|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 29 2011 01:31 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:24 Elegy wrote:On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living? For the fact the petrol is not being sold by western companies? Dictatorship <> corruption. I suggest you to find and read what is the life in Libya is. Upset? I lol'ed, that's hardly upset, that's happy! I know this is going nowhere, but only a fool would claim Libya has no corruption. By every objective measurement, Libya ranks in the top tier(s) of the most corrupt nations in the world. And again, you fail to realize that a government loses the right to govern its people when it violently suppresses initially peaceful protests, protests that only turn violent when violence is used against them. Don't try to claim Libya is about oil. Sounds good on paper, but utterly lacking in the fact department. There's something fascinating about internet warriors without an education in such affairs that inevitably results in them assuming every action ever committed by any government is part of a money-grubbing, long-term conspiracy of pure ulterior motives that transcends administration changes, personnel shifts, and extraneous factors. It suggests a continuity of thought that is fallacy in and of itself. Shockingly enough, sometimes, just sometimes, countries rarely, occasionally, and just once in a while do things without profit as the prime objective. Crazy, I know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12877319Airstrikes in Sirte, apparently unconfirmed whether Sirte is in rebel hands? what are you on about? Libya is ABOUT the oil and nothing else. They were thinking that the rebels would win this civil war, but they got pushed back hard. They knew if the rebels were to lose there goes that oil supply, which by the way 60% or so of Italy depends on it and 40% of France and a couple other european nations. This is nothing about humanitarian aid or doing the right thing, it's just about keeping the oil flowing. The U.S. came in because they wanted some "good" publicity after all the negative stuff
wat
Let's assume the global community didn't do anything but the nominal "stop gaddafi, not cool" rhetoric and the slap on the wrist "sanctions" that are a diplomatic gesture at best
With that in mind, let's assume the rebels lose. Gaddafi crushes the revolution.
What changes? Why would he stop selling oil? Why we (collective we) stop buying it? No one stopped buying Nigerian oil after Ken Saro Wiwa. Why would Gaddafi stop selling oil to Europe, to nations that have been supporting him via oil money for decades? And if Europeans (UN in a broad sense) didn't implement any serious sanctions, which they wouldn't, why would they not buy it?
If the supply of oil is all that matters, the West is far, far better off letting Gaddafi crush this rebellion with his air power and armor then trusting in a revolutionary government, the very nature and composition of which is an unknown factor. Why would anyone want a new player in the game when Gaddafi has already established himself as a truly excellent supplier of light crude to European markets?
Also, your figures are grossly incorrect.
@ the guy at the bottom of the last page, those pictures remind me of the Toyota War, how ironic lol
|
On March 29 2011 01:33 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living?. You mean South Africa and Botswana? Seriously Libya is amongst the worst places to live in Africa and that's saying something, their future looks bright though.
Seriously, Libya has very nice standard of living. As it was mentioned - free medical care (provided by doctors from Europe), free education, Kadaffi even hired engineers from all around the world to build pipes to bring water to the desert and many other things which are not mentioned by the western media. Doesnt sound like a terrible dictator to me.
My source : I`ve lived in Libya.
edit : of course, there were poor people too, mostly people living in the desert, but thats just their lifestyle. Kadaffi was investing a lot of the oil money back to the people. Now i`m afraid the cash will go for new private planes for the directors in BP and to cope with the shit they did with the oil slip in USA.
|
On March 29 2011 01:42 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:33 jello_biafra wrote:On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living?. You mean South Africa and Botswana? Seriously Libya is amongst the worst places to live in Africa and that's saying something, their future looks bright though. Seriously, Libya has very nice standard of living. As it was mentioned - free medical care (provided by doctors from Europe), free education, Kadaffi even hired engineers from all around the world to build pipes to bring water to the desert and many other things which are not mentioned by the western media. Doesnt sound like a terrible dictator to me. My source : I`ve lived in Libya.
Regardless of what he did in the past (Lockerbie rings a bell?) answering peaceful protests with snipers, tanks, artillery and bomber planes makes him a terrible dictator no matter the way you look at it.
Sure i'm sure he did some good things, just as any government would have. His cruel actions makes all that irrelevant. I hope he gets hung like Hussein, or trialled by the international court for Lockerbie (rebels says the have proof he was the one giving the orders) or for murdering his own ppl,
|
On March 29 2011 01:41 Elegy wrote:
wat
Let's assume the global community didn't do anything but the nominal "stop gaddafi, not cool" rhetoric and the slap on the wrist "sanctions" that are a diplomatic gesture at best
With that in mind, let's assume the rebels lose. Gaddafi crushes the revolution.
