open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Here we go again
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.20 02:03:00 - [1]
 

A NATO coalition of US, French, British, Canadian and Italian forces have begun a military strike into Libya.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.20 02:19:00 - [2]
 

Mr. Obama has gone nuts. Same kind of adventurism that President Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Very sad.

Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.03.20 03:05:00 - [3]
 

Marines can go back to the shores of Tripoli Very Happy

Oh well, whats-his-face had it coming

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 03:13:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
Same kind of adventurism that President Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Very sad.


Nope. We didn't have oil.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.20 03:44:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Caleidascope
Same kind of adventurism that President Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Very sad.


Nope. We didn't have oil.

If I remember right, majority of US oil import comes from Canada.

This Libya business is same adventurism as Yugoslavia. We, the US, have no business getting involved. Let the locals (Muslem nations) or Europe handle it.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 04:05:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Caleidascope
Same kind of adventurism that President Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Very sad.


Nope. We didn't have oil.

If I remember right, majority of US oil import comes from Canada.

This Libya business is same adventurism as Yugoslavia. We, the US, have no business getting involved. Let the locals (Muslem nations) or Europe handle it.


Heh... but it's still imported aka. oil for money. Why do that when you can get oil for free.

Btw, Yugoslavia was not adventurism, but pure interest. The reason of invasion was obvious even before it started. It ultimately resulted with Camp Bondsteel - a perfect place for controlling and monitoring Russian missile system in eastern Europe. Wink

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.20 04:32:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Caleidascope
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Caleidascope
Same kind of adventurism that President Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Very sad.


Nope. We didn't have oil.

If I remember right, majority of US oil import comes from Canada.

This Libya business is same adventurism as Yugoslavia. We, the US, have no business getting involved. Let the locals (Muslem nations) or Europe handle it.


Heh... but it's still imported aka. oil for money. Why do that when you can get oil for free.

Btw, Yugoslavia was not adventurism, but pure interest. The reason of invasion was obvious even before it started. It ultimately resulted with Camp Bondsteel - a perfect place for controlling and monitoring Russian missile system in eastern Europe. Wink

lol
If you want to monitor Russian missile systems in Eastern Europe, you go to Ukraine, Poland second choice.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 04:56:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 20/03/2011 05:11:57
Poland was used, but only 8 years after Yugoslavia. At that time, we were a logical choice (and a good base of operations to actually set up all that stuff in Czech Republic and Poland). Bondsteel still operates even though there are other armed forces to keep the peace in the area (EU ones).

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.20 05:10:00 - [9]
 

Lets keep the political aspect (how that is now possible... ) out of it.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 05:21:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Alpheias
Lets keep the political aspect (how that is now possible... ) out of it.


Ok... fine.. no political aspect.

Ahm...

I say it's because Sarkozy is short and needs to compensate by attacking someone (just like Bush and Putin did). So much hate over hurt ego...

Satisfied?Cool

Btw, I'm a pacifist. Any war is bad. If you really want to destroy a leader, tyrant or whatever, send a hitman and minimize the damage. Let the people live. If the people support the leader, that why the hell attack him in the first place?

And... a civilian with AK-47 is not a civilian.

Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.03.20 06:04:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik


Btw, I'm a pacifist.



Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik


send a hitman and minimize the damage.



lolwat? Laughing

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 06:16:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik


Btw, I'm a pacifist.



Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik


send a hitman and minimize the damage.



lolwat? Laughing


Yeah. I am a pacifist and against war of any kind, but I do realize that this world is ruled by people who are not. I also don't consider myself a fool to believe that the whole world is going to live in peace and prosperity (impossible in modern capitalism). That's why a logical compromise is to minimize the conflict and let the leaders handle the issues between themselves.

In other words, let the war thirsty douchebags kill each other and leave the common people out of it.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.03.20 06:38:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 20/03/2011 06:42:10
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Alpheias
Lets keep the political aspect (how that is now possible... ) out of it.

<snip>

Btw, I'm a pacifist. Any war is bad. If you really want to destroy a leader, tyrant or whatever, send a hitman and minimize the damage. Let the people live. If the people support the leader, that why the hell attack him in the first place?


That doen't actually work too well for a few reasons. Primarily because a regime isn't actually reliant on any one person. You need thousands of people to work with the regime to keep it going and they directly benefit from the regime's actions. The next in line for power might be less crazy and dangerous or more crazy and more capable, but either way he got to his position because he supports the regime, benefits from it and to a large degree is fine with continuing things as they were. If you want to change the situation, you have to bring down the entire regime.

