|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 14 2012 08:12 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On September 14 2012 07:58 CajunMan wrote:On September 14 2012 07:28 Agathon wrote:On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA. If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better? I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly. It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right? We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita. The higher incarceration rate is pretty much entirely because of the ridiculous war on drugs. The higher homicide rate does not come from mass shooting sprees like many people outside the US seem to think, those are quite rare and happen in other countries about as often when you take population into account. It almost exclusively comes from street gang on street gang violence.
It's not a discution about USA's politics...it was just an exemple to show that the goverment in Lybia can't be enough powerfull, and that it's normal.
|
On September 14 2012 08:14 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. I completely agree with this sentiment, although where did it say in the articles that their defense leaders stated it was our fault for allowing the video to be released? Anyway I'm not convinced by Obama's reaction that there will be a strong military response, although they are sending two destroyers into the Mediterannean. To me this is nothing more than a display of force- I mean why would you be sending tomahawk missiles from hundreds of miles away (the accuracy of which are obviously suspect) when you can literally be dropping hellfire missiles from less than five hundred yards away with a fucking badass UAV. I also read they're planning on reallocating some of the other drones from local combat zones to increase their targeting potential and overall badass-edness. Here's the problem. I agree the Libyan government looks VERY suspect in this scenario, due to both what you've already stated and something I found shocking in one of the articles: The commander of Libya's special operations unit that was on escort for the 8-man American rescue party stated, "It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it,' Sharif said of the safe house." I mean this is just ridiculous. What kind of halfassed operation are you running when your safehouse is discovered by the Islamic extremists you're aiming to prevent? And somewhere else in the article it stated the Libyan armed forces didn't react properly because they could "sympathize" with the religious intolerance. I think it also goes without saying that the fact this occurred on 9/11 raises some suspicions by itself. Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 07:28 Agathon wrote:On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA. If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better? I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly. Honestly take this nationalist shit somewhere where someone actually gives a damn. I hear there's a Quebec secession thread with your name all over it. And no, it's not silly. 2 of our diplomats died, and at least 2 additional Americans died in the ensuing rescue effort. Show nested quote +And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
Self quotes are cool, but..you know... Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tough Guy. Pleasure to meet you, sir.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=368144¤tpage=27#536
Nothing nationnalist. I just picked an exemple in the middle of many others.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 14 2012 08:13 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On September 14 2012 07:58 CajunMan wrote:On September 14 2012 07:28 Agathon wrote:On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA. If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better? I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly. It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right? We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita. Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
|
On September 14 2012 08:14 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. I completely agree with this sentiment, although where did it say in the articles that their defense leaders stated it was our fault for allowing the video to be released? + Show Spoiler +Anyway I'm not convinced by Obama's reaction that there will be a strong military response, although they are sending two destroyers into the Mediterannean. To me this is nothing more than a display of force- I mean why would you be sending tomahawk missiles from hundreds of miles away (the accuracy of which are obviously suspect) when you can literally be dropping hellfire missiles from less than five hundred yards away with a fucking badass UAV. I also read they're planning on reallocating some of the other drones from local combat zones to increase their targeting potential and overall badass-edness. Here's the problem. I agree the Libyan government looks VERY suspect in this scenario, due to both what you've already stated and something I found shocking in one of the articles: The commander of Libya's special operations unit that was on escort for the 8-man American rescue party stated, "It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it,' Sharif said of the safe house." I mean this is just ridiculous. What kind of halfassed operation are you running when your safehouse is discovered by the Islamic extremists you're aiming to prevent? And somewhere else in the article it stated the Libyan armed forces didn't react properly because they could "sympathize" with the religious intolerance. I think it also goes without saying that the fact this occurred on 9/11 raises some suspicions by itself. On September 14 2012 07:28 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA. If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better? I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly. Honestly take this nationalist shit somewhere where someone actually gives a damn. I hear there's a Quebec secession thread with your name all over it. And no, it's not silly. 2 of our diplomats died, and at least 2 additional Americans died in the ensuing rescue effort. And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
Self quotes are cool, but..you know... Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tough Guy. Pleasure to meet you, sir.
Here is where senior officer, Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the pro-government local defense force, the Libya's Shield Brigade said that we are to blame for this event.