What changes? Why would he stop selling oil? Why we (collective we) stop buying it? No one stopped buying Nigerian oil after Ken Saro Wiwa. Why would Gaddafi stop selling oil to Europe, to nations that have been supporting him via oil money for decades? And if Europeans (UN in a broad sense) didn't implement any serious sanctions, which they wouldn't, why would they not buy it?
If the supply of oil is all that matters, the West is far, far better off letting Gaddafi crush this rebellion with his air power and armor then trusting in a revolutionary government, the very nature and composition of which is an unknown factor. Why would anyone want a new player in the game when Gaddafi has already established himself as a truly excellent supplier of light crude to European markets?
Also, your figures are grossly incorrect.
@ the guy at the bottom of the last page, those pictures remind me of the Toyota War, how ironic lol
This is pretty much spot on. The western world had an excellent source of both oil AND income from trading with Khadafi.
|
On March 29 2011 01:48 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:42 mdb wrote:On March 29 2011 01:33 jello_biafra wrote:On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living?. You mean South Africa and Botswana? Seriously Libya is amongst the worst places to live in Africa and that's saying something, their future looks bright though. Seriously, Libya has very nice standard of living. As it was mentioned - free medical care (provided by doctors from Europe), free education, Kadaffi even hired engineers from all around the world to build pipes to bring water to the desert and many other things which are not mentioned by the western media. Doesnt sound like a terrible dictator to me. My source : I`ve lived in Libya. Regardless of what he did in the past (Lockerbie rings a bell?) answering peaceful protests with snipers, tanks, artillery and bomber planes makes him a terrible dictator no matter the way you look at it. Sure i'm sure he did some good things, just as any government would have. His cruel actions pretty much negate all the good things he did. I hope he gets hung like Hussein, or trialled by the international court for Lockerbie (rebels says the have proof he was the one giving the orders) or for murdering his own ppl.
I can comment only on things I`ve seen with my eyes. For now I havent seen a picture or video of Libyan state army shooting at peaceful protestors, like I saw this in Egypt and in Bahrain. All I`ve seen is some destroyed buildings and explosions in the middle of nowhere as well as a rebel plane being shot down, who was flying when there was "no fly zone".
Regarding Lockerbie and all the terroist groups Kadafi supported - no doubt, thats some big shit, but that was 20-30 yrs ago. In the last few years Libya gained international recognition. This is proved by the fact that Kadafi and his sons/goverment took a lot of steps and recognized their involvement in past terrorists acts. Also if I`m not wrong even USA removed their embargo. Recently Libya was chosen to be the head of African Union (or whatever their union is called). These are real facts and I`m really sorry for all the libyan people that things turned this way.
|
On March 29 2011 01:53 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:48 Nizaris wrote:On March 29 2011 01:42 mdb wrote:On March 29 2011 01:33 jello_biafra wrote:On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living?. You mean South Africa and Botswana? Seriously Libya is amongst the worst places to live in Africa and that's saying something, their future looks bright though. Seriously, Libya has very nice standard of living. As it was mentioned - free medical care (provided by doctors from Europe), free education, Kadaffi even hired engineers from all around the world to build pipes to bring water to the desert and many other things which are not mentioned by the western media. Doesnt sound like a terrible dictator to me. My source : I`ve lived in Libya. Regardless of what he did in the past (Lockerbie rings a bell?) answering peaceful protests with snipers, tanks, artillery and bomber planes makes him a terrible dictator no matter the way you look at it. Sure i'm sure he did some good things, just as any government would have. His cruel actions pretty much negate all the good things he did. I hope he gets hung like Hussein, or trialled by the international court for Lockerbie (rebels says the have proof he was the one giving the orders) or for murdering his own ppl. I can comment only on things I`ve seen with my eyes. For now I havent seen a picture or video of Libyan state army shooting at peaceful protestors, like I saw this in Egypt and in Bahrain. All I`ve seen is some destroyed buildings and explosions in the middle of nowhere as well as a rebel plane being shot down, who was flying when there was "no fly zone".
maybe you should look at the beginning of this thread. There are plenty of videos and other proof. Sure you don't see the guys shooting but who else besides Kaddafi's army could it really be ? Who else has sniper rifles and machines guns?
