PDA

View Full Version : Should Europeans get involved in Libya?



edao
20-03-11, 18:45
Yesterday the French, British and Americans have AGAIN gone to war.

We have already seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that the politcal and cultural problems in the Arab world cannot be solved by taking a dicatator out of power and setting up some ballot boxes.

What can "the West" possibly hope to achieve, their UN mandate goes beyond the no-fly-zone and already members of the Arab League are complaining that the actions taken is not what they agreed.

Are we not setting ourselves up for further terrorism and more hatred for western society?

"Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world" source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya)

Lets be clear there are humans suffering all over the world, I'm sure the Iraq war probably killed more civilians than Sadam Hussain ever did, so this idea the West are going in for moral reason seems unjustifiable to me. Why not be upfront about the need to secure the oil reserves and just take then under international law, a civil tax can be trimmed of the profits to fund humanitarian projects in Libya.

As far as I'm concerned the situation in Libya is for the Libyans to decide for themselves let them fight their own battles. In the UK we are being sold heavy austerity and the need for cuts to bring the defecit under control for what to spend millions bombing the s**t out of some country I couldn't care less about.

Vallicanus
20-03-11, 18:55
It's a Libyan civil war and if the Arab League want to mediate that's fine.

The Anglo-Americans and French are only interested in Libya's oil and using up their missiles to provide more work for their munition factories.

The atrocities against Zimbabwe or Rwanda are ignored (no oil) and they dare not tackle Israel (an ally) over Gaza nor China (too powerful) over her minorities.

BTW it's LIBYA.

edao
20-03-11, 18:59
BTW it's LIBYA.

What do you expect I'm a bi-product of the Scottish education system.:embarassed:

Canek
20-03-11, 19:11
It's a Libyan civil war and if the Arab League want to mediate that's fine. The Anglo-Americans and French are only interested in Libya's oil and using up their missiles to provide more work for their munition factories. The atrocities against Zimbabwe or Rwanda are ignored (no oil) and they dare not tackle Israel (an ally) over Gaza nor China (too powerful) over her minorities. i couldn't agree more. hypocrite and arrogant europeans need to stay away of other continents. the world have had enough european imperialism already.

Melusine
20-03-11, 19:38
Canek,

You distort the facts. The rebels and the MILLION people in the town Benghazi requested the support from the UN . Especially note worthy is that Qadaffi said that he would "show no mercy to the rebels and that he would have his army go from door to door and kill them all "in front of their children".

You Canek are the hypocrite, it is the Chinese (not the Europeans) who get most of their oil from Libya, and they did not participate in the UN vote.

Look up on Google: Qaddafi vows "no mercy" as the UN eyes action

Would you rather that thousands of under-powered people be "slaugtered", who have been under the rule for almost 41 years by a "lunatic" and his henchmen? .

You speak "trash".

Post your sources and refererences and facts to support your comments.

Refute what one can see that Qadaffi is the hypocrite and arrogant man.

Or are you one that says "don't believe your lying eyes?"

Melusine

Canek
20-03-11, 19:53
i am not defending qaddafi, learn to read.

Vallicanus
20-03-11, 19:55
Canek,

You distort the facts. The rebels and the MILLION people in the town Benghazi requested the support from the UN . Especially note worthy is that Qadaffi said that he would "show no mercy to the rebels and that he would have his army go from door to door and kill them all "in front of their children".

You Canek are the hypocrite, it is the Chinese (not the Europeans) who get most of their oil from Libya, and they did not participate in the UN vote.

Look up on Google: Qaddafi vows "no mercy" as the UN eyes action

Would you rather that thousands of under-powered people be "slaugtered", who have been under the rule for almost 41 years by a "lunatic" and his henchmen? .

You speak "trash".

Post your sources and refererences and facts to support your comments.

Refute what one can see that Qadaffi is the hypocrite and arrogant man.

Or are you one that says "don't believe your lying eyes?"

Melusine

My God, a MILLION people in Benghazi requested UN help!
The phones, skypes and e-mail system must have really choked up.:laughing:

Sky News reports showed a few excitable residents running, shouting and firing guns.:thinking:

It was no Egyptian Tahrir Square scenario with hundreds or thousands of people demonstrating for change.

Of course it's about the West getting Libyan oil instead of Russia and China.

Reinaert
20-03-11, 19:56
Edao, I agree with you for most of what you write.

But Daffie is an insane dictator, a friend of other idiot dictators like in China and also the clown Berlusconi.
The United Nations have a right to take action against a fool that kills his own people, for his own benefit.

I agree with you that Britain and the USA have a fascist agenda, and France now too.
But we can't leave the Libyan people being slaughtered by the supporters of Daffie.

I know it's a dilemma.

Reinaert
20-03-11, 20:00
i couldn't agree more. hypocrite and arrogant europeans need to stay away of other continents. the world have had enough european imperialism already.


Ahhh.. You live in Chile now..

How funny.

And European imperialism?

You mean the British?

Their empire has long gone..

edao
20-03-11, 20:09
But we can't leave the Libyan people being slaughtered by the supporters of Daffie.

They are only creating a no-fly-zone. That is simply evening up the score for the rebels, there will be no ground troops to stop anything.

It's such a half assed effort, we want to help but we don't want to get our hands dirty, which I can full understand given Iraq. So we seem to be setting the table for some kind of civil war? I mean who decides where to draw the line, at what point is it just waring and at what point is it a humanitarian crisis?

I'm not saying there is an easy answer here.

Reinaert
20-03-11, 20:36
They are only creating a no-fly-zone. That is simply evening up the score for the rebels, there will be no ground troops to stop anything.

It's such a half assed effort, we want to help but we don't want to get our hands dirty, which I can full understand given Iraq. So we seem to be setting the table for some kind of civil war? I mean who decides where to draw the line, at what point is it just waring and at what point is it a humanitarian crisis?

I'm not saying there is an easy answer here.

It's the simple declaration of human rights, where the UN is founded on.
I know it was abused by the Bush administration.
But Europe cannot let a criminal like Daffie go on like nothing happened.
In The Netherlands even the political far left wants to get rid of the murderous Daffie regime.

Melusine
20-03-11, 21:19
Vallicanus, your reply shows your knowledge and maturity.

And Canek:

It was the Libyan permanent Deputy of the UN that on Feb 21, 2011 first requested that the UN declare a no-fly-zone in Libya and then it was followed up by another request by the Arab League on March 12, 2011 in order to prevent the "murder" of the people of Benghazi.

The West did NOT just enter this "fray" "out of the blue for oil.

Get your facts straight .

Google Libyan no fly zone. wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_no-fly-zone

Reinaert
20-03-11, 21:39
Melusine... Both you mention are trolls.

Don't feed them.

Vallicanus
20-03-11, 22:56
A Dutchman who thinks he is Asterix the Gaul calls ME a troll!:laughing:

How would you expect a leader like Gaddafi to behave if he were faced with sedition?
:useless:
The bottom line is that nobody has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation. Nobody.

Look at the mess the Anglo-Americans have made of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The governments of China, Israel, Zimbabwe and others have slaughtered "rebels" or opponents and yet the UN does nothing apart from spouting platitudes. Not a missile in sight.

Gaddafi is just an easy target and he sits on a lot of petroleum and gas.

Reinaert
20-03-11, 23:27
Vallic Anus..

You are totally wrong.
We are talking about a UN decision.
Even Arab countries want Daffie out of control!

How weird can you get?

Anton, Bear's den
20-03-11, 23:48
Gaddafi is just an easy target and he sits on a lot of petroleum and gas.

Totally agree, that's all about mercantile interests, no one care about Libyan people in reality. That's all beautiful slogans for fools.
New puppet government will sell cheap oil to "liberators". Although Gaddafi is not a "gift" too, mix of terrorist and dictator with huge narcissistic ego.
For Russia only is bad that we lost lucrative contracts for weapon supply and railway construction in Libya.

Mzungu mchagga
21-03-11, 01:27
Have to agree with Vallicanus and Anton, both representing my thoughts.

Antigone
21-03-11, 08:09
And already the Arab league is pretending horror at the bombing claiming they didn't know it would be like this, rubbish. As always, manipulating the west behind the scenes to do their dirty work whilst publicly beating their breasts and pulling out their hair. When are we ever going to learn?

Well not until western governments stop seeing dollar signs anyway, anyone who thinks this is all about the people of Libya is watching too much Fox or CNN News.

Taranis
21-03-11, 12:49
And already the Arab league is pretending horror at the bombing claiming they didn't know it would be like this, rubbish. As always, manipulating the west behind the scenes to do their dirty work whilst publicly beating their breasts and pulling out their hair. When are we ever going to learn?

Well not until western governments stop seeing dollar signs anyway, anyone who thinks this is all about the people of Libya is watching too much Fox or CNN News.

The claims about civilian casualties from the airstrikes of the first 24 hours is, for the greater part, a sham by Gaddafi. And the Arab League, as well as Russia, are buying it without enquestioning it's truth. At this point, I would not buy anything coming out of the mouths of Gaddafi or his spokesmen.

Regarding the oil, I would like to point out that it was Gaddafi who all the time talked about the oil, not the Western powers. If you look at this military strategy in trying to put down the uprising, his key priorities were the oil hubs.

In any case, who is the most spineless in all this however is the German government. They have utterly failed to show solidarity with their allies or the Libyan people and isolated themselves internationally. While I don't know why they did this (either because they believed the rebellion in Libya was a lost cause to begin with, and it would be more useful to play low profile now and restart business with Gaddafi later, or because they wanted to play the 'Schröder 2002' card), but it's obvious they failed.

Antigone
21-03-11, 18:21
Imo Germany did the sensible thing Taranis. And I wouldn't say it was a cowardly decision either, only the weak follow the herd.

Anyway I suppose it is immaterial what we in the west think, what matters is how our bombing yet another Muslim and Arab country will be perceived in the Arab world.

LeBrok
21-03-11, 18:47
Why would west come and bomb Libya for oil if Kaddafi was selling oil to everyone who wanted it? If Rebels win, new government will be selling oil too.

Watching how eager French were to bomb ground troops and convoys to help rebels, tells me how much Gaddafi is hated among many politicians and leaders.
Obama said:"Kaddafi has to go"

Overall I'm in agreement with Taranis view on this matter.

Reinaert
21-03-11, 19:58
Well, you could watch TV today, and the USA is leaning back on the subject, what is wise to do so. France is more acceptable in the Arabian world.

About Germany.. Hey it was only one politician who goofed. And he already got his ass kicked by the German media. And Germans themselves.

If the UN asks for switching off the heavy weapons of the Libyan Forces, and European Forces simply deny the use of them by Daffie, it's a matter of time until Daffie ends up in some hell hole, and can be arrested by the Libyan people.

Melusine
21-03-11, 20:21
It would not be "out -of-the realm of possibilities that in a week or two, Qadaffi will, either be killed by a "mole" in his inner circle", or a military person in his inner circle, (he) kills himself, and or a bomb or missile hits one of his command headquarters/bunkers and he is inside of it.

And of course he can also be arrested by the Libyan people as Reinaert mentioned.

If anyone noticed on this forum, last week I posted that the UN would act within a day or two, and they did and bid "bon voyage" (within two weeks) to Qadaffi's Amazon Guard (40 "virgins" hand-picked by Qadaffi as his inner circle guard.)

The three biggest users of Libyan oil are China, Russia and India. The USA does not buy much (if any) from Libya.

