China preventing UN action on Libya

Discussion in 'China' started by captonjohn, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    The relevance is that nato has ulterior motives and the official reason is wank. if nato had such high morals of democracy and freedom then they wouldn't be allies with dictators and help some of them gain power.

    Im not a communist and neither was guevara....he was a socialist.
     
  2. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    So how many unarmed protestors have to die before nato decides to get involved ? Im sure people in bahrain and syria would like to know.
     
  3. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    5,868
    Apparently in the thousands and the threat of wiping out an entire city...
     
  4. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    5,868
    What does it gain? We already have oil deals in Libya, Total among the largest. Most of Libyan oil flows to Europe and Gaddafi favoured Western oil companies. Sinopec couldn't even land a deal.
    Libya has been a country as long as India. People have been intermarrying in tribes for generations. The old guard is about tribes, the young armed kids going out to fight don't give a care about that.

    US already tried that in Somalia and got Black Hawk Downed. The next option was for the West to instigate the Ethiopian invasion and install the AU peacekeeping force. Congo has several French missions right now, MICOPAX, FOMUC, RECAMP and FACA. All of which are to introduce economic and military security to the region. You won't find a single nation more involved in trying to prevent African genocide than France, and most of it is NOT in oil producing countries.

    Only opponent to fit that bill would be USA... sorry bub. We are not enemies.
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    That picture would keep a rational man quiet. Don't know about others.

    All this discussion started with me saying this invasion is for oil and claims of intentions of saving civilians is an excuse.

    Now that you have implicitly agreed that the rebels are not necessarily innocent, I think we can have some sensible discussion.

    Yes, I edited that post to include that picture and I am quite proud of that. Furnishing additional evidence of hobnobbing between the then British PM and Gaddafi isn't a crime or an insignia of dishonesty, is it? It was intended to point out to you that the very Empire you belong to, was very friendly with Gaddafi in the past and willing to ignore his human rights violations but today has decided to invade Libya, when in reality Gaddafi has been killing his opponents right from the beginning. Consequently, claims of saving civilians are smashed right here.

    • What has not change since that forsaken photo that unnerves you so much? Gaddafi's repression of his opponents have not changed.
    • What has changed since? Gaddafi's willingness to offer his oil resources to certain countries.

    Sorry if my visual evidence makes you uncomfortable. You are not entitled to pass judgments about honesty here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  6. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Allow me to interdict if I may. It is not wiping out any city. It is only when one decides to wipe out a city that is pro-NATO.

    For example, when Gaddafi's forces threatened to invade Benghazi, France decided to bomb the attackers, the Gaddafi forces. However, when the rebels threatened to invade Sirte, France decided NOT to bomb the attackers, this time the rebels. So this proves that France is quite ok if rebels slaughter those civilians who are loyal to Gaddafi.

    Any more bright ideas from you?
     
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Would you apply the same rules for the Irish Republican Army? Oh wait, that wouldn't be quote loyal to that Union Flag that sticks out at the top left corner of your flag, would it? Those trying to get rid of the English domination of Northern Ireland are terrorists, while the rebels in Libya are Saints.
     
  8. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    That is a non sequitur. Is this how you debate?

    Since you mentioned, if I had to choose between communism and capitalism, I'd gladly chose the former. Societies with meagre resources can either share the resources (communism) or decide to invade other countries to steal their resources (capitalism). Communism is the nobler option. In any case, if you want to debate communism or capitalism, go to the relevant thread (try using the search option).
     
  9. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    38
    My bet is no mater how this show ends, the stupid european will lose some of their shares of oils for sure, USA will get a chance to meddle in european back yard.
     
  10. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    5,868
    Allow me to point out the fault in your logic..

    A) Rebels never threatened a "bloodbath" in Sirte
    B) France stopped bombing ground forces when rebels advanced
    C) Rebels didn't slaughter thousands of unarmed civilians

    Any more bright ideas from you?
     
  11. AOE

    AOE Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    23
    It seems you make the similar assumption he made, and that is I never stated that wars by the west or any country do not have an economic incentive. If this was solely about oil, then we wouldn't have bothered with the no-fly zone and ignored the killing of protestors by Gaddafi; since pmaitra here likes to post pictures of Tony Blair trying to reconcile Gaddafis regime with the west 10 years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Why bother at all if they apparently were in bed with each other? Why would the US get involved solely for oil either, yet when Gaddafi called for the assassination of Reagan in the 1980s, they boycotted Libyan oil? As I said to pmaitra; this is a blatant and dishonest, one-sided view of historical and current events.

