Libya

LikeAnOcean

"We have no freedom here,I speak to all the world, to America, to Mr. Obama: Please help us. We (did) nothing. We want to live a good life."

Sorry Libyans. The U.S. doesn't really care about freedom and democracy. We will pick and choose our battles by whatever benefits us..

I have to ask, we always seem to want to liberate people who don't really want to be liberated, so why nothing now when it's obvious that 90% of the country is ready to die for freedom and all they need is just a little help to topple their dictators?

Are these dictators good business partners with the U.S.?


I'm not sure we'd even have to do anything besides ask the government to hand power over to the people after showing them some slides of Iraq.

Byrnzie

LikeAnOcean wrote:

"We have no freedom here,I speak to all the world, to America, to Mr. Obama: Please help us. We (did) nothing. We want to live a good life."

Sorry Libyans. The U.S. doesn't really care about freedom and democracy. We will pick and choose our battles by whatever benefits us..

I have to ask, we always seem to want to liberate people who don't really want to be liberated, so why nothing now when it's obvious that 90% of the country is ready to die for freedom and all they need is just a little help to topple their dictators?

Are these dictators good business partners with the U.S.?


I'm not sure we'd even have to do anything besides ask the government to hand power over to the people after showing them some slides of Iraq.

The Palestinians have been asking for their freedom for 40 years and the U.S has stood alone in the world in preventing that from happening, so based on that evidence I don't place Libya's prospects too highly.

Is there really such thing as humanitarian intervention? I have my doubts. The U.S will intervene if and when they see an opportunity to make money out of it.

Then again, maybe it will be a good thing in the long term if the U.S keeps it's snout of it. Real independence can only really be gotten without any outside interference.

nuffingman

Byrnzie wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

"We have no freedom here,I speak to all the world, to America, to Mr. Obama: Please help us. We (did) nothing. We want to live a good life."

Sorry Libyans. The U.S. doesn't really care about freedom and democracy. We will pick and choose our battles by whatever benefits us..

I have to ask, we always seem to want to liberate people who don't really want to be liberated, so why nothing now when it's obvious that 90% of the country is ready to die for freedom and all they need is just a little help to topple their dictators?

Are these dictators good business partners with the U.S.?

I'm not sure we'd even have to do anything besides ask the government to hand power over to the people after showing them some slides of Iraq.

The Palestinians have been asking for their freedom for 40 years and the U.S has stood alone in the world in preventing that from happening, so based on that evidence I don't place Libya's prospects too highly.

Is there really such thing as humanitarian intervention? I have my doubts. The U.S will intervene if and when they see an opportunity to make money out of it.

Then again, maybe it will be a good thing in the long term if the U.S keeps it's snout of it. Real independence can only really be gotten without any outside interference.

What have the Palestinian got that the US would want? Nothing so don't expect any help. Zimbabwe has a lunatic in Mugabe but nothing that's of any use. Don't expect any help there either.

Libya on the other hand has major oil fields. I can almost hear the tanks rolling.

zarocat

It's all about profit & rule through instability. Don't be fooled by one second that the instability in the middle east is not welcomed by the U.S.

StillHere

I wonder now that the violence has increased with government helicopters shooting into crowds and into the streets, and the son of Qaddafi (sp?) more or less declaring war on his people, stating that they will no longer be crying over the deaths of 97 people, but over the deaths of thousands, and that the cities of Libya will run with rivers of blood...NOW will the U.S. step in? We have before when its gotten this bad...in 'some' countries. I haven't seen Obama comment on any of this publicly yet...have any of you?

keeponrockin

StillHere wrote:

I wonder now that the violence has increased with government helicopters shooting into crowds and into the streets, and the son of Qaddafi (sp?) more or less declaring war on his people, stating that they will no longer be crying over the deaths of 97 people, but over the deaths of thousands, and that the cities of Libya will run with rivers of blood...NOW...NOW will the U.S. step in? We have before when its gotten this bad...in 'some' countries. I haven't seen Obama comment on any of this publicly yet...have any of you?

When is it the job to be world cop?

