What about Iraq? Was Saddam losing power as well? Also, didn't the West supplied the rebels with arms so they could stage serious protest against Gaddafi?
So, what good has Iraq war done to US and UK? UK was involved heavily.
At this rate there won't be a stable Libya without years of bloodshed. Most importantly, did general Libyan people wanted west intervention?
The terror organizatioins rose to power partially because of their intervention.
Then why US would bomb them? Also why US has to care so much? Focus on their own nation before others.
Yeah... It's in dire need of attention right now. Has been for nearly a decade... America's a dying superpower tbh. The only ones that are cowed by them are certain nations in underdeveloped parts of the world. I mean, China pretty much shits on the US all the while stealing away their trade and manufacturing facilities
West could've intervened China in the 70's. Given Mao was more brutal than all Arab dictators combined. But I guess, they care more about their gain than protecting human rights all around. Whole EU would probably lose in a conventional war(No nuke) against China.Yeah... It's in dire need of attention right now. Has been for nearly a decade... America's a dying superpower tbh. The only ones that are cowed by them are certain nations in underdeveloped parts of the world. I mean, China pretty much shits on the US all the while stealing away their trade and manufacturing facilities
China's not a very pleasant place in my opinion (The countryside is gorgeous though) but it's almost a superpower in all but name these days. I'm sort of glad i live in a country that's so out of the way but also rich
Nope, not a very pleasant place. Government is very strict(Compared to Mao's time, extremely liberal and nice). Too much execution by government.(Still very low in number compared to Mao's time) Some discrimination to ethnic minorities.(Specially the Uyghur's and Tibetans)
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Given my posts in US Election thread, it should be obvious by now how I really feel.'Never' isn't really the right word - but bombing certainly shouldn't be the go to solution for every perceived ill...
Was a fan of M3J's technique - start with a line like this:
... then follow with a 'solution' like that:
I live in Australia. Politics here are usually about selling off or privatising Medicare, one of the best healthcare systems on the planet, to the Chinese funnily enough
Deciding not to interfere in other countries business anymore could be a good start.
Most of the world actually. Inquire about the most hated country in the world. USA usually comes in top 2 in every list. USA is not seen in a positive way, surely not in China, Russia. Don't think in UK either.(Best ally of US, lmao)
Maybe, not creating problems like this anymore could be a good solution.
This seems rather unlikely to me. If the UK is pissed off about their foreign policy choices in regards to this, blame Tony Blair and then blame Bush if you wish. But to say that the UK hates us over it... Well I'm just going to assume that this is nonsense. There has been very little wavering as far as the "special relationship" goes.
Blair gets the blame too. And I didn't say about hating. I just said the general public doesn't see them in a positive light. Surely Blair gets a lot of sticks for Iraq war as well.
Well, I certainly haven't come across/heard of much hatred towards the US.
I mean, compared to whom? Is Obama liked less than Bush was?
Aye, the Iraq war isn't seen positively, but that isn't the same as the US itself.
Well, whether you believe such a thing or not. The concept doesn't necessarily come down to USA > everyone else.... we do find the narcissistic state of American exceptionalism a rather amusing phenomenon, however
Obama is liked more than Bush.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I worded it in a wrong way.
The iraq war was a mistake, but what does that have to do with future interventions? No, the west didnt. the west started supplying weapons and other Aide only after the UN Intervention was started,
None, because it was a failure build on lies. At the Point in time it was agreed upon, the politicians voting actully thought Saddam was preparing weapons of mass destruction and it made sense to get a foothold at iraq.
There are no cities bombed into the ground in lybia, there are also no mass killings. And that is what we could have exspected without the Intervention.
Which is one more reason to take the responsibility. Why would it prevent the US from rectifying what they did wrong?
The US does not 'bomb them'. YOu cannot equate what assad does or Gaddafi did (willingly and openly bombing civillians and cities) to the bombing of Targets in accordance to local groundforces where there can be accidental casualties.
Now admitting it as a mistake after so much life has lost..........
I'm sure when it happened it was a righteous act. We also need to understand Iraq invasion probably cost more lives than 24 years of Saddam's regime.
Libyan people must be very happy about the intervention then? Libyan intervention should be seen as a huge success.
Does it give the outsiders the right to start bombing?
Rectifying it by doing the same thing again?
Then the Iraq and Libya intervention was a good thing then?
The lesson has been learned. But it was to not intervene due to false reasons and to not use groundsoldiers because it fuels unnecessary Anger.
The lybia Intervention was a good Thing, the iraq war was not. I think i made that clear by now.