Funny you say you saw that, because in Egypt the Army NEVER fired on peaceful protesters.
|
On March 29 2011 01:55 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:53 mdb wrote:On March 29 2011 01:48 Nizaris wrote:On March 29 2011 01:42 mdb wrote:On March 29 2011 01:33 jello_biafra wrote:On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living?. You mean South Africa and Botswana? Seriously Libya is amongst the worst places to live in Africa and that's saying something, their future looks bright though. Seriously, Libya has very nice standard of living. As it was mentioned - free medical care (provided by doctors from Europe), free education, Kadaffi even hired engineers from all around the world to build pipes to bring water to the desert and many other things which are not mentioned by the western media. Doesnt sound like a terrible dictator to me. My source : I`ve lived in Libya. Regardless of what he did in the past (Lockerbie rings a bell?) answering peaceful protests with snipers, tanks, artillery and bomber planes makes him a terrible dictator no matter the way you look at it. Sure i'm sure he did some good things, just as any government would have. His cruel actions pretty much negate all the good things he did. I hope he gets hung like Hussein, or trialled by the international court for Lockerbie (rebels says the have proof he was the one giving the orders) or for murdering his own ppl. I can comment only on things I`ve seen with my eyes. For now I havent seen a picture or video of Libyan state army shooting at peaceful protestors, like I saw this in Egypt and in Bahrain. All I`ve seen is some destroyed buildings and explosions in the middle of nowhere as well as a rebel plane being shot down, who was flying when there was "no fly zone". maybe you should look at the beginning of this thread. There are plenty of videos and other proof. Sure you don't see the guys shooting but who else besides Kaddafi's army could it really be ? Who else has sniper rifles and machines guns? Funny you say you saw that, because in Egypt the Army NEVER fired on peaceful protesters.
Ok, I may be wrong about Egypt, but I`m pretty sure you understand what I mean.
|
On March 29 2011 01:42 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 01:33 jello_biafra wrote:On March 29 2011 01:14 Petruccio wrote:Gunning down peaceful protesters who were upset at a 40+ year dictatorship might be something to take into consideration.
I lol @ no corruption. Why being upset? For becoming an African country with the highest standards of living?. You mean South Africa and Botswana? Seriously Libya is amongst the worst places to live in Africa and that's saying something, their future looks bright though. Seriously, Libya has very nice standard of living. As it was mentioned - free medical care (provided by doctors from Europe), free education, Kadaffi even hired engineers from all around the world to build pipes to bring water to the desert and many other things which are not mentioned by the western media. Doesnt sound like a terrible dictator to me. My source : I`ve lived in Libya. edit : of course, there were poor people too, mostly people living in the desert, but thats just their lifestyle. Kadaffi was investing a lot of the oil money back to the people. Now i`m afraid the cash will go for new private planes for the directors in BP and to cope with the shit they did with the oil slip in USA.
I've heard this argument more than once and I wanted to react on it. Sure the Lybians had a high standard of living but they were still being oppressed by Gadaffi. Plus it is said that Gadaffi still has billions worth of dollars in Tripoli. There is no doubt Gadaffi was the one who profited most of the oil sure he also gave the population something in return but imagine if even half of all the billions gadaffi has had gone into the economy their standard of living would be even higher.
That's what I dislike about the argument that their standard of living is quite high even though it is true it is also true that Gadaffi prevented a lot of growth by pulling money out of the economy.
|
Dont know, man. Imagine what it would be if all the oil companies around the world have had invested 1/10th of the money they make back to their respective economy. Imagine if Shell was investing their profits back in NL`s economy. Wouldnt you have higher standard of living?
|
Petruccio is a troll. Only 7 posts, denied everything that has been said in this thread by quoting Russia Today.
About Libyans having a high standard of life, it has been said many times, and many times it has been answered that the revolt wasn't caused by poverty, but the lack of futur for the young since there are very few educationnal structures. Ghadaffi isn't devellopping the country, he's cashing the money himself, as corruption is incredibly high, even among the higher levels - Ghadaffi's sons being notorious thugs.
Shooting on protesters is a proof in itself.
|
Qatar has recognised Libya's rebel council as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people, a day after the group announced an oil contract with the Gulf state.
The move on Monday makes Qatar only the second country to formally recognise the Libyan rebel council, but has been backed by the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC).
A statement from Abdulrahman al-Attiyah, the outgoing GCC secretary general, said Qatar's "recognition of the transitional council as the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people comes in line with the decisions of the GCC".
"The Libyan system has lost its legitimacy," said al-Attiyahi.
Qatar also has warplanes taking part in UN- and Arab League-backed air raids aimed at imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, and has urged Gaddafi to quit to avoid more bloodshed.
France previously recognised the rebel council as the legitimate representative of Libya, the first and so far only Western power to do so.
Libyan state television condemned Qatar's recognition of the rebel council, saying the move amounted to "blatant interference" in Libyan affairs.
Source
|
On March 25 2011 07:57 XenOmega wrote:
When one leader shoots it's own citizens, I think pretty much everyone can agree that he has lost all rights of being that country's ruler.
Obviously, this is contradicted by the massacres happening elsewhere... but what can we say? Public can't focus on more than 1 problem at a time....
