Warning: mysql_fetch_assoc() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\include\functions\visitors.php on line 5

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\include\functions\visitors.php:5) in D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\index.php on line 546

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\include\functions\visitors.php:5) in D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\index.php on line 547

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\include\functions\visitors.php:5) in D:\Websites\rave.ca\website\index.php on line 548
Say No To Intervention In Lybia - Page 2 - Rave.ca
Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
Anonymous
New Account
Forgot Password
Page: 1 2Rating: Unrated [0]
Say No To Intervention In Lybia
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» AlienZeD replied on Sat Mar 19, 2011 @ 11:59am
alienzed
Coolness: 509600
Basdini man you obviously have no idea what's going on. Do some research before making it clear that you're understanding of this situation is about as clear as tar.

I'm feeling psyfun right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Holly_Golightly replied on Sat Mar 19, 2011 @ 2:02pm
holly_golightly
Coolness: 158775
all the governement of western countries are aware of the malthusian concepts and they are certainly no intervention to "save" or "democratize" or "help" these poor people or miserable countries//

this is the BS fed to the western people/public to appeal to them.

if there is the slightest of intervention it is to advance or serve economically those in power ,their rich (corporate) friends or their political allies.

the west chose its battles.... and if not... where were they when the rwanda genocide happen? nowhere because no one cares about a bunch of n****r killing each other.

obama is great as a human being don't get me wrong i really like him and voted for him BUT imho he's still a pawn in this game.. he's not really important or an entity who really can do much..

anyhow it makes me sad how people are gullible in our countries.. so easily manipulated. it makes me think about the FOIA (freedom of information act) when it permitted to prove that pearl harbor was approved by American gov. and that was the only way that the american public would acept a monstrosity like Hiroshima etc..

for the UN to have approve that mean that even russia and china agreed which is rare... something really fucked must bother these powers.. the French just started the bombimg now... the british are there/// canadians are already there...

haha writing to your representative is worth shit and too late.

awwww the good old industrial military complex.
Update » Holly_Golightly wrote on Sat Mar 19, 2011 @ 2:03pm
I'm feeling hitched right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MattWood replied on Sun Mar 20, 2011 @ 11:22pm
mattwood
Coolness: 39420
I don't think it's valid to compare this situation with the one in Rwanda. In all honesty, how would international intervention have helped to put an end to murders which were fueled by decades of ethnic tension and conflict?

In Libya there is a clear good guy/bad guy situation, where a minority power elite is excercising unnecessary and brutal force on the general populous. There are clear strategic targets, and there exists a situation where intervention now could end a war before it starts.

In Rwanda, it was a civil war which had been brewing for a long time, and it was the Hutu majority attacking the Tutsi minority...it's pretty difficult to go into a country and say "hey you 90% stop murdering this 10%". Maybe there was more that could have been done...but it seems like it was a pretty no win situation.

Basically I'm saying that the two situations are completely different and to compare the two is a little bit too simplistic.
I'm feeling focused right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Mon Mar 21, 2011 @ 12:34am
basdini
Coolness: 145240
you are saying we should intervene, which means you are for sending people to kill other people.

There are lots of dictators in lots of places killing lots of people all the time...if you say that we should intervene here then you are just a jump away from saying that we should go around picking sides in every country in the world. Where does this take us, all the way to major nations like russia and china but the difference is these countries have real missiles with real atomic warheads strapped to them. Should we intervene in china next time they have riots in Xinjiang province and Tibet like they did in 09 and 08 respectively and the Government came in to put down the riots? Nobody with two brain cells to rub together said that we should intervene then, why? Because china will blow your fucking head off if you do. So why do we intervene in Libya, oh yeah, because they are weak and we can take them on. How our moral principles have slid down so easily,

This is all power politics, those of you who are taken in by promises of the singing tomorrows of democracy need to wake the fuck up. This has nothing to do with democracy. This is the new face of imperialism. I'm not surprised that a lot of people don't get it, it's subtle compared to the previous round under bush/cheney and the neo con thing. The difference is as follows, show a neo con a country, he'll say 'bomb it' , basically their plan is 'usa, uk and israel (maybe others) against the rest of the world forever'. But this is different, this is Brzezinski, and the International Crisis Group, the Endowment for Democracy, soft power, destabilization, subversion. The neo cons say 'we want to invade iran' Brzezinski's answer to this is "what? you re too weak you can't do that, turn iran into an asset by bringing the gov down from the inside (they tried this in 09, and they failed because Ahmadinejad pushed back against them) failing that if you must attack iran get other people to do it for you. Organize a 'sunni coalition' to do the fighting for you, then the US isn't 'in the war' they are 'above it' "

