Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Share

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:38 am

    Only the money they bring in. Besides, I prefer bicycles. Very Happy

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  nightcrawler on Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:38 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:Only the money they bring in. Besides, I prefer bicycles. Very Happy



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:55 pm

    Tibet was a sovereign state, and no disrespect, but Native Americans were barbarians.

    Yeah... I live in New Zealand mate... I know all the excuses for displacing people from land in western terms they would rightfully own if they thought in western terms. We own it because we have developed it and made it better... they had it for thousands of years and very little changed there.

    By western standards we f**ked the people and now we have f**ked the land they lived on, and now we demand they thank us for it and say how they are so much better off separated from their land and had their culture stripped away from them... with most of their people depressed and with drug or alcohol problems.

    Don't try that holier than thou sh!t with me cause I am not that stupid.

    So you're basis for American culture is based off of Hollywood movies? >.> Bad examples all around.

    Actually Hollywood movies are a great indication of what Americans think and is a window into your culture. If you didn't agree with all these happy endings why would you keep going to movies?
    If you didn't root for the underdog why do all Disney cartoons depict the underdog always winning?
    In the real world a tweety bird has very little real chance against a cat. Rabbits are tricky but hunters rarely actually get blown up when a rabbit hops up and sticks his finger in the barrel of the hunters gun.
    Every comedy pairing in Disney cartoons is a lie... coyotes are actually faster runners than road runners in the real world... and that is without buying products from Acme.


    I don't understand how you're inferring that Oil in general is a good thing.

    I am not. I am suggesting that Americas oil dependence is keeping you from developing new technologies that are cleaner and renewable. As long as fuel is cheap in the US... who needs an electric car that costs three times more than a petrol or diesel driven car?
    (note here in NZ we don't call petrol gas, because we call natural gas or LPG gas... because at room temperatures it is a gas... unlike petrol which is a liquid when at room temp... though it does evaporate.)

    As I said the Chinese are spending a lot of money on alternative power sources and you just might find that your energy companies are still really oil companies and are just paying lip service to the other technologies they can't monopolise.

    I'm simply stating that the Libyan liberalization of their markets will
    draw U.S. Investors, primarily in Energy, to them, which would reak
    profits to us.

    It is no accident that of all the protests in the Middle East only Libya gets US attention.
    The Libyan people want rid of Gaddafi... do you not think it might be because of his recent good relations with the west? The Libyan market could remain as closed as a steel trap as far as the US is concerned... as long as they "liberalise" their oil market... which means let US companies get all the good contracts it will be a shining new democracy in the Middle East and proof that killing all those Iraqis and Afghans was all worth it. The risk they run is that whoever gets into power in Libya might actually want the oil wealth of the country to benefit all the Libyan people rather than whatever equivalent of the new royal family they create.

    Of course at the end of the day the US benefits from cheap oil so it doesn't matter who gets the contracts as long as they pump oil. The worst result will be a long ongoing civil war that makes oil extraction impossible. The best option for the west would actually be for Gadaffi to regain full control because that will get oil production back on line fastest and a return to a dictatorship will provide a stable government that is easier to deal with. A democracy can change direction 2-3 times a decade which can make negotiations problematic.

    Being the linchpin of the World Economy, a rich U.S. is a good U.S.

    Rubbish... having the US at the centre of the world economy just makes the world economy victim to US foreign policy. A multipolar economic world is a much better solution and that requires a US owed by China...

    Remember, we had a plan to build a Solar base on the Moon, had it not been for that Obama guy.

    Yeah... how wonderful Bush jnr was... boy he could talk sh!t and spend money... that is what you need right now.... Rolling Eyes

    Countryman, You actually trust the oil companies?

    The best propaganda in the world and he is immersed in it 24/7.

    Merica is a force for good... and if you don't believe us we will kill you. Neutral

    Only the money they bring in. Besides, I prefer bicycles.

    Reminds me of a documentary I saw about 15 years ago about China. The documentary had lots of facts so I know it was a British doco rather than an infomercial that mericans get.
    Anyway behind the person being interviewed in a large Chinese city was a large window and in the street outside there were wall to wall cars... and they were new looking cars.
    The guy being interviewed was from an American car company and when the interviewer asked about how business in China was going he pointed out the window and said when he arrived 5 years earlier that it was wall to wall bicycles and that even in the big cities cars were very rare. Now most people in the major cities can afford cars and quite often families will have 2-3 cars... remember many Chinese families have two parents and one child due to the one child policy. Asked what his goals for the next 5 years were and he said that there were enormous numbers of Chinese people that didn't live in cities and he wanted to get them to buy cars too.

    What I am trying to say is that US consumer culture is being spread around the world... and it is not the people that want the crap, it is the businesses that want to sell products that influence people that they need new stuff even though the stuff they have now does pretty much the same job.
    The damage the US has done to the world could probably be measured... 300 million people multiplied by the amount of waste they produce. Imagine what happens when this culture becomes the dominant culture in China... almost 2 billion people acting like Americans did in the 80s?
    And the US is trying to cosy up to India as well... add another 1.5 billion people to the soup.

    We don't need the US to continue its old ways... either see the light and get your act together or we need to replace you with a country that will.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:53 pm

    Neutral Wall of texts.

    I will down-duce this discussion to a few of your points:

    Rubbish... having the US at the centre of the world economy just makes the world economy victim to US foreign policy. A multipolar economic world is a much better solution and that requires a US owed by China...

    A multi-polar economy simply means that different regions of the world will be f*cked with the foreign policy of a specific state. The poorer regions of Asians would be owned by China, North America, Europe (including Eastern europe) will be owned by NATO, Central Asia and Middle East will be owned by OPEC and Russia, list goes on and on. Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

    I am not. I am suggesting that Americas oil dependence is keeping you from developing new technologies that are cleaner and renewable. As long as fuel is cheap in the US... who needs an electric car that costs three times more than a petrol or diesel driven car?
    (note here in NZ we don't call petrol gas, because we call natural gas or LPG gas... because at room temperatures it is a gas... unlike petrol which is a liquid when at room temp... though it does evaporate.)

    As I said the Chinese are spending a lot of money on alternative power sources and you just might find that your energy companies are still really oil companies and are just paying lip service to the other technologies they can't monopolise.

    I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such technologies.

    Actually Hollywood movies are a great indication of what Americans think and is a window into your culture. If you didn't agree with all these happy endings why would you keep going to movies?
    If you didn't root for the underdog why do all Disney cartoons depict the underdog always winning?
    In the real world a tweety bird has very little real chance against a cat. Rabbits are tricky but hunters rarely actually get blown up when a rabbit hops up and sticks his finger in the barrel of the hunters gun.
    Every comedy pairing in Disney cartoons is a lie... coyotes are actually faster runners than road runners in the real world... and that is without buying products from Acme.

    To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.


    Yeah... I live in New Zealand mate... I know all the excuses for displacing people from land in western terms they would rightfully own if they thought in western terms. We own it because we have developed it and made it better... they had it for thousands of years and very little changed there.

    By western standards we f**ked the people and now we have f**ked the land they lived on, and now we demand they thank us for it and say how they are so much better off separated from their land and had their culture stripped away from them... with most of their people depressed and with drug or alcohol problems.

    Don't try that holier than thou sh!t with me cause I am not that stupid.

    But they're different things...

    Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

    Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

    In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

    (ex. Chinese dynasties invading each other, Mongols, etc, Roman conquest of Gallic lands, Mayan conquests of some tribes' whom names I've forgottens' land, etc)

    The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:39 am

    Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

    Yes, the King of the country will often suggest that a stable safe free country cannot exist without the xyz that is provided by having a king.

    How about we not take your word and give it a go?

    The US is all about democracy and choice so lets let the 6.5 billion Earthlings that aren't Americans get a choice?

    I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop
    developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such
    technologies.

    How much investment will such technologies get when the entire country is happy with its depencancy on oil because hey... it is cheap again! A technology that is only of interest to a minority of consumers is not worth investing a lot of money in. There would be much greater returns on developing new oil drilling machines that can work deep under water or in extremely cold climates if you know what I mean?

    To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and
    base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from
    movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a
    tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.

    Hollywood is an industry in a consumer society. It has to match its product to what the majority of customers want and expect. They might not all appeal to all Americans but they are designed for the American market first and foremost. They help form stereotypes, but they also come from US stereotypes too.

    Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

    So. Being a recognised state means nothing in the 21st C. Thanks to NATO states can be created (Kosovo) on a whim. They can be invaded, or sanctioned into poverty.

    You can't have a state without a social structure, and what you are saying is the only valid social structure that can be recognised as owning land is a state.

    You are not better than the colonials that went around local chiefs and got them to sign bits of paper. The chiefs had no idea they were signing away ownership of the land their people have lived on for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years. But when the colonials moved in and started using force to remove these people to land no one else wanted it was all legal... they signed the blank sheet of paper that was filled in later. All nice and legal.

    The reality was that it was the military power of the colonial forces that allowed them to do what they did.

