Libya, another Iraq another lie
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hanvyj
NATO got a log of stick for not intervening in Bosnia ealier than it did. Do you think they should have just let that massacre go on?
Where do you stop this disregard of whats going on in other countries? Would you have let Germany go on unheeded (whether it invaded any other countries or not)? What if your next door neighbor was murdering their kids - would you just say it was none of your buisness (extreme example)?
A lot of people are saying "NATO doesnt intervene in other places". This is hardly an argument to why it should not intervene here - maybe it means it should intervene in those places too?
Where do you stop this disregard of whats going on in other countries? Would you have let Germany go on unheeded (whether it invaded any other countries or not)? What if your next door neighbor was murdering their kids - would you just say it was none of your buisness (extreme example)?
A lot of people are saying "NATO doesnt intervene in other places". This is hardly an argument to why it should not intervene here - maybe it means it should intervene in those places too?
germany was a strategic move, as is libya.
saving your neighbours kids is not a strategic move.
but libya is, there are other motives here. i wish people would stop parroting the party line.
Original post by robin22391
Libya another country with oil.
since when does a no-fly zone involve destroying tanks?
where is the real evidence of the apparent massacres of unarmed civilians, why did i only find out today than the rebels also have jets,why is the news so biased, why did france recognise basically the libyan version of the ira as a government,where is all the journalistic evidence???.
And why did the SAS land in a mi6 agents back garden in a helicopter dressed in black with a bag full of explosives and then claim that it was a diplomatic mission when they were captured?
Also why all the focus on libya, what about all the other countries like bahrain and saudi arabia, the congo and ivory coast.
This is clearly a plan to take out libya no matter the cost in lives, while they still can.
put down the guns get some un peacekeepers in, or let libyans fight their own civil war just like you let all the other people in other countries kill each other and do not take sides as you do not know who the bad guys are.
since when does a no-fly zone involve destroying tanks?
where is the real evidence of the apparent massacres of unarmed civilians, why did i only find out today than the rebels also have jets,why is the news so biased, why did france recognise basically the libyan version of the ira as a government,where is all the journalistic evidence???.
And why did the SAS land in a mi6 agents back garden in a helicopter dressed in black with a bag full of explosives and then claim that it was a diplomatic mission when they were captured?
Also why all the focus on libya, what about all the other countries like bahrain and saudi arabia, the congo and ivory coast.
This is clearly a plan to take out libya no matter the cost in lives, while they still can.
put down the guns get some un peacekeepers in, or let libyans fight their own civil war just like you let all the other people in other countries kill each other and do not take sides as you do not know who the bad guys are.
Are you just going to ignore the intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone...?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Aj12
That was Sarcasm
Apologies, was supposed to quote the OP's moronic assertion.
Original post by GraceOfSpades
I agree with you that with every news channel you read you must take it with a pinch of salt, and to just agree with what you see in a paper at face value is perhaps not the best idea. But isn't it equally as foolish to automatically just reject it?
Every country has to guard its own interests in these kinda things, that much is obvious. It may be a sad fact but its true, a country may need certain 'perks' in a resolution to give them an incentive to support it. But that doesn't mean that they disagree with/ see no importance in the core matter. France may be intervening to some extent because they don't want an influx of refugees, but that doesn't mean they would otherwise just agree that Gudaffi's massacre is aye ok. Its unfortunately how global politics works. :/
Also, I kinda want something explained in more detail to me. Everyone who claims "we're only in there for the Oil"- Can you expand on this? Obviously the oil trade is important to the west, and I understand is helpful to have regimes that support them as it will be more likely to lead to a good trade position, but the kinda simplistic way some people are talking about it makes it sound as if they think the UN's vehicles etc are attached with Bendy Straws or something to suck the country dry. :P
Every country has to guard its own interests in these kinda things, that much is obvious. It may be a sad fact but its true, a country may need certain 'perks' in a resolution to give them an incentive to support it. But that doesn't mean that they disagree with/ see no importance in the core matter. France may be intervening to some extent because they don't want an influx of refugees, but that doesn't mean they would otherwise just agree that Gudaffi's massacre is aye ok. Its unfortunately how global politics works. :/
Also, I kinda want something explained in more detail to me. Everyone who claims "we're only in there for the Oil"- Can you expand on this? Obviously the oil trade is important to the west, and I understand is helpful to have regimes that support them as it will be more likely to lead to a good trade position, but the kinda simplistic way some people are talking about it makes it sound as if they think the UN's vehicles etc are attached with Bendy Straws or something to suck the country dry. :P
very good, but on the idea of an oil war. That it is not. it is a strategic move to make libya a protectorate of usa/nato, libya having probably the highest oil reserves in africa makes it a good choice for a long term western puppet. The idea we invade oil rich countries for oil deals next year is stupid, the idea is to get a foothold for 40 years down the line. oil is a strategic resource. like rubber was in the 1930's.
for example for political reasons we do not invade zimbabwe, namely because it is in the zone of interest of the chinese, we currently do not have a base of operations in africa unlike the chinese, we operate out of brussels. It has been an aim since 2008 to form a base of operations in africa, whether libya is this remains to be seen. however gadaffis replacement will no doubt be pro american and no longer a threat.
