Libya [Archive] - VBForums

FunkyDexter

Mar 9th, 2011, 07:13 AM

All of the above except invade. There's no way that's happening after Iraq and Afghanistan. But we're already standing around talking about how impotent the UN are. We'll almost certainly set up a no fly zone. We've already sent in a diplomatic to talk to the rebels and, given that it was apparently being protected by SAS troops I'm willing to bet it was carrying more than a box of chocolates. And it won't be long before you see blue helmets over there. Actually, we probably won't bother assassinating Gadaffi because, what's the point now?

I was waiting for someone to post a question about this in World Events. I'd kept meaning to myself but never quite got round to it. Possibly the single most important chain of events since the collapse of the Berlin wall and it's taken us weeks to bring it up.:rolleyes:

The point that's struck me but which nobody seems to be mentioning: Isn't this pretty much the manifestation of the neo-con dream. Insyall a democracy in Iraq and it'll spread throughout the region. Of course, I think they were hoping it would spread to Iran rather than Egypt but even so... maybe they were right.

MarMan

Mar 9th, 2011, 07:49 AM

Innocent people are getting killed. That's the part I do not like.

"send in a hit squad to take out gaddafi" + his sons and whoever would try to fill the vacuum would, in my opinion, cause the least harm to people who deserve no harm. But its a mess.

"Attempt to introduce a No fly Zone" - for the jets, easy. for the helicopters, impossible. It would stop gaddafi from lobbing bombs at cities.

"hand some guns & equipment to the rebels" I'm all for helping someone help themselves. Would that really be helping them? Only they can decide no matter what it may look like to us. More bullets = more death.

I think for future generations, the sooner the country moves away from a dictator, the better. It just won't be better immediately.

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 14th, 2011, 07:36 AM

The point that's struck me but which nobody seems to be mentioning: Isn't this pretty much the manifestation of the neo-con dream. Insyall a democracy in Iraq and it'll spread throughout the region.

I thought the Neo-Con dream had more to do with keeping oil supplies safe ?

I haven't seen many republican coming forward saying they are particularly happy with what's going on in Libya and Egypt & Tunisia e.t.c as they may have been run by dictators but at least they were our dictators.

Libya maybe different i would have thought the republicans would be happy to see the back of Gaddafi more than any of the other leaders.

"send in a hit squad to take out gaddafi" + his sons and whoever would try to fill the vacuum would, in my opinion, cause the least harm to people who deserve no harm. But its a mess.

This would be the nicest solution, but i have the feeling that it would also be incredibly difficult and we would probably make a mess of it.

"Attempt to introduce a No fly Zone" - for the jets, easy. for the helicopters, impossible. It would stop gaddafi from lobbing bombs at cities.

Yes i agree, although i wonder on its own if it will do much good.

"hand some guns & equipment to the rebels" I'm all for helping someone help themselves. Would that really be helping them? Only they can decide no matter what it may look like to us. More bullets = more death.

This is what i am not sure about. The Rebels are heavily out armed by Gaddafi's troops. Given time now it seems that left alone Gaddafi has enough Fire-power to take out the Rebels. So if we dont want to invade, do we put some special forces dudes in with the Rebels and give them some heavy weapons ?

There is going to be lots of death either way revolutions are more often bloody than not.

FunkyDexter

Mar 15th, 2011, 07:36 AM

I thought the Neo-Con dream had more to do with keeping oil supplies safe ?Fair enough. For the cynical among us I should have said "declared dream".

I'm generally against getting involved in foreign countries but this feels to me like something we really should be doing something about. I'm still not sure invading would be a good idea (or welcome) but the rebels and the leagure of Arab Nations have called for a No Fly zone and that's legitimacy enough for me. I'm really quite angry that we don't seem to be doing anything at all about this, meanwhile Gadaffi's troops have retaken all the major cities except Benghazi.

MarMan

Mar 15th, 2011, 08:02 AM

I'm still not sure invading would be a good idea (or welcome) but the rebels and the leagure of Arab Nations have called for a No Fly zone and that's legitimacy enough for me.

I agree. If non-Arab countries feel a no fly zone would help AND the Arab League agree, (really?), then it seems like something should be done.

abhijit

Mar 17th, 2011, 08:06 AM

So what does everyone think will happen in Libya ? it looks increasingly likely that the western developed nations may intervene. If they do what will it be ?

The main options seem to be;

- Invade.
- Attempt to introduce a No fly Zone
- hand some guns & equipment to the rebels.
- send in a hit squad to take out gaddafi.
- send in some UN peace keepers troops to hang around and get shot at.
- talk loudly and angrily about the deterioration bemoaning the impotence of the
UN, whilst at the same time secretly siphoning off all there oil.

No a great bunch of options to be honest but has anybody got any better ideas ?

Leaving them alone would be a good option, IMHO.

DeanMc

Mar 20th, 2011, 01:41 PM

I agree with abhijit, people are still dying the world over from hunger but that doesn't seem so important. Let Libya sort Libya out. Who is to say the rebels wont install a similar regime.

MarMan

Mar 21st, 2011, 08:52 AM

LaVolpe

Mar 21st, 2011, 09:48 AM

...but I think shoving a missle down gadaffi's throat would be an improvement. Putting his head on a pike may work out also.May be no need for this. By the UN temporarily preventing Libya's military from squashing the opposition, the opposition will most undoubtedly grow stronger. As it gains strength, both in numbers and weaponary, less and less people will be pro-Gadhafi . Once highly ranked military leaders jump the fence towards Free-Libya, Gadhafi may have no choice but to flee or risk murder/execution by the hand of his own people.

But there are many variables and many potential outcomes assuming the UN does not authorize ground forces. It is possible the opposition doesn't organize and arm sufficiently to do the job. It is possible Gadhafi backs off for a year or two and then swarms back in. It is possible Libya splits into two countries (east & west). So many other scenarios are possible. For us non-Libyans, we can only wait and see which scenarios play out. The UN leveled the battlefield a bit, but it's still in the hands of the Libyans -- both sides.

MarMan

Mar 21st, 2011, 09:56 AM

Gadhafi may have no choice but to flee

I think that would be the best choice to reduce the loss of life as much as possible. Actually I just thought of something. Since a lot of his assets are frozen I believe it would be wise to offer him all his wealth back if he promises (and his sons) to retire. Then have UN backed elections. But that would only work with a sound mind, and he is (this is another belief of mine) a madman.

LaVolpe

Mar 21st, 2011, 10:01 AM

...I think that would be the best choice...
May not be his best choice. If he flees, it will have to be to a country that will protect him. Otherwise, the world court will be tracking him down to prosecute him for crimes against humanity. Definitely don't release his wealth... it will only go to bad use resulting in killing of more innocents - be it Americans, Europeans, and anyone else his new protectorate deems worthwhile.

MarMan

Mar 21st, 2011, 10:18 AM

Definitely don't release his wealth... it will only go to bad use resulting in killing of more innocents - be it Americans, Europeans, and anyone else his new protectorate deems worthwhile.

Good point. I stand corrected.

abhijit

Mar 22nd, 2011, 01:15 PM

@abhijit & @DeanMc You may be right, only time will tell what the best choice to make is.

There is a lot of food that is wasted because no one wants to pay to ship it to where the people need it.

But I don't like bad people. I am completely biased against them. But then someone on this site pointed out that a "bad person" is only an opinion. Fortunately there is a substantial number of people in the world who share my opinion that gadaffi is a "bad person". All that does is booster my belief, which is neither right nor wrong, but can lead to good or bad results. I hate to see innocent people bombed, shot, spit on or go hungry. So an incomplete summation would be:

Bomb gadaffi, possiblly (probably, but not definite) kill some innocent people.
Leave Libya alone and probably watch innocent people die.

I'm sorry, I may be wrong, but I think shoving a missle down gadaffi's throat would be an improvement. Putting his head on a pike may work out also.

Deciding who's bad is a very tough call. There's a bumper sticker somewhere that shouts " Kill them All! Let G-D sort they out". I am not sure if that's a very sensible solution. Inherently all people have a survival mechanism built into them. This mechanism will force you into making decisions that will be probably be termed as "bad" by others, but will in fact be good for you. It is wrong to be selfish, but that's what has been keeping humans alive for centuries.

At some point of time these "innocent people" will rise and do whatever is necessary to get rid of whatever / whoever they deem is evil. The key to this is that they need to do it by themselves without the hand-holding. If anyone has to put his head on a pike or send a missile down his throat let it be the "junta".

Note: junta (also spelled as janta) is a hindi word which means "people" or "crowd". Also used to indicate "crowd" or "the kind of people" at some place.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 23rd, 2011, 11:10 AM

The current situation has some interesting parallels to the Barbary coast war that created the US Navy and Marine Corps. In that one, we fought a series of inconsequential actions, embargoes, and so forth against the ruler of Tripoli. Eventually, an enterprising guy started an uprising based around the rulers brother (in that case, but it was still a rebellion in eastern Tripoli, which is now Libya). The rebels moved west towards the city of Tripoli, gaining a bit of ground against outposts, which scared the leader into making some concessions. At that point, the US abandoned the rebels, and the ruler of Tripoli re-conquered the whole country.

MarMan

Mar 23rd, 2011, 11:35 AM

Deciding who's bad is a very tough call.

I agree. It also depends on which society you belong to. And there any not many that support killing innocent women and children to preserve your wealth while you are already wealthy. Flat out lying is also considered bad in most cultures. Let us assume satan (the devil) is real, then those would be good traits. Just bad traits for a society that is not based on evil. Of course that could be considered my opinion. It just happens to be shared by a large portion of the people on this planet. Which could be considered a "de-facto definition".

And if his bahavior is due to mental illness, then he has no right to govern anyone. (my opinion).

At some point of time these "innocent people" will rise and do whatever is necessary to get rid of whatever / whoever they deem is evil. The key to this is that they need to do it by themselves without the hand-holding. If anyone has to put his head on a pike or send a missile down his throat let it be the "junta".

I agree with this statement also. They ARE trying to do it by themselves. And they ARE getting slaughtered. Example: If you keep sending out the weak kid to stand up to the bully then, in a situation like Libya, they will come back with a black eye, then a bloody nose, then missing teeth; permanently scarred for life, physically and possibly mentally. When a little intervention could have gone a long way. So what do they do? Take abuse their whole life? Drop out of school? Or get help?

Basically it depends on how much abuse you don't mind other people getting. Some people have been abused and don't want it to happen to others, some have been and figure if they had to go through it so should anyone else. Others have never been abused but still oppose it while others can not even grasp the concept therefore don't really know the distress others can be in. What is right? All of them depending on who you ask.

One thing I do know is a FACT: If I were over there watching my family, friends or fellow countrymen getting slaughtered, I would be pleased with any help I could get. Even if someone brought me a wheel barrow full of rocks I can throw before I die, I would be grateful.

Another FACT: I prefer to see people being grateful than dead. But not everyone shares that belief.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 23rd, 2011, 03:14 PM

Another FACT: I prefer to see people being grateful than dead. But not everyone shares that belief.

Yeah, the Grateful Dead were a bit controversial, though I'm not quite sure how they got into this discussion.

FunkyDexter

Mar 24th, 2011, 07:23 AM

<Groan> Shaggy, your puns are getting worse. Which is quite an achievement really.:thumb:

I keep seeing the 'It's none of our business' argument and it's true, it is none of our business. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get involved. If an old guy falls down in front of me it's none of my business, but that doesn't stop me being an arse if I just walk past and don't help him up.

Perhaps a better metephor would be if the old guy was being beaten up as then there would be some risk to me as a result of helping. But, frankly, I like to think of myself as the sort of person who'd be willing to accept that risk if I could save the old fella a lump or two. I like to think I can hold my nation up to the same standards as I do myself and I'm glad that, in this case, I can - even if we did leave it a bit late.

Also, the 'well we didn't stop Mugabe' argument irritates me a bit as well. Failing to act in one situation where we should have does not justify failing to act in another. Two wrongs don't make a right. Of course, you might not think we should have acted against Mugabe and that then opens a sensible debate but arguing that we can't intervene now because we didn't intervene then just doesn't hold water for me.

As for how you define whether someone's 'bad' enough to merit military action that is, of course, highly subjective. However, in this case, Gadaffi's own people are saying he's bad enough, his neighbours are saying he's bad enough, hell, his own mother's probably starting to look a bit embarrassed by her son's behaviour by now. Action is justified in this case because all the relevant parties are asking for it.

Xanith

Mar 24th, 2011, 10:40 AM

What I want to know is where is all of the people claiming about this being a war over oil? People couldn’t help themselves falling all over that argument when the Iraq war was going on.

Also why are we not going into Yemen? Iran? Syria? Bahrain? The Middle East and Africa is on fire with innocent civilians getting slaughtered all over the place. Why do we care so much about Libya?

