Middle-East & North African Discussion

Nayan wrote:

This is not the morales the West is proud of.

Sorry for the wheels-up-landing here, but actually, yes, yes it is. You're just being bullshitted daily that things have developed in a better way. It's called "propaganda".

Precisely my point. Neither the western goverment nor the people in the western countries can claim this is their morales when they act like that. It is indeed propaganda when they claim their actions are due to those morales.

Nayan wrote:

What happend to the Democracy USA preaches of? Only when it fits it?

You mean the same country that announced as President the one with the less votes? What Democracy? Have you even seen real democracy after the classical years? You can't have democracy when the public doesn't know shit what they are voting for. That's ochlocracy. And the latter goes for most of the "democratic" bubblewrap world, not just the States.

If you are willing to go further into that, being honest no country is democracy. The regular people get to affect to that or another degree on once in four years, where-else rich people affect daily. More so over, usually the only candidates that make it through made it through due to their money, or their abbility to get in contact with rich people. Or of course, bloodline connection. I don't see how that contracts my point, that the USA can't claim to be proud of it's "democracy" when she allows people to get slaughtered and not be able to voice their opinion.

Nayan wrote:

what about the European union, why don't they do anything?

Because the European Union is just that: a union. Where every part of the union is looking for their own interests. "Do we have interests there? No? Bugger off then, we got better things to do." followed by a "Aww. That's shameful. " statement to keep prestige up - and off we go.

Precisely. Once again, neither they nor the citizens can claim to anything beyond that in regards to the union, or to their specific countries, when this is all that is being done.

Seems like we agree more than we disagree ^^

Nayan wrote:PS: And stop ninja-adding me to your calls thinking I'm Nass, you muppet. xD

Never. *adds Nayan on skype*

It seems to be that you can't intervene anywhere without being a hypocrit unless you intervene everywhere. Considering the latter is logistically impossible which would you prefer?

I'd rather we intervene where we can and be accused of hypocrisy than intervene nowhere for the sake of our reputation.

Geneviève wrote:It seems to be that you can't intervene anywhere without being a hypocrit unless you intervene everywhere. Considering the latter is logistically impossible which would you prefer?

I'd rather we intervene where we can and be accused of hypocrisy than intervene nowhere for the sake of our reputation.

That's nice. But the fact is you, well rather the Western goverments, do not intervene where they can. They intervene where it's comftroble, and fits their interests- which are usually influence over the area, and the interests of the main powers in the country- usually the rich guys. I am certain they have the power to do something, not even enter the country- implace serious sanctions, threat to enter the country, support logically... I am certain they can do something. They simply choose not to, since it doesn't fit their interests. Assad is a quite guy that does nothing when it comes to the west, perhaps merely supporting directly and indirectly terrorist organisations- Why should they take him down, and give the power to the people?

Gadafi/Qadafi on the other hand supported terrorism directly and officialy, and there are big amounts of oil in his country, compared to Syria. Go figure.

I do not claim they should intervene everywhere, I claim they should not claim they intervene due to their morales and their want to free the People, where it's simply a lie.

I think the important factor here is that Libya is on Europe's doorstep, while Syria is still a bit further away from home. But to say that this entire intervention is entirely driven by the need of gaining own interests sounds a little fussbudgety to me.

This 'game' of interest has been playing since forever though. There's been genocide, mass-rape and entire swooping away of villages in Africa for decades now and there's only a few that give a rat's ass :/ It really isn't a perfect system. Humanity isn't a perfect system. But I'll take some help over none at all.

Ps: A good read on this subject is what Thomas of Aquino wrote in his doctrine on just war. He talks about all the necesities one should go through before walking into an armed intervention/war.

Why is the need of the people of Syria so much greater than the need of the people in Libya?

And why is it that people who would like to think of themselves as morally superior always propose the West resort to one of the most cruel, barbaric, and inhumane weapons available? Economic sanctions only ever harm the innocent. And if you can't reason why that is so for yourself you really shouldn't be passing an opinion on decisions made at Crufts, never mind Westminster.

Military intervention is the only way. And right now that simply isn't possible. We're suffering from equipment shortages. We're being asked to serve double tours. My expenses have been downgraded. My children, when I have any, are no longer guaranteed a stable education. Our training has been cut back. Bases are being closed down. Procurement cancelled or postponed. Our armed forces are falling apart at the seams but all anyone seems to care about is the people we can't help.