Original post by robin22391
germany was a strategic move, as is libya.
Yes, Germany was a strateigic move (they would have tried to invade the UK). Does that make it wrong? So you think we souldn't have declaired war on Germany??
Original post by robin22391
saving your neighbours kids is not a strategic move.
No, quite right. I don't belive there is a particular strategic motive to intervening in Libya. You might. I wasn't asking if it was strategic, I was asking if it was right to intervene. i.e would you?
Original post by robin22391
but libya is, there are other motives here. i wish people would stop parroting the party line.
I fail to see other motives. People have been thowing arround "oil" alot, but wouldn't it be much better to support Gaddafi to get more oil? Having a dictator in your pocket (who can make his peoples lives pretty s**t allowing for greater profits etc) seems the best way to keep oil prices low. A much faster way to stabalise the country would have been to let Gaddafi just finish killing half the population untill they shut up.
Original post by TheCount.
Are you just going to ignore the intervention in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone...?
you mentioned rwanda, you really should look into a history book from your local library on that crisis and how it relates to the congo at prsent where people are still dying (over 200,000 already)
you should also look into what are called proxy wars and also the strategy of divide and conquer, vietnam for example, sure we went in to stop them killing each other sure we did.
when britain wanted to invade africa it told the people they were savages, when rome wanted to invade germany it called them barbarians, this game has been played by the big boys since the beginning of time.
we said to saddam, "destroy your arsenal or we will invade you", he destroyed it, but we still invaded. Around 1,000,000 people died as a result.
sierra leone was a well known conflict in which the usa intervened making one of the most prolific wars of the cold war, the usa wanted yet another proxy war. they used sierra leone selfishly and strategically.
Original post by Hanvyj
Yes, Germany was a strateigic move (they would have tried to invade the UK). Does that make it wrong? So you think we souldn't have declaired war on Germany??
No, quite right. I don't belive there is a particular strategic motive to intervening in Libya. You might. I wasn't asking if it was strategic, I was asking if it was right to intervene. i.e would you?
I fail to see other motives. People have been thowing arround "oil" alot, but wouldn't it be much better to support Gaddafi to get more oil? Having a dictator in your pocket (who can make his peoples lives pretty s**t allowing for greater profits etc) seems the best way to keep oil prices low. A much faster way to stabalise the country would have been to let Gaddafi just finish killing half the population untill they shut up.
No, quite right. I don't belive there is a particular strategic motive to intervening in Libya. You might. I wasn't asking if it was strategic, I was asking if it was right to intervene. i.e would you?
I fail to see other motives. People have been thowing arround "oil" alot, but wouldn't it be much better to support Gaddafi to get more oil? Having a dictator in your pocket (who can make his peoples lives pretty s**t allowing for greater profits etc) seems the best way to keep oil prices low. A much faster way to stabalise the country would have been to let Gaddafi just finish killing half the population untill they shut up.
oh we should have stopped germany sooner. that would have been a good strategic move.
and maybe we should blow up gadaffi for strategic reasons. maybe. but no i would not intervene, i would not expect the usa to itervene when ireland wanted independence and the ira were the rebels, when the brittish sent in the black an tans to massacre civilians and the ira. we would call these rebels terrorists and say "no surrender". but if they get blue hatted un people to stand in between them then that is fine, just dont pick sides or blow up soldiers.
but i am disgusted by the propaganda on the tv, nothing is even questioned.
its like a rebel tells a reporter that he saw 200 people being gunned down and they just report it as a fact.
Hypocrisy is the word.
I dont normally get involved with these types of things, in fact I found my way here searching google for help with my second year university maths, for which I have several exams next week (I have been a member for some time but i dont think ive posted anything previously so please dont judge me entirely on this). However I felt that this time I would have my say. I dont know how this works but noticed someone saying something about a negative.. I dont know what that means but I do expect a lot of people to fight me on this so i say to you now no amount of bringing previous examples and complaining about our obligations to thers and how UN said it was ok etc etc will change my mind. ok? Good? 
Here we go..
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that we as a country/government/body(UN and others) think we have the right to intervene. Somewhere earlier someone asked should we just stand back and watch innocent people die? Well actually as bad as it sounds yes we ***king should. Its NONE of our business.