+ Show Spoiler +Tellingly, he and another senior officer, Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the pro-government local defense force, the Libya's Shield Brigade, stressed that the Libyan guards on the consulate - estimated by Bargathi at up to 40 or more - may have felt little will to defend the compound from what they, and many other Libyans, judged to be justified religious indignation. "I first of all place the blame on the United States itself for allowing such a movie to be produced. This was the product of the anger of Muslims," Buhmeid said, noting also that the guards had only light weapons in the face of rockets. Source
|
On September 14 2012 08:22 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 08:13 justinpal wrote:On September 14 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On September 14 2012 07:58 CajunMan wrote:On September 14 2012 07:28 Agathon wrote:On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA. If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better? I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly. It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right? We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita. Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America? This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 14 2012 09:09 Prplppleatr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 08:22 Souma wrote:On September 14 2012 08:13 justinpal wrote:On September 14 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On September 14 2012 07:58 CajunMan wrote:On September 14 2012 07:28 Agathon wrote:On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote:
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post. Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA. If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better? I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly. It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right? We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita. Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America? This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story. ? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
Read the rest of his post. That was what I was addressing.
|
|
|
|
|
And if we had intervened beyond that point you'd be bitching about imperialism.
|
Time to start giving some of your own advice instead of just asking loaded questions.
|
United States7481 Posts
What a bad post. Are you trying to say that they aren't building a democratic state? Let us be clear - nobody said it was going to be easy, or without problems. But are Libyans as a people better off than they were with Gaddafi in power? Undoubtedly. Remember, this is the dictator who said the following to his army: "From tomorrow you will only find our people. You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi. A small problem that has become an international issue. And they are voting on it tonight ... because they are determined. As I have said, we are determined. We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road, the Libyan people all of them together will be crawling out."
|
On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote:
OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer"
Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you. Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people. Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish) Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable.
Mike Rivera put it well:
"The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero,
|
On September 14 2012 10:00 Dryzt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote:
OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer"
Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you. Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people. Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish) Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable. Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero,
What an awful post. The United States helped free Libyans from Qaddafi, yet you're painting it as an invasion/theft. The protests are clearly about the movie as they are Arab-wide and protesters are blatantly referencing the movie, though it appears militants hijacked the Libyan one. Please go back to your freshman polisci class where shouting "The United States, is like, worse than Nazi Germany, like seriously" is considered hip and credible.
The reality is that the United States will never get any lasting goodwill from anyone. If the United States doesn't support the uprising, they're standing by because they don't care about brown people. If they put American lives in danger, they're stealing the country. Okay. This is why I support an American-first foreign policy that focuses on improving American power and standing worldwide - you're going to get publicly reamed no matter what, so why not get something out of it too?
|
You mean trying to do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tried to stabilize those countries, got reamed by the rest of the world for that too.
Why doesn't Germany step up and offer to enforce UN sanctions if they can do better?
|
On September 14 2012 10:09 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 10:00 Dryzt wrote:On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote:
OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer"
Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you. Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people. Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish) Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable. Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero, What an awful post. The United States helped free Libyans from Qaddafi, yet you're painting it as an invasion/theft. The protests are clearly about the movie as they are Arab-wide and protesters are blatantly referencing the movie, though it appears militants hijacked the Libyan one. Please go back to your freshman polisci class where shouting "The United States, is like, worse than Nazi Germany, like seriously" is considered hip and credible. The reality is that the United States will never get any lasting goodwill from anyone. If the United States doesn't support the uprising, they're standing by because they don't care about brown people. If they put American lives in danger, they're stealing the country. Okay. This is why I support an American-first foreign policy that focuses on improving American power and standing worldwide - you're going to get publicly reamed no matter what, so why not get something out of it too?
I want to give you an answer to the question at the end of your post.
Why not do something that's bigger than ourselves? I mean that's the ultimate goal, but it seems petty to say that you're only going to act a certain way because you will get flak either way. That's like saying I would act a certain way just so people would think of me as a good person. I don't think that makes you a good person.
More on topic: I think it's interesting that almost all of us can get along on individual levels, but the bigger the group gets, the bigger the divide. When you can point at a group instead of an individual, it's a lot easier to do all the "bad things". When you're in a room with other beings like yourself (humans) it's very hard to do bad things to them as you can see the effects immediately and directly and in their full light.
