Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zhivvy

Following the middle east

Recommended Posts

But, Ok, to be honest, while I don't take a lot of your concerns very seriously, I don't dismiss them completely. But, I admit, it is hard for me to take TOO seriously a guy who honestly thinks Russia and China might start a world war in response to this UN-mandated action.

 

They could have vetoed, but they did not want to appear to the world to be the ones standing in the way of a humanitarian intervention. It is easy for them to abstain (get out of the way) and now stand on the sidelines and criticize.

 

Honestly, I don't think you have placed everything into the largest perspective possible, and it is just too much trouble to go through each of your concerns point by point. So, yes, I am selective in my response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned a new word today

 

zeitgeist---is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." [1]Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whew! i finally saw the Al Jazeera internet site for the first time, thanks to monicas posting of the link.

 

its a real big world out there and so much happening. its good to be referred to good news sites.

 

this is really expanding my horizens...

 

its the Live blog from Libya

 

http://blogs.aljazeera.ne...bya-live-blog-march-20-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mummy wrote:


mariacm wrote:

mummy']I'm talking about Basque Country with its terrorist organisation E.T.A. who want to gain independence from Spain through terrorism. 

 

So, there was no foreign intervention here, there was a terrible repression to all the nationalisms within the country during Franco's dictatorship, but it was and still is an inner conflict I hope some day we'll be able to solve in the polls.

 

I guess it depends on how you define "foreign intervention".  Here was a tyrant that was recognised by France, UK and the US as a loyal friend and ally.  If there was no Franco, there probably would never have been an E.T.A.

 

Ok then, if it is the sense you give to foreing intervention, I was thinking of a military one, so the same we could say about Gaddaffi, if he hadn't been recognised by all the countries and treated as an ally, especially by Russia, we wouldn't be at the present situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mummy

are you saying that all of the countries of the world should mind their own business?

 

take care of their own and never mind other governments?

 

so what happens when a dafur happens? can you clarify how you think that kind of situation should be handled?

 

because if you want for example just to bring in humanitarian aid, then it can get dicey, bc the goods are often stolen and purposefully kept from those in need.

 

should we just drop off the aid and let them sort it out?

 

kind of like survival of the fittest?

 

just wondering out loud about this point of view...

 

"This is a problem that the Libyan People brought upon themselves. If they want Col. Gadaffi out, they should get him out themselves, without any foreign intervention."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mummy

are you saying that all of the countries of the world should mind their own business?

 

take care of their own and never mind other governments?

 

so what happens when a dafur happens? can you clarify how you think that kind of situation should be handled?

 

because if you want for example just to bring in humanitarian aid, then it can get dicey, bc the goods are often stolen and purposefully kept from those in need.

 

should we just drop off the aid and let them sort it out?

 

kind of like survival of the fittest?

 

just wondering out loud about this point of view...

 

"This is a problem that the Libyan People brought upon themselves. If they want Col. Gadaffi out, they should get him out themselves, without any foreign intervention."

 

It's ridiculous that all global countries should mind their own business. This would mean there wouldn't be any GDP and no aid to impoverished countries, and you can see from the way the people of Libya still have not toppled Gaddafi as the respective peoples of Tunisia and Egypt did their leaders, they can't do it alone. Not without Gaddafi decimating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mummy

are you saying that all of the countries of the world should mind their own business?

 

take care of their own and never mind other governments?

 

so what happens when a dafur happens? can you clarify how you think that kind of situation should be handled?

 

because if you want for example just to bring in humanitarian aid, then it can get dicey, bc the goods are often stolen and purposefully kept from those in need.

 

should we just drop off the aid and let them sort it out?

 

kind of like survival of the fittest?

 

just wondering out loud about this point of view...

 

"This is a problem that the Libyan People brought upon themselves. If they want Col. Gadaffi out, they should get him out themselves, without any foreign intervention."

 

Okay, to sum up my view, because it is clear that I'm being totally misunderstood:

I have no problem with ANY country going into Libya IF it is entirely and wholly for humanitarian reasons.  My biggest issue is the inconsistency with which choices are made to intervene in another country's affairs.  For instance, why is the same not done in Yemen? in Bahrain?  in the Ivory Coast?  in Darfur? and in any other country that crimes against humanity are being committed by its leaders against their citizens?

I'll explain this too:

"This is a problem that the Libyan People brought upon themselves. If they want Col. Gadaffi out, they should get him out themselves, without any foreign intervention."

