Libyan Civil War Turnout

Off Topic Comments Area

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

How do you think the Libyan Civil War will end?

Pro-Gaddafi victory
3
9%
Pro-Gaddafi victory, Gaddafi will make consessions to democracy
0
No votes
Death of Gaddafi and therefor end of conflict
4
12%
Coalition occupation, end of conflict, democracy
4
12%
Coalition occupation, start of a guerilla/terrorist war
5
15%
Coalition air strikes will force gaddafi to lose
1
3%
Anti-gaddafi victory, but I don't still think democracy will prevail
10
29%
Anti-gaddafi victory
7
21%
None of these
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 34
nick-bang
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Sep 07 2010
Human: Yes
Location: A dark and ominous room - only illuminated by the eerie light of a computerscreen

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by nick-bang »

Hullu Hevonen wrote:
nick-bang wrote:I continually am amazed at the basic irrationality of the international community and UN.

Why waste billions of money and thousands of lives on both sides waging a semi-conventional war that will drag on for months thus ensuring the maximum amount of suffering and pain on both sides - instead of doing the rational thing and eliminating Ghadaffi and any member of his family able to pick up the power reigns?

Many of the present coalition countries are able, but I seriously doubt that Obama have the ba.... to do it - after all he is like a black president Carter: all talk and no action and just a temporary stand-in until a president with direction and power can show a new direction - internationally and nationally.

And I dont write that to insult anyone or be an old angry man ...
I would go with Neutrality in this case, save my money, put it into education, boost the existing defence force or something else instead. Gaddafi seems to have supporters, there is no info on what the Libyan people really thinks, do they support pro/anti-gaddafi forces or are they neutral. So I would refrain on picking a side and not go there to kill pro-gaddafi military and civilians in the name of "protecting civilians". Plus if Nato sent in troops to Libya, it would cost more money, money that doesn't really exist without China et all.
Are you serious ?

A mad dog that have chosen to BOMB unarmed civilian demonstrators, that have jailed and murdered political opponents for years, have stood in the way of any democratic organization including labor unions, free press and women rights AND have actively supported any terrorist organization in the world and making his own bombs if they didnt do enough damage.

WHAT education exactly did you think could change that man - and education in what, he is not retarded and know very well what he does? And what "existing defence" force defends the libyans most basic human right, namely not to be murdered in random attacks by an illegitimate regime run by a burned-out dictator?

And what do you mean with "neutrality" - let him continue with genocide which was clearly more one-sided than in both Jugoslavia or Rwanda?

Are your claim that this is something that someone OUTSIDE Libya has somehow created, then I would very much like to see the facts that made you believe that crazy conspiracy theory. In the eyes of the world - and that includes Al-Jazeera and the arab nations, then this is a popular uprising by a people fed up with a crazy dictator. Hence the support to the rebels from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE to name a few...

That doesnt mean that the rebels are one united front or a democratic and well-established entity. Only that they all hate and despise Ghadaffi - except ghadaffis own tribe.

Actually your post which seems incomprehensible to me only made sense when I read the last line: "Plus if Nato sent in troops to Libya, it would cost more money, money that doesn't really exist without China et all."

So ... you dont like NATO, USA and the UN charter that they work on ... why dont you just say THAT instead?
That way we can discuss that position instead of conspiracy theories with no factual basis (that I have heard of or seen - but be my guest and bring some real facts forward).

I dont care if you are a Anti-NATO communist or whatever - that is your right and privilege in a democracy, but you still have to dish up some real arguments if you want to be taken seriously !
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1983
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by SGTscuba »

I think he was saying that save the money (of the nations involved) and instead spend it on building up their own armed forces and education for (the nations involved) own people.

But the question is, why have become involved here, but why not get involved in all the cases of genocide if we feel it is such a bad thing?

Simple - Personal Agenda's
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
nick-bang
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Sep 07 2010
Human: Yes
Location: A dark and ominous room - only illuminated by the eerie light of a computerscreen

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by nick-bang »

SGTscuba wrote:I think he was saying that save the money (of the nations involved) and instead spend it on building up their own armed forces and education for (the nations involved) own people.

But the question is, why have become involved here, but why not get involved in all the cases of genocide if we feel it is such a bad thing?

Simple - Personal Agenda's
With all due respect, then you turn the facts around:

It wasnt NATO, USA or even the West (whatever that is) that started the Jasmin revolution(s). It was the populations of those nations which was really fed up being treated like feces or worse by powerhungry dictators who took everything and gave nothing back. They want democracy and a better way of life (which does not follow from democracy implicitly).

Nothing to do with our own armed forces or education. At all - that is obviously not the problem. So why bring it into the discussion other than to start a polemic discussion about something else?

Why involved here is a better question, and why not everywhere else is a even better one.

I have no real answers other than the very political uncorrect:

Nobody (sadly) really gives a flying damn about Africa - to the rest of the world its a lost continent. Which doesnt make everybody refrain from using its ressources - China have taken the lead there in the last few years. This is not an accusation but just calmly stating a fact, without any fingers pointed.

UN is worthless and impotent and could not force a fly to take off from a dogs turd if they tried. Jugoslavia is a good example.
Anyway then it is exactly BECAUSE of those other instances that everybody moved quickly - because the world at large are fed up with crazy dictators. And in this case the world was actually in a position to act.

Obviously there is the oil question as well - which nobody can deny. But right now the only really agressive nation in the conflict is France - not Italy which gets most of their oil from Libya and certainly not USA which tried to get off the hook from the start.
Also there is the refugee issue, but again Greece and Italy have taken a very toned down role in spite of their issues here.
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

nick-bang wrote: Are you serious ? - yes :-)

A mad dog that have chosen to BOMB unarmed civilian demonstrators, that have jailed and murdered political opponents for years, have stood in the way of any democratic organization including labor unions, free press and women rights AND have actively supported any terrorist organization in the world and making his own bombs if they didnt do enough damage. - true, but consider this, many of those rebels where in bed with gaddafi. If these rebels really can turn Libya into a democratic state, well good, but I have doubts my self. There has been many high profile previously gaddafi loyalist that have deserted or changed sides, one example is Moussa Koussa. There was that Rebel General Abdel Fatah Younis that was recently killed, that now threatens to divide the rebels. If this divide is not evaded and it happens, then it could potentially lead to a continued civil war(besides against gaddafi). NATO has stated that what happens in Libya after Gaddafi is not their responsibility.