StillHere

keeponrockin wrote:

StillHere wrote:

I wonder now that the violence has increased with government helicopters shooting into crowds and into the streets, and the son of Qaddafi (sp?) more or less declaring war on his people, stating that they will no longer be crying over the deaths of 97 people, but over the deaths of thousands, and that the cities of Libya will run with rivers of blood...NOW...NOW will the U.S. step in? We have before when its gotten this bad...in 'some' countries. I haven't seen Obama comment on any of this publicly yet...have any of you?

When is it the job to be world cop?

It's not...but we do it anyway, don't we? Not saying it's the thing to do at all....just wondering if the U.S. will revert to its usual practices.

redrock

StillHere wrote:

I wonder now that the violence has increased with government helicopters shooting into crowds and into the streets, and the son of Qaddafi (sp?) more or less declaring war on his people, stating that they will no longer be crying over the deaths of 97 people, but over the deaths of thousands, and that the cities of Libya will run with rivers of blood...NOW...NOW will the U.S. step in? We have before when its gotten this bad...in 'some' countries. I haven't seen Obama comment on any of this publicly yet...have any of you?

Why should the US step in? We have seen too many times what happens when they do. I haven't seen Obama comment, but Hillary did demand that the bloodshed stop. I wish she would have been as 'demanding' with Israel.

Byrnzie

In Bahrain:

Bahrain's army deliberately kills peaceful protesters with live rounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKX ... ntrinter=1

Jeanwah

redrock wrote:

StillHere wrote:

I wonder now that the violence has increased with government helicopters shooting into crowds and into the streets, and the son of Qaddafi (sp?) more or less declaring war on his people, stating that they will no longer be crying over the deaths of 97 people, but over the deaths of thousands, and that the cities of Libya will run with rivers of blood...NOW...NOW will the U.S. step in? We have before when its gotten this bad...in 'some' countries. I haven't seen Obama comment on any of this publicly yet...have any of you?

Why should the US step in? We have seen too many times what happens when they do. I haven't seen Obama comment, but Hillary did demand that the bloodshed stop. I wish she would have been as 'demanding' with Israel.

I agree, why is it that the U.S. need to step into every single affair globally? This country seems to be in the position to "save" other countries because we're the great and powerful U.S. but we can't even solve our own problems.

Jeanwah

Byrnzie wrote:

In Bahrain:

Bahrain's army deliberately kills peaceful protesters with live rounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKX ... ntrinter=1

OMG. :shock: Now that's raw footage. Horrible.

FiveB247x

Actually being the "world cop" is our duty, because we've made it our business to grab the reigns. Can't simply reap all the rewards with none of the responsibility.

stickfig13

And Saddam was the irrational one...

StillHere

Jeanwah wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

In Bahrain:

Bahrain's army deliberately kills peaceful protesters with live rounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKX ... ntrinter=1

OMG. :shock: Now that's raw footage. Horrible.

absolutely disgusting, heartbreaking, maddening...it's truly unbelievable what humans can do to one another. i don't know if i live in this same world.

Smellyman

StillHere wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

In Bahrain:

Bahrain's army deliberately kills peaceful protesters with live rounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKX ... ntrinter=1

OMG. :shock: Now that's raw footage. Horrible.

absolutely disgusting, heartbreaking, maddening...it's truly unbelievable what humans can do to one another. i don't know if i live in this same world.

f#*k me.

I don't think I live in the same world either.

Someone on another board was saying how can a countries army fire on their civilians and said he doesn't understand human nature. He was ok with going to war though...


I don't understand how anybody can fire on ANYONE no matter where they are from.

Pepe Silvia

Smellyman wrote:

f#*k me.

I don't think I live in the same world either.

Someone on another board was saying how can a countries army fire on their civilians and said he doesn't understand human nature. He was ok with going to war though...


I don't understand how anybody can fire on ANYONE no matter where they are from.

i read somewhere that two libyan pilots took their jets and defected after being ordered to fire on the protesters

StillHere

Pepe Silvia wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

f#*k me.

I don't think I live in the same world either.

Someone on another board was saying how can a countries army fire on their civilians and said he doesn't understand human nature. He was ok with going to war though...


