I don't think there would be peace because man & woman both are human and its our nature to phuck shit up.
As population grows the natural resources become more valuable; we're ought to see more conflicts and wars
Less violent? Have you ever seen a cat fight?
Hahahahaha ... cat fights? How about a kitten fight?
women can not be violent? maybe the violence can take other ways less direct,
when a husband kills his wife uses a weapon, when a wife kills her husband uses poison.
when daddy wants to force his son to do something, he says:
if u do/dont do that, i will punish you.
when mum wants to force her son to do something, she says:
i´m sure that you don´t want to do that, if not i will feel very sad.
-threats- or -emotional blackmail-, -weapons- or -poison-
war using missies or chemica weapons???
chemica weapons..boy..interesting viewpoint,,
why not tug at hair
Well, actually this war was mainly started by two women: Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. Obama didn't want to go until they convinced him and gathered the international support of various countries including some arabic countries (according to US news)
So my answer is: no
@Ami; Gddhafi is not a leader; he's a moron! Actually many of the current people in power in mid-east are morons. Ahmadinejad, Assad and others are good examples
I don't like it when powerful countries mix them up into people's problems. What these countries are doing is just that they want oil from Lybia.
If they do care, why not striking Burmese leaders who have killed plenty of people and kept them captive till today?
What about Ivory coast where people are being killed each day?
As much as I don't agree with the way Kadaffi to be ruling the country for so many years, It's an internal problem and it need to be resolved by themeselves.
What have British, French or American lef there? They are just a bunch of oil thieves.
They are not just thieves!
They are killing more people even more civilians by useing the excuse of protecting civilians. Shame on those countries! The UK, the US and Franse……
Hahahahahaha ... I am not if any of these fights here might have "solved" any world problem, but I dont mind seeing more of such violence every day ...
@Godfather, Get a clue! sure you can find the missing letters !! 加油 ;)
We have promised only to provide air support and no ground troops. They claim we have support from the Arab League and we are invading with Britain and France, two countries who have been trying to keep out of our conflicts as much as possible ever since Iraq. Dude has been in office for fourty years, amassed more money than his family can spend in 5 generations from his people, and now his people say its time to step down and he is using his own army and bringing in outside mercenaries to shut them up. Their country is famous for implementing international assasinations of dissenters off of their home land and have been involved in various terrorist plots over the last 20 years. And he is putting his entire country in jeopardy by saying, "You aren't going to take me alive".
I don't really see any problem with US involvement, as long as we don't start another full-scale war.
firstly i love what the US,britain,france n italy are doing now about libya.gadhafi has been in power for 41years.many people were not even born when he came into power n he says he wants to die there then someone should grant him his wish but its time for the guy to get out of office n give room to change.
the world is already complicated with girls just being simple girlfriends,wives n mothers n someone is saying if women were world leaders things will be different?perhaps but i think the world will be more complicated if every country had a woman has its leader.besides,women are too emotional n many girls cant act under pressure.leaders must be strong to make tough n drastic but necessary decisions everyday.that's the job of a man.
An action doesn´t need a good motivation for achieve good results.
greed of oil?? sure!!!
but, save the life of civilians and rebels that in other case would have been slaughtered in the coming days and overthrow a tyranny are good results.
Only if the brain has been rotten by years of slavery or shitty propaganda, a person can prefer tribal chiefs or theocracies and have a morbid taste for the slave life.
your politcal sense ask a concordance between honest intentions of the goverments and the good results for desig one action as good action?? this situation offends your refinated political criteria??
you know, i think you can stop to think in these things because your ass in not in danger, in fact you ass is sitting in front of a laptop, and not hearing the bombs and the shooting in the streets .....
War is merely a continuation of politics by other means. War is the politics with bloodshed while politics is the war without bloodshed.
Put political ideology aside, the current air intrusion initiated by France has absolutely no justifiable and legitimate ground in accordance with international laws. Military intervention has not been comprehensively discussed in the UN Security Council, none of these countries are entitled to direct unilateral military intrusion.
The French claimed that it was for the human rights of liberian people. Question: What human rights could liberians have that even their lives are lost in the air attack. What this military intrusion will do is deteriorating the situation in Libya, killing thousands of lives and living the lands devastated.
It is a different time, not the age of enlightenment, not the age of colonists, at least try to learn from the Americans, be a bit veiled upon the true greeds behind this, at least make it "procedurally legal" before any move.
Additionally, the area in conflict will not be an easy case for the French. Even the mentally unstable Russians had a very difficult time in 1979 fighting against the Afghanistan, and we are not talking about the drunkards now but the drunkards that wept out the whole SS and Gestapos in WW2. Oh, WW2 reminds me now, what were the French then? Traitors and capitulants. Not surprising, although the French were once tough when ruled by a dwarf King and another time a schizophrenia Queen, they hardly won any war in the military history. Well, they couldn't lose more this time, as they have already lost in honors. Whoever you are, don't try to look up the history books to pick on our Chinese, at least we fought with the Yankees in Vietnam and Korea almost barefooted while all you did is bullying the weak.
