Jump to content

Following the middle east


Recommended Posts

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."

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

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Subscriber

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.

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?
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. 

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)

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.

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.

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!

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...)
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...