LIBIA italy question? or europe question?
 

LIBIA the revolution continued.
Italy offers 7 military base avaiable to ONU.

illegal immigrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach Lampedusa.

now to LAMPEDUSA ISLAND ARE 4500 peoples immigrants illegal
italian peoples to lampedusa are very nervous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3iGEqHd7YY

0.55s : Mirage F1? It does look like it, a lot.

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/fra...mirage_f-1.gif

Could be either an F1 or a Mig23 to me... I will look for more pics because I think there were several vantage points. It does look like it was hit by Air to Air or perhaps a Sam but I didn't see any missile smoke.

thats definitely a Mig23...

IF you have Sky Sat, go to the news channels and watch the footage on the 'PressTV' channel. It's been showing the downed fighter footage in slow motion from strike to impact.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...2_1275396a.jpg

I'm not sure any more, the 23 also looks a lot like it.

EDIT: After seeing more pictures I have to agree with Bigs, definitely a MiG-23, now the question: is it definitely from Libya, if so was it from Gaddafi or from the Rebels?

Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ver-Libya.html

my money's on it being from Gaddafi's airforce.

what was it shot down by tho... the vid was zoomed out, all u really see is a little orange flash and then the plane begins to dive and burn...

AAA hit? Missile hit?

LIBIAN PILOTS ABORT RAID TO BENGASI AND RFUGE TO MALTA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=augJ2EF8Wv4

The Mig-23 that was shot down today supposedly belonged to the rebels. The pilot ejected too late and died.

look at the crater that formed in the ground and 'impressive

First reports were it was a 'Pro Gaddafi Jet' shoy down by the rebels, followed by 'it was a rebel Jet' and shot down by the rebels by mistake and now it's a Rebel Jet shot down by Gaddafi's forces. Think I will go along with the second statement not that it matters much to the pilot.

FRANCE STRIKE ATTAK TO LIBIA TODAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP3A0SKLGAY

in my opinion most people involved on ''high places'' want to be seen to act for good, but behind their actions there is only hypocricy.
now petrol will go to another firm, France will be able to get its uranium and those big ones that were out of Lybia, now will take what they wanted''
too much to say, when you dont distrust them, all continually affirm that they do it for civilians. :(
they should indignate themselves.

'' a 2nd afghanistan maybe'', i surely dont want it in order to keep petrol price stable.

they were never kind hearted for a population, YEMEN now is in turmoil but nothing yet AFAIK

this situation not regard only ITALY but regard ALL EUROPE i am agree FRANCE and U.K. U.S. helping but GERMANY not collaboration.WHY?

ok ok sorry for all peoples of this forum moderator please cancel my topic sorry for desturbing you.

The interesting thing is that Libia only ever had 14 Mirage F-1's.

Now when then French took some back for servicing and updating they could only get four off the ground.
So early in the conflict one was shot down by rebels and two have now defected to Malta.

Giving us reason to believe they only have ONE F-1 fighter jet in their airforce.
I also believe they have a handful of Migs and a force of L-39's?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out, as the oepration has already started with many Tomahawks already having been fired at coastal radar installations and RAF jets apparantly on station.

S!
Mini

LIBIA has few mig but have Katyusha rocket.
LIBIA NOT HAVE LONG RANGE MISSILE.
BUT HAVE DANGEROUS CHEMICAL ARMAMENT.
and could open the taps by dumping all the oil and polluting the air and the Mediterranean Sea.
and as' past success in the war in Kuwait

can i have a source? thanks
Also in iraq was told the same but nothing was found

Because the Krauts are sick and tired fighting for Tobruk.

germany have some bad experience in afrika (korps) ;):-P

either way i don't like international bullism

if im right it was also the 8th anniversary to iraqi fooensive/invasion

Same.Still not sure if the protests agains Khadafi were triggered by US or by the Spring of Arab Nations.

But I'm (and a good part of the world) pretty sure that this will be another Iraq/Afghanistan.

About Italy,my aunt is saying things are getting even worse there with the waves of lybians coming.

And germans are fed up with war.

