Hey Oby!

[BruceVC]

Heh, I like the "justified" bit you threw in there along side UNSC approval.

Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..which is not uncommon when you consider veto power of the permanent members 

 

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

[Luj1]

 

 

 

 

West argues Russia is the external threat, Russia argues the west is the external threat,...

 

 

 

 

True, it works both ways.

 

 

However the biggest threat to world peace is clearly NATO. It lives off civil wars and third-world warzones

 

 

 

 

Russia is no global threat, get real.

 

 

1,800 operational nukes in the hands of a textbook sociopath say otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Who is this "textbook sociopath" you are talking about ?

 

 

That would be Putin of course

 

 

 

Get real.. Why don't you swallow more mass media trash ?

 

PS I asked him not you, but I guess that speaks about your jumpiness towards Russia

Edited April 7, 2015 by Luj1

[Luj1]

 

Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..

 

 

So the US invented something to bypass the UNSC, how convenient.... In other words, when US kills its completely fine. OK for me but not for thee. Biggest load of BS ever... Its no different from American athletes exempted from steroid tests at the Olympics

 

 

PS you should know the words "Clinton" and "humanitarian" just don't work in the same sentence . xD

Edited April 7, 2015 by Luj1

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[Malcador]

 

Heh, I like the "justified" bit you threw in there along side UNSC approval.

Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..which is not uncommon when you consider veto power of the permanent members 

 

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

 

Oh phew, thank goodness there's a doctrine written by the US, better than some biased justification.

 

US would be a better argument than NATO, though, think they acted outside the UN in Kosovo and stretched the resolution when they had the Libyan adventure (that paid off well). US on the other hand, you can bring in a whole host of "interventions".

[Luj1]

 

..., think they acted outside the UN in Kosovo...

 

 

Oh boy I remember that disaster.The west ripped through Yugoslavia while the whole world was watching. And that peasant Yeltsin was too busy drinking Vodka at the Kremlin.

[Gfted1]

Parthenon for sale! Get your Parthenon here!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..

 

 

So the US invented something to bypass the UNSC, how convenient.... In other words, when US kills its completely fine. OK for me but not for thee. Biggest load of BS ever... Its no different from American athletes exempted from steroid tests at the Olympics

 

 

PS you should know the words "Clinton" and "humanitarian" just don't work in the same sentence . xD

 

 

No thats not how the  Clinton doctrine can or should be implemented, as I mentioned it can be used when it comes to prevent the systemic abuse of human rights, like the NATO intervention against the Serbs to prevent them from continuing to commit genocide in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Sometimes the humanitarian precedent becomes more important than the UNSC..but I am not suggesting the West should just ignore the UNSC. Despite sometimes leading to situations getting worse, like the protracted war in Syria caused by the veto of Russia and China, the UNSC needs to be respected for good or worse but not to when it leads to genocide...like Rwanda if intervention was based on UNSC. The West should intervene in those examples irrespective of the UNSC

 

 

 

Heh, I like the "justified" bit you threw in there along side UNSC approval.

Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..which is not uncommon when you consider veto power of the permanent members 

 

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

 

Oh phew, thank goodness there's a doctrine written by the US, better than some biased justification.

 

US would be a better argument than NATO, though, think they acted outside the UN in Kosovo and stretched the resolution when they had the Libyan adventure (that paid off well). US on the other hand, you can bring in a whole host of "interventions".

 

 

Once again certain military decisions need to be make outside the UNSC but only under special consideration..like Kosovo 

 

And yes Libya was fine,  as I have said many times its not the West fault that the new government in Libya failed to run the country properly. The West cannot be also expected to  govern countries once they intervene militarily. We know this doesn't really work, look at Iraq after the invasion 

[Malcador]

Parthenon for sale! Get your Parthenon here!

Nah, Greece is demanding 279 billion from Germany, don't think they need Russian money

[Malcador]

Once again certain military decisions need to be make outside the UNSC but only under special consideration..like Kosovo 

 

And yes Libya was fine,  as I have said many times its not the West fault that the new government in Libya failed to run the country properly. The West cannot be also expected to  govern countries once they intervene militarily. We know this doesn't really work, look at Iraq after the invasion

Yes, consideration based on one side's interests, sorry, human rights. Libya is fine ? A bunch of rebels get up and have the USAF and others act as their lackeys for what end ? The West doesn't seem to look down the road well at the results from their bombings (then again, assuming they want stable peaceful democratic nations) based on that and other misadventures.   Am not too sure they get to wash their hands out of what comes out of a situation they helped create, after all.

