You're casting an awful wide net to get that conclusion. In 1917, Germans decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of international law, even after Woodrow Wilson had attempted to mediate a settlement to the war. Expecting that this would draw the US into the fight (the Germans knew they were provoking the US), they attempted to create an alliance with Mexico, promising to fund the Mexicans and return to them the territory of Texas and New Mexico if Mexico attacked the United States. Mexico declined, but Germany's intent was clear
After capturing the Zimmerman Telegram with the Mexico offer *and* enduring the sinking of seven non-military merchant vessels by German subs, only then did the US enter the war. Wilson certainly wasn't any kind of warmonger. He kept the US out of the war as long as was realistic.
Great bit from the wikipedia page on the US entry into WWI: "American entry into World War I came in April 1917, after 2½ years of efforts by President Woodrow Wilson to keep the United States neutral. ... Wilson kept the economy on a peacetime basis, and made no preparations or plans for the war. He insisted on keeping the army and navy on its small peacetime bases. Indeed, Wilson refused even to study the lessons of military or economic mobilization that had been learned so painfully across the sea."
Even in the early years of the war, the US traded with both Britain AND Germany, as their respective blockades allowed. But if a foreign power is sinking your civilian ships and seeking allies to attack you, you are right to go to war. Asking Wilson to sit on his hands, foregoing any trade with Europe because German subs were sinking American vessels, is pacifistic to the point of Chamberlain-esque naivete.
You're not wrong. Not at all.
But what I've been trying to illustrate repeatedly, is that it seems you're stuck on that specific year, being unable to go backwards.
Really, it all boils down to the Habsburgs. 1917/18 is when they collapsed. I blame Wilson, and the Western powers, on everything leading up to the collapse of the Habsburgs. That's it.
But what I've been trying to illustrate repeatedly, is that it seems you're stuck on that specific year, being unable to go backwards.
Really, it all boils down to the Habsburgs. 1917/18 is when they collapsed. I blame Wilson, and the Western powers, on everything leading up to the collapse of the Habsburgs. That's it.
So a peace treaty was less reasonable than declining the surrender and just steamrolling over them?
But what I've been trying to illustrate repeatedly, is that it seems you're stuck on that specific year, being unable to go backwards.
Really, it all boils down to the Habsburgs. 1917/18 is when they collapsed. I blame Wilson, and the Western powers, on everything leading up to the collapse of the Habsburgs. That's it.
I don't see why my point of departure for comparison is any more arbitrary than yours with respect to the Habsburgs. Why not pin everything up through the post-WWII world on Gavrilo Princip? If he doesn't shoot Franz Ferdinand, there's no war for Wilson's America to intervene in.
I like talking hypotheticals, but we have to evaluate situations as they existed at that moment in time, regardless of cause - i.e. evaluating the ethics of the atomic bomb through the window of Truman's America, not the world thirty years prior. If we don't, we eventually reduce everything to the point that nothing makes sense.
I don't see why my point of departure for comparison is any more arbitrary than yours with respect to the Habsburgs. Why not pin everything up through the post-WWII world on Gavrilo Princip? If he doesn't shoot Franz Ferdinand, there's no war for Wilson's America to intervene in.
I don't see why my point of departure for comparison is any more arbitrary than yours with respect to the Habsburgs. Why not pin everything up through the post-WWII world on Gavrilo Princip? If he doesn't shoot Franz Ferdinand, there's no war for Wilson's America to intervene in.
I like talking hypotheticals, but we have to evaluate situations as they existed at that moment in time, regardless of cause - i.e. evaluating the ethics of the atomic bomb through the window of Truman's America, not the world thirty years prior. If we don't, we eventually reduce everything to the point that nothing makes sense.
Because I'm talking about principles.
We can't control what some nutjob does when he shoots someone. But we can have principles, like being vehemently anti-war for instance. Or better yet, being anti meddling in other people's business.
And I don't pick a random point. I can trace this whole thing back to the 1700s, even earlier. The bottom line is that throughout it all, the pro-war, pro middle-finger attitude is what causes all this shit to happen. It just happens a few years after we flip someone off, so nobody sees the connection.