WHAT education exactly did you think could change that man - and education in what, he is not retarded and know very well what he does? And what "existing defence" force defends the libyans most basic human right, namely not to be murdered in random attacks by an illegitimate regime run by a burned-out dictator? You missunderstood me, I meant, that instead of you(your country) going to libya, spending a lot of money on trying to kill Gaddafi and his family, you could put that money on your own educational system or your own armed forces(to potentially defend your self) or to health care etc etc.

And what do you mean with "neutrality" - let him continue with genocide which was clearly more one-sided than in both Jugoslavia or Rwanda? Yes, in my opinion, involving our selves in this conflict will only escalate it further, not solve it. Plus we should try really hard not to poke our noses in places that doesn't belong to us.

Are your claim that this is something that someone OUTSIDE Libya has somehow created, then I would very much like to see the facts that made you believe that crazy conspiracy theory. In the eyes of the world - and that includes Al-Jazeera and the arab nations, then this is a popular uprising by a people fed up with a crazy dictator. Hence the support to the rebels from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE to name a few... No, I ain't claiming anything, I simply pointed out the fact that we really don't know enough(in my opinion) to have the right to decide that we should interfere in this conflict.

That doesnt mean that the rebels are one united front or a democratic and well-established entity. Only that they all hate and despise Ghadaffi - except ghadaffis own tribe. Yes, what when gaddafi's tribe is out? here is where my concern comes in, that the division within the rebels(united by hate towards gaddafi) would split and start to fight each other. It all depends on, whether the rebels can respect each other and democracy or if they choose to fight. If we look at Siad Barre and the start of the Somalian civil war, we se that if the rebels chose to fight each other, then that is how they could end-up.

Actually your post which seems incomprehensible to me only made sense when I read the last line: "Plus if Nato sent in troops to Libya, it would cost more money, money that doesn't really exist without China et all." - ok, good I presume :-)

So ... you dont like NATO, USA and the UN charter that they work on ... why dont you just say THAT instead?
That way we can discuss that position instead of conspiracy theories with no factual basis (that I have heard of or seen - but be my guest and bring some real facts forward).- huh? I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I hate NATO, USA or the UN. Yes I might disagree with some of their actions from time to time or dislike how they handle certain things, but that does not mean that I hate 'em. I dislike for e.g How the afghanistan situation was/is handled, but does that mean that I blindly hate every thing that come from US/ISAF(ISAF participants) or blindly hate their citizens? No.
I may get involved in heated debates etc with people that has a different view point on a certain topic from time to time, but that does not mean that I hate countries, other things with the parties involved, the debating persons etc.


I dont care if you are a Anti-NATO communist or whatever - that is your right and privilege in a democracy, but you still have to dish up some real arguments if you want to be taken seriously !-o..k... ??? I been through that ideological discussions before and I would like to avoid one. I don't really understand what your implying, ain't I argumenting?
EDIT:
nick-bang wrote:
SGTscuba wrote:I think he was saying that save the money (of the nations involved) and instead spend it on building up their own armed forces and education for (the nations involved) own people. yup, that I was :-)

But the question is, why have become involved here, but why not get involved in all the cases of genocide if we feel it is such a bad thing?True, Why haven't the world done anything about Burma/Myanmar(as an example)?

Simple - Personal Agenda's
With all due respect, then you turn the facts around:

It wasnt NATO, USA or even the West (whatever that is) that started the Jasmin revolution(s). It was the populations of those nations which was really fed up being treated like feces or worse by powerhungry dictators who took everything and gave nothing back. They want democracy and a better way of life (which does not follow from democracy implicitly).true, but it was NATO that stuck their noses in there. I think they should help clean the up the mess they involved them selves in.

Nothing to do with our own armed forces or education. At all - that is obviously not the problem. So why bring it into the discussion other than to start a polemic discussion about something else?uhm, if your armed forces is eating up too much money(because of warfare), and your countries budget can't handle it, you will get more(or faster) in debt. This in turn effects everything you do, including poking your nose somewhere it doesn't belong. :-)

Why involved here is a better question, and why not everywhere else is a even better one.

I have no real answers other than the very political uncorrect:

Nobody (sadly) really gives a flying damn about Africa - to the rest of the world its a lost continent. Which doesnt make everybody refrain from using its ressources - China have taken the lead there in the last few years. This is not an accusation but just calmly stating a fact, without any fingers pointed. well, ain't Libya in Africa? :P

UN is worthless and impotent and could not force a fly to take off from a dogs turd if they tried. Jugoslavia is a good example. Well, UN is not a country and hand has no citizens of it's own to do it's biding, so they are depended on their member states. all that is needed to make the UN 'impotent' is to have a country with a veto to use it.
...
Also there is the refugee issue, but again Greece and Italy have taken a very toned down role in spite of their issues here.Greece couldn't afford a large scale immigration problem right now. Same for Italy.
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
nick-bang
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Sep 07 2010
Human: Yes
Location: A dark and ominous room - only illuminated by the eerie light of a computerscreen

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by nick-bang »

This is getting big real quick, so ill try to be brief im my replies - not because I dont like a good argument but because this argument gets too big to handle otherwise:

1) Ok you are serious - I shall endeavour to be the same in my replies. And refrain from emotional outbursts.
2) Yes the libyan debacle obviously sees many turncoats and changing of sides. No matter what then its not something caused by NATO. Libya is a house divided like Jugoslavia which were in the same situation in 1991 and with much the same result. In this case its not as much religious and ethnic differences as it is tribal.
I believe that the civil war which IS already in place will continue - BUT that is something that would have happened no matter what. Except if nobody had opposed Ghadaffi then he would have annihilated the opposition and murdered men, women and children of all who opposed him.
Or rather he would have done it AGAIN.

SO... what is your point that he should have have a free reign thus ending the conflict by annihilation of all civilians opposing him?

Also I have to stress the fact that this is NOT NATO against Ghadaffi - NATO are merely the framwork for the support to the rebels.

