10 reasons to say no to western intervention in Libya

Page 6 of 8 [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 12:13 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Neoliberal economics are very destructive and difficult to reverse these days. Keeping the Syrian government in place is preferable to that.


It is if your an outright Nazi. Baathism is a direct descendent of European Fascism. Why not give the Syrian people a say in the matter? Or are you an Orientalist aswell?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm

We should actually be supporting the opposition movement in Iran, because we know that movement wants democracy.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 12:35 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
We should actually be supporting the opposition movement in Iran, because we know that movement wants democracy.


"We" should support democracy movements across the entire Middle East whether we like each particular dictator or not. It's the principle of the thing.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Mar 2011, 12:42 pm

jamieboy wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
We should actually be supporting the opposition movement in Iran, because we know that movement wants democracy.


"We" should support democracy movements across the entire Middle East whether we like each particular dictator or not. It's the principle of the thing.


Well the thing that we have to be careful of is whether or not it is a genuine Democracy movement or an attempt to set up a theocracy like what is in Iran. The reason why we should support the opposition in Iran is because we know they are a pro-democracy movement.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 12:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
We should actually be supporting the opposition movement in Iran, because we know that movement wants democracy.


"We" should support democracy movements across the entire Middle East whether we like each particular dictator or not. It's the principle of the thing.


Well the thing that we have to be careful of is whether or not it is a genuine Democracy movement or an attempt to set up a theocracy like what is in Iran. The reason why we should support the opposition in Iran is because we know they are a pro-democracy movement.


The West over eggs the threat of Islamism and Theocracy in order to keep it's client Dictators in place. It's all a great game over who has access and control of the Oil wealth. Just look at the History of Iran. Mossadeq was a secular democrat in the 50's but he nationalised the oil so the CIA replaced him with a dictator (The shah) in order to rob the Iranians of their oil again. The blowback to that was the 1979 revolution.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

21 Mar 2011, 3:07 pm

jamieboy wrote:
1.Intervention will violate Libya’s sovereignty. This is not just a legalistic point – although the importance of observing international law should not be discounted if the big powers in the world are not to be given the green light run amok. As soon as NATO starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.
Doesn't look like Gaddafi is doing em a favour in terms of sovereignty.

jamieboy wrote:
4.This is not Spain in 1936, when non-intervention meant helping the fascist side which, if victorious in the conflict, would only encourage the instigators of a wider war – as it did. Here, the powers clamouring for military action are the ones already fighting a wider war across the Middle East and looking to preserve their power even as they lose their autocratic allies. Respecting Libya’s sovereignty is the cause of peace, not it's enemy.
Gaddafi seems pretty fascist to me.

jamieboy wrote:
5. It is more like Iraq in the 1990s, after the First Gulf War. Then, the US, Britain and France imposed no-fly zones which did not lead to peace – the two parties in protected Iraqi Kurdistan fought a bitter civil war under the protection of the no-fly zone – and did prepare the ground for the invasion of 2003. Intervention may partition Libya and institutionalise conflict for decades.
The whole reason Afghanistan is such a mess is cuz the Soviets bailed out without doing reconstruction, establishing a new Government, and deterring other nations or organizations from taking over. After the Soviets left, the extremists filled the void. What makes you think intervention will cause the war to go on for decades? And why would it not be possible to avoid what the Soviets did?

jamieboy wrote:
7.Yes, it is about oil. Why the talk of intervening in Libya, but not the Congo, for example? Ask BP.
All the other non-American intelligence agencies also thought Saddam had WMD's, and plus Saddam refused to allow inspections. This was the result of faulty intel rather than Bush lying. Prove that Bush lied beyond unreasonable suspicion. I bet you can't back it up with anything other than "Bush lied, people died!". I don't like Bush and I don't believe in the War in Iraq but I'm not petty enough to resort to unfounded statements cuz of that. Oh, and doncha think it would've been smarter for Bush to bail out of Iraq if he really did have an agenda? That would've saved him reconstruction costs and approval ratings.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 4:48 pm

Those statements are the statements of the Uk stop the war coalition. I was putting them out there for discussion. I support the No fly zone with no illusions about good western intentions.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