UK Daily Mail
March 23, 2011
Six Libyan villagers are recovering in hospital after being shot by American soldiers coming in to rescue the U.S. pilots whose plane crash-landed in a field.
The helicopter strafed the ground as it landed in a field outside Benghazi beside the downed U.S. Air Force F-15E Eagle which ran into trouble during bombing raid last night.
And a handful of locals who had come to greet the pilots were hit among them a young boy who may have to have a leg amputated because of injuries caused by a bullet wound.
The first confirmed casualties of the allied operation, the Channel Fours International Editor Lindsey Hilsum confirmed the civilian casualties.
The crew of the fighter plane had enjoyed a miraculous escape after suffering suspected mechanical failure during the third night of air strikes on Colonel Gaddafis military positions.
As one crew member was surrounded by locals, he held his arms out, calling okay, okay, according to the Evening Standard but the grateful Libyans queued to thank him and give him juice.
We can't control what some nutjob does when he shoots someone. But we can have principles, like being vehemently anti-war for instance. Or better yet, being anti meddling in other people's business.
And I don't pick a random point. I can trace this whole thing back to the 1700s, even earlier. The bottom line is that throughout it all, the pro-war, pro middle-finger attitude is what causes all this shit to happen. It just happens a few years after we flip someone off, so nobody sees the connection.
If this is your position, then I take it you're assigning the pro-war, pro-middle finger attitude to Woodrow Wilson? The man who said that "There is such a thing as nation being too proud to fight", and who campaigned for re-election with the slogan "He kept us out of war"? Wilson personally offered to mediate an end to the war in 1916 and was rebuffed by all parties. The man was given a second presidential term in part because he was vocal about keeping America neutral.
I don't see any way at all to look at Woodrow Wilson and call him a pro-war president, not when he literally tried to negotiate a peace before America was even involved.
If this is your position, then I take it you're assigning the pro-war, pro-middle finger attitude to Woodrow Wilson? The man who said that "There is such a thing as nation being too proud to fight", and who campaigned for re-election with the slogan "He kept us out of war"? Wilson personally offered to mediate an end to the war in 1916 and was rebuffed by all parties. The man was given a second presidential term in part because he was vocal about keeping America neutral.
I don't see any way at all to look at Woodrow Wilson and call him a pro-war president, not when he literally tried to negotiate a peace before America was even involved.
Not sure what to say to that, you don't see how to label the guy that got us into WW1 as a pro-war president?
Ever hear of lying? Politicians do it all the damn time. He said one thing, did another, and I'm supposed to cheer?
He was given a second term because he was vocal about keeping america out of the war... then he got us into war. Just like every president since him.
John I think you have a rather simplistic view towards war in general, if it was only a matter of "saying no to war", no wars would ever be fought. Your posts come off as a crackpot nutjob lacking the ability to look objectively at the situation.
Can't really defend myself against that accusation. Maybe I am naive or something. But as far as I know I listed a bunch of historic facts that paint a chain of events that was avoidable had different choices been made. It sounds objective to me. I don't know where I'm putting my own subjectivity into it. And as far as I know, I'm not, I'm being objective about it.
I don't doubt that you've done your research, but your findings are immensely subjective. When you start saying things like the US is responsible for ww2, the geonecide of millions of jews, and the US's fairly limited involvement in WW1 is clear evidence that Woodrow wilson was a blood crazed warmonger, I mean.... Its very hard to take any of this seriously, even if your opinions have some factual basis, you're clearly distorting historical events for a very clear and distinct subjective purpose; to make the US look like the stereo typical war-mad baby-raping country that you apparently beleive it is.
I dont know, maybe i'm the only one who gets this impression.
I don't doubt that you've done your research, but your findings are immensely subjective. When you start saying things like the US is responsible for ww2, the geonecide of millions of jews, and the US's fairly limited involvement in WW1 is clear evidence that Woodrow wilson was a blood crazed warmonger, I mean.... Its very hard to take any of this seriously, even if your opinions have some factual basis, you're clearly distorting historical events for a very clear and distinct subjective purpose; to make the US look like the stereo typical war-mad baby-raping country that you apparently beleive it is.
