Libya Protests

[Atlast]

Almost as amazing a transformation as those who had Gaddafi as their favourite poster boy for years because he annoyed the Americans so much now realizing that he is a 'tyrant' and the peoples of Libya supposedly need an Islamist government.

Sometimes the hypocrisy on these boards is breathtaking.




Let's hope not too many get killed by his airstrikes and mercenaries first.

Too late for that.. He will sink his own ship before anyone has the chance to oust him in any way.:hmm:

 

[Pygoscelis]

1) Why was your friend titus criticizing the weak when they are the victims of western injustice? He should be criticizing his own government.

What makes you think he doesn't do both? And why do you assume titus and I are friends? Just because we are both the "other"? I don't know titus at all actually.

2) Why are you trying to justify injustice??

I'm not

I think it's because you are an atheist and have no morals whatsoever. You believe in the "survival of the fittest" nonsense.

Your entire post is one long string of strawmen; one long string of trying to put words int he mouths of others.

you call them "terrorists".

I have called nobody anything. You are doing all the calling.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I do agree that the government does blame other groups or countries for their own domestic problems. For example, the Iranian leader is hostile towards Israel to gain mass support and to divert attention from its poor economy. The Iranian government also blamed the BBC for causing the protests.

And it isn't just the east. The west does the exact same thing. The Bush presidency is a perfect case in point. Want to subdue and control your own people? Point to an outside threat, real or imaginary.

"Communists are coming to get us! Terrorists are coming! Threat level Red! Now let us tap your phones and give up all your civil liberties so we can protect you!"

The US is at fault to some extent. You should watch this, though I know you are not a fan of Noam Chomsky...

I actually do like Noam Chomsky and think he makes a lot of good points. But that doesn't mean I can't equally note the faults on the other side of the conflict.

 

[titus]

there are external forces that prefer to work with dictators and might actually get involved. External forces cannot be ignored.

They can't be ignored, but they should not be blamed as the cause of the problem either.

Well...you just did now:

I suppose I did criticize them, but only for allowing themselves to be led like cattle. I am glad to see them standing up for themselves now, though.

The US is at fault to some extent. You should watch this, though I know you are not a fan of Noam Chomsky...

To some extent, yes, but they are not the cause.

No, I really cannot stand Chomsky, and there is nothing in that clip that is new, and he oversimplifies the situation.

People in the region don't hate the US because the US supports dictators. It goes beyond that, although for many that is a part of it. They hate the US for not supporting Iran, yet for supporting Egypt? For putting an embargo on Iraq, yet having diplomatic relations with Libya? Think about it, they hate the US no matter what kind of relations they have with any Muslim government. The hatred, for many, has gone beyond anything reasonable into being a part of the culture.

Let me make a prediction for you. The US is going to have to make a decision soon on whether or not the help the Libyan people militarily. Let's give it one month from today. If they choose to help then there will be people on this forum lambasting the US government as evil and selfish for doing so. If they do nothing then there will be people lambasting the US government for leaving the poor Libyan people out to dry.

Why? Because people need their bogeyman.

First, internal problems in other countries (Middle East, North Africa or any other region in the world) is none of anybody else's business. I can assure you that nobody in the Middle East or North Africa cares about U.S internal affairs. Second, the West - including "Israel" - ARE attacking and exploiting and plundering the Middle East, this is not science fiction!!! It's been going on for a very very long time now...

As I have said before, if you truly believe that then to be consistent you should believe that other countries should stay out of Israels internal affairs. How they treat people within their own borders is their own business, right? After all, the Palestinians are Egyptians, or Syrians, or Lebanese, or any other nationality so those countries should keep their nose out of Israels business. Or out of Denmarks or Frances or Switzerlands when they make laws or print cartoons that offend Muslims?

Or do you make exceptions to your rule? And what exactly are the criteria?

If people are getting killed by the thousands should other countries simply turn a blind eye to the killing and keep doing business as usual with that country?

Who overthrew Dr. Mossadegh and installed the brutal dictator Shah in Iran? We all know the reason, I'm just wondering whether you are really that ignorant or just trying to upset people for fun or out of boredom.

