Forums > Social Discussion > war in Libya...

Posted: 20th Mar 2011
I think that a dictatorial leader who goes to war with his own people because they want a democratic system should be ousted, and the people who are asking for democracy should be protected.

Apparently he was flying in mercenaries to fight his war for him, cuz most of his troops wouldnt shoot/bomb their own people.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 20th Mar 2011
At least the U.N. acknowledged what was going on and is going to enforce their resolutions on it. I'm not so sure how I feel about anyone actually occupying Libya but if the efforts that are being put forth are not enough to stop civilian casualties then I suppose it is inevitable.

Happiness runs in a circular motion!!



G4dget

Posted: 21st Mar 2011
Yeah. Apart from the two-faced nature of the UN likely ignoring similar events in Bahrain.

'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Posted: 22nd Mar 2011
interesting twist with France reluctant to hand over command to NATO... some old-fashioned "Grande Nation" in the entire mess.

I would say that nobody has interest or intent to occupy Libya and I would doubt that ground forces are likely to be deployed at any stage. But I might be proven wrong.

It's time for us to demand our government to cut ties with dictators and leaders who oppress their people, to stop arms supply to these regimes and imply strict embargoes on undemocratic juntas.

To supply arms to so called "democracies" - like for example Pakistan and India - is bad enough. To supply, or tolerate supplies for dictators is aiding and abetting.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 23rd Mar 2011
^^^yeah I agree - but as long as they have oil, they will have people willing to sell them guns.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 30th Mar 2011
I don't think that Obama's decision to bomb them was a good one.

On the one hand, I think of all the people the U.S. has failed over the years. Jews in Germany, Croats in Serbia, Tutsis in Rwanda, etc. All of those people, as they suffered and died, would have prayed for salvation from above.

I'm not sure the Libyan rebels are deserving, though. Oh yes, they're so-called "freedom fighters" fighting a despot dictator. But are they "freedom fighters?" The Muslim Brotherhood is behind all of this and they are not the least bit shy about their plans or policies. They want the Q'uran and Sunnah to form the basis of government. A theocracy. And we've seen those before.

Theocracy is the most dangerous form of government because no action requires any justification. The moral compass always points North. If the leader says to take all kids age 5-7 and string them up by the neck with piano wire, then it is as wills it and there is no argument. Done. Finished. Go string up the kids. And, indeed, in Iran they've been stringing up some kids (for homosexuality).

Then there's the killing side of things. I deplore killing, but I support killing when it will save more lives. Besides, I think there are some people who are so cruel, so depraved, so gleeful at others' suffering, that they should die. But in the specific case of Lybia, if we kill the Qadaffists, then the rebels live. If we don't kill the Qadaffists, then they kill the rebels. It's lose-lose.

So why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars on cruise missiles when we're in the biggest budget crisis this country has ever seen?

As an interesting footnote, whether you support the action or oppose it, Obama has fired more cruise missiles than all the other Nobel Peace Prize winners in history combined.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 1st Apr 2011
I agree with Lightning about this. Though I think some of them are genuine freedom fighters, they are mostly disorganized opposition group, and in most (or all?) of the countries where protests and riots happened, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be the only organized organized opposition movement.

Overall I think these revolutions might mean a step back for most of the Arab world, but I'm hoping they actually will end up in proper democracies.

Posted: 2nd Apr 2011
For one: none of these characters would (have) give(n) up their oppressive rule voluntarily.

For second: all these protests started as peaceful rallies and turned hostile only after the security forces began shooting civilians.

For third: only because you don't like Islam - or lest the fundamentalists - you can't condemn them having to live without basic human rights forever and support their nondemocratic regimes.

and least: Gadaffi has been supporting terrorists himself and acts of terrorism responsible for western casualties.

The Islamic Brotherhood might prove itself moderate enough to run an Islamic country without necessarily bombing Israel or the Western world - give it a chance.

Poiboi: "proper democracies"... don't exist on this planet. Only because you can elect your management doesn't mean you own the company. A "proper democracy" would mean that you have a part in most important/ major decisions your government is taking for you, i.e. nuclear power, immigration, (*defense*) budget spending... we vote for general programs, fall for promises that won't be kept and we tend to forget that quite quickly.

If you think otherwise: just buy a house (or car) and stop paying your property (or car) tax... you'll quickly find out, WHO owns YOU

Doc: these "Lybian rebels" now are "terrorists"... no wait... as the West sides them, they are "freedom fighters"... no wait... we need to see how they act after their liberation, maybe they become "terrorists" again, like the Taliban.

You're spending millions of $ on cruise missiles, BECAUSE you have the biggest budget crisis ever seen. Actually... how many American presidents have been there without armed conflict?

I like your humor, even if you don't like mine

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 2nd Apr 2011
Tom - of course there are (many) flaws with our current system, and it definitely needs to change so that the people have more actual power over important issues.

That said, those flaws are minor compared to the flaws of theocracies. I might not have a direct influence on the policy of any western government, but at least people here have the freedom to be gay, the freedom to change and leave religion, freedom of speech, women's rights, minority rights etc.

In a theocracy those things are virtually non-existent. Say something "blasphemous" and you'll be stoned to death, if you're gay you get hanged, rape victims get treated as criminals (they must have brought it on themselves somehow...) disobedient wives get beaten, the penalty for conversion is death.

So while the Muslim Brotherhood won't necessarily bomb Israel if they get into power, I think the local populations will have even less human rights than they have now.
While they haven't been given a chance to rule a country, I don't think any religious group should have any sort of authority over a country. It's enough to look at countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. to see that.

Obviously their old leaders and dictators were horrible, and needed to get kicked out, I'm just saying the people replacing them won't be any better.

Posted: 11th Apr 2011
I hear your concerns Poiboy - and partly agree - though other voices also say that the Muslim Brotherhood already changed and does not have the radical "Islamist" approach it might have had in the beginning.

It's been claimed that the MB has already turned to a more realistic, worldly approach...

And we will have to see what and how conditions change in these countries.

To resist the change (from the old (and terrible) system) just because we suspect the new one won't be much better - is keeping things as horrible as they currently are.

Embrace change

the best smiles are the ones you lead to