|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 31 2011 05:33 zalz wrote:
I am still worried about there being no reporting on what these rebels are like.
It was exactly the problem that i had when this began, who the hell are we helping? Are they people who just dislike Gaddafi but want to do everything he does, only in their favour?
Is there a strong pro-democracy movement?
Are we helping islamists?
I hope that the leaders of Europe and America have more information on that, i would assume they do and they wouldn't rush in to help what is essentially a bunch of theocrats.
At this point we have thrown our lot in with the rebels whilst i did say prior to the intervention we should have left it alone. Gaddafi is clearly not defeated and seeing as he even regained some ground it seems that a stalemate is very possible.
Supplying the rebels with weapons seems like a must, we don't have another option. We threw our lot in with them so we have to stick with them, end of story.
I said it was stupid to intervene and here we are, fighting a war for a bunch of people who are at this point utterly unpredictable.
Not gonna lie, even if we had intel pretty much *proving* that they have ties to alqaeda/terrorists/etc, I'd still be all for what we did. Couple reasons for that.
1.) Everyone deserves a chance to live freely.
2.) Hindsight is 20/20. If you went into every decision too worried about one possible outcome, you'd never do anything in life.
3.) As has been brought up before, extreme conditions breed extremists. Give them freedom and jobs and an economy where their leader/his family/friends don't steal all of their wealth, and chances are, the extremism will lose it's support.
|
|
|
On March 31 2011 05:53 Ilfirin wrote:
Give them freedom and jobs and an economy where their leader/his family/friends don't steal all of their wealth, and chances are, the extremism will lose it's support.
Man, Libyans already have jobs (and 1 million jobs for immigrants), pretty good economy and good part of the wealth of the country. I would say much much bigger part, then Russians, for example.
Islamic extremists fight not for jobs and economy, you know?
How do you use your freedom?
|
I can't provide links right now, but having followed the Libyan protests from day 1 to the UN no-fly zone vote on french newspapers, american news and Al-Jazeera, I've heard that:
- Protesters were originally mainly young people protesting against corruption, the government's immobilism, and the lack of future (jobs or higher studies) for all (and they're probably the core of the rebellion).
- Protesters were disorganized as Ghadaffi's intelligence and police have prevented any intellectual community from forming in Libya (this alone is quite meaningful). No set agenda is known apart from vague demands from the Rebel Council.
- Protests were strong in the east where there has always been a strong opposition to Ghadaffi (especially Benghazi).
- Protests have even occurred in Tripoli, which should be the city where most pro-Ghadaffi are.
- There were a few small pro-Ghadaffi protests (mainly in Tripoli); but I remember an Al-Jazeera reporter saying that a protester had confessed being part of the police and having been told to join the crowd to make it look bigger. It was about one protest in Tripoli though.
- There was no pro-democracy movement as it wasn't allowed by Ghadaffi.
- There are indeed islamists in the movement, which was quite predictable given Ghadaffi's policy.
-There are islamists in the Rebel Council, but they seem to be going in a good direction, at least for now (and probably not later): they're counterbalancing western influence and the ancient members of the government, whose motivations are unclear but who seem to want to give the power to western countries while assuring themselves they'll have a big piece of cake.
Edit: I meant east and not west, indeed! Thanks for pointing that out.
<-- west east--> Hell yeah!
|
3.) As has been brought up before, extreme conditions breed extremists. Give them freedom and jobs and an economy where their leader/his family/friends don't steal all of their wealth, and chances are, the extremism will lose it's support.
I wonder if we would not do better in landscaping extremism out of Libya. Arabian mysticism has a strong psychological link with the desert, and it is in desert seclusion that the tribes of Arabia have traditionally received all its revealed mysteries and cults. Why not pave the Sahara desert over with concrete and turn the entire country into a giant dehumanizing shopping mall? In that way, the Libyan people will be able to enjoy the benefits of skepticism, cynicism, and nihilism while shopping till they drop, just like liberated women do in the west.
|
On March 31 2011 05:49 Petruccio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 05:30 Kukaracha wrote:
Petruccio->How many people are there in Libya? ~6,5 millions
Did you count them?