And Britain, good God, haven't you learnt from the Iraqi War? David Cameron has successfully sabotaged the banner that the tory Churchill ever KBO for, at the cost of losing all its colonies. David Cameron is a pompous prick and he didn't even win the votes to become the Prime Minister but traded supports from the Labor Democratic. "We still rank 4th in world military powers". Yes you do, you have the Special Air Service, but KBO you will not longer do.
The wise option is that the Liberians immediately cease fire and convene a provisional uniform government, even pro forma. Announce a joint declaration to resolve disputes through consultation or even UN mediation before all the valuable things are taken or consumed by a bogus government. Or, kidnap some French hostages and put them on the bombing area, ideally Sarkozy's wife (a joke of course). No much information about Liberian intelligence service but it is definitely feasible, pay Mossad to do it in disguise if you have to (another joke), this is war.
I enjoy commenting on international politics in this country without freedom of speech. Even the big brother wouldn't mind. :D
Now I can enjoy the only valid French contribution to the contemporary world, red wine, curse and sleep.
P.S. Vietnamese women once almost dominated in Vietnam during the war, it was hell.
Ghadafi calls it the coalition of christian crusaders. If this has to be seen from a religious viewpoint, it would complicate issues.
The changing of the world has been talked about and noticed too.
But, does the world has to change because of natural resources?
It's a shame these countries wiv. all the brilliance and intelligence could not get
Ghadafi in person but rather resolve to create unrest.
Wait until it becomes a religious war-then, the safety of civilians would be a clear
cut reason for bombardments and military cruelty.
Keep hatin' on France, fags. If we didnt actually help them to stop the slaughter Ghadafi ordered, you'd all have went : OMG POOR PPL WHY NOBODY HELPS THEM????? ;_________; WORLD IS SO BAD
"Since 387 BC, France has fought 168 major wars against such badasses as the Roman Empire, the British Army and the Turkish forces. Their track record isn't too shabby, either: They've won 109, lost 49 and drawn (or as close as you can "draw" a war) 10 times"
The French surrendering stuff only started when we refused to go to war vs Irak for no reasons a few years ago. Who was right? Yeah, suck it up.
I guess people who support what the USA, Brittain and other NATO members should be ashamed of themselves. I understand that they don't have any clue of that is behind their implication into internal matters that concern an sovereign country.
As much as I agree that kadaffi has ruled the country for so long, he has improved the living condition of is people, though there was not a power alternance in place, I don't think other countries should just decide to lunch a war and find a puppet to put in place so that they can get as much oil as they want.
This is all about Oil. Nothing else as they claim to be protecting civilians, Kadaffi is giving much oil to China, russia and other countries and this create a jealousy toward british, Canada, France, US...
I hate it when anyone treat things or people unfairly. People iin Burma are dying, killed like insect by the Junta, why not lunching also an attact there to liberate those people? Or Lybian are worthy than Burmese? This is just on exemple...
What have the US, British, France and all their allies left in Lybia?I can talk about Cote d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Yemen,...
It's insane as these countries display a bad exemple to the world, and should be ashamed of themselves.
They've got to know that was doesn't bring solution, it's easy to start a way, but no one knows when it's gonna end.
half supporting ^.^
I guess If Chinese dissenters own weapons,the situation in China won't be better than in Lybia.Would u agree other country attack ur country on the ground of protect your human rights?
哎呀，真麻烦~ 中国就应该也派几架飞机过去象征性地炸一炸，然后也宣称一下这是为了什么人道主义。等着老卡完蛋了，再以联合国的名义派人去参与战后重建。如果其他几个国 家开始对石油下手，中国几个石油企业就业赶紧着提着钱去竞标。如果另外几个国家从中作梗，中国就赶紧已此为证据开骂另几个国家纯属流氓，已开始就没安好 心。如果另几个国家真就不对石油下手，那中国也甭下手，参与重建就是了：基础设施建设这种事儿，咱价格便宜且在行。
So troublesome~ China should also send a couple of fighters to bomb that country--pretend to of course, in the name of "humanism". When Ghadafi's done, we should co-occupy that country in the name of the "United Nation". If other countries put their hands to that country's oil reserve, we should also send companies like PetroChina there for bidding; if other countries, messing around the bidding, then we can scold them by questioning their motivation for having started the war; if it seems that no countries take moves on Lybia's crude oil, still quite fine: we won't take a move too, and we can still make a lot of money out of infrastructure contracts. You know, we are kinds of good at it, cheaper, efficient and with high quality.
