Lik

呢排一直睇住卡達非嘅下場／報應，我就一直諗：到他日中共倒台嘅時候，啲中共領導人又會俾人點樣清算呢？

-力

Lik

But should democracy create a equal and justice society under which personal lives are protected? Why don't we see that here, and why don't we see UN/US troops intervening and protecting Gaddafi's gang so that they can be subjected to fair trials later?

How is this different from tyranny such as the North Korea regime that western societies are so despised of ?
ivanfox 發表於 2011-10-27 10:44

I honestly don't know why you are complaining about what happened in Libya and then going on to lay blame on the UN/US troops. Heck, US troops aren't even involved much in the Libya operations at all.

Throughout this Libya war/revolution, the UN has only committed themselves to air strikes and the destruction of military and/or support infrastructure of the Gaddafi regime; they did not participate in any of the ground battles at all. All the in-person fighting are done by Libyans themselves.

It is unfortunate that Gaddafi got killed because it would have served justice better if he were taken to trial first. It would also be a lot more valuable to have him spill a whole bunch of secrets and behind the scenes stuff to see the kind of dirty political links and dealings he have had with other countries. Alas, that did not transpire, so it did not transpire.

The crucial point of Gaddafi's death is that it took place through the hands of Libyans themselves. There is on-going debate about who killed him or for what reasons he was killed. The UN troops were not there to rat him out, nor were they there to babysit the Libyan national transitional council forces. Had the UN forces been involved, the likes of you would have whined and complained about how the western world were intervening with the Middle East countries' affairs. So what the heck do you want, man? When the UN gets involved, you bxtch and whine. When they don't get involved, you bxtch and whine again!

-Lik

Lik

分別就係，卡達非俾人殺咗，無得返生，無得改變、扭轉過來。而且佢惡本身就已經惡滿貫盈，無人／少人可憐佢，你又覺得好出奇咩？

睇返吓大陸，佢不斷違反人權嘅事，大部份都可以停止同更改過來。而且，我請你話俾我聽天安門母親丁子霖做過啲乜野窮凶極惡嘅事、趙連海又做過啲乜野十惡不卸嘅事、劉曉波又做過啲乜野殘暴不仁嘅事。如果你覺得呢啲人同卡達非一樣，我會同你講：你快啲去死啦！因為你咁諗嘅話，就真係唔死都無用！

-力

Lik

如果你覺得呢啲人同卡達非一樣，我會同你講：你快啲去死啦！因為你咁諗嘅話，就真係唔死都無用！
Lik 發表於 2011-10-27 12:39

講完。

-力

Lik

BG, normally you'd be right about UN. But Libya's case, it was the French troops that led the military operations. There was another major European player helping France as well, but I can't seem to remember which country it was. The US specifically stayed out of the bulk of the military operations because their troops are already stretched super thin across Afghanistan and Iran, and the US is too broke to afford additional military spendings. They did, however, take the strategic/tactical leadership role at the beginning and handed those operations to France, and they contributed some of their Predator drones to some of the strikes. But for the most part, it was a mostly French-led effort.

The primary motive for western intervention was of course not out of humanitarian concerns. More likely than not, it was to secure a stable oil supply because that is of national interest among numerous nearby European nations. However, I would not say it is an invasion of Libya at all. Instead, the western world only wanted a stable Libyan state. Many would have preferred Gadaffi to stay in power in the beginning. But because Gadaffi was too stupid and stuck to his oppressive means in trying to crush the Libyan Arab springs movements, the western world were left with no choice but to side with the rebels -- to do so otherwise would have been contrary to their official national ideals, and the respective European and American governments would have faced massive protests or at least major resentment from their own citizens. In a democratic country, that would mean the governing party gets voted out.

So while the means may not be humanitarian nor democratic, the ends are still the same -- that the Libyan tyrant was overthrown.

-Lik