3) So your point is that Genocide is none of our business? Heard something similar before - from Chamberlain. Good call he made there ...
4) You claim we dont know enough, however NOBODY is in doubt that Ghadaffi and his regime are scum of the erath, worthless and homocidal and deserve everything they getwhile they sadly probably will not get everything they deserve. The countless crimes are too innumerable to count. Also its proven beyond any doubt that many of the "rebels" are completely normal citizens who felt compelled to take arms against a unlawfull regime. These are not special forces or troublemakers imported from other nations - something however that Ghadaffi has done !
The question thus only remain: are there many rebels which are former parts of his regime and thus deserve punishment?
5) I see beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only solution for the nation will be to divide it - similarly to jugoslavia. But they chose the path which they are now on themselves. And NOTHING we can say or do will change that. Therefore its strange to me to ask what WE should do - we shall see what the Libyans want done.
6) I must have misread you then - I clearly saw you as another one whos mission it is to see the wrongdoing of USA, NATO and Europe in general and channeling that into a sudued rage. My apologies for that hasty assumption. However your thoughts on ISAF combined with your posts here does lend some credence to my claim that you at the outset are at least very sceptical of NATO and USA - which is fine, but it means that you from a purely rhetorical standpoint should be very observant regarding your arguments in a debate lest you create circular arguments and find the problem before looking for the cause...
7) Im not implying anything: I was stating it plainly enough. I am not surprised that you have had a similar discussion before as your arguments looks similar to ones I have heard before. You dont want another discussion here - and I respect that, so lets leave it at that shall we?
8 ) Now I completely fail to see where you are going with this: " I think they should help clean the up the mess they involved them selves in." Meaning what exactly - that they should apologize to the Mad Dog and pull everything out tomorrow leaving the rebels and anyone remotely associated to them to be murdered? Or stay and do what exactly?
You can not do open hart surgery with a broadsword - but you can kill a Mad Dog with one...
9) Can we leave the strange discussion about the price of armed warfare please - it has nothing to do with Libya and I completely fail to see the relevance at all.
10) Libya is africa - but there is a HUGE difference between northern africa and the rest of africa. ANd You know perfectly well that this is the case and also what I meant.
11) Thank you for agreeing with my point about UN. As we agree that UN is as usefull as a handfull of sand in a desert, that naturally leaves the question of how we should and could solve international problem like this.
12) You must have misunderstood my point about the refugees: For the reasons you write then Greece and Italy should seek a quick and effective solution, but have chosen not to. So its NOT NATO as an organization that wages war on Ghadaffi... which was my point.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1983
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by SGTscuba »

[quote="nick-bang"]

3) So your point is that Genocide is none of our business? Heard something similar before - from Chamberlain. Good call he made there ...
[quote]

Chamberlain didn't know about the genocide at the time he made the call, it hadn't begun yet. Make sure you check your history before posting, it makes your arguments look weaker if you don't.

Like it has been said in this thread before, if we help Libya, why not help all those other countries? NK, Burma, other Arab states, after all, the US is in a position to take out NK if it really wanted to, it has plenty of aircraft carriers, and even has troops in SK with plenty of backup from local forces, yet they still don't sort that out.
Last edited by SGTscuba on Aug 16 2011, edited 1 time in total.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
nick-bang
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Sep 07 2010
Human: Yes
Location: A dark and ominous room - only illuminated by the eerie light of a computerscreen

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by nick-bang »

SGTscuba wrote:
nick-bang wrote:
3) So your point is that Genocide is none of our business? Heard something similar before - from Chamberlain. Good call he made there ...
quote]

Chamberlain didn't know about the genocide at the time he made the call, it hadn't begun yet. Make sure you check your history before posting, it makes your arguments look weaker if you don't.

Like it has been said in this thread before, if we help Libya, why not help all those other countries? NK, Burma, other Arab states, after all, the US is in a position to take out NK if it really wanted to, it has plenty of aircraft carriers, and even has troops in SK with plenty of backup from local forces, yet they still don't sort that out.
Actually I was refering to the genocide HITLER claimed was done to the Sudeten germans In Czechoslovakia ... I know my history well enough thank you very much ...
The point I was trying to making - and obviously failed in - is that giving into a dictator will only give him more room to maneouver in.
But I guess that you are refering to Holocaust ? And THAT off course also factor into this discussion ... I just didnt want to pull that card because its been used so much...

North Korea would be a good call - the world in general and Korea specifically would clearly be a better place if Kim Jong-Il and the rest of his family was eliminated. However in Realpolitik such a move would inevitably involve China thus risking an escalation that could involve all of asia...
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

nick-bang wrote:This is getting big real quick, so ill try to be brief im my replies - not because I dont like a good argument but because this argument gets too big to handle otherwise:

1) Ok you are serious - I shall endeavour to be the same in my replies. And refrain from emotional outbursts.thank you :-)
2) Yes the libyan debacle obviously sees many turncoats and changing of sides. No matter what then its not something caused by NATO. Libya is a house divided like Jugoslavia which were in the same situation in 1991 and with much the same result. In this case its not as much religious and ethnic differences as it is tribal. Who have blamed NATO? I stated that NATO(it's members) stuck their noses into Libya, the problem still originates from libya, but NATO decided to take part of it. There for I think it would only be right that the nations that participates in the 'no-fly zone' would stick there after the civil war and help clean up the mess.
So you think Libya, like old Yugoslavia, would split(after civil wars) into it's respective tribal areas(who would become independent states)? I have to disagree on this one, I think it might play out in 2 ways, either these rebels can respect each other or not. Meaning, if they can, then democracy will be based and the rebels can respect it's result. option 2, which I currently think is the more likely one, is that Libya would turn into a Somalia-like situation, tribes fighting each other over oil, food, power. :-(

I believe that the civil war which IS already in place will continue - BUT that is something that would have happened no matter what. Except if nobody had opposed Ghadaffi then he would have annihilated the opposition and murdered men, women and children of all who opposed him.
Or rather he would have done it AGAIN.Yes, the civil war is in place, have anyone disputed that? True about that Gaddafi would of murdered people, but that death toll would likely have been lower than that of what now threatens, a long going civil war.

