| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On March 19 2011 07:00 Cain0 wrote: Which countries are going into Libya exactly? UK,US, France and who else? They are talking about UAE and Qatar going aswell, but nothing seems sure at this point. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6269 Posts
On March 19 2011 07:02 Kipsate wrote: Norway, Denmark is being voted upon but I have little faith there, neither do I have faith in my own country :< Our prime minister said they won't offer help but if the UN asks us we will support the UN although he didn't say how. edit: source : http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/9305099/___Nog_geen_verzoek_aan_ons_land___.html?p=13,1 | ||
|
TheStonedGuest
United States19 Posts
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110318?pageNumber=2 | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
Areas such as the Congo and Darfur are where the real human rights abuses are taking place, intervene there. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 19 2011 07:16 Aurocaido wrote: I don't really see the point of the huge media frenzy in Libya concerning defenceless citizens. Gadaffi is trying to quell an armed insurrection, leave Libya to deal with its own issues. If the UN really wants to support human rights they should intervene in countries like the Congo where innocent unarmed civilians are dying in the thousands. Or the UN could have actually did something in Darfur a billion years ago when the crisis was at its height instead of doing NOTHING. Areas such as the Congo and Darfur are where the real human rights abuses are taking place, intervene there. They have oil and money? | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
| ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 19 2011 06:48 Kukaracha wrote: Right, but hopefully you did. Hundreds of experts have failed to see this, but thank god internet geniuses manage to see through this. Please read your statements before posting. I made a mistake, i meant something else but thank god sherlock is here to find it out and put it in my face with a victorious attitude. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
French ambassador says he sees military intervention in Libya within hours of Saturday's Paris summit #Libya | ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
god. drop it. nobody is arguing that the UN didn't failed hardcore in Darfur. The UN is (finally) doing something right (maybe for the wrong reasons, who know). Just because they blowed big time before they aren't allowed to do something useful for once? That's one of the worst arguments i've ever heard. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
the fact that libya was already exporting (wiki article) its oil and had, in fact, foreign workers and companies taking advantage of its resources (or did u also miss the huge numbers of foreign workers evacuated from various desert oil rigs?) has completely passed by you, hasnt it just as a point of reference, wikileaks articles confirmed that the '91 US invasion of iraq was because saddam wanted kuwait to raise oil prices (meaning higher profits for iraq as well) and when they didnt he attacked, causing the americans to retaliate THAT is a definition of a war for oil and money be as indignant/sad about the international community not treating bahrain/sudan/east timor/tibet etc as it is treating libya as you like actually asking for the world to put on blinders while gaddafi slaughters whoever he likes when (for fcking once!) they've decided to act is... just beyond me mind u, if this does become some sort of western occupation after all is said and done, we should all get pissed it just doesnt look like it at this point | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
Taguchi, oil is just one of the factors, and after some countries openly supported the rebbelion i doubt Gaddafi would sell them oil at the same decent price. Anyway in a war there are much important places to make money. Rebuilding is why a war is so profitable, invading countries will get very big contracts on rebuilding the country after war... infrastructure and everything. Do you see Iraq as an occupation? Do you also see it as a necessity? I see it as both. I don't want the same to Libya, ok we take down the dictator, but what do we do if we find out it's unstable (giving the tribe organization culture) and we need to sit around for decades to babysit them so it doesn't turn out in a civil war. You think we can leave if that happens? No we can't, unless it's very stable us leaving means very much blood on our hands, more than letting them sort it out themselves right now. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2011/Mar/Week3/15955481.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2011/Mar/Week3/15955482.jpg) Source There is a short video showing the planes being worked on as well as armed. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On March 19 2011 08:22 Keniji wrote: god. drop it. nobody is arguing that the UN didn't failed hardcore in Darfur. The UN is (finally) doing something right (maybe for the wrong reasons, who know). Just because they blowed big time before they aren't allowed to do something useful for once? That's one of the worst arguments i've ever heard. That is if you see what the UN is about to do in Libya as 'the right thing to do.' And the crisis in the Congo is still occurring. Thats one of the worst rebuttles I have ever heard... | ||
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 Posts
As horrible as it is, I feel this statement is correct. Libya has oil, Congo doesn't. I would like to say our governments are acting on behalf of the Libyan people, but they just arnt. They want the oil, you dont see our Military in Burma or Congo. Anyways, ill support our military wherever they go, whether it be for wrong or right reasons, ill save my anger for the Politicians. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6269 Posts
