IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Attacks on Libya, UN = hypocrits
demon
post Apr 19 2011, 02:41 AM
Post #1


Capo
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 1,084
Joined: 29-August 08
From: underworld
Member No.: 42,672



The background for this topic is the last few posts in the "Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain..." thread, starting here. Marney chose to close it, this is a spin-off.


QUOTE (Skinny) *
QUOTE (demon)
So I'm not well informed just because I don't acknowledge the Libyan opposition as the legitimate governing body?

They aren't the "opposition" because they're the only ones we recognise. Your whole argument boils down to "Gaddafi is already there, and should therefore stay" despite him being a complete lunatic - he's far too crazy for us to accept and the only governing body we recognise wants the UN to help them get rid of a tyrant who coerced his way into power. Gaddafi isn't recognised by the UN or the people of Libya (hence the revolution) and he's killing civilians, our hands are basically tied. You're talking about democracy but he's not holding elections, there's nothing remotely democratic about his regime, so why do you think he is legitimate? If we didn't support the rebels you would probably complain that we aren't promoting democracy or something - some people just like to bitch.

You may wish to think the opposition is the government of Libya, but if anyone is the leader of Libya it is de facto Gaddafi because he has the most powerful ground force. I would say he is the de jure leader as well.

He's not that crazy, he just does what he has to do in order to not get overthrown. That is not crazy, it is brutally rational. And even if he was crazy, it would not be our business to remove him. He gave up his ABC weapons programme a long time ago and he's not a threat like he used to be. Actually, if I could give him ABC weapons now I would, because I'm pissed off. There's at least one aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean sea that should be nuked.

He's killing civilians, what's wrong with that? It's called suicide protesters. And they're armed so I'm not so sure they count as civilians anyway. Of course many of the casualties were unarmed, it's inevitable in every war. And I don't think destroying his radars and navigation systems help his accuracy.

Yes I mentioned democracy. For reference, quoting myself:

QUOTE (demon) *
QUOTE (Skinny)
So because Gaddafi is from Libya and can rally the army behind him for their own self interest, he's the legitimate ruler of Libya? What the fuck? He's forcing himself onto the people--they don't want him--how is it any different from an invasion (which you are supposedly opposed to)?

Yes Gaddafi is the legitimate leader of Libya. Same as with the rulers of Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, China and many other countries. Some of these was recently overthrown, but they were the legitimate leaders until that point.

You seem to think that the UN is more legitimate than Gaddafi. How can you do that? The UN isn't very democratic and it is forcing themselves upon anyone they see fit. The UN are puppets of the most powerful nations, China one of them. I want to see the day the UN call on military actions or other sanctions against China.



You're right Skinny, there's nothing remotely democratic about his regime, but that is true for many regimes. He hasn't held any elections, that's what I call a honest way to remain in power. There's no election fraud, he didn't break his own rules like many other dictators did.

I wonder what the West learned from the failed Al-Qaeda policy? The US supported and trained Al-Qaeda before it became a global terror organization. Look at Afghanistan now. And also look at Somalia. We were better off when the brutal dictators ruled. I think we need alot of luck if the removal of Gaddafi will have a good ending. There is opposition in Libya, that is people opposing Gaddafi, but there is no political opposition. Any new government will just be weak puppets, but that's what the West secretly want?

The UN have a long history of welcoming dictators and tyrants as members. The UN is anything but democratic and I don't recognize the UN any more than I recognize Gaddafi. Maybe less.
The UN Security Council is ruled by the most prominent nuclear powers, remember that. It's as far from democratic as you can possibly get.


Edit 28.04.2011: Topic title.


This post has been edited by demon: Apr 28 2011, 12:20 PM


--------------------
The new GTA 5 website. GTA 5 forums.
QUOTE (Marney1 @ Jan 31 2010, 06:37 AM) *

That's for you ^
Use it in your sig or avatar because you are very special.

QUOTE (TF)
for being a little bitch
Edited by TF.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
demon
post Apr 28 2011, 12:36 PM
Post #2


Capo
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 1,084
Joined: 29-August 08
From: underworld
Member No.: 42,672



It's interesting what's happening in Syria, hundreds of unarmed demonstrants are killed the last weeks. But the UN Security Council can't even agree to condemn it! Because Russia and China don't want to do so. Why is it so much more difficult to do the same against Syria as they did against Libya? I think it's because Ghadaffi was more outspoken and provocative. So there it is, the United Nations are puppets and hypocrits.
It will be further proven when/if large numbers of civilians are killed elsewhere next time in Caucasus, the Middle East or the Far East. UN/NATO airstrikes against Russia, Israel, Burma or China anyone? No I didn't think so. The UN can fuck off, and also any person supporting its hypocrisy. I want my country to leave UN and cease all relations with it.