Let me motivate why I think there is a threat of a somali-like civil war. First of, the Somali revolution started when Siad Barre(who took power via a coup), in around later half of 1980's(the revolution itself) started to discriminate, kill, opose etc people from other tribes, that he thought was not loyal to him. Most of his ministers etc where from his or other loyal tribes, like the Marehan tribe. other tribes had made organizations them self to oppose mr. Barre's regime(and tribe), like SSDF(mostly Majeerteen tribe), USC(Hawiye tribes), SNM(Isaaq). These tribes had their differences, but where for the moment united to fight Siad Barre. What happen when siad barre was gone? well, the UN intervened managed to calm(but not stop) the situation temporarily and finally it flared up in a full bloody civil war.
How is this like Libya? Well we have Muammar Gaddafi(~= Siad Barre) from the al-Qaddafa tribe(~= Marehan) who took power via a coup. Now the Libyan civil war (started as an uprising -> revolution -> civil war), Gaddafi had given much of the key gov posts to loyal or tribe members, like Barre had done, now the civil war is much al-Qaddafa + loyalists against every one else. And I predict that there will eventually be a split like inside the benghazi gov and this might cause some fighting between them. There is already some groups within the opposition like LCU, NFSL etc. Though there is some things different in this conflict compared to Somalia, like eg. Internet and other technology.
What does this have to do with NATO? well, I don't think it's worth putting that money into bombing them, especially if you have stated your not gona stick around after gaddafi. I say, put that money into something else to benefit your own people instead, this war ain't worth it.


SO... what is your point that he should have have a free reign thus ending the conflict by annihilation of all civilians opposing him? No, I think it's Libyas neighbors and other arabs that should do something(help the civilians fight Gaddafi) , not NATO.

Also I have to stress the fact that this is NOT NATO against Ghadaffi - NATO are merely the framwork for the support to the rebels. Has someone claimed it to be so? it's the Rebels with NATO+others help against Gaddafi.

3) So your point is that Genocide is none of our business? Heard something similar before - from Chamberlain. Good call he made there ... It depends, If Canada wen't on an killing spree on it's citizens, well, then it would be the other countries in the region, neighbors, etc. their duty to help restore democrasy and not Chinas or Libyas duty. Similarly it should be the task of eg. Egypt, Israel, Jordan Sudan, Tunisia, UAE etc. to help the rebels to put a democracy in place. If the countries in the region is unable or simply don't care, then too bad.
4) You claim we dont know enough, however NOBODY is in doubt that Ghadaffi and his regime are scum of the erath, worthless and homocidal and deserve everything they getwhile they sadly probably will not get everything they deserve. The countless crimes are too innumerable to count. Also its proven beyond any doubt that many of the "rebels" are completely normal citizens who felt compelled to take arms against a unlawfull regime. These are not special forces or troublemakers imported from other nations - something however that Ghadaffi has done !Well, you don't really know how the rebel gov is going to behave when they get their chance, we can only guess, I guess no better then gaddafi, continued civil war. Gaddafi is nothing to be proud of, I agree to that.
The question thus only remain: are there many rebels which are former parts of his regime and thus deserve punishment?huh?
5) I see beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only solution for the nation will be to divide it - similarly to jugoslavia. But they chose the path which they are now on themselves. And NOTHING we can say or do will change that. Therefore its strange to me to ask what WE should do - we shall see what the Libyans want done. I don't think it will be divided into smaller factions, I think the factions will fight each other for control of all Libya instead. :P
6) I must have misread you then - I clearly saw you as another one whos mission it is to see the wrongdoing of USA, NATO and Europe in general and channeling that into a sudued rage. My apologies for that hasty assumption. However your thoughts on ISAF combined with your posts here does lend some credence to my claim that you at the outset are at least very sceptical of NATO and USA - which is fine, but it means that you from a purely rhetorical standpoint should be very observant regarding your arguments in a debate lest you create circular arguments and find the problem before looking for the cause...np. true I am sceptical towards NATO, as for US, no, but towards parts of its politics and foreign relations yes. :-)
7) Im not implying anything: I was stating it plainly enough. I am not surprised that you have had a similar discussion before as your arguments looks similar to ones I have heard before. You dont want another discussion here - and I respect that, so lets leave it at that shall we?yup :-)
8 ) Now I completely fail to see where you are going with this: " I think they should help clean the up the mess they involved them selves in." Meaning what exactly - that they should apologize to the Mad Dog and pull everything out tomorrow leaving the rebels and anyone remotely associated to them to be murdered? Or stay and do what exactly?
You can not do open hart surgery with a broadsword - but you can kill a Mad Dog with one...Well, after Gaddafi is out, they should stay there and keep the rebels from splitting and starting to fight each other. Then they should help(not take full responsibility of) rebuild, develop democrachy and help acheave what they went and support. And not bail when Gaddafi is out.
9) Can we leave the strange discussion about the price of armed warfare please - it has nothing to do with Libya and I completely fail to see the relevance at all. I think it has full relevance, if you are going to get involved some where, it costs money, sorry to say but these days every thing costs. These wars might cause more or less serious domestic problems. "Money makes the world go around"
10) Libya is africa - but there is a HUGE difference between northern africa and the rest of africa. ANd You know perfectly well that this is the case and also what I meant. yes :P
11) Thank you for agreeing with my point about UN. As we agree that UN is as usefull as a handfull of sand in a desert, that naturally leaves the question of how we should and could solve international problem like this.I say, let the rebels solve it their own way, with NATO+others help and supervision.
12) You must have misunderstood my point about the refugees: For the reasons you write then Greece and Italy should seek a quick and effective solution, but have chosen not to. So its NOT NATO as an organization that wages war on Ghadaffi... which was my point.Well, Nato is involved in a war, is that the same as waging, I don't honestly know.
My point(s) in a nutshell:
-I see many parallels with Libyan and Somalian conflict, but have come to se more parallels to your Yugoslav conflict point, but I do still think it will more play out like Somalian scenario.
-I think that NATO, UAE et all should stay after Gaddafi is overthrown/killed/out and help the Libyans.
-I think it was wrong for NATO and Sweden to go to Libya. I think it should be the responsibility of other countries in the region. Its little like(in my view) that If I start beating my partner, we live in Cambodia, then it is the responsibility of other Cambodians to deal with me, not the task of Brazilians. I think like this is because different regions have different cultures etc. so it's better for someone who has an proper understanding of the ways of cambodians and speak a similar/same language to help then a stranger for another part of the world coming to my house and saying what to do.
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
nick-bang
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Sep 07 2010
Human: Yes
Location: A dark and ominous room - only illuminated by the eerie light of a computerscreen

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by nick-bang »

Hmmm... again this is a sprawling discussion:

1) I dont understand your position - you must clarify it coinsiderably to help me see it. On one hand you claim that we should have kept out. Presumably from a standpoint of survival of the fittest ? On the other hand you know want us to stick around ? "There for I think it would only be right that the nations that participates in the 'no-fly zone' would stick there after the civil war and help clean up the mess" ... Who said anything about leaving ? No one is pulling out so I cant follow you there at all.