Imagine this scenario: Britain's masses decide we dont want our government in power anymore so we speak up and shout and fill the streets protesting (not necessarily violently). Of course the stance of the government would be to say "NO we wont stand down citizens return to your lives go to work think of the economy etc we know what's best for the country, we're keeping us afloat and have long term plans etc etc etc" as politicians do. It also happens to be that they control the army and police so for their "protection" and "for the good of the country" they employ the police and army to do the dirty work holding back protests etc and getting people to carry on with their lives- which of course would eventually result in bloodshed as the situation escalates because we want the government gone and the more they try to control us the worse it becomes.
The government is supposed to represent the people and their wishes. So even though they are the ones who lawfully have the power, the people want otherwise.
What happens next? Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia decide that they've had enough and want to represent the wishes of the people of Britain and so join their cause and declare war on.. wait for it "the government that is now forcefully controlling britain". Yes it just so happens that those involved are countries we've had bad history with... See where this is going?
Who would you support in this? What comes of it? Why did all those countries get involved? Our government would call on its allies and declare world war 3.
Just because we think we are an all high and mighty nation with obligations to preserve human life and rights we feel that gives us jurisdiction over other countries. Tell you one thing it bloody doesn't. It's embarrasing! Let them have their turmoil and sort it out for themselves so they too can have their reform which will not only unify their country but be better for them in the long run because they wont feel like they're being watched and judged at every turn. We were allowed to have ours all those years ago it jsut so happens that technology is a little further ahead now and thus looks more lethal... the idea and principle remains the same!
Personally I think the money WASTED on all those rockets, fuel, planes would have been much better spent on a constant water supply for third world countries! medicines! NSPCC..homeless people! back into our OWN economy anywhere but DESTRUCTION OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY thats only going to cost millions to repair later on!... Or maybe that's the point: cripple them now with the last of our funds so they're left with no governance and no funding to rebuild? who knows...
Quite frankly I am ashamed to be English. I knew we were a bunch of self-righteous pricks but this is beyond belief.
whew so anyway rant over now its back to formulae! I hope somebody shares my opinions, perhaps not all but the general gist. It is not my intention to start any arguements, infer any disrespect to any members here, or moderators or whatever TSR has. I am simply a human being with an opinion - lets not go to war over it. Hope you all have a great day!
Here we go..
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that we as a country/government/body(UN and others) think we have the right to intervene. Somewhere earlier someone asked should we just stand back and watch innocent people die? Well actually as bad as it sounds yes we ***king should. Its NONE of our business.
Imagine this scenario: Britain's masses decide we dont want our government in power anymore so we speak up and shout and fill the streets protesting (not necessarily violently). Of course the stance of the government would be to say "NO we wont stand down citizens return to your lives go to work think of the economy etc we know what's best for the country, we're keeping us afloat and have long term plans etc etc etc" as politicians do. It also happens to be that they control the army and police so for their "protection" and "for the good of the country" they employ the police and army to do the dirty work holding back protests etc and getting people to carry on with their lives- which of course would eventually result in bloodshed as the situation escalates because we want the government gone and the more they try to control us the worse it becomes.
The government is supposed to represent the people and their wishes. So even though they are the ones who lawfully have the power, the people want otherwise.
What happens next? Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia decide that they've had enough and want to represent the wishes of the people of Britain and so join their cause and declare war on.. wait for it "the government that is now forcefully controlling britain". Yes it just so happens that those involved are countries we've had bad history with... See where this is going?
Who would you support in this? What comes of it? Why did all those countries get involved? Our government would call on its allies and declare world war 3.
Just because we think we are an all high and mighty nation with obligations to preserve human life and rights we feel that gives us jurisdiction over other countries. Tell you one thing it bloody doesn't. It's embarrasing! Let them have their turmoil and sort it out for themselves so they too can have their reform which will not only unify their country but be better for them in the long run because they wont feel like they're being watched and judged at every turn. We were allowed to have ours all those years ago it jsut so happens that technology is a little further ahead now and thus looks more lethal... the idea and principle remains the same!
Personally I think the money WASTED on all those rockets, fuel, planes would have been much better spent on a constant water supply for third world countries! medicines! NSPCC..homeless people! back into our OWN economy anywhere but DESTRUCTION OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY thats only going to cost millions to repair later on!... Or maybe that's the point: cripple them now with the last of our funds so they're left with no governance and no funding to rebuild? who knows...
Quite frankly I am ashamed to be English. I knew we were a bunch of self-righteous pricks but this is beyond belief.
whew so anyway rant over now its back to formulae! I hope somebody shares my opinions, perhaps not all but the general gist. It is not my intention to start any arguements, infer any disrespect to any members here, or moderators or whatever TSR has. I am simply a human being with an opinion - lets not go to war over it. Hope you all have a great day!