I dont know, maybe i'm the only one who gets this impression.
Isn't that a chicken and the egg argument?
You're saying that I'm setting out with a subjective goal of painting the US in a negative way, therefore I interpret the facts a certain way. But I'm saying that I set out neutral, and the facts paint that picture for me. Which came first, the fact or the theory, that's hard to tell.
It's that Sherlock Holmes thing:
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
And I don't think I've done that. But of course I would say that...
BTW, the whole genocide of the jews thing, even if I'm blaming the US government for causing WW2, I still don't blame them for that. That's all on a certain Charlie Chaplin lookalike who went mad. It's just the events leading up to all of that.
Right now Libya is a bomb testing site... just fucking ridiculousness
Really? Finally the western world gets its shit together and stops ignoring slaughter of civilians right on its own doorstep, and it's a bomb testing site?
We weren't far too late like we were in Kosovo, this means that this might actually be the first somewhat succesful peacekeeping job the UN has done, ever.
Remember that Gaddafi had the status of "son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch" before this. There is no western monetary interest in enforcing a no fly zone at all, rather to the contrary, we would get cheaper gasoline faster if we just let that asshole bomb his population into submission again.
You're thinking too much about what I said. Bombs are being launched onto Libya... Over 200 of them now. Regardless of the fact where they're being dropped.
You know what? Let's see what happens after the "good" forces destroy every military machine Libya has. Will they let the people do their thing or bankrupt the place further by the means of economic slavery.
Their Military has weapons.
Their Rebels have weapons.
Why are we destroying ones, and not the others? Isn't the point to save people? The Rebels are also killing people...
It wasn't a peaceful protest to start with, a right protest, but not peaceful. It started with gunfire and violence, unlike what happened in Egypt.
I just don't think the allies are doing it the right way. How can the international military coalition opposed to Muammar Gaddafi, bring peace to that country without getting caught in a prolonged military conflict?
"How can you, with the aim of protecting the peaceful population, choose means that lead to an increase of deaths among the civilian population?"
Gaddafi bombed insurgent strongholds indiscriminately, thats the reason for the no fly zone, so they can duke it out on the ground resulting in less civilian casualties.
As for the quote, this is not carpet bombing like 1944, this is cruise missiles doing pin point counter airdefense work..
XenoKratos, I consider the no-fly-zone leveling the playing field. If Ghaddafi would have access to planes he'd be bombing the everloving shit out rebels. Taking air out of the equasion and making it a land-war, the fight is a lot more equal.
In the end it might prevent a lot of excessive damage too, similar to how two people fighting with their fists are less likely to die than two persons with a pistol.
XenoKratos, I consider the no-fly-zone leveling the playing field. If Ghaddafi would have access to planes he'd be bombing the everloving shit out rebels. Taking air out of the equasion and making it a land-war, the fight is a lot more equal.
In the end it might prevent a lot of excessive damage too, similar to how two people fighting with their fists are less likely to die than two persons with a pistol.
I think you mean, 2 people fighting with fists are less likely to kill a bystander, than 2 people fighting with a pistol.
at the end of the day, there will ALWAYS be civilian casualties in any war. but when one side is deliberately causing those casualties in order to paint negative propoganda, there's a problem.
The worst thing is the fact that Libyan's cannot communicate with the world because Muammar Gaddafi banned all outgoing media and all sorts of communication... There's a little video here of pro-Gaddafi government shooting rebels, and a video there of Gadaffi saying he has ceased fire... Now the pentagon has made an ultimatum: Stop all firing, stay in place and abandon all equipment. If not they will keep striking further bases and headquarters.
What we hear is what we're doing, and some inside news of what's actually going on, like:
French jet destroys Libyan aircraft
But an unnamed US official tells AP news agency a French fighter jet which reportedly shot down a Libyan plane may have been a military trainer aircraft. He says the Libyan plane may have been landing at the time of the attack.
Anti-aircraft fire opened up over the Libyan capital
On Thursday and at least three explosions shook Tripoli and its eastern suburb of Tajoura. Libyan state television also said Western air strikes targeted residential and military areas in the capital.
