|
| Thread: Historical chaos in Egypt |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
posted March 20, 2011 11:38 AM |
|
|
Around 5% went to US.
But then this begs the question, Why would european nations stand against Gaddafi if they get so much oil from him.
____________
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted March 20, 2011 11:51 AM |
|
|
Well, if you think that EU is not just some bickering, backstabbing nations bunched together, you're wrong. 
Probably somehow, they found a better way to profit from the whole situation, if they kicked Qaddaffi out of the picture. Or don't tell me you think that anyone of them either from EU, US or wherever else cares for the well being of Libyans? You'd be naive...
It's a longshot but I have a theory: Given as to how Libya doesn't have a great external debt, only a handful billion dollars but that's nothing compared to most of other countries. Well, in a world ruled by banker lobbies, a country without a debt is a rogue country. A country that cannot be controled, in other words. So they might just wanna get rid of Qaddaffi and give the power to someone who will start loaning and create a debt.
I'm not sure but I think Qaddaffi doesn't loan from anyone. He manages the economy of his country without it. That will simply not do.
Well, that's my theory, don't take it too seriously.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 20, 2011 11:55 AM |
|
|
Day 1, 48 dead, 150 wounded.
What's this world coming to when you can't even bomb your own country without the Americans flying over to steal your frags.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 20, 2011 12:28 PM |
|
|
|
It's more interesting what will happen in the long run. The secular dictatorships installed in the Islamic world fall one after another but this will not lead to "democracy" (and yes, everyone who truly believes that this is even possible, let alone intended by the people who orchestrate all this, is dangerously naive at best).
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted March 20, 2011 11:11 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 23:21, 20 Mar 2011.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 20, 2011 11:17 PM |
|
|
I hate the U.N.
Overall I don't consider Libya on the same scale as Iraq, just by nature of it being such a small country and in a logistically easier location. Although I don't see an idealogical difference between 2003 Iraq and this war, except for the fact that it will be easier. In both cases the dictator was a borderline lunatic and killed his own people, but neither of them were being openly hostile toward an outside country. So what is fundamentally different between Gaddafi and Saddam? And if the difference is merely a matter of one being an easy opportunity - where Gaddafi is vulnerable and distracted - then why condemn 2003 Iraq? In that case, your biggest criticism against Iraq would be that it was overly costly, but there's no reason to be ideologically against it.
This is perhaps even more tumultuous because it seems that Gaddafi actually has a decent base of civilian supporters.
But then there is another aspect to consider: the vaunted support of the Arab League. How predictable that they would be so strongly spoken to support intervention to protect civilians, with their population's currently being a discontent beehive on the brink of revolt. Saddam was just as cruel, but they were quiet content to keep their mouths shut on that matter. Then there's Europe: their commercial and political motivations are far more obvious.
This is why I don't take popular vote in the U.N. overly seriously. It's absurd to assume such votes are based on benevolent motivations. The sense of justification people get by having a U.N. resolution behind them is completely shallow. India, Brazil, and China all abstained, which represent far larger groups of people, and Germany abstained, which is where the true power in Europe is. Even though the majority of countries supported it, I still consider them in the minority for all realistic purposes.
It's rumored that Obama was considering going with Germany on abstaining, but Hillary Clinton ended up pushing the matter. It would have been awesome to see the U.S., U.K., and France not parrot each other for once.
edit: Actually I take back what I said in the 1st paragraph. The accusation's of human right's violations were far more blatant and obvious in places like Iraq and Yugoslavia than they are in Libya.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 12:54 AM |
|
|
Not really, but never mind.
The point is that bombing Yugoslavia didn't take the local dictator down, and it probably won't in Libya either, especially taking into account that Gaddafi is a tougher player than Milosevic was. Saddam was only overthrown because they went in with everything they had. Air raids generally don't intimidate madmen who are pretty safe from them themselves. It pisses the population off, but that anger mostly gets directed at whoever is bombing them, and if ruthless dictators really cared about their people, they wouldn't be ruthless dictators.
Milosevic fell more than a year after the bombing, when a huge majority of the population, along with an important part of the army, stood up against him at the right time, and in the right way. Which, in turn, was the result of a lot of careful work.
But I suppose the West's trying to solve problems the only way it knows how. As it generally seems to fail hard at doing things more subtly everywhere except in the James Bond movies.
Then again, we can't know what anyone's true intention really is, and every failure can be a part of some plan. We just sound incredibly stupid when we say that.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 02:27 AM |
|
|
not sure if it would be better that they just keep watching civilians being killed by their ruler.
