PDA

View Full Version : Libia worse and worse every day.



Silverhandorder
10-03-2011, 16:35
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/tripoli-gets-new-militia-apparent-rebuff-to-islamists/

Factions fighting each other, tribal divisions, no government. This is a clear example of failure of intervention.

OGuz
10-03-2011, 17:22
that is what happens when thief goverments bring peace with bombs

fuck nato (not DF nato :D )

Krag
10-03-2011, 17:51
1) The rebellion against Ghaddifi was not created by NATO/the West. NATO only intervened when a couple of Ghaddifi's armoured brigades were about to rickroll into Benghazi and most likely going to engage in heavy amount of payback rapine and murder. So NATO dropped the hammer and demolished his heavy weapons so the Rebels could hold them out of the city. It was a moral decision to prevent a massacre. You can argue that was wrong, and we should just wash our hands of the whole matter and let it play out, but that would make you some kind of asperger diseased moral imbecile Ron Paul supporter. Good luck with that.

2) There's no guarantee things will go well for Libya, but hey it can't get much worse than Ghadaffi's reign which put him on the modern dictator honour roll. Ghaddifi spent decades dismantling Libyan civil institutions and running the country through stooges answerable just to him. This is how authoritarians keep any opposition weak and it will take decades to rebuild them. The west can help, send in advisors, civil NGOs, maybe UN/NATO peacekeepers and hope they dont fuck it up like they often do, but yeah the army or militants could takeover, it's a risk, but at least this event of Ghaddafi's fall gives the Libyan people a chance for a good restart.

Silverhandorder
10-03-2011, 17:55
1) The rebellion against Ghaddifi was not created by NATO/the West. NATO only intervened when a couple of Ghaddifi's armoured brigades were about to rickroll into Benghazi and most likely going to engage in heavy amount of payback rapine and murder. So NATO dropped the hammer and demolished his heavy weapons so the Rebels could hold them out of the city. It was a moral decision to prevent a massacre. You can argue that was wrong, and we should just wash our hands of the whole matter and let it play out, but that would make you some kind of asperger diseased moral imbecile Ron Paul supporter. Good luck with that.

2) There's no guarantee things will go well for Libya, but hey it can't get much worse than Ghadaffi's reign which put him on the modern dictator honour roll. Ghaddifi spent decades dismantling Libyan civil institutions and running the country through stooges answerable just to him. This is how authoritarians keep any opposition weak and it will take decades to rebuild them. The west can help, send in advisors, civil NGOs, maybe UN/NATO peacekeepers and hope they dont fuck it up like they often do, but yeah the army or militants could takeover, it's a risk, but at least this event of Ghaddafi's fall gives the Libyan people a chance for a good restart.

1) He captured many cities before Benghazi and there was no massacre as to which you allege. Rebells right now are committing the same atrocities that prompted nato to intervene.

2) 1 month after his fall and the country is already falling apart in conflict. Hardly seems like this will result in a better future.

GirlyMan
10-03-2011, 18:00
Don't feel like making a new thread so here you go:

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=B55147E2052701412A47A9F2C9DA754C
(Interesting part is at the end)

More on topic: I would've gladly gone on vacation to Libya before this started.

Lord Bulleteus
10-03-2011, 18:05
1) The rebellion against Ghaddifi was not created by NATO/the West. NATO only intervened when a couple of Ghaddifi's armoured brigades were about to rickroll into Benghazi and most likely going to engage in heavy amount of payback rapine and murder. So NATO dropped the hammer and demolished his heavy weapons so the Rebels could hold them out of the city. It was a moral decision to prevent a massacre. You can argue that was wrong, and we should just wash our hands of the whole matter and let it play out, but that would make you some kind of asperger diseased moral imbecile Ron Paul supporter. Good luck with that.

2) There's no guarantee things will go well for Libya, but hey it can't get much worse than Ghadaffi's reign which put him on the modern dictator honour roll. Ghaddifi spent decades dismantling Libyan civil institutions and running the country through stooges answerable just to him. This is how authoritarians keep any opposition weak and it will take decades to rebuild them. The west can help, send in advisors, civil NGOs, maybe UN/NATO peacekeepers and hope they dont fuck it up like they often do, but yeah the army or militants could takeover, it's a risk, but at least this event of Ghaddafi's fall gives the Libyan people a chance for a good restart.

and where was the moral decision when nato bombed schools hospitals and libyian water pipes..so nato saved probably few thousand rebels with there intervention and instead they bombed the entire country back to stone age killing around 50 000 people

and you say it cant get worst for the people?so you mean all the killing rapes looting that is on daily basis in libyia now is better then a rich stable country?

Krag
10-03-2011, 18:53
rich stable country? So a murderous dictator is not bad? The people rebelled, there was a civil war, and we supported the better side (team not-Ghaddafi).

There is going to be a period of upheavel while a new government emerges but it gives the people a chance to remake their country which they would never have with the Ghaddifi family boot on their necks.

Since you seem to think living under a dictatorship is so OK maybe you should go off to Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, etc. Tell us how great it is.

Silverhandorder
10-03-2011, 18:58
rich stable country? So a murderous dictator is not bad? The people rebelled, there was a civil war, and we supported the better side (team not-Ghaddafi).

There is going to be a period of upheavel while a new government emerges but it gives the people a chance to remake their country which they would never have with the Ghaddifi family boot on their necks.

Since you seem to think living under a dictatorship is so OK maybe you should go off to Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, etc. Tell us how great it is.

You need to learn to argue. No one here supports Gadaffi. We simply do not see a difference between him and people who will replace him. Because of that the losses that are happening now are not acceptable. This is all according to your value system. My values would not even allow me to intervene on behalf of my country men even if I wanted to my self.

Lord Bulleteus
10-03-2011, 19:00
rich stable country? So a murderous dictator is not bad? The people rebelled, there was a civil war, and we supported the better side (team not-Ghaddafi).

There is going to be a period of upheavel while a new government emerges but it gives the people a chance to remake their country which they would never have with the Ghaddifi family boot on their necks.

Since you seem to think living under a dictatorship is so OK maybe you should go off to Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, etc. Tell us how great it is.

well probably the same as living in the usa with the difference that in libyia you have free health care and free education(or to be precise they had)

Torin100
10-03-2011, 19:30
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/tripoli-gets-new-militia-apparent-rebuff-to-islamists/

Factions fighting each other, tribal divisions, no government. This is a clear example of failure of intervention.

You definetly need a Republican President, they always do the right interventions.:lmao:

Krag
10-03-2011, 19:46
well probably the same as living in the usa with the difference that in libyia you have free health care and free education(or to be precise they had)

That's edgy as fuck, AmeriKKKa amirite??

Silverhandorder
10-03-2011, 19:52
You definetly need a Republican President, they always do the right interventions.:lmao:

No they don't. I thought you would learn by now I am non interventionist. So sad.

Bissen
10-03-2011, 19:57
You definetly need a Republican President, they always do the right interventions.:lmao:

That you even believe in the left right paradigm shows what a gullible drone you really are.

I find it hilarious that Obama is your Saviour. Absolutely nothing has changed and you still do the red vs blue as if they ain't on the same team directed by the same manager.

There's a hand full of people left in congress that can not be bought. Obama wasn't one, and had people checked his record they would have found a corporate shill.

Which brings us to Libya. Approved by NATO and UN. Two institutions commonly known as tools for the military industry.