It's also a bad idea because you leave them with their military capability intact after murdering their leader, which is an act of war and isn't something the people will forgive or forget. When you start killing of their leaders, you will end up fighting a larger war in any case, so you either go in fully committed or you shoudn't interfere at all. Half assed measures will only prolong the fighting and suffering.

As for the people supporting their leader, it never is a case of full support or no support. Some people will always support the leader no matter who it is or what he does. Take the worst tyrants in the world, that masacred their own people by the millions and you will find millions of others who supported him and wish he was still back, so the good old days would return. The reason why we interfere is because we can without too much trouble, we have interests in those areas and because we have stood by watching doing nothing for too many times and it tends to always end up with massacres and genocides. The number of innocents getting killed in the intervention tends to be miniscule in comparison.

PS. You're not a pacifist. You're more of an realist who dislikes the use of violence.

Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.03.20 06:52:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik


Btw, I'm a pacifist.



Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik


send a hitman and minimize the damage.



lolwat? Laughing


Yeah. I am a pacifist and against war of any kind, but I do realize that this world is ruled by people who are not. I also don't consider myself a fool to believe that the whole world is going to live in peace and prosperity (impossible in modern capitalism). That's why a logical compromise is to minimize the conflict and let the leaders handle the issues between themselves.

In other words, let the war thirsty douchebags kill each other and leave the common people out of it.


Pacifist:
-noun
A person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

Methinks you are full of it, sir


Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 07:26:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 20/03/2011 07:29:28
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 20/03/2011 07:27:49
Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Pacifist:
-noun
A person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

Methinks you are full of it, sir




If you need to use violence to solve the problem (which is hardly ever the case because there are always alternatives), you can, but don't start a war because of it.

Ideologies in general are bad, because you can always twist them to fit your needs. Pacifism and democracy are not excluded. Maybe the previous poster is right about me being a realist who dislikes the use of violence.

One possible alternative solution to war: conditional investments.
Basically, instead spending money on war make conditional investments in the troubled region. There's no leader, tyrant or not, who will reject cold hard cash. Infiltrate the economy of the targeted country by owning its debt and controlling a big chunk of the economy. Use politics and diplomacy to keep the peace and respect of the human rights. Eventually, if the leader is in fact bad, the educated and wealthy people (thanks to the conditional investments) in the country will stop supporting him and he can't do anything about it because he's not the only one with economic power there. If the regime change its view and political stance, then the problem is solved. And, after all, the investors get back the money spent in the initial phase. It's a win-win situation for all parties involved without a single drop of blood spilled.

military = power
money = power

If you need to use power to solve something, why not use the money?

Corcyrus Endymion
Caldari
Elder Tribes
Posted - 2011.03.20 08:45:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Corcyrus Endymion on 20/03/2011 08:45:06
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 20/03/2011 07:29:28
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 20/03/2011 07:27:49
Originally by: Alotta Baggage
Pacifist:
-noun
A person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

Methinks you are full of it, sir




If you need to use violence to solve the problem (which is hardly ever the case because there are always alternatives), you can, but don't start a war because of it.

Ideologies in general are bad, because you can always twist them to fit your needs. Pacifism and democracy are not excluded. Maybe the previous poster is right about me being a realist who dislikes the use of violence.

One possible alternative solution to war: conditional investments.
Basically, instead spending money on war make conditional investments in the troubled region. There's no leader, tyrant or not, who will reject cold hard cash. Infiltrate the economy of the targeted country by owning its debt and controlling a big chunk of the economy. Use politics and diplomacy to keep the peace and respect of the human rights. Eventually, if the leader is in fact bad, the educated and wealthy people (thanks to the conditional investments) in the country will stop supporting him and he can't do anything about it because he's not the only one with economic power there. If the regime change its view and political stance, then the problem is solved. And, after all, the investors get back the money spent in the initial phase. It's a win-win situation for all parties involved without a single drop of blood spilled.

military = power
money = power

If you need to use power to solve something, why not use the money?


The only thing that truly equates to power is the ability to enforce your will with violence. It's what every modern state is build upon, a monopoly of violence controlled by those in charge. Just look at Khodorkovsky.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.03.20 09:08:00 - [17]
 


Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.03.20 09:17:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Yeah... there's still slavery (the woman trade that's still lively in the United States for one), fascism (point anywhere in the middle east), ****sm (CCP Razz), and communism is still alive in about 3 countries.

