Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    Zimbabweans have been crying out for help for decades. Such love and humanity is at a standstill or willing to ignore this plight. Shame, it doesn't have oil.

    The Libyan people do not want foreign or western intervention. Yes, they want Gadaffi removed. But they do not want it to be replaced by another puppet.

    I find this whole thing absurd, the very people Gadaffi buys his weapons from are now concerned with the well-being of Libyan people. Why weren't they a few months ago?
    Crying out and forming a rebellion that can challenge the government are two very different things.

    yes they do want intervention http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ddafi-benghazi

    Times change. Call its a foresight fail every nation has been guilty of it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    Before, the situation was supposedly Gadaffi supporters against the "rebels". Now, however, the situation has changed... drastically.

    The Western "Liberators" (i.e. Britain, France, USA etc) have flown in (literally) to "save the Libyan people" (oh, how I have lost faith in these immoral world Leaders - it almost makes me wish how our Prime Minister was an actual real and sensible Conservative Christian/Jew - and I am not even religious or Christian!) and now we have a different world.

    That is, beforehand, the Gadaffi regime were the evil enemies and agressors and the "Libyan people" (those who the West are supposedly going to "save") were the poor victims. (Moving away from the media propaganda, if you have not realized - a lot of the "rebels" are actually Islamic fundamentalists - there were even a few pictured waving RPGs and screaming "Allahu Akbar"!! - they seem to have taken over from the actual protesters now!)

    Now, however, the Western "Liberators" are now the aggressors and the country of Libya as a whole, the victims!! (Beware, that Gadaffi did warn Libya that the "West" would come and invade Libya...)

    It is my opinion that other countries should not have invaded (that is what they are doing!) Libya - largely because their motives are obviously not sweet, innocent and moral - the picture of Cameron looking all professional makes me cringe and froth at the mouth - he is very, very immoral (at least, Gordon Brown looked like a "good" man (even if he was not!)). The motives are not good, so they should not have invaded!

    Secondly, what becomes of Libya after they have been "liberated"?? (That is, if Libya does not unite to fight against their new enemy - the Western Aggressors!!) Will the West "help" them set up a "democratic government"?

    This situation is ridiculous - how many British Prime Ministers will plunge Britain into more wars??? I only applaud Churchill, however Gadaffi is no Hitler and he certainly is not threatening to take over the world!!

    Sorry for my rant, but Cameron gets on my nerves strutting about like he is a moral and "good" man and he knows best. Check out what he said:

    " What we are doing is necessary, it is legal and it is right. "

    Right?? In whose eyes??

    "Tonight British forces are in action over Libya.
    They are part of an international coalition that has come together to enforce the will of the United Nations and protect the Libyan people....
    "

    Protect?? Oh Lord, save us. :rolleyes:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ibya-Live.html

    So, why have we not invaded Zimbabwe?? Somalia?? North Korea?? China??? Pakistan?? Turkmenistan?? Saudi Arabia??

    I think all that is left to say is:

    Will we "save" Yemen next?

    Oh, the hypocrisy and immorality...


    Why are the British people not protesting en masse about this?? (Maybe because they have been controlled by the press and think that we really are doing the right thing against this so "evil dictator" Gaddafi.....?)

    This will not end well...
    you sir, are a paranoid idiot
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    You pass over the fact that many of these "rebels" are Islamic extremists screaming "Allahu Akbar"....
    And you somehow have no real understand of the phrase 'Allahu Akbar', its meaning, or the possibility that it can be used in a variety of contexts. And, you know, that it's not a phrase somehow reserved for use solely by extremists.


    Man, you're such a ****ing tool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ewan)
    This isn't an invasion.
    ...yet
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    'Libyan rebels said they feared any action was too late to stop atrocities as Gaddafi appeared to be moving human shields into airports and barracks and warned the world: “You will regret it if you dare to intervene in our country.” '

    Will Gadaffi live up to his threats? If he does, Russia, China and Germany etc will be happy that they did not "intervene"....
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    Forming a rebellion- if that was the case- Ivory Coast? I am sure there is rebellion in Zimbabwe and is being shot down constantly by Mugabe. But the status quo for genocide victims has not been fulfilled yet and no oil or any natural resources. So this is where it fails.

    Times change. I am amazed that in a matter of weeks, things change so much that a friend turns to foe. Only this Gadaffi happens to be doing the same as those leaders in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia etc... Difference Gadaffi is foe and those leaders aren't.

    I am hope Gadaffi is ousted and Libyan people govern Libya on their terms.

    I can't help but notice that this so called intervention isn't really on humanitarian grounds.
    Ivory coast is completely different.

    Never heard of a large scale armed rebellion in Zimbabwe that had any chance of success.

    Zimbabwe has large quantities of natural resources.

    coal
    chromium ore
    asbestos
    gold
    nickel
    copper
    iron ore
    vanadium
    lithium
    tin
    platinum group metals
    As well as diamonds.

    The massive difference is those countries do not have large scale armed rebellions that have taken over large parts of the country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by concubine)
    And you somehow have no real understand of the phrase 'Allahu Akbar', its meaning, or the possibility that it can be used in a variety of contexts. And, you know, that it's not a phrase somehow reserved for use solely by extremists.


