• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Politics Should Europeans get involved in Libya?

I think Elias was appealing for a little compassion from Anton. :)
Big Bear is not ignorant but rather cynical young man.
 
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...ity-for-the-slaughter-of-over-1000000-iraqis/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRfkUGiR-s
 
@ 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...ity-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! :)
 
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?
 
Elias2 said:
update: The rebels are having success moving westward in Libya!! gogo rebels! :)
Click to expand...

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....
 
how yes no said:
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....
Click to expand...


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:
 
Vallicanus said:
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:
Click to expand...

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'
 
Elias2 said:
@ 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?
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Elias2 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Elias2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mzungu mchagga said:
The examples you've mentioned don't say anything about the form of their governments.
Click to expand...

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

Mzungu mchagga said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Elias2 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
@ 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.
 
Elias2 said:
@ 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.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are missing my point!
I wanted to show how personal liberalization [I just took "sex" as one example, we can also choose something different] has 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.
 
Last edited:
Elias2 said:
You also don't the massive immigration to get out of lebanon.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
Antigone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Elias2 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mzungu mchagga said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top