But yeah, war is a great thing. Puts hairs on your chest Very Happy

Citizen20100211442
Minmatar
Carebear Evolution
AEQUITAS.
Posted - 2011.03.20 10:23:00 - [19]
 

blah blah blah blah democracy
blah blah blah blah evil dictator
blah blah blah blah human rights

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.03.20 10:35:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Corcyrus Endymion
The only thing that truly equates to power is the ability to enforce your will with violence. It's what every modern state is build upon, a monopoly of violence controlled by those in charge. Just look at Khodorkovsky.


Well, I wasn't talking about creating oligarchs and throwing the money to selected few. I was thinking more like what EU does in my country right now.

Since you don't want to support a regime (any regime) in its current form because the situation will only get worse when they get even more rich and powerful, you should focus on helping people in general. ("you" used as a general term) Ironically enough, that's quite easy in third world countries. The first thing you need to do is to start investment programs for ordinary people... like start-up funds for opening small to medium businesses for example. At the same time use diplomacy and politics to persuade the leadership that they will profit from your investment programs (through taxes and more potent economy). If your investment offers are good enough, the ordinary people will accept it because no matter how powerful local propaganda is, the common people rarely care about global politics, especially if they see a deal that they can use to help themselves live better. You can even cover your investments with collateral if you want to, but since in war you only have losses anyway, low collateral to cover your investments is also possible.

That first step will, eventually, start a chain reaction. More jobs means more need for educated people. More powerful economy and more money in hands of the people leads to investments in education. More educated people means less chance that they will be brainwashed by a regime. Educated people in charge of their own lives are less likely to see the World as a scary and dangerous place full of people that are conspired against them, especially if foreign investments made their lives better. A regime without supporters can not exist. Problem solved.

Yes, it takes time, patience and great effort to make this work. It will also bring some losses of the invested money, but it will yield some profit too. But I guess some people like to have more guns than brains and use violence to solve any problem. After all, bombing a country doesn't require much of an intellectual effort.

Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.03.20 10:41:00 - [21]
 

Next target is the Swiss! We need to teach them to harden up a bit because they have a wine opener on their knife! ugh

Max Godsnottlingson
Amarr
Max G Storage and Logistics
Posted - 2011.03.20 10:57:00 - [22]
 

Don't worry guys, us Brits have got it in hand.

We'll just park HMS Ark Royal off the Libyan coast! oh hang on, we've just scrapped it ain't we.

No worries. We'll pound the crap out of them with all of our Harrier squadrons. Oh! Sorry, no I forgot. We've just scrapped them!

Ah well, we can at least offer help with Electronic Surveillance with our Nimrod fleet! Damn! We scrapped them too.

Oh well, we'll send the troops in, just give our government time to scrap all of our Challenger 2's first.

CharmingButIrrational
Roswell Project Victimz
Posted - 2011.03.20 11:24:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
Don't worry guys, us Brits have got it in hand.

We'll just park HMS Ark Royal off the Libyan coast! oh hang on, we've just scrapped it ain't we.

No worries. We'll pound the crap out of them with all of our Harrier squadrons. Oh! Sorry, no I forgot. We've just scrapped them!

Ah well, we can at least offer help with Electronic Surveillance with our Nimrod fleet! Damn! We scrapped them too.

Oh well, we'll send the troops in, just give our government time to scrap all of our Challenger 2's first.


These are bad things?

Max Godsnottlingson
Amarr
Max G Storage and Logistics
Posted - 2011.03.20 11:43:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Max Godsnottlingson on 20/03/2011 11:44:13
Originally by: CharmingButIrrational
Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
Don't worry guys, us Brits have got it in hand.

We'll just park HMS Ark Royal off the Libyan coast! oh hang on, we've just scrapped it ain't we.

No worries. We'll pound the crap out of them with all of our Harrier squadrons. Oh! Sorry, no I forgot. We've just scrapped them!

Ah well, we can at least offer help with Electronic Surveillance with our Nimrod fleet! Damn! We scrapped them too.

Oh well, we'll send the troops in, just give our government time to scrap all of our Challenger 2's first.


These are bad things?


It is if you are going to be one of the poor buggers given sticks and stones to fight with so that our government can suck-up to the US

Phillis Stein
Caldari
Serenity Prime
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:03:00 - [25]
 

Apparantly we are going in to stop Gadaffi killing the rebels. How many rebels does there need to be before the UN takes Military action.
The Majority of Libyans are not involved in the "Rebellion" So are we helping the minority?