    In this case it is Chinas military power that allows it to do what it is doing. To claim stealing land from Native Americans is not the same as China imposing its will on Tibet is amusing.

    Whinging about what China is doing and ignoring what America has done and is doing right now is why I don't respect the US or hold it in the same high regard that you clearly do.

    Sad thing is that most of the things have been done in the name of the American people and if they actually sat down and had a good look at what was done in their name they might want to change it... but that isn't going to happen. US history will continue to be written by the Government and Hollywood.

    Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

    So pinching their land and killing half them is OK?

    There was a hilarious TV series made in the US a long while back called the Beverly Hillbillies, and it was basically about some simple farming folk who found oil on their land and it made them extremely wealthy so they moved to Beverly Hills with the other rich folk. They soon find they don't really fit in and have a lot to learn and much of what they learn doesn't really sit well with them. For instance the high society people have a social structure based on how early they arrived to North America. The father of the simple farming folk called Jed worked out that that must mean the Indians are at the top of the social structure... which is perfect common sense, but was immediately dismissed. It isn't said out loud but the social structure is for whites only. It is set in the 60s I think and so there would only be white people amongst the rich society anyway.

    In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a
    conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

    But those other brutal regimes and murderers aren't claiming the moral high ground and demanding to be the worlds financial hub. It is only the Western countries that give verbal moral lessons on the international stage.

    The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation
    of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an
    extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

    And the US invading countries in that period is OK?

    Iraq 2003
    Afghanistan 2001
    Haiti 1994
    Kuwaite/Southern Iraq 1991
    Panama 1989
    Grenada 1983
    Cambodia 1970
    Dominican Republic 1965
    South Vietnam 1962
    Cuba 1961
    Korea 1950


    Of course the US benefits even more from writing off invasions before 1945 as not "counting".

    I guess they must have had their fingers crossed or something to make 1945 such a special date.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:15 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

    Yes, the King of the country will often suggest that a stable safe free country cannot exist without the xyz that is provided by having a king.

    How about we not take your word and give it a go?

    The US is all about democracy and choice so lets let the 6.5 billion Earthlings that aren't Americans get a choice?

    You'll have to grow out of the caves, so to say, first :v

    I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop
    developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such
    technologies.

    How much investment will such technologies get when the entire country is happy with its depencancy on oil because hey... it is cheap again! A technology that is only of interest to a minority of consumers is not worth investing a lot of money in. There would be much greater returns on developing new oil drilling machines that can work deep under water or in extremely cold climates if you know what I mean?

    Investment won't come until we're shocked to the truth. That means Peak-oil has to be real, and thus, the price for said oil, has to be real. Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

    To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and
    base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from
    movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a
    tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.

    Hollywood is an industry in a consumer society. It has to match its product to what the majority of customers want and expect. They might not all appeal to all Americans but they are designed for the American market first and foremost. They help form stereotypes, but they also come from US stereotypes too.

    Expectations and reality are separate realities. I can gear my mind to laugh and giggle at some 100 million dollar flick that's ever so generic and the plot ever so expected. Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat the bad guys in the end.

    Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

    So. Being a recognised state means nothing in the 21st C. Thanks to NATO states can be created (Kosovo) on a whim. They can be invaded, or sanctioned into poverty.

    You can't have a state without a social structure, and what you are saying is the only valid social structure that can be recognised as owning land is a state.

    You are not better than the colonials that went around local chiefs and got them to sign bits of paper. The chiefs had no idea they were signing away ownership of the land their people have lived on for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years. But when the colonials moved in and started using force to remove these people to land no one else wanted it was all legal... they signed the blank sheet of paper that was filled in later. All nice and legal.

    The reality was that it was the military power of the colonial forces that allowed them to do what they did.

    In this case it is Chinas military power that allows it to do what it is doing. To claim stealing land from Native Americans is not the same as China imposing its will on Tibet is amusing.

    Whinging about what China is doing and ignoring what America has done and is doing right now is why I don't respect the US or hold it in the same high regard that you clearly do.

    Sad thing is that most of the things have been done in the name of the American people and if they actually sat down and had a good look at what was done in their name they might want to change it... but that isn't going to happen. US history will continue to be written by the Government and Hollywood.

    But I told you, grievances of the past should be forgiven because everyone did it, everyone conquers and everyone's been conquered. It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

    Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

    So pinching their land and killing half them is OK?

    There was a hilarious TV series made in the US a long while back called the Beverly Hillbillies, and it was basically about some simple farming folk who found oil on their land and it made them extremely wealthy so they moved to Beverly Hills with the other rich folk. They soon find they don't really fit in and have a lot to learn and much of what they learn doesn't really sit well with them. For instance the high society people have a social structure based on how early they arrived to North America. The father of the simple farming folk called Jed worked out that that must mean the Indians are at the top of the social structure... which is perfect common sense, but was immediately dismissed. It isn't said out loud but the social structure is for whites only. It is set in the 60s I think and so there would only be white people amongst the rich society anyway.

    I never said it was okay, as I said, it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Doesn't mean we're going to give our lands back to the Natives, doesn't mean New Zealand's gonna give back their land to the Natives, doesn't mean China's going to become a series of dynasties and doesn't mean that Russians are going back to the Steppes and Scandinavia. I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

    In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a
    conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

    But those other brutal regimes and murderers aren't claiming the moral high ground and demanding to be the worlds financial hub. It is only the Western countries that give verbal moral lessons on the international stage.

    And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing evil to happen all over again.

    The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation
    of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an
    extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

    And the US invading countries in that period is OK?

    Iraq 2003
    Afghanistan 2001
    Haiti 1994
    Kuwaite/Southern Iraq 1991
    Panama 1989
    Grenada 1983
    Cambodia 1970
    Dominican Republic 1965
    South Vietnam 1962
    Cuba 1961
    Korea 1950


    Of course the US benefits even more from writing off invasions before 1945 as not "counting".

    I guess they must have had their fingers crossed or something to make 1945 such a special date.

    We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:22 am

    You'll have to grow out of the caves, so to say, first

    Yeah, we are so uncivilised and backward... why are you so desperate to rule us all?

    Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for
    restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

    Exactly. You are not a good leader. You are happy as long as you are on top... you think we are in caves and don't care if we actually are or not. You are a me! me! me! country that talks about high morals and responsibility but really only does anything when it suits their direct needs.

    By your own morals and your own standards... you fail.

    Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad
    guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat
    the bad guys in the end.

    And do you think the majority of Americans who think the invasion of Iraq was because of 9/11 think the same as you do?

    It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

    Tell that to Grenada, or Haiti, or Panama...

    I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

    And I am not blaming the American people for choices made by their government on their behalf... but wars have continued along on a regular basis since 1945 and don't seem like stopping any time soon and America seems happy to use direct force when-ever and where-ever it pleases.

    It is funny because people who try to redress the past injustices like affirmative action in the west and people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe who take the land from the rich white land owners and give it back to the poor black people the results are often controversial but I laugh when, in the case of Zimbabwe it is countries like the US and UK that criticise his actions the loudest... he is merely returning the land to the people who used to own it. Of course with normal human corruption the land will likely go to his cronies, but isn't that very white colonial of him?

    And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop
    shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing
    evil to happen all over again.

    So called evil is normal human behaviour. Governments often have to do things that appear on the surface evil for the good of their situation and the situation of their people. Lecturing other governments for not living up to your ideals... when you don't even try to live up to them yourself is hypocrisy and this lying to yourself that you are somehow better than everyone else... that we all live in caves... sets you apart and isolates you from the rest of humanity. It is why people don't like you. Everyone has morals. Everyone tries to keep their actions within the boundaries of their morals but in the real world (as opposed to screen or TV) it is not easy as the choices are never black and white but different shades of gray. Bitching at every meeting at our failure to live up to your expectations and your standards... well if you can't work it out for yourself there is no point in me telling you.
    Human rights and the concept of basic universal human rights is a western dream and is being violated in Guantanimo as we speak. It is also being violated by the Echelon system that listens to all electronic communication around the world. I think Putin should start every discussion with the US talking about these for 5 minutes... do you think US officials will mind?

    We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.

    Total death tolls in those conflicts is in the millions... Vietnam alone cost 3-4 million Vietnamese citizens their lives. That doesn't even take into account the poverty and suffering you created in your economic sanctions and economic warfare.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:37 am

    Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for
    restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

    Exactly. You are not a good leader. You are happy as long as you are on top... you think we are in caves and don't care if we actually are or not. You are a me! me! me! country that talks about high morals and responsibility but really only does anything when it suits their direct needs.

    By your own morals and your own standards... you fail.

    How exactly did that relate to oil?

    Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad
    guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat
    the bad guys in the end.

    And do you think the majority of Americans who think the invasion of Iraq was because of 9/11 think the same as you do?

    You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

    It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

    Tell that to Grenada, or Haiti, or Panama...

    We did...