I don't understand how anybody can fire on ANYONE no matter where they are from.

i read somewhere that two libyan pilots took their jets and defected after being ordered to fire on the protesters

good for them...where did they go, do you know? there were photos on CNN of soldiers burned alive for refusing to fire on their fellow Libyans...i just can't fathom

zarocat

Pepe Silvia wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

f#*k me.

I don't think I live in the same world either.

Someone on another board was saying how can a countries army fire on their civilians and said he doesn't understand human nature. He was ok with going to war though...


I don't understand how anybody can fire on ANYONE no matter where they are from.

i read somewhere that two libyan pilots took their jets and defected after being ordered to fire on the protesters

I heard that as well but know their saying that they wanted to refuel. Also, a helicopter showed up carrying French citizens on the same island (Malta)

Check out this coverage:
http://english.aljazeera.net/

StillHere

CNN just reported that a Libyan military jet has crashed after refusing to bomb a major city in Libya at order of the government. Apparently the pilot and copilot were able to eject. :wtf: :?

fuck

zarocat wrote:

It's all about profit & rule through instability. Don't be fooled by one second that the instability in the middle east is not welcomed by the U.S.

of course its not, wtf are you talking about. there's a reason the U.S. has welcomed these dictators for decades, it's because it kept the middle east "stable." stability is what the U.S. wants, though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

fuck

Jeanwah wrote:

redrock wrote:

StillHere wrote:

I wonder now that the violence has increased with government helicopters shooting into crowds and into the streets, and the son of Qaddafi (sp?) more or less declaring war on his people, stating that they will no longer be crying over the deaths of 97 people, but over the deaths of thousands, and that the cities of Libya will run with rivers of blood...NOW...NOW will the U.S. step in? We have before when its gotten this bad...in 'some' countries. I haven't seen Obama comment on any of this publicly yet...have any of you?

Why should the US step in? We have seen too many times what happens when they do. I haven't seen Obama comment, but Hillary did demand that the bloodshed stop. I wish she would have been as 'demanding' with Israel.

I agree, why is it that the U.S. need to step into every single affair globally? This country seems to be in the position to "save" other countries because we're the great and powerful U.S. but we can't even solve our own problems.

Um, let me take a shot, oh how about this: Because the U.S. has been supporting the Qadhdhafi regime!! I mean, Hillary just met with Mu`tasim Qadhdhafi. WTF! Americans need to tell its government to stop supporting these governments. And America needs to take a more active role in demanding Qadhdhafi step the fuck down, along with the rest of the world.

shadowcast

I have come to believe that after the president’s inauguration the next day men in black suits show eight different camera views of JFK getting shot. You know views that no one has ever seen before. Then they proceed to tell him here's how things are run in the world and don't be a hero. We will tell you what to do. Things are just too fucked up. But I am a dreamer and I think goodness will one day rise over darkness.

zarocat

___________ wrote:

though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

That's instability

Bronx Bombers

Not a surprise but khadafys justice minister says that the Libyan leader personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

http://m.nypost.com/;s=i6z3FgMwfZYDPaBd ... 9aR8k2R98I

StillHere

LIBYA / LONDON. Muammar Gaddafi gave himself ordered the Lockerbie bombing.
It reveals Libya's outgoing justice minister, Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil, in an exclusive interview with Expressen Kassem Hamade.
- I have evidence that Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie, said Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil to Expressen.se.
Also read
February 23, 2011 Thage G. Peterson of grief after the Lockerbie bombing February 23, 2011 The crew shot out from the plane to protest the bombing February 23, 2011

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2341356/khadaffi-gav-order-om-lockerbie-attentatet

and of course Quadaffi says that he'll fight to his death to stay in power.

fuck

zarocat wrote:

___________ wrote:

though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

That's instability

No, not really. It was technically stable in that it lasted for decades. It only became unstable when the people finally decided to revolt very recently.

fuck

Bronx Bombers wrote:

Not a surprise but khadafys justice minister says that the Libyan leader personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

http://m.nypost.com/;s=i6z3FgMwfZYDPaBd ... 9aR8k2R98I

who cares about this? so typical--Qadhdhafi is killing so many of his own people right now, but to get people in the West to care you have to connect him to something that actually affected white people.

