|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 18 2011 21:35 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 21:21 Pika Chu wrote:On March 18 2011 21:11 Keniji wrote:On March 18 2011 21:07 Pika Chu wrote: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". 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". 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? 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. 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.
Do you have the sources for the numbers killed? I'm just operating just pure assumption right now and I presume you and a lot of other people are too.
I really don't think many people have been killed (relatively).
|
Saudi is going too far. They also sent troops to Yemen to protect Ali Abdalla Saleh and his regime, and now people are being killed with the help of Saudi troops. 50 deaths so far. Is saudi invading every country that has a rovolution to stop one from destroying their country? I think by what they are doing right now, they are just walking the path to their doom. Intevening in Bahrain and yemen. WTF IS THIS SHIT!
|
Sorry DragoonPK but it seems your people can die and no one cares, because the ones repressing/killing you are friends with the big guys.
If Libya was good friends with Russia or China or Germany this wouldn't have happened either.
|
Well... "Kings" and wannabe Kings seldomly go down whiteout a fight... Sadly...
|
Um I was at school so can anyone give me a rundown on what has happened since the vote yesterday? Have the airstrikes commenced? (assuming they are going to happen and all).
|
On March 18 2011 19:13 Tal wrote:
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.
Actually, this is almost exactly the same situation Iraq had in the '80s and '90s. In the '80s, the Kurds rose up against Saddam's brutality. Saddam responded by bombing his own population with chemical weapons. The US actively blocked UN resolutions regarding this matter because Saddam was fighting Iran at the time, which furthered US interests. Again, in the '90s, the Shias rose up (with the promise of US aid which never came) and Saddam crushed the revolt again and nary a peep in the UN about this.
|
On March 18 2011 21:45 Pika Chu wrote:
Sorry DragoonPK but it seems your people can die and no one cares, because the ones repressing/killing you are friends with the big guys.
If Libya was good friends with Russia or China or Germany this wouldn't have happened either.
Wow. Way to motivate me dude. lol Ok preparing for mass genocide then.
|
Just in: Libyan government declares immediate ceasefire & announces end to military operations
|
On March 18 2011 21:56 Lanfire wrote:
Just in: Libyan government declares immediate ceasefire & announces end to military operations
When they actually do what they say it's the best thing that could have happened.
Time to protest peaceful again for lybians. (tho it's probably too utopistic?)
|
Zurich15313 Posts
Well, that was easy.
Gaddafi is so smart, you really got to give it to him. If he manages to come out of this mess on top: respect.
|
On March 18 2011 21:56 Lanfire wrote:
Just in: Libyan government declares immediate ceasefire & announces end to military operations
I hope thats true and it stays that way.
|
At least he thinks he is smart. It will be interesting to see him quell the revolution now that his hands are tied.
|
On March 18 2011 22:00 zatic wrote:
Gaddafi is so smart, you really got to give it to him. If he manages to come out of this mess on top: respect.
I agree ,smartest move he could have done.
If the rebel wont accept the ceasefire we have no right to help them.
|
Russian Federation154 Posts
|
Zurich15313 Posts
Just because he announced a cease fire doesn't mean he will stop attacking. He is just very smart in playing the Western media. Now the ball is again in the park of the Western aggressors to justify military action 'now that Gaddafi gave up' to their voters.
EDIT: Wow I can't get over how cunning this guy is. The timing is so sick haha. I bet Western diplomats are crying in fury right now.
|
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".
And what you bolded. You see it's even WORSE. They don't even have weapons to fight the government, at least in Libya they have weapons. Here they're just getting massacred without a fight.
Kwark did a good 1 phrase resume. But that's what bothers me, we have two similar situations and act differently, according to some's interests. And we're still buying the stinky fish called "fighting for freedom/peace/democracy", are you sure that's what we're doing in Libya?
And you guys really believe a no-fly zone is so easy to enable? Every country who is participating is at war with Libya, you understand that right?
About the embargo of selling weapons to Libya, you know what we will learn in 20 years? That the only thing that happened was that the same countries sold weapons to Libya illegally with 10 times the price.
And if you're a protester in Benghazi, and you're surely going to be killed by Ghadaffi if he manages to take the city, how much would you care about double standards? There are so many countries that are being kept in the dark ages by a mix of oppressive leadership, lack of economic (and cultural) development and malicious foreign influence. Now we have a chance to remove a regime that has actively started to target it's own citizens, and I really do not see the downside.
In the end, you do what you can and you try to nudge the rest of the world just a little bit closer to democracy. I hate to put it this bluntly, but democracy isn't free. You have to fight for it, and it isn't easy. Most of the worlds democracies are founded on (very violent) revolution, and no country can hold it's ground against a dedicated mass-protest movement, not even the Saudi's (Bahrein is a rather unique case). And in the end, if it gets to a point where what's happening is unacceptable and if it is possible, the west will intervene. That's what Libya is.
|
On March 18 2011 22:05 zatic wrote:
Just because he announced a cease fire doesn't mean he will stop attacking. He is just very smart in playing the Western media. Now the ball is again in the park of the Western aggressors to justify military action 'now that Gaddafi gave up' to their voters.
Of course it was the smartest move he could do, and only because the announced it doesn't mean they actually do it. But to archieve the worst case scenario for the west he has to actually be able to hide his military actions which shouldn't be so easy?!
Also it really depends on how the rebels and the population reacts now.
|
On March 18 2011 22:05 zatic wrote:
Just because he announced a cease fire doesn't mean he will stop attacking. He is just very smart in playing the Western media. Now the ball is again in the park of the Western aggressors to justify military action 'now that Gaddafi gave up' to their voters.
The UN just has to start policing the no fly zone. Then the rebels will be free to start protesting against Ghadafi again. Ghadafi will be forced to crack down. Bombs will start falling.
Also, a lot of people rallied around him because he was winning, they will be looking to distance themselves from him after the UN stepped in.
|
Now he's threatening to bomb civilians in other countries.. desperate much ?
|
On March 18 2011 21:39 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 21:35 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 18 2011 21:21 Pika Chu wrote:On March 18 2011 21:11 Keniji wrote:On March 18 2011 21:07 Pika Chu wrote: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". 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". 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? 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. 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. Do you have the sources for the numbers killed? I'm just operating just pure assumption right now and I presume you and a lot of other people are too. I really don't think many people have been killed (relatively).
Around 6000, cant find source right now. Will edit it in when I do.
Zatic: im a bit surprised by that mate. Respect? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