Because they are smarter?

Thats mig23.

it seems that some will never learn form history

a friend of mine told me one day that in teh wikileaks there were some papers saying that they americans expected/knowed( or something like that) that all this will start, even the month!
libya was a noissance from them as it compromised their plans for the n. Africa( if they have plans, and i suspect that they might)so tehy wanted to kick him out now in any means, as the ''popular insurgence'' failed they had to do something: a no-fly zone(= attack them directly according to UN( who are the permanent members btw? :) ) and some countries)
sorry maybe what i say is not so right, its night and i m tired, i will be able later on to write better and br more organised.

1. Stop posting in all caps, especially when you are wrong. Those jets defected weeks ago/last month, look at the video date. Its old news.

Infact this whole thread is rediculous...

edit- btw the reason I opened this thread is because the title spelled "Libya", as Libia which is lol worthy.
edit2 - its even more funny because of the op screaming headlines in caps as breaking news, when the news is weeks or more old (other than the shot down Libyan AF fighter which is obviously Libyan because the UK/France are deploying Typhoons (EuroFighter/Raphael) mainly as far as I have seen, although it could of been a UAE plane but I doubt it). Even more amusing is that now everyone in the thread is mispelling Libya, I think for that alone this thread deserves incineration for some type of internet cognitive impairment virus...

If they really stick to providing the kind of assistance it was asked of them by the local population (ie, a no fly zone without any foreign troops on the ground) without making a mess of "collateral damage" (let's be honest and call it for what it is, dead civilians), then i guess it would be ok. But that's a big if.

In any case, the hypocrisy in the situation is very obvious: all the EU countries waited until the last batch of Lybian oil they had bought was shipped to them before they kicked off their operation. Our own prime minister comes from a party that had close ties to many Arab regimes (dating from a time that it wasn't really "agreeable" for many western countries to do so) and he still went ahead and granted access to the EU aircraft operating there, just like Sarkozy and Berlusconi were shaking Gaddafi's hand a few months ago but now want him gone...it's madness :-P
Plus, i don't see anyone instituting any kind of international control zones in pro-western dictatorships like Bahrain, where mercenary police kills between 10 and 50 people every other day or so.

I'm very ambivalent about this. On one hand it's still a question of "what serves me right" that's presented as a freedom promoting operation through warfare. On the other one, at least this coalition had an invitation to operate there, a UN resolution to that effect and the reserved but still telling backing of the Arab league, which is much more than can be said for operations like Iraq. I just hope the locals can seize the situation and take matters into their own hands without the need for another prolonged war, which would be detrimental to everyone at this point in time.

This would of been long over if a week or two ago NATO had hit Libyan armour then before they organised and grabbed the oilports and their fuel for the vehicles. After that initial rebel push and then retreat which resulted in the loss of the oil ports, all we have seen is a relentless push towards Benghazi, it may be too little to late at this point since pro Ghadaffi troops are already fighting the rebels in the city and we are just preventing mechanised convoys / supplies reinforcements. Although it looks like France and the UK will step up their help for the rebels, US doesnt want to get dragged in though.

edit- apparently the jet was a rebel jet they sent up to try and intercept incoming bombers (according to CNN).

Is pretty clear that many of you never been on the receiving end of ruthless dictators, or are too ingnorant to find out how it is.:rolleyes:

I grew up in Romania during Ceausescu's regim (a good friend of Gadaffi) and i know all too well what those poor Libyans are going through.:(
I'm pissed the western powers let the mad man kill so many people and went in so late.:-x
If this bombing they did untill now took place two weeks ago, that mad dog would be hanging in tree by now. They let him choke that country in blood.:(

Obama is the biggest pussy that ran USA. It took the coward three weeks since the start of the killings to make a bloody statement.:-x
I see a lot of mention about former wars US was involved in. This is very different situation. This was a genuine revolution against a dictator, not the retarded intervention in Iraq.
Do you guys even read statements made by FREE Libyans? The whole country is against this mad dog. People are just too afraid to go out and show it.
I hope someone has some sense and they start going after the single target that can stop the blood shed: Gadaffi!!! You won't stop the killings if you shoot some troops that are kept in check by gunpoint by gadaffi's cronies.
You kill Gadafi, or at least show that you are seriously going after him and the war will be over in two days.