So this was the plan towards late 09 early 2010, they offered to create a nuclear umbrella over this alliance they wanted to form. It was supposed to be the little Gulf states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar etc) along with jordan, saudi arabia and egypt along with (brace yourself) Israel, against iran and their allies (syria, hezbola in Lebanon, hamas in the occupied territories and other people who we could call the 'rejectionists' in various other arab countries). This was their brilliant little plan but there was a problem, you might see it already, these arab countries don't even have relations with israel, how can they have a military alliance? And this is where Mubarak of egypt comes in. He says to the US 'i don't want your nuclear umbrella, i still have issues with israel i need to resolve, egypt will not participate in this' (i'm not going to document everything for you here but i think these next few are worth doing you can find out about this [ www.nuclearabolition.net ] He even goes so far to say that 'iran can play a positive role in the middle east' and restores commercial flights to iran from egypt for the first time in 30 years(this of course was at the same time that Sec of state Clinton is running around saying 'iran is completely isolated') . . So he had to go. Don't forget despite the aid he received Mubarak was not in the US's good books recently. Never provided troops for iraq or afganistan and never allowed US bases on egyptian soil.

What you must understand is that these aren't popular movements in these countries, at least not the way you think they are. What these are, is a kind of 'Colored Revolutions' sponsored by the US (more here [ en.wikipedia.org ] Let's look at another one quickly, Bahrain, what was their sin? Well Bahrain is a little island in the middle of the Gulf between iran and Saudi arabia and it's also the seat of the US fleet in that part of the world, and they have a big Naval Yard there for the US. Bahrain said to the US (in 09 i believe) 'You may not use the bases here for any strike on iran' so again the Gov had to go there... (more here [ thegulfblog.com ]

These Colored Revolution are of course the brainchild of Brzezinski and his whole school of thought in International Relations. He has talked about it for years, in his books (between two ages, the grand chess board) and in articles he has written. According to him there is a youth bulge in many parts of the third world especially the arab world (due to the rise in the standard of living in a lot of these places in the 80s). It's made up of kids born between the late 80s and early 90s. Brzezinski says that we should use these kids to take down the governments of countries that aren't following orders well enough in the so called 'empire' (free trade, Imf, world bank, 'washington consensus')This isn't as hard as it sounds, a lot of these kids are well educated having been able to go to university cheaply or free in some cases, but they don't believe in anything, they hate their governments for being autocratic but they hate the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamicists even more. They also can't find jobs. They are basically nihilist in that they don't believe in anything politically (at least nothing that requires class consciousness of any kind). This is reflected in their demands in the streets, which is 'down with hierarchy, we're for transparency and dignity' these are somewhat empty. These kids are largely middle class or rich they think twitter and Facebook is cool along with Hollywood and sort of 'cosmopolitan' life styles. Think about it if you have twitter or facebook, you have an internet connection which means you re not part of the lower half of the population who is living on 2 bucks a day in a place like egypt and needs a bread subsidy from the gov to survive every day, and this youth bulge (we can call them the 'golden youth) doesn't care about that, indeed they have demanded nothing in the way of help for the 50% living on 2 bucks a day. The plan is thus to use this golden youth as dupes and props in a big game of political theater to get new puppets who do what they are told and the plan can be put back on track.

Anyway this post is getting long, a few more things quickly...This isn't a conspiracy it's all documented if you spend an afternoon researching this you'll find all the pieces laid out before you. Just start in 06 with the replacement of Donald Rumsfeld by Robert Gates, who is of course a Brzezinski man having been Brzezinski's assistant when Brzezinski was in the Carter administration. That change from the Rumsfeld neo con project to what we have now, began with that change, indeed all the trajectories of the last 5 years lead to today.

I will conclude by saying this, the problem with this is what it is doing to this so called 'soft power' faction of Brzezinski's in the ruling class. It's making them much braver in what they want to take on. The day after Mubarak fell you had people in the International Crisis Group and other think tanks in the US and UK screaming "see, see, our thing works we get results, Bush and Cheney are bunglers they can't get anything done. But we can, we can take this all the way to Moscow, all the way to Beijing, nothing can stop us". And on top of that this soft power group can say 'we do it on the cheap' this whole project of destabilizing the countries which started in tunisia and has now led us to Libya has cost them only a few hundred million dollars where the neo cons spent trillions and achieved very little.