    I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

    And I am not blaming the American people for choices made by their government on their behalf... but wars have continued along on a regular basis since 1945 and don't seem like stopping any time soon and America seems happy to use direct force when-ever and where-ever it pleases.

    It is funny because people who try to redress the past injustices like affirmative action in the west and people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe who take the land from the rich white land owners and give it back to the poor black people the results are often controversial but I laugh when, in the case of Zimbabwe it is countries like the US and UK that criticise his actions the loudest... he is merely returning the land to the people who used to own it. Of course with normal human corruption the land will likely go to his cronies, but isn't that very white colonial of him?

    Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal? While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

    And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop
    shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing
    evil to happen all over again.

    So called evil is normal human behaviour. Governments often have to do things that appear on the surface evil for the good of their situation and the situation of their people. Lecturing other governments for not living up to your ideals... when you don't even try to live up to them yourself is hypocrisy and this lying to yourself that you are somehow better than everyone else... that we all live in caves... sets you apart and isolates you from the rest of humanity. It is why people don't like you. Everyone has morals. Everyone tries to keep their actions within the boundaries of their morals but in the real world (as opposed to screen or TV) it is not easy as the choices are never black and white but different shades of gray. Bitching at every meeting at our failure to live up to your expectations and your standards... well if you can't work it out for yourself there is no point in me telling you.
    Human rights and the concept of basic universal human rights is a western dream and is being violated in Guantanimo as we speak. It is also being violated by the Echelon system that listens to all electronic communication around the world. I think Putin should start every discussion with the US talking about these for 5 minutes... do you think US officials will mind?

    Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing? I think not. China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

    We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.

    Total death tolls in those conflicts is in the millions... Vietnam alone cost 3-4 million Vietnamese citizens their lives. That doesn't even take into account the poverty and suffering you created in your economic sanctions and economic warfare.

    At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:39 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

    Yes, the King of the country will often suggest that a stable safe free country cannot exist without the xyz that is provided by having a king.

    How about we not take your word and give it a go?

    The US is all about democracy and choice so lets let the 6.5 billion Earthlings that aren't Americans get a choice?

    You'll have to grow out of the caves, so to say, first :v

    I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop
    developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such
    technologies.

    How much investment will such technologies get when the entire country is happy with its depencancy on oil because hey... it is cheap again! A technology that is only of interest to a minority of consumers is not worth investing a lot of money in. There would be much greater returns on developing new oil drilling machines that can work deep under water or in extremely cold climates if you know what I mean?

    Investment won't come until we're shocked to the truth. That means Peak-oil has to be real, and thus, the price for said oil, has to be real. Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

    To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and
    base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from
    movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a
    tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.

    Hollywood is an industry in a consumer society. It has to match its product to what the majority of customers want and expect. They might not all appeal to all Americans but they are designed for the American market first and foremost. They help form stereotypes, but they also come from US stereotypes too.

    Expectations and reality are separate realities. I can gear my mind to laugh and giggle at some 100 million dollar flick that's ever so generic and the plot ever so expected. Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat the bad guys in the end.

    Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

    So. Being a recognised state means nothing in the 21st C. Thanks to NATO states can be created (Kosovo) on a whim. They can be invaded, or sanctioned into poverty.

    You can't have a state without a social structure, and what you are saying is the only valid social structure that can be recognised as owning land is a state.

    You are not better than the colonials that went around local chiefs and got them to sign bits of paper. The chiefs had no idea they were signing away ownership of the land their people have lived on for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years. But when the colonials moved in and started using force to remove these people to land no one else wanted it was all legal... they signed the blank sheet of paper that was filled in later. All nice and legal.

    The reality was that it was the military power of the colonial forces that allowed them to do what they did.

    In this case it is Chinas military power that allows it to do what it is doing. To claim stealing land from Native Americans is not the same as China imposing its will on Tibet is amusing.

    Whinging about what China is doing and ignoring what America has done and is doing right now is why I don't respect the US or hold it in the same high regard that you clearly do.

    Sad thing is that most of the things have been done in the name of the American people and if they actually sat down and had a good look at what was done in their name they might want to change it... but that isn't going to happen. US history will continue to be written by the Government and Hollywood.

    But I told you, grievances of the past should be forgiven because everyone did it, everyone conquers and everyone's been conquered. It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

    Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

    So pinching their land and killing half them is OK?

    There was a hilarious TV series made in the US a long while back called the Beverly Hillbillies, and it was basically about some simple farming folk who found oil on their land and it made them extremely wealthy so they moved to Beverly Hills with the other rich folk. They soon find they don't really fit in and have a lot to learn and much of what they learn doesn't really sit well with them. For instance the high society people have a social structure based on how early they arrived to North America. The father of the simple farming folk called Jed worked out that that must mean the Indians are at the top of the social structure... which is perfect common sense, but was immediately dismissed. It isn't said out loud but the social structure is for whites only. It is set in the 60s I think and so there would only be white people amongst the rich society anyway.

    I never said it was okay, as I said, it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Doesn't mean we're going to give our lands back to the Natives, doesn't mean New Zealand's gonna give back their land to the Natives, doesn't mean China's going to become a series of dynasties and doesn't mean that Russians are going back to the Steppes and Scandinavia. I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

    In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a
    conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

    But those other brutal regimes and murderers aren't claiming the moral high ground and demanding to be the worlds financial hub. It is only the Western countries that give verbal moral lessons on the international stage.

    And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing evil to happen all over again.

    The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation
    of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an
    extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

    And the US invading countries in that period is OK?

    Iraq 2003
    Afghanistan 2001
    Haiti 1994
    Kuwaite/Southern Iraq 1991
    Panama 1989
    Grenada 1983
    Cambodia 1970
    Dominican Republic 1965
    South Vietnam 1962
    Cuba 1961
    Korea 1950


    Of course the US benefits even more from writing off invasions before 1945 as not "counting".

    I guess they must have had their fingers crossed or something to make 1945 such a special date.

    We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.



    About bold part, the US just steps up puppet goverments and treats them as terrorities.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:21 am

    interisting article:

    This Week at War: The Jawbreaker Option.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/04/this_week_at_war_the_jawbreaker_option

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:17 am

    How exactly did that relate to oil?

    But this thread is about a potential NATO no fly zone over Libya... why would we even consider discussing oil Twisted Evil .

    You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

    I read polls. A large proportion of Americans probably think it was god testing them. A portion probably think it was the US government. A portion might even think it was aliens.

    Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal?

    Policemen are hired. The US takes this role on itself because it has the biggest gun. Policeman might be what you call it, but a better name would be vigilante. A better word would be the name of the person who stirs up a mob to lynch someone, knowing full well the person being lynched did nothing the person stirring up the mob hasn't done before... but I don't know of such a word. It certainly isn't policeman.

    While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring
    money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

    Give us a break from the saving the world BS. You intervene where it suits you and no where else, and it suits you when either you get to punish someone you have a grudge against, or there is money to be made.
    If you want to do a better job stop. Don't intervene. If you think we are being ungrateful then stop.

    Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing?

    The Native Americans would say no. Your fellow white Americans would say yes. Might makes right... ask the Serbians about Kosovo and the Georgians about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
    They can't do anything about it, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they don't have the power... the force to implement their will. The benfactors in the Kosovo case turn out to be murderers who supply organ thieves that make the movie "Hostel" look tame. The loser in the Georgian case is a US educated tie eater who thought the South Ossetians would welcome his dictatorship if he shelled them for a few days... he was wrong.

    China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

    What human standard? The universal declaration of basic human rights is a western creation that China had little to no input in developing. Why should they feel bound by your rules and ideas? Would you like a 10 minute lecture from Arab officials about how distasteful western dress sense is, and how all our women are sluts for showing so much skin... they deserve to get raped and murdered for appearing in public for being such harlots. How about a lecture from European countries about the barbaric use of the death penalty in the US? Most of the people executed are poor. A significant number are black. Many have below average IQ. Some might not even be guilty... they just couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to prove it.

    At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

    Live a day in Haiti and you will beg to be sent to Tibet.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    How exactly did that relate to oil?

    But this thread is about a potential NATO no fly zone over Libya... why would we even consider discussing oil Twisted Evil .

    I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen? angry

    You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

    I read polls. A large proportion of Americans probably think it was god testing them. A portion probably think it was the US government. A portion might even think it was aliens.

    Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

    Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal?

    Policemen are hired. The US takes this role on itself because it has the biggest gun. Policeman might be what you call it, but a better name would be vigilante. A better word would be the name of the person who stirs up a mob to lynch someone, knowing full well the person being lynched did nothing the person stirring up the mob hasn't done before... but I don't know of such a word. It certainly isn't policeman.

    In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

    While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring
    money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

    Give us a break from the saving the world BS. You intervene where it suits you and no where else, and it suits you when either you get to punish someone you have a grudge against, or there is money to be made.
    If you want to do a better job stop. Don't intervene. If you think we are being ungrateful then stop.

    Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

    Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing?

