Now the western allies are at it again. This time using protecting people from Gadhafi's troops from commiting genocide. Is it about oil again?
Hmmm, it's so obvious it's about the oil. i can't believe the idealistic garbage that's coming out from Sarko's and Cameron's mouths. there are other troublespots in the world where foreign intervention seems more just and urgent, but the lure of black gold is too irresistable. heck, why not just carve up the whole of the Middle East and share the spoils among the three of you?! and since, Sarkozy's the frontman of this latest boyband to hit the scene, why not ban the burqa throughout the region as well?
France's interference in Libya's matters downright disgusts me. From recognizing the rebels as the legitimate govt of Libya to leading the airstrike, it's been such a frenetic period for the French President and his Foreign Ministry. I certainly wont believe any of the BS reasons to justify the strike. If Sarko is such a champion of human rights, then why expel the Romas from France? and France doesnt exactly have a spotless record in their dealings with their African ex-colonies eg. France's involvement in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994.
And Sarkozy's probably gonna use a possible victory in Libya as his platform for reelection in 2012's presidential elections.
Other than the lure of oil, it's geopolitics through and through...I mean Ben Ali's been deposed in Tunisia, and the new regime seems more pro-American than pro-French. Sarko probably thinks, "we might have lost puny Tunisia, but we'll have rich and vast Libya soon". staking their claim in Libya now, France hopes to reap dividends in the future... France could one day have a new member in their Francophonie organization of nations. and by being 'francophone', Libya will also truly be a more complete member of the Maghreb.
And French travel agencies will surely salivate at the thought of adding Libyan seaside towns to their list of summer destinations - almost every French jet-setter worthy of their name has probably been to Agadir or Djerba, and these two have probably lost their appeal to French holiday-goers who travel abroad for the summer.
Dont get me wrong here fellas...I firmly believe Gaddafi's a megalomaniac, of the same vein as Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il and Im totally against persons or political parties who usurp power and rule the country forever and treat it as if it's their fiefdom. But in recent years, hasnt there been a thaw in relations between Libya and the West? And hasnt Libya been removed from the list of terrorist (or terrorist-friendly) nations? and Gaddafi's son, Saif has been instrumental in producing a document that rejects unequivocally the kind of terrorism championed by Al-Qaeda.
I hope this foreign intervention will be a watershed in the wave of political unrest sweeping the Arab world. The Arabs will need to ask themselves what they truly want...do they want democracy but live under the tutelage of foreign powers (Iraq, Afghanistan)? or can they live with limited freedom but be ruled by their own? either way, freedom is relative and never absolute.
on hindsight, i also hope that they are able to distinguish between political freedom per se and prevailing social and cultural mores that have been around in their societies for millennia.
sorry for the looong post, but i just needed to vent....
Soon, a new Libyan leader who will sell cheaper oil to the West.
All these western leaders will enjoy higher political rating....
And all these reconstruction projects after massive bombing and oil contracts will be given to you know who... When they(politicians) retired, they will receive very generous salary package as consultants.
Can deflect all the scandals/financial crisis/problems at home. :bsmilie:
:bsmilie: as usual.
what else is new.
but of course. the west doesn't draw into armed conflict with N Korea because *ba da dum!* PRC and Motherland Russia will be up in arms. africa? it's too big to actually send in troops. you'll end up creating a larger mess.
so why not target the arab states? honestly, the west should stop meddling...
but think of it this way: surely this benefits us as well?
:bsmilie: as usual.
what else is new.
but of course. the west doesn't draw into armed conflict with N Korea because *ba da dum!* PRC and Motherland Russia will be up in arms. africa? it's too big to actually send in troops. you'll end up creating a larger mess.
so why not target the arab states? honestly, the west should stop meddling...
but think of it this way: surely this benefits us as well?
Now the western allies are at it again. This time using protecting people from Gadhafi's troops from commiting genocide.
The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana on April 6 through mid-July, at least 800,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate. Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population. It was the culmination of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the minority Tutsi, who had controlled power for centuries, and the majority Hutu peoples, who had come to power in the rebellion of 1959–1962 and overthrown the Tutsi monarchy.
There were no U.S. troops officially in Rwanda at the onset of the genocide. A National Security Archive report points out five ways in which decisions made by the U.S. government contributed to the slow U.S. and worldwide response to the genocide:
1. The U.S. lobbied the U.N. for a total withdrawal of U.N. (UNAMIR) forces in Rwanda in April 1994;
2. Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term "genocide" until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;
3. Bureaucratic infighting slowed the U.S. response to the genocide in general;
4. The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;
5. U.S. officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence but did not follow up with concrete action
IMHO… its rather easy for some of us, safe & sound in Singapore… far away from the fighting, to make comments or theories on why the West is doing what its doing… but I don't think the civilians trap in the city of Benghazi… after being hammered for weeks and days by Gadhafi's fighter jets, tanks and artillery… care about our theories. :think:
Neither do I remember protesters in Egypt and Tunisia being 'attack' by anything worst than local police and govt hired thugs… NO Fighter Jets, Tanks or Artillerys was used against them… surely this reason is better in explaining why the West didn't interval in both country militarily than just because they don't have Oil.
Lets not forget… both UN and Arab League supports the no fly zone and wants a stop to Gadhafi killing his own people.
okay...hmm...that leaves somolia...but i digress.
the rebels knew what will happen. they knew gadaffi willnot go down quietly. the situation is different in egypt. the army in egypt does not support the then present government, but in libya, they do support gadaffi. so, on one hand, the army does nothing, hence, no use of tanks or bazookas or any air assets. and on the other, well...u poke a porcupine, u'll gonna get poked back, and gadaffi is a big assed porcupine.
consider also, if similar situation were to happen closer to home. say, some ppl in malaysia or indonesia decides enough is enough, and launches an armed rebellian...do we support the incubant government and condemn the rebels, or do we go in and help the rebels? remember, one man's rebel is another man's patriot.and HYPOTHETHICALLY SPEAKING what if, god forbid, the same thing happen in singapore? and some ppl decides to rebel becoz of 'political oppression'? does anyone prefer outsiders to come and make merry hell here?
it's quite easy to say the ppl needs to be help, in fact, they do, BUT, by walking a mile in their shoe, would they prefer to exchange one tyrant with another?
I'm not into speculation, nor do I know enough about this issue to comment, but genocide, I know that word...
Here's another genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
For those who don't know, here's a quick description from the link:
US response then:
6 years later, UN admits failure in handling the event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/714025.stm