The French attacks and the Tripoli attacks wasn't my word, I got it from the telegraph, the UK news website. Why would I troll in a serious matter like this... for the sake of what?
As I said before, time will tell what happens/happened. My educated guess is: Syria is next.
It wasn't a peaceful protest to start with, a right protest, but not peaceful. It started with gunfire and violence, unlike what happened in Egypt.
[/I]
wuzzat? I was listening to a BBC reporter back in February who was marching with the protesters, it was exactly an Egypt styled protest until the army began firing heavy machine guns and mortars into the crowd. It was literally "did you hear that, they have begun firing on the crowd, we've taken refuge in an alleyway" type of report.
Man, wars would have much less accidental civilian casualties if we'd just stuck with swords and shields.. would be much more impressive too.. Seriously science, where are my laser swords and power armour
More on topic; The only thing I hope comes out of this is a better future for Libya and it's people. Also every single time an attack of any kind is done anywhere ever, there will be civilian casualties, there is absolutely no way around it and you're delusional if you cannot accept it. It's a fact of war, people die, very often people without weapons. Getting riled up about it or protesting it is like pissing in the ocean.
Yes, Justin_Meisse. What I was implying was that it wasn't peaceful like Egypt, there was gunfire and violence right when the protest started (like I said, sorry it wasn't well written ). Ghadaffi knew it was going to happen, it was a matter of time.
Still the African Uninion is asking him to meet and they want to settle things, along with the Arab league? (sorry forgot the name).
Ugh, I still think this could have been solved politically... Why is it almost always violence? The people who never learn are the ones holding us back.
Distribution of wealth, education, health care.. could solve allot of problems... I would like to see a day when men and women of all creed and color are the same.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Yes, Justin_Meisse. What I was implying was that it wasn't peaceful like Egypt, there was gunfire and violence right when the protest started (like I said, sorry it wasn't well written ). Ghadaffi knew it was going to happen, it was a matter of time.
Still the African Uninion is asking him to meet and they want to settle things, along with the Arab league? (sorry forgot the name).
Ugh, I still think this could have been solved politically... Why is it almost always violence? The people who never learn are the ones holding us back.
I think you missed something somewhere.
This all started with a peaceful protest. Libyan civilians against their government.
Gadaffi ordered his troops to start killing peaceful protesters, and you think they should just sit back and take it???
The Libyan rebels are rebels by necessity, the majority of them were just regular citizens until their own government started murdering them.
All I have to say to anyone who cannot see the true meaning behind this war is this:
Imagine you live in a country where your leader has been in power for 40 years. He takes everything and gives nothing. He wont take anyones point of view or any demands from the citizens as to how their money and services should be spent. Your living in a place where your money means nothing, where your words are like rubber bullets off of sheet metal.
They all decided they had enough. They peacefull asked (in numbers) for things to change. Gaddafi didn't like what he heard. Decided to hell with it, and started firing on those people who pay for his place, and for his lifestyle. Not to mention the people he is meant to be protecting/representing.
I wish I had an ounce of those people's bravery. They've died, they've been injured and lost a homes, money and friends/family. I just hope Gadaffi suffers for what he's done.
Do you live there or have you lived there in the past? If so then you can make these statements, if not I suggest you don't.
All we know is what the media wants us to know, unless you're there and can physically see what is happening around you then I find it a bad idea to make a summation of events based upon knowledge that may or may not be factual. You make it sound so clear cut as to who was right and who was wrong. Things are NEVER that crystal clear.
I'm not attacking you, nor am Iadvocating the things that Ghaddaffi has done or will do, I am simply saying that statement is very black and white, but things are never so.
Although in the recent wars the total death counts have been less than what was in the past. John Pilger's film quoted something like this (from my memory):
Percentage of civilian casualties:
WW1: 10
WW2: 20
Vietnam: 50
Iraq/Afghanistan: 90
Are we getting better at war?
Killing less people is good. But more innocents I feel really bad about.
Who are the rich people that started this war in Libya?