    Man, you're such a ****ing tool.

    Oh, and British soldiers who are Christian scream "God is great" when doing their job?

    If you are irritated (why? this is the internet) then please - show yourself to the door and leave the thread. I have nothing more to say to you - you who calls Human Beings "tools"...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-boss-91)
    you sir, are a paranoid idiot
    Paranoid? On the contrary, sir - I just like a bit of drama... :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Erm, who exactly has invaded Libya?

    Dunno why people are acting as if this is something that has never happened before. Limited military action, such as no-fly zones and airstrikes, to protect human rights have been used before, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo, meeting success.

    For some reason idiots seem to think we are engaging in full scale war, a la Iraq.
    We'll see whose the idiot when things in Libya don't go as "planned".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    Paranoid? On the contrary, sir - I just like a bit of drama... :lol:
    isn't that really a same thing? haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1 month.

    It shouldn't be hard to remove a dictator when his whole country is against him so I expect swift action by the UN.
    If the government doesn't remove Gaddafi, restore order to Libya and get the troops back home by that time - I will be protesting at Westminster.

    Whos with me?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    :nothing:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    yep. lets protest against a completely necessary and tactically difficult move. good plan OP (Y)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    You really believe that the majority want him "out"?? British news is highly inaccurate.

    You must also realize that Libya has one of the best healthcare systems in African and many other modernizations in the continent - though Gaddafi may be "bad", the country has actually benefited from him - more than can be said of Zimbabwe from Mugabe for example.

    I believe that as Britain has gone and done this, we should not constantly "save" the world and "help" those in need and further overstretch our armed forces.

    By chance, (I forget) - did the Iraqi people call for our help too? (If they did - my, how they must be kicking themselves now...)
    No.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    They should go in and arrest him if they wanted to remove him. I think, though, that the West will not remove him because he has so much in common with the West - have you not seen his medals, the books he keeps, the western leaders whom he frequents with? He is principally the ruler of that country to maintain order, and he is a puppet of the west, a vassal ruler, just like the secular Prime ministers of Israel; many of them were puppets of the West.

    So why would the West want to remove their own Libyan vassal ruler? Maybe Gaddaffi has not yet outlived his usefulness like Sadam had outlived his. Maybe the West are reluctant to remove him for those reasons?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It ain't here, that's what I'm glad about.


    On another note, France were bombing places! France! LOL, shouldn't have they surrended already?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    They should go in and arrest him if they wanted to remove him. I think, though, that the West will not remove him because he has so much in common with the West - have you not seen his medals, the books he keeps, the western leaders whom he frequents with? He is principally the ruler of that country to maintain order, and he is a puppet of the west, a vassal ruler, just like the secular Prime ministers of Israel; many of them were puppets of the West.

    So why would the West want to remove their own Libyan vassal ruler? Maybe Gaddaffi has not yet outlived his usefulness like Sadam had outlived his. Maybe the West are reluctant to remove him for those reasons?
    I wonder why a ceasefire wasn't announced by the UN earlier during the bombing of Gaza. Bloody hypocrites...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    They should go in and arrest him if they wanted to remove him. I think, though, that the West will not remove him because he has so much in common with the West - have you not seen his medals, the books he keeps, the western leaders whom he frequents with? He is principally the ruler of that country to maintain order, and he is a puppet of the west, a vassal ruler, just like the secular Prime ministers of Israel; many of them were puppets of the West.

    So why would the West want to remove their own Libyan vassal ruler? Maybe Gaddaffi has not yet outlived his usefulness like Sadam had outlived his. Maybe the West are reluctant to remove him for those reasons?
    He's hardly a puppet of the west, more like a thorn in their side. Certainly in the last 10 years he has make a lot of concessions and given oil contracts to companies like shell but they've never really liked him, he was an embarrassment to them.

    I think the West was concerned at Libya's friendship with Venezuela, the more these countries can trade with each other, the more self-sufficient they become.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am a bit in the dark here, is the UK getting involved because Gaddafi is an evil dictator who kills kittens and babies or is it getting involved because there are rebels getting bombed by his air strikes? If the former's a criteria, why is nothing done about other dictatorships where people have been oppressed and cannot choose their leaders(Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia) and if the latter's a criteria, why is nothing done about Saudi Arabia sending forces to quell the rebellion in Bahrain, or Syrian forces using tear gas at the funerals of rebels? The "sizeable rebellion" argument really doesn't cut it, they were helpless by themselves, not in an absolute majority(the rebellion has mostly concentrated itself to east Libya) unlike Egypt, and it is fair to say that had the UK and France not interfered, with the recovery of Benghazi by pro-Gaddafi forces in the next 2-3 days, they would be finished.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    He's hardly a puppet of the west, more like a thorn in their side. Certainly in the last 10 years he has make a lot of concessions and given oil contracts to companies like shell but they've never really liked him, he was an embarrassment to them.

    I think the West was concerned at Libya's friendship with Venezuela, the more these countries can trade with each other, the more self-sufficient they become.
    You might be right. Yes.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.