If you look over the past 7-8 years Gaddafi came out of the cold with several banks and nations and Libyans had been living far far better lives than many of those in Asia and Africa.
NATO nations set to reap spoils of Libya war
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Oh chill. :roll:
what the hell is wrong with you. ?? I asked a sincere and valid question. And yes.....I know the UN is supposed to be doing something along that line. But the question remains........ How do they do this?? Give every one a blood test and the results come back saying : "good" , "bad" "not sure".
see what I mean......There is no way to determine good guys from bad guys . And particularly a population of a different culture. As their value systems are usually different from the west ........so we cannot measure by our own standards.
Not only that.......we can't determine who is good / bad / indifferent here in our own culture. Why do you think people are so "shocked" when a quiet neighbor is arrested for years of child abuse....or whatever crime. / behavior.
there ya go. So many assumptions are made about how a population lives and what it puts up with. I suspect that what we are told , which usually has other motives behind it........does not paint an accurate picture. It is only when one speaks to people from the area one can get a better idea of what life is like.
How would you like another nation to come in and do a regime change in your country?? and usually without being asked to.
It is illegal. Even Bush said it. when he lied in saying " we don't do regime changes, , as they are not legal. (not a direct quote.
and then he said "find me a way - reshape the legalities - to invade Iraq. where regime change was one of his primary motives. The rest was just crap to convince the US population to go along with it)
It is unethical We have NO RIGHT to go into another nation and do a regime change just because the regime is not west friendly.
My good ness the reasons are obvious
It is illegal. Even Bush said it. when he lied in saying " we don't do regime changes, , as they are not legal. (not a direct quote.
and then he said "find me a way - reshape the legalities - to invade Iraq. where regime change was one of his primary motives. The rest was just crap to convince the US population to go along with it)
It is unethical We have NO RIGHT to go into another nation and do a regime change just because the regime is not west friendly.
My good ness the reasons are obvious
Sincerity voided by the jab at the end.
You DO know what OBSERVE means don't you? It's done best with open eyes and feet on the ground.
If my country was run by a Muammar Gaddafi, I most certainly would like another nation to overthrow him.
Whether or not something is illegal has no bearing on whether or not it is ethical. That should end your argument right there and make it unnecessary to point out that regime change, in principle, is not technically illegal.
Gaddafi's Libya was more friendly to the West before the war than it had ever been in its history. That's not why NATO got involved.
You can attempt to frame this debate with anti-Western distractions if you want, but it won't work on me. I could argue the anti-West position better than you can and I can recognize amateur arguments when I see them. You said in principle, so let's stick with principle.
Yes......I do know what observe means. I also know that humans observing other humans cannot be totally objective.....as observations are subjective to the one doing the observing.
IF observation was such an accurate tool.........how come they have to rely on physical probes and groping at the airports now?? IF simple observation was so accurate ........they would have no need for the scanners and other intrusive devices at the US "security check points.
IF 'feet on the ground " is to be interpreted as military presence .........then the observations would be made with a miltary bias.
If my aunt had a pecker she'd be my uncle....
Observation doesn't have to be military. I'm looking over your posts and coming to a reasonably accurate picture of you. Observation is mouth closed, eyes and ears open. Observation is letting the chips fall where they may - not where you want them placed. Observation takes time. When the honeymoon's over ... you know it.
How is an al Qaeda lead government a good thing over Gaddaffi?
Who would be your aunt?
Corduroy : It is very easy to say if your country had blah blah as a leader you would want a regime change. But that is not realistic.
There are too many variables involved . First .........if a nation has gotten so dissatisfied with its leadership , it is THEY as a population that want to make the change. It is THEIR country and THEIR RIGHT.
what do you think we have been seeing this year?? Look at the leaders that have been removed from power .....and NOT by outside interference , but by the revolt (positive) of the people themselves. Some have asked for assistance from the outside, while others did it on their own. There is a pride in ones nationality to be able to do a people oriented change in leadership without meddling from others .
It is their own identity , and sense of nationality that matters in such major change.
Now........if the ones revolting are asking for outside assistance and the request is real and not motivated by other irrelavent reasons........ that becomes a different story. Only then can an outside agency / govt' consider assisting and HOW it would be done keeping in mind what the primary motive is. Help them achieve what THEY want with no expected "reward" for THEMSELVES and THEIR nation. Then leave.
The other variable is resistance to change. Many will resist on the basis of the devil you know is better than the one you don't know. Change is very scary for people. Particularly for people with deep cultural values.
So the upshot is: It is better for a population to do the change themselves. It reinforces their self worth , confidence and readiness for change.
There are too many variables involved . First .........if a nation has gotten so dissatisfied with its leadership , it is THEY as a population that want to make the change. It is THEIR country and THEIR RIGHT.
what do you think we have been seeing this year?? Look at the leaders that have been removed from power .....and NOT by outside interference , but by the revolt (positive) of the people themselves. Some have asked for assistance from the outside, while others did it on their own. There is a pride in ones nationality to be able to do a people oriented change in leadership without meddling from others .
It is their own identity , and sense of nationality that matters in such major change.
Now........if the ones revolting are asking for outside assistance and the request is real and not motivated by other irrelavent reasons........ that becomes a different story. Only then can an outside agency / govt' consider assisting and HOW it would be done keeping in mind what the primary motive is. Help them achieve what THEY want with no expected "reward" for THEMSELVES and THEIR nation. Then leave.
The other variable is resistance to change. Many will resist on the basis of the devil you know is better than the one you don't know. Change is very scary for people. Particularly for people with deep cultural values.
So the upshot is: It is better for a population to do the change themselves. It reinforces their self worth , confidence and readiness for change.
...or gets 'em all dead in the process. Mausers, shotguns and swords don't stand up well against tanks, helicopters and machine guns.
NO? Why not? al Qaeda ARE the rebels. Hardcores from Saudi Arabia, A-Stan,Iraq etc. That's who we hired and that's who the people will want in Gov. The ones that lead the rebellion.
Last edited:
...and it was those PEOPLE who asked for help - and waited for that help - and waited until the people whe pull the strings at NATO said go.
The rest: Bull Shyte. Lose the venom. Right now, it's not even about the United States.