China preventing UN action on Libya

[The Messiah]

Because he was left leaning and according to you all left leaning people are assholes. read the bold part.

west has had the benefit of looting wealth from countries around the world while the others countries have not. democratic countries also exist that have poor human living conditions.

 

[ace009]

Because he was left leaning and according to you all left leaning people are assholes. read the bold part.

west has had the benefit of looting wealth from countries around the world while the others countries have not. democratic countries also exist that have poor human living conditions.

Dude - I AM left leaning - that does not mean I have to buy into every asinine idea that comes out of the so-called left in India, or for that matter the "so-called" left in China or Russia. Your problem is with the idea that you think the west is an unified monolithic structure, which is bent on exploiting and ravaging the rest of the world.
Think about it a bit more rationally and less emotionally then you may realize that the west is not the great evil you think it is and the so-called leftist states (China, Russia, westbengal) etc are not as great "socialists" as they claim.

 

[amoy]

I AM left leaning - that does not mean I have to buy into every asinine idea that comes out of the so-called left in India, or for that matter the "so-called" left in China or Russia

It's not about left or right or whatever. there're left/right/'neutral' across the politcal spetrum. in every country incl. china or russia. back to the topic, i.e. perception abt this intervention in Libya, and interactions among different stakeholders.

 

[ace009]

Well, I think it would be really good if the western countries can help Libyans kick out Gaddafi, however, I would be very disappointed if the western military has to occupy Libya to do it. As for Gaddafi being "leftist", that kind of "leftism" has been discarded with the fall of the Berlin wall and is about as bad as Iran's "islamism".

 

[Nonynon]

I don't think the West will occupy Lybia because:
1. The West isn't the only one involved in the operation.
2. Extreme reactions from international communities.
3. Extreme opposition from the Westen public.
4. It will involve too many getting killed, USA can't afford another Iraq and neither can Europe.
5. Many Western leaders are known for thinking of themselves as being national leaders as well as world leaders. That means they care about the Lybian people as well as their own (western leftists).
6. Huge Arab minorities in the Western world can do a lot of damage and political suicidal pressure on the government (like the Muslim Arab minority in Israel is doing). This is one of the downsides of democracy.

The oil just isn't close to be worth it...

 

[The Messiah]

Dude - I AM left leaning - that does not mean I have to buy into every asinine idea that comes out of the so-called left in India, or for that matter the "so-called" left in China or Russia. Your problem is with the idea that you think the west is an unified monolithic structure, which is bent on exploiting and ravaging the rest of the world.
Think about it a bit more rationally and less emotionally then you may realize that the west is not the great evil you think it is and the so-called leftist states (China, Russia, westbengal) etc are not as great "socialists" as they claim.

Where have i claimed that russia and china are havens of human rights because they are "left leaning" ? They dont even follow socialism the way its meant to be followed.

Everyone exploits resources if they have the power be it the west or anyone else....to think that west are angels is absurd. They've been looting and exploiting countless countries for quite some time now. The facts speak for themselves.

I only desire India to have the capability to defend itself against china, pakistan or the west and not sit in the belief that the west are freedom loving angels and get caught out in the future.

 

[Armand2REP]

"France lead USA"？ You want to show your humor or stupid?

I suggest you keep up with current events, France wrote the authorisation bill, held the coalition talks in Paris, and forced coalition action by bombing Libya before the talks were over. France lead, Americans follow.

 

[Nonynon]

Yea France seems to be leading this. USA doesn't want to look the leader because that would get a lot of Muslims angry, for France it's an excellent opportunity to increase its statues (as well as Sarkusis in particular).

 

[The Messiah]

Yea France seems to be leading this. USA doesn't want to look the leader because that would get a lot of Muslims angry, for France it's an excellent opportunity to increase its statues (as well as Sarkusis in particular).

key word being 'look'.

But it is actually calling the shots!

 

[Armand2REP]

key word being 'look'.

But it is actually calling the shots!

Not really, it calls its own shots. France coordinates with what they are doing and commands the Arabs. There is a difference in the words commanding and coordinating which the latter is what the US is doing. Just as it was in Serbia, France/UK/US all get vetoes on targets. I am sure 99% of them are in agreement as they all share the same goal, getting rid of Gaddafi by means of the rebel advance.

 

[singa]

pmaitra : yeah - china has a knack for annoying those that could be it's best friends. If china ever stands a chance to challenge USA, it needs to stop throwing it's weight around in Asia. Like MMS says, we are perplexed by why China feels the need to bully India and lose it's friendship. India bears no threat at all to China - neither in politics nor economically (There is scant overlap in the fields where Chinese and Indian economy is strong).