Original post by Nick Longjohnson
At least with Iraq the Americans had the decency of putting forward a bull**** case. We can't even get an elaborate lie these days.
The UN is pointless.
The UN is pointless.
So true! Haha, best comment ever. "Elaborate lie".
Original post by Russ0707
I dont normally get involved with these types of things, in fact I found my way here searching google for help with my second year university maths, for which I have several exams next week (I have been a member for some time but i dont think ive posted anything previously so please dont judge me entirely on this). However I felt that this time I would have my say. I dont know how this works but noticed someone saying something about a negative.. I dont know what that means but I do expect a lot of people to fight me on this so i say to you now no amount of bringing previous examples and complaining about our obligations to thers and how UN said it was ok etc etc will change my mind. ok? Good?
Here we go..
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that we as a country/government/body(UN and others) think we have the right to intervene. Somewhere earlier someone asked should we just stand back and watch innocent people die? Well actually as bad as it sounds yes we ***king should. Its NONE of our business.
Imagine this scenario: Britain's masses decide we dont want our government in power anymore so we speak up and shout and fill the streets protesting (not necessarily violently). Of course the stance of the government would be to say "NO we wont stand down citizens return to your lives go to work think of the economy etc we know what's best for the country, we're keeping us afloat and have long term plans etc etc etc" as politicians do. It also happens to be that they control the army and police so for their "protection" and "for the good of the country" they employ the police and army to do the dirty work holding back protests etc and getting people to carry on with their lives- which of course would eventually result in bloodshed as the situation escalates because we want the government gone and the more they try to control us the worse it becomes.
The government is supposed to represent the people and their wishes. So even though they are the ones who lawfully have the power, the people want otherwise.
What happens next? Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia decide that they've had enough and want to represent the wishes of the people of Britain and so join their cause and declare war on.. wait for it "the government that is now forcefully controlling britain". Yes it just so happens that those involved are countries we've had bad history with... See where this is going?
Who would you support in this? What comes of it? Why did all those countries get involved? Our government would call on its allies and declare world war 3.
Just because we think we are an all high and mighty nation with obligations to preserve human life and rights we feel that gives us jurisdiction over other countries. Tell you one thing it bloody doesn't. It's embarrasing! Let them have their turmoil and sort it out for themselves so they too can have their reform which will not only unify their country but be better for them in the long run because they wont feel like they're being watched and judged at every turn. We were allowed to have ours all those years ago it jsut so happens that technology is a little further ahead now and thus looks more lethal... the idea and principle remains the same!
Personally I think the money WASTED on all those rockets, fuel, planes would have been much better spent on a constant water supply for third world countries! medicines! NSPCC..homeless people! back into our OWN economy anywhere but DESTRUCTION OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY thats only going to cost millions to repair later on!... Or maybe that's the point: cripple them now with the last of our funds so they're left with no governance and no funding to rebuild? who knows...
Quite frankly I am ashamed to be English. I knew we were a bunch of self-righteous pricks but this is beyond belief.
whew so anyway rant over now its back to formulae! I hope somebody shares my opinions, perhaps not all but the general gist. It is not my intention to start any arguements, infer any disrespect to any members here, or moderators or whatever TSR has. I am simply a human being with an opinion - lets not go to war over it. Hope you all have a great day!
Here we go..
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that we as a country/government/body(UN and others) think we have the right to intervene. Somewhere earlier someone asked should we just stand back and watch innocent people die? Well actually as bad as it sounds yes we ***king should. Its NONE of our business.
Imagine this scenario: Britain's masses decide we dont want our government in power anymore so we speak up and shout and fill the streets protesting (not necessarily violently). Of course the stance of the government would be to say "NO we wont stand down citizens return to your lives go to work think of the economy etc we know what's best for the country, we're keeping us afloat and have long term plans etc etc etc" as politicians do. It also happens to be that they control the army and police so for their "protection" and "for the good of the country" they employ the police and army to do the dirty work holding back protests etc and getting people to carry on with their lives- which of course would eventually result in bloodshed as the situation escalates because we want the government gone and the more they try to control us the worse it becomes.
The government is supposed to represent the people and their wishes. So even though they are the ones who lawfully have the power, the people want otherwise.
What happens next? Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia decide that they've had enough and want to represent the wishes of the people of Britain and so join their cause and declare war on.. wait for it "the government that is now forcefully controlling britain". Yes it just so happens that those involved are countries we've had bad history with... See where this is going?
Who would you support in this? What comes of it? Why did all those countries get involved? Our government would call on its allies and declare world war 3.