I see all this comanders and political leaders on the news saying that Gadaffi is not targeted. Are this guys retarded? Is this the message you want to send to this dog? They should remember him every day that "we are coming for you and we'll have you hanging at the end of a rope like Sadam. Maybe he'll be scared and run in exile.

Why do you speak so about Obama and the US. It is common knowledge that the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, etc. think America is the great oppressor, yet they all want America to police the world.

Recently a radical from Croatia killed two American servicemen in Germany. Why? American soliders died in Croatia trying to stop the genocide and killing of the Croatian Muslims by the Serbian oppressors.

The news media turns things to suit their agenda, the radicals turn things to suit their agenda, and the poor people are misinformed and manipulated to think in those terms.

You know as well as I, no one respects America before or after trying to help. Everyone thinks America always has profit motive. Yet, Americans are burying their sons. Where are all the profits, when does that happen? What is the payback for the dead soldiers and billions of dollars spent to help ungrateful countries? More contempt and hatred of America and an empty wallet

The enemy is the same..radical jihadists.

The difference is most of Libya oil production is going to Western European countries. Western European countries will be forced to acquire more of their oil from Russia. It is not about freedom, it is promoted that way by the media. The Libyans will be just as oppressed by the Jihadists as they have been by Gadahfi. Sorry, it won't be any better. There will be no rule of "We the People" if Gadahfi is out of power. It will be organized radical jihadists who have planned and promoted the insurgency that take the role of oppressing the libyans.

YET, no one is thinking why the jihadists are pushing so hard to take Libya. After they took Egypt... they only got a broke country with no money or resources to promote their agenda. Now that is different with Libya. If the jihadists can get their hooks into a money tree like Libya and dedicate the resources to jihad just think of the havoc they can cause.

America should have stayed out of the Libyan conflict 100% and let the Western European countries with everything to lose see what they can do about Libya.

We will have to wait and see, but you can trust Americans will be hated regardless of the outcome. A new Jihadist Libyan government will pull their factions together to affirm their power and be more oppressive of the Libyan people than Gadahfi.

Sadly, it just looks like more of the same for the people of Libya.

Don't get me wrong... I'd love to be wrong and look forward to a democratic government ruled by "we the people".

I'm not bashing the Americans. I'm pissed with the gutless persident.
That is not a position for an undecided academic. The president of United States has to be a man of action and a man that has an opinion, not someone that is waiting for the reaction of others, to make up his mind how to act.
I absolutely agree with you that something a lot more dangerous CAN come out of a Libya without Gadaffi.
But the question here is who you stand for. Thugs, dictators that are pretending they like you, or the people?
I'd say the people of Libya have the right to decide their fate, the regime is just too strong and too ruthless and they can't do it alone.
I can tell you that a lot of Libyans now LOVE the western powers that came to help them. It wasn't Iran that came to their aid. This alone can prevent the jihadists from taking power in Libya if Gadafi falls.

Jaws

I'm not bashing the Americans. I'm pissed with the gutless persident.
That is not a position for a undecided academician. The president of United States has to be a man of action and a man that has an opinion, not someone that is waiting for the reaction of others, to make up his mind how to act.
I absolutely agree with you that something a lot more dangerous CAN come out of a Libya without Gadaffi.
But the question here is what you stand for. Thugs, dictators that are pretending they like you, or the people?
I'd say the people of Libya have the right to decide their fate, the regime is just too strong and too ruthless and they can't do it alone.
I can tell you that a lot of Libyans now LOVE the western powers that came to help them. It wasn't Iran that came to their aid. This alone can prevent the jihadists from taking power in Libya if Gadafi falls.

--------------------------------------------

Libya, Yemen, Darfur, Sudan, etc. We can go on for quite awhile pointing to despotic governments that subvert and oppress their own people. Currently the most demonstrative radicalized governments are in the hands of Jihadists.

