders agreed to coordinate closely on next steps, and to continue working with Arab and other international partners to ensure the enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya," it added.
Time is of the essence: Gadhafi vowed Thursday to launch a final assault on the opposition's capital Benghazi and crush the rebellion as his forces advanced toward the city and warplanes bombed its airport.
And while the U.N. resolution's authorization of a no-fly zone over the country and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians may add pressure on Gadhafi and show him that far more powerful forces are coming, the unpredictable leader has refused to heed the countless calls for him to step aside after 42 years in control of his country. And he has pledged to fight to the death.
Even before the Security Council's 10-0 vote, the Obama administration readied plans to enforce the no-fly zone, with congressional officials describing a closed-door briefing in which the administration said it could ground Gadhafi's air force by Sunday or Monday. The effort likely will involve jet fighters, bombers and surveillance aircraft, officials said, and the U.S. is keen to have Arab countries such as Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participate in the operation.
Source
|
On March 18 2011 19:24 Mofisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:14 mdb wrote: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. 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.
Great sarcasm, man. I bet you are the funniest guy in your neighborhood.
Of course I`m not denying that there are demonstrators. Of course that there is uprising. My point is that the rebels are not the majority of the population. There are a lot of peole who support Kadaffi.
No one really knows how many people support the goverment and how many support the rebels.
|
On March 18 2011 19:19 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:14 pylonsalad wrote: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?
I am not so niave to believe we can right all wrongs. Does that mean we shouldn't even act once just for the sake of consistency? If we can solve one problem out of one hundred, is that not better than zero? The difference between Bahrain and Libya right now is that the ruler of Bahrain has not threatened to exterminate the entire population who oppose him. That is more than a minor difference don't you think?
|
On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun.
Yes, it would get 'stable'. What do you think will happen to the rebels, and anyone opposing the regime now? I doubt they'll get a pardon and head back home to continue on with their lives. That's a fucking price not worth paying.
Neither did I say Libya must be helped over Bahrain. I'll be honest and say I haven't followed Bahrain the last couple of days, but assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) it's as bad or nearly as bad I can't give a good reason. Yeah, it sucks to be in Bahrain but helping one is better than helping none.
And uh, what's with people online always feeling like they're above the media? Damn, he's fighting his own people because they don't want him as leader and he doesn't accept that. If that isn't murdering his population I don't know what is.
|
On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun.
Want to talk about Ceaușescu ?
They are just asking for some liberty for god sake. We arnt talking about terrorists or islamists. We are talking about people that want to be free and are denied this by a dictator. It's alraight to be denied I should say.
But when the guy is about to kill thousands of his own people and do a crime against humanity, you have to say "stop".
The situation in Bahrain isnt the same because governement isnt mass murdering his own population. Sure there have been some damages but not that important. And I'm sure we will also intervene if something like this happen there.
|
12:25am
Reports of four people dead and some 70 injured in Friday mornings attacks on Libyan city of Misurata. (Al-Arabiya)
|
On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun.
You cannot compare Bahrain and Lybia for one in Lybia there is an ARMED revolution and in Bahrain there is not. How is having a no fly zone in Bahrain going to help anyone? Hipocracy is certainly not an argument to not intervene if anything it's an argument to also help the people in bahrain not to not intervene in Lybia.
And yeah it could be stable if we let it sort them out but do you really think Gadaffi will let everyone live in benghazi after he wins? Certainly not a lot of people will get killed and don't all these uprisings say enough? Even in Tripoli and fucking Sirte his birth place people were protesting. In Sirte they even hung the flag of the opposition for a while. It's clear these people have enough of Gadaffi and him staying is in nobody's interest but himself.
|
On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun.
Are Bahrain protesters getting bombed by airplanes? are they getting shot at by Tanks? Bahrain has nothing of a civil war.
And the protesters were peaceful until the Army started murdering them. I call bs on the hanging police. got any sources?
|
No, that's just a minor difference because they are doing pretty much the same thing, taking down the revolts with much use of force.
And when did Gaddafi say he will exterminate population who oppose him? He said he will exterminate rebels if they do not give up, it's a different thing.
And just on that sake of consistency, we're saying good job Saudis coming and helping the Bahrain government take down the rebellion with force, not giving a damn about the rebels there but in the same time we're going in Libya to help the poor rebels (and to stay for a couple of years while we get contracts to rebuild the country and get oil at lower price). It's double standard to me and that's something i cannot stand.
|
Cameron on his way to Parliament right now, speech in about 20 minutes.
|
On March 18 2011 19:36 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun.
Please explain to me how you can justify the use of the military against peaceful protesters. The rebellion only started after Gaddafi responded to protests with deadly force. That's called murder, by most accounts. The fact that it's done by the state is irrelevant.
The news report about hanging police came several days after Gaddafi's forces opened fire on protestors.
|
On March 18 2011 19:37 Pika Chu wrote:
No, that's just a minor difference because they are doing pretty much the same thing, taking down the revolts with much use of force.
And when did Gaddafi say he will exterminate population who oppose him? He said he will exterminate rebels if they do not give up, it's a different thing.
And just on that sake of consistency, we're saying good job Saudis coming and helping the Bahrain government take down the rebellion with force, not giving a damn about the rebels there but in the same time we're going in Libya to help the poor rebels (and to stay for a couple of years while we get contracts to rebuild the country and get oil at lower price). It's double standard to me and that's something i cannot stand.
It is not a minor difference. Like I said in Lybia there is an armed uprising and the UN will pretty much only enforce a no fly zone for now. If we had to help the people in Bahrain there would be no other option but go in there with ground forces and occupy the country. The difference is in Lybia the people still do most of the work while if we would do it like I said in Bahrain it would be the west that liberates them.