Just because we think we are an all high and mighty nation with obligations to preserve human life and rights we feel that gives us jurisdiction over other countries. Tell you one thing it bloody doesn't. It's embarrasing! Let them have their turmoil and sort it out for themselves so they too can have their reform which will not only unify their country but be better for them in the long run because they wont feel like they're being watched and judged at every turn. We were allowed to have ours all those years ago it jsut so happens that technology is a little further ahead now and thus looks more lethal... the idea and principle remains the same!
Personally I think the money WASTED on all those rockets, fuel, planes would have been much better spent on a constant water supply for third world countries! medicines! NSPCC..homeless people! back into our OWN economy anywhere but DESTRUCTION OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY thats only going to cost millions to repair later on!... Or maybe that's the point: cripple them now with the last of our funds so they're left with no governance and no funding to rebuild? who knows...
Quite frankly I am ashamed to be English. I knew we were a bunch of self-righteous pricks but this is beyond belief.
whew so anyway rant over now its back to formulae! I hope somebody shares my opinions, perhaps not all but the general gist. It is not my intention to start any arguements, infer any disrespect to any members here, or moderators or whatever TSR has. I am simply a human being with an opinion - lets not go to war over it. Hope you all have a great day!
this.
Original post by robin22391
oh we should have stopped germany sooner. that would have been a good strategic move.
are you being sarcastic here?
Original post by robin22391
I would not expect the usa to itervene when ireland wanted independence and the ira were the rebels, when the brittish sent in the black an tans to massacre civilians and the ira.
The actions of a hand-full of soldiers (and the resulting cover-up) was pretty terrible but you can hardly compare that to this. With one situation you have a large military operation, called on by the leader of a country, using military ordanance on civilian centres of population. In the other you have a few soldiers doing something terrible once. It should never have happened but it was hardly on the same scale.
If brittain went to northern irland and started shelling/bombing in a co-ordinated campaign I would really really hope the USA would damn well intervene! Do you think they shouldnt????
Original post by robin22391
just dont pick sides
Original post by robin22391
but i am disgusted by the propaganda on the tv, nothing is even questioned.
its like a rebel tells a reporter that he saw 200 people being gunned down and they just report it as a fact.
its like a rebel tells a reporter that he saw 200 people being gunned down and they just report it as a fact.
I don't know how much of the news you have been watching but I have been watching the bbc. Over the whole conflict they have been reporting things like you say, but you seem to be ignoring the "a rebel tells a reporter" at the beginning of the reports. Would you rather the news ignored eye-witnes reports? They are including reports like this:
"One of Col Gaddafi's sons has denied an eyewitness claim he personally ordered soldiers in Benghazi to shoot at unarmed demonstrators." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12789740]
It clearly uses the words claim for the origional report, and the whole thing is about questioning the eyewitness anyway!
Original post by robin22391
Hypocrisy is the word.
Acording to you it would be hypocrisy for americans to support black people to vote, as they played a major part in the slave trade. Therefore they shouldn't let black people have the vote!
Original post by Russ0707
I dont normally get involved with these types of things, in fact I found my way here searching google for help with my second year university maths, for which I have several exams next week (I have been a member for some time but i dont think ive posted anything previously so please dont judge me entirely on this). However I felt that this time I would have my say. I dont know how this works but noticed someone saying something about a negative.. I dont know what that means but I do expect a lot of people to fight me on this so i say to you now no amount of bringing previous examples and complaining about our obligations to thers and how UN said it was ok etc etc will change my mind. ok? Good?
Here we go..
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that we as a country/government/body(UN and others) think we have the right to intervene. Somewhere earlier someone asked should we just stand back and watch innocent people die? Well actually as bad as it sounds yes we ***king should. Its NONE of our business.
Imagine this scenario: Britain's masses decide we dont want our government in power anymore so we speak up and shout and fill the streets protesting (not necessarily violently). Of course the stance of the government would be to say "NO we wont stand down citizens return to your lives go to work think of the economy etc we know what's best for the country, we're keeping us afloat and have long term plans etc etc etc" as politicians do. It also happens to be that they control the army and police so for their "protection" and "for the good of the country" they employ the police and army to do the dirty work holding back protests etc and getting people to carry on with their lives- which of course would eventually result in bloodshed as the situation escalates because we want the government gone and the more they try to control us the worse it becomes.
The government is supposed to represent the people and their wishes. So even though they are the ones who lawfully have the power, the people want otherwise.
What happens next? Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia decide that they've had enough and want to represent the wishes of the people of Britain and so join their cause and declare war on.. wait for it "the government that is now forcefully controlling britain". Yes it just so happens that those involved are countries we've had bad history with... See where this is going?
Who would you support in this? What comes of it? Why did all those countries get involved? Our government would call on its allies and declare world war 3.
