Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Mar '11 23:24
    Unlike before the Iraq invasion, no case has even been attempted to be made that Qadaffi is a threat to any western country in any manner conceivable. At least in the lead-up to Iraq, the case had to be made that Saddam was illegally developing WMDs. That the intelligence turned out to be wrong it beside the point. Even to the Bush administration, it was necessary to make that case.

    Both leaders were/are unquestionably brutal despots with histories of domestic and international malfeasance.

    But if Iraq was such a big historical mistake/crime, why exactly are we going into Libya? Yes, Qadaffi is a bad guy and has done lots of bad things. But so far as I can tell, what's he's done so far in the last weeks has been to brutally suppress an internal insurrection. In the wake of the Iraq fiasco, how does this warrant international military intervention?

    All I can say is that I'm glad the British and French are leading this one and that Obama has promised no US ground troops. Let the Europeans take the responsibility and the blame if things go sour.
  2. 21 Mar '11 00:14
    Originally posted by sh76
    Unlike before the Iraq invasion, no case has even been attempted to be made that Qadaffi is a threat to any western country in any manner conceivable. At least in the lead-up to Iraq, the case had to be made that Saddam was illegally developing WMDs. That the intelligence turned out to be wrong it beside the point. Even to the Bush administration, it was necess ...[text shortened]... US ground troops. Let the Europeans take the responsibility and the blame if things go sour.
    Respondents may want to start by reading the UN resolution:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    21 Mar '11 00:45
    Originally posted by JS357
    Respondents may want to start by reading the UN resolution:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819
  4. 21 Mar '11 00:46
    The UK, France, USA and most countries defeated by them are part of an Empire. This Empire wants to control the oil of the world to insure their domination and continue this empire.
    When Britain defeated Napoleon, France became a defacto colony of the British Empire. The USA ended up serving the interests of this Empire and began an imperialist agenda at the end of the 19th century.
    When this empire grew after WW2 the UN was formed with the support of the Rockefellers. Veto power in the UN insures the interests of the empire since most nations with veto power are part of the empire. Bribery and threats of isolation insures UN cooperation when the empire really needs it.

    Gaddafi has openly condemned the UN and is not playing ball with the empire. This has nothing to do with Gaddafi being a bad guy as dictators usually are. In Bahrain protesters are shot and later beaten up in the hospital. No mercy there. Yemen is also shooting unarmed protesters but it is being ignored because those dictators are serving the interests of the empire.

    The double standards are easy for anyone to see if they want to. The UN only comes to the rescue of armed insurgents, probably armed by the empire in hopes of installing a puppet regime. If you are unarmed the UN ignores it and lets civilians get beat up in hospitals after being shot.
  5. 21 Mar '11 00:52
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The UK, France, USA and most countries defeated by them are part of an Empire. This Empire wants to control the oil of the world to insure their domination and continue this empire.
    When Britain defeated Napoleon, France became a defacto colony of the British Empire. The USA ended up serving the interests of this Empire and began an imperialist agenda a ...[text shortened]... you are unarmed the UN ignores it and lets civilians get beat up in hospitals after being shot.
    yes indeed, the whole premise is on humanitarian grounds, it has been emphasised again and again, who is buying it?
  6. 21 Mar '11 01:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    Unlike before the Iraq invasion, no case has even been attempted to be made that Qadaffi is a threat to any western country in any manner conceivable. At least in the lead-up to Iraq, the case had to be made that Saddam was illegally developing WMDs. That the intelligence turned out to be wrong it beside the point. Even to the Bush administration, it was necess ...[text shortened]... US ground troops. Let the Europeans take the responsibility and the blame if things go sour.
    If you turn on any news channel, they will spend hours splain'in it to ordinary common folk like us who can't fathom why we are there.

    Simply put, if it's good enough for the UN it's a good enough reason. The UN sits high upon its throne giving either a thumbs up or down to various conflicts.

    How dare you question the international community!!
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    21 Mar '11 01:23
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The UK, France, USA and most countries defeated by them are part of an Empire. This Empire wants to control the oil of the world to insure their domination and continue this empire.
    When Britain defeated Napoleon, France became a defacto colony of the British Empire. The USA ended up serving the interests of this Empire and began an imperialist agenda a ...[text shortened]... you are unarmed the UN ignores it and lets civilians get beat up in hospitals after being shot.
    Brilliant!

    I bet France was subtly manipulated by the shadowy Anglo masterminds to attack via constant mockery of French military prowess. France fell right into their trap!