Are you reading my posts? I never said the US didn't interfere, but to blame the US for all autocratic rule in the region is absurd.

And it isn't just the east. The west does the exact same thing. The Bush presidency is a perfect case in point. Want to subdue and control your own people? Point to an outside threat, real or imaginary.

"Communists are coming to get us! Terrorists are coming! Threat level Red! Now let us tap your phones and give up all your civil liberties so we can protect you!"

In regards to Bush, the threat was real but the reaction was misguided (to say the least).

 

[KAding]

So that gives others the right to take full advantage of the situation and expoit the country to the detriment of their citizens?

No. But I don't see how trade and normal diplomatic relations are synomynous to 'exploitation'. Sorry, I just don't agree we in the West have been 'taking full advantage and exploiting countries' like Libya, Tunesia and Egypt. Yes, we dealt with them as we do with many other countries.

But, as 'GuestFollow' rightly says: "internal problems in other countries is none of anybody else's business". I am not in favour of an overly moralistic foreign policy where we start demanding other countries implement our model of government. I mean, do we have to stop dealing with countries like Russia and China as well? I don't think anyone benefits from that, not us, not the people in those countries. I am not the least bit convinced these dictatorships fall down faster if we isolate them. It will only mean they'll end up with better relations with other 'wrong' countries and have an even more closed society.

Nor do I think it is very good for global peace and stability if we want to organize the international system that way.

 

[KAding]

Are you sure?

Noam Chomsky on "Why Do They Hate US, When We're So Good?"

I don't think this has much to do with it.

I'm just saying there is little alternative to dealing with people who are in actual power. What is the alternative? Act as if governments of these countries don't exist? How these countries organize their government is up to them.

I'll grant you that from a moral point of view we probably shouldn't be selling arms to them, but even that is obviously a completely symbolic and ineffective measure, as it means others countries will sell arms to them instead.

 

[GuestFellow]

And it isn't just the east. The west does the exact same thing. The Bush presidency is a perfect case in point. Want to subdue and control your own people? Point to an outside threat, real or imaginary.

"Communists are coming to get us! Terrorists are coming! Threat level Red! Now let us tap your phones and give up all your civil liberties so we can protect you!"

Reminds me how politicians are blaming immigrants for loss of jobs, poor housing, etc.

I actually do like Noam Chomsky and think he makes a lot of good points. But that doesn't mean I can't equally note the faults on the other side of the conflict.

Well both sides are usually at fault..

They can't be ignored, but they should not be blamed as the cause of the problem either.

Sometimes they are the problem.

No, I really cannot stand Chomsky, and there is nothing in that clip that is new, and he oversimplifies the situation.

Well towards the end, he said the US prevents the public from overthrowing dictators from what I can remember. That was a short video but he does give very long lectures.

People in the region don't hate the US because the US supports dictators. It goes beyond that, although for many that is a part of it. They hate the US for not supporting Iran, yet for supporting Egypt? For putting an embargo on Iraq, yet having diplomatic relations with Libya? Think about it, they hate the US no matter what kind of relations they have with any Muslim government. The hatred, for many, has gone beyond anything reasonable into being a part of the culture.

I doubt it. People don't hate the US itself. They hate what the US has done like the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, torturing suspects and giving weapons to Israel which is used against the Palestinians.

Let me make a prediction for you. The US is going to have to make a decision soon on whether or not the help the Libyan people militarily.

Why would the US help Libya? This is the question you need to ask yourself. There are brutal dictators all over the world, far worse than Gadaffi (e.g. the leader of Uzbekistan). The US is at war and facing economic problems, why spend billions to help Libya?

If they do nothing then there will be people lambasting the US government for leaving the poor Libyan people out to dry.

I doubt the Libyan people will have time to even complain whether the US is helping them or not, especially when Gaddaffi has lost his mind.

Why? Because people need their bogeyman.

I don't believe that is the main reason.

I don't think this has much to do with it.

The part towards the end I think is significant. Toward the end I think he said that the US is blocking democratization and development. Countries do work with other countries, despite their internal policies. The US, however, is actually preventing those people from overthrowing dictators as well as working with those dictators.

The US wants to spread democracy, their own style of government.

