|
|
#31
03-21-2011, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#32
03-21-2011, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#33
03-21-2011, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 edited by nearmiss; 03-21-2011 at 05:48 PM. |
|
#34
03-21-2011, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#35
03-21-2011, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
#36
03-21-2011, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Heliocon; 03-21-2011 at 07:25 PM. |
|
#37
03-21-2011, 07:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. Last edited by Xilon_x; 03-21-2011 at 07:52 PM. |
|
#38
03-21-2011, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#39
03-21-2011, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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... Quote:
|
|
#40
03-21-2011, 08:48 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by nearmiss; 03-22-2011 at 01:13 AM. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
