15 Mar 11
1 edit
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/libyan-rebels-lose-ground-arab-league-s#
"The Arab League's weekend discussion calling on the UN Security Concil to establish a no fly zone over Libya was an unprecendented departure for the 22 country bloc which has jealously guarded its members sovereignty and rejected outside intervention".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this absolutely fascinating. The Islamic world has been and is rife with totalitarian oppressive regimes, yet, this is the ONLY time that the UN has been called upon by the Arab League to take action? Why?
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeySaying that the Arab League is the "Islamic World" is like calling the U.S. and U.K. the "International Community". That aside though, perhaps the Arab League doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history on this one.
I find this absolutely fascinating. The Islamic world has been and is rife with totalitarian oppressive regimes, yet, this is the ONLY time that the UN has been called upon by the Arab League to take action? Why?
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMF...or as adherents of nwo conspiracist perspectives might opine, further proof of the universal reach that the nwo will encompass. Neither race nor culture nor religion will deter the Juggernaut that is the nwo..... i'm sure whodey would agree!
Saying that the Arab League is the "Islamic World" is like calling the U.S. and U.K. the "International Community". That aside though, perhaps the Arab League doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history on this one.
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeyProbably because if the USA and UK are occupied with Libya they are more likely to leave them alone while they shoot protesters.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/libyan-rebels-lose-ground-arab-league-s#
"The Arab League's weekend discussion calling on the UN Security Concil to establish a no fly zone over Libya was an unprecendented departure for the 22 country bloc which has jealously guarded its members sovereignty and rejected outside intervention".
------------------------ ...[text shortened]... is is the ONLY time that the UN has been called upon by the Arab League to take action? Why?
Bribery may be a factor too. That is the only way Russia and china would go along with it. They have veto power in the UN. Veto power of only certain nations might also be why Gaddafi has a problem with the UN. The UN is not a democratic entity.
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat I keep thinking of are the Wiki leaks. A number of Arab countries petitioned the US to do "something" about Iran. So assuming that all the countries in the Arab League want the US to take action against them, is it simply too risky to publically come out with such a position? In short, is Gaddafi an easier target?
Probably because if the USA and UK are occupied with Libya they are more likely to leave them alone while they shoot protesters.
Bribery may be a factor too. That is the only way Russia and china would go along with it. They have veto power in the UN. Veto power of only certain nations might also be why Gaddafi has a problem with the UN. The UN is not a democratic entity.
15 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWould they be on the wrong side of history coming out against Iran or say the Sudan with their onging genocide?
Saying that the Arab League is the "Islamic World" is like calling the U.S. and U.K. the "International Community". That aside though, perhaps the Arab League doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history on this one.
In fact, what is up with the Sudan? All the countries around them are going up in smoke, but they don't seem to miss a beat.
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is and isn't 'the wrong side of history' for the Arab League is, of course, for the Arab League to decide on. Then, whoever's version of history you subscribe to can be used to evaluate the outcome. Iran has played a pretty wily game for 30 years, and has been dominant in that region for centuries and centuries. The U.S. was on the wrong side of history when it backed the Shah.
Would they be on the wrong side of history coming out against Iran or say the Sudan with their onging genocide?
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeyHaven't you been following the story? Beginning of this year they had a referendum and the people of Southern Sudan voted for independence from Sudan which will come into being in July. The War in Darfur seems to have ground to a relative halt and it would be, I think, rather odd to describe the genocide as "ongoing", unless - for the purposes of your jaded Forum hyperbole, whodey - you didn't actually care whether it's ongoing or not. When people talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict, you used to accuse them of de facto support for the genocide in Darfur, for not following the story down there. Surely you yourself have been following the story?
In fact, what is up with the Sudan? All the countries around them are going up in smoke, but they don't seem to miss a beat.
15 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyGaddafi's not on the side of the Arabs, he's on the side of the sub-saharan blacks. Or so it seems. People like Saddam or the Saudis are Arabs.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/libyan-rebels-lose-ground-arab-league-s#
"The Arab League's weekend discussion calling on the UN Security Concil to establish a no fly zone over Libya was an unprecendented departure for the 22 country bloc which has jealously guarded its members sovereignty and rejected outside intervention".
------------------------ ...[text shortened]... is is the ONLY time that the UN has been called upon by the Arab League to take action? Why?
However the Libyans ARE Arabs.
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeyIranians aren't mowing down Arabs in the streets of the Arab world.
What I keep thinking of are the Wiki leaks. A number of Arab countries petitioned the US to do "something" about Iran. So assuming that all the countries in the Arab League want the US to take action against them, is it simply too risky to publically come out with such a position? In short, is Gaddafi an easier target?
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFhttp://thefastertimes.com/hate/2011/02/16/revolutions-in-egypt-but-genocide-in-darfur/
Haven't you been following the story? Beginning of this year they had a referendum and the people of Southern Sudan voted for independence from Sudan which will come into being in July. The War in Darfur seems to have ground to a relative halt and it would be, I think, rather odd to describe the genocide as "ongoing", unless - for the purposes of your jaded Foru ...[text shortened]... for not following the story down there. Surely you yourself have been following the story?
Even though things are much better in the Sudan, violence is on the increase once again. Then again, I suppose in FMF's world once the people of Sudan vote to sucede the genocide should disappear over night.
Of course, we are not just talking about the Sudan of today. What of the last 20 years? Where was the Arab League the last 20 years? Is genocidal Sudan worse than Gadaffi?
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeyNo. In FMF's world the fact that "things are much better in the Sudan" is to be welcomed. So you maintain that the genocide has not abated?
Even though things are much better in the Sudan, violence is on the increase once again. Then again, I suppose in FMF's world once the people of Sudan vote to sucede the genocide should disappear over night.
15 Mar 11
Originally posted by whodeyNobody likes Khaddaffi (or however it's spelled). That's why.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/libyan-rebels-lose-ground-arab-league-s#
"The Arab League's weekend discussion calling on the UN Security Concil to establish a no fly zone over Libya was an unprecendented departure for the 22 country bloc which has jealously guarded its members sovereignty and rejected outside intervention".
------------------------ ...[text shortened]... is is the ONLY time that the UN has been called upon by the Arab League to take action? Why?
And probably because they basically said so when things were looking bad for Ghadafi (or however you spell it), they hope to sweet Allah that he does topple. No matter what the cost.
As the wise Taoist monk once whispered: "We shall see."