I expect the rebels to be roughly divided into 2 major camps for EACH tribal region: the educated/literate ones and the ones who are less enlightened. The former would probably gravitate towards a federal democratic state whereas the latter will probably gravitate more towards a sundered and divided nation. I highly doubt that you would see a Somalia situation, which by the way is NOT just a tribal/ethnic war/conflict but at least as much one created by poverty, lack of education and no infrastructire & central government.

2) There is absolutely no concrete or verifiably facts pointing to a lower death toll in Libya if no one had intervened. At all. That is your OPINION - but an unsubstantiated one. And at any rate then the vermin that Ghadaffi has surrounded himself with, and used as an instrument of oppression, murder and crimes against the human race and the libyan people, are hardly any great loss if eliminated with extreme prejudice. Sic Semper Tyrannis !

3) Offhand, then I dont dispute your story and interpretation of the Somalian situation, with the reservations expressed above. I do however dispute the link between the 2 conflicts. For one then Somalia sits on a truly and epicly worthless piece of the world which nobody truth be told and complete politically UNcorrect, gives a flying f... about. Also we tried intervention and failed miserably. Another difference is the timeframe - in Somalia the west intervened far too little and far too late, whcich will surely NOT be the situation in Libya. Libya is FAR more developed than Somalia which in some areas were barely out of the Iron age - no insult intended, just stating a fact, which also makes a marked difference. Also the rebels have far more ressources and supporty in libya.
Thus for a number of reasons when they win and execute Ghadaffi and large parts of his family (doing a Ceauşescu), then they will immediatle experience a vast influx of money and ressources.

For all these reasons and more, then I dont buy your argument. Your premises are undocumented and therefore your conclusion to some extent is based on circular logic, thus making it invalid.

4) "No, I think it's Libyas neighbors and other arabs that should do something(help the civilians fight Gaddafi) , not NATO."
WHO ?
WHY ?
HOW ? (And WHEN ?)
You are letting your antipathy towards NATO cloud your judgment. None of the countries you mention have the framework, personnel, hardware or experience to do anything like you describe. Hence all they could have done is send sporadic attack planes in, ensuring many civilian deaths.

5) The attempt to compare Libya to Canda is completely irrational and I really cant see your point. Also if you have failed to notice then all the countries of middleeast and northafrica are in the midst of their own revolutions thus obviously NOT able to mount any military campaign abroad! For that reson alone if not for all the ones outlined above then your statements have no basis in reality.

6) " If the countries in the region is unable or simply don't care, then too bad."
Too bad ... ? Too bad if women and children are murdered just because YOU happen to have a personal grudge against NATO for some unknown reason? Who died and made you God?
You seriously have to reevaluate your arguments.

7) " I guess no better then gaddafi, continued civil war" Your guess is based on what exactly? And at any rate then the rebels will be under international pressure to do something A LOT different from Ghadaffi. If only for the simple reason that they will have to do so to get any of Ghadaffis frozen funds.

8 ) You keep on talking about funds spent on the war from a western perspective - but what has that got to do with the war at all. We dont fight for money, but for stability in the region, basic human rights and to some extent oil. Not a single country involved in the war has had a domestic discussion about what it costs - so what ARE you talking about?

9) "Well, after Gaddafi is out, they should stay there and keep the rebels from splitting and starting to fight each other." First you want them to leave and now you want them to stay - which is it ?
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

nick-bang wrote:Hmmm... again this is a sprawling discussion:

1) I dont understand your position - you must clarify it coinsiderably to help me see it. On one hand you claim that we should have kept out. Presumably from a standpoint of survival of the fittest ? On the other hand you know want us to stick around ? "There for I think it would only be right that the nations that participates in the 'no-fly zone' would stick there after the civil war and help clean up the mess" ... Who said anything about leaving ? No one is pulling out so I cant follow you there at all. What I am trying to say is, NATO shouldn't of gone there in the first place, but now when they have, they should stick there until things are fixed.

I think it was Charles Bouchard who stated that after gaddafi is out they are going home and then an British said that the aftermath after Gaddafi is none of nato's responsibility(or was it Rasmussen?). I saw it on the Al-jazeera channel, they usually have almost every story on the net as well... I'll try to find it... I found one link, couldn't find the Al-jazeera story.
http://english.libya.tv/2011/07/22/the- ... not-alone/

Well I don't seem to currently be able to much prove it, but I still am of the opinion that NATO will bail after the Rebels have seized Libya. Though for arguments sake, some countries has already withdrawn assets and Norway has completly withdrawn. As I stated, I think that after you've intervened in the libyan conflict, you should continue to help in the aftermath to rebuild etc. and not run away when it starts costing to much or similar.


I expect the rebels to be roughly divided into 2 major camps for EACH tribal region: the educated/literate ones and the ones who are less enlightened. The former would probably gravitate towards a federal democratic state whereas the latter will probably gravitate more towards a sundered and divided nation. I highly doubt that you would see a Somalia situation, which by the way is NOT just a tribal/ethnic war/conflict but at least as much one created by poverty, lack of education and no infrastructire & central government. Well we have to agree do disagree on how this confilcts gona play out. Libya has a good educational system and infrastructure, but wars can destroy those things.

2) There is absolutely no concrete or verifiably facts pointing to a lower death toll in Libya if no one had intervened. At all. That is your OPINION - but an unsubstantiated one. And at any rate then the vermin that Ghadaffi has surrounded himself with, and used as an instrument of oppression, murder and crimes against the human race and the libyan people, are hardly any great loss if eliminated with extreme prejudice. Sic Semper Tyrannis ! I could use your argument against you myself, you have "no concrete or verifiably facts pointing to a lower death toll in libya" when NATO intervened than if they had not done so. As for the Prejudice argument, well, I think it's the Libyans right to decide Gaddafi's faith, not NATO's.