The drop out rate is greater than it has ever been before because we're underpaid, not appreciated, misunderstood, and worst of all harassed, physically assaulted, and insulted by citizens of our own country.

You harp on and on about Syria as if it is the be all and end all of opression. But what makes Syria so much worse than Libya?! I really do care about what is happening there. But you're not asking nameless faceless machines to solve the problem. Ultimately you are asking my friends to put their lives on the line because armchair strategists like you think you know so very much more about war than the men who fight them, and so very much more about politics than the men you have elected to lead you.

Mike

No need to go all out on the man.. :s
I believe Rasonal more meant the fact that there's been no reaction at all from any organisation; No economical sanctionizing, no trade embargos, hardly even wagging of the finger. I doubt he's asking for a full scale bombardment.

Geneviève wrote:
Military intervention is the only way.

In Dutch we call this a job misforming x)

In other news..



Gunships... Right in the ass!

I think I have to completely agree with Genevieve.

But I definitely do think that the UK, as well as every other nation in the entire world, has a moral obligation to protect humanity. And I say this simply because we're all humans, and we all have to support one another because if we don't, then who will?

Of course, this is a very idealistic and naive point of view. I don't know much about politics, the military and all the money that goes into it and wars, but I'm sure it's extremely expensive and I don't think any nation would just join a war haphazardly because of the cost in money and lives. So I don't think it's fair to think badly of the US or the UK or whatever because they're not intervening, especially if they may not have the resources to do so.

But I still like to think though that us humans all stick out for each other no matter what the cost is! ... A little boy can dream ... :(

"I think I have to completely agree with Genevieve"

Seconded!

Shaelyssa wrote:
But I still like to think though that us humans all stick out for each other no matter what the cost is! ... A little boy can dream ...

Humans need something to stick out against.
Bring in some alien invaders.

Funnily enough, we're as good as soil if there was an alien invasion^*. What "mankind" would stand united? 80% of the globe would rather poke each other's eyes over co-operating. There are no common grounds, no common ideals, no common interests, no real feeling of belonging. Everyone's a humanitarian as long as they don't need to get off their couch. I don't doubt the motives of a part of them. I doubt the efficiency and the actual impact when motives are about to become actions.

No, there are not enough resources to intervene everywhere. No one claimed that. Fancy how it was American companies securing the restructuring of Iraq after the "liberators" bombed every single infrastructure down, though, isn't it? Or how (in the middle of an ongoing "rebellion") the rebel people of Libya were all too quick to form what the regime was refusing to. No, it wasn't a hospital. It wasn't a church. It wasn't a court. It was a central bank that would be controlled by the Central Bank. That's some very progressive rebels, struggling to find food and fight the "dictator" and still having.. financial interests first in mind, no?

Open your eyes, people. "The world isn't perfect" is an understatement. And the reason it's how it is, is that it's allowed to be. Because everyone submits to it, not wanting the fuss. Delegating it to others, with a silent consent.

If you want it more bluntly put:

Spoiler:

Theatricity and drama aside, take a moment to realise how much of that fictional speech isn't that fictional in daily application.

Are you really in control of your country?

I should hardly think so.

^*PS/Edit: Editting because I don't really want to keep bumping this, but after watching District 9 I must say I recognized a lot of elements in behavioural patterns of "mankind" right there. Just in case said aliens don't go.. "all guns blazing" on our ass (which, for their sake, they better be). I admire anthropologists in their courage to study the one mammal that behaves like a swarm of insects (and that was not related to the movie, btw, more related to locusts), spreading disease, drying out resources, breeding and treading everything - including other humans - as if it was their "divine right".

To explain in terms everyone will understand. Economic sanctions and trade embargos are horrific, murderous, and inhumane tactics that have no effect whatsoever on the government of a country. The people who suffer, starve, and die are the innocent people we are trying to protect.

Wagging a finger will do nothing. Look at Israel ignoring Resolution after Resolution. The only countries who care about Resolutions are the countries who are very unlikely ever to get one in the first place.

Only a soldier can show discretion. And it is for this reason that military intervention is the only effective means of combating such barbarity.

I confess I was really very harsh in the way I expressed myself. But it's a rare week I don't have to defend my profession from the latest liberal arts student who 'read a newspaper on a train once' and has come to the conclusion my profession is immoral and decides to tell me *puts on a grand voice* that if I only laid down my rifle the world would follow!