There is no clear defined plan about what to do in Libya; all of the stated goals seem to change depending on who you are talking too. Obama and the US have pretty much abdicated all responsibility choosing to follow instead of leading, despite having the great majority of military assets being from the US. If that is the case then the US shouldn’t be investing its blood and treasure for such an action, especially when it has 0 impact on the security and interests of the United States.

X

szlamany

Mar 24th, 2011, 11:13 AM

Libya is one of the largest sources of light sweet crude - oil that turns into more petroleum and more easily.

That is why Libya is important at all to the international community.

That was obvious to me from day 1.

MarMan

Mar 24th, 2011, 11:46 AM

Also why are we not going into Yemen? Iran? Syria? Bahrain? The Middle East and Africa is on fire with innocent civilians getting slaughtered all over the place. Why do we care so much about Libya?

Good question. I will speculate that for two reasons:

A lot of people don't like gadaffi
There is a lot of support for this mission

I should clarify my earlier statements. I am for this because I don't like people getting killed. Wherever it is. I am not saying that is the only or main reason driving all the other nations, although I believe it plays a role. I think their dislike for gadaffi (lowercase intentional) is a big part of it. I believe oil has little to do with it because everyone buys oil from everyone no matter who they are mad at (as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong). I think shipping costs play more a role as to where oil goes then who hates who.

szlamany

Mar 24th, 2011, 11:49 AM

Do you really think that oil has little to do with it? He has been insane for decades (with all the assorted atrocities) and allowed to be - for just that reason - and that reason alone.

szlamany

Mar 24th, 2011, 11:53 AM

from a quick web search

But Libya is big enough to make a difference, and the turmoil is not taking place in a vacuum. It is happening against a backdrop of unrest throughout the region -- and rising demand for oil from developing countries.

Even though Saudi officials pledged this week to ramp up their production to fill any shortfall, no one knows if Qaddafi will be the only Middle East oil autocrat in danger of being toppled.

“Libya is the first major oil exporter to be actually affected by the protests,” said Jim Burkhard, managing director of the global oil group at IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm based in Cambridge, Mass. “If you add into that this historic change in the Middle East, then you have greater anxiety about rising oil prices.”

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 24th, 2011, 11:58 AM

I don't think the US or the UN security council would have acted on their own. Once they got the Arab League request, then they had a situation they could work with. You won't see Arab League support for intervention in Iran, Syria, or Bahrain. We might see support for somet6hing in Yemen, but that is a country like Egypt in that the government could fall through protest alone. We certainly wouldn't have done anything in Libya if Murmuring Gadly had simply fled the country.

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 25th, 2011, 11:10 AM

What I want to know is where is all of the people claiming about this being a war over oil? People couldn’t help themselves falling all over that argument when the Iraq war was going on.

People were saying it because there was quite a bit of truth in it.

In Iraq if you see what has happened to there oil fields since the War (opened up to Western companies) it is difficult to argue.

In Libya, i think we would be naive to think that none of the international leaders has thought about the oil in Libya, but there is a distinct difference between the two wars.

In Libya there was a popular uprising that was being crushed by the regime, and Gaddafi's troops where visibly attacking there own people and were about to descend on a city (Benghazi) of around a million people. If left alone it could well have been genocide. Oh and also we got a UN resolution which we also didn't get in Iraq.

In Iraq we had some reports that Saddam had WMDs he wasn't using them and he wasn't attacking his own people at the time. If he had been doing any of those thing then there would have been a whole lot more justification for going to war in Iraq.

Also why are we not going into Yemen? Iran? Syria? Bahrain? The Middle East and Africa is on fire with innocent civilians getting slaughtered all over the place. Why do we care so much about Libya?

You do have a point, Yemen looks like it will sort itself out, as the military have defected to the rebels and if the current ruler does go to war then it will be against his own military.

The others and several other countries Burma, North Korea e.t.c you could ask why we dont do anything, some of the answer are political. Bahrain is best buddies with Saudi Arabia and we have very close links with them and the US even closer, Iran would be a bloodbath and very difficult to countenance.

Personally i think that more should have been done in countries like Burma, and Bahrain and Zimbabwe. I suspect Politics got in the way of us intervening.

Libya is one of the largest sources of light sweet crude - oil that turns into more petroleum and more easily.

To be fair Libya's oil fields are not in the same League as Iraq's, they are in no way anywhere near as big, certainly not big enough to start a war over, especially as many western countries already had contracts to extract oil in Libya.

szlamany

Mar 25th, 2011, 07:11 PM

I think Libya is like 2% of world wide production - not a big number - they are probably the smallest of the "big oil producers".

I never said "start a war over oil reserves in Libya" - I more or less meant we ignored an docile-evil-bad-guy because sleeping with him felt good in the overall game-of-world-wide-oil-consumption and the game-of-Risk we keep playing in the middle east...

...not that libya is even near those hot spots...

Tripoli should be a resort on the Mediterranean - I guess that's what Gadfly thought it was all along...

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 28th, 2011, 03:58 AM

I never said "start a war over oil reserves in Libya" - I more or less meant we ignored an docile-evil-bad-guy because sleeping with him felt good in the overall game-of-world-wide-oil-consumption and the game-of-Risk we keep playing in the middle east...

Yes very true, we (the so-called developed countries) do that a lot, if the tyrant in charge of a big oil producing nation is friendly to us and doesn't try and commit genocide we tend to leave them well alone. In fact we tend to finance them to stop terrorism, which often comes back to haunt us.

FunkyDexter

Mar 28th, 2011, 07:06 AM

That's because being a tyrant isn't sufficiently 'evil' to justify going to war. Declaring that you're going to massacre about half a million of your own people and then making a damn good effort to follow though on it is.

The difference between Iraq/Yemen and Libya is legitimacy. In the case of Iraq we lacked the international legitimacy to justify an invasion because so much of the UN and Arab world objected to it. I personally think we lacked the moral legitimacy as well but that's a different debate. Equally, the Arab league is not currently calling out for us to intervene in Yemen or Bahrain. They were calling for us to act in Libya.

It's starting to look like Tunisia might be about to go the same way though.

honeybee

Mar 28th, 2011, 07:34 AM

honeybee

Mar 28th, 2011, 07:40 AM

I agree. It also depends on which society you belong to. And there any not many that support killing innocent women and children to preserve your wealth while you are already wealthy. Flat out lying is also considered bad in most cultures. Let us assume satan (the devil) is real, then those would be good traits. Just bad traits for a society that is not based on evil. Of course that could be considered my opinion. It just happens to be shared by a large portion of the people on this planet. Which could be considered a "de-facto definition".

And if his bahavior is due to mental illness, then he has no right to govern anyone. (my opinion).

I agree with this statement also. They ARE trying to do it by themselves. And they ARE getting slaughtered. Example: If you keep sending out the weak kid to stand up to the bully then, in a situation like Libya, they will come back with a black eye, then a bloody nose, then missing teeth; permanently scarred for life, physically and possibly mentally. When a little intervention could have gone a long way. So what do they do? Take abuse their whole life? Drop out of school? Or get help?

Basically it depends on how much abuse you don't mind other people getting. Some people have been abused and don't want it to happen to others, some have been and figure if they had to go through it so should anyone else. Others have never been abused but still oppose it while others can not even grasp the concept therefore don't really know the distress others can be in. What is right? All of them depending on who you ask.

One thing I do know is a FACT: If I were over there watching my family, friends or fellow countrymen getting slaughtered, I would be pleased with any help I could get. Even if someone brought me a wheel barrow full of rocks I can throw before I die, I would be grateful.

Another FACT: I prefer to see people being grateful than dead. But not everyone shares that belief.

Yeah, but there are societies which don't really mind if the innocent being slaughtered are from another society. And it's nice to see you turning your personal opinions into defacto crap within a matter of a sentence. That art was sorely missing.

What about Gaddafi? Definitely if he were watching his family, his friends' families, his employees' families or fellow countrymen getting slaughtered, he too would be pleased with any help he could get. And mind you, if you dig deeper, you will find the US of A delivered more than a wheelbarrow full of rocks to Gaddafi.

Just out of curiousity, I ran a search: Here's what Wikipaedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

On 1 September 1969, a small group of junior military officers led by Gaddafi staged a bloodless coup d'état against King Idris while he was in Turkey for medical treatment. His nephew, the Crown Prince Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi, was formally deposed by the revolutionary army officers and put under house arrest; they abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic.[15]

A plan was organised by David Stirling to use mercenaries to restore the monarchy after he was approached by a member of the royal family. Stirling was the founder of the British Special Air Service in 1941. The mercenaries were to "spring" 150 political prisoners from Tripoli jail as a catalyst for a general uprising. The mercenaries were to slip away quietly, unseen by the media, as the locals took over. It was called the "Hilton Assignment" as an ironic comment on the comfort level at the jail. Stirling was fairly confident that the plan was achievable and politically acceptable but he was warned off at a late stage by the British Secret Intelligence Service, allegedly because the United States Government felt that Gaddafi was sufficiently anti-Marxist to be worth protecting.[16][17]

Further down...

Fathi Eljahmi was a prominent dissident who was imprisoned from 2002 until his death in 2009 for calling for increased democratization in Libya. Human Rights Watch did not call for investigation in the death and avoided criticism of human rights in Libya.[22]

In 2003 Libyan official Najat al-Hajjajia was selected to chair the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) stated, "Censorship, arbitrary detention, jailings, disappearances, torture; at last the UN has appointed someone who knows what she’s talking about". The commission subsequently banned RWB from its meetings.[23][24]

And further ...

On 15 May 2006, the U.S. State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction program. The State Department also said that Libya would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism.[38]

.

MarMan

Mar 28th, 2011, 09:10 AM

One thing I did notice all these people who get humanitarian aid confused with oil don't mention Afganistan. They must have secret oil buried under the ground that we are trying to get. The troops there must be trying to get secret hidden oil no one knows about instead of hunting bad guys.

To pick two battles (Iraq and Libya) out of many because only those two illustrate your point (they are the only two that have oil worth mentioning) is letting your own biasness cloud your judgement. To get to the truth you must consider all facts, not just the ones that suit your opinion.

szlamany

Mar 28th, 2011, 09:31 AM

One thing I did notice all these people who get humanitarian aid confused with oil don't mention Afganistan. They must have secret oil buried under the ground that we are trying to get. The troops there must be trying to get secret hidden oil no one knows about instead of hunting bad guys.
That was the "game-of-Risk" comment I made - ever play that game?

Being friends with "every other country" in a row means you have a place to watch your enemies...

Or are they are all enemies...

MarMan

Mar 28th, 2011, 09:46 AM

I like Risk. I also like Axis and Allies. Good games both. In A & A your allies can't turn on you. In Risk they must sooner or later, so I would say they are all your enemies, just sometimes friendly ones :).

Axis and Allies (they made a computer version, then a version II called Iron Blitz) is the closest thing I've found to a board game of command and conquer.

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 28th, 2011, 10:39 AM

Why Libya? Why not Tibet? Why not Myanmar? Why not North Korea? Why not China for that matter?

Come on Honey Bee, you can do better then that :0)

Why not Tibet or China, well that pretty obvious who would want to go to War with the most populous nation on the world, and soon to be the richest, and by going to war in Tibet you effectively go to war with China.

No-one in the right minds, would want to go to war with China.

North Korea, (like China) has nuclear capability and they are run by a bloke who comes across as not altogether sane, certainly mad enough the use his nuclear weapons indiscriminately if attacked.

MyanMar just isn't politically important enough, not a good reason i admit, and there are a number of other countries you could list as well like Zimbabwe, or Bahrain were for various political reasons the west has not intervened. You could make a case for intervention in many of them.

O
I
L

PS: Libyan oil is 'sweet', which means purer. And that means it can be refined at much cheaper costs.

Yes but as i stated above Libya does not have anywhere near the oil reserves of Iraq certainly not enough to go to war over, and also western countries already have extensive oil contracts in Libya if they had just stood to one side then after Gaddafi had won the oil would still be flowing.

honeybee

Mar 28th, 2011, 12:29 PM

Yep a case for intervention could be made in many countries, but then, such decisions are always motivated by greed and not by some grand vision of world peace. So intervention is only made where there are substantial gains to be made. Yeah, who cares about Myanmar and who cares about Tibet. The US-China relationship has now become similar to the tail wagging the dog.

Back to a good old question: Who decides if a country should undergo regime change? What would the US term other elements funding a coup to overthrow Barak Obama? Enemy combatants? Or something worse? And then the US has the guts to go and help overthrow another government? I mean whom are you kidding?

Ah, and the US is actually funding the biggest terrorist state today, Pakistan!

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 28th, 2011, 01:35 PM

The US-China relationship has now become similar to the tail wagging the dog.

