Gaddaf, support or against ?

[paiNISTHESHIT]

What do you think about whats happening in Lybia and whats your opinion about France that was the first country which began the first attack to Gaddaf ?

PS: I don't want to couse anything bad with this new topic, but i just want to know what other things about this serious issue ?

Best regards,
pajnzOr !

[pec]

Support.
If people wanted to throw down Gadaffi they would have done it by now, the illusion of west media of Gadaffi attacking civilians is hoax, everyone that takes even a rock against goverment and throws in on soldier or anything is no longer civilian but a rebel, and unarmed civilians having aircraft, anti-aircraft and other ?
Sounds like there is oil crisis going in US.

[Cen]

I can't judge anything because western media may be full of disinformation and corruption. We do not really know what is happening down there. Trust me.


@pec: yous sig is still epic

[Xfire]

The first thing that came to my mind, like in Mubarak's case, is why would they fight against a man who's been leading their country for 42 years just now. If people were so unsatisfied they would've thrown him down long time ago, most probably between 1988-2000, when all the dictatorial regimes in Europe fell.

Now, the media of course, is full of subjective disambiguation biasing on allied side (UN, EU and NATO), so you will never hear an objective point or anything being part of the truth during this 'war', and probably neither in the nearby future. Maybe, like all conspiracy theories, some of the real information will come up in like 50 years, in a book or an article, like it happened to most of the stuff until now.

In my opinion, I honestly think the allied forces aren't there for the people. Their purpose is solely an economic one, because if Gaddafi falls, the US, France, UK and the other 'smart guys' will be free to get most of the oil and natural gas from Libya for themselves.

[paiNISTHESHIT]

Thats it, the main problem and the couse of all this its OIL. Agree on Xfire.

[fatman69]

OK i agree that the West has economic interests in mind, as always. But isn't that the case with any country? I mean, all political decisions are fueled by profit, in one form or another.

One things you guys fail to mention is the legitimacy of the war. Gadaffi is a fucking lunatic, a dictator and a terrorist. Has anyone seen the reports about the underground prisons/torture chambers? I assure you, those things are real. Has anyone heard of the Lockerby incident when Gadaffi ordered his secret services to place a bomb on a civil airplane in UK. You want to tell me that this man should be left to lead this country, that the world should not take the advantage of the situation and take that frickin lunatic down?

The reason why people were quiet up to now was probably that they had a solid quality of life that had been slowly deteriorating. The revolution in Egypt and the downfall of Mubarak probably gave those people the courage to stand up against Gadaffi. Truth be told you cannot trust the media entirely, but the reality is that a war is going on there. Can we trust Gadaffi's allegations that the revolutionaries are a part of Al'Quaeda?

The bottom line - I believe the people's revolt against Gadaffi is justified; the man is a psycho dictator whose family controls 90% of Libya's resources and stops at nothing to secure his rule, but also, the man is a border-line terrorist and as such, poses a threat to surrounding countries, and to Europe, at least to Mediterranean. So far, there has been a status quo but it couldn't have lasted. Now, there are thousands of people in jeopardy, both the militia, and the civilians as well. Had West intervened in the Ex-yu war there would have been far less massacres on all sides (LET'S NOT GO INTO THIS DISCUSSION YET AGAIN, I DO NOT IMPLY BY THIS THAT ONLY 1 SIDE DID HORRENDOUS CRIMES). I believe that there should be an intervention, and that US/UK/FR/CA attacks are justified from moral point of view. Politically speaking, it will be a chance for West to "acquire certain resources", maybe not to full extent, but to partially "charge" their participation in the war. However, it is Gadaffi's fault to give them an excuse in the first place, that is, Gadaffi's actions give the West a reason they needed to attack him, even though their causes are "economically motivated".

[Xfire]

Gaddafi has to leave, no doubt. He is, as you said, lunatic. Lunatic and not mad, because he lies to himself, believing that the people actually love him, and whatever he does right now is defending his country.

The only thing that actually raises a problem right here is that Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi created a dangerous precedent ( in only the first 3 months of 2011 ) - a precedent that marks the start of a chain of rebellions that will occur everywhere around the world where people are unsatisfied with their current condition of life.