This post has been edited by demon: Apr 28 2011, 12:38 PM


--------------------
The new GTA 5 website. GTA 5 forums.
QUOTE (Marney1 @ Jan 31 2010, 06:37 AM) *

That's for you ^
Use it in your sig or avatar because you are very special.

QUOTE (TF)
for being a little bitch
Edited by TF.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post May 4 2011, 08:27 AM
Post #3


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE (demon @ Apr 19 2011, 12:41 PM) *
You may wish to think the opposition is the government of Libya, but if anyone is the leader of Libya it is de facto Gaddafi because has the most powerful ground force.

So China are the legitimate rulers of Tibet because no one in Tibet can oppose them? That's what your argument boils down to: whoever has the power to rule should rule. And if that's what you want then why do we even have the UN or NATO or the Commonwealth?

QUOTE
He's not that crazy, he just does what he has to do in order to not get overthrown. That is not crazy, it is brutally rational.

Just like murder can be rational, that doesn't make it acceptable or legal.

QUOTE
I wonder what the West learned from the failed Al-Qaeda policy? The US supported and trained Al-Qaeda before it became a global terror organization.

No they didn't. They trained some of it's members to combat the Soviet occupation, and when they did it created a power vacuum and the Soviets were replaced with radical Muslims. The Muslims who would later make up the Taliban came to Afghanistan to fight Communist aggression against an Islamic state so it makes sense that they would collaborate with the United States. At the time, the US was focused on fighting the Soviets, how was everyone to know that radical Islam would develop the warped ideology that they are locked in a fundamental holy war with the west?

QUOTE
The UN Security Council is ruled by the most prominent nuclear powers, remember that. It's as far from democratic as you can possibly get.

No, India, Russia and China abstained from voting, this is largely a Franco-British affair. And they are very democratic.

QUOTE
And even if he was crazy, it would not be our business to remove him. He gave up his ABC weapons programme a long time ago and he's not a threat like he used to be. [...] You're right Skinny, there's nothing remotely democratic about his regime, but that is true for many regimes. He hasn't held any elections, that's what I call a honest way to remain in power. There's no election fraud, he didn't break his own rules like many other dictators did.

You seem to think state sovereignty means Gaddafi can do whatever he wants, but this isn't the case at all. He's violating his peoples' human rights, and those rights are inalienable. Our responsibility should be to ensure human rights even if it means running rough shot over state sovereignty. It doesn't matter what his rules are because he is breaking our rules:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1949

There you go. Believing in non-interventionism is fine, and I'll concede that your opposition to what we're doing in Libya is totally fair, but only if you believe human rights are not inalienable, that the rule of law need not be absolute, and that state sovereignty is somehow more sacred than human life. If you want to write those moral blank cheques, go ahead, you win the argument.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
demon
post May 4 2011, 10:01 PM
Post #4


Capo
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 1,084
Joined: 29-August 08
From: underworld
Member No.: 42,672



QUOTE (Skinny  @ May 4 2011, 10:27 AM) *
QUOTE (demon @ Apr 19 2011, 12:41 PM) *
You may wish to think the opposition is the government of Libya, but if anyone is the leader of Libya it is de facto Gaddafi because has the most powerful ground force.

So China are the legitimate rulers of Tibet because no one in Tibet can oppose them? That's what your argument boils down to: whoever has the power to rule should rule. And if that's what you want then why do we even have the UN or NATO or the Commonwealth?

China are de facto rulers of Tibet. I'm not sure if I should use the word legitimate or illegitimate about it. It's a bit late to do anything about the Chinese invasion, but I would welcome giving weapons to people in Tibet, if they want it.



QUOTE
QUOTE
He's not that crazy, he just does what he has to do in order to not get overthrown. That is not crazy, it is brutally rational.

Just like murder can be rational, that doesn't make it acceptable or legal.

That is true, perhaps. But western state leaders should not be the judge of that.



QUOTE
QUOTE
I wonder what the West learned from the failed Al-Qaeda policy? The US supported and trained Al-Qaeda before it became a global terror organization.

No they didn't. They trained some of it's members to combat the Soviet occupation, and when they did it created a power vacuum and the Soviets were replaced with radical Muslims. The Muslims who would later make up the Taliban came to Afghanistan to fight Communist aggression against an Islamic state so it makes sense that they would collaborate with the United States. At the time, the US was focused on fighting the Soviets, how was everyone to know that radical Islam would develop the warped ideology that they are locked in a fundamental holy war with the west?