The largest oil fields in their own countries are: Saudi Arabia (and the other oil Middle Eastern countries), Russia and the USA.

Melusine

Mzungu mchagga
21-03-11, 20:33
Why would west come and bomb Libya for oil if Kaddafi was selling oil to everyone who wanted it? If Rebels win, new government will be selling oil too.

Watching how eager French were to bomb ground troops and convoys to help rebels, tells me how much Gaddafi is hated among many politicians and leaders.
Obama said:"Kaddafi has to go"

Overall I'm in agreement with Taranis view on this matter.

It is not about who sells the oil (or anything else), it is about stability in the region. Peace means also economic stability and a guarantee for frictionless trade at a low market price. Also for it's neighbouring regions, and also not necessarily only oil. It doesn't matter how this stability is preserved, whether it is preserved by a peaceful democracy, or by a typical James Bond villain in fantastic costumes, protected by sexy female guards.
So when a political unrest breaks out somewhere on this planet, and the economic stability of that region has an impact on the world market, the aim is to restore stability again as soon as possible. Of course Western countries would favor a successor who fits into Western values, so not to loose their credibility. But it is no must (see also leaders of Central Asian countries).
And it is a lot of hypocricy going on, when you first trade and negotiate for decades with certain heads of states around the world, and in the next moment, when a rebel starts to shake the trunk, you support the rebel by "Yeah, go kill him!". The same when you don't intervene in uprisings of regions (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), which economically don't have much to offer, so that any intervention doesn't pay off in the end. Or a fight would be to exhausting in other aspects (too strong; or too powerful neighbours who will protect them).

I wouldn't say that military intervention in Libya is totally wrong and might have positive results in the end, also favored by Western human rights activists. I just want to say that the real reason behind this is somewhat different!

Maciamo
21-03-11, 20:42
I have added an option "Don't care" in the poll. I am fed up of this kind of conflict. There are always arguments for and against military action. Either way it doesn't really matter for me.

Reinaert
21-03-11, 20:51
Well, I think no dictator should be able to get away with the bombing of his own people.
We have seen the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia with 2 million people killed.
And one of the poorest countries in the world back then, Vietnam, put an end to that horror. The world sat back and watched. Condemning Vietnam for aggression.

I am glad now the time has changed.

America isn't led by an idiot like Bush no more.
Obama has done the right things.

A real change.

Vallicanus
21-03-11, 21:47
The Anglo-Americans and French should butt out of the Libyan civil war.
It's a tribal Tripolitania-v-Cyrenaica struggle.

Only UN or Arab League forces should have any right to interfere.

If they are not ready to do so, tough.

Canek
21-03-11, 22:00
I am glad now the time has changed.
America isn't led by an idiot like Bush no more.
Obama has done the right things.
A real change.


lol and you consider yourself a left-wing supporter???, obama is a marketing creation manufactured by wall street to make people believe that things are gonna change in usa... it's a lie, obama hasn't brought any special change to the usa, specially regarding external politics.

a lot of naive people have been brainwashed with the "yes we can" and "change" campaigns.

the real left-wing voters are well aware of this. wake up everybody.

sparkey
21-03-11, 22:20
The Anglo-Americans and French should butt out of the Libyan civil war.
It's a tribal Tripolitania-v-Cyrenaica struggle.

Only UN or Arab League forces should have any right to interfere.

If they are not ready to do so, tough.

Excellent post, and I think that even the UN should be particularly cautious. I am dismayed by the decision on the US's part to get involved in another war in that part of the world. And for once, it looks like the American public agrees with me (http://www.sify.com/news/over-6-in-10-americans-don-t-want-military-sent-to-libya-poll-news-international-ldsmOcbjfga.html) that we should not be performing military actions.

France may indeed be more acceptable to the Arab world, so they're likely to lead the coalition, de jure. But the US is going to have a hard time fooling anyone into thinking that this isn't more US-backed meddling.

LeBrok
22-03-11, 04:07
It is not about who sells the oil (or anything else), it is about stability in the region. Peace means also economic stability and a guarantee for frictionless trade at a low market price. Also for it's neighbouring regions, and also not necessarily only oil. It doesn't matter how this stability is preserved, whether it is preserved by a peaceful democracy, or by a typical James Bond villain in fantastic costumes, protected by sexy female guards.
So when a political unrest breaks out somewhere on this planet, and the economic stability of that region has an impact on the world market, the aim is to restore stability again as soon as possible. Of course Western countries would favor a successor who fits into Western values, so not to loose their credibility. But it is no must (see also leaders of Central Asian countries).
And it is a lot of hypocricy going on, when you first trade and negotiate for decades with certain heads of states around the world, and in the next moment, when a rebel starts to shake the trunk, you support the rebel by "Yeah, go kill him!". The same when you don't intervene in uprisings of regions (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), which economically don't have much to offer, so that any intervention doesn't pay off in the end. Or a fight would be to exhausting in other aspects (too strong; or too powerful neighbours who will protect them).

I wouldn't say that military intervention in Libya is totally wrong and might have positive results in the end, also favored by Western human rights activists. I just want to say that the real reason behind this is somewhat different!

Amen brother. I have exactly same points of view about economy and stability, and uneasy situation in middle east and our governments acting upon it. I wish I had more time to write and explain but I'm strongly limited by long hours of work and general tiredness these days.

Canek
22-03-11, 10:31
the current situation of libya is (in great part) a consequence of the italian colonization. it's embarrassing to see how the italian goverment is trying to pass unperceived through all this.

Anton, Bear's den
22-03-11, 11:42
The three biggest users of Libyan oil are China, Russia and India. The USA does not buy much (if any) from Libya.
The largest oil fields in their own countries are: Saudi Arabia (and the other oil Middle Eastern countries), Russia and the USA.
Melusine
Comrade, you contradict yourself. Russia is exporter of oil, we no needed in Libyan oil and never imported it.
Oil exports from Libya:
Oil reserves - 46,422 billion barrels (according to OPEC)
Extraction of oil - 77,1 million tons per year
Crude oil exports - 1,33 million barrels per day
Profit from the sale of oil for export - 31,377 billion dollars per year

Major importers of Libyan oil:
1) Italy - 425 thousand barrels per day; 32% of Libyan export.
2) Germany - 178; 13,4%.
3) Serbia, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Sweden, Czech Republic - 173; 13%.
4) France - 133; 10%.
5) China - 133; 10%.
6) Spain - 115; 8.6%.
7) USA - 80; 6%.
8) India, Malaysia, Singapore - 53; 4%.
9) Brazil - 40; 3%.
~ 80% goes to EU countries

http://visualrian.ru/images/large/866879

Elias2
24-03-11, 03:12
Yes, he needs to go. He kills his own people and has secret police that makes people dissapear, he violently supresses his own people, I'm glad Canada interviened. We need less dictators in the world not more.

If we don't help the arabs with their revolutions who will? they are mostly unarmed civilians. If the USA didn't have so much power in Egypt Mubarak wouldn't have left. Tunisia is a small country so the people were able to rise up, and being the first arab country the leadership was caught by surprise. Lybia is a different story with a monster on top, he won't hold back to keep his place in power.

The reason I think no one gets involved with the gulf countries revolution is because that will drag Iran into it and that war will happen much later. If all of North africa can get rid off all their dictators that is a very good start that will spread into the middle east.

I don't know why people are saying they went in for oil. If it really was about oil they would have done the opposite! They are already getting Lybias oil they don't want unrest that will only cause disturbances. Helping the rebels was the right thing to do.

LeBrok
24-03-11, 04:48
If the USA didn't have so much power in Egypt Mubarak wouldn't have left.

Hold your horses brother. I thought Mubarak was a friend of US?
Anyway just busting your b.... I'm glad he went without a fight, and I favor democracy over dictatorships too. I'm just afraid there could be another dictator or one party dictatorship marching right ofter. If these countries are still messy few years later, there'll be another dictator "restoring" a peace. I wish I'm wrong but I've seen it so many times in the past.

Here is a very uplifting program form BBC, the Doha Debates about Egypt.
http://www.thedohadebates.com/#
So many young educated smart people, especially women. I hope they will get upper hand as elite in Egypt.

Antigone
24-03-11, 11:29
It will be interesting to see what happens in Yemen now. Another US propped government about to fall.

Mzungu mchagga
24-03-11, 13:32
I don't know why people are saying they went in for oil. If it really was about oil they would have done the opposite! They are already getting Lybias oil they don't want unrest that will only cause disturbances. Helping the rebels was the right thing to do.

That's exatctly the point, they don't want unrest! Primarily because it causes economic instability, not only in regards of trade with Libya, but also with the whole region. Trade becomes insecure, and market prices rise! The task now is to restore peace as fast as possible. And now that the rebels have already come so far and created a civil war, plus Gaddafi is an insane dictator who shoots at his own people, the opportunity finally has come to support the rebels. But it is not about human rights only, otherwise we could have intervened in many other countries around the world earlier, too.

And btw I don't buy that the German gov is opposing this intervention. To abstain from the decision on one hand, but proposing to take over more tasks in Afghanistan while the other countries are fighting in Libya, is an indirect agreement on it. I truly believe our politicians want the intervention in Libya, but fear to be portraid as the evil murdering guys by their own people and other nations. It's just about their image, nothing else.

Riccardo
24-03-11, 14:14
I think that this situation is totally different from the one in Iraq.

Taranis
24-03-11, 16:16
And btw I don't buy that the German gov is opposing this intervention. To abstain from the decision on one hand, but proposing to take over more tasks in Afghanistan while the other countries are fighting in Libya, is an indirect agreement on it. I truly believe our politicians want the intervention in Libya, but fear to be portraid as the evil murdering guys by their own people and other nations. It's just about their image, nothing else.

If they had been interested in being in favour of the intervention, but staying out of the fighting, they should have voted in favour in the UNSC - they wouldn't have been obligated in any way to participate. Think about it, Portugal (also NATO and currently UNSC member) didn't participate either. I think that the German government had ulterior motives in abstaining in the UNSC. Whatever they were, it's clear that this plan heavily backfired, and Germany has isolated internationally itself with this. In fact, no German government since 1949 has dared to do such an "Alleingang" (solo attempt). The most terribly part in this is that we have earned ourselves a reputation of being untrustworthy and unreliable (especially in Europe and in the Arab world), and we can now permanently forget about a permanent seat in the UNSC.


I think that this situation is totally different from the one in Iraq.

Seconded for truth.

Mzungu mchagga
24-03-11, 16:24
If they had been interested in being in favour of the intervention, but staying out of the fighting, they should have voted in favour in the UNSC - they wouldn't have been obligated in any way to participate. Think about it, Portugal (also NATO and currently UNSC member) didn't participate either. I think that the German government had ulterior motives in abstaining in the UNSC. Whatever they were, it's clear that this plan heavily backfired, and Germany has isolated internationally itself with this. In fact, no German government since 1949 has dared to do such an "Alleingang" (solo attempt). The most terribly part in this is that we have earned ourselves a reputation of being untrustworthy and unreliable (especially in Europe and in the Arab world), and we can now permanently forget about a permanent seat in the UNSC.



Seconded for truth.

Ok, so what do you think is the motive for this behaviour? If not gaining sympathy in German elections? Because otherwise peace, stability and human rights in this region would also be in Germany's interest.

Taranis
24-03-11, 17:24
Ok, so what do you think is the motive for this behaviour? If not gaining sympathy in German elections? Because otherwise peace, stability and human rights in this region would also be in Germany's interest.

