Proof America after Libyas oil!

Where did I say that's all they do? You present yourself as balanced but you're only interested in the negatives of Western policy. The fact is the West has been more humanitarian, and democracy promoting, than any civilisation or group since the start of time. And that aint half bad.

There are indeed very many positives such as developments in medicine but even with that large Western pharmaceutical companies and putting patents on said medicines and preventing them reaching the areas where there are most needed- either that or charging prices which few can afford. In this context, it's fine to say the system of democracy WITHIN Western countries is amiable but at the end of the day, you are very naive if you think the Americans in particular have promoted democracy and freedom worldwide especially during the Cold War.

X

Oh, so now you've changed your mind on Rwanda.

The UN greatly succeeded in its primary aims in Somalia (particularly with the UNITAF operation), which was, like today in Libya, not to try and end the conflict, but to uphold humanitarian aid. Obviously ending the conflict was a near impossible goal.

I've already answered your question. The primary reason there was never such intervention in Zimbabwe is because it was never at the forefront of international media attention for as long as Lybia has been. That's the sad reality. I also assume you're talking about the Rhodesian civil war in the 60s/70s. Well you've made one of the biggest 'rookie' mistakes in the study of international relations, comparing a conflict from the cold war period with one from the post-cold war period. These are two completely different eras and circumstances, which I really shouldn't have to explain to you.

And how do you expect a country to behave during decades of stalemate with its rival superpower? The West is practically the only reason the majority of the world is alive right now anyway, so quit your bleating. It is thanks to (in part) American support and pressure that the following countries are democratic:
Germany
Russia (at least partially)
Italy
Spain
Austria
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Ukraine
Serbia
Croatia
Latvia
Uruguay
Brazil
Chile
Mexico
Japan

Plus the other 70+ countries in the last quarter of a century that have become democracies, with help in part from America. 5 of which have been from a direct military intervention from the US. For somebody who is proud to be from a country who's only contribution to the world is terrorism and humans it can barely feed you sure are critical. I take it from your lack of replies in the other thread, because you lost, that you think Mo Mo should be hung drawn and quartered for his genocidal ways? How are you going to get into heaven with that attitude I wonder?

I take it from your lack of replies in the other thread, because you lost, that you think Mo Mo should be hung drawn and quartered for his genocidal ways? How are you going to get into heaven with that attitude I wonder?

As said I've already replied, I usually stop when people keep repeating the same thing without reading my posts.

Or when you experience cognitive dissonance lol.

Or when you experience cognitive dissonance lol.

Please do explain why the US has overthrown over 50 democracies and supported genocidal maniacs like Saddam and Pol Pot. Don't skirt around the topic this time.

Which 50 democracies would they be? I already explained that America isn't perfect, and i've never claimed them to be. They have to play the political hand they've been dealt or they would cease to exist.

I completely agree. America would definitely have been wiped out if it hadn't overthrown the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governments of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Afghanistan and many others. Oh and allow me to mention how it supported a murderous terrorist organisation to achieve its aims in Nicaragua, supported the Khmer Rouge who massacred most of their own intellectuals and condemned most of their population to starvation, turned Iran from democracy into an autocracy etc. etc.

You clearly don't know anything about the topic so why pretend. You're one of the people who basically go US GOOD, ISLAM BAD without actually knowing anything.

I already said they weren't perfect. My point is really ISLAM TOTALLY BAD NEVER DONE ANYTHING GOOD FOR THE WORLD, US AT LEAST DONE SOME GOOD IN THE WORLD. You claim to hate all of those places, but Islam contains within its pages a direct calling to theocracy and has spawned some of the worst regimes the world has ever seen. You complain about genocide then follow a prophet who committed it himself.

My point is really ISLAM TOTALLY BAD NEVER DONE ANYTHING GOOD FOR THE WORLD, US AT LEAST DONE SOME GOOD IN THE WORLD.

Libya is behind the UK and the Netherlands in oil exports. Surely common sense tells you if they wanted oil they would go into Iran which produces pretty much twice as much?

If you think any of these is positive then it'll immediately refute your horrendously biased quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_reforms_under_Islam

Would love to see a response and please give reasons if you disagree with all the stuff mentioned in that link.

The quality of evidence in this thread is shocking. The fact that oil prices have risen in response to a political crisis in a oil-rich country - kind of inevitable - is supposed to be proof that AMerica is only in it for the oil?????



This is appallingly weak evidence. You've linked to minor social changes occuring between 610 and 661AD. Splitting Arabs into tribes and limiting the circumstances in which you can enslave other people, as in your link, are hardly hard-hitting pieces of evidence.

If you think any of these is positive then it'll immediately refute your horrendously biased quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_reforms_under_Islam

Would love to see a response and please give reasons if you disagree with all the stuff mentioned in that link.