But what happens if all have the same output? Will the leaders refuse to step aside, the US&co. will interfere once again in their internal affairs - and here, we got the big issue. Basically, the question is, does anyone have the right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs - and if yes, when?

[fatman69]

That is an excellent point. As far as I know, the West has intervened only in Libya, which kinda sets the rule to intervene only when when the lives of citizens are endangered, as is the case in Libya now. I agree that this line is fine, that is, it is hard to determine when and how should the West pry into other countries' affairs, and I don't think that one can set a fixed rule, rather decide on case-to-case basis. I think the US, and the West in general has had its fair share of blunders when it comes to interventions in other countries. As some of you might know, they are the ones who brought Saddam Hussein to power, they are the ones who trained current members of Al-Quaeda to help them fight against USSR. I think they saw how these "experiments" brutally backfired on them. Therefore I think they would take a different approach in trying to create a self-sustaining government, that is, they would rather help that country get back on its feet, than put another marionette that would later turn back on them.

Regarding whether or not it is legitimate or not to intervene in Libya, consider this: You are walking down the street and you see, let's say a 14 year old kid beating a 10 year-old. The first one is substantially bigger, and it's obvious he'll beat the living shit out of the little guy. It's not your business to intervene, seeing how you don't know either of the kids, but wouldn't you (considering you're and "adult" of some 20-25 years of age) try to stop the little guy from being beaten to a bloody stump?

But still, the question of intervention remains a really delicate one, I agree with you there.

[eXtasY]

Total support to Gaddaf.

Its a well seen scenario that we watched even in Serbia.

Its so repeating.. Western forces stimulating conflicts, selling them weapons, interfering as peacemakers and in the end taking resources. I see it as clear agression and occupation ironicaly justified by protecting human rights. Just lol.

I would just want to add that Obama claimed that BRA sold weapons to Gaddaf. I had to contact Moosntar and i asked him about it, if he has some better info. I got pretty much prooven info that BRA company did sell big ammounts of weapons but totally suprisingly the company was owned by USA. So much about it

Its just way too much considence that all recent military actions of USA were on regions full of natural resources with perfect strategical positions that they would never be used with people as Gaddaf, Husein even Milosevic and similar on charge.

This is a good old devide and conquer strategy.

[Xfire]

Regarding whether or not it is legitimate or not to intervene in Libya, consider this: You are walking down the street and you see, let's say a 14 year old kid beating a 10 year-old. The first one is substantially bigger, and it's obvious he'll beat the living shit out of the little guy. It's not your business to intervene, seeing how you don't know either of the kids, but wouldn't you (considering you're and "adult" of some 20-25 years of age) try to stop the little guy from being beaten to a bloody stump?

But still, the question of intervention remains a really delicate one, I agree with you there.

To be perfectly honest, that's not the best example in this case, because the street is a public space, whereas Libya is not - it's Libyan territory only. A better example that I could think of at the moment is your neighbour, Mr. X, is beating up on his wife, Mrs. X, in their own apartment. You hear her screaming for help, while she is being brutally hit over and over again, since you live a few meters near them, and you intervene, in their own house. Would that be fair/permitted, you may ask?

Total support to Gaddaf.

Its a well seen scenario that we watched even in Serbia.

Its so repeating.. Western forces stimulating conflicts, selling them weapons, interfering as peacemakers and in the end taking resources. I see it as clear agression and occupation ironicaly justified by protecting human rights. Just lol.

I would just want to add that Obama claimed that BRA sold weapons to Gaddaf. I had to contact Moosntar and i asked him about it, if he has some better info. I got pretty much prooven info that BRA company did sell big ammounts of weapons but totally suprisingly the company was owned by USA. So much about it

Its just way too much considence that all recent military actions of USA were on regions full of natural resources with perfect strategical positions that they would never be used with people as Gaddaf, Husein even Milosevic and similar on charge.

This is a good old devide and conquer strategy.

The thread name is too ambiguous. Because it asks if you support Gaddafi, not if you disagree with US/France/UK/Canada's actions.

