FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Gaddafi needs to be removed; a better solution to the heavy bombing would have been for special forces to go in silently and take out Gaddafi and his top military men then many of the people would be allowed to speak out; which they dare not do right now because of the fear of repercussions. The UN/US/UK seem to think the automatic solution is to bomb the s*** out of a nation!

he would just become a martyr then, hes the head of a regime that's the overall problem.

A Simple no Flyzone wouldn't of been enough his ground forces would of wiped out Benghazi.

The best solution is to do what they did, but let the Arab nations lead it more but your right it seams that as soon as they got the go, they threw the book at Lybia.

I mean 100+ Cruise Missiles and B2 Bombing raid?

From a military standpoint a no fly zone has less to do with flying than it does with shooting down anything on the ground that could get a plane up in the air or shoot at a coalition plane that is flying.

Sadly while we're cutting education funding in this country, and laying off teachers... each of those cruise missiles cost the tax payers $700,000. Makes me long for the days of make love not war culture.

[myownalias]

Gaddafi needs to be removed; a better solution to the heavy bombing would have been for special forces to go in silently and take out Gaddafi and his top military men then many of the people would be allowed to speak out; which they dare not do right now because of the fear of repercussions. The UN/US/UK seem to think the automatic solution is to bomb the s*** out of a nation!

he would just become a martyr then, hes the head of a regime that's the overall problem.

A Simple no Flyzone wouldn't of been enough his ground forces would of wiped out Benghazi.

The best solution is to do what they did, but let the Arab nations lead it more but your right it seams that as soon as they got the go, they threw the book at Lybia.

I mean 100+ Cruise Missiles and B2 Bombing raid?

It may make him a martyr but it would be easier to overthrow the regime if he wasn't at the head controlling it, if it is true that most people want a free and democratic Libya then it will be possible to make that happen with the help of UN peacekeepers, if more Libyans support the regime than those who want change; the revolution will not happen, it's pretty simple!

[vlad]

You know what's more simple?
I'll put it in 1 word:

OIL

[bud]

OIL

Is that what the Rebels are after too?

[vlad]

Please, don't try to be sarcastic...

[bud]

Please, don't try to be sarcastic...

I'm not i'm asking a question, the rebels rebelled for a reason didn't they? It wasn't for oil was it.

[vlad]

It was something that would be hard to realise from your point of view...

[bud]

It was something that would be hard to realise from your point of view...

Do explain before I take that as an insult....

[vlad]

Please, don't take it as an insult!
It wasn't meant that way... I used the words that can be understood differently.

What I'm trying to say is: You have never lived under a "Regime" (or any other word that is used mostly in western countries), or, to say it in proper way, the rulership of one person... It doesn't necessary has to be a tyrany.
I have witnessed the similar situations, and, trust me, there is always someones interest behin these "Rebels". When it comes to changing the way the country is lead, there can be numerous ways. But, my point is, the most of the Libyan people is still with Gadaffi. Why? Because they don't see the reason why they should change him. They live a great life, I don't know are you informed enough about it...
Anyway, the only "News" you are hearing are from medias that (well, like the most of it) cannot be trusted, they are right on one things, but totally wrong on the others... So, that is why I'm saying that normal people (outside of politics) in West* need to be informed better, not through BBC, CNN, CNBC and other...
I'm sorry if I have ofended you, it wasn't my purpose.

*By West I also mean other countries where english is spoken (not just USA and UK, but also Australia, New Zeland...)

I would like to hear your further opinion.

[vaptin]

You keep saying the majority support Gaddafi, where are you getting that from?

[vlad]

How do you know that there isn't a majority?

[vaptin]

How do you know that there isn't a majority?

We could go around in circles here, if you make the statement its generally your responsibility to be able to back it up.

Both possibilities should I suppose be considered if there's no evidence (majority support him, majority don't).

Although I posted a link and a quote earlier that suggested the majority don't.

Rather between a majority that seeks free and prosperous Libya, and a mostly small heavily-armed minority that runs or benefits from a corrupt rule.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/fe ... 17811.html

Heck, even if the majority support him, don't the minority who don't still have entitlement to some rights in Libya?

[vlad]

Well, you know how it is, it is always the majority that rules.
I'm just saying, if so many people want to change the ruling party, they will do it. They don't need NATO bombing for that! They don't need that damn oil thieves at all!

[vaptin]

Well, you know how it is, it is always the majority that rules.
I'm just saying, if so many people want to change the ruling party, they will do it. They don't need NATO bombing for that! They don't need that damn oil thieves at all!

Well if that's true, Gaddafi wouldn't be a dictator and get all the bad rap from that would he? He'd hold democratic elections, if there was some ultimate rule that once you loose the support of the majority of people you rule over your rule collapses he doesn't really gain anything from being a dictator does he?

Your making a mistake in assuming that everyone individual has equal political power, that's ridiculous. One citizen against a solider with a gun? You think those are even odds? You don't think its possible for one to keep the army and a police force happy, and have them exercise control over civilians?

So, Stalin stayed in power cos he was popular?

[FRAFPDD]

Well, you know how it is, it is always the majority that rules.
I'm just saying, if so many people want to change the ruling party, they will do it. They don't need NATO bombing for that! They don't need that damn oil thieves at all!

Well if that's true, Gaddafi wouldn't be a dictator and get all the bad rap from that would he? He'd hold democratic elections, if there was some ultimate rule that once you loose the support of the majority of people you rule over your rule collapses he doesn't really gain anything from being a dictator does he?

Your making a mistake in assuming that everyone individual has equal political power, that's ridiculous. One citizen against a solider with a gun? You think those are even odds? You don't think its possible for one to keep the army and a police force happy, and have them exercise control over civilians?

So, Stalin stayed in power cos he was popular?

Stalin stayed in power cause he had the ultimate 'tasche. In the war, your tasche is your biggest weapon, thats why Hitler ultimately lost to Russia, he was out 'tasched.