    Che Guevara was actually into Marxism; a political, economic, and social theory that was the pre-cursor to communism. Why do you have a picture up of him anyway? He represents a regime that killed tens of thousands of people upon Fidel Castro coming to power in Cuba, which also stifles human rights, personal liberties and freedoms, etc...
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  12. AOE

    AOE Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    23
    Evidence doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, one-sided views of conflicts backed with fallacious reasoning that wouldn't last a day in a secular court of law or high school philosophy class DO make me feel uncomfortable. Your picture of Tony Blair shaking hands is cute, but it still begs the question; why would he be in 'cahoots' with Gaddafi when up to two months ago, Tony Blair actually called Gaddafi and asked him to step down in response to the protests? Why would we also go to war with him for 'oil' if the British PM is apparently getting support from him? If he's working for the west then according to your logic, there would be no need for any kind of intervention. Maybe you see this as 'revenge' for the past, but I highly doubt that.

    That's why I countered that original discussion by saying the point made is weak, because if you look at the countries also surrounding Libya that have had similar protests for democracy and human rights, both the leaders of those countries were pro-western (Egypt and Tunisia). Is Tunisia one of the worlds top producers of oil? No. So why did the west allow the government to be toppled? Why would the west ask for Hosni Mubarak to step down in Egypt? The answer to these questions show your arguments to be flawed, because the ultimate and only answer that holds any water at present is that the American, British, French and other western countries do wish to see the peoples in these regions get the human rights, freedoms, and liberties they deserve. Why else would the west allow those regimes to lose pro-western governments if they are as purely opportunistic as you say they are? A new elected government might not be pro-western at all, indeed some of the protestors in Egypt have voiced very anti-Israeli sentiments, just as how some members in the government of Iraq have shown that they bow to the Ayatollah in Iran more than Iraq.

    If by 'implicitly agreed' you mean you accept that you ignored/misunderstood/misrepresented my original statement about how there are islamist elements within the rebels, and you chose to ignore this, then yes; I guess I do 'implicitly agree.' Sensible discussion should be something that comes first, and by this stage it is too little, too late. Prior to the end of the Soviet Union, Gaddafi had a negative relationship with the west due to his history of sponsoring death squads in the Middle-East, his invasion of Chad, the Lockerbie bombings, etc... All you have presented so far is a picture of Gaddafi shaking the hand of Tony Blair, which doesn't disprove my statement at all. You haven't shown evidence of the west not wanting to save civillians at all (or as some kind of excuse), rather just your own interpretation of politics. Let me ask you something, are you advocating that the no-fly zone be lifted and the countries involved to stop bombing the Libyan armed forces that are killing civillians, regardless of whether they are rebels or not?

    As for the point of Gaddafi's repression; well unless you would support the notion of NATO going in on the ground to take him out faster, I'm afraid this is the best of all possible scenarios given that people are lazy and complacent when it comes to toppling and deposing tyrants in this world. It's thanks to people who hold the views like you that any war where the US and its allies step in to bring about democracy is automatically turned into the conflict only being about resources, or somehow we're as bad as the tyrants we're fighting apparently. Where was the major deposits of oil in Nazi Germany? What about Korea? Israel? The Balkans? Somalia? Taiwan? lol There are even reports coming in of the possibility of the US sitting on top of some large desposits of oil of its own that haven't been tapped into yet.

    Nice strawman argument. Rather than assume outright what my stance is, here's a better idea; why not just ask? My stance is actually quite neutral. Yes they were once fighting for the liberation and freedom of Ireland from British colonialism, but ever since they have won independence; they have been involved in activities that are very questionable. These activities include; governmental support for Nazi Germany during WWII (Sinn Fein), the only country on earth to my knowledge that still houses graves of defeated fascists from that same war, has been engaged in acts of terrorism against both the people of Northern Ireland and people in the Republic of Ireland (bombings, intentionally killing civillians, etc...), and The IRA is also notorious for causing an unnecessary civil war in in its home country, of which cost the life of one of their most important leaders; Michael Collins, killed by the same people he once sided with. Being a rebel group doesn't automatically get my support, it's what the group fights for that matters the most. If the Libyan rebels killed people indiscriminately in a similar fashion to Gaddafi, then I would not support them and still support the possibility of getting ground troops into Libya instead.

