|
Wiz posted:Israel pursues a sustained policy of ethnic cleansing against a cultural/religious minority. Isreal does lovely things to the Palestinians, but calling it Ethnic Cleansing is a little much, The situation is israel is not close to mass genocide atm.
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Who cares what the Russians or African Union think, and nobody is going to believe anything coming from the Libyan State Television.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:One of my basic principles is to never trust anyone who has their own "compound". It hasn't failed me yet. I was about to say something similar, whenever I hear the word compound I immediately know something is screwed up
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Hardly uncontroversial. There are those ignorant of what it entails and the reality of the situation in Libya. We even had a poster come in here, where there is all this information to be informed, and say that it's Obama starting another war in the Middle-East (Yes he actually thought Libya is in the Middle-East.) There are also those who just don't like Obama regardless of what he does and use this as hate rhetoric. I suppose they are all short-comings of ignorant people though, not the operation. I personally group North Africa with the Middle East but mainly because of the cultural similarities (Read: Islam), however there is also some opposition from informed people and this about sums up their argument: quote:Whenever you intervene in a country, whatever your intentions, you are intervening on someone's side. In this case, the United States, France and Britain are intervening in favour of a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have failed to coalesce, at least so far, into a meaningful military force. The intervention may well succeed. The question is whether the outcome will create a morally superior nation. I personally believe that intervention was a good idea, because I'd rather have a fragile political situation in Libya rather than a situation where Gaddafi is killing hundreds of suspected rebels out of revenge, but there is a somewhat decent argument against intervention.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Absent evidence that the rebels are literally Pol Pot, it seems highly, highly likely that them winning will create a nation morally superior to one that uses AA guns on unarmed protestors. I took it to mean that the if we let the rebels win then we will effectively create a weak democracy with all kinds of different factions (tribes etc.) trying to seek power for themselves only which and factions (NOT POLITICAL PARTIES) will eventually be the downfall of that government and a new Dictator will take power once again. Sort of similar to what happened to the Weimar Republic after WW1.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Vir posted:Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Namibia, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Mali, Mauritania, Congo or North Sudan might all be liable to take him, but accepting Gaddafi on friendly terms might cause the downfall of the regime which takes him in. The ever so neutral Switzerland would probably be happy to have Gaddafi in a jail cell. "We used to lock up your money, now we lock up you." Smart Money is on Venezuela or some under developed African Nation, like Chad or Nigeria
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Korak posted:Currently flying over Earth in the ISS. Are you talking about Gaddafi or Mubarak? Because I'm talking about Gaddafi
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
straw man posted:Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France? Oh yes our sons and daughters are in such danger bombing Gaddafi tanks that happen to be bombarding red cross camps and innocent civilians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 03:13
|
|