What to do (Arab Spring)?
- Thread starter Hezam
- Start date
So I guess we should just watch people get gunned down in the streets by jet fighters?
Look at what happened in the 1990s when US and NATO did nothing in the Balkans. You had four years of civil war, that killed 100,000 civilians and sent over a million refugees across its borders. You had genocide of the muslim people. When NATO intervened in in 1996 and 1999, it ended the conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo and established an uneasy peace in the region since.
As much as you;d like to automatically claim that this is about oil, it isn't. Americans and Europeans are appalled at Qadaffi's behavior and want it to end. If this was about oil then the west would have made a whole bunch of other decisions to keep him in power or take him out.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
I'll bet a thousand bucks that if Ghadaffi keeps slaughtering his own people long enough, people in other countries will be demanding to know why the US didn't do anything.
You mean you don't hear the calls already?
This is the challenge facing the Obama administration. It doesn't want to intervene precisely because of the views of people like Hezam, however what is going on in Libya is unacceptable. This is a pretty good summation of how it faced the Egyptian crisis.
How Obama handled Egypt
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
- Thread starter
- #106
The one who should help Libyans is Arab,Arab League and no one else.
And for Bosnia and Kosovo,Not only NATO witch helped,Mujahideen and Turkey helped and they freed the land and protected Muslims.
And notice : They ask NATO to help back then,but now all Arab (not only Libyans) said No for NATO and US.
WHY SHOULD THEY COME IF THE PEOPLE DONT WANT THEM TO ?
i know it's not acceptable but you must not forget that the Libyan military joined the people and fight side by side with them.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
Okay, so where is the Arab League?
- 1 Nov 2005
- 446
- 39
The one who should help Libyans is Arab,Arab League and no one else.
And for Bosnia and Kosovo,Not only NATO witch helped,Mujahideen and Turkey helped and they freed the land and protected Muslims.
I agree with you Hezam.
I can't speak for other parts of the world, but Europe must not send military help to Libya. We can send the Red Cross and other help.
We may only help military when we are asked for help by the people of Libya.
But when we see those poor brave people in Libya on Tv, one feels that we should help them fighting for their rights and freedom. Killing your own people is horrible. I guess that is what we call unhuman.
And for Bosnia and Kosovo,Not only NATO witch helped,Mujahideen and Turkey helped and they freed the land and protected Muslims.
I agree with you Hezam.
I can't speak for other parts of the world, but Europe must not send military help to Libya. We can send the Red Cross and other help.
We may only help military when we are asked for help by the people of Libya.
But when we see those poor brave people in Libya on Tv, one feels that we should help them fighting for their rights and freedom. Killing your own people is horrible. I guess that is what we call unhuman.
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
- Thread starter
- #109
Asleep,and that's why you see revolutions to create Arab league as it should be.RolandtheHeadless said:
If the help comes from American people or european people we wouldn't mind, we will be thankful and won't forget the help But when it comes from governments that still killing our people in many places and support many dictators ...i think we prefer to die rather than asking for help.
most Arab want the Egyptian military to protect the Libyans,Anyway the egyptians didnt settle it yet with Mubarak system.
If any other Arab people go to Libya,they western governments will claim that Alqaeda is gathering there.
Anyway,No worries.
Actually the opposition's governing body has asked for Western intervention, and the military seems to be supporting Qaddafi, not the people. I don't see libyan fighter jets attacking government strongholds or using heavy artillery against loyal forces. That suggests the majority of the military is still supporting the leader.
Terror Quiets Libyan Capital as Rebels Battle in the East (Published 2011)
let`s talk
Kouhai
- 2 Apr 2009
- 83
- 5
I am recently not sure about you, which makes it difficult to talk to your seriously. Your stuff is so entertaining in its ridiculous assumptions and total deny of reality&facts, that I wonder if you yourself actually believe in what you post.
Do you have any point here? or is this just another veiled attempt to make an insult?
let`s talk
Kouhai
- 2 Apr 2009
- 83
- 5
I made my point. Do you have anything that proves your assumptions? Or it is just another lame attempt to switch ANY political discussion into accusation of personal insults against your opponents, whose points you obviously cannot beat and therefore you make your old trick- "it is all against my persona!"
Colin Howell
先輩
- 18 Oct 2009
- 30
- 6
Is a no-fly zone really a good idea?
