Jump to content

Following the middle east


Recommended Posts

[quote name='security_in_anonymity wrote:


mummy wrote:

security_in_anonymity']The counter-point to the argument that military actions create more terrorists:  

Please don't misquote me.  I never said military actions create more terrorists.  I said: historically, foreign intervention has created terrorists.

 

Fine.  But the counter-point still applies.
 Unfortunatley, though, we don't live in an ideal world where the removal of one government will create the dreamworld government you seem to hope will arise.  And even if it did, you can be sure that some individuals, who see a government that is pro-western, will form an organisation to bring it down for that very reason.  

You must never forget that it was for this reason that Gadaffi got into power in the first place.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't really believe in "dreamworlds" on earth, beyond what two people, or perhaps a small handful of people, can create for themselves. But, I do believe in pushing--hard--for incremental improvements and changes in the world at large and that, in most things, the status quo just isn't good enough. Thankfully there are always going to be those who are willing to push for whatever positive change they can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we have gotten off topic a little bit, and that is partially my fault.

The fact is that this UN resolution ONLY authorizes using force to prevent Ghaddafi from further attacking his own people and so that humanitarian assistance can be delivered.  

It does NOT authorize removing him or, as you pointed out, putting an occupation force in on the ground.  (Although, I hope this does result in his getting out of the way.)

I am always surprised when anyone objects to a humanitarian intervention and, yes, someone should have done something about Rawanda and Dafur.   The world as a whole has to live with those shames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always surprised when anyone objects to a humanitarian intervention and, yes, someone should have done something about Rawanda and Dafur.   The world as a whole has to live with those shames.

Do you even read what I write? Or just glance through part of it and fill in the gaps?  It is clear from what you state here that you have no idea where I stand on the subject.

To say anything further would be a waste of my time and an insult to your intelligence.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I read you. I have been working on other stuff all day, and when you post something to this thread, I get a little notification and read. Why do you think I am not?

 

I was responding to Maricam re: the Rawanda and Dafur bit, and I was responding to you regarding your comprehensive lack of support for this humanitarian-motivated, international action in Libya.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

[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.

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...