The internal affairs of a country should be handled independently by its citizens and not by any foreign forces.  In regard to Libya, most citizens are not happy with Col. Gadaffi so they have started something to shift him from power.  Now, if Gadaffi is to go, it is better for the citizens of Libya to remove him themselves than to have this addressed by outsiders.  The Western forces should do nothing more than provide protection to the citizens of Libya and let them sort out Gadaffi themselves, either through dialogue, or by force as a last resort.  The latter is probably the most likely route because Gadaffi is not being given any choices - if he was provided with a route to exile, he'd probably more likely choose to step down but that doesn't seem to be on the plate so it's more likely he'll rather die than give up power.  The way the resolution is worded it seems that he is going down one way or the other.  But I digress - whatever happens, the final outcome in Libya should be driven mainly by the people of Libya with minimal or no assistance from external forces except for that which is agreed in the UNSCR 1973.

Is that a bit clearer for you all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mariacm wrote:

Ok then, if it is the sense you give to foreing intervention, I was thinking of a military one, so the same we could say about Gaddaffi, if he hadn't been recognised by all the countries and treated as an ally, especially by Russia, we wouldn't be at the present situation.

 

Foreign intervention isn't always military intervention.  A lot of it, and most of it, has to do with political intervention. In fact a lot of it is subtle politics used by world governments to maintain or increase their power on the world stage.  It is this sort of subtle politics that create the likes of Gadaffi: the US and the UK had a strong presence in Libya while it was under the rule of King Idris, thus maintaining or increasing their power on the world stage.  Furthermore, the country's wealth from the newly found oil was becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the king.  So, Gadaffi, along with other military men decided to take power into their own hands and staged a coup de etat.  Shortly after Gadaffi got into power, the US and the UK were kicked out and the oil came under full control of Gadaffi and his newly created country, despite the US being very quick to recognise Gadaffi's leadership (less than a week after he came into power).  In no time at all, he had aligned himself with Soviet Bloc countries and his relationship with the West deteriorated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whew! i finally saw the Al Jazeera internet site for the first time, thanks to monicas posting of the link.

 

I can't believe you never have been to the Al Jazeera website.  It's a great news site.  Also check out the opinion pages on that site.  They can be very insightful.

Some other sites that I like are:

China Central Television (it's biased towards Chinese activities)

Russia Today (it's biased towards Russian activities)

Sky News (it's biased towards UK and/or US activities)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mummy, it is not that the people disagreeing with you don't understand what you are saying. We simply do not agree with you.

 

And, I suspect that until we do, you will remain under the impression that we have simply misunderstood.

 

But that is O-K, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mummy wrote:


xtraspicy62']whew! i finally saw the Al Jazeera internet site for the first time, thanks to monicas posting of the link.

 

I can't believe you never have been to the Al Jazeera website.  It's a great news site.  Also check out the opinion pages on that site.  They can be very insightful.

Some other sites that I like are:

China Central Television (it's biased towards Chinese activities)

Russia Today (it's biased towards Russian activities)

Sky News (it's biased towards UK and/or US activities)

Hi Mummy, thanks for these newslinks. I'm going to bookmark them and take a look.

 

as far as never going to Al Jezeera, its not too hard to understand if you were an american....

 

Ive been too terrified to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sometimes, there is so much going on in the world, so much death and destruction, that its just too much for me, especially when Ive got so much on my own plate.

 

I'm sure Im not the only one who has often made the decision to not watch the news for a while, or to take a break from it...

 

at times, mummy, i have tuned out bc it was everything I could do to keep going, to put one foot in front of the other, and to get thru the day.

 

I wonder if we are not involved in every country with crimes against humanity, bc its so exhausting to do so.

 

i feel stretched too thin sometimes on a personal level

 

so, when it comes to conserving my energy, then, i too, pick which battles i wish to fight, and which to just let go...

 

i cant do everything,

 

maybe that applies to the usa as well........

 

we cant be everywhere, and we cant fight every battle...

 

maybe we chose our fights as well, to conserve our strength.

 

i think thats wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sometimes, there is so much going on in the world, so much death and destruction, that its just too much for me, especially when Ive got so much on my own plate.

 

I'm sure Im not the only one who has often made the decision to not watch the news for a while, or to take a break from it...

 

at times, mummy, i have tuned out bc it was everything I could do to keep going, to put one foot in front of the other, and to get thru the day.

 

I wonder if we are not involved in every country with crimes against humanity, bc its so exhausting to do so.

 

i feel stretched too thin sometimes on a personal level

 

so, when it comes to conserving my energy, then, i too, pick which battles i wish to fight, and which to just let go...

 

i cant do everything,

 

maybe that applies to the usa as well........