Also, more info on the survey Petruccio is talking about:
Voters oppose 47 - 41 percent America's involvement in Libya. In the survey concluded Monday evening as President Obama was addressing the nation about Libya, voters say 58 - 29 percent that he has not clearly stated U.S. goals for Libya.
American voters give conflicting signals about U.S. involvement in Libya:
* They approve 53 - 35 percent of using cruise missiles to destroy Libya's air defense;
* They say 48 - 41 percent the U.S. should not use military force to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power;
* They say 65 - 27 percent the U.S. should use military force to protect civilians from Gadhafi.
Uh-oh, someone's trying to give uncomplete and biaised information!
|
On March 31 2011 05:58 Kukaracha wrote:
I can't provide links right now, but having followed the Libyan protests from day 1 to the UN no-fly zone vote on french newspapers, american news and Al-Jazeera, I've heard that:
- Protesters were originally mainly young people protesting against corruption, the government's immobilism, and the lack of future (jobs or higher studies) for all (and they're probably the core of the rebellion).
- Protesters were disorganized as Ghadaffi's intelligence and police have prevented any intellectual community from forming in Libya (this alone is quite meaningful). No set agenda is known apart from vague demands from the Rebel Council.
- Protests were strong in the west where there has always been a strong opposition to Ghadaffi (especially Benghazi).
- Protests have even occurred in Tripoli, which should be the city where most pro-Ghadaffi are.
- There were a few small pro-Ghadaffi protests (mainly in Tripoli); but I remember an Al-Jazeera reporter saying that a protester had confessed being part of the police and having been told to join the crowd to make it look bigger. It was about one protest in Tripoli though.
- There was no pro-democracy movement as it wasn't allowed by Ghadaffi.
- There are indeed islamists in the movement, which was quite predictable given Ghadaffi's policy.
-There are islamists in the Rebel Council, but they seem to be going in a good direction, at least for now (and probably not later): they're counterbalancing western influence and the ancient members of the government, whose motivations are unclear but who seem to want to give the power to western countries while assuring themselves they'll have a big piece of cake.
You said west when you meant east. ;-)
Otherwise, though, he is entirely right. I have been following it from the beginning as well.
Also,
22:57 BBC UK Foreign Office statement on Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa: “We can confirm that Moussa Koussa arrived at Farnborough Airport from Tunisia. He travelled here under his own free will. He has told us that he is resigning his post. We are discussing this with him and we will release further detail in due course. Moussa Koussa is one of the most senior figures in Gaddafi’s government and his role was to represent the regime internationally – something that he is no longer willing to do. We encourage those around Gaddafi to abandon him and embrace a better future for Libya that allows political transition and real reform that meets the aspirations of the Libyan people”.
http://www.libyafeb17.com/
|
2 Kukaracha
I read western media too and you listed what they say, but it is just one point of view without any proof in the most cases.
Al-Jazeera = Qatar and Qatar is already wants to sell Libyan oil.
|
On March 31 2011 06:37 Petruccio wrote:
2 Kukaracha
I read western media too and you listed what they say, but it is just one point of view without any proof in the most cases.
Al-Jazeera = Qatar and Qatar is already wants to sell Libyan oil.
Qatar already has the contract with the rebels although it is unconfirmed by the Qatar oil firm. And what proof do you want? They got reporters there their reporters were the longest to stay in Benghazi when it was being shelled. Al Jazeera has never been pro western so why would they be now? \
edit: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201132814450241767.html
And so far for the last people who still think the west is in there for their oil. They now asked Qatar to market their oil the west doesn't come into it.
|
Reporter is not a free person, we must filter out what he reports, because he is paid to do this job, not to report abstract truth.