This is very dangerous stuff, don't be fooled by smiling imperialists who run with the left cover of human rights and democratic revolution.
I'm feeling surly right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MattWood replied on Mon Mar 21, 2011 @ 2:10am
mattwood
Coolness: 39420
Alright, you have my attention now. I am going to look into these topics which you have mentioned namely the nature of Brzenksi's philosophy, that the 2009 Iranian revolution was an attempt by the US to overthrow Ahmadinejad, and that the recent demonstrations and (in Egypt and Tunisia's case) revolutions were US sponsored.

This is a pretty deep rabbit hole though, so it might take me a while to come back.

And I have to admit...I'm wary of the idea that the recent revolutions in Northern Africa have been entirely directed by US/"Imperialist" interests. When you have a rich dictatorial elite running a country where poverty is widespread, there is bound to be popular dissent.

Also, you use the term "Coloured Revolutions"...I have found the correct Wiki article, which you didn't link to correctly... and there's nothing in there about US backing. Only that the revolutions were often organized by students against authoritarian states.
Update » MattWood wrote on Mon Mar 21, 2011 @ 2:55am
So far...this Berzezinski guy doesn't seem very suspicious to me. You're gonna have to link me to some evidence that this guy has an evil imperialist agenda.

Just to give you an example of what I've found so far...here he is advocating for the wealthiest in America to give some of their obscene wealth to the cause of lessening class stratification. Or at least, give money to keep the poor from rioting. Either way I agree with that...he seems very well read. But anyways, I'm not passing judgement yet, I'll wait for you to give me some examples.

Or actually, here....I'll be more specific. Give me evidence to support your statement that "Brzezinski says that we should use these kids to take down the governments of countries that aren't following orders well enough in the so called 'empire'"

This is what I'm most interested in.
I'm feeling focused right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» FRANKB replied on Mon Mar 21, 2011 @ 3:49am
frankb
Coolness: 103375
MORE AND MORE SOLDIERS ARE BEING SENT INTO WAR OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS. THE GOVERNMENT IS SENDING THEM INTO A TRAP SO THEY CAN GET RID OF A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED !

OBAMA'S FKIN GHAYY!
I'm feeling jazz right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Mon Mar 21, 2011 @ 4:47am
dynv
Coolness: 108845
MattWood how much are you paying basdini to be your political tutor? you make demands like you're paying him premium amount.

on your browser, there's likely a text field on top where you put text which you'd like to know more about, you can be creative and use it. also there's books and documentaries about such previous practices ; yes history repeat itself until some lessons are truly learned. you might want to look at US turf: south america ; and now with conservatives in ottawa, the whole northern part has been annexed (the already had mexico).

now do some searching or find a librarian that know about political books and do your part.

MattWood simple curiosity: are you a tree hugger?
I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Mon Mar 21, 2011 @ 5:26am
basdini
Coolness: 145240
here you go Matt this is a good article...

[ www.globalresearch.ca ]

'between two ages, life in the technotronic era' is a book by Brezinsky that is worth read though a little dated, you can find online copies of it...

[ www.amazon.com ]
I'm feeling surly right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Wed Mar 23, 2011 @ 4:46pm
trey
Coolness: 102805
I think nation states shouldn't be involved in other nations internal matter. I.e. Libya civil war.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» M-A-X replied on Thu Mar 24, 2011 @ 4:14pm
m-a-x
Coolness: 121675
HHmmm, Mister Anti-war...

The intervention was voted at the UN, the world was tired to see Kadafi murder his own people. I dont see your point with your new world order hegemony B.S theory. By the way, the majority of this people wanted an intervention.

Were just helping the people of Libya gain their freedom by themself and protecting the population from Kadafi's army. No troops will be send, no occupation. When Kadafi's ass will be kicked once and for all, only the people of Libya will decide what they want as a nation.