It would be excellent to think since America is now in the thick of it there would be enough goodwilll and empowerment of the people to keep the radical factions from taking over. Not so, the anti-American media will twist and subvert the message of American desire for Libya of democracy to demogogary. It never fails.

It will take alot longer for people to understand propaganda and relative truth. You would think years of oppression by dictators would eventually be engrained into peoples psyche to vehemently oppose more of the same. Yet, they continue to fall into the same quagmire.

There is a thing about American democracy that even Americans are losing touch with. Individual freedom is what Americans enjoy, but they don't take enough individual initiative in the running of their own government to realize they are going to lose that individual freedom.

Individual freedom can only be preserved by individual involvement in the political process.

The less individual participation, the less individual freedom. There is a direct correlation.

Absolutely agree with you.
Countries that get away from some form of opressing government, in many cases end up under another opressive regime in the oposite side of the political spectrum.
The problem is exactly what you mentioned. Lack of individual involvment and in many cases lack of poilitical experience and understanding of the masses in this countries, that have been opressed for a long time.
Two perfect examples. Iran and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
This both countries after bloody revolutions went from being opressed by right wing to being oppressed by left wing dictators or left wing/islamists they brought to power.

It is nice we can find common ground to agree. When people educate themselves, quit listening to what they are being led to believe by the media and make decisions for themselves about information they figure things out.

Restructuring for government is a difficult process. The radicals and extremists know this well. The insurrections are organized. There are people waiting quietly on the fringes that already have a formulated agenda and plan of action.

It has not been possible to depose the radicals and extremists in most revolutions, because when the revolution comes it is usually their design.

The only way possible would be to have organized groups of people within the respective countries that understand "We the people" would be ready with a plan of action.

America has tried to provide the framework for nation building in Iraq, by maintaining a firm association with Iraqi leadership. If a democratic form of government does prevail in Iraq that would be a major victory for the freedom of all people in the Middle East.

There are many worst case scenarios that could play out with a defeated Gadahfi, and the prospects for a best case scenario are slim to none. IMO, of course.

last 3-4
1+
individual freedom can only be preserved by individual involvement in the political process.
nice, but we have to get good knowledge and to be able to make correct critisism that this will be able and in such conditions its not easy at all

The less individual participation, the less individual freedom. There is a direct correlation.

You are correct it isn't easy, and somehow people have got to find a way.

Emailing friends, join advocacy groups, contact representatives, tell friends, etc.

Saying nothing, produces nothing.

Saying something may not produce much, but always more than saying nothing.

Results take time, and persistent effort.

You need a reality check. Your posts are completely disconneted from reality. Radical Jihadists? Where? You watch too much fox news, its the whole "poor america, we spread freedom and liberty and only get blame in return" bs that circulates on the right. Which Jihadists took Egypt? Your pulling bs out of thin air, the movement IS ANTI JIHADIST. Why? Because women dont want to be subjugated and repressed anymore, this unrest is driven by the educated middle class who want political reform ie a republican form of government and NOT the old repressive Muslim regimes that the west placed in the post colonial era.

People dislike america because of neocons who foolishly mix ideology and faulty realism to justify their actions. America is (and its a fact) responsible for a huge amount of post WW2 turmoil including indirectly the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in south america by overthrowing democracies, let alone other regions like Iran which had a relativly secular and secure republic until we destroyed it to install the Shah. So when you say we are interested in supporting democracies and thats what US has done in the past - it is patently false as we directly orchestrated or provided the means for dictators to put down their people. I love you citing Yemen though considering its one of the most closely tied regimes in the middle east to the US. Same with egypt, their military uses all US equipment and their officers train and live in the US before returning to egypt. The reason for the political turmoil is because of economic growth, you need to go read up on "relative deprivation".