In that case, you meant that you disagree with their actions - which is a fair point of view, no doubt, since the opinions are, as you can see, divided. But you cannot say that you support Gaddafi and his actions towards his own people - read a bit up this page, fatman made a quite clear summary of the treatment he's been applying to his compatriots, and nowadays killing thousands of people every day is just inhuman, I don't think you can support something like that.

[eXtasY]

Well thing is that those two things are too much linked to each other that you cannot judge Gaddaf actions without watching the bigger picture.

Do you really think that all recent shits in Eastern countries started happening without support of a bigger hand? My opinion is no, since i lived same in my country.

Never underestimate power of medias. Image you get will always be their product. The only thing you can get clearly is watching imputs and outputs without the proccess itself. Thats the only way to get answer for proccess purpose.

The complete image i see here is..

Walk in someone's house, make a spark, constantly add oil, turn it intro fire. When owner goes to extinguish it with only possible means declare him as agressor and kill him.

Than put your own housekeeper and harves his grain.

The point is that you wouldnt have fire without sparks and oil.

I totally rise my hands for people that had guts to defend their countries from being taken by capitalism iron hand. Husein, Gaddaf, Fidel, Milosevic maybe you are/were nuts on your way but you had guts to fight for your nation interest.

[Xfire]

Nationalism is not a bad thing, however modern nationalists - like the ones you mentioned above - are pushing it way too far with their actions. We're in 21st century, and even though this kind of system might be the best for assuring a better tomorrow for your people and defending the national interests - it simply cannot work in a world commanded by a bunch of rich guys who are dictating basically every country's economy and political system.

I agree, these guys have paid and are paying the price for being nationalists, but why nationalists have always turned to be dictators, never giving away their lust for power and renouncing to their old-fashioned, out of date principles, which simply don't fit into this century? Nations need to adapt - take a look at Libya, Cuba and North Korea - they are 3rd world countries, whereas the capitalistic countries have taken such bigger steps into evolution that can afford laughing at them.

A leader should only be a leader for as long as people agree on him to be. Once people start ask him to step down and start fighting for their own rights - he has to obey. But what did Gaddafi do? He started killing thousands of people of his own kind, just so he can stay in control a tad longer. I ask you now, what does being nationalist have to do with killing your own people?

[pec]

take a look at Libya, Cuba and North Korea - they are 3rd world countries, whereas the capitalistic countries have taken such bigger steps into evolution that can afford laughing at them.

Libya is 3rd world country of world importance, if it wasn't it would have been let alone. If Gaddafi self-destructs oil fields, we got another oil crisis on our hands. Dolar wen't down, US is ready to get on ground.
As for Gaddafi, same methods are used in all Arabic countries, he isn't "black sheep" dictator they are trying to show you.
You've got Saudi family, Bahrein and others. And how will that country function without Gaddafi ? Or we will have a new Kosovo in form of Cyrrenaica.

[fatman69]

Gadaffi didn't make Libya this important, oil did; Gadaffi didn't bring it, didn't invent it and he sure as hell didn't create it. So what makes his role so goddamn important? He's just a lunatic that rose to power by some "alternative" methods.

Do you wonder why the people of other Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Brunei haven't taken arms against their leaders? Is it perhaps because that people actually have a decent life there, and feel no need to revolt? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

And Xfire put it correctly, what is so grand, so nationalistic, so glorious about killing your countrymen just to keep your position on the throne? I hate to say this extasy, but I've never thought of you this infantile (don't take this personally dude). But supporting these guys, that's like when you hear those 16-year-olds saying how "great" Hitler's idea was, what a grand conqueror he was. Bunch of bullshit, if a leader does not provide good life for his people, then he's not a good leader. And if he does not accept the will of the people to choose another leader he is a tyrant. And I don't recall tyranny being quoted as anything good.

P.S. beating the wife example -excellent, it's exactly to the point

[pec]

What if his countryman are armed ?! Don't tell me those were peaceful protests with a lot of transparents saying DOWN GADDAFI, they were armed and thus they are rebels. If the country really wanted to bring him down and had majority they would have done it easily like in Mubarak case.