|
| Thread: Historical chaos in Egypt |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:54 PM |
|
|
|
of course. how will you make him lose the power without killing him? if he started a war, the message is pretty clear, he doesn't want to go.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 06:57 PM |
|
|
Come on... there's absolutely nothing that dictactes he must be dead to loose his power.
Yes he may not want to go willingly.
That does not mean you have to kill him.
Anyway, I've hit the 20 post limit again, so no more response from me.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 09:01 PM |
|
|
well, if you do not want to use the force against kadhafi, then you have to make him realise why he fears losing his power. the deepest reasons, because he is probably not as dumb as to not know the most superficial reasons.
I don't really expect any president to be able to do that, as they are most likely subjects to the same fears.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 09:05 PM |
|
|
|
I'm not talking about not using force. I'm talking about not killing. I can't see what makes it necessary. I can't see how his supposed oppresion, which is tied to his power, is tied to his life.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2011 09:10 PM |
|
|
it's not, it's just that seeing the competences of people in charge of the problem, it seems like the easiest solution. or maybe nuclear bombing lybia would be quicker? no men, no problems 
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted March 22, 2011 03:02 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 17:37, 23 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
it's not, it's just that seeing the competences of people in charge of the problem, it seems like the easiest solution. or maybe nuclear bombing lybia would be quicker? no men, no problems
Nuclear bombing is the solution for everything man.It is the new sign for peace.
Now if we use them,there wont be any wars.The numbers add up.In 1000 years,bilions of people would be saved
"Nuclear power with nuclear weapons,its closer than you think"
"Donate 5$ to us and we buld you a nuke for use against neighbours.You can't ever get enough"
"If you have annoying kids,no problem,radura food will make them happy and make them feel warm inside."
"The package also comes with a smaller one that makes extra pretty lights"
"We can deliver them via airmail or a ship."
Edit:Apparently,I nuked the thread,nobody dares to answer...
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 24, 2011 06:11 PM |
|
|
(From a post by Blizzardboy a couple of pages back)
Quote:
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.
Among the many differences between Iraq 2003 and Lybia 2011 are the following:
1) The Middle East is in the midst of a domino-effect of internally spawned movements against standing dictators. Gadaffi was among the first to attempt putting down the movement within his own country and was most outspoken about his intent to "show no mercy."
2) Gadaffi is almost universally hated in his own region and thus there was substantial support within the Arab League to intervene on behalf of the rebels. (The Arab League also sees which way the wind is blowing and senses the days of the M.E. Old Guard may be numbered, so they want to come out of the other side of whatever happens on the right side.)
3) This is a limited war powers action to establish a no-fly zone joined by the United States to prevent Gadaffi from following through on his genocidal threats, not a full-scale ground invasion begun by the U. S. pumped up by a largely phony "coalition" based on phony "intelligence." Once Gadaffi announced his intentions, the various powers of the world began moving in the same direction -- establish a no-fly zone and slow Gadaffi down in order to give the home-grown revolution a chance to gain footing.
4) Gadaffi's "decent base of civilian supporters" are largely hangovers who are afraid to stand up against the guy because if the movement fails and Gadaffi remains in power then they come "out of the other side on the right side" -- the side that won't get their heads handed to them. Their numbers are not near what Gadaffi is pumping them up to be. What's pumping up Gadaffi's forces are the externally hired, well-paid thugs he's employed.
The motivations of the participants in the no-fly zone intervention are numerous and not all are virtuous. But this does not mean that none of those motivations is sound. One must look at the larger picture in the context of historical developments in the M.D. for the last 60-some years. The tide appears to be turning internally, pretty much throughout the Middle East even as we "speak," to resistance and rejection of decades of oppressive tyrannical leadership.
Generations of Western tolerance -- and even installation and support -- of these dictators has been one of the key elements perpetuating and aggravating angst toward the West. The people in these countries are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," and they have begun taking things into their own hands (and laying down their lives) despite decades of living under oppression, despite operating from within the mindset that if you speak out you'll get your head cut off or worse. Growing numbers throughout the region condemn terrorism, even as the rickety governments they rebel against accuse the rebels themselves of being "terrorists." These folks have greater sanity, fairness, and social freedoms in their sights, and their numbers just might reach critical mass if given a chance.
I have been a student of the Middle East longer than most of you have been alive. I urge you all to watch closely what is actually happening. This may indeed be a critical, defining time in the history of the region and of the world. While the kind of reform that is sought takes a very long time and must be achieved in small steps, those steps have finally begun, and people are taking them en masse in country after country.
Make no mistake -- I am not so dewey-eyed as to think there will be no extremist elements which will be rushing in to fill the voids created by each ouster -- and I know some of them will succeed. But ultimately, those elements tend to become merely another oppressor government like the one ousted, and the will of the people will continue pressing and pounding with each such extremist success. The underlying human trajectory will eventually overcome, however long it takes, however many times each nation has extremism and oppression again and again shoved down its throat. With each time this happens, the will of the people becomes ever more galvanized, they become ever more outspoken, and the ultimate outcome becomes more inevitable. That inevitability is finally perceivable in what is now happening throughout the region.
Whether anti-Western extremist forces succeed or fail in their attempts will almost certainly depend to a substantial extent on whether the West supports (or fails to support) the efforts of the people, right now. If the people perceive the West as supporting their struggle and in addition the West actually achieves a degree of success in helping to clear the path for it, the constitutents in any given country will be less likely to tolerate anti-Western elements among them as the leadership void-fillers. If we stand back now and do nothing, we only empower the extremists waiting in the wings.
Here's a Lybian gentleman that I filmed out in front of the Capitol building in mid-February, obviously speaking from the heart, like so many of his countrymen and women. If you look into it you will find his voice echoed by most rebels who simply want the same things for themselves and their families that you want for your own, and for them as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAGwzIlwuMc
Here's one commentary on the subject from someone who is very well informed:
http://pomed.org/blog/2010/12/pomed-notes-%E2%80%9Cthe-coming-revolution-struggle-for-freedom-in-the-middle-east%E2%80%9D.html/
I miss you guys.
P.S. Lybia now contributes about 2% to the oil market. This may be about a lot of things but oil probably isn't one of the biggies.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