I honestly don't know, but consider there's two possibilities to consider.

The first, as you said, is sympathy in elections. The German government attempted to imitate what Schröder did 2002, and that is use anti-war sentiment for an election campaign. The problem with this is that Libya simply isn't Iraq (the Libyans called for aid, the UNSC approved the action etc., whereas the Iraq War was essentially a solo action of the US without any legal basis). If this scenario is true, the German government blatantly overlooked some very obvious differences (notably, the sympathies for the rebel cause, which were amplified by Gaddafi's statements) - and why they did so utterly eludes me.

Which brings me to the second possibility: the German government decided that the rebels in Libya were a lost cause to begin with, and decided it was far more useful to make a low profile now, and then return to business as usual with the Gaddafi regime once the rebellion in Libya was crushed, something that would be impossible for all other Western nations if this scenario happened due to their support of the rebellion.

Brady
24-03-11, 17:51
If the europeans need oil...I have to say...YES.

Anton, Bear's den
24-03-11, 18:04
Hold your horses brother. I thought Mubarak was a friend of US?
Anyway just busting your b.... I'm glad he went without a fight, and I favor democracy over dictatorships too. I'm just afraid there could be another dictator or one party dictatorship marching right ofter. If these countries are still messy few years later, there'll be another dictator "restoring" a peace. I wish I'm wrong but I've seen it so many times in the past.

Here is a very uplifting program form BBC, the Doha Debates about Egypt.
http://www.thedohadebates.com/#
So many young educated smart people, especially women. I hope they will get upper hand as elite in Egypt.


Yes, he needs to go. He kills his own people and has secret police that makes people dissapear, he violently supresses his own people, I'm glad Canada interviened. We need less dictators in the world not more.

If we don't help the arabs with their revolutions who will? they are mostly unarmed civilians. If the USA didn't have so much power in Egypt Mubarak wouldn't have left. Tunisia is a small country so the people were able to rise up, and being the first arab country the leadership was caught by surprise. Lybia is a different story with a monster on top, he won't hold back to keep his place in power.

The reason I think no one gets involved with the gulf countries revolution is because that will drag Iran into it and that war will happen much later. If all of North africa can get rid off all their dictators that is a very good start that will spread into the middle east.

I don't know why people are saying they went in for oil. If it really was about oil they would have done the opposite! They are already getting Lybias oil they don't want unrest that will only cause disturbances. Helping the rebels was the right thing to do.

That's why I love Canadians! Simply unquenchable thirst for democracy! That's what we need more than anything right now. I am sure that Canadians will not refuse help to war-refugees because of last forced democratization in Lybia. These victims of bloody undemocratic totalitarian regime of Gaddafi must find new place to live in! Unfortunately, Italian & Maltese comrades are already a little bit fed up with it...
4663
4664
Many already have found refuge in Europe
4665
But Canada is so big and democratic dream country, there must be place for these innocent tolerant freedom-loving people too! They are so amazingly talented:
4666
and brave
4667

That will be real help in democratization of Lybia

Mzungu mchagga
24-03-11, 19:58
I honestly don't know, but consider there's two possibilities to consider.

The first, as you said, is sympathy in elections. The German government attempted to imitate what Schröder did 2002, and that is use anti-war sentiment for an election campaign. The problem with this is that Libya simply isn't Iraq (the Libyans called for aid, the UNSC approved the action etc., whereas the Iraq War was essentially a solo action of the US without any legal basis). If this scenario is true, the German government blatantly overlooked some very obvious differences (notably, the sympathies for the rebel cause, which were amplified by Gaddafi's statements) - and why they did so utterly eludes me.

Which brings me to the second possibility: the German government decided that the rebels in Libya were a lost cause to begin with, and decided it was far more useful to make a low profile now, and then return to business as usual with the Gaddafi regime once the rebellion in Libya was crushed, something that would be impossible for all other Western nations if this scenario happened due to their support of the rebellion.

I agree! Without having a direct proof, I think it is elections only. With all the other countries taking part, it would be too unrealistic to think of a lost cause.

Antigone
24-03-11, 20:13
Unfortunately, Italian & Maltese comrades are already a little bit fed up with it...

So is Greece, plus the refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last few years. Greece is having a very difficult time coping with them all at the moment, especially now. Possibly the countries that create these messes should pay for the clean-up bill as well?

Riccardo
24-03-11, 21:15
Anyhow they should have done a peacekeeping operation under a supranational force...That was the best way to act, as it was necessary arrived at that point with Ghadafi bombing the people. =(

Anton, Bear's den
24-03-11, 22:17
So is Greece, plus the refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last few years. Greece is having a very difficult time coping with them all at the moment, especially now. Possibly the countries that create these messes should pay for the clean-up bill as well?

hahaha yeah, invaders must pay for their actions from own pocket. I know that some Iraqi refugees were taken by European countries and in one of these countries (Sweden) several Iraqis blew up themselves (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/101212/suicide-bombing-sweden-stockholm-terrorist-attack) not so long ago for Allah (or who knows), that looks like European countries paying for mistakes of George W. Bush.

Regardless from how Gaddafi and other dictators bad or not, need pragmatically to think by own head. Libya is too close for Europe geographically for policy in Texas cowboy style. Bombardment has already increased the flow of refugees to Europe (only on Malta it's + 1000 refugees per day), created a problem with Gaddafi (looks like that guy will fight up to the death lol), external intervention unites people even around "bad leaders", intervention increased instability in North Africa on Europe's doorstep, no one knows what to do now and how this porridge will end + Europe have a lot of muslims inside, that "small war" will probably lead to increasing of the terrorist threat in Europe.

As for "bad dictator which killing own people", look at Sunni Saudi Arabian Peninsula, all countries there are dictatorships. The difference is only that they are in "alliance" with the "West" (selling oil and a tool against Shiite Iran). But these Arab oil monarchies have nothing common with "democracy" at all.

Elias2
24-03-11, 22:53
Anton it seems like what you're most against is the illegal immigration. Let me put two senarios to you.

First senario, which you seem to like. Dictators stay in power forever, all rebelions are crushed because they have no support and people see no future in their country so they immigrate illegaly to europe.

Second senario. When the rebels rise up you support them and help the people instill a viable democracy. There will be immigration at the start but when they see optimism in their countries future they stay to make it better.

Both ways there will be immigration but the second there will be alot less in the long run. The problem in europe is made worse by the inactivity of the EU governments to do anything about it. Force deportations for illegals is a solution I don't see being taken seriously.

And again with the gulf countries. Any intervention there will drag Iran into it and that war will come later.

Anton, Bear's den
25-03-11, 00:24
Elias2
No need to represent the world in white and black colours.


First senario, which you seem to like. Dictators stay in power forever, all rebelions are crushed because they have no support and people see no future in their country so they immigrate illegaly to europe.
No need to support a dictator. But the direct military intervention is a mistake. If USA, Britain & France so much care about Libyan guerrillas and their prospects then just send them weapons, without direct interference. Even if Qaddafi wins then he will be scared and will undertake some reforms in sake of own safety/stability.


Second senario. When the rebels rise up you support them and help the people instill a viable democracy. There will be immigration at the start but when they see optimism in their countries future they stay to make it better.
LMAO that's a fairytale. Did you see these "democratic rebels" on the TV??? They look like bunch of terrorists with ak47's shooting in the air lol
What about democracy in Iraq? Do you know that USA & Britain killed more people than Saddam Hussein almost in 2 times? Do you know that in Iraq right now puppet regime that goes the same way that Saddam with 60% unemployment rate and daily terrorist attacks?
Afghanistan is democracy? No, for 10 years results are zero. NATO control 10% territory of Afghanistan and these Afghan security forces which must replace NATO forces in the long term are totally unfit for action. Production of drugs increased in 40 times according to UN after NATO intervention. A lot of them goes to Russia and even in bigger numbers to Europe.

Yes I am against illegal immigration

edao
25-03-11, 01:56
One thing about all this that seems to be unclear is what exactly is going on in Libya. I have heard people refer to the situation as civil war and others describe it as a regime attacking its own people. They are two very different things.

If this is indeed a civil war then that makes UN intervention very dubious as we are taking sides in a civil conflict.

If it is just Gaddafi and his small support attacking the people brave enough to stand up against him then perhaps it can be justified.

If there are a significant number of Libians still supporting Gaddafi then the west has got itself into a very difficult situation. Gaddafi is no stranger to propaganda.

The UN resolution has nothing to do with a democratic outcome Gaddafi's dictatorship has nothing to do with the action taken. Its only about stopping a regime killing its own people, but if that regime is one side of a civil war its not that simple.

We have also seem other regimes in the middle east kill its own people most of them have a pretty good record, it never warranted a UN resolution in the past.

how yes no 2
25-03-11, 02:20
Europeans should stay out of civil war in Libya...

Elias2
25-03-11, 02:30
Elias2
No need to represent the world in white and black colours.


No need to support a dictator. But the direct military intervention is a mistake. If USA, Britain & France so much care about Libyan guerrillas and their prospects then just send them weapons, without direct interference. Even if Qaddafi wins then he will be scared and will undertake some reforms in sake of own safety/stability.


LMAO that's a fairytale. Did you see these "democratic rebels" on the TV??? They look like bunch of terrorists with ak47's shooting in the air lol
What about democracy in Iraq? Do you know that USA & Britain killed more people than Saddam Hussein almost in 2 times? Do you know that in Iraq right now puppet regime that goes the same way that Saddam with 60% unemployment rate and daily terrorist attacks?
Afghanistan is democracy? No, for 10 years results are zero. NATO control 10% territory of Afghanistan and these Afghan security forces which must replace NATO forces in the long term are totally unfit for action. Production of drugs increased in 40 times according to UN after NATO intervention. A lot of them goes to Russia and even in bigger numbers to Europe.

Yes I am against illegal immigration

I'm against illegal immigration as well, and I'm not looking at the world in black and white.

Iraq is a democracy now, and if you look at who was doing the killing during the iraq conflict it was the sunni and shias killing each other and the kurds fighting for independance against the first two. This is old islamic civil war I don't think america did their homework about.

Afghanistan is not a democracy because of pakistan and Iran supporting the terrorists.

Just giving the rebels weapons won't work because they lack organization against a mercenary army, they have no air force or tanks either. Ashton, if we didn't intervien these rebels would have been killed or "dissapeared" no doubt, and when then is kadafi suppose to be taken from power after that?

I guess you are going to be against the upcomming conflict with Iran over their nuclear project aswell if you don't like this one.

how yes no 2
25-03-11, 03:36
I am not surprised that in stereotyped media representation of a conflict, a side in conflict is represented as "civilians" - as that happened before ( e.g. look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_scokGJga8c )
but I find it hard to cope with use of term civilians for a rebel army that has or had a fighter jet....

Anton, Bear's den
25-03-11, 21:53
Iraq is a democracy now. I know one thing, I don't want such Iraqi version of "democracy" here in Russia.
and if you look at who was doing the killing during the iraq conflict it was the sunni and shias killing each other and the kurds fighting for independance against the first two. This is old islamic civil war I don't think america did their homework about.
No one cares about details, like it or not, but there died damned enormous number of people and the results of "democratization" (if we speak softly) are "questionable".


Afghanistan is not a democracy because of pakistan and Iran supporting the terrorists. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, it's a mountain shithole/quagmire with islamic barbarians inside. Their "capital" Kabul don't control anything and "nation's economy" is drug laboratories. You'll never win there by military force regardless of who helps to Taliban. Soviets lost and NATO will fail soon too, the gradual withdrawal of troops has already been assigned.