When will we invade China to free Tibet or the many isolated Regions of China that are Moslem and are actively taking Military/Terrorist activity against their Government. Oh wait, we might lose that one.

So everytime there is a so called rebellion, will the UN/US/GB support it?
I doubt it, unless its to those Countries benefit. Imagine if the Cuban Revolution happened today (which at the time was a popular revolution), would the USA help Castro. Of course it would, after all its an uprising against a dictatorship.

All these interventions are against countries that cant fight back.
We will never interfer with Russia/China/India etc for the same rason. We might actually lose.

And Im suprised Gadaffi hasnt used the Jihad card yet. The second that western planes or troops kill anyone, he should issue a call for all true Moslems around the world to defend Islam. He can say that the Rebelleion was paid for by the west and that the west is trying to overthrow all Islamic Countries one by one.
I also think that internal pressure in other Moslem Countries will see more coming onto Libyas side. If only for the reason that they may be next.

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:18:00 - [26]
 

The US shouldn't be there simply because it is of no interest to us. European nations get their oil from Libya while the US gets none, therefore it should be a European problem and the US should just stay home.

Of course ousting Gaddhafi (sp?) will be a good thing, but the EU should handle it without US support. I'm sure, however, there's a little tit-for-tat going on behind the scenes. It's entirely conceivable to imagine a, "Ok, we've helped you in Afghanistan, now you help us with Libya".

Also, pacifist is just another word for coward. Either you're not a pacifist and acknowledge that violence is sometimes necessary, or you are a pacifist and enjoy living in La-La land, oblivious to the real world. Enjoy being taken advantage of for the rest of your life.

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:34:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
Mr. Obama has gone nuts. Same kind of adventurism that President Clinton did in Yugoslavia.


And quite right as well.

It's entirely correct that the international community takes action to protect civilians, and what's particularly different to the former Yugoslavia is that this time there is a UNSC resolution explicitly authorising a no-fly zone and all other measures (except a ground invasion) required to protect civilians.

Not only is he killing his own people but his own ministers have admitted publically that Gaddafi personally authorised one of the most infamous terrorist attacks in recent memory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:38:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Phillis Stein

And Im suprised Gadaffi hasnt used the Jihad card yet. The second that western planes or troops kill anyone, he should issue a call for all true Moslems around the world to defend Islam. He can say that the Rebelleion was paid for by the west and that the west is trying to overthrow all Islamic Countries one by one.


The only problem with that is that it was the Arab League that was most vocal when calling upon the UN to take action against Libya and supporting the UNSC resolution.

The other Arab countried in the region will be offering combat and support aircraft as well as logistical support.

There is no way he can try and whip up Arab support when his own neighbours are taking part in the action against him.

Selinate
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:50:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Selinate on 20/03/2011 12:50:33
Originally by: Astenion
The US shouldn't be there simply because it is of no interest to us. European nations get their oil from Libya while the US gets none, therefore it should be a European problem and the US should just stay home.

Of course ousting Gaddhafi (sp?) will be a good thing, but the EU should handle it without US support. I'm sure, however, there's a little tit-for-tat going on behind the scenes. It's entirely conceivable to imagine a, "Ok, we've helped you in Afghanistan, now you help us with Libya".

Also, pacifist is just another word for coward. Either you're not a pacifist and acknowledge that violence is sometimes necessary, or you are a pacifist and enjoy living in La-La land, oblivious to the real world. Enjoy being taken advantage of for the rest of your life.


Gas prices went up in the U.S. right around the same time that Libya started having their problems. It's an American problem too.

Of course, I prefer the thought that NATO (including the U.S.) saw an opportunity to have a democratic ally in that region, saw that the potential ally was having trouble and decided to help. It helps me sleep at night.

Max Godsnottlingson
Amarr
Max G Storage and Logistics
Posted - 2011.03.20 13:13:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Astenion


<snipped some>

Also, pacifist is just another word for coward. Either you're not a pacifist and acknowledge that violence is sometimes necessary, or you are a pacifist and enjoy living in La-La land, oblivious to the real world. Enjoy being taken advantage of for the rest of your life.


I was agreeing with you until this point. My Great Grandfather was a pacifist during the First World War, a Conscientious Objector. But that did not stop him from being awarded the military medal for bravery along with a number of mentions in despatches for his work as a stretcher bearer


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only