Arabic world does not like Gaddafi and wants him to go. They are not pro or con western, they have their own interests and sometimes they much with the western.
|
Not gonna lie, even if we had intel pretty much *proving* that they have ties to alqaeda/terrorists/etc, I'd still be all for what we did. Couple reasons for that.
1.) Everyone deserves a chance to live freely.
2.) Hindsight is 20/20. If you went into every decision too worried about one possible outcome, you'd never do anything in life.
3.) As has been brought up before, extreme conditions breed extremists. Give them freedom and jobs and an economy where their leader/his family/friends don't steal all of their wealth, and chances are, the extremism will lose it's support.
Gaddafi is better then islamists, simply because islamists are as bad as it gets, bottom of the barrel.
If the islamists have the upperhand in the revolution then this has just become an unwinnable war. Gaddafi wins, we lose. Islamists win, we lose.
Freedom, jobs, economy, all easier said then done.
The world is rapidly becoming more and more global and the middle-east is rapidly becoming more useless. What purpose does it's population serve?
One half rejects the world and the other half is raised unable to compete with the world because their leaders are incompetent dictators who's only achievement has been to be born on top of oil. Imagine the current scenario and fast forward 30 years when the oil is starting to run out, what will be left off these countries? Most of them will see their entire export literally dry up.
Freedom? How can they achieve that in an area covered with conservatives who's idea of freedom is putting a gun to a persons head and asking wich mosque they want to pray in?
Jobs? With what? Shovelling sand? No offense but there really isn't anything in the middle-east that people want. The population isn't highly educated, it's regimes are highly oppressive and no normal business will want to go there, only the ones that can pay bribes. They have oil and they have over-educated people who will take their chances in the west where they get more money and don't have a government that wants to kill them if they step out of line.
Their economies are entirely oil based. You have dellusional ideas like building a Las Vegas with islamic law as overseer.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? What happens in Dubai stay in Dubai, especially if you kiss in public in wich case you can stay in a Dubai prison for a long while.
It's not like it's easy to just decide to bump up the economy. In the middle-east you first have to get past the vast majority that wants to burn bridges and cross rivers. The people in the middle east currently do not have a mentality that will allow their society to prosper, it's that simple.
Now when i say "the people" i have to point out that it's the majority, not every single last person because as per usual when dealing with the middle east, the accusation of racism is always around the corner.
I have said it before and i believe it remains true. Unless an Ataturk-esque figure steps forward and takes control and shoves the western way down the people's throat, the middle-east isn't going off the fast-track to poverty-land, estimated date of arrival 2041.
|
On March 31 2011 05:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:No turning back now. Show nested quote +Reuters: Obama signed an order, known as a presidential "finding",in last 2 or 3 weeks authorizing secret CIA operations in #Libya
It is nothing but the decision to start the war.
It has happed before Gaddafi "bombing civilians".
|
On March 31 2011 06:52 Petruccio wrote:
Reporter is not a free person, we must filter out what he reports, because he is paid to do this job, not to report abstract truth.
Arabic world does not like Gaddafi and wants him to go. They are not pro or con western, they have their own interests and sometimes they much with the western.
By that logic we can't use any news source anymore since they all get their information from reporters. And if Qatar had so much influence on Al Jazeera I doubt they would have been allowed to report on all these protests in the region. Qatar has known unrest itself when all these protests started if anything they would have closed it when those protests started taking place in the country.
|
I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country.
What the fuck does a police state look like that would be immediately visible to a random tourist? What the fuck? Its not like I could go to 1990s Afghanistan, go to Kabul and just immediately see the regime commit mass genocide.