A recent short article on the front page of stratfor.com might be interesting to people considering whether the U.S. or other Western countries should help to suppress Gaddafi's forces. (Sorry, no direct link, I don't have enough posts.) STRATFOR is a private company which analyzes geopolitical and military issues for its customers, and this particular article was written by its CEO. The article looks at matters from a point of view of U.S. political interests, but that viewpoint would naturally be taken by the U.S. government in considering such an action.
The article's basic concern was that even applying a no-fly zone might be quite dangerous, because to maintain it effectively you have to suppress any ground-based anti-aircraft weapons which could threaten the enforcing aircraft. That means air attacks against these weapons. In the Libyan case this would obviously be risky, because some of these weapons are in the hands of the people you're trying to help, and furthermore Gaddafi could and probably would place his weapons near civilians in the hope of deterring such attacks or causing harmful collateral damage. And when attacking a ground-based anti-aircraft weapon from the air, the attacking pilots have very little time to judge whether the weapon can be attacked safely.
The article was also concerned that even a successful no-fly zone might have little effect on the overall situation in Libya, because Gaddafi's control is still mainly based on his powerful ground forces, not his air power. To really make a major difference, foreign ground forces would be needed, and that would raise a whole mess of problems.
A recent short article on the front page of stratfor.com might be interesting to people considering whether the U.S. or other Western countries should help to suppress Gaddafi's forces. (Sorry, no direct link, I don't have enough posts.) STRATFOR is a private company which analyzes geopolitical and military issues for its customers, and this particular article was written by its CEO. The article looks at matters from a point of view of U.S. political interests, but that viewpoint would naturally be taken by the U.S. government in considering such an action.
The article's basic concern was that even applying a no-fly zone might be quite dangerous, because to maintain it effectively you have to suppress any ground-based anti-aircraft weapons which could threaten the enforcing aircraft. That means air attacks against these weapons. In the Libyan case this would obviously be risky, because some of these weapons are in the hands of the people you're trying to help, and furthermore Gaddafi could and probably would place his weapons near civilians in the hope of deterring such attacks or causing harmful collateral damage. And when attacking a ground-based anti-aircraft weapon from the air, the attacking pilots have very little time to judge whether the weapon can be attacked safely.
The article was also concerned that even a successful no-fly zone might have little effect on the overall situation in Libya, because Gaddafi's control is still mainly based on his powerful ground forces, not his air power. To really make a major difference, foreign ground forces would be needed, and that would raise a whole mess of problems.
I made my point. Do you have anything that proves your assumptions? Or it is just another lame attempt to switch ANY political discussion into accusation of personal insults against your opponents, whose points you obviously cannot beat and therefore you make your old trick- "it is all against my persona!"
Lets see...
Wheeler: Saving Strangers
Samantha Powers: A problem from hell
Ivo Daadler Getting to Dayton: The Making of the United States Bosnia Policy.
Magas and Zanic:The War in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
Burg and Shoup: The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina: ethnic conflict and international intervention
Thats just a list I came up with in thirty seconds... I've read through plenty more. In addition to this, I have made several conference presentations and written peer reviewed book on humanitarian interventions and western policy-making in the 1990s.
Now, you were talking about proof, where's yours?
Tough to say... I don't see them as one "revolution." I think each must be considered by their individual case. The revolution in Tunisia has created an opportunity for people to air their grievances with the state. But each situation has different grievances and differences.
For example Tunisia is very different from Egypt. It has a more open and diversified economy with greater trade links with Europe. Its population I believe is more educated and there is a greater ability to carry out the reforms to make it a functioning democracy. Moreover I get the feeling that political structure is more adept at being reformed... it is not nearly as entrenched as in Egypt.
Bahrain is different; sectarian politics has always made it unstable, particularly in the 1990s. The outcome of the conflict there is in doubt.
My broad fear is the continuation of the status quo with someone else replacing Mubarak or Qaddafi. The reality of Mubarak's capitulation is that the power structure he created remains in place. Mubarak got kicked out in my mind because the military felt their wealth at risk so they got rid of him.
I look to what happened in Ukraine since their 2004 Orange revolution for some cautionary signals. Basically everybody celebrated dethroning of Viktor Yanukovych, and thought Ukraine was headed to a more prosperous society. Yet corruption and unemployment remains high and Viktor Yanukovych was reelected last year. One can rightly ask where has the last seven years gone?
As Mohammed said, people are already disgruntled with the slow pace of reforms. I can see some candidate state they have all the answers, and then use repressive techniques to keep people in line and have a base of support to do it. Then we'll be right back to where we started with Mubarak.