Just giving the rebels weapons won't work because they lack organization against a mercenary army, they have no air force or tanks either. They have air force and tanks too, I watched it in TV news. They even have multiple launch rocket systems "Град / shower of hail" (http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/107/31vv.jpg). The question only in which numbers... Funny, but right now in Russia last 2 thousands of ancient T-55 and T-62 tanks from Soviet warehouses going to cancellation, for operating them the training in general is not necessary lol can sell with big discount for "democratic rebels" :laughing:


I guess you are going to be against the upcomming conflict with Iran over their nuclear project aswell if you don't like this one. That's right and I begin to understand why Iran wants a nuclear bomb :lmao:Iran don't want to go through forced arse democratization :laughing:.
If seriously, I personally don't think that Iran is a threat for Europe, Russia, USA or Canada. There is primitive theocracy regime and some disturbing screams to Israel, but don't think that they are completely crazy. Iran has a lot of unhappy people inside, the fall of theocratic regime just matter of time. No need to attack anybody.

Elias2
26-03-11, 05:49
I care about details, you should too, or else it is you who looks at things in black and white.

Iran with a nuke is not good, they already ship arms to terrorist organizations as it is, we don't needs another nuclear terrorist group, we already have one (pakistan).

And the Libyan rebels don't have any sort of tanks or airforce, they can bearly shoot their weapons they scavenge, but I guess they should all die because they don't want to live in a dictatorship anymore and have the courage to stand up to a 40 year tyrant. We should sit back and watch with popcorn in our hands.

This isn't a "forced" democratization either, this is a grass roots movement.

Anton, Bear's den
26-03-11, 12:47
I care about details, you should too.
Blind justification of military invasions with many victims and unpleasant consequences is not show of concern about details. Here is pretty simple, in Iraq was a stable dictatorship, yes brutal, yes with the suppression of freedoms, yes with "bad guy" at power. But Saddam Hussein was a product of the Iraqi society, its traditions, religion, level of development, etc. It is impossible to make someone happy by force, especially if under good intentions are hiding hypocrisy and banal searching of benefits.
Everything will just back into starting point. New "democratic government" of Iraq already cheated in the elections at last time which caused riots and it will again. Crusade of democratizators turned it in worse situation. Anyway, majority of Iraqis will not say "thanks" to you, there even dangerous to walk in the streets without protection.
Afghanistan the same, Hamid Karzai (president formally) is corrupted and cheating in the elections, he have nickname among own people "President of Kabul" (president of one city lol).

or else it is you who looks at things in black and white.
No, I am not divide the world into "good" and "bad" guys/countries/regimes like you do. All this pursuit of democracy reminds me about crusaders and people which call for intervention looks like Roman Catholic priests 800 years ago. There also was total hypocrisy from start and up to finish. You know, during the fourth crusade the "knights of god" violated a deal with the Byzantine Empire and attacked Christian Constantinople (because of gold in the city, not high ideals or something). Here is the same.
It's easy to rant from Canada because your country on the other end of the globe, but Libya, Iran, etc. not so far from Russia, Europe. You can invade any country if will take care about all problems by yourself. I bet Italians be glad to transport all new arrived African refugees to Canada/USA. They will do it for for free, just call them :laughing:

Iran with a nuke is not good, they already ship arms to terrorist organizations as it is, we don't needs another nuclear terrorist group, we already have one (pakistan).
That's right, where the hell were USA, NATO, Canada and other today's anti-Iran loudmouths when other - uneducated, extremely religious and unstable country called "Pakistan", developed nukes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)???

And the Libyan rebels don't have any sort of tanks or airforce, they can bearly shoot their weapons they scavenge, but I guess they should all die because they don't want to live in a dictatorship anymore and have the courage to stand up to a 40 year tyrant. We should sit back and watch with popcorn in our hands.
LMAO You reading thoughts in my head :laughing:

this is a grass roots movement. I would not be so sure about this. More looks like many Libyans supports Gaddafi, minority against. Otherwise, he already would be kicked out.

Aconform
26-03-11, 15:26
I’m for supporting the movement that some of the Libyan people have started to remove the dictator.

We have played a role in helping to keep him there. The sale of weapons was only just stopped to him. In dealing with him we have in a way supported him. So in an indirect way we have supported the oppression of the people.

If we don’t help them now they would have good reason to hate the western countries.

At lest this way we can make it up to them and plant the seeds of good relation with them in the future.

Anton, Bear's den
27-03-11, 00:53
I’m for supporting the movement that some of the Libyan people have started to remove the dictator.

We have played a role in helping to keep him there. The sale of weapons was only just stopped to him. In dealing with him we have in a way supported him. So in an indirect way we have supported the oppression of the people.

If we don’t help them now they would have good reason to hate the western countries.

At lest this way we can make it up to them and plant the seeds of good relation with them in the future.

Always nice to hear different opinions, comrade :grin:

But I bet now already 2 Canadians hate me :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Elias2
27-03-11, 01:09
Anton, you would have a different opinion if you were a kurd living in sadams Iraq. Or a lybian taken to the secret polices jail never to see your family again, or the palestinian boy who was jailed for life because he bloged about the constraints of islam. Or the women in Iran who will be killed because a man raped her. Or the armenian journalist who was shot and killed in istanbul for writing about the armenian genocide.

You can`t seem to picture yourself in other peoples shoes. I don`t hate you I just think you are ignorant.

LeBrok
27-03-11, 03:23
Good points Elias, thanks.

Antigone
27-03-11, 07:24
You can`t seem to picture yourself in other peoples shoes. I don`t hate you I just think you are ignorant.

Wow, thats a bit strong. I'd say we are all ignorant here, as in the comfort and security of our western life none of us can possibly know or fully imagine what it is to live in Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Armenia, Libya nor what it is to be in any of the situations you describe. All we can know is what any media chooses to tell us, which is at best, not the complete picture or at worst, inaccurate and form our opinions accordingly.

LeBrok
27-03-11, 07:44
I think Elias was appealing for a little compassion from Anton. :)
Big Bear is not ignorant but rather cynical young man.

Anton, Bear's den
27-03-11, 12:38
Yes my views pretty cynical and based on national interests of Russia and where is possible for European brothers too, I think it's much better than "holiness" in Elias2 style. That nice that we have such people like Elias2 on our planet, but not sure that politics work on such rails. Policies are generally pretty cynical and hypocritical. Lybia is nice example.

I have suggested that Sarkozy decided to go to war just because he wants to be re-elected a second time. Latest preelection in France showed that he is not enough popular, his competitors more popular than his party so he need short victorious war to show that he kinda second "De Gaulle".
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/03/20113713536262847.html
Also, the weapons which use Gaddafi is not all from Soviet Union, there is a lot of Western weapons as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6928880.stm
British always were 1000% pragmatics, they got involved likely due to commercial interests.
http://www.channel4.com/news/libyan-oil-where-does-it-go
Some people in German government think that war is hypocritical
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753126,00.html
And some other people too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqAhzAHU9hk

For Elias2 and others who very fears for civilians. Pictures show the price of "democratization" in Iraq:
http://www.usinfo.ru/iraqgallery.htm
http://www.usinfo.ru/iraqgallery3.htm
http://www.infowars.com/will-the-us-government-accept-responsibility-for-the-slaughter-of-over-1000000-iraqis/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRfkUGiR-s

Elias2
27-03-11, 14:47
@ anton

I can't read cyrillic, but presenting those pics like that doesn't tell me how they sustained those injuries. Maybe you are trying to present it in a way that blames america for it? or was it suicide blasts that caused them? sunni vs shia infighting? tribal warfare? kurdish independance infighting?

@Antigone

What you wrote is precisly why you shouldn't take what you see in the media as hard fact and should do you own "triangulation" of media sources. You get a better picture of the situation if you analyze 3 or 4 different articles based on the same event and see the inherent biases of each secondary source. You will find an article will completely leave out some facts while others don't, and some will just plain make things up and try to pass them as facts!!! As an example; the article anton posted:

http://www.infowars.com/will-the-us-government-accept-responsibility-for-the-slaughter-of-over-1000000-iraqis/

This doesn't tell you much besides a large number, so you need to ask how did they arrive at these numbers? Maybe I'm trained this way from school but it's how I form my opinions. Oh and don't take what you see on Youtube as fact, that is a hotbed of every kind of homemade propaganda ever evented lol

Another thing I've noticed about a certain media is the difference between aljazera (sp.) english vs arabic services. I have a palestinian girlfriend and when I go over to her house and watch the arabic services its pretty funny how much fabrication is on that channel, and the length they go to to demonize a certain country, it's the fox news of the middle east! She even told me a week ago that she heard from arabic aljezera that Libya hired Isreali planes to bomb the civilians and that it wasn't arabs that were kiling arabs. Lets just say i don't take that news source very seriously anymore.

update: The rebels are having success moving westward in Libya!! gogo rebels! :)

Elias2
27-03-11, 15:14
I have a question for anton. If you concider yourself a patriotic Russian and want whats best for russia, would it be in russias best interest if it grows a better relationship, if not with america, but with the EU? I think it would be a great mutually beneficial relationship. I know Russia and America are not the best of pals even on good days, but it is not like France goes blindly to where america tells them to go like Britain does. So shouldn't Russia support a more french position rather than an american in general geo-politics?

how yes no 2
27-03-11, 15:24
update: The rebels are having success moving westward in Libya!! gogo rebels! :)

aren't rebels just renegade part of army (equipped with fighter jets and cannons) led by Al-Kaida ideologists? I think that this is civil war between part of army loyal to dictator and part of army being loyal to islamic fanatics.....In my opinion, Gadaffi is far better solution for Libya than some Al-Kaida fanatics..... in 40 years of his rule, Libya went transition from poor country to country with very high living standard... after this bombing democratisation, I expect to see that standard of those people goes rapidly down... as it happened in Serbia after one decade of indirect war with NATO and 3 months of direct war with NATO...

well, in Serbia besides targeting zillion of decoy tanks and military infrastructure, bombing did also target factories (also chemical factories, medicine factories, oil raphineries...) resulting in big ecological and economical damage, it did target bridges (also in mid of settled areas), TV stations (with people inside), petrol stations (regardless of civilians using them), trains, infrastructure objects, goverment buildings (also in centers of towns), a large building block of a small town was flattened with ground (probably to illustrate being serious about threats with carpet bombing unless Serbia surrenders and give Kosovo), and even Chinese embassy in Belgrade was hit as well... that is all civil infrastructure very far from areas where ground battles were between Serb forces and Kosovo rebel army (also represented as civilians in mass media even though they were enlisted as terrorist organisation on official USA lists till shortly before war) ...

I do not expect that list of targets in Libya will be milder... in fact, as it is not Europe, I think bombing will thoroughly flatten everything that was built during Gadaffi reign.... not to mention that in bombing of Serbia, deplepted uranium ammunition was used.... again, in Serbia use of that ammunition was somewhat limited because it is in Europe... I think Libya can only get more.... actually, I am wondering whether somewhat elevated radiation in Europe is due to Japan nuclear power plant collapse or due to Libya conflict...

if that is the way you imagine helping civilians, you are insane....