    How come France is a "colony of the UK" when they're the only one in Europe with a working fleet carrier? The UK invented the things!
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Mar '11 01:35
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The UK, France, USA and most countries defeated by them are part of an Empire. This Empire wants to control the oil of the world to insure their domination and continue this empire.
    When Britain defeated Napoleon, France became a defacto colony of the British Empire. The USA ended up serving the interests of this Empire and began an imperialist agenda a ...[text shortened]... you are unarmed the UN ignores it and lets civilians get beat up in hospitals after being shot.
    I envy you.

    It must be so interesting living with your mind. You can probably keep yourself entertained with nothing but your own thoughts.
  9. 21 Mar '11 01:38
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Brilliant!

    I bet France was subtly manipulated by the shadowy Anglo masterminds to attack via constant mockery of French military prowess. France fell right into their trap!

    How come France is a "colony of the UK" when they're the only one in Europe with a working fleet carrier? The UK invented the things!
    Are you being sarcastic?

    Control the media and you control opinion of the masses. Control mass opinion and you control the agenda of a country. See Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.
  10. 21 Mar '11 01:44
    Originally posted by sh76
    I envy you.

    It must be so interesting living with your mind. You can probably keep yourself entertained with nothing but your own thoughts.
    Show me the flaws in my logic.
    Mockery is not a debate.

    What you are experiencing is called "Cognitive dissonance". It is a common effort to avoid accepting that everything you know is wrong.

    The truth only sounds strange because you have been indoctrinated with a fiction. Open up your mind to critical thinking and you will set yourself free of the propaganda that enslaves you.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Mar '11 01:45
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Are you being sarcastic?

    Control the media and you control opinion of the masses. Control mass opinion and you control the agenda of a country. See Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.
    Sarcastic? Hmmm... not really.

    You seem to have a conspiracy theory for absolutely everything.

    While it may not have the advantage of being true or, in some cases, rational, it's probably a lot of fun.
  12. 21 Mar '11 01:56 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sarcastic? Hmmm... not really.

    You seem to have a conspiracy theory for absolutely everything.

    While it may not have the advantage of being true or, in some cases, rational, it's probably a lot of fun.
    just address the points for goodness sake, your just so slippery and evasive. You asked the question, why, its was proffered that the reason we were told that it was on humanitarian grounds, metal pointed out that there are other instances where no action was taken, leading us to deduce that it may be for other reasons, primarily economic, will you at least acknowledge that may be the case? If not, will you deny that the media is manipulative?
  13. 21 Mar '11 02:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sarcastic? Hmmm... not really.

    You seem to have a conspiracy theory for absolutely everything.

    While it may not have the advantage of being true or, in some cases, rational, it's probably a lot of fun.
    And you have a logical explanation for very little.

    Lets start at the basics, shall we? Why does the UK, France and the USA work together militarily for the same interests? For example, why did the USA take over the Vietnam war where France left off? Why does the UK often join in military coalitions with the USA? Why did many commonwealth nations get involved in the Vietnam and Korean wars? What were their common interests?
  14. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    21 Mar '11 02:43
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Brilliant!

    I bet France was subtly manipulated by the shadowy Anglo masterminds to attack via constant mockery of French military prowess. France fell right into their trap!

    How come France is a "colony of the UK" when they're the only one in Europe with a working fleet carrier? The UK invented the things!
    Actually the French did, the French Navies' La Foudre was the first seaplane carrier (1911). However there were hot-air balloon carriers (the Austrians pioneered that and tried to bomb a city but the balloons were blown back over the launch ship - only one bomb hit the city).

    However, the U.K. were the first to use "air power" from a ship during the Napoleonic Wars when they launched kites from HMS Pallas - in order for propaganda messages written in poor French to be dropped onto French soil.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrier
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Mar '11 05:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    Unlike before the Iraq invasion, no case has even been attempted to be made that Qadaffi is a threat to any western country in any manner conceivable. At least in the lead-up to Iraq, the case had to be made that Saddam was illegally developing WMDs. That the intelligence turned out to be wrong it beside the point. Even to the Bush administration, it was necess ...[text shortened]... US ground troops. Let the Europeans take the responsibility and the blame if things go sour.
    The model is the bombing campaign against Serbia but with an increased objective of overthrowing a sovereign government. Needless to say, that objective and the means being used are clear violations of international law. SC 1973 is also a violation of the UN Charter as I argued in another thread.

    Geopolitically, Gaddafi's always been considered a thorn in Western sides and it's quite possible that whenever a sufficient internal opposition rose up in military rebellion against him the response would have been the same.

    Obama's "air strikes but no ground troops" mantra means that the Libyan opposition is good enough to kill for but not important enough to die for. I find this to be contemptible.