I wish everyone would just stop being so petty. Be kind. We're all in this together, lets act like we're on the same team at least..
|
On September 14 2012 11:24 thurst0n wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 10:09 cz wrote:On September 14 2012 10:00 Dryzt wrote:On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote:
OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer"
Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you. Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people. Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish) Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable. Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero, What an awful post. The United States helped free Libyans from Qaddafi, yet you're painting it as an invasion/theft. The protests are clearly about the movie as they are Arab-wide and protesters are blatantly referencing the movie, though it appears militants hijacked the Libyan one. Please go back to your freshman polisci class where shouting "The United States, is like, worse than Nazi Germany, like seriously" is considered hip and credible. The reality is that the United States will never get any lasting goodwill from anyone. If the United States doesn't support the uprising, they're standing by because they don't care about brown people. If they put American lives in danger, they're stealing the country. Okay. This is why I support an American-first foreign policy that focuses on improving American power and standing worldwide - you're going to get publicly reamed no matter what, so why not get something out of it too? I want to give you an answer to the question at the end of your post. Why not do something that's bigger than ourselves? I mean that's the ultimate goal, but it seems petty to say that you're only going to act a certain way because you will get flak either way. That's like saying I would act a certain way just so people would think of me as a good person. I don't think that makes you a good person. More on topic: I think it's interesting that almost all of us can get along on individual levels, but the bigger the group gets, the bigger the divide. When you can point at a group instead of an individual, it's a lot easier to do all the "bad things". When you're in a room with other beings like yourself (humans) it's very hard to do bad things to them as you can see the effects immediately and directly and in their full light. I wish everyone would just stop being so petty. Be kind. We're all in this together, lets act like we're on the same team at least..
I know you were intentionally limiting the scope of your answer, but to me it still feels like a dodge. He's asking what I feel is a legitimate question: what CAN the us do to satisfy world opinion when a state is massacring its population and we are in a good position to do something about it. He was asking a specific question, your answer was a vague admonition to be nicer.
And no, I do not think "stay out of their business" is the right answer when we have the option of putting a stop to a massacre against civilians of that scale.
Edit: I understand the skepticism though, given our recent history of aggression. If say, china or Russia was militarily intervening somewhere everyone would pose difficult questions to them, for similar reasons.
|
"If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
|
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote:
"If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
who said that?
|
On September 14 2012 12:06 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote:
"If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person." who said that?
TAA on youtube, not generally a particularly good source but once in a while he says something smart like that.
|
On September 14 2012 09:50 Antoine wrote:What a bad post. Are you trying to say that they aren't building a democratic state? Let us be clear - nobody said it was going to be easy, or without problems. But are Libyans as a people better off than they were with Gaddafi in power? Undoubtedly. Remember, this is the dictator who said the following to his army: "From tomorrow you will only find our people. You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi. A small problem that has become an international issue. And they are voting on it tonight ... because they are determined. As I have said, we are determined. We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road, the Libyan people all of them together will be crawling out."
That quote has broken English. It's a passage translated from Al Jazeera. I can't say much about it.
Let's look at democratization.
Failed state index Iraq 2009: #9
They ranked even higher when the American troops were still stationed. Iraq has a GDP per capita of 4k $ per year. You can barely survive with that much. What do you expect these people to do within a formally democratic state? How are they going to compete and what will prevent this 'democracy' from breaking down? Nothing.
On September 14 2012 10:10 AKomrade wrote:You mean trying to do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tried to stabilize those countries, got reamed by the rest of the world for that too. Why doesn't Germany step up and offer to enforce UN sanctions if they can do better?
Afghanistan is #7. What the heck are you doing there? You stabilize nothing. Its government is corrupt, the country is even poorer than Iraq. About 500 to 600$ GDP per capita. Every officer there will crave for anything. The country is a wasteland.
The facts are: you see a threat. You go in and conquer a poor wasteland, causing lots of casualties. Then you do ... talking like on an Obama ad clip.
After WW2 you applied the Marshall-Plan. I'm not saying it worked and it's still disputed what effect it had. But there was that general concept to improve the conquered country's industry and commerce, boost reconstruction.
You don't have any concept currently and the number of wars you have waged might soon rise again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