Just because we think we are an all high and mighty nation with obligations to preserve human life and rights we feel that gives us jurisdiction over other countries. Tell you one thing it bloody doesn't. It's embarrasing! Let them have their turmoil and sort it out for themselves so they too can have their reform which will not only unify their country but be better for them in the long run because they wont feel like they're being watched and judged at every turn. We were allowed to have ours all those years ago it jsut so happens that technology is a little further ahead now and thus looks more lethal... the idea and principle remains the same!
Personally I think the money WASTED on all those rockets, fuel, planes would have been much better spent on a constant water supply for third world countries! medicines! NSPCC..homeless people! back into our OWN economy anywhere but DESTRUCTION OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY thats only going to cost millions to repair later on!... Or maybe that's the point: cripple them now with the last of our funds so they're left with no governance and no funding to rebuild? who knows...
Quite frankly I am ashamed to be English. I knew we were a bunch of self-righteous pricks but this is beyond belief.
whew so anyway rant over now its back to formulae! I hope somebody shares my opinions, perhaps not all but the general gist. It is not my intention to start any arguements, infer any disrespect to any members here, or moderators or whatever TSR has. I am simply a human being with an opinion - lets not go to war over it. Hope you all have a great day!
Here we go..
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that we as a country/government/body(UN and others) think we have the right to intervene. Somewhere earlier someone asked should we just stand back and watch innocent people die? Well actually as bad as it sounds yes we ***king should. Its NONE of our business.
Imagine this scenario: Britain's masses decide we dont want our government in power anymore so we speak up and shout and fill the streets protesting (not necessarily violently). Of course the stance of the government would be to say "NO we wont stand down citizens return to your lives go to work think of the economy etc we know what's best for the country, we're keeping us afloat and have long term plans etc etc etc" as politicians do. It also happens to be that they control the army and police so for their "protection" and "for the good of the country" they employ the police and army to do the dirty work holding back protests etc and getting people to carry on with their lives- which of course would eventually result in bloodshed as the situation escalates because we want the government gone and the more they try to control us the worse it becomes.
The government is supposed to represent the people and their wishes. So even though they are the ones who lawfully have the power, the people want otherwise.
What happens next? Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia decide that they've had enough and want to represent the wishes of the people of Britain and so join their cause and declare war on.. wait for it "the government that is now forcefully controlling britain". Yes it just so happens that those involved are countries we've had bad history with... See where this is going?
Who would you support in this? What comes of it? Why did all those countries get involved? Our government would call on its allies and declare world war 3.
Just because we think we are an all high and mighty nation with obligations to preserve human life and rights we feel that gives us jurisdiction over other countries. Tell you one thing it bloody doesn't. It's embarrasing! Let them have their turmoil and sort it out for themselves so they too can have their reform which will not only unify their country but be better for them in the long run because they wont feel like they're being watched and judged at every turn. We were allowed to have ours all those years ago it jsut so happens that technology is a little further ahead now and thus looks more lethal... the idea and principle remains the same!
Personally I think the money WASTED on all those rockets, fuel, planes would have been much better spent on a constant water supply for third world countries! medicines! NSPCC..homeless people! back into our OWN economy anywhere but DESTRUCTION OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY thats only going to cost millions to repair later on!... Or maybe that's the point: cripple them now with the last of our funds so they're left with no governance and no funding to rebuild? who knows...
Quite frankly I am ashamed to be English. I knew we were a bunch of self-righteous pricks but this is beyond belief.
whew so anyway rant over now its back to formulae! I hope somebody shares my opinions, perhaps not all but the general gist. It is not my intention to start any arguements, infer any disrespect to any members here, or moderators or whatever TSR has. I am simply a human being with an opinion - lets not go to war over it. Hope you all have a great day!
In the situation you outlined, of the British goverment taking forcable power against the general population I would be very happy for other countries to intervene. I can't belive you wouldn't!
If, say, the conservatives abolished the right to vote and decided they will rule the country for an indefinate ammount of time and started killing large proportions of the population that tried to stop them you are saying you would not be happy with some other country saying - whoa! hold on a bit, thats not good! Stop killing all those people!
If someone mugs me in the street I would be pretty mad if everyone just walked on past without trying to help simply because "its none of their business"
There seems to be this underlying current of feeling or viewpoints on this forum (and many others for that matter) that the action undertaken in Libya is either another Iraq, motivated by oil, illegal or some sort of colonial war.