3) Offhand, then I dont dispute your story and interpretation of the Somalian situation, with the reservations expressed above. I do however dispute the link between the 2 conflicts. For one then Somalia sits on a truly and epicly worthless piece of the world which nobody truth be told and complete politically UNcorrect, gives a flying f... about. Also we tried intervention and failed miserably. Another difference is the timeframe - in Somalia the west intervened far too little and far too late, whcich will surely NOT be the situation in Libya. Libya is FAR more developed than Somalia which in some areas were barely out of the Iron age - no insult intended, just stating a fact, which also makes a marked difference. Also the rebels have far more ressources and supporty in libya.
Thus for a number of reasons when they win and execute Ghadaffi and large parts of his family (doing a Ceauşescu), then they will immediatle experience a vast influx of money and ressources. I disagree with you on this point, but as I stated above, we will have to agree to disagree.

For all these reasons and more, then I dont buy your argument. Your premises are undocumented and therefore your conclusion to some extent is based on circular logic, thus making it invalid.Very well, I don't buy your either :-). If mine is undocumented, then show me the documentation that 'proves' your yugoslav theory. Yes, there is no direct documentation saying Libya will end up like Somalia, but there is some support from people for the theory. also note that the word "like" does not mean "100% same as", but very much similar etc.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... QS20110302
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c53/104879.html
http://notesfromamedinah.com/2011/03/31 ... r-somalia/


4) "No, I think it's Libyas neighbors and other arabs that should do something(help the civilians fight Gaddafi) , not NATO."
WHO ? Saudis, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, the Arab League etc.
WHY ? Because I think it's their responsibility, not the western world's. If US wen't into a US spring -> Civil war, Should it be the responsibility of the other western countries to intervene or North Korea-China-Russia? Personally I think it is the ones it the same region, sphere or what ever you like to call it.
HOW ? Send in ground, air and naval troops to protect rebel strongholds and cities.(And WHEN ?Now?)
You are letting your antipathy towards NATO cloud your judgment. None of the countries you mention have the framework, personnel, hardware or experience to do anything like you describe. Hence all they could have done is send sporadic attack planes in, ensuring many civilian deaths.antipathy is not the same as sceptic. If a US, Frence, German, Danish or Turkish (etc) spring -> Civil war happined, well NATO, knock yourself out. If it happened in China, then SCO, knock yourself out. Did you read my culture example in the previous post of my? should I go in depth and explain this?

5) The attempt to compare Libya to Canda is completely irrational and I really cant see your point. Also if you have failed to notice then all the countries of middleeast and northafrica are in the midst of their own revolutions thus obviously NOT able to mount any military campaign abroad! For that reson alone if not for all the ones outlined above then your statements have no basis in reality. the Canadian example was a way to say, 'what if something happined in canada?' would you wan't the North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, roam your streets(or the skies) to try to solve the situation. Or would you like to see Brits, Americans etc. that might have more understanding for how Canadians think, how their culture works, what is considered right and wrong etc.

6) " If the countries in the region is unable or simply don't care, then too bad."
Too bad ... ? Too bad if women and children are murdered just because YOU happen to have a personal grudge against NATO for some unknown reason? Who died and made you God?
You seriously have to reevaluate your arguments. Yes, too bad, **** happens. What does god have to do with me and this discussion? or are you referring to me as god? i'm no god.

7) " I guess no better then gaddafi, continued civil war" Your guess is based on what exactly? And at any rate then the rebels will be under international pressure to do something A LOT different from Ghadaffi. If only for the simple reason that they will have to do so to get any of Ghadaffis frozen funds. "Well, you don't really know how the rebel gov is going to behave when they get their chance, we can only guess", how would you know if it would of been worse without an intervention?

8 ) You keep on talking about funds spent on the war from a western perspective - but what has that got to do with the war at all. We dont fight for money, but for stability in the region, basic human rights and to some extent oil. Not a single country involved in the war has had a domestic discussion about what it costs - so what ARE you talking about? I ain't talking about the NATO cause, I am talking about how the cost might affect that or their citizens back home. Some countries like Italy, should not really be participating in the operation, for economic reasons, the more money they spend the more money they have to borrow(that is higher than (per capita) Portugal and Ireland who already had bail-outs), who suffers from this in the long run? yes the citizens of Italy and possibly EU. So should we simply go to war because we have a cause? well if yes, why haven't we stuck our nose in every authoritarian regime business?

9) "Well, after Gaddafi is out, they should stay there and keep the rebels from splitting and starting to fight each other." First you want them to leave and now you want them to stay - which is it ? As explained above, they should not have gone there in the first place, BUT now when they did, they should stay and help&rebuild.
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Gurc
Lieutenant
Posts: 57
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by Gurc »

USA does not care about Libya result directly.Civil war is provoked for givng libyan oil to France. This is though times for NATO. I am in Turkey and I sense that NATO is going to shrink (maybe Turkey can be forced out, after unwillingness to face Iran in favor of USA). No more USSR no more NATO.

As a person I do not believe that democracy will exist in Egypt or Libya, like it does not exist in Turkey. We hold elections but I feel that we choose a dictator not a president. People's opinions are not important. Media(puppet of government after tax blackmail) suggests some unsolvable conflicts about ethnicity, woman rights etc. but no real stuff is talked about education, technology and industry. Western democracies(aspecially north europe, mediterranean are not good either) have earned their current status by social evolution triggered by industrilization. Current social reforms are just done because the capital owners of the country want to join European Union and EU dictates these reforms. It has nothing to do with the peoples ideas, no-one really rebelled or fought for these ideas.

Rebels in Egypt say that they did so for democracy but this is just a mask for a takeover. In Turkey everyone say "human rights" are very important but they say so when it is for their profit. Homosexuals, ethnic minorities,woman rights,etc. only say "human rights" for themselves not for another group. If they really believed in human rights then they would be defending each other but that is not the case. I told this because democracies installed during Arab-Spring will be as empty as "human rights" is in Turkey. USA/Europe will be happy as long as the installed government is a puppet of them.New government will hand over their national resources for a low price and open their market for invasion of foreign companies without caring for the unemployment that free trade will create.

IF you think differently I am open to arguing about these ideas.
nick-bang
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Sep 07 2010
Human: Yes
Location: A dark and ominous room - only illuminated by the eerie light of a computerscreen

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by nick-bang »

Gurc wrote:USA does not care about Libya result directly.Civil war is provoked for givng libyan oil to France. This is though times for NATO. I am in Turkey and I sense that NATO is going to shrink (maybe Turkey can be forced out, after unwillingness to face Iran in favor of USA). No more USSR no more NATO.