Vallicanus
27-03-11, 15:42
aren't rebels just renegade part of army led by Al-Kaida ideologists?
In my opinion, Gadaffi is far better solution for Libya than some Al-Kaida fanatics..... in 40 years of his rule, Libya went transition from poor country to country with very high living standard... after this bombing democratisation, I expect to see that standard of those people goes rapidly down... as it happened in Serbia after one decade of indirect war with NATO and 3 months of direct war with NATO...

well, in Serbia besides targeting zillion of decoy tanks and military infrastructure, bombing did also target factories (also chemical factories, medicine factories, oil raphineries...) resulting in big ecological and economical damage, it did target bridges (also in mid of settled areas), TV stations (with people inside), petrol stations (regardless of civilians using them), trains, infrastructure objects, goverment buildings (also in centers of towns), a large building block of a small town was flattened with ground (probably to illustrate being serious about threats with carpet bombing unless Serbia surrenders and give Kosovo), and even Chinese embassy in Belgrade was hit as well... that is all civil infrastructure very far from areas where ground battles were between Serb forces and Kosovo rebel army (also represented as civilians in mass media even though they were enlisted as terrorist organisation on official USA lists till shortly before war) ...

I do not expect that list of targets in Libya will be milder... in fact, as it is not Europe, I think bombing will thoroughly flatten everything that was built during Gadaffi reign.... not to mention that in bombing of Serbia, deplepted uranium ammunition was used.... again, in Serbia use of that ammunition was somewhat limited because it is in Europe... I think Libya can only get more....

if that is a way you imagine helping civilians, you are insane....


The Anglo-Americans are just short-term minded boneheads who look only to a quick dollar.
It's been that way for centuries and nothing will change any time soon.:innocent:

how yes no 2
27-03-11, 16:38
The Anglo-Americans are just short-term minded boneheads who look only to a quick dollar.
It's been that way for centuries and nothing will change any time soon.:innocent:

I guess you are right... but I would rather generalize this issue as characteristic of politicians and not so much of Anglo-Americans in particular.... ordinary people are never asked whether they want war.... though they need to let to be convinced via media that some particular war is good and righteous.... politicians pretty much everywhere are short-term minded boneheads who look only to earn quick money.... if they can do that by war, they will do it by war...

I do not think that situation would be any better if e.g. Russia or China or whoever would be leading superpower..... 'Stronger gets all' was always the rule, and human history is history of wars, and all wars are in bottom line about money...

there is only need to give romantic story to the ones who will actually participate in war so that they are well motivated and convinced they are doing good....and in modern times, romantic story of doing good (while in fact doing bad) is needed for the voters... and voters are willing to be persuaded that it is not about money.... bombing "bad guys" gives them higher self-image by making them proud to belong to such "righteous" and "noble" nation that "serve good causes", although what is done in their name is in fact often something to be ashamed of...

colonial powers used to convince their citizens that they are doing good to enslave other people as they are in fact "bringing civilization" to them... evil intentions are always masked as good /righteous ones.... other way they would not get much support...

though, in a country that in its past suffered a lot from being invaded, it might be harder to convince people that the war started in their name against some far away people is 'righteous'

Anton, Bear's den
27-03-11, 18:51
@ anton

I can't read cyrillic, but presenting those pics like that doesn't tell me how they sustained those injuries. Maybe you are trying to present it in a way that blames america for it? or was it suicide blasts that caused them? sunni vs shia infighting? tribal warfare? kurdish independance infighting?

The ugly kids are result of depleted uranium in the shells which is forbidden by UN, but of course this rule is not for USA military. Killed and tortured people are from prisons in Iraq, such as Abu Ghraib prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Central_Prison). Others are simple Iraqis. You can see US soldiers on many photos, I think it such kind of bragging about "achievements" to show buddies at homeland.
I am not anti-USA at all, but that is disgusting. When some people call for interfere in the affairs of other countries, they must keep consequences in the mind.


I have a question for anton. If you concider yourself a patriotic Russian and want whats best for russia, would it be in russias best interest if it grows a better relationship, if not with america, but with the EU? I think it would be a great mutually beneficial relationship. I know Russia and America are not the best of pals even on good days, but it is not like France goes blindly to where america tells them to go like Britain does. So shouldn't Russia support a more french position rather than an american in general geo-politics?

EU have not total political unity, France goes in Lybia just because personal interest of the president, not because of Brussels, European solidarity or something else. There is no bridle on national governments in Europe. It can be seen with the naked eye. And the same story with all others national governments. Problem for my European comrades that singly they have low influence in modern world regardless from volume of their common GDP. This is a weakness.
That have not sense to support France now. Sarkozy is ok guy, but at this time his initiativeness can play with him a bad role. Libya may be a new swamp; that country built on a medieval tribal system, undeveloped and easy can turn into new radical islam nest right on the Europe's doorstep after Gaddafi overthrow. That also remind me about civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War) in Algeria.

Russia have relations with Europe, we their 3rd trade partner and they are our 1st. For historical reasons, relations with Western Europe is better than with some countries of eastern, but it changing. With Europe is hard to cooperate because of their constantly contradictory positions, 28-30 different voices :thinking:

About links which I give sometimes. I am not pretend on 100% truth in these links, 100% truth sources are don't exist. But some information can be taken on a note. Everyone decides for himself.

Mzungu mchagga
28-03-11, 00:34
Anton, you would have a different opinion if you were a kurd living in sadams Iraq. Or a lybian taken to the secret polices jail never to see your family again, or the palestinian boy who was jailed for life because he bloged about the constraints of islam. Or the women in Iran who will be killed because a man raped her. Or the armenian journalist who was shot and killed in istanbul for writing about the armenian genocide.

You can`t seem to picture yourself in other peoples shoes. I don`t hate you I just think you are ignorant.

The examples you've mentioned don't say anything about the form of their governments.

Do you believe, that when democracy in those countries is established, all of a sudden also all other cultural values of it's people will be replaced? That tradition, family honour, religious fanatism, ethnic awareness, corruption etc... won't count anymore? Of course, us Western countries can force democratic governments with Western laws on top of these states after an armed conflict. The question is, will they get the major support of the population needed to stay strong? Plus, will those guys who are in charge for defending the laws [police, court etc...] be all of a sudden replaced, or alternatively brainwashed that they forget about their previous habits?

I might be a little naive, but from my life experience so far I consider it also as very naive to believe that all problems will be solved when we simply impose our laws of our values, which without doubt work best in our countries, on countries of completely different cultural background.

Just because someone stands up against a tyrant, which is very reasonable and normal I guess, doesn't mean he necessarily opposes authoritarian governments. Or even better: rather sees himself in place of the tyrant! I know this sounds very pessimistic, but it is what I've experienced in similiar places. And I really do believe that the majority of rebels fighting Ghadaffi seriously didn't think about democracy in first place when they called for help, but primarily of getting rid of a freak only.

I know this is no reason to give up hope, try the best we can and continue with promoting/fostering our types of governments to the rest of the world. But how many times shall we fly in the sky with a plane and crash over and over again, until we realize we need get back to ground from time to time and fuel the plane?

Elias2
28-03-11, 02:57
The examples you've mentioned don't say anything about the form of their governments.

Yes it does, and they showcase their governments attitudes very well.



Do you believe, that when democracy in those countries is established, all of a sudden also all other cultural values of it's people will be replaced? That tradition, family honour, religious fanatism, ethnic awareness, corruption etc... won't count anymore? Of course, us Western countries can force democratic governments with Western laws on top of these states after an armed conflict. The question is, will they get the major support of the population needed to stay strong? Plus, will those guys who are in charge for defending the laws [police, court etc...] be all of a sudden replaced, or alternatively brainwashed that they forget about their previous habits?

Of course I don't think everythign will be rainbows and sunshine if Kadafi goes. But the thing is, any foot foward is progress. The middle east as a whole cannot progress because they are stuck with tyrants and a stangnant social sphere, on top of religious fanatics promoting medieval ideas.

Lebanon is a good example of what a semi-free arab country can produce. Here is a famous arab singer Haifa who is often cited as being "slutty" by other arabs but is none-the-less able to perform like she wants because she if free to do so. I dought other arab countries would let a women do what she does. Here is a vid other guys might like for other reasons showing a Haifa performance :grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mebNNtuF7c

This is an arab country and you can see how normal arabs can be when they are free to express themselves.

Antigone
28-03-11, 07:26
Not sure what you mean by "Arab" country? Do you mean Muslim?

Only 54% of the population of Lebanon is Muslim, 41% Christian and 5% Durze.

Mzungu mchagga
28-03-11, 10:06
Yes it does, and they showcase their governments attitudes very well.



Of course I don't think everythign will be rainbows and sunshine if Kadafi goes. But the thing is, any foot foward is progress. The middle east as a whole cannot progress because they are stuck with tyrants and a stangnant social sphere, on top of religious fanatics promoting medieval ideas.

Lebanon is a good example of what a semi-free arab country can produce. Here is a famous arab singer Haifa who is often cited as being "slutty" by other arabs but is none-the-less able to perform like she wants because she if free to do so. I dought other arab countries would let a women do what she does. Here is a vid other guys might like for other reasons showing a Haifa performance :grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mebNNtuF7c

This is an arab country and you can see how normal arabs can be when they are free to express themselves.


Sorry but this comparison really is crap!

In Spain the age of sexual consent is 13.
In Malta the age of sexual consent is 18.
In Belarus the age of sexual consent is 16.

Spain is a constitutional monarchy.
Malta is a parliamentary republic.
Belarus is a dictatorship.

What this has to do with the other? I don't know, but according to your logic there should be a connection between the form of government and the law given. Prior to 2003, South Carolina, Arkansas and Michigan forbid oral sex, while Russia even legalizes bestiality today. Do you think all Arab women will all of a sudden unveil when fair elections are introduced? In most of these muslim countries it is Qu'ran that sets the veil laws, not the state law.

Elias2
28-03-11, 13:57
@ antigone

Arab as a people not a religious group. So arab muslims/christians/whatever. More of a linguistic identification I guess.

@Mzungu

You totaly missed my point! lol I was never talking about sex! I was giving an example of the liberalization of an arab country over time when they are free to do what they want. If other arab countries get to the point where lebanon is now that is a step in the right direction. :good_job: You also don't the massive immigration to get out of lebanon.

Mzungu mchagga
28-03-11, 15:13
@ antigone

Arab as a people not a religious group. So arab muslims/christians/whatever. More of a linguistic identification I guess.

@Mzungu

You totaly missed my point! lol I was never talking about sex! I was giving an example of the liberalization of an arab country over time when they are free to do what they want. If other arab countries get to the point where lebanon is now that is a step in the right direction. :good_job: You also don't the massive immigration to get out of lebanon.

Nope, you are missing my point!
I wanted to show how personal liberalization has [I]nothing to do with political liberalization. The problem is that you are equaling both versions, assuming that when people have more political rights, they will automatically also introduce more personal freedom in everyday life.

It is true that authoritarian regimes usually put more restrictions on their subjects to make them more obedient. It is also true that some Muslim countries link their constitutions strongly to the Sharia, but these nations are a minority among them. As I said, it is not compelling. Just look at Libya: Gadhaffi was by no way a strong Muslim and based his laws strongly on Islam. Some women in Libya are veiled, some are unveiled. Gadhaffi's amazon bodyguards were unveiled, too. And I guess this relation of veiled/unveiled women in Libya won't change after a new government is placed. You can also have a presidential democratic system in which the people choose to put stricter laws on personal rights closely related to moral [that's why I took oral sex in some states of the US as one example]. On the other hand, former East Germany was a communist dictatorship, but it was much more tolerant and liberal in regards of public nudity than West Germany was.