Condoleezza Rice speaks at Bush Library You can skip the first part and focus on 3:30/6:08...

This is why some people are suspicious of the US. I'm not convinced the US wants to help everyone for charitable purposes, especially when it involves spending a lot money.

 

[Darth Ultor]

Since when do we support Iran? The Iranian government is our enemy.

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Did I say that? O___O

:/

 

[Argamemnon]

What a sad view of the world. Genocide? Torture? Starvation? Oh, somewhere else. None of my business then.

It's a realistic view based on historical experience. We know the history of western meddling and how much human suffering it has caused and is still causing. Nations should respect one another. Why does the West prevent others from meddling in their own internal affairs? Why are they always criticizing human rights violations across the world when they themselves are the biggest violaters in the world? You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time!

 

[titus]

Well towards the end, he said the US prevents the public from overthrowing dictators from what I can remember. That was a short video but he does give very long lectures.

I don't recall that point, but even if he did make it don't current events show that to be false?

Sometimes they are the problem.

Again, don't current events show that the US governments influence actually hastened the departure of the dictators? The US certainly didn't support them.

Why would the US help Libya? This is the question you need to ask yourself. There are brutal dictators all over the world, far worse than Gadaffi (e.g. the leader of Uzbekistan). The US is at war and facing economic problems, why spend billions to help Libya?

Part of the reason would be for the same reason that the US is sending their Pacific fleet to Japan right now, to help the people.

Part of the reason would be to help promote democracy.

There is no 1 single answer to that question, but I can pretty much guarantee you that it won't be because the US government wants to take over Libyas oil production.

I doubt the Libyan people will have time to even complain whether the US is helping them or not, especially when Gaddaffi has lost his mind.

The rebel leaders have already asked the US to help. What do you think they are going to say if they actually win, take power, and the US ignored their pleas for help?

 

[KAding]

The part towards the end I think is significant. Toward the end I think he said that the US is blocking democratization and development. Countries do work with other countries, despite their internal policies. The US, however, is actually preventing those people from overthrowing dictators as well as working with those dictators.

The US wants to spread democracy, their own style of government.

Condoleezza Rice speaks at Bush Library You can skip the first part and focus on 3:30/6:08...

This is why some people are suspicious of the US. I'm not convinced the US wants to help everyone for charitable purposes, especially when it involves spending a lot money.

Well, there is a certain tension here. People like Chomsky (and you as well earlier) are saying the US wants dictators, because they are easier to deal with. It also supposedly helps them 'control the oil supply' (how? As if democracies wouldn't sell oil on the world market??).

On the other hand you are saying the US "wants to spread democracy". Both can't be true at the same time. Either they have an ideological agenda and want to spread democracy or they are propping up dictators.

A simpler explanation is that the US would rather prefer to deal with democracies, but as they aren't available in the region it is dealing with whoever is in power. If we assume energy security is a primary motivator for US foreign policy, it is safe to assume their main objective would be stability in the region. Any instability drives down oil production and pushes up prices, something the US does not want.

That is why this situation is so difficult for the US. They see now that these dictators cannot provide long-term stability, yet at the same time they are fearing the instability of revolts. However, there are no indications that the US has undertaken an effort to undermine these revolutions, on the contrary. It has so far spoken out in favour of those who are demonstrating against their governments.

 

[Argamemnon]

Do any of our "liberals" or human rights champions amongst us accept the fact that Hamas has the right to fight the Zionist occupiers UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW? Why do you call Hizbullah terrorists when in reality they have rid their country of Zionist occupation and aggression and massacres? Stop calling others terrorists, your own governments are the terrorists and they are fooling you. I'm seeing a great deal of ignorance here.

 

[KAding]

Why would the US help Libya? This is the question you need to ask yourself. There are brutal dictators all over the world, far worse than Gadaffi (e.g. the leader of Uzbekistan). The US is at war and facing economic problems, why spend billions to help Libya?