[Valsuelm]

Greece can suck an egg in regards to attempting to extort money from Germany.

 

Greece would be exceptionally unwise to take money from Russia to pay the IMF. Greece would be wise to just default on the IMF. A lot of nations would be wise to do so.

[BruceVC]

 

Once again certain military decisions need to be make outside the UNSC but only under special consideration..like Kosovo 

 

And yes Libya was fine,  as I have said many times its not the West fault that the new government in Libya failed to run the country properly. The West cannot be also expected to  govern countries once they intervene militarily. We know this doesn't really work, look at Iraq after the invasion

Yes, consideration based on one side's interests, sorry, human rights. Libya is fine ? A bunch of rebels get up and have the USAF and others act as their lackeys for what end ? The West doesn't seem to look down the road well at the results from their bombings (then again, assuming they want stable peaceful democratic nations) based on that and other misadventures.   Am not too sure they get to wash their hands out of what comes out of a situation they helped create, after all.

 

 

So what would  you prefer? Either the West should not have intervened at all in Libya and when Gaddafi had won and there   were tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi, there would have been that number of dead  as he controlled the Libyan army, then its too late to be concerned about the humanitarian aspect and that would have been on the conscience of the world..also we would have heard the end of  criticism ..." The West did nothing while tens of thousands were massacred in Misrata" 

 

Or do you prefer that the West is now responsible for being directly involved in the running of Libya once Gaddafi was defeated ?

 

 

Or do you support intervention but once the ruler is removed the destiny and running of country is left to its own citizens?

 

Because in  the case of Libya there were only those three choices 

[Malcador]

What does the West care if some rebels win or lose ? Leave them to their fate, the US and France and Britain and Canada (yes, the mighty Chihuahua..) have better things to spend money on and risk their people's lives for.   Not too sure on how the Libyan army fights, but I doubt they would take the Roman approach and butcher everyone in the city if they could take it, so doubtful this would be Rwanda 2.0 (that and people dying as collateral damage in urban warfare is quite different from that insanity).

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Once again certain military decisions need to be make outside the UNSC but only under special consideration..like Kosovo 

 

And yes Libya was fine,  as I have said many times its not the West fault that the new government in Libya failed to run the country properly. The West cannot be also expected to  govern countries once they intervene militarily. We know this doesn't really work, look at Iraq after the invasion

Yes, consideration based on one side's interests, sorry, human rights. Libya is fine ? A bunch of rebels get up and have the USAF and others act as their lackeys for what end ? The West doesn't seem to look down the road well at the results from their bombings (then again, assuming they want stable peaceful democratic nations) based on that and other misadventures.   Am not too sure they get to wash their hands out of what comes out of a situation they helped create, after all.

 

 

So what would  you prefer? Either the West should not have intervened at all in Libya and when Gaddafi had won and there   were tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi, there would have been that number of dead  as he controlled the Libyan army, then its too late to be concerned about the humanitarian aspect and that would have been on the conscience of the world..also we would have heard the end of  criticism ..." The West did nothing while tens of thousands were massacred in Misrata" 

 

Or do you prefer that the West is now responsible for being directly involved in the running of Libya once Gaddafi was defeated ?

 

 

Or do you support intervention but once the ruler is removed the destiny and running of country is left to its own citizens?

 

Because in  the case of Libya there were only those three choices 

 

 

There were not tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi. You're just making **** up. The official propagandists who inflate numbers whenever they can don't even try and say that.

 

The uprising against Gaddafi was actually quite small and limited to a couple areas of the nation for the most part. NATO decided to protect those areas, arm the protesters, and ultimately militarily involve themselves to make sure Gaddafi was overthrown. The result: thousands of dead that would not have been dead had NATO not gotten involved, and a nation in ruins.