I think the best solution was to act, but by throwing hundreds of bombs? I don't think so
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 10:38 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:39, 21 Mar 2011.
|
|
What does the overthrowing of the dictator has to do with all this? The world is full of dictators who treat their people worse than a cattle but are not in the news and people focus only what the mainstream media serves as a "humanitarian problem". Seriously, this excuse for intervention becomes more and more trite and less believable with each next war (not that it was believable in the first place but for some people obviously is). I think I'll respect the politician who stands in front of the world and says "We don't give a s*** about the people, actually we are planning to kill quite a lot of them shortly - only our own interests matter and if you've had any illusions, it's high time to wake up and take a cold shower".
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 01:40 PM |
|
|
|
today, I think I heard they knew where khadafi was and had an opportunity to kill him, but didn't??
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 01:41 PM |
|
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 02:01 PM |
|
|
|
if it can stop the slaughter, better him than thousands of civilians
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not really, but never mind.
The point is that bombing Yugoslavia didn't take the local dictator down, and it probably won't in Libya either, especially taking into account that Gaddafi is a tougher player than Milosevic was. Saddam was only overthrown because they went in with everything they had. Air raids generally don't intimidate madmen who are pretty safe from them themselves. It pisses the population off, but that anger mostly gets directed at whoever is bombing them, and if ruthless dictators really cared about their people, they wouldn't be ruthless dictators.
Milosevic fell more than a year after the bombing, when a huge majority of the population, along with an important part of the army, stood up against him at the right time, and in the right way. Which, in turn, was the result of a lot of careful work.
But I suppose the West's trying to solve problems the only way it knows how. As it generally seems to fail hard at doing things more subtly everywhere except in the James Bond movies.
Then again, we can't know what anyone's true intention really is, and every failure can be a part of some plan. We just sound incredibly stupid when we say that.
Cmon,corrupt politicans need a crane to be moved away from their "Chair of Power".They are so in love with the chair.
ant btw,nato bombing stoped the "War",not the dictator.
Nevertheless,killing in order to prevent killings seems plausible,well kinda...
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 05:31 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 17:33, 21 Mar 2011.
|
NATO bombing didn't stop the "war", it just helped one side. The subsequent rioting, violence and revenge against the remaining non-Albanian population and monuments - which never had anything to do with Milosevic's repression - never got sanctioned. If you're going to stop two guys from fighting, you don't hold one of them and let the other one kick it in the balls and take his wallet. That's not what peace keeping means.
Anyway, what the bombing did was make heaps of collateral damage; causing a lot of innocent people, not only Serbs but also quite a few Albanians, to lose their lives and homes. While Milosevic remained in power and continued his repression until we took him down more than a year later.
And there is no apparent reason for things to go any better in Libya.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Not-Illuminati
Tavern Dweller
Always watching
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 05:56 PM |
|
|
Baklava you seem to be a little too sceptical don't you think? The NATO acts in accordance with the highest morale imperative and they always will.
It's funny how you think that a failure could just be part of a grander scheme I mean what a silly idea right? I mean sure there is the illuminati a supposedly secret organisation striving for world domination getting closer to it with every passing day which only are joined by super handsome sexy individuals...so I've heard. But I mean that's just silly right? Now perhaps you could stop asking silly questions as funny as they may be and start believeing the media.
Oh and btw I have this gift certificate I can't use would you mind giving me your adress telephone number, religious orientation, age, sexual preferences, height, skin and hair colour and I can forward it to you? That'd be great right you like presents? Of course you everyone does...
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:25 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 18:25, 21 Mar 2011.
|
Damnit why can't real newcomers be as cool as you, man.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:31 PM |
|
|
Best username ever.
____________
|
|
Not-Illuminati
Tavern Dweller
Always watching
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:48 PM |
|
|
What friendly people you are here. Now Baklava I have good news while you didn't answer me question that won't be a problem since the MI6 a friend of mine was able to provide me with all the relevant information.
So you'll be hearing from us soon .
____________
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw]You can not hide[/url]
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please think about what you're saying.
Do you really think killing is necessary?
well, seeing who is taking care of the problem, well, probably yes. trying to convince kadhafi to stop the slaughter would be better, but do you think he expects any lesson from all those men, who, it seems according to some people here, are no better than him?
if mother theresa was president of the US, we may have a better chance, but it's not the case.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:53 PM |
|
|
|
My point is. It's a problem he's in power. Not a problem he's alive. Those two features are not necessarily connected.
|
|
|
|