Not quite. They hold a huge chunk of our debt, and they have a huge amount of money wrapped up in holding that huge chunk of our debt. This is actually beginning to appear more like the zen koan about two students observing a flag. The first said that the flag was moving. The second said that the wind was moving. The master came by and stated that the mind was moving.

Back to a good old question: Who decides if a country should undergo regime change? What would the US term other elements funding a coup to overthrow Barak Obama? Enemy combatants? Or something worse? And then the US has the guts to go and help overthrow another government? I mean whom are you kidding?

Ah, and the US is actually funding the biggest terrorist state today, Pakistan!

The victor writes the history. Always has been, always will be. The actions are all situational rather than idealistic (though some of the arguments put forward can be idealistic), and only history will attempt to take a stab at whether the actions were even pragmatic, let alone right.

dilettante

Mar 28th, 2011, 02:25 PM

Just to throw more oil on the fire, maybe http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/oil.php and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

honeybee

Mar 28th, 2011, 10:20 PM

Not quite. They hold a huge chunk of our debt, and they have a huge amount of money wrapped up in holding that huge chunk of our debt. This is actually beginning to appear more like the zen koan about two students observing a flag. The first said that the flag was moving. The second said that the wind was moving. The master came by and stated that the mind was moving.

I have never really understood the zen philosophy, so I didn't understand the analogy either. Over the years, the tone of criticism from the US to the China has certainly mellowed down a lot. So maybe the dog has put its tail between its legs...

@NSA, your argument actually proves that the US is simply picking its wars based on convenience and gains to be made, not on the basis of some idealistic principles. Which doesn't surprise me, of course.

.

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 29th, 2011, 03:28 AM

@NSA, your argument actually proves that the US is simply picking its wars based on convenience and gains to be made, not on the basis of some idealistic principles. Which doesn't surprise me, of course.

Libya is not a War between the US and Libya though, Yes they have supported it but they have not been greatly involved in the actual action, that has been the French, the UK and even Qatar amongst others.

Yep a case for intervention could be made in many countries, but then, such decisions are always motivated by greed and not by some grand vision of world peace. So intervention is only made where there are substantial gains to be made. Yeah, who cares about Myanmar and who cares about Tibet.

So do you think there was no case for going to into Libya then apart from Oil?

And as for China, would you fancy India going to War with China ?

honeybee

Mar 29th, 2011, 11:32 PM

Thankfully India has never 'gone' to war with another country, as far as I can trace its history. Yes, it has defended itself, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. So howmuchever I fancy India going to war with any other nation, it won't be happening real soon.

Do you think there's any case other than oil? Because if you do, you would have to answer why the US is simply silent on Tibet or Myanmar. I haven't heard any US president threaten China or Myanmar with sanctions, I haven't heard any UNO or NATO resolutions authorizing the use of force to stop the human rights violations in Tibet or Myanmar.

Libya is not a war between the US and Libya? Why was there a talk of who would be leading the coordination and the overall management? If the US merely participated, why would there be talks of the command being transferred from the US to the NATO?

Here's an update for you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12902450

If it's not really between the US and Libya, why is Obama making such statements? These should come from either the NATO or the UN. And arming the rebels is not really part of the UN resolutions, is it?

.

szlamany

Mar 30th, 2011, 05:03 AM

I have never really understood the zen philosophy, so I didn't understand the analogy either.Of course you do - it's the whole point of this thread.

Perception.

...Over the years, the tone of criticism from the US to the China has certainly mellowed down a lot.
Tone on China three decades ago was "foreign affairs" BS when the biggest problems we had was their redder neighbor to the northwest and their silly bully cousins to the southeast. As the surrounding situation changed we decided to play ping-pong because no one gets hurt or sweats too much in that game...

...picking its wars based on convenience and gains to be made, not on the basis of some idealistic principles. Which doesn't surprise me, of course.Again - of course - why would it surprise you? State and local laws are "crafted and considered" against their cost and benefit all the time. We are considering laxing the laws on certain recreational drugs in some states here because the "cost of prosecuting" these offenders is too prohibitive.

It's always been about return on investment.

...If it's not really between the US and Libya, why is Obama making such statements? These should come from either the NATO or the UN. And arming the rebels is not really part of the UN resolutions, is it?Actually "arming" anyone in Libya was disallowed in the prior resolution and this latest resolution for air space control specifically "re-allowed" arming for support of the resistance. Hillary spuns that point very well on CBS-radio in NYC a few days ago - although her delivery and sly laughs on the situation show her to be absolulely no statesman.

And Obama - he's 14 months into hoping he can finally say something in advance of a situation unfolding so that it appears that he is actually commanding something.

Foreign affairs was so much easier before we allowed the world to communicate so effortlessly.

Now we all see the world for what it is (flag moving? wind moving? no just some packets on the net...) and it ain't pretty.

At least it's all in the mind...

honeybee

Mar 30th, 2011, 05:14 AM

Now we all see the world for what it is (flag moving? wind moving? no just some packets on the net...) and it ain't pretty.

Dude, I understood that, and that is one hell of a thought. Wish I could rate you!

.

szlamany

Mar 30th, 2011, 05:51 AM

Dude, I understood that.I knew you did - that was the royal "you" I was speaking to!

Sorry fact is that rant is coming from a sad source - a truly disenfranchised human finally seeing how our government works. I grew up in the 60's - entered the working world in the late 70's - I actually fondly remember our Reagan days - our salad days were nice. So what we had a small oil problem in the mid 70's - that seemed to go away on it's own (now I know better...)

My state gave us Senator Dodd - who slept with the bankers letting them usurp his power...

I read an editorial yesterday about how it's "creative" and "labor" and "management" groups that make our capitalist world grow. Well "creative" - that's me - I can understand that fully. People like me all over the world - lots on this forum.

"labor" - I know lots of these people - they work hard.

"management" - they suck - they are all about the almightly dollar. That's why we shipped our "labor" overseas - it's cheaper - wow - they followed their natural course - taught in classes at college - on money borrowed from banks (hate that Dodd).

Now our "labor" has nothing to do.

And this editorial went on to say we need more "innovation" and "entreprenurialship" (sp?) to get us out of this problem.

Wait - I'm not that stupid - burned once - twice - that hurts.

Our tax dollars bailed out our banks (hate that Dodd) and they now won't lend us any money (hate that Dodd).

Policies created by Dodd and his croney of crooks over the past 30 years led to the crisis we are in financially here - and oil is too damn expensive and they can't seem to keep control over it - it must be driving them crazy...

Filling my oil tank used to cost $800 a year - now it costs $800 a fill up! And if it's cold I can burn a tank up in less than two months.

And now he's going to be in charge of the Motion Picture association - let's see...

Connecticut has a growing movie production industry - we might see that as Dodd being good to us - no - I'm not that stupid - he's just following the course of "most gain" for him...

I'm right smack in the middle of all the corporate monsters running the Libya situation.

GE is 20 miles away (jet engines - toasters - refrigerators - a few failed nuclear power plants in Japan - oops).

Sikorsky is 5 miles away (helicopters with wheels (and guns) - you've seen them - "skids are for kids" is the saying around here).

Electric boat - an hours drive past the Indian casinos (got to allow them to have a thriving gambling economy on native land - isn't all the land native?) - oh back to those boats - really submarines - you don't get to see them - they hide well (and each has a GE reactor running it!).

Pratt and Whitney about 50 minutes - more jet engines.

They actually make swiss army knives in my city - amazing heh? Not really a tool of war like the ones above...

I guess I should smile pleasantly on the fact that Wiffle balls were invented in the city I live in now and are still manufactured here (at least I hope they are).

I always prided myself on my sarcasm - born in NYC gets you this naturally. But when I saw those two towers crash - towers I watched get built as a young boy from my house - I can only say that I'm sad for the world and everyone in it. People are mad enough at two buildings with 3000 people in them to kill them all - over oil.

It's always been about oil.

honeybee

Mar 30th, 2011, 07:28 AM

It's not the management which is bad. It's still the people who practise it.

.

MarMan

Mar 30th, 2011, 08:01 AM

It's not the management which is bad. It's still the people who practise it.

.

Its like everything, there are good people involved and bad people involved. Whenever you say any group is good or bad it is likely you are ignoring the part of the group that doesn't fit your view. You start generalizing and straying from the truth.

@honeybee, just wanted to point out something you missed. The US parked a fleet of warships between China and Tiawan when China was threatening. There are tons of facts that contradict your viewpoint. Try to prove yourself wrong, just for ten minutes. The amount of information you learn WILL surprise you. And I would love to hear the excuses you build on the facts that contradict your opinion.

honeybee

Mar 30th, 2011, 11:56 PM

Oh, I wouldn't say the US is all bad. There are some good parts, but they aren't the Iraqi, Afghani or the Libyan wars. For that matter, even Taiwan is important. Don't they produce HTC phones? And if the US could park its warships between China and Taiwan, why wouldn't they create a no-fly zone over Tibet? Why not park them a little closer to Myanmar?

When the twin towers fell, invading Afghanistan was for hunting down bin Laden, and invading Iraq was to eliminate the WMDs. The WMDs proved to be a blatant lie, and bin Laden has yet to be found. Soon after it emerged that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, the focus of the war suddenly changed to regime change. Since all the perpetrators would get a share of the loot, nobody questioned the real motives or the justness of the move to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.

Who equipped the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan? Who brought up Al Qaeda when they were fighting the Russians? It's the same thing with Gaddafi when he came to power in Libya decades ago, and now the US is planning to arm and fund the rebels in Libya for another regime change. A few years down the line the new Libyan government will have fallen out of favour of the US and there will be another regime change.

Do you want to call these all figments of my own imagination?

.

Nightwalker83

Mar 31st, 2011, 02:25 AM

I think the UN need to send in some firepower because of the rebels have hit a huge roadblock of sorts. That is the rebels have be losing ground with their current situation I don't think that can get pass the above mention blockage.

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 31st, 2011, 03:39 AM

Do you want to call these all figments of my own imagination?

Not at all. We all know the US in particular (although we in the UK have not exactly got a great recent record) has ended up fighting the very people it armed a decade earlier.

I really do think that there is a difference between the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts and Libya though.

I guess the real test will be how it all ends, whether the UN leave a mess in Libya or a country with the seeds of there own democracy.

honeybee

Mar 31st, 2011, 05:41 AM

Not at all. We all know the US in particular (although we in the UK have not exactly got a great recent record) has ended up fighting the very people it armed a decade earlier.

I really do think that there is a difference between the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts and Libya though.

I guess the real test will be how it all ends, whether the UN leave a mess in Libya or a country with the seeds of there own democracy.

Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, again, I can't help but wonder if Libya will ever be as safe as it was earlier. While living under Saddam's rule may have been less than what we in democratic countries take for granted, living under a daily threat of suicide bombings certainly has to be worse. Libya may not turn out to be any different.

.

MarMan

Mar 31st, 2011, 08:24 AM

Don't they produce HTC phones? And if the US could park its warships between China and Taiwan, why wouldn't they create a no-fly zone over Tibet?

Is Tibet crying out for help? No. Are any other countries insisting they get help? No. Are people dying because of governmental attacks? No.
what about Myanmar? Remember Vietnam? Some people wanted our help, others did not. It turned out to be a mess. Myanmar would likely be one also. Fools don't learn from their mistakes. My government could be good sometimes, could be bad sometimes. But thankfully they are not foolish.

When the twin towers fell, invading Afghanistan was for hunting down bin Laden, and invading Iraq was to eliminate the WMDs. The WMDs proved to be a blatant lie, and bin Laden has yet to be found. Soon after it emerged that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, the focus of the war suddenly changed to regime change.

I believed at the time and I still believe now, the purpose of the war in Iraq was to get rid of Huessein. He attacked Iran (although this only hedges my belief, I don't believe the powers that pushed for the war cared either way), paid suicide bombers to kill civilians in Israel, attacked his own people, attacked Kuwait. If there are people who can't see he was a bad man they should invest in glasses. The WMD is only a lie if you know it is not true when it is spoken. If you think they were lying about it then that means you think our government is perfect and can not make mistakes. Thanks for the kind thought, but I know they make mistakes. And that is one of them.

Since all the perpetrators would get a share of the loot, nobody questioned the real motives or the justness of the move to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter..

Boy is your mind set on money. If you were in our government, then I might believe you. The war cost much more than anyone gained, so any loot theory is so one-sided it is ludicrous.

@honeybee, I know our government is not perfect, and they sometimes lie and make mistakes. But your thoughts are so one-sided and fact-ignoring I am merely presenting some of the numerous things you are over-looking. Ignoring key facts will make your beliefs seem true. I'll bet you are one of those conspiracy theorists. Yes? No? If your interested in pushing your beliefs, then you are doing fine. If you're interested in the truth, you need to look at more than what you want to see, you need to be able to look at something from all angles. Not just your own.