On March 19 2011 08:30 Pika Chu wrote: I don't view it as it's something useful but something bad on long term. And if they could at least be consequent about it. Taguchi, oil is just one of the factors, and after some countries openly supported the rebbelion i doubt Gaddafi would sell them oil at the same decent price. Anyway in a war there are much important places to make money. Rebuilding is why a war is so profitable, invading countries will get very big contracts on rebuilding the country after war... infrastructure and everything. Do you see Iraq as an occupation? Do you also see it as a necessity? I see it as both. I don't want the same to Libya, ok we take down the dictator, but what do we do if we find out it's unstable (giving the tribe organization culture) and we need to sit around for decades to babysit them so it doesn't turn out in a civil war. You think we can leave if that happens? No we can't, unless it's very stable us leaving means very much blood on our hands, more than letting them sort it out themselves right now. You are acting like the west is going in with ground troops to take down Gadaffi. The UN wont do that all they do is create a no fly zone and they will protect the innocent citizens. And letting Gadaffi back in power is good for nobody except Gadaffi himself atleast give the rebels in Lybia a chance to create a democracy and let the UN help them instead of ignoring it like the rest of the world just to be consequent. And I doubt Gadaffi cares who he sells oil to as long as he sells it he cares about power and money. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On March 19 2011 08:30 Pika Chu wrote: Taguchi, oil is just one of the factors, and after some countries openly supported the rebbelion i doubt Gaddafi would sell them oil at the same decent price. Anyway in a war there are much important places to make money. Rebuilding is why a war is so profitable, invading countries will get very big contracts on rebuilding the country after war... infrastructure and everything. Do you see Iraq as an occupation? Do you also see it as a necessity? I see it as both. I don't want the same to Libya, ok we take down the dictator, but what do we do if we find out it's unstable (giving the tribe organization culture) and we need to sit around for decades to babysit them so it doesn't turn out in a civil war. You think we can leave if that happens? No we can't, unless it's very stable us leaving means very much blood on our hands, more than letting them sort it out themselves right now. i just see the intervention in libya as the morally correct thing to do and i dont see how on earth anyone can argue on this point, given what gaddafi has said and done in the last few weeks i also believe it took that long for the americans to decide to get involved precisely because they saw no great profit out of it france and england have far greater ties to the region and can thus profit the most from rebuilding etc (so they pushed for intervention more than the others) from a moral perspective, the libyan situation seems clear cut from an economic/political perspective its a bit more jumbled hopefully the westerners will decide that befriending the arab nations is be better than supporting oppressive dictators (or not, when u look at bahrain, or the time it took to ask for mubarak to step down, but this is an ongoing situation so there is still hope) the bottom line is never going to involve morality in international affairs, but when morality and the money trail coincide, why the hell argue? | ||
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 Posts
On March 19 2011 08:53 RvB wrote: You are acting like the west is going in with ground troops to take down Gadaffi. The UN wont do that all they do is create a no fly zone and they will protect the innocent citizens. And letting Gadaffi back in power is good for nobody except Gadaffi himself atleast give the rebels in Lybia a chance to create a democracy and let the UN help them instead of ignoring it like the rest of the world just to be consequent. And I doubt Gadaffi cares who he sells oil to as long as he sells it he cares about power and money. Democracy needs guidance, if you give a country its freedom and leave it, you may find that a new dictator has arose 10 years down the line. Just look at Zimbabwe. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6269 Posts
On March 19 2011 08:56 Cain0 wrote: Democracy needs guidance, if you give a country its freedom and leave it, you may find that a new dictator has arose 10 years down the line. Just look at Zimbabwe. Maybe but that is just speculation and pika chu doesn't even want to give them the chance to establish it since they will probably lose if the no fly zone will be enforced any time soon. And btw I think the rebels will ask for help from the west if they win against Gadaffi. They've seen us as their allies from the start and especially after the UN approving a no fly zone it looks like they will be pro west. This is just pure speculation though. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 19 2011 09:07 Aurocaido wrote: There are also examples of the opposite. For example Somalia, the United States intervened in the 1990s in an attempt to foster democracy; the result has been an ongoing civil war and an absence of any real centralized authority. I'm sure its more the brevity and wording of your post, but the Mogadishu incident did not, in any way, "result" in the crisis in Somalia. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Patches Events
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