People dont like american policy because we are hypocrits and like to saber rattle.

everything you mentioned except Italy.
in this issue and 'intervened America because' Europe can not make a decision.
Italy is a country bordering on Africa and is' a country that must be controlled and defended.
Africa could get a real invasion of the people of Somalia Algeria gana Chad in Morocco and you do not even making allowance for the risk you run.Libya and spend all that used to work as a filter and now the filter is' broken.
germany and that 'the center of Europe in the fields concerned I said no war in Libya.
OK dear germany if you do not mind the war in Libya from Europe come out 'cause you're not able to predict the responsibility' and defend the borders of Europe.

While you're right about many people going against the Americans and then asking for their support, there's a couple of point i'd like to address. I more or less agree with you, just providing a bit of extra opinion from another perspective.
For example, the Croats are not muslims but catholics. Apart from that, the current situation is very different from previous ones.

Libya is a genuine uprising, a civil war so to speak. Iraq was an invasion plain and simple and the Balkan affairs was selective punishment. I live in the region and know from first-hand accounts by people who live in the former yugoslav states that everybody was killing everybody during those years. There's a lot of tourists coming to certain sea resorts close to my home town and whenever the issue comes up with any of them, Croats, Bosnians and Serbs alike, they've had no trouble admitting that their neighbors or someone they knew was involved in civilian killings or executions of prisoners.
It's just that one side was seen as a Russian influence in the region and they got all the blame and bombs on their heads.

Ironically enough, some of the states formed by force by the NATO interventions are the ones that can't control or even harboring militant islamic elements: both the Madrid and London bombings of a few years ago were traced back to Kosovo and Bosnia, plus NATO has already conducted at least one joint exercise with Serbian forces recently. All of this tells me that if nothing else, a serious mistake of picking sides based on short-term planning has occurred in a region where ethnic rivalries span entire centuries and it would make more sense to be firm but fair and impartial to all, both in punishment and in motivation to end the conflict by forcing concessions from all involved parties to an equal measure.

This is the one single mistake that has plagued foreign US policy for decades, ever since Cuba, Vietnam and silently backing dictators in various countries from the south America to Iraq: the planners tend to think the locals will easily conform to their standards and usually lack in-depth knowledge of local social, historical and cultural conditions.

This is the main reason the UK was more successful than the US is in their counter-insurgency campaigns in the years after WW2: they usually refused to openly pick sides, preferring to contain the situation within each country and support their chosen "representative" faction with indirect means. This has the welcome effect of not drawing all the spotlights on you, plus the outcome can be served as being partly a decision of the locals, much more preferable in the long run to have people think they managed to changed the situation on their own.
It also pays a lot if the local civilians in the area can trust you to be impartial, they will trust you more in general. This however is a far cry from what usually happens on the field, when young soldiers that have been specifically trained to place their unit's safety above the civilian population have also been led to believe they'll be received as liberators by the locals: they are getting attacked and despised but nobody took the time to tell them why it really happens (because it would openly reveal the true nature of their mission), so whenever they face hostility from the locals they are naturally frustrated, inclined to disregard the local population even more ("i came here to die for these guys and they throw rocks at me?screw them" type of thinking), the locals respond in kind and escalate and the vicious circle continues...

I truly believe that the blame doesn't lie with the foot soldier. It's the guys who sent him there that have some answering to do, both to the locals and to the soldier. Most of the current mess that goes on in various regions around the world is not the fault of the local population or the western public in general, but caused by a select few people in high places that make a career out of mincing words...and in all honesty, they are not only lying to the foreigners they try to oppress, they are also lying to us, the citizens, who put them in that place. I have no problem at all with people of different origins, it's our governments that usually pit us all against each other ;)

I agree with you that this is all a mess and it's easy to make mistakes. What you propose about individual action in your following posts also holds a lot of merit. We must start being able to hold our leaders accountable if the situation is to be improved. Countries that have healthy democracies, like Switzerland and Scandinavian states, are usually based on that. The citizen is an integral part of the machine, not some throw-away voter we can lie to to ensure another term in office. This means that the citizen in turn is also willing to do more for the state, because he IS the state and can see direct benefits. This is reflected on all facets of society, from mandatory military service (excusable only under health reasons) to frequent referendums about the slightest of issue. This is far better than what happens in most European countries, where people can get elected in office by saying one thing and then do another as soon as they secure the spot.