    The Native Americans would say no. Your fellow white Americans would say yes. Might makes right... ask the Serbians about Kosovo and the Georgians about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
    They can't do anything about it, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they don't have the power... the force to implement their will. The benfactors in the Kosovo case turn out to be murderers who supply organ thieves that make the movie "Hostel" look tame. The loser in the Georgian case is a US educated tie eater who thought the South Ossetians would welcome his dictatorship if he shelled them for a few days... he was wrong.

    Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this very well.

    China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

    What human standard? The universal declaration of basic human rights is a western creation that China had little to no input in developing. Why should they feel bound by your rules and ideas? Would you like a 10 minute lecture from Arab officials about how distasteful western dress sense is, and how all our women are sluts for showing so much skin... they deserve to get raped and murdered for appearing in public for being such harlots. How about a lecture from European countries about the barbaric use of the death penalty in the US? Most of the people executed are poor. A significant number are black. Many have below average IQ. Some might not even be guilty... they just couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to prove it.

    It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend that.

    At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

    Live a day in Haiti and you will beg to be sent to Tibet.


    Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay. cheers

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:08 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    How exactly did that relate to oil?

    But this thread is about a potential NATO no fly zone over Libya... why would we even consider discussing oil Twisted Evil .

    I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen? angry

    You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

    I read polls. A large proportion of Americans probably think it was god testing them. A portion probably think it was the US government. A portion might even think it was aliens.

    Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

    Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal?

    Policemen are hired. The US takes this role on itself because it has the biggest gun. Policeman might be what you call it, but a better name would be vigilante. A better word would be the name of the person who stirs up a mob to lynch someone, knowing full well the person being lynched did nothing the person stirring up the mob hasn't done before... but I don't know of such a word. It certainly isn't policeman.

    In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

    While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring
    money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

    Give us a break from the saving the world BS. You intervene where it suits you and no where else, and it suits you when either you get to punish someone you have a grudge against, or there is money to be made.
    If you want to do a better job stop. Don't intervene. If you think we are being ungrateful then stop.

    Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

    Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing?

    The Native Americans would say no. Your fellow white Americans would say yes. Might makes right... ask the Serbians about Kosovo and the Georgians about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
    They can't do anything about it, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they don't have the power... the force to implement their will. The benfactors in the Kosovo case turn out to be murderers who supply organ thieves that make the movie "Hostel" look tame. The loser in the Georgian case is a US educated tie eater who thought the South Ossetians would welcome his dictatorship if he shelled them for a few days... he was wrong.

    Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this very well.

    China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

    What human standard? The universal declaration of basic human rights is a western creation that China had little to no input in developing. Why should they feel bound by your rules and ideas? Would you like a 10 minute lecture from Arab officials about how distasteful western dress sense is, and how all our women are sluts for showing so much skin... they deserve to get raped and murdered for appearing in public for being such harlots. How about a lecture from European countries about the barbaric use of the death penalty in the US? Most of the people executed are poor. A significant number are black. Many have below average IQ. Some might not even be guilty... they just couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to prove it.

    It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend that.

    At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

    Live a day in Haiti and you will beg to be sent to Tibet.


    Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay. cheers


    Correction: Live a day in rich America, and you will beg to stay cheers

    On topic:

    G8 Refuses To Back No-Fly Zone As Libyan Forces Advance Against Rebels

    15.03.2011 15:26

    By RFE/RL

    French and British efforts to build support for a no-fly zone over Libya have failed to win the backing of foreign ministers from the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial countries who met in Paris.

    Ministers at the meeting agreed that more action within the UN Security Council is needed to pressure Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi -- possibly through increased sanctions, but not through military action.

    German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told reporters afterward that Berlin was "very skeptical" about any military intervention -- including the imposition of a no-fly zone.

    "We all feel solidarity with those who fight against Colonel Qaddafi. But on the other hand, we have to see that a military intervention is not the solution," Westerwelle said. "It's not an easy way and it's not an easy solution. From our point of view, it is very difficult and dangerous."

    Westerville also said Germany "does not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa," and wanted "to avoid any slippery slope" in which all countries in the G8 eventually are drawn into such a war.

    Military Questions

    Today's diplomatic developments come as pro-Qaddafi troops recaptured the western town of Zwara to the west of the capital, Tripoli, today -- one of the first towns the opposition seized during last month's uprising.

    That victory at Zwara solidifies Qaddafi's hold on a stretch of coastline from Tripoli to the Tunisian border.

    And to the east, Qaddafi's warplanes heavily bombarded the city of Ajdabiyah -- forcing opposition fighters to abandon their strategic positions there.

    Ajdabiyah sits on road junction from where Qaddafi's forces could attempt to advance eastward on the opposition stronghold of Benghazi further to the east. From that road junction, Libyan government forces also could attempt to encircle Benghazi.

    But the further the regime's troops advance east, the more difficult it's getting for Qaddafi to supply them with food, fuel, and ammunition, says Jeffery White, a defense analyst at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy.

    "Qaddafi has some momentum at the moment, although it remains to be seen if he can sustain it. He has done some, I think, fairly tough fighting with his forces. But the real challenges are still ahead for them," White tells RFE/RL.

    "He hasn't done much in the Misurata area [an opposition-held city east of Tripoli]. There were a few attempts to break into the city, but those were stopped by the rebels. In eastern Libya, he's now beginning to push his forces further and further to the east -- which means it is going to be more and more difficult to sustain them. And it should be getting a little bit easier for the rebels to hold and defend those areas in the east."

    Diplomatic Moves

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not attend today's G8 meeting. Instead, she was traveling on the next leg of her diplomatic mission on the crises in North Africa and the Middle East. Clinton is scheduled to travel to Tunis after her stop in Egypt.

    Clinton did meet late on March 14 in Paris with a leading Libyan opposition envoy who is trying to garner international support for forces opposed to Qaddafi.

    But neither Clinton nor the envoy, Mahmud Jibril of Libya's opposition Transitional National Council, made any comment to journalists after their talks at a luxury hotel in the French capital.

    Clinton's aide Philippe Reines told reporters that the 45 minutes of talks were "private and candid." Clinton also met in Paris the same day with other G8 foreign ministers to discuss the proposed UN Security Council no-fly zone resolution that Britain and France have drafted.

    Under that proposed no-fly zone, U.S. and NATO warplanes would ground Qaddafi's air force in order to protect civilians and the opposition from air strikes. But the proposal would likely need hundreds of planes to patrol the skies over Libya's vast territory.

    The UN Security Council is divided over the proposal, with permanent veto-wielding member Russia insisting that "fundamental questions" remain over the action. Veto-wielding China also is opposed to the resolution, while the United States and Germany have expressed doubts.

    French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said today that he had not been able to convince all the other G8 countries about the need to impose a no-fly zone.

    "What is the situation today? Qaddafi is scoring points," Juppe said. "If we had used military force last week to neutralize a number of airfields and the few dozens of planes that they have, possibly the turnaround that is happening to the detriment of the opposition might not be taking place."

    In the absence of force, Juppe said, the international community probably would be unable to stop Qaddafi loyalists from retaking the opposition stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya.

    Pressuring Qaddafi

    Juppe suggested G8 ministers should also examine other ways -- such as a maritime embargo -- to pressure Qaddafi's regime over the killing of civilians that already has led to an international investigation into allegations of crimes against humanity.

    Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said late on March 14 that all options should be left open for action against Qaddafi's regime, including a possible no-fly zone.

    Cannon said that at the very least, he was pushing to ensure that existing sanctions against Qaddafi and his inner circle are enforced.

    "We are seeing and witnessing a Qaddafi that is the Lockerbie Qaddafi," Cannon added, referring to the bombing of a U.S. airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people in 1988.

    "This is the same individual who the world had condemned, and quite clearly one of the things I will be pushing for tomorrow is to be able to make sure that the sanctions that were there at the time, we should all invest again in putting those sanctions in place," he said.

    Arab League chief Amr Musa has asked the UN to impose the flight ban, saying its only purpose would be to protect Libyan civilians from air strikes by Qaddafi's military. But the Arab League says there should not be foreign troops deployed to Libya.

    Musa and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, met on March 14 and called for the no-fly zone proposal to be discussed at a tripartite summit of the EU, the Arab League, and the African Union. A date for that gathering has not been announced.

    written by Ron Synovitz, with contribution by Hossein Aryan of RFE/RL's Radio Farda and agency reports


    Source:

    Copyright (c) 2011. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/libya-110315-rferl01.htm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:38 am

    I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen?

    Aren't you even going to pretend it is about democracy and the Libyan people?

    Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

    Awww come on... you know there are plenty of quacks that think Saddam did it... like George Bush jnr.

    I remember a while back on a different forum there were plenty of GWB supporters who were convinced that Iraq had to be invaded because there was evidence of AQ in the country... the funny thing is that the evidence they came up with at the time clearly showed AQ ties with the Kurds against Saddam... ties they rapidly cut when the US offered its help. The evidence therefore proved that Saddam was a great ally in the war against terrorism... yet you still found a reason to invade... he was a threat to the whole world or something.