And btw, if you don't distinguish between Christian and Muslim Arabs and their attitude towards liberalization, that is stupid, too! A Christian Arab woman wouldn't even wear a veil, without further discussion. And she would be more open towards lighter clothing, too. It seems to me you have never been to a Muslim country in your life, and it seems to me you've hardly been outside the place where you live right now in general.

Antigone
28-03-11, 16:41
You also don't the massive immigration to get out of lebanon.

Well you do, especially when the Israelis go beserk. Possibly they don't generally head to Canada, but there are thousands of Lebanese immigrants/former refugees in Australia (the UK too I think), both Muslim and Christian. I had many Lebanese friends at school, lovely people.

Mzungu mchagga
28-03-11, 16:51
Yeah, I've actually forgot to mention that the Lebanese provide the second largest Arab immigration group in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_Berlin
Ironically I live just around the corner of a Lebanese fast food restaurant where I used to buy my falafl *lol*

Elias2
28-03-11, 16:52
Muslim women don't all wear the vail either if they don't want to. And christian women wear vails in muslims countries because of social pressures, look at the coptic christians in egypt who are discriminated against daily because they are suppressed by the laws of their government!! They have to wear vails when they go outside to the market. Societal norms won't change instantly if a government structure is changed, but if you allow people the freedom to do what they want without threats of violence or suppresion liberalization will occur gradually and I used Lebanon as an example with the star haifi who is by the way a muslim women. This goes both with muslims and christians. If Egypt does become a democracy and the Copts form their own political party you can very well expect less discrimination pressed on them.

Oh and all muslims majority coutnries all have some form of sharia built into their laws, even turkey who is seen as a "modern" muslim nation. Looks at article 301 of the Turkish penal code, can't insult islam, turkishness (whatever that is) or the government, and is still used on journalists and liberal outspeakers.

I think what we really are discussing here is whether muslims can become liberal in the way europeans see liberalism. Lebanon could very well be a special case because of the large christian presence there.


I live in Toronto so I have plenty of muslim experiences, so please no Ad hominem attacks. Though I can't say I like what I hear from most of them when I discuss certain matters with them.:thinking:

Elias2
28-03-11, 16:55
Well you do, especially when the Israelis go beserk. Possibly they don't generally head to Canada, but there are thousands of Lebanese immigrants/former refugees in Australia (the UK too I think), both Muslim and Christian. I had many Lebanese friends at school, lovely people.

Well thats just an example of immigration due to war and not due to escaping repression by their government. Europeans are understandably fed up with illegal immigration of poor and religious individuals. I think maybe more pressure should be put on your own governments to change theri policies about hosuing these people and maybe should eye the option of forced deportation.

Mzungu mchagga
28-03-11, 17:08
Muslim women don't all wear the vail either if they don't want to. And christian women wear vails in muslims countries because of social pressures, look at the coptic christians in egypt who are discriminated against daily because they are suppressed by the laws of their government!! They have to wear vails when they go outside to the market. Societal norms won't change instantly if a government structure is changed, but if you allow people the freedom to do what they want without threats of violence or suppresion liberalization will occur gradually and I used Lebanon as an example with the star haifi who is by the way a muslim women. This goes both with muslims and christians. If Egypt does become a democracy and the Copts form their own political party you can very well expect less discrimination pressed on them.

Oh and all muslims majority coutnries all have some form of sharia built into their laws, even turkey who is seen as a "modern" muslim nation. Looks at article 301 of the Turkish penal code, can't insult islam, turkishness (whatever that is) or the government, and is still used on journalists and liberal outspeakers.

I think what we really are discussing here is whether muslims can become liberal in the way europeans see liberalism. Lebanon could very well be a special case because of the large christian presence there.


I live in Toronto so I have plenty of muslim experiences, so please no Ad hominem attacks. Though I can't say I like what I hear from most of them when I discuss certain matters with them.:thinking:

Ok, now I think I got your point of view and think we've got closer to the opinion of governmet vs. values of society. I don't fully agree that liberalization will occor gradually as you said (some countries are having a Muslim revival), but don't want to deny it violently either. But one question still remains, how realistic do you think it is to install a pure secular constitution in a predominantly Muslim country, with getting the support of the whole nation plus the people who strongly protect these laws? And moreover, in how far is it desirable for us (Westeners) to do so?

Antigone
28-03-11, 17:52
Ok, now I think I got your point of view and think we've got closer to the opinion of governmet vs. values of society. I don't fully agree that liberalization will occor gradually as you said (some countries are having a Muslim revival), but don't want to deny it violently either. But one question still remains, how realistic do you think it is to install a pure secular constitution in a predominantly Muslim country, with getting the support of the whole nation plus the people who strongly protect these laws? And moreover, in how far is it desirable for us (Westeners) to do so?

And if we impose on or pressurise others to accept western political and social idealologies are we any better than those repressive governments (whether religious or political) currently in power?

Elias2
28-03-11, 17:58
Questions like those I don't really know an obvious answer for. I think the current situation needs to change though, especially in terms of the illegal imigration as a result of the political climate in the east.

Strick immigration laws are an answer and forced deportations could be used to stop the inflow and more importantly showcase that Europe will not tolerate the disrespect that illegals shows to their political boarders. I'm defenatly not a saint like Anton said, but this issue of illegal immigrations, which is the obvious top concern for europe, needs to be looked at in "push" and "pull" factors. What is pulling these people to risk their lives to come to the EU? and what is pushing them from inside their own countries to come?

The Pull factor are obviously the social welfare state Europe has, and economic possibilities not available in their home country. Push factors can include repression from their government, lack of econommic opportunities, and depression, and war.

Europe needs to tackle this problem at two fronts, domestically and externally. Domestically with strick immigration laws, and externally to support the people in muslims countries who want to improve their state. I think this is the benifit for europe. The world is so interconnected today I don't think its possible to just ignore the problems of your neighbours because it will eventually spill over onto you.

Antigone
28-03-11, 18:10
Well thats just an example of immigration due to war and not due to escaping repression by their government. Europeans are understandably fed up with illegal immigration of poor and religious individuals. I think maybe more pressure should be put on your own governments to change theri policies about hosuing these people and maybe should eye the option of forced deportation.

Easier said than done. In the meantime who pays to round-up and then feed, clothe, accommodate, give medical care and educate the children whilst all the illegal immigrants are processed. And then who pays for their transportation costs back to their country of origin, assuming that that country will even accept them back of course. Unless you are suggesting they should be thrown back into the sea?

Possibly next time anyone advocates the bombing of a country they should consider that there is always someone else who has to clean up and pay for the mess created.

Elias2
28-03-11, 18:34
Easier said than done. In the meantime who pays to round-up and then feed, clothe, accommodate, give medical care and educate the children whilst all the illegal immigrants are processed. And then who pays for their transportation costs back to their country of origin, assuming that that country will even accept them back of course. Unless you are suggesting they should be thrown back into the sea?

Possibly next time anyone advocates the bombing of a country they should consider that there is always someone else who has to clean up and pay for the mess created.

Well, to be honest, this problem did not just pop up out of no where. Illegal imigration to europe has been going on for a decade now and only now has the issue really started to get serious attention. If such policies been in place form the start there would not be such a huge cost involved, but better late then never!

Antigone
28-03-11, 19:25
No that is not quite true, illegal immigration has always been paid serious attention and various methods in dealing with it have been tried, the lastest method has proved effective only in some countries. But policies do not stop the people coming you know, it doesn't involve waving a piece of paper headed Policy and the problem disappears somehow along with the cost of it all. No, they still come and bombing Libya has only made it worse. As I said above, in the meantime they still need feeding etc etc.

It is not so black and white, nothing ever is. But perhaps you have never been there whilst half drowned men, women and children have been dragged out of a stormy sea in the middle of the night?

Elias2
28-03-11, 21:17
I didn't say it wouldn't cost anything, I said if stricker rules were laid out a long time ago it wouldn't cost so much right now. Look you can either just complain about the problem or you can do something about it. Why do you take responcibility when people die entering greece antigone? it was their decision to make the journey. It really shoudn't be greeces responcibility to handle all these people, nor should it be greece's responcibilty to pay for social services for these poeple.

Aconform
28-03-11, 21:21
Antigone.

EU was paying Libya to take care of the problem. And it’s easy to deal with as there is no Refuge status in Libyan law. So good old daffy could do what he wanted with them.

Also the cost that Italy and Greece has is paid by Joint EU expense account in dealing with this problem

Antigone
29-03-11, 08:14
I didn't say it wouldn't cost anything, I said if stricker rules were laid out a long time ago it wouldn't cost so much right now. Look you can either just complain about the problem or you can do something about it. Why do you take responcibility when people die entering greece antigone? it was their decision to make the journey. It really shoudn't be greeces responcibility to handle all these people, nor should it be greece's responcibilty to pay for social services for these poeple.

No it is not Greece's nor Europes responsibility but it is still a problem that has been forced on them to accept by the ill-advised action of others.

I think you are missing (deliberately?) the point and pontificating on the rights and wrongs of the problem really doesn't help nor does it deal with the practicalities. Policies do not stop and have never stopped the people coming, refugees do not know of nor do they care what governments in Europe decide.

More often than not refugees don't even have identification papers, mostly their papers are deliberately lost because they know they can't be sent back without them. Officially these people do not exist and unless they and their children are to be thrown back into the sea something has to be done to keep them until it is sorted, if it ever is sorted that is. It is an aspect of the problem that is not solved with "policies".

Antigone
29-03-11, 08:26
Antigone.
EU was paying Libya to take care of the problem. And it’s easy to deal with as there is no Refuge status in Libyan law. So good old daffy could do what he wanted with them.
Also the cost that Italy and Greece has is paid by Joint EU expense account in dealing with this problem

Yes but it has become so bad that Greece can no longer cope as before and has officially requested help to deal with the amount of people. We just don't have the infrastructure for this many, not with a population of only approx. 11 million.

I haven't heard how Italy is currently managing, it is a larger country so possibly they are coping better than we are?

BTW welcome to the board Aconform.

Elias2
29-03-11, 13:05
Antigone it can be solved it's just not going to be easy, or cheap. You can figure out where a person is from using other things than an identification card. It's just going to require work.

Anton, Bear's den
29-03-11, 14:16
Here (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110328-dispatch-canadian-support-libya-intervention) is nice example of typical political thought. American agency explain why Canada support the invasion. As I said already, that's all about profit.

Relatives of Gaddafi
http://visualrian.ru/images/large/893343

BTW Canadians are shameless plagiarists :laughing: :lmao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nellIJBOW-o

Mzungu mchagga
29-03-11, 15:22
I have no clue what this discussion of immigration is about now. Did someone seriously here suggest to attack Libya, as a long range plan to stop further illegal immigration to the EU ??? Maybe the US should attack Mexico too, in order to make it a better place and prevent further immigration from that country.

Antigone
29-03-11, 16:12
Antigone it can be solved it's just not going to be easy, or cheap. You can figure out where a person is from using other things than an identification card. It's just going to require work.