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Once again certain military decisions need to be make outside the UNSC but only under special consideration..like Kosovo 

 

And yes Libya was fine,  as I have said many times its not the West fault that the new government in Libya failed to run the country properly. The West cannot be also expected to  govern countries once they intervene militarily. We know this doesn't really work, look at Iraq after the invasion

Yes, consideration based on one side's interests, sorry, human rights. Libya is fine ? A bunch of rebels get up and have the USAF and others act as their lackeys for what end ? The West doesn't seem to look down the road well at the results from their bombings (then again, assuming they want stable peaceful democratic nations) based on that and other misadventures.   Am not too sure they get to wash their hands out of what comes out of a situation they helped create, after all.

 

 

So what would  you prefer? Either the West should not have intervened at all in Libya and when Gaddafi had won and there   were tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi, there would have been that number of dead  as he controlled the Libyan army, then its too late to be concerned about the humanitarian aspect and that would have been on the conscience of the world..also we would have heard the end of  criticism ..." The West did nothing while tens of thousands were massacred in Misrata" 

 

Or do you prefer that the West is now responsible for being directly involved in the running of Libya once Gaddafi was defeated ?

 

 

Or do you support intervention but once the ruler is removed the destiny and running of country is left to its own citizens?

 

Because in  the case of Libya there were only those three choices 

 

 

There were not tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi. You're just making **** up. The official propagandists who inflate numbers whenever they can don't even try and say that.

 

The uprising against Gaddafi was actually quite small and limited to a couple areas of the nation for the most part. NATO decided to protect those areas, arm the protesters, and ultimately militarily involve themselves to make sure Gaddafi was overthrown. The result: thousands of dead that would not have been dead had NATO not gotten involved, and a nation in ruins.

 

 

 

No Vals you don't understand, there weren't tens of thousands dead exactly because the West intervened to break the siege of Misrata and overthrow Gaddafi 

 

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

 

Gaddafi's forces had surrounded the town of Misrata and they would have happily razed the town to the ground as a message to the forces opposing Gaddafi

 

So there would have been thousands of civilians killed if the West hadn't intervened, plus all the dead amongst the people directly opposed to Gaddafi

 

So once again the Western intervention to break the siege of Misrata was justified due to the humanitarian precedent, even the UNSC supported this 

 

Your argument is flawed in the same way that people stated " the Syrian civil war won't lead to the deaths of tens of thousands " ..." there is no reason for the West to get involved, it will sort itself out " 

 

How many have died in Syria?  200 thousand and the death toll is still climbing 

 

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

[BruceVC]

What does the West care if some rebels win or lose ? Leave them to their fate, the US and France and Britain and Canada (yes, the mighty Chihuahua..) have better things to spend money on and risk their people's lives for.   Not too sure on how the Libyan army fights, but I doubt they would take the Roman approach and butcher everyone in the city if they could take it, so doubtful this would be Rwanda 2.0 (that and people dying as collateral damage in urban warfare is quite different from that insanity).

 

So knowing what you we know now you would be fine with another Rwanda, in other words you would support non-intervention in  Rwanda and be fine with the genocide of 1 million people or so?

[Luj1]

 

... like the NATO intervention against the Serbs to prevent them from continuing to commit genocide in both Bosnia and Kosovo.

 

 

 

 

 

That "genocide" was never proven mate. It was just made up because US needed a base there. I served there I know.

 

And Libya is not fine. In fact, it was never worse in Libya. Ever.

[ShadySands]

I wouldn't go there as we have both Serbs and Croats here who get a bit heated over the whole thing

[HoonDing]

They aren't currently around but let me grab some popcorn.

Edited April 7, 2015 by HoonDing

[Luj1]

I wouldn't go there as we have both Serbs and Croats here who get a bit heated over the whole thing

 

 

Croats and Serbs are fine people. Their hospitality is unmatched. I know this personally. Too bad our interests have ripped their country apart.

[Zoraptor]

Guys, guys. Bruce = Oby, for sure. Search your heart: you know it's true! They even came back to the forums yesterday within an hour of each other!

 

in other words you would support non-intervention in  Rwanda and be fine with the genocide of 1 million people or so?