As a person I do not believe that democracy will exist in Egypt or Libya, like it does not exist in Turkey. We hold elections but I feel that we choose a dictator not a president. People's opinions are not important. Media(puppet of government after tax blackmail) suggests some unsolvable conflicts about ethnicity, woman rights etc. but no real stuff is talked about education, technology and industry. Western democracies(aspecially north europe, mediterranean are not good either) have earned their current status by social evolution triggered by industrilization. Current social reforms are just done because the capital owners of the country want to join European Union and EU dictates these reforms. It has nothing to do with the peoples ideas, no-one really rebelled or fought for these ideas.

Rebels in Egypt say that they did so for democracy but this is just a mask for a takeover. In Turkey everyone say "human rights" are very important but they say so when it is for their profit. Homosexuals, ethnic minorities,woman rights,etc. only say "human rights" for themselves not for another group. If they really believed in human rights then they would be defending each other but that is not the case. I told this because democracies installed during Arab-Spring will be as empty as "human rights" is in Turkey. USA/Europe will be happy as long as the installed government is a puppet of them.New government will hand over their national resources for a low price and open their market for invasion of foreign companies without caring for the unemployment that free trade will create.

IF you think differently I am open to arguing about these ideas.
I agree to some extent that USA do not care about the Libyan debacle, but why should they - its an european problem first and foremost. And at any rate then USA have done everything they can to stay OUT of the war. So why drag them in now, when they really have a VERY small role. Its France that have been the most aggressive in all the Yasmine revolutions. Furthermore then its actually mostly Italy and Greece that gets their oil from Libya, allthough France gets some.
France therefore is not just in it for the oil - they want to be the new regional superpower which they can be allowed as Germany dont give a flying f..., United kingdom have their plate full in other wars and Italy is busy trying to cover their Mafioso president and growing debt problems.

I really cant see why NATO should shrink, allthough Turkey can pull out if they will. To the rest of europe it seems that their new religious president in Turkey is doing his best to destroy anything that Kemal Atatürk stood for anyway - so why not sever the ties to the rst of europe while he is at it?
As Afghanistan. Iraq and now Libya clearly demonstrates then NATO is the only real framwork for any type of organized international military effort. UN have neither the format, courage, intelligence, framework or testicles to really make any difference (but that is another discussion found elsewhere on this forum), and this most definetely includes stopping a crazy dictator.

Why would any sane person defend the current anti-social, anti-democratic, anti-free spech/press, anti-laborunion, anti-womens rights dictatorship in Iran? That is just silly as Ahmadinejad has demonstrated countless times that he will murder any number of innocents to stay in power. Very much like the Mad Dog Ghadaffi in fact. The fact that Iran is presently "helping" president assad in Syria slaughter his own people is just another example of that.
If Turkey wants to be friends with a rabid dog - then be my guest, but dont be surprised when it turns and bite you...

Turkey USED to be a shining example of democracy and liverty in a region where that concept is utterly alien. But no more it would seem. Egypt and Libya are two VERY different countries. I do believe that we will see some form of government elected democratically in Egypt. Libya is more of a question - it depends on when Ghadaffi and the rest of his family are killed and how - and by whom. Its hard to build a democracy on murder, but on the other hands then sometimes its too dangerous to let somebody go...
Difficult times sometimes provides new solutions, but Libya can go both ways.

Dont understand what you are talking about regarding the media - that must be a turkish thing. In the rest of europe and especially northern europe, then the media will crucify any politician they can.

"Western democracies(aspecially north europe, mediterranean are not good either) have earned their current status by social evolution triggered by industrilization. Current social reforms are just done because the capital owners of the country want to join European Union and EU dictates these reforms. It has nothing to do with the peoples ideas, no-one really rebelled or fought for these ideas. "

Nonsense - that MIGHT make sense in a book. Maybe.
But in real life things are a little more complicated than that. Northern europe is AMONGST other things characterized by a wide NUMBER of democratic institutions: free press, free laborunions that are allowed to fight laborissues, neutral courts, women rights, a general tradition of open and heted democratic debate just to name a few.
I realize however that these are less pronounced in southern europe (no insult intended).
The people of Denmark CHOSE not to be a part of every EU institution (money, police and military) just as Norway have chosen to keep completely out and Sweden have had numoeous consessions and exceptions.
The "capital owners " (and I dont even know what that is supposed to mean), do not dictate what northern europe do, say or think.
18. may 1993 saw huge Riots in Copenhagen where the police fired 117 live rounds into the crowds (NO rubber bullets). So dont tell me than no one fought for these ideas. As seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADMZ1QH0d-w

"Rebels in Egypt say that they did so for democracy but this is just a mask for a takeover." I want facts and proof of that statement - otherwise its just your OPINION - which you are completely entitled to. But that does not make it true...

Judging from what you write, then it really seems that Turkey is under a lot of anti-democratic pressure from within. Obviously then democracy is an ancient institution in scandinavia, and the arab nation shall have to create their own version for their own people with their own choices. But I somehow doubt that the people of Tunesia and Egypt will accept a new dictatorship.

"USA/Europe will be happy as long as the installed government is a puppet of them.New government will hand over their national resources for a low price and open their market for invasion of foreign companies without caring for the unemployment that free trade will create."

Again then those are simply your opinions - which you are entitled to. As it is then both Egypt, Libya and Tunesia will need foreign investments and know-how if they want to use all their ressources. I would just like to point out that Egypt is ALREADY experiencing a HUGE unemployment, this was actually ONE of the reasons for the revolution.
No man is an island - and no economy is completely independent of the outside world. Not even The Mad Dwarfs North Korea.
So its basically a matter of trying to regulate it within the international laws and rules that apply...
sugarkane
Lieutenant
Posts: 59
Joined: Mar 06 2010
Human: Yes
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by sugarkane »

It would seem it is coming to a close now. 90% of Tripoli has been captured by the rebels.

Gaddaffi is expected to be captured in the coming hours, some of his family have already.

I wonder if our petrol prices will drop a little in the coming weeks?