PRC hostility to India can just be explained by an immature sort of bullying. The new bully in town feels that unless he whacks his neighbours, there's no way he'll be respected by the existing bully. New bully doesn't realize that old bully is weakening him by using those very neighbours.

badguy - PRC doesn't disrupt world order with it's "might", the only thing it achieves is self-isolation by it's posturing. The "world order" is same as circa 1990. NATO can invade any country it likes.

NATO can NOT invade any country it likes. It just invaded the countries it is able to.

 

[singa]

What humanitarian disaster? You mean the one caused by Gaddafi that we are stopping? lol

Gaddafi was a good friend to China, he put 36,000 to work worth $30 billion in construction contracts. China abstained because Russia abstained. They do not use their own minds.

As far as I know, those Chinese working in Libya were hired by European companies. European companies cannot find lost cost high skill workers in other countries, so they outsource the projects to China companies, so finally Chinese comes in. The same case happened in Indian and Pakistan.

 

[badguy2000]

As far as I know, those Chinese working in Libya were hired by European companies. European companies cannot find lost cost high skill workers in other countries, so they outsource the projects to China companies, so finally Chinese comes in. The same case happened in Indian and Pakistan.

you are wrong.
Most Chinese in lybia were hired by Chinese companies . that is why the retreat of over 36K CHinese in Lybiacould be organized so well and so rapidly.

Furthermore, many Indians ,Vietnamese and Bengaliese in Lybia were also hired by CHinese companies,so they were also allowed to board on the "rescuing ships" provided by CHinese government.

here are the Indian and Bengaliese who were "bailed out" from Lybia by Chinese government....they were all the employees of CHinese companies....that is why CHinese helped them....

 

[AOE]

To be frank here, the whole 'who calls the shots' stuff is nonsense. The NATO effort to establish a no-fly zone is to prevent Gaddafi from killing his own people, and if you're busy bragging about who has the highest post of command, you've missed the point.

 

[badguy2000]

To be frank here, the whole 'who calls the shots' stuff is nonsense. The NATO effort to establish a no-fly zone is to prevent Gaddafi from killing his own people, and if you're busy bragging about who has the highest post of command, you've missed the point.

it is not Gaddafi that is "killing his own people" at all.

It is two tribes called Tripolia and Cyrene that restart their thousand-year-long tribe-killing game.

it is two bad apples that are argueing who is worse. and West countries asserts that the bad apple called tripolia led by gaddafi is worse and the one called Cyrene is "democracy"....hahah

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Can you justify this image that this is from Libya by giving any source or something like that?

 

[badguy2000]

Can you justify this image that this is from Libya by giving any source or something like that?

here is a chinese website full of some pictures....it tells that CHinese helped over 2K foreigners out of Libya,mainly including Vietnamese and Bengaliese.

You can not read Chinese scripts....but you should can read the pictures...
http://junshi.xilu.com/2011/0228/news_44_143379.html

 

[Yatharth Singh]

it is not Gaddafi that is "killing his own people" at all.

It is two tribes called Tripolia and Cyrene that restart their thousand-year-long tribe-killing game.

it is two bad apples that are argueing who is worse. and West countries asserts that the bad apple called tripolia led by gaddafi is worse and the one called Cyrene is "democracy"....hahah

Very well said, all actions taken by UN to declare Libya a non flying zone are wrong no matter even if one of the tribe in power uses air strikes to suppress the other resulting in mass murder.
If two people are fighting on a street in hand to hand combat then police will arrest both of them but what if one of the person grabs an AK-47 and shoots the other one and then starts firing on his friends and family? Obviously the police will knock that person down having the rifle.

I hope you have understood what i`m trying to say.

 

[cw2005]

The American and his allies attacked non-air-defense target on the ground is violating UN resolution of NFZ.

The Secretary of State's of America's determination to pull down the current leader there is also not included in the UN resolution.

In short, this is a typical hegemony of the whites.

If we let them do it this time, next time, they might help the Naxalite and start intervening India to handle its own affair as an independent country.

The same whites dare not to invade North Korea. One thing to remember, a county should never, ever give up Nuclear Weapon. Otherwise, that would be an open invitation for the fighters of the west.

 

[Armand2REP]

Actually, the 1973 resolution says to protect civilians "by any means necessary." If the coalition reads that as helping the rebels take out Gaddafi, that is what it is. Sarko put that in there for a reason.