    In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

    I have no problem with that. I have the problem that when that man who chooses where and when to use that gun based on his own situation and wants and needs and then has the balls to claim he is a policeman working for the greater good... when in fact he is actually a vigilante acting in his own interests.

    Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we
    intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern
    Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

    Correction you don't give a fk about the interventions as long as the price of gas stays below x number of dollars per gallon. I sit on a beautiful Southern Pacific Island nation watching the US bombing the crap out of foreign countries and killing a huge number of people so that oil stays cheap... I am not gloating... I don't even own a car. I don't want one.

    Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is
    conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this
    very well.

    Yeah... they lost their land to us because we cheated them fair and square... it is just silly for them to expect better treatment from the people of today that are benefactors of that theft.

    No wonder you expect the world to look up to you as an ideal of moral values... you clearly know how to treat your niggers.


    It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man
    for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they
    think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend
    that.

    Hahahahaha... so you can't kill someone for believing in a supernatural superior being that can't be seen or touched or spoken to, but it is OK to kill commies for thinking that a different political system might suit them better? Hilarious!
    Clearly Al Quada and the Taleban should become religious groups...

    Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay.

    I am fine here thanks... I feel no great urge to be fingerprinted and body scanned at your border.

    G8 Refuses To Back No-Fly Zone As Libyan Forces Advance Against Rebels

    Good... none of their business, it is a civil war and they should keep out of it.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:25 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen?

    Aren't you even going to pretend it is about democracy and the Libyan people?

    Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

    Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

    Awww come on... you know there are plenty of quacks that think Saddam did it... like George Bush jnr.

    I remember a while back on a different forum there were plenty of GWB supporters who were convinced that Iraq had to be invaded because there was evidence of AQ in the country... the funny thing is that the evidence they came up with at the time clearly showed AQ ties with the Kurds against Saddam... ties they rapidly cut when the US offered its help. The evidence therefore proved that Saddam was a great ally in the war against terrorism... yet you still found a reason to invade... he was a threat to the whole world or something.

    And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

    In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

    have no problem with that. I have the problem that when that man who chooses where and when to use that gun based on his own situation and wants and needs and then has the balls to claim he is a policeman working for the greater good... when in fact he is actually a vigilante acting in his own interests.

    Then maybe you should become another policeman. Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

    Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we
    intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern
    Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

    Correction you don't give a fk about the interventions as long as the price of gas stays below x number of dollars per gallon. I sit on a beautiful Southern Pacific Island nation watching the US bombing the crap out of foreign countries and killing a huge number of people so that oil stays cheap... I am not gloating... I don't even own a car. I don't want one.

    Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil :rollingeyes: :rollingeyes:

    If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

    Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is
    conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this
    very well.

    Yeah... they lost their land to us because we cheated them fair and square... it is just silly for them to expect better treatment from the people of today that are benefactors of that theft.

    No wonder you expect the world to look up to you as an ideal of moral values... you clearly know how to treat your niggers.

    Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not. That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

    To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which case, I'm very :sad: for you.


    It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man
    for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they
    think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend
    that.

    Hahahahaha... so you can't kill someone for believing in a supernatural superior being that can't be seen or touched or spoken to, but it is OK to kill commies for thinking that a different political system might suit them better? Hilarious!
    Clearly Al Quada and the Taleban should become religious groups...

    If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

    Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay.

    I am fine here thanks... I feel no great urge to be fingerprinted and body scanned at your border.

    Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss. welcome

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:03 am

    Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

    What they want is to be rid of the current dictator... nothing more.

    What the west wants to do is impose a puppet government that is western friendly that might let them take over Libyan oil and screw the Libyans out of its value.

    And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

    My point is that there is a significant percentage of any population that really doesn't care what happens outside the borders of their little world, yet to be a good policeman you need to have a very good understanding of all the major players and the history of certain conflicts.
    The US is able to intervene because it keeps its own population in the dark... and the rest of the population don't care.
    The US media makes infomercials that prove whatever the US has done was for the good of the world... when it is clear it only ever acts for its own purposes. These are clearly not lovable traits yet Americans wonder why they are not loved. Yeah... ignorance is bliss.
    And two political parties that share many of the same policies is hardly democracy.


    Then maybe you should become another policeman.

    Why do you assume there should be a policeman? To prevent big countries from bullying little ones? Hahahahahahahahaha... so to prevent bigger countries bullying smaller countries a big country that is the worst bully... that imposes economic sanctions on a whim is the bully punisher? USA... King Bully and bully punisher... Physician heal thyself... Wink Wink

    Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

    Lets look at the record shall we? To stop Saddam in his reckless disregard for democracy and his invasion of Kuwaite... where men got the vote in 2005 and women are still not allowed to vote in elections... the US and its coalition of the oil starved... invaded Kuwaite and restored... a dictatorship.
    Later after severe economic sanctions and bombings it eventually invades Iraq and Afghanistan... for very little actual reason... in both cases to get a guy. Success in one case and total failure in the other.
    In Kosovo UN security council resolution 1244 states clearly that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, yet the US and UK and other hangars on, give those body snatchers the go ahead to declare independence and support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia... violating the above UNSC resolution.
    This action leads directly to Russia normalising relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where before the borders were largely closed, the sudden flow of trade makes independence from Georgia economically possible and Georgia panics and does something really really stupid... which the US whole heartedly supports because oil pipelines are involved.
    We all know this results in two new countries being created even if their creation is not recognised in the west... in practical terms they are not ruled or likely to be ruled in the near future by Tiblisi so they are independent.

    Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil

    There are people in the streets protesting about their dictatorships all over the place. The people doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan are ignored. The people in Algeria and Yemen are largely ignored. The place that is assessed as being the possessor of the worlds largest oil reserves called Libya is on the western news services nonstop and there is talk of no fly zones and direct intervention.
    It has everything to do about oil... the west could care less about civil rights... the hypocrisy of talking about Gaddafis forces firing on innocent civilians while showing video footage of civilians armed to the teeth with RPGs and assault rifles and even rocket artillery (122mm Grad trucks) and anti aircraft light cannon!!! The Taleban should be so well armed!

    If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

    But that is the point... you couldn't give a flying fk about the Libyan people... it is the oil under their feet that interests you. Did it ever occur to you that this is a civil war and none of your business? They need to sort it out themselves and the west going in there and altering the results will just make things worse.

    Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're
    hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of
    Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that
    China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not.

    But these Chinese cave people are so backward, surely they are 100 years behind the west and so it is only fair that they should be allowed an extra 100 years of imperialism?

    You talk about right and fair. As an American please explain right and fair to a Serbian from Kosovo. Or perhaps an Iranian or Cuban whose economic future is limited because of the policies of YOUR government.

    That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

    So what you are saying is that all people in US prisons should be set free and sent to US schools to tell the youth of America all about right and wrong because they know... they have been there and done that and they can tell anyone else how to live their lives and what choices to make... and maybe one day... if they are good they will reach the high moral standards of US prison inmates.

    BTW you can tell them anything you want... considering they have a civilisation that goes back more than 5,000 years... or to put it in your terms when white Europeans were hunter gatherers, they might just smile and pretend to be listening while thinking how weak it makes you sound to suggest the government should listen to its people.

    Do you really think these little lectures would have swayed Hitler or Stalin? Do you think anyone with the smarts and ruthlessness to get into power in a third world country like Saddam will turn to his subjects and his rivals and suggest a free market democracy with US values and morals? They'd be killed overnight.

    To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of
    the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which
    case, I'm very :sad: for you.

    You remind me of the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is evil, yet priests molesting little boys is an issue they choose to hide and actually support by continually moving the perpetrators from area to area to get new prey.
    My problem is that the high morals you hold everyone else to and judge everyone else by are never applied when you look in the mirror.

    That is the problem I have with the US.

    If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

    Which brings up another point... your country is so judgemental. Why should you care what form of government another country decides to have for itself. The US is the greatest offender in this regard. Saddam was evil and had to be removed from power. If you were actually fair there would be no governments in most of the countries of the world based on that criteria. You put up with Stalin when fighting Hitler, and you put up with Saddam when he was fighting Iran. It is these inconsistencies that make you unpredictable.
    Of course if you follow the oil you actually become very predictable.

    Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss.

    Isn't head in the sand politics the third major political party in the US?
    Sometimes called the thinking mans party I believe.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:24 pm

    treat for Garry latest

    Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:00 pm

    Cameron sends war planes to Libya: Jets scramble for attacks on Gaddafi forces

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23933203-britain-ready-for-air-strikes-on-libya-over-brutal-gaddafi.do

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:11 pm


    UN Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone Over Libya

    VOA News March 17, 2011

    The United Nations Security Council has approved a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians and rebels from Libyan government airstrikes.

    Thursday's vote was 10 in favor with no votes against. Five countries abstained.

    The resolution authorizes UN members to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, including a ban on all flights over Libya. The resolution expresses grave concern at the deteriorating situation in Libya, where rebels have been trying to topple long-time leader Moammar Gadhafi.