You can cry, protest, complain as loud as you want...that wont change nothing.
I'm feeling back in the sand right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Thu Mar 24, 2011 @ 4:24pm
dynv
Coolness: 108845
Originally Posted By M-A-X

Were just helping the people of Libya gain their freedom by themself and protecting the population from Kadafi's army. No troops will be send, no occupation. When Kadafi's ass will be kicked once and for all, only the people of Libya will decide what they want as a nation.


hahahaha!
I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy replied on Thu Mar 24, 2011 @ 5:49pm
databoy
Coolness: 106155
Well Obama went through with this attack without the approval of the U.S. congress. Meaning that if Sarah Palin ever gets elected and decides to take out Iran or any other country, Obama will have created a precedent for her to go in without congressional approval.

Plus they are imposing a no fly zone and chucking bombs on the country. Nothing here about "taking out Kadafi".
I'm feeling tilt right now..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Fri Mar 25, 2011 @ 1:22am
trey
Coolness: 102805
Even without a home PC, I still get dragged into [ rave.ca ]

I'll post some information as concise as possible to have a better overview of the Libya situation. I'm not here to persuade, just elucidating the scenario for myself and those who are interested.

1. Should nations be involved in the internal affairs of other sovereign state?

A.YES!!!: "state sovereignty is not a license for a dictator to murder his citizens."

In 2005 World Summit, Responsibility to Protect was agreed by UN member states.
[ www.responsibilitytoprotect.org ]

basically it is this:
-That each individual state has the primary responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. And it is also a responsibility for prevention of these crimes

-That the international community should encourage or assist states to exercise this responsibility.

-The international community has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to help protect populations threatened by these crimes. When a state anifestly fails in its protection responsibilities, and peaceful means are inadequate, the international community must take stronger measures, including collective use of force authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII.

B.NO!!! :John Stuart Mill, 19th century British philosopher, more or less said that:"armed intervention for the sake of protecting civilians and promoting human rights and democracy. For anyone committed to human dignity, this tradition claims, democracy and human rights must derive from self-government, not laws and regulations imposed by foreigners, however well meaning."

Pardon my hazy history, but I believe that democracy born of national strife and liberation movements, like the French Revolution, is a stronger democracy, than those imposed by foreign nations, like Afghanistan.

The problem with YES!!! is that...

RtP is: "It applies only to those committing mass atrocities -- genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing". But after embargoes, freezing assets, sanction, the member states should use only military as a last resort. I think that the quick decision for Resolution 1973 [ www.un.org ] is because what happened in Bosnia in the 1990's. There were atrocities in the Balkans before Nato acted. You certainly don't want to repeat that mistake.

The thing is... how do you decided which hot spots to implement Responsibility to Protect? Why are we seeing action in Libya, and not Ivory Coast for example? In Libya case, NO ONE LIKES HIM. Not even the Arab League, nor Organization of the Islamic Conference. No one veto the resolution, just absentee.

Also, if successful, the new government could find itself that the only way to rule is by on-going support by foreign nations. So effectively, it's doesn't really have sovereignty but becomes a client/puppet state.

The problem with NO!!! is that...

just to name a few... Armenia, Cambodia, Darfur, Congo, Chile, Palestine.. might as well just put all of Africa in there. It's like a disease or poverty, just because you ignore the problem, it won't go away. Every nations have their reasons for intervention or non-intervention [ www.rave.ca ]

Gamos had a great post: Not all countries have the (tradition or established) institutions to a successful representative democratic government. This is why there's intervention in Libya, by themselves the rebels can't succeed. They don't even have the logistics. And Gaddafi is just crazy enough, and already done so, to fire live ammunition on peaceful protests.

Also, if successful, the new government could find itself that the only way to rule is to rule like its previous government. That is to be autocratic and rule by might. So it's a vicous circle.

----------------

Finally, well there won't be one finally. 'cause it's late and I need to go to sleep.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» recoil replied on Fri Mar 25, 2011 @ 12:59pm
recoil
Coolness: 86545
I'm amazed Gaddafi has lasted as long as he did. The British government would have loved to see him dead long ago. He was a big supporter of the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s and 80s.

In 1971, the I.R.A. was fighting tooth and nail against the British army in the Catholic ghettos of Belfast and Derry. Using any antique weapons they could get their hands on, and improvising homemade bombs. There was a trickle of guns being smuggled in from the US and Europe but not nearly enough to sustain any sort of resistance against the British Army. and as brave and tough as they were, the defenders in the I.R.A. were often just inexperienced local teenagers, fighting highly-trained well-armed paratroopers.

Gaddafi saw the I.R.A. as an enemy of colonialism, which they were. So he seized an opportunity to use them as proxy fighters against the British government, much as the CIA used the Mujahidin to destabilize the Soviet Union.