I never said this was a war started by rich people:shifty:. They may not have started this but the oil tycoons fueling the transportation, or the building contractors that come in after the town is destroyed and rebuild it at a massive cost, so the people on the town forever sink in huge debt make billions off war... I guess I'm the nutjob who thinks all this is wrongdoing? There must be a coincidence as to why America is "helping" Libya and not the other countries doing the same thing? Or why they are most likely to get involved with Syria after the fact that U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) revealed the US governments plan to attack 7 countries (listed on my first post). Or why the Bush administration told the department of defense to aim nukes at 7 countries? 4 out of them being Iraq and Iran, the other two being Libya and Syria, back in 2002?
I think the reason for such high civilian deaths in Iraq was because we weren't killing their army, we were killing them.
Who are the rich people that started this war in Libya?
They don't have to start it to cash in on it.
But it's the same as Iraq. All the various contractors. The companies making all those lovely missiles, airplanes, guns, bullets, and just general war produce. They sure as hell are having a good decade. The rest of the country? not so much.
But it's the same as Iraq. All the various contractors. The companies making all those lovely missiles, airplanes, guns, bullets, and just general war produce. They sure as hell are having a good decade. The rest of the country? not so much.
You asked if the Libyan war, like all other wars, was about rich folks making money. It's not. It's really about the opposite - it's about people who are tired of being screwed over by the richest man in their country and fighting back. Other rich people/nations/corporations may find ways to capitalize on it, but that's not what the Libyan war is about.
I haven't given this much thought, but I don't think wars of rebellion in general are about rich folks making money.
You asked if the Libyan war, like all other wars, was about rich folks making money. It's not. It's really about the opposite - it's about people who are tired of being screwed over by the richest man in their country and fighting back. Other rich people/nations/corporations may find ways to capitalize on it, but that's not what the Libyan war is about.
I haven't given this much thought, but I don't think wars of rebellion in general are about rich folks making money.
Sure, in Libya. The American/western involvement in it though? That's where the rich people come in.
I have no doubt that the Libyan revolt is for real. Likewise with Egypt and other countries. But our involvement in it is purely just to pad the pockets of rich folk. Case in point, we don't get involved when this stuff happens in other countries, like Saudi Arabia.
Replies
You're not wrong. Not at all.
But what I've been trying to illustrate repeatedly, is that it seems you're stuck on that specific year, being unable to go backwards.
Really, it all boils down to the Habsburgs. 1917/18 is when they collapsed. I blame Wilson, and the Western powers, on everything leading up to the collapse of the Habsburgs. That's it.
If he would have just gotten accepted into art school he'd have been working on his portfolio instead!
Gosh, those darn artists start all the wars!
So a peace treaty was less reasonable than declining the surrender and just steamrolling over them?
I don't see why my point of departure for comparison is any more arbitrary than yours with respect to the Habsburgs. Why not pin everything up through the post-WWII world on Gavrilo Princip? If he doesn't shoot Franz Ferdinand, there's no war for Wilson's America to intervene in.
I like talking hypotheticals, but we have to evaluate situations as they existed at that moment in time, regardless of cause - i.e. evaluating the ethics of the atomic bomb through the window of Truman's America, not the world thirty years prior. If we don't, we eventually reduce everything to the point that nothing makes sense.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17298_6-random-coincidences-that-created-modern-world.html
ahem....*points towards topic*
Because I'm talking about principles.
We can't control what some nutjob does when he shoots someone. But we can have principles, like being vehemently anti-war for instance. Or better yet, being anti meddling in other people's business.
And I don't pick a random point. I can trace this whole thing back to the 1700s, even earlier. The bottom line is that throughout it all, the pro-war, pro middle-finger attitude is what causes all this shit to happen. It just happens a few years after we flip someone off, so nobody sees the connection.
How could this possibly go wrong?
Somewhere, Ronald Reagan's corpse has a raging war-boner.
If this is your position, then I take it you're assigning the pro-war, pro-middle finger attitude to Woodrow Wilson? The man who said that "There is such a thing as nation being too proud to fight", and who campaigned for re-election with the slogan "He kept us out of war"? Wilson personally offered to mediate an end to the war in 1916 and was rebuffed by all parties. The man was given a second presidential term in part because he was vocal about keeping America neutral.