    Anyway if you're so convinced about the evils of capitalism, interventionism, western foreign policies, etc... why not go take this up in a court of law? I'm sure all the evidence is on your side, and you'll gain a swift victory in court. Everyone will be convinced by pmaitra that communism is the way to go, and that their notions of freedom, wealth, prosperity, and human rights are 'filthy bourgeoisie lies.' Add in racist remarks about Europeans too for good measure, as racism is always the hallmark of a literary and political genius. Good luck with that, and hey post me any updates on how it's going for you, lol.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  13. AOE

    AOE Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    23
    Apparently you have trouble understanding that I said 'On a side note', and there is nothing wrong with asking the question I did. Capitalism isn't designed to invade countries and steal their resources, that's colonialism, and is also practiced by many communist countries both past and present; including the Chinese. The two are different, but to someone who thinks communism is better; I'm not surprised you hold the skewed views you do. Yes killing tens of millions of people is better than having a more-free economic system where people can own their own businesses, and generate their own wealth. I'll get to the capitalism/communism debate in my own time.

    Update: I did some searching for 'capitalism' and 'capitalist' in the search feature, but all of the threads seem to be archived except for an old and unused topic about the Soviet Union. If you want to talk to me about it, either start your own thread or send me a PM.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  14. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    The people in syria await your decision.



    PS the title of the video is wank (blaming iran :pound:) but since i wanted to post the video it'll have to do.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  15. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    5,868
    We are pushing for EU sanctions.... what else you want us to do when Russia blocks a UNSC condemnation vote? France don't attack without a resolution.

    That video was not necessary and certainly nothing to laugh at in any context.
     
  16. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    No outcrys from the preachers of democracy and freedom....i wonder why ?

    It certainly is laughable ie. the claim that iran ordered the shootings...the event certainly isn't but i wasn't laughing at it in any case. Dont divert the topic ;)
     
  17. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,527
    Likes Received:
    5,868

    That video should have come with a warning.
     
  18. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Since you understand so much, why don't you quit making fallacious reasoning?


    When exactly did Ireland in its entirely gain independence? Last time I checked, Northern Ireland was still under English occupation.

    I simply filtered out and responded to whatever made sense to me. Sorry I cannot afford the luxury of spare time to respond to harangue.
     
  19. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Plenty of things are apparent to you and to you only. You simply do not know what you are talking about. killing of thousands of people is not communism, maybe to you. I have made my point and the fact that you want to linger on your convoluted notion shows your indoctrinated mind and juvenile rationalisation are not capable of a meaningful discourse. You can access archived threads. Read them and post there. If you have difficulty, send a request to the mods to reopen the thread.

    I won't let you derail this thread just because you want to carry out your propaganda, therefore, I am not going to respond to you unless you post in the relevant thread.
     
  20. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Libyan leader Gaddafi survives Nato air strike, son killed

    Libyan leader Gaddafi survives Nato air strike, son killed

    Reuters | May 1, 2011, 04.55am IST; Times of India

    TRIPOLI: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi survived a Nato air strike that killed his youngest son and three grandchildren and destroyed a Tripoli house, a Libyan government spokesman said on Saturday.

    "What we have now is the law of the jungle," government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim told a news conference. "We think now it is clear to everyone that what is happening in Libya has nothing to do with the protection of civilians."

    Gaddafi, who seized power in a 1969 coup, is fighting an uprising by rebels who have seized much of the eastern part of the country. British and French-led Nato forces are permitted under a United Nations resolution to attack Gaddafi forces to protect civilians.

    There was no immediate Nato reaction or independent confirmation of the incident.

    Libya's government took journalists to the house, which had been hit by at least three missiles. The roof had completely caved in in some areas, leaving mangled rods of reinforcing steel hanging down among chunks of concrete.

    A table football machine stood outside in the garden of the house, which was in a wealthy residential area of Tripoli.

    The blasts had been heard across the city late on Saturday. Rifle fire and car horns rang out in the rebels' eastern capital of Benghazi as news of the attack spread.

    Authorities said Gaddafi's youngest son, Saif al-Arab, had been killed in the attack. Saif al-Arab is one of Gaddafi's less prominent sons, with a limited role in the Tripoli power structure.

    Ibrahim said Saif al-Arab, 29, was a student who had studied in Germany.

    "We will fight and fight if we have to," Ibrahim said. "The leader offered peace to Nato yesterday and Nato rejected it."

    Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...air-strike-son-killed/articleshow/8131290.cms
     

Share This Page