In a word, we just follow the "procedure", like attack places that the US attacks, rob the country if the US did so. If the US did so but obstruct us from doing the same, again, we can scold them by questioning their motivation for having started the war, and call them bitch~ When pressed, well, we can still do sth like, to sell some US treasury bonds~
International affairs are all bullshit, just like kids are engaging in a duel of words. No one can say sth like "yeah, I'm fucking stronger, I'm the shameless bad guy, so what?" coz many others are surrounded watching. So, just follow the procedure: We just do what others do
Well, half kidding
There must be war, or there will not be USA,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
haha nice anwser))))))))
Well, that's y they've burnt tons of money into wars and now they've put the world into a mess we can't come out. China meanwhile have been using its money into new infrastructures and high tech__Let them keep on doing so, they are to pass their prime soon.
you are absolutely right about it!
the states always play this tricks! 转移一下国内的矛盾，刺激一下军工产业，增加一些就业！
Is it better for innocent people to die without change ? If this is the case there would not have been a China and I would miss the variety of individuals here..........
So, should I not fight for my brother/Sis if him/her were being murdered. I cannot even forcefully stand bye and watch my lady,brother, friend,uncles,baby chickens and small vegtables being murdered.
Just remember that war is inevitable,that has not changed since the world industrialization.Still, we have advancements in technology and some fools that can't get laid.... they will create heartless campaigns of war.
What's with all the armchair historians?
My knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any sort of military solution. There is no such thing as a "just war," as every multi-million dollar cruise missile launched is in fact a form of theft from the people we would claim to be rescuing from a despot. What would be truly heroic would be to abolish the economic system that allowed the despot to maintain power in the first place.
That said, when I first heard about coalition bombings of Libya I thought it was a NATO action, but as an internationalist I'm significantly less sore about this knowing that it's a joint UN operation; it's a nice change of pace to see the Security Council reacting quickly to any problem.
In b4 My Fellow Americunts call me a tree-hugging liberal pussy because they incorrectly assume my anti-war activism is informed by my emotions. Bitches don't know Dando is more machine than man. I'd just as soon see chickenhawk Republican draft-dodgers with their backs against the wall and in the sights of a rifle as I would see a peaceful solution to the world's problems; there is no peace without justice, after all.
The UN sucks, but at least it's not NATO or worse yet a unilateral American invasion. Perhaps if the Libyan government wasn't killing its own citizens with Chinese guns purchased with money from oil sales to Russia, there would be some substance to those claims by those nations' leaders that the Western nations are there to steal oil wealth. Libya's oil is already in the process of being stolen from its people. An invasion wouldn't change that.
I'm not saying I support the military intervention. I just think that these accusations are overly simplistic. The two Iraq invasions were about oil and not about security or humanitarianism. If you make the same accusations in this situation where it is inapplicable, it cheapens the accusation when it is applied appropriately.
"Wow, i thought they searched for chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction."
Nay. That's just how it was packaged to make it more palatable. I'm actually not entirely sold on the notion that the 2nd Iraq war was oil-fueled (although the first was undoubtedly so).
But there are certainly a lot of folks that made, and are continuing to make, a buuuutload of money off that war. The United States' primary informant in regards to the WMD's and whatnot straight-up admitted that he falsified his testimony, so...yeah.
Nice try, American military intelligence! Try vetting your informants a little better the next time you want to send a bunch of 18-year-olds to die in a desert halfway around the world.
I'm not sure where to stand yet on the Libyan debacle. I'd like to think that the only goal of the multilateral coalition is to achieve peace or stability or whatever they're selling it as, but I just don't feel good about anything anymore.
@John, You're at least as frustratingly gullible as the American public, then.
Regarding Iraq, the CIA knew there weren't any WMDs left after the first invasion and a UN weapons inspector named Scott Ritter came right out and said so, but he was discredited and later found to be possession of child pornography. It wasn't even a matter of faulty intelligence; that just seemed like a plausible denial for Bush.
If you challenged me to say why I think the US gets involved in this shit, I'd say it's because they have convinced many of the elites that war is good for business, and at least for members of the military-industrial complex, that's actually the case.
Maybe if Americans preferred to spend their tax dollars improving their own infrastructure instead of on Tomahawk cruise missiles for destroying other peoples', I'd go back home more than once every couple of years.
@Ami, While I happen to be in almost complete agreement, those questions are rather heavily editorialized.
Why should innocent people die?!? Try to harm or kill my friends/bros/normal family having people (Wherever they are) and I won't be just typing anymore. But, I believe in change regardless of O'drama because that's all many will see,drama.In case your didn't know I'm talking TV waste.
Everyone has to help somebody at least sometime or you don't even know.
@ Yueqiang, and exactly how much oil does your particular country use? It's now an issue from here to where we all need to be.