I don't see any way at all to look at Woodrow Wilson and call him a pro-war president, not when he literally tried to negotiate a peace before America was even involved.
Not sure what to say to that, you don't see how to label the guy that got us into WW1 as a pro-war president?
Ever hear of lying? Politicians do it all the damn time. He said one thing, did another, and I'm supposed to cheer?
He was given a second term because he was vocal about keeping america out of the war... then he got us into war. Just like every president since him.
I dont know, maybe i'm the only one who gets this impression.
Isn't that a chicken and the egg argument?
You're saying that I'm setting out with a subjective goal of painting the US in a negative way, therefore I interpret the facts a certain way. But I'm saying that I set out neutral, and the facts paint that picture for me. Which came first, the fact or the theory, that's hard to tell.
It's that Sherlock Holmes thing:
And I don't think I've done that. But of course I would say that...
BTW, the whole genocide of the jews thing, even if I'm blaming the US government for causing WW2, I still don't blame them for that. That's all on a certain Charlie Chaplin lookalike who went mad. It's just the events leading up to all of that.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/23/congress_could_vote_on_libya_war_next_week
Asked by The Cable how Congress plans to pay for the Libya intervention, the costs of which are approaching $1 billion, Durbin said, "I haven't heard anything on that score yet."
Right now Libya is a bomb testing site... just fucking ridiculousness
Really? Finally the western world gets its shit together and stops ignoring slaughter of civilians right on its own doorstep, and it's a bomb testing site?
We weren't far too late like we were in Kosovo, this means that this might actually be the first somewhat succesful peacekeeping job the UN has done, ever.
Remember that Gaddafi had the status of "son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch" before this. There is no western monetary interest in enforcing a no fly zone at all, rather to the contrary, we would get cheaper gasoline faster if we just let that asshole bomb his population into submission again.
You know what? Let's see what happens after the "good" forces destroy every military machine Libya has. Will they let the people do their thing or bankrupt the place further by the means of economic slavery.
Their Rebels have weapons.
Why are we destroying ones, and not the others? Isn't the point to save people? The Rebels are also killing people...
It wasn't a peaceful protest to start with, a right protest, but not peaceful. It started with gunfire and violence, unlike what happened in Egypt.
I just don't think the allies are doing it the right way. How can the international military coalition opposed to Muammar Gaddafi, bring peace to that country without getting caught in a prolonged military conflict?
"How can you, with the aim of protecting the peaceful population, choose means that lead to an increase of deaths among the civilian population?"
As for the quote, this is not carpet bombing like 1944, this is cruise missiles doing pin point counter airdefense work..
In the end it might prevent a lot of excessive damage too, similar to how two people fighting with their fists are less likely to die than two persons with a pistol.
I think you mean, 2 people fighting with fists are less likely to kill a bystander, than 2 people fighting with a pistol.
at the end of the day, there will ALWAYS be civilian casualties in any war. but when one side is deliberately causing those casualties in order to paint negative propoganda, there's a problem.
What we hear is what we're doing, and some inside news of what's actually going on, like:
French jet destroys Libyan aircraft
But an unnamed US official tells AP news agency a French fighter jet which reportedly shot down a Libyan plane may have been a military trainer aircraft. He says the Libyan plane may have been landing at the time of the attack.
Anti-aircraft fire opened up over the Libyan capital
On Thursday and at least three explosions shook Tripoli and its eastern suburb of Tajoura. Libyan state television also said Western air strikes targeted residential and military areas in the capital.
let's think about that for a second... state telivision, controlled by Gadaffi, said that residential areas were TARGETTED.
yeah i don't think i need to continue with this, you're entitled to your opinion, but it comes a point when you're just trolling for the sake of it.
As I said before, time will tell what happens/happened. My educated guess is: Syria is next.
wuzzat? I was listening to a BBC reporter back in February who was marching with the protesters, it was exactly an Egypt styled protest until the army began firing heavy machine guns and mortars into the crowd. It was literally "did you hear that, they have begun firing on the crowd, we've taken refuge in an alleyway" type of report.
