EPTIf the rebels now go on the offense again it will be THEM who break peace. Gaddafi will have all kinds of outs to justify military action 'purely to defend the cease fire' then. The guy is one cunning motherfucker wow.
Libyan Uprising - Page 52
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
zatic
Zurich15345 Posts
If the rebels now go on the offense again it will be THEM who break peace. Gaddafi will have all kinds of outs to justify military action 'purely to defend the cease fire' then. The guy is one cunning motherfucker wow. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 18 2011 22:08 Derez wrote: 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. And if you're a protester in Bahrain and you're surely going to be killed by saudi forces (why is it more sure to be killed by gadafi than saudi forces? just because you don't like gadafi?) how much would you care about double standards (and please respond to DragoonPK on this matter)? And in the end if it's according to certain countries interests and it will also happen to have public opinion backing on it (doesn't matter the motive) the west will intervene. That's what Libya is. And in the end if it's according to certain countries interests even if the public opinion is thinking otherwise, the west will play with their dicks in the sand pretending everything's fine. That's what Bahrain is. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On March 18 2011 22:19 Pika Chu wrote: The best that can come out of this as i see it is the country splitting just a bit, or a region living in authonomy. So there would be civil war possibility like, all the time? but most likely the one and only way what is going to happen. | ||
|
RxN
United States255 Posts
| ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
On March 18 2011 22:14 Mofisto wrote: Around 6000, cant find source right now. Will edit it in when I do. Zatic: im a bit surprised by that mate. Respect? Really? maybe, the respect is more of as being a cunning strategist but not as a human being | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
However, I think many here underestimate the sting that comes from losing the momentum. Rebels will be setting the pace from now on, and it is up to them to play the game correctly. Most probably they have less to gain from all out war to go back to demonstrations in Ghadafi held territory. | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
Im sorry but Libya is more important right now because the deaths in Libya are only uhm... approx 100-200 times more than in Bahrain, not to mention | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On March 18 2011 22:17 Pika Chu wrote: And if you're a protester in Bahrain and you're surely going to be killed by saudi forces (why is it more sure to be killed by gadafi than saudi forces? just because you don't like gadafi?) how much would you care about double standards (and please respond to DragoonPK on this matter)? And in the end if it's according to certain countries interests and it will also happen to have public opinion backing on it (doesn't matter the motive) the west will intervene. That's what Libya is. And in the end if it's according to certain countries interests even if the public opinion is thinking otherwise, the west will play with their dicks in the sand pretending everything's fine. That's what Bahrain is. What is happening in Bahrein is horrible, could very well be worse then Libya and I have as little respect for Ghaddaffi as I do for the King of Bahrein, but you have to realize that the west cannot decide to invade yet another islamic country. The only reason this intervention is possible is that, finally, the arab states agreed on the fact that it is probably better if Ghadaffi isn't left in power. The situation in Bahrein is entirely different, for one, there is no armed protest movement. Which means that an a similar intervention in Bahrein would have very limited effect on the outcome there. The only way an intervention is possible in Bahrein is by actually invading, and to imply that NATO or the US should unilaterally invade Bahrein or Saudi-Arabia or Iran is sheer lunacy, and it would fuel anti-western hatred in the Middle-East to even greater heights. In the end, intervening in any of these countries would probably cost more lives then it would save. This time it was possible to do something in Libya, and you seem to agree with the basic principle that intervening in these situations is a moral neccessity, so what exactly is your problem? Just because there is no intervention possible (for whatever cynical reasons) in other countries, we shouldn't do it either when it is possible? (I read DragoonPK's post, but I don't see what part of it I should answer. I obviously wish him the best and feel ashamed my government isn't doing more to support them.) | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 18 2011 22:55 sekritzzz wrote: CAN WE TALK ABOUT BAHRAIN IN THE BAHRAIN THREAD PLEASE. Im sorry but Libya is more important right now because the deaths in Libya are only uhm... approx 100-200 times more than in Bahrain, not to mention aaanndd deaths in a half dozen other conflicts put Libya's domestic squabble to shame, but that's another matter  I am really curious what the rebels are planning to do now, whether they will simply solidify their holdings in the east or call/inspire massive protests in the Gaddafi lands now that he's apparently announced a ceasefire Of course, a ceaesfire with the rebels might not limit him in 'police actions' and what not to preserve the public order in his cities... | ||
|
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
If the people of Bahrain decide to take up arms like in Libya, it would be a hole other scenario. It should definitely get the same response from the UN as Libya, but as long as the Bahrain people arent going for an armed rebellion, i see no legit reason why the rest of the would should use military force. We can make sanctions and embargoes but thats it. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:01 Kong John wrote: I dont understand why people are comparing Libya and Bahrain. As long as the Bahrain people dont want to take up arms against their government there is no reason why the rest of the world should. The people of Libya have clearly shown, that they intent to see this through and are willing to fight for their freedom. Since Gaddafi intents on fighting his own people with foreign mercenaries, it would be grotesque and shameful should he win. If the people of Bahrain decide to take up arms like in Libya, it would be a hole other scenario. It should definitely get the same response from the UN as Libya, but as long as the Bahrain people arent going for an armed rebellion, i see no legit reason why the rest of the would should use military force. We can make sanctions and embargoes but thats it. People don't want to take arms? You think it's USA where you can go buy guns or have guns in the house? Libyan people have guns because a part of the military betrayed Gaddafi and they have arms. And if they don't it means they are smarter and that's exactly where you're all-out wrong. If they don't want to take arms and can't fight the government in any way while the authorities and not only bahrain's but saudi forces are using fire on them, that's way more of a reason to intervene in Bahrain more than in Libya where people have arms and that's why they are able to resist the government and effectively fight the authorities. @sekritzzz... dude how do you know? And why not use all those soldiers to help japan if it's all about the death toll. Let's not forget 3 weeks ago the death toll wasn't that high in Libya either. But i like your attitude, let's wait for the saudi/bahrain forces to kill lots of protesters (WHICH ARE UNARMED) before taking it seriously. If UN and the rest took Libya's situation seriously this could have ended since it begun with a very low death toll count, just the same ending as it has now... a neverending ending kind of. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:01 Kong John wrote: I dont understand why people are comparing Libya and Bahrain. As long as the Bahrain people dont want to take up arms against their government there is no reason why the rest of the world should. The people of Libya have clearly shown, that they intent to see this through and are willing to fight for their freedom. Since Gaddafi intents on fighting his own people with foreign mercenaries, it would be grotesque and shameful should he win. If the people of Bahrain decide to take up arms like in Libya, it would be a hole other scenario. It should definitely get the same response from the UN as Libya, but as long as the Bahrain people arent going for an armed rebellion, i see no legit reason why the rest of the would should use military force. We can make sanctions and embargoes but thats it. A key factor in here is that the Arab league agreed and supported the intervention in Libya, while their stance on Bahrein is probably the opposite(Saudi-Arabia even has troops in Bahrein now). Then it is not seen by the Arab countries as a western imperialised invasion, because it is allowed to do so by the Arab league. That being said, Gadhafi did the smart thing. However now new problems ill occur, Who will lead the country?Libya is divided in multiple tribes, who gets the power?who gets nothing? | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1017 Posts
On March 18 2011 21:48 0mar wrote: 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. I was arguing against people comparing Libyan intervention to the recent Iraq invasion. However, you're still right. If the US had fulfilled their promises of support in the nineties, things might have worked out much better. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:11 Kipsate wrote: A key factor in here is that the Arab league agreed and supported the intervention in Libya, while their stance on Bahrein is probably the opposite(Saudi-Arabia even has troops in Bahrein now). Then it is not seen by the Arab countries as a western imperialised invasion, because it is allowed to do so by the Arab league. That being said, Gadhafi did the smart thing. However now new problems ill occur, Who will lead the country?Libya is divided in multiple tribes, who gets the power?who gets nothing? But you realize this is stupid? Who's the Arab League to decide, what gives them legitimacy? Can they decide what's good for Libya because libyans are arabs? Can they decide what's good for Libya because libya was a member (their status as a member is now frozen)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_league To make an analogy. Can France authorize the invasion of a francophone country because it's francophone, and maybe latin? Can NATO authorize the invasion of a former member because it was its member? USSR believed so when they invaded czechoslovakia, they believed they have legitimacy because it's in their sphere of power and in their alliance (the warsow pact). | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:22 Pika Chu wrote: But you realize this is stupid? Who's the Arab League to decide, what gives them legitimacy? Can they decide what's good for Libya because libyans are arabs? Can they decide what's good for Libya because libya was a member (their status as a member is now frozen)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_league To make an analogy. Can France authorize the invasion of a francophone country because it's francophone, and maybe latin? Can NATO authorize the invasion of a former member because it was its member? USSR believed so when they invaded czechoslovakia, they believed they have legitimacy because it's in their sphere of power and in their alliance (the warsow pact). No, but the Arab league can decide for the Islamic Arabian countries what is considered a western invasion, if they say its oke to intervene in Libya then it won't be seen by those countries as a western attempt to expand their arm in foreign Islamic/Arabian affairs. They don't authorize it, they say it is okay and that they will support it. If they DON'T authorize it the UN can still do whatever they want, but it might be seen as the western countries(once again) intervening in Arabic/Islamic affairs. I might have woorded that poorly. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
If nothing else, citizens of Benghazi were saved, that's a worthwhile accomplishment of itself. Again, still not getting the hate for UN intervention, this is what's supposed to happen if the UN was working correctly in the first place. Sure double standards exist but that doesn't mean we have to demonize the good decisions. Also, to the people calling out the west for making an imperialist money grab... Gaddafi was exporting the majority of his country's oil production anyway (meaning the money grab had already happened yo) and, lately, was all friendly with the western nations... Politically the west could've just ignored the situation and continued to do business with him. | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:26 Kipsate wrote: No, but the Arab league can decide for the Islamic Arabian countries what is considered a western invasion, if they say its oke to intervene in Libya then it won't be seen by those countries as a western attempt to expand their arm in foreign Islamic/Arabian affairs. They don't authorize it, they say it is okay and that they will support it. If they DON'T authorize it the UN can still do whatever they want, but it might be seen as the western countries(once again) intervening in Arabic/Islamic affairs. I might have woorded that poorly. The arab league is a goddamn joke. They really do nothing. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:43 DragoonPK wrote: The arab league is a goddamn joke. They really do nothing. Seriously. Not to mention that their support for intervention in Libya likely came as part of a deal for the West to ignore Bahrain and allow the Saudis forces to suppress the people without consequence. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 18 2011 23:43 DragoonPK wrote: The arab league is a goddamn joke. They really do nothing. Even if they do nothing, they are not something you can just ignore if you don't want to promote(more) anti-westernism(thats not a word I suppose but you get the point). This way it won't be seen as an invasion/imperialism. | ||
| ||