Not if he shoots citizens that are being sponsored and armed by foreign intelligent services with the ultimate goal of enslaving the entire population and stealing their natural ressources. In that case, it is his god given duty to shoot those citizens.
|
|
|
On March 29 2011 07:21 MrBadMan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 07:57 XenOmega wrote:
When one leader shoots it's own citizens, I think pretty much everyone can agree that he has lost all rights of being that country's ruler.
Obviously, this is contradicted by the massacres happening elsewhere... but what can we say? Public can't focus on more than 1 problem at a time.... Not if he shoots citizens that are being sponsored and armed by foreign intelligent services with the ultimate goal of enslaving the entire population and stealing their natural ressources. In that case, it is his god given duty to shoot those citizens.
... are you just trying to troll this thread or ...?
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/politics/29prexy-text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Obama speech transcript.
Most interesting part of rationale:
"Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."
|
On March 29 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:21 MrBadMan wrote:On March 25 2011 07:57 XenOmega wrote:
When one leader shoots it's own citizens, I think pretty much everyone can agree that he has lost all rights of being that country's ruler.
Obviously, this is contradicted by the massacres happening elsewhere... but what can we say? Public can't focus on more than 1 problem at a time.... Not if he shoots citizens that are being sponsored and armed by foreign intelligent services with the ultimate goal of enslaving the entire population and stealing their natural ressources. In that case, it is his god given duty to shoot those citizens. ... are you just trying to troll this thread or ...?
I think it was sarcasm.
Now we'll see if the rebels can take Syrte... and the situation in Misrata is quite uncleared ("secured", said Libyan officials).
|
On March 29 2011 03:01 Kukaracha wrote:
Petruccio is a troll. Only 7 posts, denied everything that has been said in this thread by quoting Russia Today.
About Libyans having a high standard of life, it has been said many times, and many times it has been answered that the revolt wasn't caused by poverty, but the lack of futur for the young since there are very few educationnal structures. Ghadaffi isn't devellopping the country, he's cashing the money himself, as corruption is incredibly high, even among the higher levels - Ghadaffi's sons being notorious thugs.
Shooting on protesters is a proof in itself.
Educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Education
You lie.
Check your sources of info, make sure it is not only western media. Collect different point of view.
What this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDPUfllId8s, 25 minutes. There are 3 different points of view.
Try to understand how world economic works. I am afraid so much complicated information will not fit into your brain, but give it a try
http://comradevader.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/part-1-libya-its-neighbors-and-a-bit-of-political-economy-the-role-of-the-region-in-the-international-division-of-labor/
Name a country with oil that have higher livings standard then Libya. There are few of them.
Check what has happened in the countries where USA already helped to establish democracy.
You know, normally you do not take a gun in your hands and do not start shooting and people of your nation, who wears military uniform just because there is no university you like in the country.
I feel pity for so many western people who lost their ability to think and analyze... You make this possible, NATO starts a war in a country where the most people are happy about their lives and starts killing these people.
It is so easy to collect information in the contemporary world from different sources, do it and analyze. People like me, who can speak not only western languages, help you, point you do another view of the situation.You just have to read and switch on your brain!
There are more and more voices these days asking to stop Libyan invasion. It is so obvious what is going on there... It is not Afghanistan or Iraq, it is a country with quite high standards of living, with many social benefits, has sort of direct democracy. There is nothing wrong with the country! You can find many other countries where people are in need for external help. It just does not want to share its resources with western world or radical Islam.
NATO helps Al-Qaeda, it makes me sad, so much cynicism in this world.
|
Clearly the people in Lybia were happy... Thats why the Revolution got nearly to Tripolis until Gaddhafis mercenaries/military was just overpowering them with way better weapons/organisation.
|
Nice mdb, defending a police state because they have a "high standard of living." Compared to where? Other police states?
To Petruccio:
Accusing people of being fed misinformation by "Western sources" almost 100% of the time amounts to shilling for "alternative" sources that basically produce propaganda for whichever tyrant is causing a mess this week that we have to deal with.
No, we don't have to "read and switch on our brains," or pay much attention to the rest of your post, which basically insults us repeatedly as ignorant, easily fooled, and just plain stupid ("lost ability to think and analyze," etc.). Petruccio, you are a classic tool.
|
"high standard of living." compared to other African countries
1. How do you know that Gaddafi bombed his citizens? Other sources than western media or Al Jazeera?
2. Who are the rebels, what do they want (do not suggest better education please in the country with the best educational system in Africa), who are their leader? What percentage of Libyan people do they represent?
3. Why Libyan army does not rise against Gaddafi, but fight against the "rebels"?
4. Where are the protesting people, why they are not on the streets and squares like it was in Egypt?
5. How do you distinguish propaganda from truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