First of all, Libya is not in the top ten oil exporting countries as this table shows:
Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries
* Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
* Russia (6.67)
* Norway (2.91)
* Iran (2.55)
* Venezuela (2.36)
* United Arab Emirates (2.33)
* Kuwait (2.20)
* Nigeria (2.19)
* Mexico (1.80)
* Algeria (1.68)
source: (http://www.suite101.com/content/top-ten-oil-countries-a2088)
So to say this is a war motivated by oil is false. If we and our allies wanted oil we could just invade Iran becuase they've been cracking down on protests as have the Algerians.
Secondly, is this another Iraq. If you were to refer to Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch, the no-fly zones enacted in the 1990's against Iraq, then yes, i could take your point. But, when people say Iraq, they commonly refer to our illegal and ridiculous invasion in 2003.
This is different. We are not sending troops to invade Libya. We are instead enforcing a UN resolution passed by the security council to stop the killing of innocent civilians by Colonel Gaddafi. If it was another Iraq, the Paras, the US marines and the French Foreign Legion would be preparing to invade. We do not have the man-power, nor the money to conduct a full-scale invasion. And to those who say we don't have the money; it cost us $1.5 billion over ten years to enforce the last no-fly zone over iraq.
That brings me on to my third point. How can this be an illegal act of force when the UN, the EU and the Arab League have all said that enforcing a no fly zone and protecting civilians using force is not illegal and have in fact passed the UN resolution which makes it legal to undertake force in Libya. Unlike Iraq where there was no UN resolution, this does have one. Therfore it is legal.
Lastly, some say this is some sort of colonial, gun-boat diplomacy style jaunt in Libya. How? It is enforcing a UN resolution to protect civilians. And it would look incredibly bad for France (with it's long history in that region), the UK and the US to invade a arab nation
If you are against this intervention because you disagree with all military action in all it's forms, i understand your point and cannot argue with that position as it is a personal principle. Just don't complain that we did nothing when Gaddafi slaughters the people of Benghazi for standing up to his tyrannical regime.
Although it will be just a matter of time before a tomahawk hits a school or hospital, knowing the west.
Rant over.
First of all, Libya is not in the top ten oil exporting countries as this table shows:
Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries
* Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
* Russia (6.67)
* Norway (2.91)
* Iran (2.55)
* Venezuela (2.36)
* United Arab Emirates (2.33)
* Kuwait (2.20)
* Nigeria (2.19)
* Mexico (1.80)
* Algeria (1.68)
source: (http://www.suite101.com/content/top-ten-oil-countries-a2088)
So to say this is a war motivated by oil is false. If we and our allies wanted oil we could just invade Iran becuase they've been cracking down on protests as have the Algerians.
Secondly, is this another Iraq. If you were to refer to Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch, the no-fly zones enacted in the 1990's against Iraq, then yes, i could take your point. But, when people say Iraq, they commonly refer to our illegal and ridiculous invasion in 2003.
This is different. We are not sending troops to invade Libya. We are instead enforcing a UN resolution passed by the security council to stop the killing of innocent civilians by Colonel Gaddafi. If it was another Iraq, the Paras, the US marines and the French Foreign Legion would be preparing to invade. We do not have the man-power, nor the money to conduct a full-scale invasion. And to those who say we don't have the money; it cost us $1.5 billion over ten years to enforce the last no-fly zone over iraq.
That brings me on to my third point. How can this be an illegal act of force when the UN, the EU and the Arab League have all said that enforcing a no fly zone and protecting civilians using force is not illegal and have in fact passed the UN resolution which makes it legal to undertake force in Libya. Unlike Iraq where there was no UN resolution, this does have one. Therfore it is legal.
Lastly, some say this is some sort of colonial, gun-boat diplomacy style jaunt in Libya. How? It is enforcing a UN resolution to protect civilians. And it would look incredibly bad for France (with it's long history in that region), the UK and the US to invade a arab nation
If you are against this intervention because you disagree with all military action in all it's forms, i understand your point and cannot argue with that position as it is a personal principle. Just don't complain that we did nothing when Gaddafi slaughters the people of Benghazi for standing up to his tyrannical regime.
Although it will be just a matter of time before a tomahawk hits a school or hospital, knowing the west.
Rant over.
Original post by Aj12
Of what? You cannot deny what Gadaffi is doing to his own people.
The BBC is helplessly biased towards the west; sky news is marginally more open minded, so we in the Uk are being spoon fed I'll constricted, exaggerated lies, and the people on Libya are being spoon fed Gaddafi-biased nonsense. How are we to decide our views on this "conflict" when we don't even know the truth?
Original post by Concupiscible
The BBC is helplessly biased towards the west; sky news is marginally more open minded, so we in the Uk are being spoon fed I'll constricted, exaggerated lies, and the people on Libya are being spoon fed Gaddafi-biased nonsense. How are we to decide our views on this "conflict" when we don't even know the truth?
You cannot escape all forms of bias. Bias is a fact of life. You are bias.