Political commentators are suggesting the country will likely turn into more of an Iraq situation as opposed to Yugoslavia or Somalia.
Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair

George Burns
Rhyus
Colonel
Posts: 363
Joined: Feb 19 2010
Human: Yes
Location: Barnsley, Yorkshire, England

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by Rhyus »

sugarkane wrote:I wonder if our petrol prices will drop a little in the coming weeks?
yea right they go up but never really go down (not by as much as they went up anyways)
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Libyan Civil War Turnout

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

Gurc wrote:USA does not care about Libya result directly.Civil war is provoked for givng libyan oil to France. This is though times for NATO. I am in Turkey and I sense that NATO is going to shrink (maybe Turkey can be forced out, after unwillingness to face Iran in favor of USA). No more USSR no more NATO. I don't think NATO will shrik significantly, unless done so by war. If Member states like Netherlands, Germany etc. where to leave, that would leave them with a bunch of NATO equipment that would need to be replaced or 'germanized'/'hollandized' + they would have to start some indigenous military industries or buy equipment for little higher price.

As a person I do not believe that democracy will exist in Egypt or Libya, like it does not exist in Turkey. We hold elections but I feel that we choose a dictator not a president. People's opinions are not important. Media(puppet of government after tax blackmail) suggests some unsolvable conflicts about ethnicity, woman rights etc. but no real stuff is talked about education, technology and industry. Western democracies(aspecially north europe, mediterranean are not good either) have earned their current status by social evolution triggered by industrilization. Current social reforms are just done because the capital owners of the country want to join European Union and EU dictates these reforms. It has nothing to do with the peoples ideas, no-one really rebelled or fought for these ideas. Hmmm, your wrong about the nordics, Finland fought a bloody civil war, Sweden was close to it's own civil war("Hunger- och militärdemonstrationerna 1917"), I think Denmark had a number of more serious strikes. The Nordics fought all right. And now, these last past years have seen incredible rise in support for Nationalism that stand against EU, foreigners etc. Much social reforms are still under local rule.

Rebels in Egypt say that they did so for democracy but this is just a mask for a takeover. In Turkey everyone say "human rights" are very important but they say so when it is for their profit. Homosexuals, ethnic minorities,woman rights,etc. only say "human rights" for themselves not for another group. If they really believed in human rights then they would be defending each other but that is not the case. I told this because democracies installed during Arab-Spring will be as empty as "human rights" is in Turkey. USA/Europe will be happy as long as the installed government is a puppet of them.New government will hand over their national resources for a low price and open their market for invasion of foreign companies without caring for the unemployment that free trade will create.I have to agree on this point, I especially hate that when they who can do take advantage.

IF you think differently I am open to arguing about these ideas.
nick-bang wrote:I agree to some extent that USA do not care about the Libyan debacle, but why should they - its an european problem first and foremost. And at any rate then USA have done everything they can to stay OUT of the war. So why drag them in now, when they really have a VERY small role. Its France that have been the most aggressive in all the Yasmine revolutions. Furthermore then its actually mostly Italy and Greece that gets their oil from Libya, allthough France gets some. Heh, USA could have stayed out completely :P . I don't see it as an European 'problem', Maybe it's to some extent France's, Italy's and Spain's problem, the UK joined because they didn't wan't france to get all the glory.
Here's an oil 'plan'
http://www.rightwinggranny.com/2011/03/ ... n-oil.html
Also, France receives roughly 16% OF Libya's oil, that is more then Greece.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha ... libyan_oil


France therefore is not just in it for the oil - they want to be the new regional superpower which they can be allowed as Germany dont give a flying f..., United kingdom have their plate full in other wars and Italy is busy trying to cover their Mafioso president and growing debt problems. Correct, but could of been expressed nicer.

I really cant see why NATO should shrink, allthough Turkey can pull out if they will. To the rest of europe it seems that their new religious president in Turkey is doing his best to destroy anything that Kemal Atatürk stood for anyway - so why not sever the ties to the rst of europe while he is at it?well, he needs europe and the western worlds still, without trading with them he will never make the money to push Turkey to the among 10 greatest powers in the world.
As Afghanistan. Iraq and now Libya clearly demonstrates then NATO is the only real framwork for any type of organized international military effort. UN have neither the format, courage, intelligence, framework or testicles to really make any difference (but that is another discussion found elsewhere on this forum), and this most definetely includes stopping a crazy dictator.True about NATO, the UN is a puppet of the security council veto's, it can't really do anything because much is always vetoed by someone.

Why would any sane person defend the current anti-social, anti-democratic, anti-free spech/press, anti-laborunion, anti-womens rights dictatorship in Iran? That is just silly as Ahmadinejad has demonstrated countless times that he will murder any number of innocents to stay in power. Very much like the Mad Dog Ghadaffi in fact. The fact that Iran is presently "helping" president assad in Syria slaughter his own people is just another example of that. You should throw crap at Ali Khamenei instead, he's the real leader in Iran.
If Turkey wants to be friends with a rabid dog - then be my guest, but dont be surprised when it turns and bite you...whoot?? who/what is a 'rabbit dog'? 8_

Turkey USED to be a shining example of democracy and liverty in a region where that concept is utterly alien. But no more it would seem. Egypt and Libya are two VERY different countries. I do believe that we will see some form of government elected democratically in Egypt. Libya is more of a question - it depends on when Ghadaffi and the rest of his family are killed and how - and by whom. Its hard to build a democracy on murder, but on the other hands then sometimes its too dangerous to let somebody go...I don't think Turkey ever has been too shiny.
Difficult times sometimes provides new solutions, but Libya can go both ways.

Dont understand what you are talking about regarding the media - that must be a turkish thing. In the rest of europe and especially northern europe, then the media will crucify any politician they can. Crucify? not in the same manner and harshly as in the US.

"Western democracies(aspecially north europe, mediterranean are not good either) have earned their current status by social evolution triggered by industrilization. Current social reforms are just done because the capital owners of the country want to join European Union and EU dictates these reforms. It has nothing to do with the peoples ideas, no-one really rebelled or fought for these ideas. "

...

Again then those are simply your opinions - which you are entitled to. As it is then both Egypt, Libya and Tunesia will need foreign investments and know-how if they want to use all their ressources. I would just like to point out that Egypt is ALREADY experiencing a HUGE unemployment, this was actually ONE of the reasons for the revolution.I wonder, how to prove the future? when talking of future events, everything is opinions.
No man is an island - and no economy is completely independent of the outside world. Not even The Mad Dwarfs North Korea.
So its basically a matter of trying to regulate it within the international laws and rules that apply...
Tripoli seems to be in rebel control. now give it a few months to a year and we will see how it turns out.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/afric ... 05430.html
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Comments”