Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
If NATO were not involved, Gadaffi's forces would have decimated protestors by aerial attacks and ground warfare. Without NATO Gadaffi would have crushed the rebels.
NATO involvement was not a good idea.
These nations need to solve their problems themselves. Otherwise there will be no peace at all.
Democracy is not the best solution for every nation, it works in Europe and in many other areas, but not necessarily everywhere.
These nations need to solve their problems themselves. Otherwise there will be no peace at all.
Democracy is not the best solution for every nation, it works in Europe and in many other areas, but not necessarily everywhere.
And war is the worst so that had to stop, thank the democracies :)
How can you possibly compare your situation with Libyan situation? Seriously.
Yes, let's all build walls around our country. The Finns must solve their problems, the French theirs, the British theirs, ... cooperation is wrong. Wrong I tell you. Libya would have been a peaceful country without NATO. Everyone was happy, but no, the NATO had to bomb it. We should dismantle the NATO. It's a criminal organization.
yes I agree with you NATO is a criminal organization
I suggest you live few years under a regime like in Libia, Egipt... China even... before you make statements like that: "We should dismantle the NATO. It's a criminal organization.". Too much freedom seems to get to plp's heads... from my observation, esspecially in the most free countries in the world like... Belgium or Netherlands. (no balance ;-p)
Don't get me wrong. NATO is not good, but its least bad in comparison to how the natural world works in some places on this small planet - which makes it good - worthwhile organisation.
;-)
(edited)
Don't get me wrong. NATO is not good, but its least bad in comparison to how the natural world works in some places on this small planet - which makes it good - worthwhile organisation.
;-)
(edited)
I guess Rubinho was trying to be sarcastic...but failed
How people think that genocide is better than what is happening now needs to take a break, look at the situation again, and tell me who honestly wanted another Rwanda? Because what Gaddafi was doing was not similar to the infamous Hutu Power movement.
No I don´t want another Rwanda. I do not see anything like that would have happened in Libya.
Nato intervention is not a humane action, it is just getting even with Gaddafi, he never bowed to the western world.
Nato intervention is not a humane action, it is just getting even with Gaddafi, he never bowed to the western world.
Take that Western Society - I'm crushing my rebellion!
Whilst I do think NATO is like a large, overfriendly dog, constantly knocking things over with its size and wagging tail, their intervention is better than watching thousands die, do you not agree?
Whilst I do think NATO is like a large, overfriendly dog, constantly knocking things over with its size and wagging tail, their intervention is better than watching thousands die, do you not agree?
in world war 1 there were 10% of civilian deaths, in ww2 there were 40%~, in afgan/iraq there were 80%~ civilian deaths, in the latest wars its around 90%... i guess we r just getting better
in ww1, ww2 all men was soldiers...maybe, i don't know
If NATO were not involved, Gadaffi's forces would have decimated protestors by aerial attacks and ground warfare. Without NATO Gadaffi would have crushed the rebels.
Yes, Gadaffi would have crushed the rebels, small criminal group who wants with US support take that country to their hands. And what... you just agreed that now there would be peace and good life and that was point of my question... no war, no bombs just couple of dead rebels / and some terrorists also.
Anyway.. if you like or dont like Gaddafi or his regtime.. now there could people live and live in peace... but NATO and US want give them "freedom" so now they are dying and all country is going to be destroyed... so really, what is better peace or deads ?
Yes, Gadaffi would have crushed the rebels, small criminal group who wants with US support take that country to their hands. And what... you just agreed that now there would be peace and good life and that was point of my question... no war, no bombs just couple of dead rebels / and some terrorists also.
Anyway.. if you like or dont like Gaddafi or his regtime.. now there could people live and live in peace... but NATO and US want give them "freedom" so now they are dying and all country is going to be destroyed... so really, what is better peace or deads ?
no war, no bombs just couple of dead rebels / and some terrorists also.
What? So you deny that Gaddafi wouldn't be bombing the rebels out of their city? That he wouldn't be driving them out with heavy machine gun fire? That only A COUPLE would have died?
Also, your terrorist point is invalid, as that is propaganda by Gaddafi himself - he changed his stories from rowdy teens to drug users to Al-Qaeda - and you, who is so against propaganda, believe him?
It's not dissimliar again, to Rwanda, with Hutu media turning all that were not loyal to their regime into theives, murderers, betryarers (I know thats not a word)? Gaddafi tried to unite any forces that weren't alienated by trying to make their enemy (harmless civilians, for gods sake) in something universally despised.
What? So you deny that Gaddafi wouldn't be bombing the rebels out of their city? That he wouldn't be driving them out with heavy machine gun fire? That only A COUPLE would have died?
Also, your terrorist point is invalid, as that is propaganda by Gaddafi himself - he changed his stories from rowdy teens to drug users to Al-Qaeda - and you, who is so against propaganda, believe him?
It's not dissimliar again, to Rwanda, with Hutu media turning all that were not loyal to their regime into theives, murderers, betryarers (I know thats not a word)? Gaddafi tried to unite any forces that weren't alienated by trying to make their enemy (harmless civilians, for gods sake) in something universally despised.