And yeah Gadaffi said he would only kill rebels but the guy is fucking insane just look at everything he has said from the last couple of weeks I doubt he will let the population unpunished if he wins.
|
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/05/the_ministry_of_oil_defense
HAVE FUN
That isn't the accusation people make when they say it's about oil. The suggest that the US goes over there to steal the oil.
The fact that the US would protect the oil instalations is only logical, but you need to educate yourself because it's a foreign concept if you only view the world from a develloped country perspective.
Part of winning a war is maintaining stability in a country. What provides stability? Only 1 thing, economical prosperity.
What does Iraq have when it comes to the economy?
Nearly 95% of revenue generated from exports is oil. This might be hard to grasp if you believe that the middle-eastern countries are balanced and functioning countries but the reality is that most of them are in a similar position to African countries if they lost their oil.
The US could not possibly justify abandoning the only economical lifeline that Iraq had, it would have plunged the country into utter chaos if those oil facilities got destroyed.
Protecting it was infact the best thing to do. Meanwhile the arrogance in that piece you linked is beyond revolting.
The US army should have been protecting the national museum instead of the #1 industry that prevents Iraq from becoming a 3rd world country?
There is a time for caring about history and there is a time to think about practicallity and what is best for the people. Whilst some people only care about the cultural items in Iraq and wouldn't give a damn if the people would see their economy destroyed, the US army actually prioritised defending the oil facilities over cultural heritage and you call this wrong?
I would personally burn my entire countries heritage 3 times over if that meant preventing it from becoming an impoverished state. History is important but it does not take precendence over the real needs of people.
|
On March 18 2011 19:36 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun. Are Bahrain protesters getting bombed by airplanes? are they getting shot at by Tanks? Bahrain has nothing of a civil war. And the protesters were peaceful until the Army started murdering them. I call bs on the hanging police. got any sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_uprising
According to figures compiled by the Agence France-Presse from local sources, at least forty-one people had been killed since demonstrations first started on 15 February. The toll excludes two policemen, newspapers said, who had been hung in Al Bayda on 18 February.
|
On March 18 2011 19:44 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:36 Nizaris wrote:On March 18 2011 19:28 Pika Chu wrote:On March 18 2011 19:20 vyyye wrote:On March 18 2011 19:16 Pika Chu wrote: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? No but it could get stable after they sort it out themselves. No we don't have any idea but we can assume it and with arguments. Yes i can compare Libya's situation to Bahrain, give me one reason i couldn't. And give me a reason why we should intervene in Libya but not in Bahrain? I don't think we'd be better off doing nothing, i think we'd be better off playing it smart and understanding the situation before judging. Not invading some other country doesn't mean we're doing nothing. Stop with this media induced nonsense of Gaddafi murdering half of his population, he's not murdering his population he's fighting an opposition, a rebellion. What do you think the rebbels are peaceful? No, they were hanging police forces when the protests begun. Are Bahrain protesters getting bombed by airplanes? are they getting shot at by Tanks? Bahrain has nothing of a civil war. And the protesters were peaceful until the Army started murdering them. I call bs on the hanging police. got any sources? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_uprisingShow nested quote +According to figures compiled by the Agence France-Presse from local sources, at least forty-one people had been killed since demonstrations first started on 15 February. The toll excludes two policemen, newspapers said, who had been hung in Al Bayda on 18 February.
Which proves my point exactly. Forty one peaceful protesters were killed, before two policemen were hanged. That's forty one people murdered by Ghadaffi, for protesting against him.
For perspective, Saddam Hussein was convicted of killing 148 people, as a reprisal for an assassination attempt against him.
Do you expect the protesters to just sit back and die? Do you that if the protests stopped, anyone would have held him accountable?
|
On March 18 2011 19:37 Pika Chu wrote:
No, that's just a minor difference because they are doing pretty much the same thing, taking down the revolts with much use of force.
And when did Gaddafi say he will exterminate population who oppose him? He said he will exterminate rebels if they do not give up, it's a different thing.
And just on that sake of consistency, we're saying good job Saudis coming and helping the Bahrain government take down the rebellion with force, not giving a damn about the rebels there but in the same time we're going in Libya to help the poor rebels (and to stay for a couple of years while we get contracts to rebuild the country and get oil at lower price). It's double standard to me and that's something i cannot stand.
If there were a hundred people drowning you think the best thing to do is to not save anyone because that is most "fair". I shake my head.
|
Yes we can talk about Ceausescu if you want to but i don't see similarities. No one came with millitary to help us, most of the romanian people were tired of Ceausescu and that's how he went down.
Yeah so we need to wait for the Bahrain situation to come as Libya's. The bahrain authorities are using force (guns/bullets and etc) to take down the rebels. They aren't doing air hits and everything simply because the rebels aren't as armed as they are in Libya.
|
On March 18 2011 19:48 pylonsalad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:37 Pika Chu wrote:
No, that's just a minor difference because they are doing pretty much the same thing, taking down the revolts with much use of force.
And when did Gaddafi say he will exterminate population who oppose him? He said he will exterminate rebels if they do not give up, it's a different thing.
And just on that sake of consistency, we're saying good job Saudis coming and helping the Bahrain government take down the rebellion with force, not giving a damn about the rebels there but in the same time we're going in Libya to help the poor rebels (and to stay for a couple of years while we get contracts to rebuild the country and get oil at lower price). It's double standard to me and that's something i cannot stand. If there were a hundred people drowning you think the best thing to do is to not save anyone because that is most "fair". I shake my head.
That's a very dumb analogy. If you can only save a few, then save them. If you can save more, save them! In this case, we can save all, both Libya and Bahrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