    Before Thursday's vote, Mr. Gadhafi warned rebels in their stronghold city of Benghazi to surrender or face an imminent attack. He said his forces will show no mercy and search every home for those he calls traitors.

    Central Benghazi was packed with defiant Libyans as the council voted. Some waved the pre-Gadhafi Libyan flag.

    French Prime Minister Francois Fillon says his government supports military action against Libya as quickly as possible. France, Britain, and Lebanon were the three sponsors of Thursday's resolution.

    Libyan state television warned that any military action against the country will expose all Mediterranean air and maritime traffic to "danger."

    Libyan rebels say they shot down two government warplanes that tried to bomb Benghazi Thursday. Pro-Gadhafi forces launched airstrikes on nearby Ajdabiya and surrounded rebels holding out in the town, located south of Benghazi,.

    Reports from Ajdabiya said about 30 people have been killed in fighting there since Tuesday. In the west, Libyan state television said government troops recaptured Misrata, the country's third largest city. Rebels denied the claim.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/libya-110317-voa08.htm

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:07 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

    What they want is to be rid of the current dictator... nothing more.

    What the west wants to do is impose a puppet government that is western friendly that might let them take over Libyan oil and screw the Libyans out of its value.

    As I said, the British tried that already. They failed. Perhaps they like their independence and we don't want to Imperialize them?

    And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

    My point is that there is a significant percentage of any population that really doesn't care what happens outside the borders of their little world, yet to be a good policeman you need to have a very good understanding of all the major players and the history of certain conflicts.
    The US is able to intervene because it keeps its own population in the dark... and the rest of the population don't care.
    The US media makes infomercials that prove whatever the US has done was for the good of the world... when it is clear it only ever acts for its own purposes. These are clearly not lovable traits yet Americans wonder why they are not loved. Yeah... ignorance is bliss.
    And two political parties that share many of the same policies is hardly democracy.

    But here's a question, what other country don't have their quacks who only care for their own country?


    Then maybe you should become another policeman.

    Why do you assume there should be a policeman? To prevent big countries from bullying little ones? Hahahahahahahahaha... so to prevent bigger countries bullying smaller countries a big country that is the worst bully... that imposes economic sanctions on a whim is the bully punisher? USA... King Bully and bully punisher... Physician heal thyself... Wink Wink

    No policeman and we all kill each other, very simple. Besides, U.N. Security council mandates us to protect countries from various atrocities.

    Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

    Lets look at the record shall we? To stop Saddam in his reckless disregard for democracy and his invasion of Kuwaite... where men got the vote in 2005 and women are still not allowed to vote in elections... the US and its coalition of the oil starved... invaded Kuwaite and restored... a dictatorship.
    Later after severe economic sanctions and bombings it eventually invades Iraq and Afghanistan... for very little actual reason... in both cases to get a guy. Success in one case and total failure in the other.
    In Kosovo UN security council resolution 1244 states clearly that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, yet the US and UK and other hangars on, give those body snatchers the go ahead to declare independence and support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia... violating the above UNSC resolution.
    This action leads directly to Russia normalising relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where before the borders were largely closed, the sudden flow of trade makes independence from Georgia economically possible and Georgia panics and does something really really stupid... which the US whole heartedly supports because oil pipelines are involved.
    We all know this results in two new countries being created even if their creation is not recognised in the west... in practical terms they are not ruled or likely to be ruled in the near future by Tiblisi so they are independent.

    Well, more reason to get another policeman on the block right?

    Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil

    There are people in the streets protesting about their dictatorships all over the place. The people doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan are ignored. The people in Algeria and Yemen are largely ignored. The place that is assessed as being the possessor of the worlds largest oil reserves called Libya is on the western news services nonstop and there is talk of no fly zones and direct intervention.
    It has everything to do about oil... the west could care less about civil rights... the hypocrisy of talking about Gaddafis forces firing on innocent civilians while showing video footage of civilians armed to the teeth with RPGs and assault rifles and even rocket artillery (122mm Grad trucks) and anti aircraft light cannon!!! The Taleban should be so well armed!

    There's a big difference between Protesters and Civil war.

    If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

    But that is the point... you couldn't give a flying fk about the Libyan people... it is the oil under their feet that interests you. Did it ever occur to you that this is a civil war and none of your business? They need to sort it out themselves and the west going in there and altering the results will just make things worse.

    Oh please, google for the status updates on various social media sites. More people cared about Libyan protesters being shot at by Hinds than they cared about Libya's status of Top Oil Reserves in North Africa. Again, if you haven't noticed, we're preoccupied in 2 wars already. We spend 2/3s of our Annual budget for Defense, while everyone spends about 10%. You complain that we don't care about the Libyan people simply because we're not intervening for them, yet you fail to realize we're already intervening elsewhere. Seriously, if you think you can do better, step up to the plate. I would love to see China and Russia have a comparable global intervention force, but they don't.

    Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're
    hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of
    Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that
    China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not.

    But these Chinese cave people are so backward, surely they are 100 years behind the west and so it is only fair that they should be allowed an extra 100 years of imperialism?

    You talk about right and fair. As an American please explain right and fair to a Serbian from Kosovo. Or perhaps an Iranian or Cuban whose economic future is limited because of the policies of YOUR government.

    Live is not fair. We're here to make it fair. We're sorry for Imperialism, but China isn't China without their 4000 year history of conquest (Chinese wars have cost at least 80 million lives). Past is behind us, no more Imperialism please.

    Iranian and Cuban futures are what they are because of their Governments also. I cannot explain the actions of my Government as I was not alive back then and thus, did not have a vote nor a voice.

    That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

    So what you are saying is that all people in US prisons should be set free and sent to US schools to tell the youth of America all about right and wrong because they know... they have been there and done that and they can tell anyone else how to live their lives and what choices to make... and maybe one day... if they are good they will reach the high moral standards of US prison inmates.

    BTW you can tell them anything you want... considering they have a civilisation that goes back more than 5,000 years... or to put it in your terms when white Europeans were hunter gatherers, they might just smile and pretend to be listening while thinking how weak it makes you sound to suggest the government should listen to its people.

    Do you really think these little lectures would have swayed Hitler or Stalin? Do you think anyone with the smarts and ruthlessness to get into power in a third world country like Saddam will turn to his subjects and his rivals and suggest a free market democracy with US values and morals? They'd be killed overnight.

    They don't get to be free. They get to be on Camera. It's all over TV f.y.i.

    If death is what fears one from freedom, he does not deserve freedom.

    To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of
    the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which
    case, I'm very :sad: for you.

    You remind me of the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is evil, yet priests molesting little boys is an issue they choose to hide and actually support by continually moving the perpetrators from area to area to get new prey.
    My problem is that the high morals you hold everyone else to and judge everyone else by are never applied when you look in the mirror.

    That is the problem I have with the US.

    So you say. In reality, you base your opinion off a minority group, taking extreme examples and projecting them as a reality. What you fail to realize that for the majority of Americans, what we want is what the majority of the world wants, food on table, walls around table, etc. The high morals we hold over countries are not over looked. It's like if a smoker told a non-smoker that smoking is bad, he right there, is holding his morals high above the non-smoker. But is it within logical reasoning to deduce that because the smoker tells the non-smoker not to smoke, that the smoker is thus a hypocrite, and thus wrong about not smoking? No, because smoking inherently is bad, and a bad man telling a man to do a good thing is not hypocritical, it is the right thing to do.

    If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

    Which brings up another point... your country is so judgemental. Why should you care what form of government another country decides to have for itself. The US is the greatest offender in this regard. Saddam was evil and had to be removed from power. If you were actually fair there would be no governments in most of the countries of the world based on that criteria. You put up with Stalin when fighting Hitler, and you put up with Saddam when he was fighting Iran. It is these inconsistencies that make you unpredictable.
    Of course if you follow the oil you actually become very predictable.

    We're a logical people. Logic depends on assumptions, which comes from judgment. The world is one big place, and countries are just little places. What we do affects what you do and vise versa. Otherwise, why does everyone judge us about our Carbon emissions? They care because our Carbon emissions affect them. Same with Governments. A Fascist Government will do this, a Stalinist will do that. Each decision will affect us one way or another. If it affects us, we care. If it affects you, you care. Therefore, it is within our perceptive boundaries to pass judgment and receive judgment.

    Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss.

    Isn't head in the sand politics the third major political party in the US?
    Sometimes called the thinking mans party I believe.

    The Third major political party in the U.S. would be the Green party, which are a collection of paranoid schizophrenics who only put blame on whoever is the biggest and the baddest and the opposite of what they care about. You should study about America more. unshaven

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:29 am

    Perhaps they like their independence and we don't want to Imperialize them?

    It is amusing you think they will get a choice in the matter... it has nothing to do with them.

    But here's a question, what other country don't have their quacks who only care for their own country?

