Libyan Uprising - Page 50

On March 18 2011 20:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the involvement, if any, of British Naval assets.

On March 18 2011 20:36 Cain0 wrote:


Wow, really. Tony Blair is even more of a joke than I thought he was.

On March 18 2011 20:45 tenacity wrote:
did cameron answer the question whether the solution includes giving arms to rebellions?

On March 18 2011 19:55 Nightfall.589 wrote:


The protesters in Bahrain are not armed - the are not rebels. They are... Protesters. Who are being murdered. Intervention in Bahrain is just as justified as it is in Libya (And in comparison, it was not justified in... Egypt, as that uprising resolved itself more or less peacefully), but inconvenient for western powers.

On March 18 2011 20:59 KwarK wrote:
Cameron answered the Bahrain question with "just because you can't do the right thing all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it when you can".

On March 18 2011 21:07 Pika Chu wrote:


I want the answer of why you can't with Bahrain. I want them to recognize they don't give a damn about people's freedom and are doing this out of interest, then i'm satisfied.

So instead of answering why they can't help the people of Bahrain free themselves, they just gave a witty ethical answer to avoid the real answer.

I want to hear them say: "We can only deal with small people, we can't deal with the bigger guys who have friends".

On March 18 2011 21:07 Pika Chu wrote:


I want the answer of why you can't with Bahrain. I want them to recognize they don't give a damn about people's freedom and are doing this out of interest, then i'm satisfied.

So instead of answering why they can't help the people of Bahrain free themselves, they just gave a witty ethical answer to avoid the real answer.

I want to hear them say: "We can only deal with small people, we can't deal with the bigger guys who have friends".

On March 18 2011 20:57 Pika Chu wrote:


So it's not hypocrasy and double standard? Just because it's inconvenient it means we can kick Gadaffi because he's alone but can't kick the other guy because he's got friends. Great, i love this style, let's leave the bahrain people get massacred and if someone asks what was UN doing they will answer "What? What's Bahrain? Where is Bahrain? We were too busy building democracy in Libya".

On March 18 2011 21:11 Keniji wrote:


What would you possible gain out of it? What would be the benefits of saying: "Hey you big guys, do what ever you want, we can't do shit. Feel free to do so" than saying nothing?

And what would be the benefits of not even helping the "small" only because you can't deal with the big ones?

On March 18 2011 21:17 Nightfall.589 wrote:


It's completely a double standard. Intervention in Libya is justified. Intervention in Bahrain is justified. Intervention in Bahrain will not happen, because Bahrain is an ally of the US.

On March 18 2011 21:25 endy wrote:
European countries have sold weapons to Libya for a total amount of 834 M€ since the embargo has been lifted in 2004, and now their gonna give weapons to the rebels ?

Source

Don't get me wrong, I hope Libyans can be freed, but this is really hypocrite from European countries...
"Oh Kadhafi wanna buy weapons, let's pretend it's just for the garnishment of the presidential palace and take the money".
Then
"Wait what? He actually uses the weapons against the population ? Let's give a few millions worth of weapons to the rebels for free so we don't look too bad !"

Net profit : 800 M€ and we pose as the good guys, let's hope nobody notices !
(I know the air strikes they are preparing to support the rebels cost more expensive than a couple of millions, but still... wtf )

What did they expect when they sold weapons to a dictator ?! I know almost every single developed country sells weapons to African dictatorships, but this is just ridiculous.

The only guy who doesn't feel guilty about that is Dassault, the chairman of the biggest French weapons company, and close friend of president Sarkozy. He says in this VIDEO (in French) : "We sell weaponry to our customers so that they use it."

On March 18 2011 21:21 Pika Chu wrote:


At least they wouldn't be hypocrites with double standards. If they'd just put the cards on the table and say "we got certain interests in Libya so we're going to take out gaddafi, and we got other interests in bahrain so i hope their king remains in power to ensure them" trust me i'd be fine with it but at least i wouldn't feel like living in a carton box with lies everywhere, and what's worse is people believing them.

Yes Kwark, i know that, you know that, we know that, most smart people who understand the geopolitics know that. But i want them not to use the smaller determination factor (helping free the people) as a pretext for doing this.

How come people are so angered at the Libyan situation but satisfied with the Bahrain one? I believe only once everyone realizes all these lies we're fed we can change something to ensure a better, cleaner future.

And next i have a problem with intervening in some's domestic business because i believe we will need to invade Libya as a last instance after doing this, there's no way going back. And that means many people killed, much money poured into and the opposite of freedom given to their people for a long while.

On March 18 2011 21:35 Nightfall.589 wrote:


Many people have already been killed, and will be killed, and I doubt giving anyone freedom's ever been high on Gaddafi's priority lists. Blowing up passenger planes may have, though.