. If you mean USA politics, effcorse I hate it, but hate doesnt mean not to cooporate with it and etc... & effcorse I know not all Americans are like that or whatever ( I don't really care actually ). I don't hate USA as a nation (but the politics I do, well, that's how politics is.), people are people anywhere in the globe That sounds an exageration. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
. What do you think? There's no conspiracies at all in politics? Or the USA complety destroyed afghanistan and ruined Iraq (apparently not alone), to establish democracy for a better world, and not for their oil. War technices are an old way to get economical and political benefits, and politicians realised that it's not the best way to do so.
. He will whine about the mexico. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What the Western People have appetite for does not matter much. The Western people can be manipulated or ignored while their governments do whatever makes the government foreign policy people feel more important and more powerful and whatever the Western government's corporate sponsors want. The occupying "Peace Keepers" can be Jordanians and Guatemalans so the West won't even need to know that they are occupying Libya just as they did not know that they were occupying Haiti. If you don't occupy Libya it becomes more difficult to select, impose and control Libya's new leaders. If you don't control Libya's leaders you can't help Goldman Sachs loot the Libyan Investment Authority's fund for future generations of Libyans.
Exports $44.89 billion (f.o.b., 2010 est) Export goods crude oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas, chemicals Main export partners Italy 37.65%, Germany 10.11%, France 8.44%, Spain 7.94%, Switzerland 5.93%, USA 5.27% (2009) Imports $24.47 billion (f.o.b., 2010 est) Import goods machinery, transport equipment, semi-finished goods, food, consumer products Main import partners Italy 18.9%, China 10..54%, Turkey 9.92%, Germany 9.78%, France 5.63%, Tunisia 5.25%, South Korea 4.02% (2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Libya I would like to see the import versus export figures in two years time. To see whether they are better or worse, and which countries are their major trading partners.
In Tunisia, the military and much of the government remained intact after the dictator was expelled. So a military-dominated transitional regime took his place. The direction that takes in the future depends in large part on the military's intentions. In Tunisia's case, they seem to be well intentioned, so I'm hopeful. In Libya's case, the situation is far more grave. There isn't a lot of conventional government organization remaining. The military has simply evaporated and what fragments remain seem to support Gaddafi. So we are left with a power vacuum, more like Iraq than Tunisia. There are reasons for hope though. One is that the transitional council in Benghazi as had several months to get going and has some kind of weak regime in the east. And the Libyans overthrew Gaddafi themselves and didn't have the US do it for them. So they have more of a sense of common national purpose and shared accomplishment than the Iraqis did. Finally, the Libyans aren't split between Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds the way that Iraq is, and there aren't hostile powers like Iran and Syria bordering Libya, harboring insurgents and fomenting unrest. Of course there's an Arab-Berber split in Libya, but the western Berbers were leaders in overthowing Gaddafi and kind of emerged as national heros in this. Libya is split by tribalism as well, but I don't know how deeply that runs and whether it might threaten national unity. I don't see Islamist terrorism in Libya for the time being. The Islamists are going to be creating political parties and armed militias and will be hoping to dominate the new Libyan state. They'll probably only start attacking it with terrorism if it seems that more modernist elements are gaining the upper hand. Then they they will try to destabilize things. That's not going to happen. The Europeans don't want the hassle and expense of trying to occupy Libya. The US got burned in Iraq, where they expected the Iraqis to welcome them as liberators, to organize free elections in a few months, and US troops would be home in less than a year leaving a new democratic Iraq behind them. Instead, all levels of Iraqi government evaporated, the people looted everything left behind so that everything had to rebuilt from the ground up, then the country turned into a crazy pointless war of all-against-all, with the US as the cop policing it. Washington learned its lesson bigtime and that kind of debacle isn't going to happen twice. No more 'nation building' for us. Any aid that we end up giving a new Libya is going to be far more modest. So Libya may or may not be headed for failed-state status. But the question whether the place ultimately ends up resembling Turkey or as another Somalia is going to be answered in Libya, by the Libyans themselves, not in Washington or Brussels. That's probably the way it should be.
. Actually the goverment in Tunisia have been changed 3 times. & it's not a military-dominated goverment right now. Yeah good points, Libya doesnt have many differences as there is in Iraq. About the tribal nature of Libya at this time, it's not being a problem, sicne all Libyans fought together and they still intend to stay all a one hand as they say. I'm not sure about what you said about a "berber-arab" conflict or something..there'snt really such thing, if there is, it's not that serious thing to rip Libya apart. Well, I can't say anything about that, but time will.
Ghadaffi made intervention inevitable when he made this speech on State TV about Benghazi. Mar 18th. "The decision has been taken. Prepare yourselves. We will arrive tonight," "We will chase the traitors from Benghazi," he told his troops. "Destroy their fortifications. Show them no mercy. The world needs to see Benghazi free." Meanwhile, he said "those who surrender and throw down their arms will be saved." Sticking to recurring claims throughout the month-old rebellion that Al-Qaeda is behind it, Gaddafi said "we will hunt down the miscreants and bearded ones that have destroyed out country and we will punish them without mercy." "We will also punish the mercenaries who have served them," http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gaddafi-vows-no-mercy-in-attack-on-benghaz/764322/ Was it right to protect these people from slaughter? Secondly, was it right for The UK, US and France, to continue to help the rebels, and depose the leader of a foreign sovereign country.
Even if just one person was saved from being slaughtered by Gaddafi's men then it was 'right' and just. Helping the rebels depose the leader? that is a tricky one. Even now we don't know who the various rebels are, is there an Islamist element? how many were loyalists with blood on their hands that just switched because they knew Gaddafi had no chance of surviving? The way I see it, you take whatever good you can. If the people of Libya get some representative leaders then that is a good thing. Nations like the UK and others will obviously want some £££s out of it, shouldn't be a problem, but then again, what arrangement did the rebels make with Nato? I personally refuse to believe nations help others out of good-will, just doesn't happen.
Then you believe that all the food and medical aid that has been sent to various African nations over the years is just a fiction? Just a plain lie???:bugeye:
Aid does not equal blank cheques sent purely out of good-will. The US and others have used 'aid' as way to manipulate and pressurise others. http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/johnpilger.htm
Certainly aid has been used as a tool in specific cases - but not in all of them. Many times, there's no real central government to even make deals with. And you also misunderstand the concept of a "blank check." What that *really* means is that the recipient can write in ANY amount they want.
Just how much food and medical aid do you think the US government has sent to Africa? It is probably a much much smaller part of the US budget than You realize. There is also a controversy about the food aid. Relief organizations and African governments wish US government aid came in a form like food vouchers which poor starving Africans could use to buy food through Africa's free market system thus encouraging African farming. But US agrabusiness makes the US government give the food as food shipments and this sometimes hurts African farmers. US food aid is partially a subsidy to US agrabusiness. Some US medical aid has been tied to African nations agreeing to not buy generic versions of drugs still under patent. This meant that a portion of US medical aid was really aid to the pharmaceutical industry. Though you did not mention military aid it to like food and medical aid contains subsidies to politically active corporations. Military Aid is as much a subsidy to the US arms industry as it is Aid.
what next for Lybia ?? Why not ask Cameron ??.. No boots on the ground was NATO's command.. Perfidious Albions Cameron had SAS boots on the ground at least 3 weeks ago.. As an Englishman .. I am proud of the cunning bastard Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