Beginning in the early 70s, he started sending major clandestine shipments of weapons and explosives to drop points on the coasts of Ireland. He sponsored hardcore I.R.A. and Irish National Liberation Army guerrillas to train in camps in the Libyan desert. He was also rumoured to have given senior IRA men as much as 100 million dollars in cash over the years (though exactly how much is greatly contested).

In 1976 after a series of terror attacks by the Provisional I.R.A., Gaddafi announced that "the bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are the bombs of Libyan people. We have sent them to the Irish revolutionaries so that the British will pay the price for their past deeds".


so the British Army already had it's hands full with the I.R.A. volunteers, but these shipments of military-grade weaponry and tonnes of Semtex plastic explosives made the I.R.A. capable of inflicting heavy damage. He'd actually stopped supporting their campaign in the 80s, but the British let the Americans use their bases to launch a missile attack that killed Gadaffi's 3 year old daughter. So, in revenge, he struck back by successfully landing 400 more tonnes of weapons and explosives for the I.R.A.

In 2010, after months of talks, The Libyan government actually agreed to pay out 2 billion dollars in compensation to victims of the I.R.A. attacks that had used weapons supplied by his regime.



but as of March, 2011, it seems now this agreement is in limbo:

[
IRA">www.bbc.co.uk ] victims bid for compensation from Gaddafi on hold


here's a detailing of some of the known shipments of weaponry sent to the I.R.A. by Colonel Gaddafi..


1972: The weapons shipments from Libya began in 1972 with two cargoes containing an estimated 500 rifles, 500 pistols, 40,000 rounds of ammunition, an unknown amount of gelignite and TNT and assorted grenades, anti-tank mines, fuses and other equipment.

1973: A third shipment on board the 300-ton MV Claudia was intercepted off Helvick Head, Co Waterford, in March. On board the Naval Service found 250 rifles, 246 bayonets, 243 pistols, 850 magazines, 100 anti-tank mines, 500 grenades, gelignite, TNT, primers, electric fuses and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.

1977-78: A further seven tons of weapons, including an unknown number of RPG7 rocket-launchers, rifles, explosives, handguns and ammunition, reached the IRA from Libya. The route is unknown, but experts speculate it involved Islamic groups like the PLO.

1984: The Fenit, Co Kerry-based trawler, the Marita Ann, was intercepted by the Naval Service near the Skelligs, off the Kerry coast. There were seven tons of arms on board, including a .5 Browning machinegun, 300 rifles and 50,000 rounds of ammunition. These weapons had come from an organised crime gang in Boston.

1985: In August the 65ft fishing boat, the Casamara, delivered the first of three shipments of weapons from Libya, vessel looking for drug-traffickers in the Bay of Biscay. The largest shipment ever intercepted, it included 1,000 AK47 rifles, 10 DMZK .5 anti-aircraft machineguns, one million rounds of ammunition and one million mortar shells. again a present from Col Gadaffi. This first 10-ton shipment included 50 boxes containing rifles, pistols and rocket-launchers. In October the Casamara, skippered by the former Bray Travel director, Adrian Hopkins, delivered another 10 to 14 tons of weapons, including several 12.70 light machineguns.

1986: In April between 14 and 20 tons of weapons, including Semtex and at least two surface-to-air missiles, arrived. A larger vessel, the Villa, was used to deliver between 80 and 90 tons of weapons, including at least seven RPG rocket launchers, 10 SAM missiles and a large quantity of Semtex. A shipment of 17 rifles, two handguns, grenades, 70,000 rounds of ammunition and four drums of the chemical nitrobenzene (used for manufacturing explosives) was discovered in Amsterdam.

1987: In October some 150 tons of weaponry on board the Eksund was intercepted by a French naval fast-patrol, in the Bay of Biscay. The Eksund contained 150 tons of weapons including 1,000 AK47 rifles, 10 DMZK .5 antiaircraft machine guns, one million rounds of ammunition and one million mortar shells The weapons arrived in four shipments on two ships skippered by the former Bray Travel owner, Adrian Hopkins.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Fri Mar 25, 2011 @ 2:13pm
trey
Coolness: 102805
they should make TROPICO 4: Malik(King) of the Middle-East.
Say No To Intervention In Lybia
Page: 1 2
Post A Reply
You must be logged in to post a reply.