Ah Elias if only it was as simple as you seem to think. The point about not having identification is not that their country of origin cannot be pinpointed, it is that their home countries will not accept the refugees back without their identification papers. Refugees know this, which is why they throw their papers into the sea. It is a catch 22 situation.

iapetoc
03-04-11, 02:59
Ah Elias if only it was as simple as you seem to think. The point about not having identification is not that their country of origin cannot be pinpointed, it is that their home countries will not accept the refugees back without their identification papers. Refugees know this, which is why they throw their papers into the sea. It is a catch 22 situation.

well that is why Greece must show Humanity?
they know the system in Greece, and there are 3 kinds of refugees
1, is the poor who want work,
2 is the criminal,
3 is the paid refugees,

in 1994 I was in North-West boarder, and I know what I am talking,
my squad only arrested 900 people in 3 months,
I could be rich as soldier cause many of them, mainly 2nd and 3rd gave 1-2 000 $ just to leave them pass,
so the problem is bigger,
cause specially 3rd kind has money and spend, just to take a Eu Identity etc
3rd kind also are clerics, teachers, etc and people who immigrate and get paid by some countries

Don't be strange with the Idea that in 2011 the population will be more than 13 M

In a country that has 74 % unemloyment in north (municipal of Pella), and only 14% in south, what you expect?
Have you seen how these people live?
have you seen medical reports?
the second and the 3rd kind of refugees, are boosted in EU,
with the new laws, in 5-10 Years Greece will be New Mexico of Europe,
a devastastion Entry, the small island before N York Ellis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4wzVuXPznk
in 5 years a population of emigrants will spread Europe,
in modern calculation 1-2 000 000 people will enter Greece every year and in less than 3 years they will spread across Europe, as EU citizens,
same with south Italy,
besides the latest religion informations, and the new ones in a few months, will show that Greece has turn to more than 35% islamic country,

the 1rst kind are the slaves
the second are expelled criminals, or connections,
the 3rd kind are the slave masters and merchants

Antigone
03-04-11, 05:00
Thanks Iapetoc, I wasn't so much aware of the problems at the northern boarders, it is worse than I thought. I'm down south where we get the people coming across on the boats, the refugees are usually dumped in remote areas where they are looked after for a couple of days by local communities until the authorities come to take them away.

But I'm afraid that my (rather inept) attempt to explain to Elias that the refugee/illegal immigrant problem wasn't as straight forward as he was telling us has, not only taken the thread off topic but it seems to have killed the discussion also. Sorry about that everyone.

Elias2
03-04-11, 05:58
Ah Elias if only it was as simple as you seem to think. The point about not having identification is not that their country of origin cannot be pinpointed, it is that their home countries will not accept the refugees back without their identification papers. Refugees know this, which is why they throw their papers into the sea. It is a catch 22 situation.

Find out where they crossed into greece from, if turkey then make them go to the baorder and cross back. This is not hard, America does this with illegal maxicans all the time.

Antigone
03-04-11, 06:49
This is not Canada nor is it the US and I'm not going through it all again Elias, go back and read what has already been said if you want answers. Better yet, it would be easier if you just come and sort everyone out, the EU, not to mention Greece, will be very grateful.

Elias2
03-04-11, 07:09
I read alot of complaining but not alot of possible answers to the problems, nor do I remember you (antigone) suggesting anthing either than the rebels should die in lybia to stop illegal immigration :good_job:

The Greek government (any european government) can complain all day but that won't stop people from comming. Greece can build a wall on the boarder with turkey but people will still find a way over. Unless there are obvious consenquences for comming illegally, or harsh deportation laws, people will still come looking for free money.

Please share me one Idea you have antigone to stop illegal immigration.

Vallicanus
03-04-11, 09:38
Yes but it has become so bad that Greece can no longer cope as before and has officially requested help to deal with the amount of people. We just don't have the infrastructure for this many, not with a population of only approx. 11 million.

I haven't heard how Italy is currently managing, it is a larger country so possibly they are coping better than we are?

BTW welcome to the board Aconform.

Italy is far worse than Greece for the prevalence of non-Europeans even moderate-sized cities like Pisa or Brescia.

iapetoc
03-04-11, 12:45
Italy is far worse than Greece for the prevalence of non-Europeans even moderate-sized cities like Pisa or Brescia.

well Grece Italy and Spain will be the Ellis island of EU,
the strong Euro pushes immigration,
the slave merchants are stronger than we think,
so by helping Rebels in Libya the problem will not be solved,
as example in Greece with don't have Libyan emigrants but Pakistan-Iraq-Albania-Egypt

But as ideology, I believe in 2 things
1 is that no Arab should be killed by Europeans at that rebellion,
2 is to help Rebels organise them selves, and prevent Airstrikes, and can fight back Kandaffi Duck

but seems like Europeans are bombing Libya, and that is not a good point for me,

I am afraid that behind is also Oil,
in some other areas Aid was fast, in Lybia is kind of late,
probably they are trying to bargain oil production,

and that is not a good thing for me

Reinaert
03-04-11, 13:04
My o my...

How to derail from a subject.

We were discussing if Europe should interfere with the future of Libya.

Well, Libya is a rich country and has a lot of opportunities.
Oil, water, Libya is able to grow lots of food.
The point is, Daffy wanted it all for himself and his family.

So, the people revolted, like in all other Arab countries, because of the high food prices.
Daffy is an ordinary fascist/capitalist dictator, filling his own pockets.

I roamed across the internet a bit, and there are some astonishing clues.

Daffy had support from foreign mercenaries. They were hired from a company in Israel.
Go figure that!

Israeli controlled African mercenaries defend Daffy with lots of opportunities to spread terror among Libyan civilians.
Then there is Sarkozy, the president of France, and also an agent of Mossad and CIA.
Obama wants to keep clean hands, and that's why France was fooled to do the first step.
We have been tricked!
I guess the Germans had a good nose for what smells.
Israel is interested in destabilizing countries in the middle east.

The main question is.. Where does Daffy get heavy weapons from?
It really stinks!

Antigone
03-04-11, 13:12
I read alot of complaining but not alot of possible answers to the problems, nor do I remember you (antigone) suggesting anthing either than the rebels should die in lybia to stop illegal immigration :good_job:

The Greek government (any european government) can complain all day but that won't stop people from comming. Greece can build a wall on the boarder with turkey but people will still find a way over. Unless there are obvious consenquences for comming illegally, or harsh deportation laws, people will still come looking for free money.

Please share me one Idea you have antigone to stop illegal immigration.

Well you haven't had an idea simply because I have yet to give a personal opinion on illegal immigration. Merely attempted explanations of the situation here and why and how "policies" are not working, no matter how harsh they become. What I think is that the problem cannot be solved in Europe, with European policies alone because as I've said repeatedly, policies are ignorned and people keep coming. There has to be effort and co-operation at solving the problem at the source in conjunction with efforts at the destination. Treating the end result of a problem is futile because it does not solve the problem itself.

Now to suggest that I have said people should die in Libya is just plain silly. What I have said is that since the bombing has begun the illegal immigrant situation from Libya has become much worse, before the bombing it was a trickle and since the bombing it has become a flood. So, far from helping the people of Libya or anyone else concerned, the bombing only seems to have made the situation worse for the people of Libya and the people in southern Europe who have to deal with the refugees.

Canek
03-04-11, 13:19
about the lybia war, i agree with chavez and cristina kirchener the other day in argentina (in black):

------------------------------------------

TRIPOLI – Loud blasts rocked the Libyan capital Tripoli for the 11th night in a row on Tuesday as world powers vowed to press efforts to stop Moamer Kadhafi's "murderous attacks" on civilians but stopped short of proposals to send him into exile.
France is prepared to hold discussions over supplying military aid to Libyan rebels fighting Kadhafi's forces, Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said, while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that although UN sanctions prohibit the delivery of arms to the country, that ban no longer applies.
At an international conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that (UN Security Council resolution) 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition on arms to anyone in Libya, so that there could be a legitimate transfer of arms if a country should choose to do that."
Two loud explosions rocked the Libyan capital Tripoli on Tuesday evening close to Kadhafi's tightly guarded residence and military targets in the suburb of Tajura were also hit, an AFP correspondent reported.
The first explosion was heard around 1630 GMT, followed by a second some three minutes later in the Bab Al-Azizya district, and ambulance sirens were heard shortly afterwards.
At around the same time, seven other explosions were reported in the suburb of Tajura, site of several military camps and an almost-nightly target of the air raids.
A resident said planes were seen firing five missiles at a military radar installation and another reported seeing flames and a column of smoke from the site.
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told AFP that participants in the London conference of more than 40 countries and organisations, including the United Nations and NATO, had unanimously agreed that Kadhafi should leave the country.
The final statement from the talks made no mention of any possible exile, but Frattini said: "A consensus has been reached, participants at the meeting unanimously said that Kadhafi must leave the country.
"Beyond that, it depends on the country which may offer to welcome Kadhafi. There is as yet no formal proposal, no country has formulated such a plan, even the African countries which may be ready to make one."
British Foreign Minister William Hague, who chaired the conference, said the delegates "agreed that Kadhafi and his regime have completely lost legitimacy."
US military strikes on Libya have cost $550 million so far, the Pentagon said, adding that the tab was likely to increase another $40 million in the next few weeks.
Between March 19 and 28, the Defence Department spent more than 60 percent of the funds on munitions, such as missiles and bombs, with the rest going toward deploying troops and covering the costs of combat, including additional fuel needed for US aircraft and ships.
In London, Clinton and British Prime Minister David Cameron said that allied air strikes would go on until the Libyan leader met UN demands for a ceasefire.
The strongman's forces had earlier checked the westward progress of anti-regime rebels towards his hometown of Sirte, an advance which began when Britain, France and the United States started air strikes on March 19.
On Tuesday, the rebels retreated 40 kilometres (25 miles) from their frontline positions to Nofilia, 100 kilometres from Sirte, which is the next big target in their efforts to oust Kadhafi as they head west towards Tripoli.
His forces unleashed barrages of artillery fire, triggering a stampede of rebel fighters, many fleeing aboard their pickup trucks.
The London conference, which included representatives from seven Arab states plus the heads of the United Nations and NATO, was intended to map out a future for Libya following the conflict.
In his opening remarks, Cameron said the air strikes were helping to protect civilians from "murderous attacks" by Kadhafi's forces on civilians in the western rebel-held town of Misrata and said Kadhafi remained in "flagrant breach" of UN demands for a ceasefire.
"Kadhafi is using snipers to shoot them down and let them bleed to death in the street."
Tanks and troops loyal to Kadhafi swept through Misrata on Tuesday, firing shells as they attacked Libya's third city, 214 kilometres (132 miles) east of Tripoli, a rebel spokesman said. He warned of a "massacre" ahead.
A doctor in the city said 142 people had been killed and 1,400 were wounded since March 18. Rebels said a hospital ship was expected to dock Tuesday in Misrata.
Clinton told the conference that military action would continue "until Kadhafi fully complies with the terms of (UN resolution) 1973, ceases his attacks on civilians, pulls his troops back from places they have forcibly entered, and allows key services and humanitarian assistance to reach all Libyans".
But Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner denounced the bombings by a coalition of "so-called civilised" Western nations.
"When you consider that these so-called civilised countries are trying to solve problems by dropping bombs, it makes me proud to be South American," the Argentine leader told reporters during a visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"In economic terms, we've been labelled underdeveloped, second-tier countries," she said.
"But those of us from so-called uncivilised countries have succeeded to resolve our conflicts in a civilised way, through international law."
Participants agreed to set up a contact group to lead the international efforts to map out Libya's future, with the first meeting to take place in Qatar.
Ahead of the talks, Kadhafi issued a defiant letter likening the NATO-led strikes targeting his artillery and ground forces to military campaigns launched by Adolf Hitler during World War II.
"Stop your barbaric, unjust offensive on Libya," he said in the letter.
"Leave Libya for the Libyans. You are committing genocide against a peaceful people and a developing nation," he said.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/03/30/11/more-air-attacks-libya-world-powers-keep-pressure

Elias2
03-04-11, 15:01
Reinhart I wouldn't trust sources on the internet too much, especially when it demonizes israel.

