NATO Brings Chaos And Terror To Libya

reply to post by Nikola014



serbia is a good nation full of good people. Especially a certain Alexander Kolarov.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Nikola014

 

serbia is a good nation full of good people. Especially a certain Alexander Kolarov.

I'm guessing you are Manchester City fan? Am i right?

But really NATO doesn't do pretty much except killing other people...We will never learn...

Originally posted by Nikola014

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Nikola014

 

Come again... Europe..... You do know what NATO stands for don't you? Northen Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Canada and the USA are two of its biggest members, but of course Europe must be to blame.

Yea,but we already know that USA and Kannada had done some really "nasty" things...

Oh puhlease...

reply to post by Nikola014


You guessed it. And for what it is worth I think NATO and the UN should be disbaned. Nations should be allowed to govern their own people how they see fit, who's to say if they are doing it the right way or the wrong way. But one thing is for certain is that all the countries involved in NATO and the UN's war's have been guilty of equal or worse atrocities in their history. If I can make this analogy, if you ever try to split a fight up between a man and a woman who are in a relationship, you end up with both of them after your blood. World politics is just the same.

So, you have repeatedly expressed your dislike of NATO. Therefore your OP is designed to support that worldview. Is this your point, that NATO is the root of all evil?

To be fair, Gadaffi and his autocratic regime benefitted no one but himself, his family and a small “elite”. He was a nasty man. His removal from office is of great benefit to the world.

NATO is acting under a mandate, originally conceived by the African Union. There are no NATO ground troops on the ground and no evidence that NATO policy has changed.

Libya will doubtless be somewhat chaotic, but perhaps not as bad as some people seem to hope. After all, the areas the rebels have so far captured have remained peaceful. Tripoli may be more complicated, but maybe not.

I am more optimistic. I like NATO. I like the idea of removing autocracies and dictators. I can think of a few more.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
So, you have repeatedly expressed your dislike of NATO. Therefore your OP is designed to support that worldview. Is this your point, that NATO is the root of all evil?

To be fair, Gadaffi and his autocratic regime benefitted no one but himself, his family and a small “elite”. He was a nasty man. His removal from office is of great benefit to the world.

NATO is acting under a mandate, originally conceived by the African Union. There are no NATO ground troops on the ground and no evidence that NATO policy has changed.

Libya will doubtless be somewhat chaotic, but perhaps not as bad as some people seem to hope. After all, the areas the rebels have so far captured have remained peaceful. Tripoli may be more complicated, but maybe not.

I am more optimistic. I like NATO. I like the idea of removing autocracies and dictators. I can think of a few more.

Regards

I don't like NATO.
What are they doing in Libya?It's not their country.They should leave them to handle it by them self.
Not to interfere every single time.
I don't know why they don't mind their business.

Oh NATO did it? Really? Are people really that stupid? People think some airsrikes some how won the war? Made it easier and less costly sure. However when all your people and your military turn on you its only a matter of time. Instead of 4 year civil war with a rebel victory it took less than a year. Also Sweden, Qatar, Jordan and the UAE are not in NATO. As for ground forces or peace keepers? Most of the Arab and African states have said post war they would be willing to send them. The US and NATO are willing to provide support but do not want to put boots on the ground. I would love to see some of you head over to Libya and tell them how NATO won the war for them.

reply to post by MrSpad


True, we often forget it was the poeple's will. The west is sometimes to self involved to remember that. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth. Starred.

reply to post by MrSpad

First, this IS a NATO operation with over 7000 NATO airstrikes.
The so-called Rebels were recruited by NATO, and supplemented by foreign mercenaries.
Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa, and Ghaddafi was trying to unite Africa to benefit AFRICA.
You have been lied to. This is about resources, always has been always will be.
For the record, the U.S. has supplied most of the heavy bombing, not the UK. The UK has done very little.

reply to post by SirClem


Really, what aircraft did they have allocated and where were they running their sorties from, because there was little naval prescence in the region from the USA?

Lets put it simple:

MSM and NATO are ok with saying that it would last much longer without their help.
Also they don't mind saying that Gaddafi handed out millions of rifles and ammunition.

But here is problem...to whom did he give weapons? Who would resist to rebels for years and years? Only army? I doubt it. If it was really whole nation raising against the regime they could not stop it. Crazy dictators don't hand out guns to people! Specially if people are supposedly raising against them.

It points to that large portion of country and people are loyal to Gaddafi. That being said why did NATO back up rebels? WHO IS NATO to pick sides and attack countries? How is killing civilians helping them? How is destroying of infrastructure helping them?

In most countries of the world we have ruling parties and opposition. Should other NATO countries attack US if democrats win elections? Should NATO back up every opposition? Now you can argue that Libya doesn't have multiparty system but lets be honest and admit that neither do we have. Most of the countries have 2 main parties that make no difference.

For example i would understand backing up of Egyptian revolution because whole nation was united but that is not the case in Libya.

Originally posted by dario86
Lets put it simple:

MSM and NATO are ok with saying that it would last much longer without their help.
Also they don't mind saying that Gaddafi handed out millions of rifles and ammunition.

But here is problem...to whom did he give weapons? Who would resist to rebels for years and years? Only army? I doubt it. If it was really whole nation raising against the regime they could not stop it. Crazy dictators don't hand out guns to people! Specially if people are supposedly raising against them.

It points to that large portion of country and people are loyal to Gaddafi. That being said why did NATO back up rebels? WHO IS NATO to pick sides and attack countries? How is killing civilians helping them? How is destroying of infrastructure helping them?

In most countries of the world we have ruling parties and opposition. Should other NATO countries attack US if democrats win elections? Should NATO back up every opposition? Now you can argue that Libya doesn't have multiparty system but lets be honest and admit that neither do we have. Most of the countries have 2 main parties that make no difference.

For example i would understand backing up of Egyptian revolution because whole nation was united but that is not the case in Libya.

edit on 24/8/11 by dario86 because: grammar

Nicely said,my Balkan brother.

I think everybody here knows what is NATO doing in Libya.

Oil.