NeedSomeAnswers

Mar 31st, 2011, 08:47 AM

Boy is your mind set on money. If you were in our government, then I might believe you. The war cost much more than anyone gained, so any loot theory is so one-sided it is ludicrous.

Well put, I dont believe that the American Government went into Iraq with the idea of making money it just doesn't make sense, and if they did it was misguided, War is expensive very expensive.

Separately from this I do believe (believe is the wrong word hear really as there is plenty of factual evidence to show that it happened) that certain figures (Rumsfeld in particular) within the US government made the most of the situation to award contracts to companies that they were on the board of making themselves and there friends millions and millions of dollars.

Anyway lets see what actually happens in Libya before we start calling it the next Iraq the situation in the country is far different that in Iraq so it is difficult to predict the outcome.

MarMan

Mar 31st, 2011, 08:53 AM

Anyway lets see what actually happens in Libya before we start calling it the next Iraq the situation in the country is far different that in Iraq so it is difficult to predict the outcome.

That is probably the wisest statement in this whole post.

InvisibleDuncan

Mar 31st, 2011, 09:37 AM

If you think they were lying about it then that means you think our government is perfect and can not make mistakes. Thanks for the kind thought, but I know they make mistakes.

Hmmm - I think that's a quite deliberate syllogism. You can't conclude he thinks your government are perfect simply because he believes they lied on one topic.

MarMan

Mar 31st, 2011, 09:38 AM

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 31st, 2011, 11:07 AM

Boy is your mind set on money. If you were in our government, then I might believe you. The war cost much more than anyone gained, so any loot theory is so one-sided it is ludicrous.

That isn't true on any level (except the first sentence). For one thing, the people who planned the war didn't plan for it to turn out the way it did. So their motivations have to be evaluated on what their expectations were, not on what the final result ended up being.

Second, there were certainly people who profitted greatly from the war. They weren't the ones that had to pay for it, but some of them were in positions where they could push for it, and some did. Others expected to profit enormously from the war, though they didn't.

There was an enormous cost born by US taxpayers current and future. That's true, but that money went somewhere. Not all of the people who received the money supported the war at any time, but some did. Some saw the profit to come from the war, others not so much.

Any loot theory is entirely valid. War like that is effectively a massive outpouring of US dollars, and there have been people who have seen it as a windfall since at least the Civil War. Somebody stood to profit, and somebody DID profit. The only question is whether those groups influenced the war itself.

MarMan

Mar 31st, 2011, 11:24 AM

@Shaggy, you forgot to mention the people who decided to go to war are not necessarily the people who profited from it, nor is there any evidence that they decided to go to war based on profit of any kind.

You also forgot to mention that a lot of the profit that was discussed (like contracts) is based on us succeeding, which is also not guaranteed. Based on that statement, there is NO profit guaranteed. We could've been beat out like Vietnam. So anyone who is expecting to make a profit be it for themselves or assuming (we all know what that word means) someone else is thinking in hindsight only. Before the war there was no hindsight. No one knew what would happen.

So their motivations have to be evaluated on what their expectations were, not on what the final result ended up being.

Correct. Anyone who expects anyone to automatically win a fight is not usually someone smart enough to be put in a position in charge of large contracts in the first place. Therefore there aren't any expectations of big contracts. It was in large part, an after thought. And if someone used their hindsight to make sense of it today, they can be easily mislead.

Any loot theory is entirely valid. War like that is effectively a massive outpouring of US dollars, and there have been people who have seen it as a windfall since at least the Civil War. Somebody stood to profit, and somebody DID profit. The only question is whether those groups influenced the war itself.

That again is hindsight. Talk to a business person, you can learn something from them. Basically (and this is the short, short version) they wait on the sidelines and pounce on an opportunity. That is what happened.

FunkyDexter

Mar 31st, 2011, 02:02 PM

Axis and AlliesI salute your taste sir. I wasn't mad keen on the second edition (it had alot more flexibility but lost the ultra fine balance of the first) but me and my mates must have put in at least a thousand hours on the original over the years.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that this is about oil, Libya simply isn't a big enough producer to be worth it. It is still about greed but this time it's greed for votes. Not acting was simply becoming untennable with the electorates of the countries involved.

edit>I think the UN need to send in some firepower because of the rebels have hit a huge roadblock of sorts. That is the rebels have be losing ground with their current situation I don't think that can get pass the above mention blockage.If you've studied World War 2 this was entirely predictable and nothing to panic about. Warfare in Libya is entirely governed by Logistics because it basically consists of a coastal road through some unpopulated wilderness with a major urban cluster at either end. That means it's easy to attack from you home base and throw the enemy back across the wilderness. As you close on their home base, though, you're own suppply lines become strateched so, when the enemy counter attacks you get thrown all the way back to where you started. Gadaffi had logistics (note that's now happilly in the past tense) so he was able to push East. Once we cut off his logistics his advance stopped amd the rebels were able to counter attack. They never had any logistics so the attack was never going to entirely succeed. Now neither side has any so yo can expect to see this one bounce back and forth between Benghazi and Tripoli like a yoyo.

szlamany

Mar 31st, 2011, 02:34 PM

I'm not sure I buy the argument that this is about oil, Libya simply isn't a big enough producer to be worth it. It is still about greed but this time it's greed for votes. Not acting was simply becoming untennable with the electorates of the countries involved.
Oil production isn't as big a deal as oil supply and distribution - that's the factor I believe gave European nations cause to even look.

We go where ever the fight is because we make the gear to play the game.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 31st, 2011, 05:03 PM

@Shaggy, you forgot to mention the people who decided to go to war are not necessarily the people who profited from it, nor is there any evidence that they decided to go to war based on profit of any kind.

Agreed. I think the leardership that went to war in Iraq had little if any profit from the war, nor do I think they expected any monetary profit (perhaps a bit of electoral profit, but not monetary). Some of the people who pushed for the war certainly expected a profit, such as that guy (the name of whom has slipped my mind) who thought he could be installed as the new Iraq leader. Some of them probably influenced the decisions of the US leadership, but such is life.

The point is that lots of people profit from some wars, and some will influence the war, so the profit motive is quite plausible. After all, the people who expect to pay the cost are almost never the ones pushing for the war. A business man would be willing to invest a little if they expected a suitably larger return on that investment. There are certainly some who would see a war as an investment of cheap political capital in return for substantial monetary gain. Almost certainly that would not include the ones who actually have to fight the war or pay for it.

BlindSniper

Apr 17th, 2011, 08:42 AM

FunkyDexter

Apr 18th, 2011, 08:21 AM

I don't understand why my Government does not want a regime change in Libya.
I don't think that there's any debate that they want it. The question is whether they feel they can pursue it while retaining enough of moral authority to allow any subsequent regime they support to be seen as legitimate by the people of Libya and the rest of the Arab world. Prior to Afghanistan and Iraq, American foreign policy was generally viewed as benign and they probably could have pursued it while retaining moral authority but those two conflicts have raised enough questions to make it a very, very grey area.

MarMan

Apr 18th, 2011, 08:23 AM

I don't understand why my Government does not want a regime change in Libya.

Personally I think the CIA or some other agency should just assassinate Kadhafi, which would give the rebels time to attack. and then Activision can make another Call of duty about it.

Well I would guess that gadaffi spends some good coin with them. And if you wish to assassinate him then you would have to go after his sons also.

Shaggy Hiker

Apr 18th, 2011, 06:18 PM

If we allow that it is acceptable to kill the head of state of a foreign country that we are not at war with through the use of targeted assassination, what grounds would we use to suggest that another country should not do the same to us?

A sufficiently motivated assassin is VERY hard to stop.

honeybee

Apr 19th, 2011, 08:24 AM

MarMan

Apr 19th, 2011, 08:34 AM

@MarMan, could you please explain why your government should be so hell-bent on who is in power in Libya, when it couldn't strike a deal about its own finances barely minutes before the threat of a government shutdown? Is a possible regime change in Libya a greater priority than sorting out the internal woes of the US?

.

I do not follow politics, and if you have been keeping updated, you'll see my government is not the most interested government at all. I honestly don't care about my government's stance. You care more honeybee than I do.

If you take any of my opinions as meaning I think anything of the government at all then it would be an error.

I don't like bad people. And when 90% of the educated population think someone is bad, then they ARE bad. Even if they do good things, they are bad from a sociologically point of view. And I don't care if its illegal, I say ask them to go. If they don't, then tell them to go. If they don't then KILL THEM!!!!:bigyello: And the world will be a better place.

Every bad apple you take out of the apple basket improves the quality of the basket as a whole. Taking a bad apple out may not make it a good basket, but it is the best thing to do to move it away from bad towards good,

honeybee

Apr 19th, 2011, 10:39 AM

I do not follow politics, and if you have been keeping updated, you'll see my government is not the most interested government at all. I honestly don't care about my government's stance. You care more honeybee than I do.

If you take any of my opinions as meaning I think anything of the government at all then it would be an error.

I don't like bad people. And when 90% of the educated population think someone is bad, then they ARE bad. Even if they do good things, they are bad from a sociologically point of view. And I don't care if its illegal, I say ask them to go. If they don't, then tell them to go. If they don't then KILL THEM!!!!:bigyello: And the world will be a better place.

Every bad apple you take out of the apple basket improves the quality of the basket as a whole. Taking a bad apple out may not make it a good basket, but it is the best thing to do to move it away from bad towards good,

Oh boy! You are absolutely right about improving the quality of the basket of apples by taking the bad ones out. The only small matter of who decides which apple is bad, however, would need to be addressed first. If you relied on 90% of the people who don't know anything about bad (or for that matter good) apples, you are more likely to make matters worse.

So who is this educated population, 90% of whom think someone is bad, that you are talking about? Is it the American population, or is it the people of Libya who have been telling about it? How do you decide it's really the 90% of the population that you hear, and not 90% of 0.0000009% of the total population?

.

MarMan

Apr 19th, 2011, 10:50 AM

So who is this educated population, 90% of whom think someone is bad, that you are talking about? Is it the American population, or is it the people of Libya who have been telling about it? How do you decide it's really the 90% of the population that you hear, and not 90% of 0.0000009% of the total population?

.

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree. you may not, and that's OK. Society had some undefined rules that most people live by. Some people are ignorant of them, but that has no bearing of their necessity.

Put another way honeybee, how many children have you killed? How many people do you know who have killed children on purpose? Do you like people who kill children on purpose?

honeybee

Apr 19th, 2011, 10:58 AM

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree. you may not, and that's OK. Society had some undefined rules that most people live by. Some people are ignorant of them, but that has no bearing of their necessity.

Put another way honeybee, how many children have you killed? How many people do you know who have killed children on purpose? Do you like people who kill children on purpose?

My goodness, you are so fast in jumping to conclusions! Right now, I want to discuss about two issues: How many people really are included in your set of 90% of the 'educated population of the world', and secondly who decides which apples are bad.

When you say 90% of the educated population of the civilized world,

1. Is there any specific reason you want to exclude the educated population of the uncivlized world?
2. Care to explain which are these uncivilized populations that you have left out?
3. What defines civilized for you?
4. Do you expect everyone will share your definition of what is civilized?
5. Could you provide any numbers as to what is approximately the 100% of this educated civilized world of yours?
6. Can you really claim to have heard the opinions of 90% of the educated civlized world?
7. What makes you sure the educated population of the civlized world are capable of distinguishing good apples from bad ones?

.

MarMan

Apr 19th, 2011, 11:02 AM

@Honeybee, why did you not answer my questions? they would answer your if you took some time to think about it.

And, by the way, I asked you first and you ignored me, so if you want any answers, you need to refrain from ignoring me, or I will give you the same courtesy.

How many children have you killed?
How many people do you know?
How many people do you know who have killed children on purpose?
Do you like people who kill children on purpose?

If the answers to those questions don't enlighten you, then post your answers and I will clarify.

honeybee

Apr 19th, 2011, 11:43 AM

MarMan

Apr 19th, 2011, 11:50 AM

Those questions are irrelevant to the points I have raised, which is why I see no point in answering them. Now, if you cannot answer who those 90% people are and why they are more able to distinguish between good and bad apples, then we can safely conclude those are just your personal views and not, as you claim, those of '90% of the educated population of the civlized world'.

.

Those questions are indeed relevant. If you can not see it, then you are stuck in your static views with no hope of getting educated. The answers to those questions are only the begining of the evidence you do not wish to hear because it contradicts your opinion. To have a discussion and pick and choose which questions you will answer is to attempt to modify the talk to match your own point of view while dismissing facts that are contrary to it. It is also childish. So you are taking your ball and going home when things don't go your way.

Why even try to discuss anything then if you are so closed minded?

szlamany

Apr 19th, 2011, 03:51 PM

...answer who those 90% people are and why they are more able to distinguish between good and bad apples....I know I'm in the 90% - I'm still looking for others!

And I like peaches :rolleyes:

At any rate - the only body that can make believe they represent the 90% is the UN.