 

 

Non intervention would have been great, wouldn't it? Imagine if the dear old Hutus hadn't have had french help and aid in escaping post genocide.... ah yes, such a nice daydream, at least some of those million murdered people would likely still be alive if the french hadn't 'intervened'. Funny isn't it, how people forget about who was propping up, arming and supporting the government and its militias at the time- and established 'safe zones', post genocide, to allow those militia to escape when it became clear they'd lose- in their rush to use the 'never again' (unless it's inconvenient, they're our enemies, their friends are too powerful, we're bored, there's no advantage in it, there's no money in it, the french are helping the perpetrators, the US is helping the perpetrators, the brits are starving them and helping the perpetrators etc) justification for everything, ain't it. Praise god though, lessons were learned! the french intervened in the CAR! and... well, they 'solved' muslim militias killing christians by getting christian militia killing muslims instead. Y'know, I'm not sure they actually did learn, did they? Except maybe that most people will ignore their complicity if it's convenient, of course.

 

..and more generally NATO turned Libya into a asteriskhole, stuffed up Iraq, broke up a sovereign state arbitrarily (funny how when Russia does it it's terrible though) stabbing the idea of international law (stupid idea as it is, but anyway) straight through the eye socket while creating an organ stealing klepto/ narco/ criminocratic statelet wholly dependent on NATO etc etc.

[Valsuelm]

Guys, guys. Bruce = Oby, for sure. Search your heart: you know it's true! They even came back to the forums yesterday within an hour of each other!

 

 

If that's true, the individual behind the accounts is a very mentally disturbed person. Also likely a paid troll.

 

The mods likely can confirm or deny with an IP comparison check. It's doubtful the individual is smart enough to use a proxy. Good website metrics software also could confirm/deny, though I wouldn't necessarily expect mods to have access to that info, if Obsidian is even keeping track.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Malcador]

 

 

What does the West care if some rebels win or lose ? Leave them to their fate, the US and France and Britain and Canada (yes, the mighty Chihuahua..) have better things to spend money on and risk their people's lives for. Not too sure on how the Libyan army fights, but I doubt they would take the Roman approach and butcher everyone in the city if they could take it, so doubtful this would be Rwanda 2.0 (that and people dying as collateral damage in urban warfare is quite different from that insanity).

So knowing what you we know now you would be fine with another Rwanda, in other words you would support non-intervention in Rwanda and be fine with the genocide of 1 million people or so?

The Libyan uprising is like a genocidal campaign?

[Walsingham]

Guys, guys. Bruce = Oby, for sure. Search your heart: you know it's true! They even came back to the forums yesterday within an hour of each other!

 

in other words you would support non-intervention in  Rwanda and be fine with the genocide of 1 million people or so?

 

 

Non intervention would have been great, wouldn't it? Imagine if the dear old Hutus hadn't have had french help and aid in escaping post genocide.... ah yes, such a nice daydream, at least some of those million murdered people would likely still be alive if the french hadn't 'intervened'. Funny isn't it, how people forget about who was propping up, arming and supporting the government and its militias at the time- and established 'safe zones', post genocide, to allow those militia to escape when it became clear they'd lose- in their rush to use the 'never again' (unless it's inconvenient, they're our enemies, their friends are too powerful, we're bored, there's no advantage in it, there's no money in it, the french are helping the perpetrators, the US is helping the perpetrators, the brits are starving them and helping the perpetrators etc) justification for everything, ain't it. Praise god though, lessons were learned! the french intervened in the CAR! and... well, they 'solved' muslim militias killing christians by getting christian militia killing muslims instead. Y'know, I'm not sure they actually did learn, did they? Except maybe that most people will ignore their complicity if it's convenient, of course.

 

..and more generally NATO turned Libya into a asteriskhole, stuffed up Iraq, broke up a sovereign state arbitrarily (funny how when Russia does it it's terrible though) stabbing the idea of international law (stupid idea as it is, but anyway) straight through the eye socket while creating an organ stealing klepto/ narco/ criminocratic statelet wholly dependent on NATO etc etc.

 

Please tell me you didn't just exploit the Rwandan genocide to make a rather feeble (if true) point about French policy.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Walsingham