Do I fear groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda? Not really. I think the risk of an radical islamic take over is limited. However I do fear that continued repression does create a reservoir of discontent that extremism can feed off of.
Generally even handed. There are so many negatives for western states to become involved, which you have pointed out. I think more could have been done earlier with regards to Libya. I think it was clear that Qaddafi would use more extreme methods, and the outcome more bloody because of the tribal element. It doesn;t mean that we should have done something now, but we could be more prepared to do something if the UN security council made a decision to.
let`s talk
Kouhai
- 2 Apr 2009
- 83
- 5
Here you are all. Your dirty morality, your double standards regarding humans, your no respect to people's lives and your absolute support of ANY war crimes if they come form the US government. I have no doubt that you have a long list of propaganda political ******, who will write any book they are ordered to. I have no doubt that you are following your mission perfectly well. As well as I have no doubt that people who actually have common sense and at least a slight idea of justice, pity you with all their hearts. Proof is the concept that doesn't exist for you, unless it is in favor for the US government and you as its faithfull speaker. No need to tell you that NATO didn't care and wouldn't care about Yugoslavia, if Clinton hadn't banged a barely adult pussy and wanted to be re-elected again. As well as no need to tell you that NATO bombed Yugoslavia without the mandate of the UN and therefore by the International laws the whole operation count as a military aggression, which makes Clinton, the US government and NATO, war criminals, the same as Milosevic. But the sick brainwashed minds like yours, with the disgusting ideology of hypocritical double standards, don't care about killed civilians, ruined cities, illegal immigration in Western Europe from hit-by-war regions, and the consequences that the whole Europe will face for decades. Surely no need to tell you that the so-called weapons of mass destructions in Iraq was myth from the start but this lie led to you know what. Oh, no, you don't know. Because those killed Serbians, Bosnians and Iraqi are not humans by the US standards and no textbook in US schools never tells how many people Clinton the Murderer killed in Europe. Or Bush the Baby in Iraq. Who cares in America about the places that they can't show on the map? No one.
Btw, there are a lot of bad guys in Latin and South America too. Why don't you, I mean the US government, start the war near your American borders to fight bad guys? You won't. Because it's not profitable. Moreover, it's unprofitable. Better to bomb somewhere far from the US borders. Where next you will come to kill?
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
- Thread starter
- #123
i left work 1 hour earlier today,preparing for any event XD
i saw about 20 security cars near the government building and some places.
Anyway,im interested to see how people here protest
A statement by the ministry of interior:
Based on observations that some people attempt to circumvent the laws, relevant instructions and due processes in order to achieve illegitimate objectives; and in confirmation of what was announced on 02/01/1430H, the spokesman of the ministry of interior emphasised that the applicable laws in the Kingdom strictly prohibit all forms of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins and any call for such actions because they contradict with the principles of the Islamic law (Sharia) and the values and norms of the Saudi society; they further lead to public disorder, damage to public and private interests, breach of others' rights, which bring about havoc that results in bloodshed, violation of people's sanctity and loss of their possessions, and encroachment on public and private properties.
The Ministry spokesman stressed that whereas the laws and values prevailing in our society (under the laws of Allah and the teachings of His Messenger) have sanctioned legitimate venues for expression and open doors for communication at all levels to serve the public interest, the security forces are lawfully authorised to take all necessary actions against whoever tries to violate the law in any way; and he will be subject to the full force of the relevant regulations.
Hezam's comment:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
i saw about 20 security cars near the government building and some places.
Anyway,im interested to see how people here protest
A statement by the ministry of interior:
Based on observations that some people attempt to circumvent the laws, relevant instructions and due processes in order to achieve illegitimate objectives; and in confirmation of what was announced on 02/01/1430H, the spokesman of the ministry of interior emphasised that the applicable laws in the Kingdom strictly prohibit all forms of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins and any call for such actions because they contradict with the principles of the Islamic law (Sharia) and the values and norms of the Saudi society; they further lead to public disorder, damage to public and private interests, breach of others' rights, which bring about havoc that results in bloodshed, violation of people's sanctity and loss of their possessions, and encroachment on public and private properties.
The Ministry spokesman stressed that whereas the laws and values prevailing in our society (under the laws of Allah and the teachings of His Messenger) have sanctioned legitimate venues for expression and open doors for communication at all levels to serve the public interest, the security forces are lawfully authorised to take all necessary actions against whoever tries to violate the law in any way; and he will be subject to the full force of the relevant regulations.
Hezam's comment:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