And the UN voted.

And so it goes with representative "policy makers" - they don't actually represent 90% of the population.

I can appreciate why you two can't see eye to eye - there are thousands of facets.

btw - the apple and basket analogy is garbage. The particular bad apple we all speak of has been bad a long, long, long time. I don't see other "good" apples in my grocery store saying "let's keep rotten-boy-here happy and supported" and that will somehow make us shine more? Most of the time that rotten apple is just infecting the apples around it.

honeybee

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:33 AM

I can appreciate why you two can't see eye to eye - there are thousands of facets.

Well, it looks like anyone who questions Marman's assumptions automatically goes into the 10%. Hell, I might even accept his assumption that Gaddafi is bad. But I think it's impossible to discuss anything with a person who assumes you are a child killer and know and sympathize with child killers, just because you happen to present a different point of view.

.

NeedSomeAnswers

Apr 20th, 2011, 04:46 AM

Well, it looks like anyone who questions Marman's assumptions automatically goes into the 10%. Hell, I might even accept his assumption that Gaddafi is bad. But I think it's impossible to discuss anything with a person who assumes you are a child killer and know and sympathize with child killers, just because you happen to present a different point of view.

Honeybee, that wasn't his point whether you agree with it or not. MarMan was talking about Morals.

There are some very basic shared values that not all but most of the countries and people in those countries in the world agree on. Virtually all countries have a law against Murder, have a law against rape e.t.c.

What (i believe - correct me if i am wrong) MarMan rather blunt point was do you agree that those thing are wrong.

If so then these thing are happening in Libya and are being perpetrated by gaddafi's troops against his own people, so is what is happening in Libya not also wrong ?

or along those lines, it is a moralistic argument, it is a bit black and white but there is some truth to it.

MarMan, what Honeybee is trying to get at is who decides what is right and wrong ??

If most of America thinks something is right, does that make it right ? what about if most people in India think it is wrong who has the moral authority ?

In Libya, the UN is backing one side over the other, but the UN only covers a small portion of the world countries, so does that in fact mean that it is those who have the military power to back it up that get to decided what is right or wrong? which is really what has been the case through out history.

I suppose we like to believe that we live in more enlightened times were might does not rule, but in reality we would be wrong.

szlamany

Apr 20th, 2011, 05:13 AM

...If most of America thinks something is right, does that make it right ? what about if most people in India think it is wrong who has the moral authority ?Every single president in my living memory - along with Obama just two weeks ago - stated clearly that the US moral view is the approved moral view and that the other countries we call our allies agree with us and back that point of view.

Personally I know that "I don't know all the real facts" so I can't offer a truly accurate opinion.

And wikileaks has made it clear that our intelligence services are more like "spy-vs-spy" in some three stooges episode.

...I suppose we like to believe that we live in more enlightened times were might does not rule, but in reality we would be wrong."Might" actually might be nicer then the reality of "greed and power" - which drives a facade of "might" but it's got selfish motivation at it's core.

honeybee

Apr 20th, 2011, 06:38 AM

Honeybee, that wasn't his point whether you agree with it or not. MarMan was talking about Morals.

I lost him the moment he posted about child killings.

Anyways, there are different cultures and different civilizations with different customs and practices. Premarital sex in the US for e.g. has more become a norm, while in India it's still more of an exception. Would you say India is backward? Hardly!

Coming to Libya, did Gaddafi really kill children and women and innocent people? I wouldn't know, because if the rebels fired a shot wrong and killed an innocent civilian, their hands too are dirty. Here innocent meaning a neutral citizen siding with neither Gaddafi nor the Rebels.

Take the friendly fire incident. While rebels called it a blunder and demanded an apology, the NATO commander has refused to even acknowledge it as a mistake. Who is right?

Similarly if the US is now saying Gaddafi must go, I would want to see some good solid proof to decide for myself if Gaddafi really should go. We have already seen in case of Iraq and the WMDs how the US went ahead with the invasion on the basis of false evidence.

As far as the UN and NATO are concerned, it's again debatable if they are wholly impartial. So a vote in the UN wouldn't reflect the reality, at best the existing political balance.

.

MarMan

Apr 20th, 2011, 08:03 AM

@NeedSomeAnswers, thank you for a better explanation. I have a difficult time explaining myself sometimes.

MarMan, what Honeybee is trying to get at is who decides what is right and wrong ??

I can answer that question, its easy really. Maybe not so easy to put into words.

Society does. Mob rules does. If everybody accepts something, then it is OK. If everybody rebukes something, it is not OK.

For a not so good example:
If everybody in an area like to play loud music at 2 a.m. then it is deemed OK, aka good. No one will complain and everyone will be happy. If one person doesn't like it, then they will be shunned by the community, possibly disliked, but definitely unhappy about the loud music everyone else likes. Who is right? Well its not a good example because not much bad happens whether you hear music or not. People need to learn to live together in peace. Murder is about as far from peace as you cacn go.

And everyone I've spoken with happens to agree (I'm at 100% here) that killing a child by accident by shooting at someone who is purposefully trying to kill you is incomparable to indiscriminately lobbing bombs into a town. Sometimes people's arguments are so weak they need to twist things around to have a sense of something, I do not know what.

KILL Gadaffy!!! I wanna see his head on a pike!!

The good thing about someone as bad as he is would be that the laws of probability mean it is unlikely (but possible) that any potential replacement may not be as bad. They could be worse, but what do you do, leave a poor situation poor, or try to improve.

One interesting FACT:
As education increases, superstition decreases.

honeybee

Apr 21st, 2011, 05:45 AM

MarMan

Apr 21st, 2011, 08:20 AM

It's two separate societies that we are talking about. It's sort of like two biker gangs with different cultures and different rules. When they clash over something, who is to say who was at fault?

.

Incorrect. It is two separate societies that YOU are talking about.

I am refering to the human race inhabiting earth. Now I see the problem. I am looking at the big picture, planet-wise so to speak. Honeybee, you are thinking culture-minded, which is OK, but fails when addressing global problems.

I don't think you will understand, but I will try to explain.

You can have a home with two fishtanks. One tank may like the water more acidic than the other. That is fine because it does not affect the other. The temperature, however, in the home DOES affect both tanks and MUST be within a range where they both can survive, if not thrive.

Now humans are much more complex, and things affect the world that without putting a lot of thought in, you may think they are local when in fact they are not. This includes murder for no good reason.

Killing is not necessary, nor should it be tolerated. Look what Hitler did when people "minded thier own business". I know lots of people don't care, they don't seem to mind if others are suffering until it hits them, then they change their tune.

Look at the crusades for example, we know that they were wrong NOW. Back then they thought they were right. Think about what people will say 100 years from now. x amount of civilians were killed in Libya. You can say at least two things.

So many died. Why did no one help?
Good thing they had help otherwise more would've died.

I value life. I hate to see it wasted. No president, king, dictator or ruler's job is worth even one human life. Anyone who thinks it is should be shot. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. I value life and anyone who thinks it is OK to kill to get what they want is fair game for me. I want no death. If someone thinks it is OK to kill to get what they want, then I can play by their rules (I have to or I can die). I kill them and get all their future victims to live. I know I want no deaths, but you can't always get what you want. So I have to settle for one death of a bad man (which I would prefer to live if they would just stop killing people) as opposed to deaths of innocent people which include women and children.

And innocent people do die in war. But usually less then when you let a madman run lose. It is impossible to ALWAYS win and have the least good people die. But if you do not try, you will lose and more good people will die on average then have to.

FunkyDexter

Apr 21st, 2011, 10:29 AM

How about
3. I can't believe they were stupid enough to interfere. Couldn't they see that it would antagonise the already beligerent and nuclear enabled arab world leading to global atomic war

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Gadaffi removed but you're trying to portray the situation as black and white when it's actually a sort of murky grey.

MarMan

Apr 21st, 2011, 10:33 AM

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Gadaffi removed but you're trying to portray the situation as black and white when it's actually a sort of murky grey.

Time to clean up the murk!!

Shaggy Hiker

Apr 21st, 2011, 04:10 PM

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree.

That's a really interesting statement when you stop to think about it. I'm not even quite sure what I find so interesting about it. At first, I was struck by the fact that you listed children as separate from people. Quite a natural thing to do in any conversation on the topic, but what does it mean? I would suggest that it does not mean that children are not people, but rather that killing children is an especially horrific act such that it is listed distinctly from the act of killing people, though the only possible reason for doing that would be to make the act of killing people appear even worse.

That would make sense, too, because purposefully killing unarmed people is not opposed by 90% of the US. You have to strongly modify that statement before you could get opposition up to 90%. The unarmed people can't be prisoners convicted of particularly heinous crimes, as support for the death penalty is significantly above 90%. The unarmed people can't be killed as a matter of mistaken identity, as well over 10% of the US population accepts such an action as long as it happens to somebody else. And the unarmed people can't be people who might otherwise take up arms against us.

Even the bible doesn't condemn killing. The prohibition against murder in the ten commandments pertains to only a specific subset of the world (observant jews, in that case), while killing anyone who is not in that subset is actively encouraged.

So even when it comes to something like as apparently clear as killing unarmed civilians, the situation is only clear if you ignore all the examples that contradict it.

EDIT: I guess the point I am making is about communication. I tend to agree with the statement, because I think that in every culture there is a prohibition against murder in some context. However, despite agreeing with the general sentiment, the statement itself is patently and demonstrably false. It would have to be highly modified to make it true, yet it communicates something. I just can't say quite what.

honeybee

Apr 21st, 2011, 10:39 PM

Incorrect. It is two separate societies that YOU are talking about.

...

I don't think you will understand, but I will try to explain.

...

Killing is not necessary, nor should it be tolerated.

...

So many died. Why did no one help?
Good thing they had help otherwise more would've died.

...

The US and Libya are two distinct cultures and societies. So why wouldn't you think of them as such? We are not talking of the planet Earth here. We are talking about the conflict in Libya (fuelled actively by the US and the NATO) and whether it's appropriate of the US / NATO to intervene and to what extent.

Killing is bad, but killing other rulers is good? The US believes in a certain set of ideologies for which you think killing Gaddafi and his troops is justified. Osama bin Laden believes in a certain set of ideologies for which he thinks killing several thousand people by crashing planes on towers is justified. How do you differentiate?

Is it justified for the US to intervene in the matters of another sovereign nation? Would you like if the Chinese Premier dictated how Obama should reshape the healthcare?

.

MarMan

Apr 25th, 2011, 08:43 AM

I would suggest that it does not mean that children are not people, but rather that killing children is an especially horrific act such that it is listed distinctly from the act of killing people, though the only possible reason for doing that would be to make the act of killing people appear even worse.

A dead child is someone who hasn't experienced life much. A pet peeve of mine, which I particularly hate people who are so selfish to harm a child, I have no objection to seeing them brutually killed, even though that is not a correct response. I can't understand how anyone can speak up against an adult murdering a child. But that's just me.

The unarmed people can't be prisoners convicted of particularly heinous crimes, as support for the death penalty is significantly above 90%.

You can tack on all kinds of adjectives to modify the meaning of the statement. Society often generalizes in their statements otherwise each sentence would be so wordy the point would get lost. If you feel you must, then you did not understand it in the first place. Or you just wish to type. Either case is beyond the time I wish to spend to defend some people who need some help. And it doesn't matter anyway, apart from typing, no one who is posting is going to do anything to help or hurt them anyway.

The US and Libya are two distinct cultures and societies. So why wouldn't you think of them as such? We are not talking of the planet Earth here. We are talking about the conflict in Libya (fuelled actively by the US and the NATO) and whether it's appropriate of the US / NATO to intervene and to what extent..

Again Honeybee, you miss the obvious, and I even told you, but I think you selectively (consciously or unconsciously) pay attention to only parts of my post.

I am putting effort into improving the WORLD. I am working on values spread across the EARTH. You do not seem to understand this. Tha's OK, I will try to explain once more, but some people just can't grasp the subject of the world. Everyone needs to eat for example. People also shouldn't kill each other unnecessarily. Those are GLOBAL traits that transcend politics AND culture.

The issue I am speaking of is well above and beyond the different cultures of Libya and anyone else. Until you see that, you will continuously misinterpret my statements.

Shaggy Hiker

Apr 25th, 2011, 08:57 AM

I am putting effort into improving the WORLD. I am working on values spread across the EARTH. You do not seem to understand this. Tha's OK, I will try to explain once more, but some people just can't grasp the subject of the world. Everyone needs to eat for example. People also shouldn't kill each other unnecessarily. Those are GLOBAL traits that transcend politics AND culture.

The issue I am speaking of is well above and beyond the different cultures of Libya and anyone else. Until you see that, you will continuously misinterpret my statements.

Speak more clearly and you will be understood better. You are writing at a high level of abstraction about ideals that, while quite nice, are not perfectly reflected in any society.