 

we cant be everywhere, and we cant fight every battle...

 

maybe we chose our fights as well, to conserve our strength.

 

i think thats wise.

 

It's wise to watch the news irregularly.

 

You are right partly right: The US does choose its fights. However, it does not choose its fights to conserve its strength but rather, to strengthen itself.

 

Why are they in Afghanistan?  It could hardly be because of it's huge natural gas resources, never mind its other mineral resources such as gold! No, they are in there to get rid of the Taliban.

 

Why did they go into Iraq?  It could hardly be because of the oil!  No, they went in there to get rid of a tryant.

 

Why are they going into Libya?  It's not because of their oil!  It's because they need to get rid of a colonel who kills his own people.

 

Surely they are going into Bahrain, Darfur, Ivory Coast and Yemen next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget the strategic role Iraq and Afghanistan play in creating a containment strategy around Iran.

And of course the US acts to protect its interest and strengthen itself.  But so did the communist and so do the various global mafias, and terrorist networks, and state-sponsors of terror and everyone else.  Who would you rather have "win?"

And, yes, it was in the US' interest to "strengthen itself" in Europe during the World Wars and following. But, I don't see many Europeans bemoaning the democratic societies that emerged as a result and from which they are still benefiting. 
(continued...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(continued...)

 Besides, I don't know why you are taking aim at the US' engagement in Libya. This action is led primarily by the French and British. Why are you not criticizing them? You say you are just opposed to US military actions, but your animosity toward the States is clearly more comprehensive. Where is your criticism of the French, British and UN in all of this?

 

And there you go wandering back to the oil business. Why don't you do some research into who actually buys Libya's oil? You will most likely be surprised. 

Oh, and don't forget the potential for massive refugee flows across the Mediterranean and into Europe if Libya falls apart. This mess isn't happening in the US' backyard.

Your brand of anti-Americanism is so tired its laughable...or would be, if I were not yawning.  Yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zhivvy wrote:


mummy wrote:

security_in_anonymity']
I recall a recent history of a government (rather a coalition of governments) going in to forcefully remove a murderous tyrant--it was a most unpopular undertaking.

Gaddafi used air-strikes on his own people.  I would be fine with someone going in and forcefully displacing him.
I am just not sure it is in anyone's interest to do so (other than the Libyan people's)
.  And, I am fairly certain that if  anyone did go in to forcefully stop Gaddafi,  interest in the Libyan people would be immediately forgotten by much of  the oh-so-concerned outside world.   Instead, I do not doubt, whoever intervened would suddenly be perceived as an even more "evil" force than he. 

Eh, I can see at least one reason why people other than the libyans would be interested in going in and removing Mr. M Gadaffi.  For the same reason the "coalition of governments" removed the other "tyrant". One Word: OIL.
I agree with you Mummy - as i said above - other tyrants haven't been removed by force and strangely they are in countries with no oil!

 

 

Agree with you guys. And I've heard (don't know for certain), in this country a big fount of water has been found. No differences with Iraq, exactly the same situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned a new word today

 

zeitgeist---is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." [1]Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.

 

 

Hi sweety, some time ago !!!!
Have you seen the movies "Zeitgeist". I've recently seen the last one and I liked. Material for a deep thinking. You can find it in the internet easily. Hope your things are going well ! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me a cynic? lmao. I'm probably the most cynical person you'll ever come across when it comes to the US and it's involvement in the World's affairs. And I have good reason. Since 1775, there has been a total of only 26 years that the U.S. has not been involved in conflict. Since 1990, the US has been continually involved in conflict in Africa and the Middle East, amongst other countries.

 

In many cases, the U.S has been the cause and "solution" (I use this term loosely) of those conflicts. For instance, the Gulf War of 1990-92 happened because the US backed Iraq in the Iran Iraq War so that Iran would not succeed. The result? The war officially ended in 1988 with the signing of a ceasefire between both countries. By this time Iraq was virtually bankrupt and owed a huge debt to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Debts that neither country would forgive. This debt was exacerbated by the reduction in oil prices. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas, and that it was also slant drilling into Iraqi territory. Furthermore Iraq felt that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi territory but that the UK had created a separate country from that region after WWI, which Iraq felt was created by the British to limit any Iraqi government from threatening Britain's Domination. It was due to the above reasons (full or partially) that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

Who was responsible for the cause of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

But you know, this is a similar story to how WWII started... The Treaty of Versaille. I prefer to call it "The Treaty for WWII". Who came up with the treaty? Again, the U.S. and the U.K. were well in the thick of it. It set the stage for a second world war.

 

Who was responsible for this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Now we have the Libyan situation.