The problem usually is that the powers that be can easily polarize a situation to drown out the most reasonable opinions among us all, so individual action gets sidetracked to other goals. For example, during the past few years anyone who disagreed with how the recent wars were ran was labeled as a US-hater, jihad supporter or a Soviet sympathizer. It's not until recently that the amount of loss of life and financial cost has made the western public at large aware of the fact that mistakes have been made, both in justification and in execution of these operations. It's the experience of the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan that makes us all unwilling to step in for Libya today.

It's also true that mistakes are not all intentional. However, the longer we focus on labels instead of the issue at hand and as long as we are unwilling to admit and own up to said mistakes, the easier it is for our governments to pit us against each other for the benefit of others. ;)

I hope i didn't ruffle any feathers here, all i'm trying to say is that as long as we prefer to be vindictive instead of fair and enforce a similar attitude on our rulers, we won't really see much of an improvement.

This is true, they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm not surprised with Obama's slow reaction at all not to mention US is streched over Afganistan and Iraq...

No NOT from Croatia, get your facts strait. The guy was from Kosovo. We have like 1% of Muslims in total population btw.

Wrong again, Croatia and Bosnia were left for dead even with weapons embargo in our face thank you very much (NOT!). But yes NATO reacted in 1999. in defence of Kosovo.
Strange how US has better support from us that were not only abandoned by them but royally f***ed than from those they shed blood for. Maybe a lesson to learn for the future allies picking? Or not? xD
NVM we are in NATO now anyway...

Agree 99%. The 1% is that I'm leaving a possibility that Arab world is going through their "French revolution" (many still have kings and lifetime presidents, pretty much - monarchs) and that they are sick and tired of "great leaders" and religious same as other authorities, they want a better quality of life. So I think that even if some extremists seize the power in those countries they will be overthrown very quickly...

You must have been out of town or something. Who destroyed the World Trade Centers 911? Who blew up the embassy in Nairobi? Who killed 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood? Who just tried to set off a bomb in Times Square? This a list I could compile since the late 1970s listing all the Jihadist attacks on America alone.

What about the rail attack in Spain, the subway attacks in England, etc.

When you say radical Muslims or Muslim extremists you make Muslims mad, when you say Jihadist at least I'm trying not to identify extremists as peaceful Muslims.

Practically ever terrorist attack in the world since 1979 has been done by Muslim Extremists. They all claim to be Muslim... but are they really just using a religion to give themselves creditability when they should just be called murders and radical extremists using religion to serve up their ends.

We'll have to wait and see on this one for the people supporting and planning the revolution in Egypt to reveal themselves and their ends won't we?

You think the people behind that revolution were middle class and only want to stop the abuses of women. LOL


I wouldn't think anyone would believe that the revolution in Egypt was for the subjugated and repressed women. A republican form of government would take away power. It wouldn't give it to any one individual or groups of individuals with their own agenda. So... IMO, a republican government it may be called. Yet, you can call a cow a chicken if you like, it won't make it so.


I really don't pay much attention to radical propaganda, so all the above would really have to be better proven with factual data or references.

I said America was nation building in Iraq, which is the way it's been described for the past several years. I think you accusations about "orchestrated and provided the means for dictators to put down their people is just radical propaganda".

If anything exists along those lines it would be because everyone imposes on America to fund, provide aid for their screwed up messes, and provide worldwide policing of the world at the expense of American taxpayers.

As I mentioned earlier, the anti-American media turns democratic ideals for countries into evil American demogogary.

Why did the Western European nations turn to the United Nations to take down Gadahfi, the oil, the oil and the oil? The soviet pipes wouldn't flow as cheaply, if there was no oil from Libya to provide some competition that helps hold pricing down.

Wonder why Germany did not join in the fray? Most of their oil comes from Libya.

