Mikiko wrote:Paphitis wrote:Mikiko wrote:NEVERSAYNEVER wrote:Mikiko wrote:CONSISTENCY OF POLICIES AND NO DOUBLE STANDARDS require THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION of the west . What makes the "west" legal to intervene in Iraq and illegal in Libya ?
Either your apply your principles in practice everywhere and at any time or the west is a Hypocratite Union of nations. What was considered RIGHT to intervene in Iraq and Afganistan and for the sake of all thousands civilans who lost their lives at these wars it is the same RIGHT - Priciples that have been violated in Libya .
If the so called west does not intervene in Libya its because they at last realised the failure of their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan .
The circumstances in both Iraq and Afghanistan were totally different from those currently appertaining to Libya. Afghanistan was considered as the training ground for terrorists and the home of Bin Laden , Iraq was perceived to pose a threat to the West .
Libya was accepted as a partner of the West , Tony Blair when visiting Libya in 2004 said " Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism. "
This is why I oppose any military action since I do not see Libya posing a threat to the West.
A humanitarian issue is the predominant factor here but it is an issue that the Arab nations ought to face and deal with.
Would you send your son to fight in Libya , that is the question.
Kadafi became a partner to the west only recently he was considered a threat long time ago but this threat was selectively ignored for many reasons . It is not easy to embark on a militarty struggle against any country no matter how small it is or how strong you are .
I can not find many difference between Sadam Hussein and Kadafi . They were both there for life and with no public votes. Are there evidences that Kadafi was not funding Al Queeda and Bin laden ? not sure
I think there is a very clear cut humanitarian issue in Libya and the world needs to take some action. No doubt, the US and UK will play a major role!
Since there is widespread injustice and crimes against the Libyan people, then what else could be a better reason to put an end to it if possible? There are very good reasons for action, which will be costly no doubt, but why should everyone expect the US to be the spearhead? Yes, the US is a superpower, has the rsources to achieve all Military objectives if it wanted to, but why not Russia, China, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Greece, or Italy? Others need to be proactive, and the US will no doubt be there to assist!
Look, there is no doubt in my mind, that this no fly zone could turn into another high intensity land battle, and that is something the US and its allies are not overly kean about! Australia's stupid Foreign Affairs Minister was silly enough to overlook this obvious fact, probably because he is such a big stupid idiot who has absolutely no idea about Military matters. He should in future seek expert advice from the ADF and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute!
Of course collective action is always more effective . But there are countries who are egocentrik like the ones you refer and think what is best for them and not for what is best for Libya or for the world so this leads to a deadlock.
If the disaster that hit japan is faced collectively by all countries it will be easier to overcome than leaving Japan alone to deal with the problem . This affects directly the whole world and has an effect on markets worldwide and affect individual countries too . But most countries see it as outside of their jurisdiction but It is not as these events has an effect on their local markets too.
I disagree!
The countries mentioned are anything but "egocentric'!
All of them have provided Japan with millions in aid, rescue and paramedic teams. It is in our best interest to assist Japan from an economic point of view but this was only a small part of the driving factor (if it was a factor at all). All nations were deeply sad about the Japanese Quake and Tsunami distaster more so from a humanitarian point of view.
Equally, to do nothing in Libya will lead to a deadlock and no doubt Gadaffi will retain power to the detriment of most Libyan's. However, the UN Security Council has voted in favour to use any necessary means to enforce a no fly zone. The question is, who is going to enforce this? And what will the result be?
My view is that this could lead to something much bigger, which is why many are not too keen. A no fly zone in my opinion will achieve very little, and many Libyan's will continue to suffer at the hands of the Gadaffi regime!