 

The U.S. backed Libya's independence from Italy in 1951. It was only when Gadaffi got into power in 1969 that the U.S.' relationship with Libya became strained. And for the most part, this was justified, esp. because of his support for terrorist organisations. He also used oil embargoes to try and force the west to terminate their support for Israel. The U.S. has had a number of hostile confrontations with Libya in the 1980s where there were an exchange of missiles where at least 4 Libyan planes were shot down. Incidently, these skirmishes took place in what Libya considers territorial waters, whereas the U.S. considers it international waters.

 

Gadaffi is responsible for acts of terrorism, including the Berlin Discotheque bombing, the Lockerbie disaster, and UTA Flight 772 bombing. Throughout the 80s Libya's relationship with the West and also with the Soviet Union was becoming more and more strained. Libya had to re-think its objectives and throughout the 90's it worked to improve its international relationships but with UN sanctions imposed upon it in 1992, sanctions which were not challenged by the Arab states, the Libyans relationships with both the Arab and Western countries were severely diminished. So, Gadaffi decided to improve his ties with the African states. This has worked out quite well.

 

In the meantime Libya has paid compensation for those affected by its terrorist acts in the 70s and 80s. This included paying compensation for the killing of a UK policewoman outside their embassy in London in 1984. This act helped to improve their relationship with the UK. Throughout the noughties, Libya has made further steps to improve its relationships with the West. This included dropping its program to create weapons of mass destruction. It's compensation for the aforementioned terrorist acts paved the way for the U.S. to improve ties with Libya in 2008. Gadaffi even got to visit the U.S. for the first time in 2009. The most notable development was Italy's agreement to pay Libya 5 billion dollars for it's military occupation of the country pre-1951. Interestingly, Italy is the biggest exporter of military weapons to Libya.

 

Italy was also one of the countries that signed the Treat of Versaille (The Treaty of WWII).

 

What's my biggest problem with the U.S. taking military action against Libya? The U.S. ties with Libya for the most part have been strained. Maybe in the early days of the state's independence, when it was a monarchy, were it's ties at its strongest. And it's no harm to mention that in those days, the UK was it's biggest supplier of arms.

 

Consider the following:

Do the people of Libya want the West to help them take the Libyan leader out of power?

Who is mainly responsible for leading the rebels?

Will the state of Libya disintegrate with the removal of Gadaffi?

Would Western involvement solve the situation or make it worse?

Would it be better if someone close to Gadaffi end his rule?

If there are many who profit greatly from Gadaffi's rule, it may prove extremely difficult to get to him because if the game is up for gadaffi, the game is up for those individuals also.

There is little reliable information coming out of Libya to know how many exactly support the man.

If the West go in, and to quote Colin Powell: China shop rules: you break it, you own it. Who wants to "own" Libya?

Who, in the Western World, would be foolish enough to rise up against an Arab leader when there is so much Muslim hostility?

 

The Libyan Revolution was initiated by the Libyan people. It is their revolution. It is their war. When they initiated it, they must have expected their leader's reaction. There is no turning back. Either they will usurp their leader or they will fail. In any case, whatever your view of Gadaffi, if any military action is taken by the Western nations could cause far greater problems than he staying in power.

Agree with this. There are big interests, which are not mention in any press media. Here in Argentina, The leader for the arabian association in Argentina ( something like that ) said very much like you are mention here Mummy. For me the key is that question: Do the people of Libya want the West to help them take the Libyan leader out of power? , because, who will decide when the intervention has to be made ? I don't know, maybe, tomorrow they can come for my president, or yours,....who knows ? It's so much beyond our control ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weapons industry is huge business, but to be so, someone has to use the weapons.

A good movie about this is "The lord of the war".

 

I think that big corporations and goverments are in the kitchen, that's ok because they own the restaurant. We are the clients of the restaurant, we just seat at the tables and eat what they give us. They make us think we are free to choose, giving us a menu with some options. At the end we will never know what they are cooking, we are not alowed to get inside the kitchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

Oh yap ! Probably I'm REAL danger, propose what to do with me, maybe an intervention could help !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

"It's the Argentinian girl"...Hello, my name is Carolina, very nice to meet you !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look! It is the Argentinian girl who thinks the US knocked down its own buildings on 9/11 so that it could go to war in Iraq and steal its oil. LOL!

 

Yay! We have a REAL authority in the house now!

Thank you very much for recognizing my authority,...I'm very proud of your thoughts !!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for recognizing my authority,...I'm very proud of your thoughts !!!

 

Hi Naz- queen of the world! tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...