Why does the world think America has to fix Libya, why does America have to be the front runner? America doesn't buy zip from Libya, what is the advantage. Why does America have to do anything about Libya? Libya is a sovereign nation, where does the United Nations have cause to interfere? The United Nations is doing more to affect freedom in all nations, including the US. Have you wondered why the United Nations is involved?

Believe me, even though you don't like reading what I'm saying... there will be a biased media spin on this that will make America the bad guy. Happens every time. It won't matter that America will outspend every participating country involved in this police action... and still turn out to be the bad guys.

Say what you will, but another despotic government will replace Gadahfi, and if it's a Jihadist motivated group of people there will be more terrorist attacks than ever. They'll have access to funding they've never had before....from the sale of Libyan crude. It will be like giving a college kid a bank for his birthday, what a bunch of trouble will be brewed when the money is available for unabated terrorist activism.

A note about hypocrits... what about all continuing genocide in Darfur and in Sudan. Where is the United Nations in all this murder and mayhem. It is still going on today. Where was the United Nations in Zimbabwe, in Congo, in Rwanda, etc.,etc. I'd say you need to think about some of those things when you defame America as hypocritical.

America's commitment to Haiti for aid around 1 billion dollars, Chavez sent one plane load of aid, the Chinese send a million dollars. Regardless, there is no country in the world that is as generous as America. Fact is, America gives more in aid to foreign countries than the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. How much is that worth, even if you can blame some Hypocrisy on America. Ask the starving people to curse America as they fill their bellies...with donated American food.

Helicon,

I'm going to let you have the last word on this topic. I don't think the discussion will take the posting anywhere, but to a not so pleasant ending. This is not a political forums, and the orginal topic is very off topic for this forums. I responded on it, and probably shouldn't have. Therefore, I think in all fairness after you reply I will lock thread and we can get back to business as usual.

I love all you Euro's view of the World. Again, even though Libya is in your back-yard, we get snookered into doing the heavy lifting. Look at the hypocrisy from France when oil is involved (and Germany and Turkey)---at least the USA can't be blamed for this by saying we want the oilfields:rolleyes:

The hypocrisy of Obama is also too much for me to bear. If Bush were doing this he would be all against it---now he gets us into another Middle East war with no stated goals. On top of that it should have been done weeks ago if we were going to do this at all:confused:

Why do you think that these states are able to act like this? Because they do not have a care in the world and also do not care about the world either.
They are homogeneous states, with little outside interaction or ideas. They are the enablers of dictators and repressive regimes also. At least we pick a side and don't just go with the flavor of the month;)

Oh sure you do, everybody does eventually.

Since you allowed the thread to remain open for a fair response, I will be as polite as possible.
1. When you are talking about the Jihadists, you were talking about who is responsible for the revolutions in the middle east. They are NOT backed by Jihadists. In fact these movements are the Jihadists worst nightmare, they want to impose a theocracy and they want the people to support them in that. When women come out into the street to protest is says a number of things about who the people behind the protests are. If you know about conservative muslim culture/beliefs you would know that women protesting is a giant NO NO! The last thing they want is women who are independent and politicaly motivated.
The protesters (especially the early ones) were overwhelmingly middle educated class. The US has pushed economic reform in places such as Egypt and other middle eastern states. This economic growth and economic reform allowed for the creation of a more robust middle class who are aware of their governments totalitarian actions to stiffle dissent. The middle class has the education and means (computers, internet etc) to understand the situation that they are in and compare their own state of affiars to others elsewhere. This "relative deprivation" creates the social unrest. I could say alot more about this but I cant type out 50 pages on development theory. But it is clear to everyone (no one in political science debates who the driving forces are in these revolutions) that it is a middle class push, like nearly every revolution before it - and these middle class protestors are strongly anti extremist, they do not want a government that will repress them again.
Point is the women protesting is indicative of a social and class based movement which is contradictory to your assertions.