Consider this statement:

People also shouldn't kill each other unnecessarily.

While we are all aware that there are people who kill others unnecessarily, we are also all aware that most people who kill other people intentionally (and often those who kill others accidentally), justify their actions as necessary. For instance, somebody who kills in self defense will feel their actions are justified, but their actions still aren't necessary, except from their point of view.

The problem has always been that people add in weasel words like 'unnecessarily'. Words that can be interpreted in different ways if the sentiment is otherwise inconvenient to them. Because of this, the law, and even morality itself, keeps on changing.

We can strive to a lofty ideal, and we should. But we should also remember that the ideal remains out of reach for almost everybody.

szlamany

Apr 25th, 2011, 09:17 AM

To be female and an adulterer in some cultures is a "necessary kill".

I know that doesn't fit my view - but I guess others think it's needed.

How do you create a formula for WORLD VIEW from this?

WORLD VIEW = 90% don't kill / 10% do kill?

MarMan

Apr 25th, 2011, 09:27 AM

We can strive to a lofty ideal, and we should. But we should also remember that the ideal remains out of reach for almost everybody.

It is only out of reach for those who gave up reaching.

MarMan

Apr 25th, 2011, 09:28 AM

honeybee

Apr 25th, 2011, 12:04 PM

Again Honeybee, you miss the obvious, and I even told you, but I think you selectively (consciously or unconsciously) pay attention to only parts of my post.

Well, to be brutally honest, I would have expected YOU to pay some attention to MY posts, too. But never mind.

Which part of my post do you have a problem with? Do you think the US and Libya both share the same culture? Or do you want to portray the Libyan conflict as something between planet Earth and planet Libya?

It's good you are putting efforts into improving the WORLD. I shall wait for the realization to dawn on you that the world is made up of several different and distinct cultures where values often clash with each others. So your effort of spreading common values will, most likely, end up being looked upon as you enforcing your viewpoint on others. Which might as well be the truth.

.

MarMan

Apr 25th, 2011, 12:20 PM

Well, to be brutally honest, I would have expected YOU to pay some attention to MY posts, too. But never mind.

Which part of my post do you have a problem with? Do you think the US and Libya both share the same culture? Or do you want to portray the Libyan conflict as something between planet Earth and planet Libya?

It's good you are putting efforts into improving the WORLD. I shall wait for the realization to dawn on you that the world is made up of several different and distinct cultures where values often clash with each others. So your effort of spreading common values will, most likely, end up being looked upon as you enforcing your viewpoint on others. Which might as well be the truth.

.

Again Honeybee, you miss the point. I am on a different level then where culture comes into play. I will give you a greatly simplified list to try to get the point across.

Uncivilized
People need to eat.
People need to drink (unless they obtain their water from their food).
People need to work together to create works that one person alone could not do.
People need to procreate to extend the species.
Civilized
People need to stand in line to wait their turn.
People need to obey the laws.
People can't kill other people for money, fun or power.

Show me a culture that does not obey the uncivilized rules and I'll show you a culture that does not live on this planet.
Show me a culture that does not obey the civilized rules and I'll show you someplace that needs some improvement for the betterment of the population. But they may not want to be better, and that's fine. The people of Libya WANT to be better, not oppressed.

AGAIN Honeybee, I am discussing something that is way beyond culture. If you can not think along those lines then it is pointless to discuss because you are talking apples and I am talking oranges. There are things that transcend culture. I don't know how to get the point across to you, it is getting old, really.

FunkyDexter

Apr 25th, 2011, 01:05 PM

People can't kill other people for money, fun or power.So where does a soldier fit into that? Or, indeed, the assassin you wantto send in to kill Gadaffi? What I think you're really saying is people shouldn't kill people unless it's justified.... but what does justified mean.

I think you're basically saying that killing Gadaffi is justified because he's killed people... but arguably, Gadaffi did so "for the greater good". He has been attempting to maintain order in an increasingly anarchic society. And he has a right to because:-
People need to obey the laws.

Now, I don't agree with that view point and neither, I suspect, do many (probably any) of the people you're arguing with. I'm reasonably sure that the world would be a better place if Gadaffi were removed from power. And I fully understand what you're saying that there are some acts (murder, rape, pedophilia, the list goes on) which are universally regarded as "evil". They transcend societies and localised value systems and go to the very core of what it means to be human (or humane).

But the problem is that you are arguing that one of those acts (murder) be carried out against Gadaffi because you believe it would be "for the greater good". You should be very, VERY careful before using that justification, though, because it's the same one that's been used by every single tyrant in history.

As I said before, I generally agree with your view point. I think if Gadaffi were removed from power it would be a good thing. Including, on balance, if he were assassinated. But then I'm not from Tripoli where, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Gadaffi has a high degree of support. My problem is not that you're arguing Gadaffi should go (I believe he should), it's that you're portraying it as an entirely black and white issue. It isn't. And glib dismisslas that we should remove the grey are meaningless.

MarMan

Apr 25th, 2011, 01:45 PM

So where does a soldier fit into that?

Thats a good point. Not for power. Hopefully not for fun, although even if they are enjoying it that is not the motivation unless they are the general. For money? Well if they get paid you can argue that. But a soldier's job is to follow orders. And we must hope the orders are comming from a good source.

I think you're basically saying that killing Gadaffi is justified because he's killed people...

Close. Not because he's killed people, no sense of crying over spilled milk. Because he's killing people and won't stop. If someone runs a red light can you shoot them? No. You shoot them when they start killing people and don't stop. If I ran down Main street and started killing everyone I saw breaking a law, I would get killed if I did not give up when I was ordered to.

Look what Hitler did because people were dragging their feet. I probably would've made the same mistake. That's OK as long as we learn from our mistakes. I don't necessarily want to see him dead or removed from power (even though that may be the only way to resolve this without a lot of death), I just want innocent people to stop getting killed.

Yes, I know there are peace-mongers out there that would rather see thousands of people die then get involved with their plight. But the funny thing is you can tell which governments are corrupt, those are the ones that side with other corrupt governments.

zaza

Apr 25th, 2011, 04:30 PM

I know I want no deaths, but you can't always get what you want. So I have to settle for one death of a bad man (which I would prefer to live if they would just stop killing people) as opposed to deaths of innocent people which include women and children.

A more difficult question is: Would you settle for the death of one innocent man or 10 bad men?

zaza

Apr 25th, 2011, 04:36 PM

Thats a good point. Not for power. Hopefully not for fun, although even if they are enjoying it that is not the motivation unless they are the general. For money? Well if they get paid you can argue that. But a soldier's job is to follow orders. And we must hope the orders are comming from a good source.

Close. Not because he's killed people, no sense of crying over spilled milk. Because he's killing people and won't stop. If someone runs a red light can you shoot them? No. You shoot them when they start killing people and don't stop. If I ran down Main street and started killing everyone I saw breaking a law, I would get killed if I did not give up when I was ordered to.

Look what Hitler did because people were dragging their feet. I probably would've made the same mistake. That's OK as long as we learn from our mistakes. I don't necessarily want to see him dead or removed from power (even though that may be the only way to resolve this without a lot of death), I just want innocent people to stop getting killed.

Yes, I know there are peace-mongers out there that would rather see thousands of people die then get involved with their plight. But the funny thing is you can tell which governments are corrupt, those are the ones that side with other corrupt governments.

I neglected to notice with the previous post that I wasn't at the end of the topic, hence a bit of a derailment, so I'll try to return to track.

Suppose, following the successful assassination of Gadaffi and given our policy of not trying to impose our rule over other countries, we allow free and fair elections and a group comes to power who immediately declare homosexuality, disablement and non-adherence to Sharia Islam to be a crime against the law of the land and immediately start executing people. All of these happen to belong to a particular religious branch of Islam, or a particular Libyan tribal group.

Are we partly responsible, by replacing a despotic but strong leader, who kept the different factions in the country at least from slaughtering each other? Have we precipitated more death? And do we then sit it out, or intervene again?

Suppose it isn't following free and fair elections, but a descent into civil war?

abhijit

Apr 25th, 2011, 05:56 PM

I neglected to notice with the previous post that I wasn't at the end of the topic, hence a bit of a derailment, so I'll try to return to track.

Suppose, following the successful assassination of Gadaffi and given our policy of not trying to impose our rule over other countries, we allow free and fair elections and a group comes to power who immediately declare homosexuality, disablement and non-adherence to Sharia Islam to be a crime against the law of the land and immediately start executing people. All of these happen to belong to a particular religious branch of Islam, or a particular Libyan tribal group.

Are we partly responsible, by replacing a despotic but strong leader, who kept the different factions in the country at least from slaughtering each other? Have we precipitated more death? And do we then sit it out, or intervene again?

Suppose it isn't following free and fair elections, but a descent into civil war?

The obvious answer is to keep killing leaders till you find one who shares your point of view. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

honeybee

Apr 26th, 2011, 03:21 AM

The obvious answer is to keep killing leaders till you find one who shares your point of view. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That's one trick which is bound to work.

@MarMan, if people can't kill others for money, fun or power, you will find that most of the 'civilized' nations of today don't fit your definition of civilized. And you will find some tribes deep in African jungles are the most civilized in the world.

I think what you are trying to convey is the people of Libya have been living an uncivilized life, and that the US and the NATO will help them in a transition to a civilized world. Since I don't believe the US or any of the NATO nations will ever fall within your definitions of what is civilized (read above para), I don't see any point in your argument of civilized vs uncivilized.

.

FunkyDexter

Apr 26th, 2011, 06:06 AM

Look what Hitler did You really can't compare Gadaffi to Hitler. They're not even in same league and doing so usually reveals your argument as weak and unbalanced.

It's also worth mentioning that none of the allies went to war with Germany because he was percieved as evil. We went to war because he was percieved as a threat. His treatment of jews in the occupied never entered anyone's thinking.

abhijit

Apr 26th, 2011, 07:13 AM

You really can't compare Gadaffi to Hitler. They're not even in same league and doing so usually reveals your argument as weak and unbalanced.

It's also worth mentioning that none of the allies went to war with Germany because he was percieved as evil. We went to war because he was percieved as a threat. His treatment of jews in the occupied never entered anyone's thinking.

Also a lot of prominent people at the time considered Hitler to be a savior of sorts. :mad:

MarMan

Apr 26th, 2011, 07:59 AM

A more difficult question is: Would you settle for the death of one innocent man or 10 bad men?

10 bad ones, definitely.

Suppose, following the successful assassination of Gadaffi and given our policy of not trying to impose our rule over other countries, we allow free and fair elections and a group comes to power who immediately declare homosexuality, disablement and non-adherence to Sharia Islam to be a crime against the law of the land and immediately start executing people.

That is the chance you take. Not everything turns out nice and good. But when you have one person killing people for their own benefit, that is wrong, period. If a group of people decide to be evil, then that is their choice, be it good or bad. Then I suggest the homos and disabled get the flock out of dodge.

@MarMan, if people can't kill others for money, fun or power, you will find that most of the 'civilized' nations of today don't fit your definition of civilized. And you will find some tribes deep in African jungles are the most civilized in the world.

I don't know where you live Honeybee, but if that's your belief, you must have some strange living conditions. Every country I've been to puts people in jail (at the minimum) for killing for money, fun or power. Any I never gave you my definition of civilized, so how can you comment on it? I find the more you post the less sense you make. Are you sure you are not getting emotional over this issue and mot making wise statements?

You really can't compare Gadaffi to Hitler. They're not even in same league and doing so usually reveals your argument as weak and unbalanced.

Perhaps you could tell me what caused you to think this? I am trying to improve my communication. I was intending to compare the actions of Hitler with the actions of Gadafi. NEVER the people themselves. For example, we found out what Hitler had done to people. In hindsight, we could've done something sooner. No way to know it at the time. But we can LEARN from the past, and when some wacked out leader starts killing people (like Milosevic) we now know it is better to do something sooner than later. Less people die.

zaza

Apr 26th, 2011, 09:07 AM

10 bad ones, definitely.

What about 100? Or 1 million? Is there a limit, or is the general idea that one should prefer to kill an unlimited number of bad men rather than 1 innocent man?

What if the bad men are all those wicked Jewish homosexuals?

MarMan

Apr 26th, 2011, 09:23 AM

Well we would have to define "Bad" at this point. I see nothing "Bad" about Jewish homosexuals. In the context of this thread "Bad" is someone committing mass murder. So if you have 1 million people committing mass murder killing them all as opposed to killing one innocent would have a net effect of saving at least 2,000,001 people where at least 1 is not bad. And if you factor in the laws of probability you will come out ahead.

Of course you can always poke holes in many things. You can say what if those 1 million people are killing people on death row?

I am learning where some of these arguments arise. Sometimes someone will be generally speaking. Someone may not agree so choose an outlier that contradicts the general consensus.