Firstly, the US aren't at all eager to intervene. The US has said that it is up to the UN and Arab League to handle the matter. There is absolutely no enthusiasm among the Americans to intervene. The problem is, if the UN security council agrees on a no-fly zone, somebody will have to implement it. Is there anyone except the US that actually can? Note that we are just talking about a no-fly zone here. Nobody is talking about American soldiers actually going into Libya! That is clearly a big no-no from the Americans. And you can't determine the government type of a country from the air, nor can you control the oil with fighter-jets. Framing this as an 'oil grab' or pushing democracy just doesn't make sense.

Secondly, why Libya and not Uzbekistan? Have you taken look at the news lately? Nobody cares about Uzbekistan. It isn't in the news, there simply isn't any internal political pressure on the US government to 'do something'. In the case of Libya there clerly is both external and internal pressure. The rebels themselves are calling for a no-fly zone and the Arab league is asking for one. An awful lot of people in the US also sympathize with the rebels. In the media the whole conflict (rightly or wrongly) is framed as a 'people's uprising' vs. 'brutal dictator'. This whole Libya affair actually most resembles what happened in Kosovo or Haiti. The US also got involved in those conflicts, although there wasn't any clear strategic interest to do so.

I doubt the Libyan people will have time to even complain whether the US is helping them or not, especially when Gaddaffi has lost his mind.

Well, the Libyan opposition is calling for a no-fly zone and is lobbying for it in Western capitals. I tend to agree it would not be a good idea. This isn't our fight. We need to start learning to keep our noses out of internal affairs of other countries, as clearly we aren't trusted. Any intervention will be framed by some as another part of the 'War against Islam', which will only escalate matters further.

 

[Dagless]

Well, there is a certain tension here. People like Chomsky (and you as well earlier) are saying the US wants dictators, because they are easier to deal with. It also supposedly helps them 'control the oil supply' (how? As if democracies wouldn't sell oil on the world market??).

Examples of dictator support have already been given in this thread. The example of Iran given earlier was a good one. A democracy may decide to go against Israel or the US. They may say no to all the lucrative foreign drilling contracts and cheap oil. What if they decided to sanction the US? A dictator in the pocket is worth more than any democracy.

On the other hand you are saying the US "wants to spread democracy". Both can't be true at the same time. Either they have an ideological agenda and want to spread democracy or they are propping up dictators.

Spreading democracy should read "spreading democracy as long as our interests are served". South America and even Palestine recently have shown that.

That is why this situation is so difficult for the US. They see now that these dictators cannot provide long-term stability, yet at the same time they are fearing the instability of revolts. However, there are no indications that the US has undertaken an effort to undermine these revolutions, on the contrary. It has so far spoken out in favour of those who are demonstrating against their governments.

These dictators have been in power for several decades. Most people would call that long term.

 

[Argamemnon]

And whether you believe in "survival of the fittest" or not it does exist.

It doesn't exist in Islam.

"O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware."

It doesn't say "we have made you nations and tribes that ye may oppress and kill each other, the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the worst of conduct".

Life is a big test and the majority of human beings (including many Muslims) are failing miserably. They will soon be confronted with the truth as life is very short. I would love to have a conversation with you in the Hereafter

 

[LavaDog]

The United Nations voted for the no fly zone and are gearing up for airstrikes on military targets. Plus Gaddafi said "if the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy to". No telling whats going to happen.

 

[Woodrow]

The United Nations voted for the no fly zone and are gearing up for airstrikes on military targets. Plus Gaddafi said "if the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy to". No telling whats going to happen.

Now this really has gotten me irritated. What in blue blazes is the logic in us getting involved in another mess. Our intentions might be good, but we always end up making bad situations worse when we poke our noses and aircraft into the affairs of other Nations.

My congressmen is going to get at least one email protesting any USA aircraft or Military forces being used in Libya.

Libya: UN approves no-fly zone as British troops prepare for action


Western forces could launch bombing raids against the Libyan regime as early as Friday after the UN backed international military action.

SOURCE

 

[Argamemnon]

Our intentions might be good

I have to be honest here. Please don't get me wrong but it truly baffles me to hear you say this because you obviously seem like a well-educated and very intelligent person. Since when do western states care about the well-being of mankind as a whole??

 

[Argamemnon]

I couldn't disagree more brother woodrow, I'm reading books about western politics and international relations and I know for sure that they never care about other natons and peoples. They only want to preserve their hegemony and oppression.