Jason P

___________ wrote:

Um, let me take a shot, oh how about this: Because the U.S. has been supporting the Qadhdhafi regime!! I mean, Hillary just met with Mu`tasim Qadhdhafi. WTF! Americans need to tell its government to stop supporting these governments. And America needs to take a more active role in demanding Qadhdhafi step the fuck down, along with the rest of the world.

I'm pretty sure that the US has supported dropping bombs on Libya.

LikeAnOcean

Looks like we may be stepping in..


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/n- ... ts/?hpt=T1



I don't see how the international community can just sit by and watch a mad man gun down and bomb his own peaceful unarmed protesting citizens.

We don't have to occupy. We just need to take out this mad man.

zarocat

___________ wrote:

zarocat wrote:

___________ wrote:

though stability on their own terms--that is, keeping the masses subjected under oppressive rulers who do what the U.S. tells them to do.

That's instability

No, not really. It was technically stable in that it lasted for decades. It only became unstable when the people finally decided to revolt very recently.

Dude, it has always been unstable. What is happening now is just the next step of the instability.
Instability just didn't fall out of the sky.
If it was stable you wouldn't have instability.

Let's take this to the next step seeing that you and I will probably disagree about what I have just written.

What happens if a country needs money (Investment etc.) for whatever reason, what do they do ? World Bank,
yes ? (That is run by ?) And knowing that those countries can't pay back that money, what happens when it's time to collect ? Who goes to these countries and sets up shop ? Answer those questions and step back and look at the STABILITY turned INSTABILITY as you call it, from the perspective that you acquire after answering those questions.

Here is a helpful tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession ... ic_Hit_Man :thumbup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

Cheers

fuck

zarocat wrote:

Dude, it has always been unstable. What is happening now is just the next step of the instability.
Instability just didn't fall out of the sky.
If it was stable you wouldn't have instability.

your last sentence makes no sense, lol. that means that everything is virtually unstable since everything at some point always experiences some sort of instability. The thing that makes these revolutions so incredible is that they actually turned over stable governments, and it came out of nowhere (well actually, it came out of Tunisia).

Let's take this to the next step seeing that you and I will probably disagree about what I have just written.

When a country needs money for whatever reason, what do they do ? World Bank, yes ? (That is run by ?) And knowing that those countries can't pay back that money, what happens when it's time to collect ? Who goes to these countries and sets up shop ? Answer those questions and step back and look at the STABILITY turned INSTABILITY as you call it, from the perspective that you acquire after answering those questions.

Here is a helpful tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession ... ic_Hit_Man :thumbup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

Cheers

hahaha, dude I know all about this stuff, and I've read the book. I have some problems with it, but whatever I won't get into that right now. You seem to suggest as if the U.S. engineered these revolutions. Which isn't true. Also you seem to suggest that the World Bank and foreign investment hasn't been playing a role in this region for decades already. At this point the U.S. and foreign interests do not want the people taking control of their government because it would threaten their investments. So they do not want any more instability. They want stable governments that protect their investments. Up till now, the dictatorships have played that role very well. Now the U.S. and other foreign powers are very stressed at this instability because it is threatening these investments.

EDIT: Let me be more clear: The region was pretty unstable before with assassinations and revolutions takign place a LOT decades ago. Finally these dictatorships rose that basically introduced some notion of a stable government into many of these countries. That was when the U.S. began playing a much bigger role and foreign interests began investing. After that, they did not want any more instability. Instability here basically means a few things: 1. unpredictability, where no one knows where things are heading. this was not present before in the dictatorial regimes, and 2. no known power head. this is unheard of. the U.S. and foreign interests at this point do not know who to deal with because of how much of a people's movement these revolutions have been. so before, there was some sense of stability in the dictatorial regimes, and the U.S. and foreign powers liked that. the thing you're talking about, which Naomi Klein also talks about in the Shock Doctrine to some extent and on her analysis on disaster economics, has already basically taken place. we're in a new phase where the U.S. wants to preserve these investments, not have them dismantled.