21 Mar 2011, 4:57 pm

jamieboy wrote:
Those statements are the statements of the Uk stop the war coalition. I was putting them out there for discussion. I support the No fly zone with no illusions about good western intentions.
Well yeah but you posted em cuz you agree with em right? I'm undecided about the no-fly thing but I think the typical anti-war sentiments are ret*d. btw I didn't notice the link, WP really needs to have better colour coding for that.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Mar 2011, 4:57 pm

I don't know. I supported the idea of a no fly zone because that's mostly what the people in Lybia were asking for. But the initial idea was a no fly zone, meaning that neither rebels nor Daffy's airplanes could bombard things. Although what we have now is called a no-fly zone, it looks more like helping the rebels take down Daffy. I mean, why would you strike down a palace for a no-fly zone?


_________________
.


jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 6:16 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Those statements are the statements of the Uk stop the war coalition. I was putting them out there for discussion. I support the No fly zone with no illusions about good western intentions.
Well yeah but you posted em cuz you agree with em right? I'm undecided about the no-fly thing but I think the typical anti-war sentiments are ret*d. btw I didn't notice the link, WP really needs to have better colour coding for that.


I was confused about my position early on. Alot of those arguments have some merit i think. However i have decided to support military action thus far. I will not support any occupation or use of ground troops though.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

21 Mar 2011, 6:27 pm

jamieboy wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Those statements are the statements of the Uk stop the war coalition. I was putting them out there for discussion. I support the No fly zone with no illusions about good western intentions.
Well yeah but you posted em cuz you agree with em right? I'm undecided about the no-fly thing but I think the typical anti-war sentiments are ret*d. btw I didn't notice the link, WP really needs to have better colour coding for that.


I was confused about my position early on. Alot of those arguments have some merit i think. However i have decided to support military action thus far. I will not support any occupation or use of ground troops though.


nah this definately should not turn into a long stadning occupation.

ground troops would be the limit for me as well, even the bombing of non-vital targets to upholding the safety of the no fly zone is iffy.

though emotionally i would give the green light for any air operation in favor of the rebels.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

21 Mar 2011, 10:38 pm

The rebels will never be legitimate. They are totally ruined in that respect. They will always be seen as stooges. The only people among them who might be able to step out of that shadow are the al-Qa'eda ones.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

21 Mar 2011, 10:39 pm

jamieboy wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Neoliberal economics are very destructive and difficult to reverse these days. Keeping the Syrian government in place is preferable to that.


It is if your an outright Nazi. Baathism is a direct descendent of European Fascism. Why not give the Syrian people a say in the matter? Or are you an Orientalist aswell?


It is not. Michel Aflaq was not a Nazi or Fascist. The Likud Party by the way is a European fascist era party unreconstructed.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

21 Mar 2011, 10:41 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
I don't know. I supported the idea of a no fly zone because that's mostly what the people in Lybia were asking for. But the initial idea was a no fly zone, meaning that neither rebels nor Daffy's airplanes could bombard things. Although what we have now is called a no-fly zone, it looks more like helping the rebels take down Daffy. I mean, why would you strike down a palace for a no-fly zone?


They were asking for nothing of the sort. These Western stooge rebels were asking for that and has Libya trapped in a Chapter Seven resolution that opens it up to gang rape - it says that any country can do whatever it wants to Libya and it's perfectly legal. Right now Iraq has this Chapter Seven resolution passed twenty years ago that's being used against a completely different regime to force it to accept US bases there permanently! These rebels are being run by the SAS and other Western forces.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Mar 2011, 11:05 pm

xenon13 wrote:
The rebels will never be legitimate. They are totally ruined in that respect. They will always be seen as stooges. The only people among them who might be able to step out of that shadow are the al-Qa'eda ones.


Sure whatever, in reality it was the French President that had to drag Obama kicking and screaming to help the Libyan people.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

22 Mar 2011, 12:03 am

The French president's poll rating dipped before Le Pen's. And he is a neocon and always was. Which makes me think that if the Qaddafis really did give his campaign money they only did this because they wanted to back the winner. He is an Israel-worshipping neocon.