    You miss the point again. The problem is not what America does... it is what it says.
    I don't care if the US kidnaps people and tortures them, what I mind is when the US sees fit to lecture others on democracy and freedom and being civilised... and uses such excuses for its own means. Saddam gassed his own people... lets invade him. But hang on, the Iraqi people he gassed were Kurds opposed to his rule. His gassing of these people is very much like US treatment of native americans, or for that matter the Vietnamese.

    No policeman and we all kill each other, very simple.

    That is happening anyway. Policemen don't stop crime... they manage it.
    Creating a police force does not eliminate crime.
    In this case the US is not a police force... it is a lynch mob.

    Besides, U.N. Security council mandates us to protect countries from various atrocities.

    The UN isn't a world police, its purpose is a forum for international disputes. It has been perverted by the West as a surrogate rubber stamp production line to support their invasions and interventions, and hear them squeal when it doesn't do as it is told!!!

    ...what do you mean we can't invade Iraq without any evidence to prove he has or is working on WMDs... well we don't need your approval... we will just reinterpret something you have already said to justify our invasion.

    Of course there is little mention of UNSC resolution 1244 because that is a unique case. Ironic that Kosovo is a unique case... so by inference all the other cases are the same.

    Well, more reason to get another policeman on the block right?

    Except US policy is to maintain dominance and crush all rivals and potential rivals... and I would argue if you could get a policeman you would have a policeman and the lynch mob of rich and powerful... and largely white countries.

    There's a big difference between Protesters and Civil war.

    English is my first language... and I would say a protester with an assault rifle is not a protester any more.
    Protesters carry signs and shout slogans. They might throw rocks or bottles but if they are armed in most countries the police would tell them to put the gun down a couple of times and then shoot them... or just shoot them.

    Oh please, google for the status updates on various social media sites.
    More people cared about Libyan protesters being shot at by Hinds than
    they cared about Libya's status of Top Oil Reserves in North Africa.

    And these people who are worried... were any of them named Obama? How about Clinton?
    Do you think Goldman Sachs cares? These people are not on social media sites they are more likely looking at the current crude oil price and talking with all sorts of military people about what force can be justified and what allies can be roped in to do.

    Again, if you haven't noticed, we're preoccupied in 2 wars already.

    But one of those wars ended years ago didn't it? And I remember quite clearly... we will go in alone if we have to... then NATO was roped in to Afghanistan. The choices you make have consequences.

    You complain that we don't care about the Libyan people simply because
    we're not intervening for them, yet you fail to realize we're already
    intervening elsewhere.

    Actually you are missing the point already... these revolts are happening all over the region of ME and North Africa. Unarmed protesters in Iraq and Afghanistan are dispersed by rifle fire but that doesn't appear on your news. People in lots of countries are demanding change but your media and your government is fixated on the one country. Which country is that I wonder? Is it the country they have already brought peace and democracy to that they are just about to leave (Iraq)? No. Is it the country they are currently fighting in (Afghanistan)? No. Is it that country that is handing money out in a desperate attempt to prevent the people rising up against their dictator rule (Saudi Arabia)? No.
    The one place where the entire west is focused is the civil war in Libya, and when the "protesters" are armed with assault rifles and machineguns and rocket launchers they are not protesters... they are revolutionaries and this is a civil war that the west wants to butt into... not to save anyone... to ensure they have connections to whomever takes power because you can guarantee there will be oil contracts up for sale to the highest bidder.

    I would love to see China and Russia have a comparable global intervention force, but they don't.

    I am very glad they don't. It is not Russia's business or problem to create or remove governments of countries by force. Russia would love a Russia friendly government in Georgia right now but it is not going to invade to make that happen. They have been there and done that and know it is pointless. Using force increases hostility and strengthens your enemies within the population you want to subdue.


    Live is not fair. We're here to make it fair. We're sorry for
    Imperialism, but China isn't China without their 4000 year history of
    conquest (Chinese wars have cost at least 80 million lives). Past is
    behind us, no more Imperialism please.

    Life is fair is what the US preaches. It is a big powerful country because it is the best and deserves to be.

    But life is not fair as you point out... which is why war and imperialism will remain a part of our past, our present, and our future.

    The US likes ideals.... and that is nice, but the future is not some utopia like Star Trek with its noble rules, it is more likely to be a cross between Blade Runner and Starship Troopers.

    Iranian and Cuban futures are what they are because of their Governments
    also. I cannot explain the actions of my Government as I was not alive
    back then and thus, did not have a vote nor a voice.

    Hahahahahahaha... there was no vote! In both cases it was the same... the US controlled both countries and was using them to make money... Iran was oil, and Cuba was sugar and gambling and tourism. In both countries the people stood up and said F off to the rich powerful elite that were in bed with the US, and said respectively that the people should benefit from the oil under their feet, and that the Cuban people should have more to look forward to that cutting sugar cane and waiting on fat Americans on the beach and in casinos.
    Nothing p!sses a rich person off more than taking their easy source of money from them... you don't think it was an accident that all the big sugar plantations in Cuba are white man owned... just like all those farmers in Zimbabwe with huge farms are white too. You'd think only a white man can make money. Cheap local labour makes for good profits of course.

    It is the same in Venezuela, and most other places "colonised". The rich people are either white or the ethnic group that first colonised the area. The local indians are cheap labour and generally poor and kept poor.
    Hugo Chavez made the mistake of trying to change things for the poor majority and the rich minority didn't like that. Usually this is the cue for the CIA to help out their rich buddies because when the rich control a country it is easy to push the right buttons and control it. A democracy on the other hand can change overnight and shut you out. Of course the CIA did act by removing Hugo, but he got back into power and suddenly got a strong disliking for the US... gee I don't know why... perhaps the hypocrisy of the US mouth extolling the virtues of democracy while the CIA in the background does everything it can to undermine democracy where it suits the US. The US relationship with Stalin during WWII and the Chinese in the middle of the cold war shows when it suits they would happily get into bed with almost anyone when it suits them.

    I am not criticising them for that... but for all the freedom and democracy BS they spout and the lectures they give on how to be a good democracy to Russia and all other countries.

    If death is what fears one from freedom, he does not deserve freedom.

    Totally agree, yet your country continues to punish Russia despite fighting for and getting democracy, and thinks the best solution for Iraq or Afganistan or Libya is for western forces to intervene and give them a democracy they actually know little about.

    So you say. In reality, you base your opinion off a minority group, taking extreme examples and projecting them as a reality.

    The US government kidnaps and tortures people. The US government is representing YOU and all your countrymen. Yet has the temerity to criticise China for locking up its dissidents.

    What you fail to realize that for the majority of Americans, what we
    want is what the majority of the world wants, food on table, walls
    around table, etc.

    I totally understand and agree. A stable job, a house, and your health.
    The problem is that your government is doing terrible things... most of them unnecessary, a lot of them are actually counter productive.
    You didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam was no threat to Iran or Jordan or Syria or Israel... the only country he could take on with any hope of succeeding was little Kuwaite and he was forcibly ejected from there in 1991.

    There was no need to continue scratching at the stitches... there was zero chance of him ever being a real threat to anyone else the no fly zones were expensive and totally pointless.
    If the Kurds wanted their freedom then let them fight for it. There was no one else in the region he could take on and hope to beat. If he did then you have full justification to give enormous support to whomever he turned on and that would likely lead to his rapid defeat and demise at home.
    Instead you picked and picked and when he didn't react you just invaded... great. Now lets face it, it will become a Shia state as they are the clear majority in numbers terms... Iran v2.

    It's like if a smoker told a non-smoker that smoking is bad, he right there, is holding his morals high above the non-smoker.

    But that isn't a good example... a more accurate example would be a heavy smoker tells a light smoker that he is evil for smoking. Most heavy smokers will at best ignore you... they already know it... you aren't telling them anything new, and at worst they will punch you in the face and tell you to mind your own F'in business.

    Telling someone they shouldn't smoke is not a good way to start a friendship.

    Just like... you look a bit fat but I think I might Fk you anyway is not the best pick up line... (I do all my best work when I am drinking... Very Happy )

    But is it within logical reasoning to deduce that because the smoker
    tells the non-smoker not to smoke, that the smoker is thus a hypocrite,
    and thus wrong about not smoking? No, because smoking inherently is bad,
    and a bad man telling a man to do a good thing is not hypocritical, it
    is the right thing to do.

    It is totally hypocritical when the non-smoker is actually a smoker, and rather than telling the smoker he shouldn't smoke, he says he is a bad person and a poor role model for his children to smoke. That is worse that just a lecture... it is the start of an argument. Great way to start talks....

    Otherwise, why does everyone judge us about our Carbon emissions?

    Perhaps because they are quite excessive for your population size? And you don't seem to care about anyone else but yourself?

    Each decision will affect us one way or another. If it affects us, we
    care. If it affects you, you care. Therefore, it is within our
    perceptive boundaries to pass judgment and receive judgment.