Elias2
03-04-11, 15:03
Well you haven't had an idea simply because I have yet to give a personal opinion on illegal immigration. Merely attempted explanations of the situation here and why and how "policies" are not working, no matter how harsh they become. What I think is that the problem cannot be solved in Europe, with European policies alone because as I've said repeatedly, policies are ignorned and people keep coming. There has to be effort and co-operation at solving the problem at the source in conjunction with efforts at the destination. Treating the end result of a problem is futile because it does not solve the problem itself.

Now to suggest that I have said people should die in Libya is just plain silly. What I have said is that since the bombing has begun the illegal immigrant situation from Libya has become much worse, before the bombing it was a trickle and since the bombing it has become a flood. So, far from helping the people of Libya or anyone else concerned, the bombing only seems to have made the situation worse for the people of Libya and the people in southern Europe who have to deal with the refugees.

So your solution is?

Antigone
03-04-11, 15:52
So your solution is?

Read it again, it is an improvement on your "policies" or your super solution of "harsh policies".

Reinaert
03-04-11, 16:54
Reinhart I wouldn't trust sources on the internet too much, especially when it demonizes israel.

Haha.. Are the Israeli's Saints?
Don't make me laugh.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-04-11, 17:02
Yes, to prevent a mass slaughter of innocent people.

Elias2
03-04-11, 17:37
Read it again, it is an improvement on your "policies" or your super solution of "harsh policies".

I read it again and it seems like you think I don't know about the situation with illegals in greece.

So you are suggesting that more sophiticated policies are in order? that is very vague.... details please?

What I don't understand about Greece in particular is they have a army of over 100,000 but they can't send them to patrol the thracian boarder and need to pay frontex to do it? Am I missing somethng here?

@reinhart

I don't think israel is saintly, but I don't take what I read on the internet first hand. Can I see the article you read it from?

Spion Stirlitz
03-04-11, 17:50
Yes, to prevent a mass slaughter of innocent people.

Cambria Red... I think that Portugal had a lot of experience of colonial wars in Africa as late as the 70s and the 80s, wars in which the Portoguese were extremely cruel and invested most of their national wealth... even when at the end, they were kicked out by the African resistance movements, without exception.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War

What are in your opinion, as a Portoguese, the messures to be taken to defeat Gaddafi.

Reinaert
03-04-11, 18:43
I read it again and it seems like you think I don't know about the situation with illegals in greece.

So you are suggesting that more sophiticated policies are in order? that is very vague.... details please?

What I don't understand about Greece in particular is they have a army of over 100,000 but they can't send them to patrol the thracian boarder and need to pay frontex to do it? Am I missing somethng here?

@reinhart

I don't think israel is saintly, but I don't take what I read on the internet first hand. Can I see the article you read it from?


Well.. You know Google?
Don't be too lazy you old chap!

Ok.. A hint..

http://www.global-cst.com/

Sounds like Blackwater version III.

And it's Reinaert.

Member of the rebel forces against the European Empire. ;)

Antigone
03-04-11, 19:32
I read it again and it seems like you think I don't know about the situation with illegals in greece.

So you are suggesting that more sophiticated policies are in order? that is very vague.... details please?

What I don't understand about Greece in particular is they have a army of over 100,000 but they can't send them to patrol the thracian border and need to pay frontex to do it? Am I missing somethng here?

For a start I'm talking about illegals from Africa and Libya (and the war which is the topic) and if you think they are coming through the northern land borders then you can't know very much at all.

As I have already given more in the way of a solution than you have so far then surely it must be your turn to elaborate further, than merely tossing the hazy and superficial word policy into the ring. But remember these immigrants are coming in via the sea so talk of building walls and what the US do with Mexicans is no use. Please tell us how a coastline containing approx 1,400 islands, only 227 of which are inhabited, is to be patrolled successfully.

Canek
03-04-11, 19:37
Cambria Red... I think that Portugal had a lot of experience of colonial wars in Africa as late as the 70s and the 80s, wars in which the Portoguese were extremely cruel and invested most of their national wealth... even when at the end, they were kicked out by the African resistance movements, without exception.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_WarWhat are in your opinion, as a Portoguese, the messures to be taken to defeat Gaddafi.

excelent comparison my friend.

the lybia war is another example of the same ancient european colonialism of that the iberians in africa...

Cambrius (The Red)
03-04-11, 19:40
Cambria Red... I think that Portugal had a lot of experience of colonial wars in Africa as late as the 70s and the 80s, wars in which the Portoguese were extremely cruel and invested most of their national wealth... even when at the end, they were kicked out by the African resistance movements, without exception.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War

What are in your opinion, as a Portoguese, the messures to be taken to defeat Gaddafi.

The Portuguese colonial wars were a great tragedy and they would not have gone on as long as they did without American, British, Rhodesian and South African support. BTW, the wars went on from the early 60's until 1973.

Remember that Portugal was ruled by Salazar, a megalomaniac who kept the country isolated and the populace ignorant. He was a lunatic dictator who went to great extremes to "preserve" what was left of a global empire. Very unfortunate.

Gaddafi has to be forced out by both military and diplomatic means. Despite great oil wealth, a large majority of Libya's population is extremely poor and uneducated. The man has been terrorizing his people since he took power.

Reinaert
03-04-11, 20:51
excelent comparison my friend.

the lybia war is another example of the same ancient european colonialism of that the iberians in africa...

The comparison is again a total flaw.
The Portuguese people wanted Salazar out!
I was there at the time. In the Dutch Navy.
We saw it happen!

Just like the Libyan people want Daffy out!

But there are second agenda's it seems.

Canek, there are a lot of Europeans against fascism.
Your language seems to be more like a CIA agent, provoking left wing Europeans.

Reinaert
03-04-11, 20:59
Cambria Red... I think that Portugal had a lot of experience of colonial wars in Africa as late as the 70s and the 80s, wars in which the Portoguese were extremely cruel and invested most of their national wealth... even when at the end, they were kicked out by the African resistance movements, without exception.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War


Don't mess up history.

The army revolted against an insane fascist government, with the support of the people of Portugal. The Portuguese navy was used as a negotiating platform with other Nato members.
How do I know? Well, I witnessed it. I was there.
Madeira, to be precise.. Funchal. :innocent:

One Canadian frigate could escape from Lisbon without a problem.
Look for the history of HMCS ASSINIBOINE II

Canek
04-04-11, 17:42
The comparison is again a total flaw.
The Portuguese people wanted Salazar out!
I was there at the time. In the Dutch Navy.
We saw it happen!

Just like the Libyan people want Daffy out!

But there are second agenda's it seems.

Canek, there are a lot of Europeans against fascism.
Your language seems to be more like a CIA agent, provoking left wing Europeans.

it was spion spiritz who made the comparison not me.

please reinaert don't start your tr0lling attacks again. the forum was peaceful the moments you were banned.

help us to make this forum a quiet place like then.

Reinaert
04-04-11, 18:04
it was spion spiritz who made the comparison not me.

please reinaert don't start your tr0lling attacks again. the forum was peaceful the moments you were banned.

help us to make this forum a quiet place like then.

You are a tr0ll.

Ok.. I ignore you from now on.

Elias2
04-04-11, 18:08
For a start I'm talking about illegals from Africa and Libya (and the war which is the topic) and if you think they are coming through the northern land borders then you can't know very much at all.

As I have already given more in the way of a solution than you have so far then surely it must be your turn to elaborate further, than merely tossing the hazy and superficial word policy into the ring. But remember these immigrants are coming in via the sea so talk of building walls and what the US do with Mexicans is no use. Please tell us how a coastline containing approx 1,400 islands, only 227 of which are inhabited, is to be patrolled successfully.

Well if you want to take entering from the sea as an example, the immigrants goal is not to go to the islands but head for major city centres. The greek government should look for them there and deport them back and ask to try again legally.

Canek
04-04-11, 19:18
You are a tr0ll.

Ok.. I ignore you from now on.

you wrote:


But there are second agenda's it seems.

Canek, there are a lot of Europeans against fascism.
Your language seems to be more like a CIA agent, provoking left wing Europeans.

you're always this way, when someone says something you don't agree, you seek confrontantion with that person.

so please talk about the issue (the war of lybia) and not about me. be more tolerant.

i never talk about you. thank you.

bye.

iapetoc
06-04-11, 05:11
Το Elias2 and antigone

this a video showing numbers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ps2Tol-pzA&feature=related

plz although it is political, I stay only in the numbers

1 000 000 immigrants only in 2004

and by what I hear in Patra Harbour and in Serres bounders lines
are estimated 300 000 ready to leave Greece to enter Italy, or Bulgaria-romania, and from there to Hungary,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro4713pXisA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkEPhY1PfCg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6ak-M6DPU&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg2-ecYdffY&feature=related


the estimation of Greek population is 13 000 000 legal citizens, By National statistics
although we must not be surprized if reach 15 000 000
at 1981 was 8 000 000 89 % Greeks
the estimation gives 13 000 000 53% Greeks
so Greeks became minority in their Country,
until today 100 000 Greek moved to Bulgaria for better life and work
The law for Unemployment does not give clear numbers
cause with 90 days of work per year you are not considered Unemployed

from 1989 4 000 000 people accept medical and educational treatment and poverty salaries for being unemployed,
they share 6 and 8 people an appartment with 2 rooms.
payment Hrash and medical hrash and retiment Hrash is to help 5 000 000 @[email protected] immigrants to have medical and Προνοια Providentia salaries,
The National debt is ejected after 1985 and East Block reform, cause Greece accepted and gave some session works or small work opportunities in million of emigrants, and also Providentia to many
the number are just like Germany accepting 25 000 000 in 10 year time
or Usa accept 70 000 000 in 10 years,
people in north pay some employers just to give them 90 days of work Ενσημα (stamps-seals-marks), cause with such unemployment the worker must pay for insurance, either no body hires you.

ok the above has nothing to do with thread,

But each war in middle East, Africa, wide India, raises illegal immigration in Europe,

in Greece we are talking about migration any more but for an organized plan of slavery by slave market masters
500 E per person from turkey to Greece
1000 E for person to pass to Italy

Remember that 300 000 places of work lost in Northern Greece the last 25 years due to high taxation and moved elsewhere in balkans,

If no reform the late revolts in Arab world, then wait for another 5 000 000 immigrants in Greece

it is cheaper to give free condoms to some countries, than these miserable slave market

Rastko Pocesta
28-04-11, 15:59
I am strongly opposed to both Iraq War and "war on terror." However, what is happening in Libya is a people's revolution against an oppressive tyrant and it is our moral obligation to help the revolution. Same applies to Sirya where dictator is killing protesters with tanks. However, bombing of Libya just killed more civilians, not helped the revolution. Strategy shall be radically changed - we shall hunt Qaddhafi, bomb his airports and military bases till he surrenders. When he flees Libya to some European country he shall not be let to freely leave it like Ben Ali was (who left France for Saudi Arabia after resignation) - he shall be arrested on the airport and tried for war crimes. Qaddhafi shall be deprived of all his wealth and in general all of his possessions.