For example, I can say "What goes up must come down." Basically, that's what happens every day. Then someone else can say what about voyager? It never came down. So depending on what point of view you take, almost anything can be "correct" in its own way.

@zaza, if I call "Bad" people mass murders and you call them (just for the sake of discussion) Jewish homosexuals you can see why we don't agree. Mass murders <> Jewish homosexuals.

zaza

Apr 26th, 2011, 11:40 AM

MarMan

Apr 26th, 2011, 12:26 PM

Some say that a lot of the troubles in the Middle East are because the Jewish people displaced a load of Palestinians and have since been killing and torturing them on a daily basis for 50 years. Would you say that qualifies as bad? There are, as point of fact, quite a large number of people who are of that opinion, including most of the Islamic world.

First of all torture is different from killing. Second of all, a lot of that resentment is second generation, i.e. "Your father killed my father so I will kill you". I believe that kind of thinking is wrong no matter what side its on. There doesn't need to be any killing (even though it helps the global problem of over-population). I notice what you DID NOT say, that some of the Palestinians that were killed died because they were attacking innocent people. I'm sure some died that were innocent. What about the Jewish people that were there before the Palestinians who were forced out? you can make anyone look bad if you pick a point in time that suits your needs and ignore the rest. and you forget the Jewish people tried to peacefully co-exist with the Palestinians. Except it failed when 7 Arab nations attacked them. By the way, the nation of Israel existed before what we think of as the nation of Palestine. Palestine was not even a nation in ancient times, but an area of land with no definite people nor leader.

In my opinion, a lot of the trouble in the middle east is not trouble, but self-correction. Some of it is trouble. The middle east was ruled by outside forces for too long. When those forces left, dictators took over. The people never got a chance at any kind of freedom except what the rulers gave them. So this causes tension that builds before it breaks. Sometimes it can be well directed, other times it is not. It is like a powder keg, and until they get their freedom, they must constrain their energy until it bursts. It is kind of like being very angry, you may do things that you regret, but at the time, you do not seem to care.

zaza

Apr 26th, 2011, 12:39 PM

MarMan

Apr 26th, 2011, 12:57 PM

You aren't going to suggest that murder, rape and paedophilia are "bad" crimes worthy of killing a "bad" person, but torture isn't... are you? I reckon you would find a lot of people across the world who would put torture in there above rape, for example. Possibly even above murder.

i could torture you by eating in front of you when you are hungry. That is a very broad category and you should define what you mean. Murder is murder. Dead is dead. Sometimes torture causes death, sometimes permanent physical/mental injury, sometimes temporary, sometimes slight discomfort. If you spoke to a lot of people across the world and asked them to define torture you would get a different definition from every person. you can not ask vague questions and expect definite answers, it just does not make sense.

The argument that there are Palestinians who have killed innocent Jews is entirely beside the point. The point is that if you took a poll of the Islamic world, I think you would find a large number and possibly a majority who would say that Israel as a whole, and by extension the Jewish people it represents (for it is the Jewish homeland), commit acts of murder and torture against innocent Palestinians and this therefore justifies killing a Jewish person. Some might, and do, say that this justifies a holy war, or jihad, against the State of Israel.
In what way is their thinking flawed?

If you took a poll of the Islamic world where there was no Israel, there would be other countries who would have to go. The Islamic religion has 3 broad categories:

Live in peace and don't bother anyone
Kill Isreal
Kill everyone who is not Islamic

You can design a poll of any subset of people you want and you will get a different answer depending on the group that you choose to ask. That is nothing new. It also proves that people are different, nothing else.

I notice you keep mentioning Israel commits acts of murder and torture (I know they commit murder, I haven't heard of torture, nor have you defined it, sounds like you are trying to sway opinion) but you ignore the murdered Israelites. Both sides are doing wrong. And incorrect biased thinking like that perpetuates negative thinking which contributes to the killing. You should be vocal against ALL killing, instead of trying to justify one side over the other, that just leads to more hatred. Unless you enjoy hating a race, then just continue as you are. Fortunately I am not predujice, and I am thankful for that.

zaza

Apr 26th, 2011, 01:46 PM

i could torture you by eating in front of you when you are hungry. That is a very broad category and you should define what you mean. Murder is murder. Dead is dead. Sometimes torture causes death, sometimes permanent physical/mental injury, sometimes temporary, sometimes slight discomfort. If you spoke to a lot of people across the world and asked them to define torture you would get a different definition from every person. you can not ask vague questions and expect definite answers, it just does not make sense.

I would probably go with the definition as laid down by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm). No mention of eating in front of other people there, although if you enjoyed lunch with a particular masticating fellow in my team you might beg to differ.
Would that be definite enough for you?
By the way, your example about eating in front of somebody is what is called a metaphor. It is not literally torture. When I say "MarMan exploded with rage at the continued backchat by insolent zaza", I do not mean that you literally exploded. I hope.

If you took a poll of the Islamic world where there was no Israel, there would be other countries who would have to go. The Islamic religion has 3 broad categories:

Live in peace and don't bother anyone
Kill Isreal
Kill everyone who is not Islamic

You can design a poll of any subset of people you want and you will get a different answer depending on the group that you choose to ask. That is nothing new. It also proves that people are different, nothing else.

I notice you keep mentioning Israel commits acts of murder and torture (I know they commit murder, I haven't heard of torture, nor have you defined it, sounds like you are trying to sway opinion) but you ignore the murdered Israelites. Both sides are doing wrong. And incorrect biased thinking like that perpetuates negative thinking which contributes to the killing. You should be vocal against ALL killing, instead of trying to justify one side over the other, that just leads to more hatred. Unless you enjoy hating a race, then just continue as you are. Fortunately I am not predujice, and I am thankful for that.

You can find articles on Israeli torture dating back 10 years. Do what we in the civilised world call "a search on Google" and I'm sure you'll find plenty.
The fact that there are israelis who have been murdered is, I shall say again, beside the point. The fact that some of Gadaffi's loyalists have been murdered doesn't stop you from calling for
his head on a pike
People on both sides get killed. I agree. But that fact that Israelis have killed and, yes, tortured Palestinians is seen by many Muslims as justification for their actions, irrespective of the fact that Palestinians have killed Israelis. You yourself feel that it is justifiable to kill Gadaffi in the name of the greater good despite the fact that several of his own loyal followers have been killed by rebels. How is it any different for a Muslim to say "let us kill all the bad Israelis who as a people elected their government, so that we can prevent slaughter of the Muslims".

I am asking you how this viewpoint is different from yours.

MarMan

Apr 26th, 2011, 02:14 PM

I would probably go with the definition as laid down by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm). No mention of eating in front of other people there, although if you enjoyed lunch with a particular masticating fellow in my team you might beg to differ.
Would that be definite enough for you?

I could care less on the definition you choose. When you introduce vague terms into a discussion that tends to be very specific it is wise to define them otherwise new arguments emerge and nothing gets accomplished.

And as for people who haven't eaten for days, to watch someone eat in front of them, YOU tell them that is not torture. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that one. That is NOT a metaphor, here is the definition:
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance

And here is your definiton of torture:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So you are saying while someone is experiencing hunger pains to purposefully and willfully hold the cure to thier PAIN and keep it from them is not torture? I'm not going to the diner with you, that's for sure.

You can find articles on Israeli torture dating back 10 years. Do what we in the civilised world call "a search on Google" and I'm sure you'll find plenty.

Can you prove that are not biased? Can you prove they are not truthful? Just because something comes up in a search does NOT mean it is definitely true. I've already seen biasness in these posts to filter through some more.

I am asking you how this viewpoint is different from yours.

You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't know how you can compare animosity that has been going on for thousands of years between different races of people to a dictator who has been mowing down his countries citizens for a month. If you can't see that difference, then nothing I can say will sink in. I would bet behavior similar to what gadafi is doing now is what CAUSED the conflict between Isreal and certain Muslim groups.

FunkyDexter

Apr 27th, 2011, 07:56 AM

Perhaps you could tell me what caused you to think this? I am trying to improve my communication. I was intending to compare the actions of Hitler with the actions of Gadafi. NEVER the people themselves. It's a general truism on internet discussions that anyone invoking Hitler has already lost the debate. There was a guy who formulated it as a principle (albeit tongue in cheek). I can't remember his name but google will find it for you quick enough if you can be bothered to look. I can't.

And comparing the actions of G & H is no more legitimate than comparing the individuals. They're utterly different in both scale and nature.

I have to say Marman, at this point I really do think you're the one willfully missunderstanding the points that are made against you. Zazas argument is quite clear. He's not making a judgement about the Palestinian/Israeli situation, he's merely highlighting the fact that there is a judgement to be made.

You may take the view that Palestinian terrorists are unjustified in killing Israelis and are, in fact, murderous sadists but there are a large number of people who take the view that the Israelis are engaged in an illegal occupation that has so impoverished the indiginous Palestinian that they starve to death and are denied basic healthcare. By your own terms that would justify the palestinian freedom fighters in their act of killing Israelis.

Whether you or I, as individuals, agree or disagree with either of these points of view is irrelevent. What's relevent is that there is more than one point of view and significant sections of the human race adhere to each of them. So who decides, in this scenario, who is right or wrong. Who deserves to live and who deserves to die? Who arbitrates which of these deaths are somehow justified and which represent a murder? You've implied that there is some sort of world wide consensus that dictates the answer but there simply isn't.

In fact from reading your posts it's increasingly apparent that you see yourself as the arbitrator. You believe you see the world for what it is and the rest of the world will agree with you as long as it's right minded. Anyone who disagrees must be ill informed and can therefore have their opinion dismissed. I'm afraid that that kind of narcisim would, again, cast you in the role of the tyrant.

This is akward for me because, at least as far as Gadaffi is concerned, I believe your opinion is correct. The difference is that I don't believe it's the only one worthy of consideration.

MarMan

Apr 27th, 2011, 09:28 AM

It really puzzles me the misunderstanding that occurs in posts that is completely absent in face-to-face discussions. What is so different between the forms of communication? Perhaps people don't remember everything they read but listen better? I don't think that is the case, because some people don't listen. Oh well, I must keep observing this curiosity.

And comparing the actions of G & H is no more legitimate than comparing the individuals. They're utterly different in both scale and nature.

But thank you for this sentence, I realized my error here. Neither was I comparing the men nor their actions. Well maybe I said I was, but I was wrong. I wanted to point out that what matters is OUR reactions, and the fact that we are learning from them. Instead of just watching someone kill their people we now do something about it. The whole world is learning also, because of the support. The world is learning, great!!

Zazas argument is quite clear. He's not making a judgement about the Palestinian/Israeli situation, he's merely highlighting the fact that there is a judgement to be made.

What needs to happen is the killing to stop on both sides. They are both wrong. My opinion? the Palestinians are sore losers to attack Israel FIRST, lose, then complain because they lost. If they didn't attack in the first place, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen and don't complain because the stove puts off heat. Deal with it or eat a sandwhich.

Whether you or I, as individuals, agree or disagree with either of these points of view is irrelevent. What's relevent is that there is more than one point of view and significant sections of the human race adhere to each of them. So who decides, in this scenario, who is right or wrong. Who deserves to live and who deserves to die? Who arbitrates which of these deaths are somehow justified and which represent a murder? You've implied that there is some sort of world wide consensus that dictates the answer but there simply isn't.

Almost no one deserves to die. That is rule #1 from the begining. When someone breaks rule #1, they are changing the rules. So the rules change for them. Starting with rule #1. If someone decides they can kill people then people can kill them. Its only fair. I know the world isn't fair, but the more we try to be fair, the better it becomes. Killing people because you do not like what they are doing is not fair. Killing for justice can be. Killing for vengence is immature and definitely wrong.

If someone killed my family would I wish to kill them? Absolutely. would I be correct? Absolutely not. I can only hope I would come to my senses, otherwise I would be wrong, but feel like I did right. It is important to know the difference. some people can not judge the difference between right and wrong and how they feel.

There will always be more than one point of view. There will never by appropriate action for EVERY point of view. for example, I could say nuke them all and solve the problem. that can be my point of view. It by no means is accetable, even if people believe it to be a valid solution. I reserve some of my own opinions because I believe them to be inappropriate. sometimes they sneak out, like wanting to see his head on a pike. Do I believe that is a good solution? Of course not. That's where I need to be more clear. I would like to see his head on a pike, but that sets a bad example, sends an inappropriate message and can be considered poor taste. If I could choose whether his head is on a pike or he retired somewhere I would pick the latter. Not because it is what I want, but because it is the better choice. What people want isn't alwayas the better choice. But anyone who thinks a tyrant should be allowed to kill their own people has me concerened.

Shaggy Hiker

Apr 27th, 2011, 09:57 AM

It really puzzles me the misunderstanding that occurs in posts that is completely absent in face-to-face discussions. What is so different between the forms of communication? Perhaps people don't remember everything they read but listen better?