Given these would you rather:
a) Try and gain as much information from many sources to reduce bias. Then make a decision! (You will notice that in this country there are many forms of news you can go out and view, not just the BBC you know. The goverment considers it quite an important freedom)
b) Trust that something is trying to reduce bias as much as posible, so make your decisions from that! (I for one, don't see the BBC as so terribly bias as you)
c) Don't think about it and hope it will go away.
Original post by Concupiscible
The BBC is helplessly biased towards the west; sky news is marginally more open minded, so we in the Uk are being spoon fed I'll constricted, exaggerated lies, and the people on Libya are being spoon fed Gaddafi-biased nonsense. How are we to decide our views on this "conflict" when we don't even know the truth?
Hardly. The BBC seems to be at times hinting against invention. Posting blog links on their live coverage to people arguing against intervening.
A lot of what I heard from libya comes from face book groups from people in the country.
we've been told that we are in a recession close to bankruptcy, people have been refused healthcare, university fees have gone up and there have been so many other spending cuts yet somehow we have got loads of money to waste. David Cameron, said that he would never go into war without the support of the public but he didn't stick to his promise, which isn't fair on the public since it's their money which is being spent.
Original post by Hanvyj
In the situation you outlined, of the British goverment taking forcable power against the general population I would be very happy for other countries to intervene. I can't belive you wouldn't!
If, say, the conservatives abolished the right to vote and decided they will rule the country for an indefinate ammount of time and started killing large proportions of the population that tried to stop them you are saying you would not be happy with some other country saying - whoa! hold on a bit, thats not good! Stop killing all those people!
If someone mugs me in the street I would be pretty mad if everyone just walked on past without trying to help simply because "its none of their business"
If, say, the conservatives abolished the right to vote and decided they will rule the country for an indefinate ammount of time and started killing large proportions of the population that tried to stop them you are saying you would not be happy with some other country saying - whoa! hold on a bit, thats not good! Stop killing all those people!
If someone mugs me in the street I would be pretty mad if everyone just walked on past without trying to help simply because "its none of their business"
I think you are one to jump into fights without thinking about the real bigger picture. The fact of the matter is it IS none of our business. End. Different country so yeh leave em be. Now i'm not racist in any way shape or form in fact ive lived in several countries including pakistan and im only 21 so its not some unjust bias.
We cant afford it. You say if someone mugged you in the street and everyone walked on by... well think about that for a minute firstly it doesnt cost anything to fight with your fists.. if the bystanders went to the shop and bought a load of weaponry then it sounds more like whats actually happening.. but anyway how can you not see that thats whats happening to us right now! Our own government is mugging US stealing our hard earned money that should be going on the things we were promised and yeah they are murdering us by getting us involved in an obviously unstable situation! Our economy simply cannot afford it and im pretty certain the vast majority of the public when shown what COULD be given to them instead such as better investment for healthcare, free innoculation for children or lower taxes (yeah unlikely i know but still you get the point) would all be like oh yeah sh!t what are we doing!
.. its not about oil obviously its not bcos it wouldnt be cost efficient with how much is being wasted just flying around/missiles etc.. the only thing remotely likely is nuclear bt again we'll never know.. but in about 10 years when we convert more to fission eyebrows may raise..
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Hanvyj
If someone mugs me in the street I would be pretty mad if everyone just walked on past without trying to help simply because "its none of their business"
If someone mugs me in the street I would be pretty mad if everyone just walked on past without trying to help simply because "its none of their business"
How would you feel if people ganged up on the mugger, killed him, recovered your property but would only give it back to you if you joined their club?
Original post by garethDT
How would you feel if people ganged up on the mugger, killed him, recovered your property but would only give it back to you if you joined their club?
How would I feel if I was being pretty much held captive in my own house, under threat of execution by someone living with me and you came in (with your friends), removed him (either by killing him or otherwise) and finantially supported me and gave me training for a while before simply leaving me on my own, then continued on friendly terms with me for the indefinate future??
I'd be pretty happy
(edited 13 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- Medicine reject after gap year.
- should i stay in nursing or transfer to biomedical science
- Intersection of planes / normals question
- How do i deny being bi when i actually am
- Being fired from work for misconduct
- Further maths vectors. Proving 2 lines lie in the same plane
- Reapplying to Medicine after getting kicked out
- Trying to do A-Levels abroad.
- Epq
- My parents forced me to do maths a level and I’m really upset and struggling
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Ucas application
- can i withdraw my ucas application and apply for a different subject
- Resit A level while in uni, what should I put in my UCAS Application
- is afghanistan pronounced AF-ghanistan or af-ghani-STAN?
- Dropping an A-Level
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
- LNAT reassurance
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