More on topic; The only thing I hope comes out of this is a better future for Libya and it's people. Also every single time an attack of any kind is done anywhere ever, there will be civilian casualties, there is absolutely no way around it and you're delusional if you cannot accept it. It's a fact of war, people die, very often people without weapons. Getting riled up about it or protesting it is like pissing in the ocean.
Still the African Uninion is asking him to meet and they want to settle things, along with the Arab league? (sorry forgot the name).
Ugh, I still think this could have been solved politically... Why is it almost always violence? The people who never learn are the ones holding us back.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I think you missed something somewhere.
This all started with a peaceful protest. Libyan civilians against their government.
Gadaffi ordered his troops to start killing peaceful protesters, and you think they should just sit back and take it???
The Libyan rebels are rebels by necessity, the majority of them were just regular citizens until their own government started murdering them.
In a war, you don't have time to see if someone running at you has good intentions or not.
A warzone is chaos.
Do you live there or have you lived there in the past? If so then you can make these statements, if not I suggest you don't.
All we know is what the media wants us to know, unless you're there and can physically see what is happening around you then I find it a bad idea to make a summation of events based upon knowledge that may or may not be factual. You make it sound so clear cut as to who was right and who was wrong. Things are NEVER that crystal clear.
I'm not attacking you, nor am Iadvocating the things that Ghaddaffi has done or will do, I am simply saying that statement is very black and white, but things are never so.
hahahah
I see what you did there.
Are you serious?
I bet you couldn't say that to someone with a straight face....
Who are the rich people that started this war in Libya?
I can't believe this thread derailed into WW2, Hitler and Heroshima territory. Ooops.
I was mainly wondering what the motives behind these attacks were.....still wondering and have no idea. Maybe once again hindsight will tell us.
I do recommend: [ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Pilger-War-You-Dont/dp/B004BF91KK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301110657&sr=1-1[/ame]
Although in the recent wars the total death counts have been less than what was in the past. John Pilger's film quoted something like this (from my memory):
Percentage of civilian casualties:
WW1: 10
WW2: 20
Vietnam: 50
Iraq/Afghanistan: 90
Are we getting better at war?
Killing less people is good. But more innocents I feel really bad about.
I never said this was a war started by rich people:shifty:. They may not have started this but the oil tycoons fueling the transportation, or the building contractors that come in after the town is destroyed and rebuild it at a massive cost, so the people on the town forever sink in huge debt make billions off war... I guess I'm the nutjob who thinks all this is wrongdoing? There must be a coincidence as to why America is "helping" Libya and not the other countries doing the same thing? Or why they are most likely to get involved with Syria after the fact that U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) revealed the US governments plan to attack 7 countries (listed on my first post). Or why the Bush administration told the department of defense to aim nukes at 7 countries? 4 out of them being Iraq and Iran, the other two being Libya and Syria, back in 2002?
I think the reason for such high civilian deaths in Iraq was because we weren't killing their army, we were killing them.
They don't have to start it to cash in on it.
But it's the same as Iraq. All the various contractors. The companies making all those lovely missiles, airplanes, guns, bullets, and just general war produce. They sure as hell are having a good decade. The rest of the country? not so much.
My reply was to Bigjohn. Didn't even see you had a post in the thread about it. /shrug
You asked if the Libyan war, like all other wars, was about rich folks making money. It's not. It's really about the opposite - it's about people who are tired of being screwed over by the richest man in their country and fighting back. Other rich people/nations/corporations may find ways to capitalize on it, but that's not what the Libyan war is about.
I haven't given this much thought, but I don't think wars of rebellion in general are about rich folks making money.
Oh sorry mate, I saw tylers quote, but read your comment, very sorry!
No worries - I'm always hitting the wrong quote link myself.
Sure, in Libya. The American/western involvement in it though? That's where the rich people come in.
I have no doubt that the Libyan revolt is for real. Likewise with Egypt and other countries. But our involvement in it is purely just to pad the pockets of rich folk. Case in point, we don't get involved when this stuff happens in other countries, like Saudi Arabia.