And I do agree with Shaelyssa. On the previous page I asked when humanity became the United Kingdoms responsability? It was rhetorical question with a very complicated answer. We all have an olbigation to help each other. But for some reason nobody ever seems to ask why Holland aren't wading into Syria, or why Greece doesn't do something about Israel, or why Spain doesn't hop across the straight of Jibralter and spread some democracy in Africa. The finger always seems to point to this tiny little Island in the North Sea and then again to one of it's old colonies. Nobody ever seems to ask why the United Kingdom's share of the EU's contribution to Japan following the Tsnuami was so disproportionately large, only why we didn't give more.

There are 110,000 of us, 6,800,000,000 people to protect. And for that reason I will never accept accusations that we are not doing enough.

Edit: To clarify myself before I offend people I really respect. The above was not an attack on any of the nations mentioned. There are reasons for the above which are related to the very same reasons we cannot do more. It was an exercise to stress the disparity between how people treat the UK/US and other 'Western' countries.

Gene, Mike if I may, cheers for that. Exactly what I'd wish I say when instead I bimble and ramble.

Everyone's in shit, just in different colors.

Geneviève wrote:why Greece doesn't do something about Israel

Greece can't even save itself from electing the same incompetent frauds over a course of 30 years, that's like asking a retard to solve you a mathematical equation Einstein had trouble with.

I don't know what profession it is you speak of, there, Gene, but I highly doubt it's "political leader" or "government". I'll go out on a limb, based on context, and assume it's "military". I'll skip by the whole ordeal with how much of the military is actually trained, efficient and doing its job (cause if you are within it, you know it better than me that a large chunk of it is dead weight), for the sake of not derailing. I'll just ask you one question. Who does it depend on?

On a more general basis, I'm sure there is a number of people the army has liberated. But can you honestly say it's an acceptable price to "liberate" the same number of people the "tyrannic regimes" were "liberating", in addition to that? Occupying provinces will never ever be "clean" and "pure". No matter the purest of intentions of people like you, there will always be an underside. And that is what needs to be fixed. Human nature. Either you apply the Law of the Jungle or you apply equal values and human rights. Right now, mankind's a bastard combination. And its volatile nature is what leads to all the crises and eruptions.

Everyone's in shit, just in different colors.

^ that, pretty much. Problem is, to clean that up, some will have to lose privileges. Do you see that happening with benevolent intentions and their own initiative?

"That's why we had doubts at the beginning, but now we are more convinced. Apparently, [Gaddafi] decided to punish, using rape."

From Luis Moreno-Ocampo (Chief Prosecutor at the ICC).

Yeah... I'm not sure we should be "surprised" ("I tell you, war is Hell!"). But that, well, beggars belief.

I always found it interesting to follow and read this thread, so here's an attempt to ressurect it. I found this on mmo, some general forum I guess: Gaddafi threatens to target Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7hqcdWYRJk

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/07/201171181812716313.html

Thoughts?

Crojwin wrote:I always found it interesting to follow and read this thread, so here's an attempt to ressurect it. I found this on mmo, some general forum I guess: Gaddafi threatens to target Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7hqcdWYRJk

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/07/201171181812716313.html

Thoughts?

I believe that such threat gives them, legally, an opportunity to take the regime down (International law allows use of force only in case of Self-defence, and if they have reasons to believe the threat is serious- they may attack to eliminate the threat. That's the reason why they said they beleive the threat is serious- that and perhaps because it truley is). The question is whether or not will they use it?

I doubt we'll do anything about it. He can't target 'Western' countries which is precisely why we didn't have a care in the world about helping out the rebels.

Was a good move/speech on his part though. Regardless of whether or not we've targeted women/children/homes his supporters will willingly believe we have and it makes him appear more important and secure than he really is.

Good effort, Gaddafi, but it won't save you long term.

Crojwin wrote:I always found it interesting to follow and read this thread, so here's an attempt to ressurect it. I found this on mmo, some general forum I guess: Gaddafi threatens to target Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7hqcdWYRJk

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/07/201171181812716313.html

Thoughts?

obligatory

Spoiler:

Even though Ghaddafi hasn't been captured or killed yet, I think the capture of his sons is reason enough to say it, and I would be saying it even if they hadn't been captured: Sic semper tyrannis.

This also means that the reports of the less noble actions by rebels will start to get more focus from this point. There's already stories of rebel bands looting civilian homes and businesses. Sadly inevitable to some extent, but it does show that restoring order after all this won't be a cakewalk.

Let's hope the Who aren't correct here with their 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'

The end is here!