They trained and armed parts of the Al-Qaeda organization, I think that is a fact. And it's true the US could not predict how it would turn against the US later. So how do you know that the Libyan rebels will not turn against you in the future? If you say that you can trust them, then you have not learned from history.



QUOTE
QUOTE
The UN Security Council is ruled by the most prominent nuclear powers, remember that. It's as far from democratic as you can possibly get.

No, India, Russia and China abstained from voting, this is largely a Franco-British affair. And they are very democratic.

How can you say that? Who voted or not doesn't change the fact that the UN as organization is totally undemocratic. France and the UK are indeed democratic, but that doesn't make the UN democratic.



I've hit the limit of allowed quotes, so I'll have to make another post.


--------------------
The new GTA 5 website. GTA 5 forums.
QUOTE (Marney1 @ Jan 31 2010, 06:37 AM) *

That's for you ^
Use it in your sig or avatar because you are very special.

QUOTE (TF)
for being a little bitch
Edited by TF.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
demon
post May 4 2011, 11:01 PM
Post #5


Capo
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 1,084
Joined: 29-August 08
From: underworld
Member No.: 42,672



QUOTE
QUOTE
And even if he was crazy, it would not be our business to remove him. He gave up his ABC weapons programme a long time ago and he's not a threat like he used to be. [...] You're right Skinny, there's nothing remotely democratic about his regime, but that is true for many regimes. He hasn't held any elections, that's what I call a honest way to remain in power. There's no election fraud, he didn't break his own rules like many other dictators did.

You seem to think state sovereignty means Gaddafi can do whatever he wants, but this isn't the case at all. He's violating his peoples' human rights, and those rights are inalienable. Our responsibility should be to ensure human rights even if it means running rough shot over state sovereignty. It doesn't matter what his rules are because he is breaking our rules:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1949

The human rights are strong rights, but only where they are legally accepted. I have no idea if Libya have accepted those rights, I doubt that they have, but if they have then I'll admit being wrong. The UN can not make up laws and shove them down the throat on everyone. I do support the human rights but I don't think they should be legally valid everywhere just because the UN say so.
Each sovereign country make their own laws. No other laws matters.



QUOTE
There you go. Believing in non-interventionism is fine, and I'll concede that your opposition to what we're doing in Libya is totally fair, but only if you believe human rights are not inalienable, that the rule of law need not be absolute, and that state sovereignty is somehow more sacred than human life. If you want to write those moral blank cheques, go ahead, you win the argument.

I believe that if the UN definition of human rights apply or not, is totally at the government's discretion, not the UN. I think the UN should be dismantled because it's a huge fail.

Don't get me wrong, I do support human rights. But I just can't accept that something like the UN can dictate laws upon sovereign states.

I'm not sure if this is how I prefer to win an argument, I would probably have accepted a draw if you had offered it. mellow.gif


--------------------
The new GTA 5 website. GTA 5 forums.
QUOTE (Marney1 @ Jan 31 2010, 06:37 AM) *

That's for you ^
Use it in your sig or avatar because you are very special.

QUOTE (TF)
for being a little bitch
Edited by TF.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post May 4 2011, 11:40 PM
Post #6


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



You don't support human rights because you don't believe they are inalienable.

Oh, and Gaddafi blew up the British embassy. So yeah, fuck that guy.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
demon
post May 5 2011, 07:39 AM
Post #7


Capo
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 1,084
Joined: 29-August 08
From: underworld
Member No.: 42,672



When did he blow up a UK embassy?



--------------------
The new GTA 5 website. GTA 5 forums.
QUOTE (Marney1 @ Jan 31 2010, 06:37 AM) *

That's for you ^
Use it in your sig or avatar because you are very special.

QUOTE (TF)
for being a little bitch
Edited by TF.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
demon
post May 11 2011, 07:47 PM
Post #8


Capo
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 1,084
Joined: 29-August 08
From: underworld
Member No.: 42,672



I have now gained support for my view in papers, that the NATO attack is making the situation for people in Libya worse, not better. NATO are killing more civilians than what it is likely that Gaddafi would have.

I'm still waiting for that nuclear bomb smuggled from North Korea sink an aircraft carrier. I don't like the Korean communists but they could prove useful this one time.

The UN security council is sometimes a threath to world peace just like North Korea are.



--------------------
The new GTA 5 website. GTA 5 forums.
QUOTE (Marney1 @ Jan 31 2010, 06:37 AM) *

That's for you ^
Use it in your sig or avatar because you are very special.

QUOTE (TF)
for being a little bitch
Edited by TF.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th September 2014 - 12:34 AM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4