Did you think that if a random tourist went to a police state, they would just see g-men shooting people on the street? And only then, its a police state?
|
On March 31 2011 07:13 Half wrote:Show nested quote +I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country. What the fuck does a police state look like that would be immediately visible to a random tourist? What the fuck? Its not like I could go to 1990s Afghanistan, go to Kabul and just immediately see the regime commit mass genocide. Did you think that if a random tourist went to a police state, they would just see g-men shooting people on the street? And only then, its a police state?
you can definately tell if something is wrong; people are different. i would know, i lived in the red era.
ps: and 5 - 6 months =/= immediately
|
On March 31 2011 07:25 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 07:13 Half wrote:I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country. What the fuck does a police state look like that would be immediately visible to a random tourist? What the fuck? Its not like I could go to 1990s Afghanistan, go to Kabul and just immediately see the regime commit mass genocide. Did you think that if a random tourist went to a police state, they would just see g-men shooting people on the street? And only then, its a police state? you can definately tell if something is wrong; people are different. i would know, i lived in the red era. ps: and 5 - 6 months =/= immediately
So your status of being born in 1980s communist country gives you the ability to instantly deduce a countries level of corruption and human rights abuses? Amazing, would have been nice to know that earlier.
I was born in 1980s communist China, and I hereby decleare Libya a police state k bro? argument over.
|
On March 31 2011 07:13 Half wrote:Show nested quote +I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country. What the fuck does a police state look like that would be immediately visible to a random tourist? What the fuck? Its not like I could go to 1990s Afghanistan, go to Kabul and just immediately see the regime commit mass genocide. Did you think that if a random tourist went to a police state, they would just see g-men shooting people on the street? And only then, its a police state?
Half, that man already said that he has relatives living in the country over a decade. I guess they told him also.
All people who live there report that it is a normal country with good standards of living.
|
All people who live there report that it is a normal country with good standards of living.
From your experience interviewing all of them.
Or from your experiences with the Russia media, who have absolutely no agenda at all of course.
|
To be honest, let's be fair here. Both sides need a bit of tweaking. Of course there will be interest groups who are interested in controlling a country. Several different groups with different ends in mind, working behind the scenes. Self interest does come very often guys, I can be wrong, or may be wrong, but there are also people who really do want to see equality and democracy. Is it easy to obtain? I will argue it's a losing situation because everyone wants to live comfortably, with the limited resources we have. Has Gaddafi's government, or himself done terrible things and crimes against humanity? Most likely, yes. Would the new government if they win do any better? Only time will tell.
At the esteemed Petruccio- Polls are very Biased, I don't think your link is very reliable. As much as you delight in skewing our morality, or indeed assuming that all Americans are simple-minded, that doesn't quite place your gloating above us.
Is the media biased? Again, I will argue that both sides are biased, or do miss points, or adjust their views as developing events come into play.
My personal views? Gaddafi does need to go, the replacement may not be any better but there's going to be difficulties no matter who "wins". Gaddafi will terminate and restrict so called human "liberties", while the rebels or new government will have difficulties agreeing with each other initially, or may also do revenge killings. Again, that is all based on assumption, which is a flaw of mine, but there's no need to attack while generalizing everyone.
|
On March 31 2011 07:30 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 07:25 xM(Z wrote:On March 31 2011 07:13 Half wrote:I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country. What the fuck does a police state look like that would be immediately visible to a random tourist? What the fuck? Its not like I could go to 1990s Afghanistan, go to Kabul and just immediately see the regime commit mass genocide. Did you think that if a random tourist went to a police state, they would just see g-men shooting people on the street? And only then, its a police state? you can definately tell if something is wrong; people are different. i would know, i lived in the red era. ps: and 5 - 6 months =/= immediately So your status of being born in 1980s communist country gives you the ability to instantly deduce a countries level of corruption and human rights abuses? Amazing, would have been nice to know that earlier. I was born in 1980s communist China, and I hereby decleare Libya a police state k bro? argument over.
you dont even deserve a reply because your missing the point entirely. not only that but, youre adding twists of your own to make your argument more thought out.
to live months/years in the middle of those people, to learn their language, their customs, its not the same thig as looking at a snapshot and commenting on it. (like you make it out to be)
it doesnt matter if you dont know the whole population personally. its a statistic. statistics are made on a very small group of people but they do end up representing a whole country.
sure you might say its subjective but you cant say that its wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