Now you quoted me as saying "orchestrated and provided the means for dictators to put down their people is just radical propaganda". I would like you to note that you misquoted me because I never said "is just radical propaganda". Dont know if that was an accident or not, but it was not a correct quote.
Now Egypt is one of the biggest receivers of US military aid in the world, they also are a dictatorship. Same goes for a vast number of regimes, Yemen included. Things are overall better now but the US has a horrible track record of funding extremists. You know the Taliban and Al Qaeda are actually american creations? In the 80s when the soviets invaded Afghanistan we funded the Mujahadeen (sp) who fought the Soviets. Post cold war the Mujahadeen leadership moved to create Al Qaeda, and the Taliban secured the local leadership roles.
The chemicle weapons used by Saddam on the Kurds are also ours more or less. We provided the tech and info along with military supplies to Iraq when they were at war with Iran (Rumsfeld was butt budies with Saddam).
Or the Contras (Reagans freedom fighters who systematically commited genocide) or the coup in Chile which installed Pinochet... The list goes on and on and its well documented, much of this was orchestrated by CIA director Dulles, who is also responsible for the coup in Guatemala because of lobbying pressure from United Fruit Corporation (not kidding).
Its not hard to see why there is resentment towards the US.

Now as far as the UN is concerned, the US is a security council member incase you didnt realise, so we play a big role in UN decisions. Also the US spends more on its military than any other nation (US Navy budget is more than the next 12 nations in the world combined, and 11 of them are allies).
In fact the us has NOT taken the lead, the French have and all I hear is complaints that they jumped the gun to get the glory. Also a big reason the UN has not acted in Sudan is because China is a permanent UN Security council member, with a veto and they are heavily invested in Sudan's oil industry to insure their supply of oil and other rare materials into the future. Due to this the UN security council measures that have passed were non binding, and while were not enacted.

US gives a mediocre amount in foreign aid in proportion to GDP.
"Fact is, America gives more in aid to foreign countries than the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED"
Not true in the slightest, and we give far more military aid then humanitarian aid. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages...n-foreign-aid/
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/3646/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200501040003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign..._United_States

I happen to know alittle about this area, because I moved from Australia to Singapore because a family member of mine was working in Aceh for post tsunami relief and NGO aid evaluation.

Dont have time to respond more right now, sorry. I would suggest though that you go read a range of commentary on international events in order to avoid the bs the american media (especially fox) likes to spoon feed the public who still believes we won the vietnam war, thinks Iraq had wmds (which they didnt and the arms inspectors were orderd out by the US) or they had ties to terrorists (which they didnt, because Saddam was a member of the Baith (sp) party which was secular because he was Shiite and Al Qaeda was Sunni and they hated each other with a passion).

In any case I appreciate you leaving the thread open for a response.

Lol when I saw this post I immeditely thought about going to get the picture of Rummsfeld huggin sadam. Someone beat me to it (but only the handshake pic). Your charactarization of other countries is completely offbase.

Also Libya has significant oil fields and reserves, which might be a reason why the US would not want to leap into action overeagerly I would say?

Heliocon... You popped in new content, which should have some response

You said:
Dont have time to respond more right now, sorry. I would suggest though that you go read a range of commentary on international events in order to avoid the bs the american media (especially fox) likes to spoon feed the public who still believes we won the vietnam war,

I have never mentioned fox - you are out of line on that

I don't believe America won the Vietnam war - I recall the "Michelin" rubber plantations had deals and couldn't be bombed and the VC were using them as secure positions.

I recall the VC were unloading SAM missiles into Hanoi harbor and American pilots would be court martial, if they struck them.

I recall VN where the American politicians served up over 50,000 American soldiers to the graveyards.

I recall the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia and the murderous communist takeover.

I think that the American failure in VN must have been a horror story for the VN people when America pulled out, when I consider what the communists did to the people of Cambodia.

You said:
thinks Iraq had wmds (which they didnt and the arms inspectors were orderd out by the US) or they had ties to terrorists (which they didnt, because Saddam was a member of the Baith (sp) party which was secular because he was Shiite and Al Qaeda was Sunni and they hated each other with a passion).

Making war with Iraq on a lie was an unspeakable crime.

I become angry when I think of how many people have died in Iraq in a war predicated upon a lie.

I don't think you need to respond, because I pretty well agreed with you in this response.