Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
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.
three simple questions:
1. would be today peace or not without NATO ?
2. How much rebels without guns could be dead and how much rebels with guns could be dead if NATO would have not involved ? (give me your estimation)
3. What is better, Gaddafi with his regtime and nice country or democracy without Gaddafi and destroyed country and thousands deads ?
1. would be today peace or not without NATO ?
2. How much rebels without guns could be dead and how much rebels with guns could be dead if NATO would have not involved ? (give me your estimation)
3. What is better, Gaddafi with his regtime and nice country or democracy without Gaddafi and destroyed country and thousands deads ?
today is 17.4. !!! and nothing in Libya was changed to better... people there must be really happy of nato "help" :-(
think about people, their life, not about "quality of idea/system"... :-(
think about people, their life, not about "quality of idea/system"... :-(
it's not your business, what's better.....for human right...of course, without Gaddafi
1.
Would there be peace? Depends - would Gaddafi have murdered enough people to shut them up? Would Gaddafi have been assassinated? You don't know - but either way, a leader clinging onto power is bad - as Gaddafi will do anything, including kill his own citizens, to stay in power.
2.
How many were there? If Gaddafi gained the advanatage, those rebels would be hunted down and made an example of. Again, see Rwanda for examples.
3.
This is a stupid question, for any country where the government is killing it's own citizens to stay in power cannot be classified as a 'nice' country.
On the counterbalance to question 3:
What is better, Gaddafi with his dictatorship and a country in ruins, or democracy without Gaddafi and a war-torn country and thousands dead?
The fact is, absolute power has corrupted absolutely. Gaddafi is the one at fault, the root of this problem.
Would there be peace? Depends - would Gaddafi have murdered enough people to shut them up? Would Gaddafi have been assassinated? You don't know - but either way, a leader clinging onto power is bad - as Gaddafi will do anything, including kill his own citizens, to stay in power.
2.
How many were there? If Gaddafi gained the advanatage, those rebels would be hunted down and made an example of. Again, see Rwanda for examples.
3.
This is a stupid question, for any country where the government is killing it's own citizens to stay in power cannot be classified as a 'nice' country.
On the counterbalance to question 3:
What is better, Gaddafi with his dictatorship and a country in ruins, or democracy without Gaddafi and a war-torn country and thousands dead?
The fact is, absolute power has corrupted absolutely. Gaddafi is the one at fault, the root of this problem.
I'm affraid I have to disagree with you. Ghadaffi is not the root of the problem, just a consequence of a tribal system. If not him, then somebody else. The root of all evils is tribalism. Whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan or Albania. Intervention as such is probably a good idea, but NATO will have to see it through. Which is probably not going to happen because nobody likes to foot the bill for such a thing.
I believe I mentioned the tribes in there - if not, I meant to - tribes have caused problems all over africa - Ivory Coast and Libya are prime examples.
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
And now based on numbers please:
World War I deaths (Total: 16,543,185)
- Entente Military: 36%
- Central Powers Military: 22%
- Entente Civilians: 20%
- Central Powers Civilians: 22%
-> Civilian deaths: 42% of total (Central Powers: 50%; Entente: 36%)
World War II deaths (Total: 62,580,670 to 79,298,170)
- Axis Military: 13%
- Allied Military: 25%
- Axis Civilians: 4%
- Allied Civilians: 58%
-> Civilian deaths: 62% of total (Axis: 24%; Allied: 70%)
2001-present War in Afghanstistan:
- Deaths of Taliban: 38,000+
- Deaths of Coalition, Afghan Security Forces and Afghan Northern Alliance: 11,758
- Civilian deaths: 14,000-34,000 (22%-41%)
(edited)
And now based on numbers please:
World War I deaths (Total: 16,543,185)
- Entente Military: 36%
- Central Powers Military: 22%
- Entente Civilians: 20%
- Central Powers Civilians: 22%
-> Civilian deaths: 42% of total (Central Powers: 50%; Entente: 36%)
World War II deaths (Total: 62,580,670 to 79,298,170)
- Axis Military: 13%
- Allied Military: 25%
- Axis Civilians: 4%
- Allied Civilians: 58%
-> Civilian deaths: 62% of total (Axis: 24%; Allied: 70%)
2001-present War in Afghanstistan:
- Deaths of Taliban: 38,000+
- Deaths of Coalition, Afghan Security Forces and Afghan Northern Alliance: 11,758
- Civilian deaths: 14,000-34,000 (22%-41%)
(edited)
During this discussion here about what is better for people outside EU, there are people dying.
You just forgot what is war, there is civil war and people are dying.... I dont doubt that people like more be alive than be dead, or have destroyed houses and so...but we all here at sokker or in NATO hq are much clever, we know better what is good for them.
People in Libya had houses for free or cheap price, have hospitals and health care for free, have infrastructure and dictator regtime... what have they now ?? Deaths, cry and no future in destroyed country but DEMOCRACY (if only there really will be democracy ! ) Yes, there were problems, people were maybe annoying I am not saying Libya is heaven :-), but they have stable government, relative stable economy and life with more than just basic condition and peace.... they lost it because couple of rebels and nato??? Oh no, too sad :-(.
Rubino..I dont know, ok maybe just my estimation, maybe one hundred or three hundred people would be dead (maybe just 30% of them would have be without guns), this is tragedy, but it is now much worse and much more deads, no doubt.
You just forgot what is war, there is civil war and people are dying.... I dont doubt that people like more be alive than be dead, or have destroyed houses and so...but we all here at sokker or in NATO hq are much clever, we know better what is good for them.
People in Libya had houses for free or cheap price, have hospitals and health care for free, have infrastructure and dictator regtime... what have they now ?? Deaths, cry and no future in destroyed country but DEMOCRACY (if only there really will be democracy ! ) Yes, there were problems, people were maybe annoying I am not saying Libya is heaven :-), but they have stable government, relative stable economy and life with more than just basic condition and peace.... they lost it because couple of rebels and nato??? Oh no, too sad :-(.
Rubino..I dont know, ok maybe just my estimation, maybe one hundred or three hundred people would be dead (maybe just 30% of them would have be without guns), this is tragedy, but it is now much worse and much more deads, no doubt.
People in Libya had houses for free or cheap price, have hospitals and health care for free, have infrastructure
Khadaffi says they do. Big difference.
That you are actually doing wild guesses is proving you're not serious. How the hell could you know how many deaths there would be official and unofficial if NATO didn't intervene? Tell me.
Khadaffi says they do. Big difference.
That you are actually doing wild guesses is proving you're not serious. How the hell could you know how many deaths there would be official and unofficial if NATO didn't intervene? Tell me.
simple..kaddafi would have stoped it fast, so there could not have been more dead as in civil war supported by NATO and heavy guns..
is my estimate now clear for you :) ?
is my estimate now clear for you :) ?
Every last rebel would be made an example of. It'd be slaughter.
Don't forget family, friends and those who simply smiled at the wrong time of the day.