Yeah, I've thought about that one, too. A large part of it has to do with non-verbal cues that exists in face-to-face communication that doesn't exist in writing, as well as inflection cues that could transmit over phone lines, but not in person. However, I don't think that one form of communication is necessarily more effective than the other. I, personally, prefer face-to-face communication, though that may be because I am in a category that is consistently treated well above average, so people may listen more to me than they would to the average person. On the other hand, I feel that I make more complete statements when writing, unless I am in certain, prepared, oral situations: Giving presentations, or taking questions about same.

One thing that I have always liked about this forum is that people can make as complete a case as they like, and over time, with a group of people who have well above internet-average IQ and communications skills. There are points that come out that I would not have thought of, and opinions that have informed my own. Would the people writing them have been so effective if we were speaking in person? In some cases, it is likely that they would not, if only because we have so many nationalities represented here that there would be some difficulty with comprehension due solely to accents.

I would say that we learn as much about how to communicate as anything else. Listening is always a good policy, but it is not the ONLY good policy. Sometimes you have to be able to persuade, if you wish to be effective, and a discussion such as this one will improve those skills, whether or not you actually change any mind, either your own, or other peoples.

honeybee

Apr 27th, 2011, 10:25 PM

I don't know where you live Honeybee, but if that's your belief, you must have some strange living conditions. Every country I've been to puts people in jail (at the minimum) for killing for money, fun or power. Any I never gave you my definition of civilized, so how can you comment on it? I find the more you post the less sense you make. Are you sure you are not getting emotional over this issue and mot making wise statements?

I think you yourself have posted the criteria you use for deciding if a society is civilized or not. Or perhaps they aren't criteria and something random?

How many US presidents have gone to jail over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many over Vietnam? How many over the Iraqi civilians?

In duels, a tough opponent tends to bring out the best in you, it's said. So if you find I am making less sense, you should probably examine how much sense your own posts are making. So far I have tried to not take this personally, but your persistent assumptions about you knowing things better and your viewpoint being right are just going too far.

About killing, can you please once and for all set down all YOUR rules about what killings are justified and what are not? It seems to me that with every counter argument, you have been reshaping your own rules about killing of others. So please pause for a moment (or a few minutes as the case may be) and set down all your rules regarding killing of others.

.

honeybee

Apr 27th, 2011, 10:43 PM

If someone killed my family would I wish to kill them? Absolutely. would I be correct? Absolutely not. I can only hope I would come to my senses, otherwise I would be wrong, but feel like I did right. It is important to know the difference. some people can not judge the difference between right and wrong and how they feel.

There are some societies (they are actually called civilizations, mind you) where killing for revenge/honour is an accepted way of life. An eye for an eye. There are yet more societies (civilizations) where if you kill someone you can legally buy your way out by paying blood money. When you start preaching 'killing is never justified', you are proclaiming that your way is the best and everyone should fall in. Samurai warriors in Japan used to kill themselves if they broke the Samurai code of conduct. It's killing one's own self. It was considered honourable.

Taking your example, if someone killed your family, post fact you cannot kill them because that is barred by law. However if you found those someones in the process of killing your family or trying to kill your family and then if you killed them, it's an accepted form of self defence and you can walk free. Unless you understand the subtleties in both these incidents you cannot generalize on killings. There are mercy killings, honour killings, jihads and johars and many other types of killings which were all accepted in different societies at different times. Without being able to understand the rationale behind each and the way different societies lived, it's impossible to frame any rules on such acts.

.

MarMan

Apr 28th, 2011, 08:21 AM

Initially I was hoping to explain the value of life to the people that were missing it. But now this post has become a lesson for me on how misunderstood posts seem to be. And you're my number one subject Honeybee. You have make the most incorrect assumptions then anyone else. I'm trying to pinpoint the the source. but I can correct you further.

I think you yourself have posted the criteria you use for deciding if a society is civilized or not. Or perhaps they aren't criteria and something random?

No I did not. I gave YOU some guidelines to help get the things you were missing. For you to think those were my guidelines shows you severely underestimate me which supports why you make so many incorrect assumptions about what I type.

Possibility #1 - Misunderstandings can be the result of incorrect perceptions? And it goes both ways. Misunderstandings can be the result of unclear or incomplete statements.

How many US presidents have gone to jail over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many over Vietnam? How many over the Iraqi civilians?

In duels, a tough opponent tends to bring out the best in you, it's said. So if you find I am making less sense, you should probably examine how much sense your own posts are making. So far I have tried to not take this personally, but your persistent assumptions about you knowing things better and your viewpoint being right are just going too far.

About killing, can you please once and for all set down all YOUR rules about what killings are justified and what are not? It seems to me that with every counter argument, you have been reshaping your own rules about killing of others. So please pause for a moment (or a few minutes as the case may be) and set down all your rules regarding killing of others.

.

I am not putting down my rules for killing for two reasons. One is it would take too much time. Two I do not think you would understand anyway since you seem to misunderstand much easier to understand topics. I can give you generalizations that you can poke holes in if you wish.

1) Killing is not OK. Honorable killing is really for people who are too ignorant to know killing is wrong.
2) If someone IS killing people then they need to stop. If they don't stop then they are not living by rule #1. Therefore they are not protected by rule #1. So KILL THEM!!! The net effect is lives saved.

How many US presidents have gone to jail over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many over Vietnam? How many over the Iraqi civilians?

0. If you are trying to forge a link between any U.S president and gadafi, then here again we have a mistake. You are comparing 3 different things here as if they were the same. Can you really not see the difference? I am starting to believe that you can not. which leads to #2...

Possibility #2 - Unable to see the big picture or the details. Focus on a subset of information which leads to wrong conclusions when valuable information that affects the outcome is ignored. Which means apples to oranges again. If someone is talking about the big picture and someone else discusses a small peice there is no way they can refer to the same thing even if they use the same words.

There are some societies (they are actually called civilizations, mind you) where killing for revenge/honour is an accepted way of life. An eye for an eye. There are yet more societies (civilizations) where if you kill someone you can legally buy your way out by paying blood money. When you start preaching 'killing is never justified', you are proclaiming that your way is the best and everyone should fall in. Samurai warriors in Japan used to kill themselves if they broke the Samurai code of conduct. It's killing one's own self. It was considered honourable.

The word civilization is controversial to begin with. It is pointless to bicker about this word. And killing for revenge/honour is barbaric. That is how cavemen thought to behave. Any society living by those laws is not as advanced as one who learned it is better to settle things in court. Remember hindsight is 20/20. So an advanced culture will have learned what mistakes it was making after it has corrected them. Any society that has not advanced will be ignorant to the advances it missed and therefore not know what it is missing. You yourself sadi "It was considered honourable", key word there is was. And I believe you should be allowed to kill yourself if you want, just not anyone else.

Possibility #3 - Misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge?

Taking your example, if someone killed your family, post fact you cannot kill them because that is barred by law. However if you found those someones in the process of killing your family or trying to kill your family and then if you killed them, it's an accepted form of self defence and you can walk free. Unless you understand the subtleties in both these incidents you cannot generalize on killings.
.

Please reread your post. It is a good point of misunderstandings. You generalize on two different scenerios then state you can not generalize on those situations.

Possibility #4 - Could be setup from the begining for contradiction.

Conclusion - These misunderstandings seem to step from two head-strong posters. BOTH talking about different things. Basically Honeybee seems to thing killing is OK and I do not. No wonder we disagree.

Shaggy Hiker

Apr 28th, 2011, 09:07 AM

Basically Honeybee seems to thing killing is OK and I do not. No wonder we disagree.

If that is really how you interpret his post, I would say that the source of your disagreement is plain indeed.

MarMan

Apr 28th, 2011, 12:27 PM

Then perhaps I am misunderstanding what he is trying to say as much as he is misunderstanding me?

zaza

Apr 28th, 2011, 05:41 PM

What needs to happen is the killing to stop on both sides. They are both wrong. My opinion? the Palestinians are sore losers to attack Israel FIRST, lose, then complain because they lost. If they didn't attack in the first place, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen and don't complain because the stove puts off heat. Deal with it or eat a sandwhich.

Well, from their perspective, they were not the ones who did the attacking first. That is the point which you seem to have missed. In their opinion, a bunch of chaps showed up after WWII, said "Right, all this is now ours" and promptly threw a large number of people off their land and made them homeless. They then became refugees in the surrounding Arab countries, who didn't much care for them either. These surrounding Arab nations eventually got their act together and coordinated an attack, ostensibly in the name of Palestinian freedom but really because they wanted to have a pop at the Jews. They lost. And so on it has gone for the last 50 years.

Do you consider somebody marching into your home one day, throwing you and your family out into the street where grandma dies of malnourishment and your kids fall sick and eventually die too, do you consider that to be aggression? Perhaps even murder? What if it happened to your entire street? Your entire town? Your entire country?

Or do you just "get out of the kitchen" and "deal with it" ?

[edit: technically speaking, that area was a British mandate between WWI and WWII, and they decided to make a chunk of it into the State of Israel after WWII]

honeybee

Apr 28th, 2011, 11:04 PM

Basically Honeybee seems to thing killing is OK and I do not. No wonder we disagree.

Just what I have been pointing at: Because I am questioning your assumptions or thoughts, you have assumed automatically that I believe in something, or that I don't believe in something. Without having answered my questions or clarified your own thoughts. It somehow reminds me of "You are either with us or with them", where you don't want to allow someone to question you by labelling that someone as from the opposite party.

Fine, I can understand about having misunderstandings, but I cannot really keep up with your persistently wrong assumptions. Bye.

.

abhijit

Apr 29th, 2011, 08:00 AM

It is time to close this thread.
:D :D :D

MarMan

Apr 29th, 2011, 09:57 AM

Well, from their perspective, they were not the ones who did the attacking first. That is the point which you seem to have missed. In their opinion, a bunch of chaps showed up after WWII, said "Right, all this is now ours" and promptly threw a large number of people off their land and made them homeless. They then became refugees in the surrounding Arab countries, who didn't much care for them either. These surrounding Arab nations eventually got their act together and coordinated an attack, ostensibly in the name of Palestinian freedom but really because they wanted to have a pop at the Jews. They lost. And so on it has gone for the last 50 years.

You are picking a point in time that suits your needs. What about the settlers that were kicked out by the Palestinians? Oh, but that's OK. No that's biased. (untruthful)

We are going live with a new ERP in 4 weeks and I do not have time for this. All it boils down to people trying to impose thier beliefs on others. Well I am not buying into other's beliefs. No one is interested in mine. This thread has outlived its usefulness.

Have a good weekend!!!

Shaggy Hiker

Apr 29th, 2011, 01:58 PM

You are picking a point in time that suits your needs. What about the settlers that were kicked out by the Palestinians? Oh, but that's OK. No that's biased. (untruthful)

The point that Zaza was making was that it really doesn't matter what WE think about it. What matters is what the aggrieved party thinks happened. They will act on their perception of the situation, regardless of what our perception is. We can disagree with them. We can side against them. But we are not them, nor can our point of view be theirs simply by saying that we are right. So they feel that they were kicked out. They feel that they were wronged. And they act on those perceptions, just as we act on our perceptions. In this matter we have different perceptions, but we are both just acting on our own perceptions.

Aside from that, when you talk about who wronged who first, how far back do you go? That particular patch of land has been fought over longer than any other patch of land in all of recorded history. The Jews weren't there first, as it was settled land before Judaism even came into existence. Then they were removed by various conquerers at various times, and repatriated by various rulers at various times, and so on. The bible records two instances where they came in and killed off or drove out the current inhabitants, and there are suggestions of other such actions. If you were to go back to antiquity to who had the original right to the land...well, those people aren't even well defined.

FunkyDexter

May 1st, 2011, 09:33 AM

The earliest civilisation I can pin to the area is the Mesopotamians. Won't somebody think if the Mesopatamians?!

BlindSniper

May 1st, 2011, 11:26 AM

This is my point of view on this whole matter.
Gadaffi has been ruler of Libya for the past 42 years. Now if the people of Libya Elected him every time or not doesn't matter now, it's in the past. I would say the Majority of Libyans don't want him ruling and they want to have democratic elections. We all know by now how that turned out.

I quote from Wikipedia

Gaddafi vowed to "die a martyr" if necessary in his fight against the rebels and external forces.

(I think it is safe to say that the rebels represent the people who want democratic elections)
Lets say he sticks with this attitude
He will either be killed by the rebels (or by an accidental air strike from NATO, lol)
he will defeat the rebels, either killing most of them or imprisoning them( why let them be free if they can start another rebellion). Then he would of eliminated a large portion of his country's people
He steps down from power and then his supporters kill him for being a coward and letting them down
He has made it clear that he won't step down so the way I see it is he will die, sooner or later why does it matter who kills him?.