    Based on that logic I would suggest that all the world get to vote in US elections as being a superpower most things you do effects the rest of the world. Whether it is bribing Fiji to get them to vote against Nuclear Weapon bans for the Pacific, or no fly zones created around the place arbitrarily... not to mention regime change or wikileaks evidence that NATO seems to be in Americas pocket and your spies within that organisation reduce it to your puppet.

    The Third major political party in the U.S. would be the Green party,
    which are a collection of paranoid schizophrenics who only put blame on
    whoever is the biggest and the baddest and the opposite of what they
    care about. You should study about America more.

    See now that is the thing... I am interested in Russian and Soviet military equipment mainly. I will watch Bear Grylls struggling through Siberia, but I don't think I could sit through a couple of hours of Russian folk music.
    But then I don't think I could sit through hours of any folk music.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:50 pm

    [quote="IronsightSniper"]
    GarryB wrote:
    Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

    What they want is to be rid of the current dictator... nothing more.

    What the west wants to do is impose a puppet government that is western friendly that might let them take over Libyan oil and screw the Libyans out of its value.

    As I said, the British tried that already. They failed. Perhaps they like their independence and we don't want to Imperialize them?

    And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

    My point is that there is a significant percentage of any population that really doesn't care what happens outside the borders of their little world, yet to be a good policeman you need to have a very good understanding of all the major players and the history of certain conflicts.
    The US is able to intervene because it keeps its own population in the dark... and the rest of the population don't care.
    The US media makes infomercials that prove whatever the US has done was for the good of the world... when it is clear it only ever acts for its own purposes. These are clearly not lovable traits yet Americans wonder why they are not loved. Yeah... ignorance is bliss.
    And two political parties that share many of the same policies is hardly democracy.

    But here's a question, what other country don't have their quacks who only care for their own country?


    Then maybe you should become another policeman.

    Why do you assume there should be a policeman? To prevent big countries from bullying little ones? Hahahahahahahahaha... so to prevent bigger countries bullying smaller countries a big country that is the worst bully... that imposes economic sanctions on a whim is the bully punisher? USA... King Bully and bully punisher... Physician heal thyself... Wink Wink

    No policeman and we all kill each other, very simple. Besides, U.N. Security council mandates us to protect countries from various atrocities.

    Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

    Lets look at the record shall we? To stop Saddam in his reckless disregard for democracy and his invasion of Kuwaite... where men got the vote in 2005 and women are still not allowed to vote in elections... the US and its coalition of the oil starved... invaded Kuwaite and restored... a dictatorship.
    Later after severe economic sanctions and bombings it eventually invades Iraq and Afghanistan... for very little actual reason... in both cases to get a guy. Success in one case and total failure in the other.
    In Kosovo UN security council resolution 1244 states clearly that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, yet the US and UK and other hangars on, give those body snatchers the go ahead to declare independence and support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia... violating the above UNSC resolution.
    This action leads directly to Russia normalising relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where before the borders were largely closed, the sudden flow of trade makes independence from Georgia economically possible and Georgia panics and does something really really stupid... which the US whole heartedly supports because oil pipelines are involved.
    We all know this results in two new countries being created even if their creation is not recognised in the west... in practical terms they are not ruled or likely to be ruled in the near future by Tiblisi so they are independent.

    Well, more reason to get another policeman on the block right?

    Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil

    There are people in the streets protesting about their dictatorships all over the place. The people doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan are ignored. The people in Algeria and Yemen are largely ignored. The place that is assessed as being the possessor of the worlds largest oil reserves called Libya is on the western news services nonstop and there is talk of no fly zones and direct intervention.
    It has everything to do about oil... the west could care less about civil rights... the hypocrisy of talking about Gaddafis forces firing on innocent civilians while showing video footage of civilians armed to the teeth with RPGs and assault rifles and even rocket artillery (122mm Grad trucks) and anti aircraft light cannon!!! The Taleban should be so well armed!

    There's a big difference between Protesters and Civil war.

    If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

    But that is the point... you couldn't give a flying fk about the Libyan people... it is the oil under their feet that interests you. Did it ever occur to you that this is a civil war and none of your business? They need to sort it out themselves and the west going in there and altering the results will just make things worse.

    Oh please, google for the status updates on various social media sites. More people cared about Libyan protesters being shot at by Hinds than they cared about Libya's status of Top Oil Reserves in North Africa. Again, if you haven't noticed, we're preoccupied in 2 wars already. We spend 2/3s of our Annual budget for Defense, while everyone spends about 10%. You complain that we don't care about the Libyan people simply because we're not intervening for them, yet you fail to realize we're already intervening elsewhere. Seriously, if you think you can do better, step up to the plate. I would love to see China and Russia have a comparable global intervention force, but they don't.

    Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're
    hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of
    Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that
    China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not.

    But these Chinese cave people are so backward, surely they are 100 years behind the west and so it is only fair that they should be allowed an extra 100 years of imperialism?

    You talk about right and fair. As an American please explain right and fair to a Serbian from Kosovo. Or perhaps an Iranian or Cuban whose economic future is limited because of the policies of YOUR government.

    Live is not fair. We're here to make it fair. We're sorry for Imperialism, but China isn't China without their 4000 year history of conquest (Chinese wars have cost at least 80 million lives). Past is behind us, no more Imperialism please.

    Iranian and Cuban futures are what they are because of their Governments also. I cannot explain the actions of my Government as I was not alive back then and thus, did not have a vote nor a voice.

    That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

    So what you are saying is that all people in US prisons should be set free and sent to US schools to tell the youth of America all about right and wrong because they know... they have been there and done that and they can tell anyone else how to live their lives and what choices to make... and maybe one day... if they are good they will reach the high moral standards of US prison inmates.

    BTW you can tell them anything you want... considering they have a civilisation that goes back more than 5,000 years... or to put it in your terms when white Europeans were hunter gatherers, they might just smile and pretend to be listening while thinking how weak it makes you sound to suggest the government should listen to its people.

    Do you really think these little lectures would have swayed Hitler or Stalin? Do you think anyone with the smarts and ruthlessness to get into power in a third world country like Saddam will turn to his subjects and his rivals and suggest a free market democracy with US values and morals? They'd be killed overnight.

    They don't get to be free. They get to be on Camera. It's all over TV f.y.i.

    If death is what fears one from freedom, he does not deserve freedom.

    To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of
    the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which
    case, I'm very :sad: for you.

    You remind me of the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is evil, yet priests molesting little boys is an issue they choose to hide and actually support by continually moving the perpetrators from area to area to get new prey.
    My problem is that the high morals you hold everyone else to and judge everyone else by are never applied when you look in the mirror.

    That is the problem I have with the US.

    So you say. In reality, you base your opinion off a minority group, taking extreme examples and projecting them as a reality. What you fail to realize that for the majority of Americans, what we want is what the majority of the world wants, food on table, walls around table, etc. The high morals we hold over countries are not over looked. It's like if a smoker told a non-smoker that smoking is bad, he right there, is holding his morals high above the non-smoker. But is it within logical reasoning to deduce that because the smoker tells the non-smoker not to smoke, that the smoker is thus a hypocrite, and thus wrong about not smoking? No, because smoking inherently is bad, and a bad man telling a man to do a good thing is not hypocritical, it is the right thing to do.

    If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

    Which brings up another point... your country is so judgemental. Why should you care what form of government another country decides to have for itself. The US is the greatest offender in this regard. Saddam was evil and had to be removed from power. If you were actually fair there would be no governments in most of the countries of the world based on that criteria. You put up with Stalin when fighting Hitler, and you put up with Saddam when he was fighting Iran. It is these inconsistencies that make you unpredictable.
    Of course if you follow the oil you actually become very predictable.

    We're a logical people. Logic depends on assumptions, which comes from judgment. The world is one big place, and countries are just little places. What we do affects what you do and vise versa. Otherwise, why does everyone judge us about our Carbon emissions? They care because our Carbon emissions affect them. Same with Governments. A Fascist Government will do this, a Stalinist will do that. Each decision will affect us one way or another. If it affects us, we care. If it affects you, you care. Therefore, it is within our perceptive boundaries to pass judgment and receive judgment.

    Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss.

    Isn't head in the sand politics the third major political party in the US?
    Sometimes called the thinking mans party I believe.

    The Third major political party in the U.S. would be the Green party, which are a collection of paranoid schizophrenics who only put blame on whoever is the biggest and the baddest and the opposite of what they care about. You should study about America more. unshaven



    IronsightSniper , that would be the Tea Party, not the Green Party!

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:51 pm

    potential bases for libyan no fly zone...

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9...tial+Bases.bmp

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:00 pm

    Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

    The French Defense Ministry, which confirmed the strike, said its attack aircraft being used to take out tanks and artillery have deemed Benghazi and the surrounding area an "exclusion zone."

    The French are using surveillance aircraft and two frigates in the operation to protect civilians. The aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle is soon going to be en route from Toulon, France.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:00 pm

    The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader's Muammar al-Qaddafi's air defenses Saturday, Fox News has learned.

    The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi's air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:54 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:54 am