IGCSE/GCSE/O & A Level/IB/University Student Forum
Teachers and Students => Debates => Topic started by: $tyli$h Executive on March 06, 2011, 02:02:23 pm
-
Posting a debate topic after a long time..
Do you think Moammar Gaddafi and his government should be toppled?
Or do you think that there is a hidden conspiracy behind all the protests and he should stay where he is?
-
I think that he and his government should be replaced by COMPLETELY different people , they've done enough damage already *6,000 DEAD people since the the whole thing started!!*
-
While there is no doubt that Gaddafi is doing wrong to have raged war against protesters, I think people are expecting a little too much. Say, Gaddafi is toppled. Then the army/military will take over the power like egypt and the next election could take a long time. Will people be better in military rule? I don't think so.
According to what I've heard before, Libya was quite a peaceful country under Gaddafi's rule. It is also suspicious why people would suddenly want to move Gaddafi out.
-
Yuh guys heard what he said to the US ? ::)
Yuh try taking me off and yuh'll have a large inflow entering the Europe. Plus, terrorism will rise immensely.
Wow. All the Arab leaders wanna screw US. :P
-
Yuh guys heard what he said to the US ? ::)
Yuh try taking me off and yuh'll have a large inflow entering the Europe. Plus, terrorism will rise immensely.
Wow. All the Arab leaders wanna screw US. :P
Its about time the US stops acting like the world policeman and concentrate on its own issues.
-
Its about time the US stops acting like the world policeman and concentrate on its own issues.
The Libyan people have asked for American intervention :
http://www.examiner.com/news-in-national/libyan-protestors-sprayed-with-tear-gas-plead-for-american-help (http://www.examiner.com/news-in-national/libyan-protestors-sprayed-with-tear-gas-plead-for-american-help)
So you're saying they should stand by and do nothing ?
-
The idea of the US getting involved just brings back memories of the US going into Iraq a few years back and that is something I'm sure the Libyans will never ask for*at least my friend is totally against it* .
-
The idea of the US getting involved just brings back memories of the US going into Iraq a few years back and that is something I'm sure the Libyans will never ask for*at least my friend is totally against it* .
Seconded.
And guess what, all the jerks in most of the arab countries are going fer a revolution. It better stays away from KSA.
-
Seconded.
And guess what, all the jerks in most of the arab countries are going fer a revolution. It better stays away from KSA.
I seriously doubt it'll actually happen in KSA. My BFF and I were so happy when Mubarak resigned ,and now I'm waiting for certain countries to do so as well since I know what they're going through.
-
I seriously doubt it'll actually happen in KSA. My BFF and I were so happy when Mubarak resigned ,and now I'm waiting for certain countries to do so as well since I know what they're going through.
Were you happy with the military regime taking over?
Its worse than Mubarak.
-
What the hell. Saudi forces fired at the protestors yesterday. The end is near. I can sense it. All the things are getting messed up. Bad bad, times.
-
i dont see a point in all this fight ! its k that u wanna throw away a leader u hate but it wldnt be happy ending ! its always seen that when u fight against 1 evil the other will soon pop up !
n to talk abt US ! they seriously shld stop being moral police ! its harm to them aswell as the other countries
who can ever forget the Vietnam war ! n what the heck US contributed to the whole thing !
-
Another moron wim wants to burn his country down rather than let better people rule
-
For conspiracy, there is no imminent proof of that so I won't relate this with any conspiracy. But then this is politics too and there are cent/cent chances of conspiracy :P
But as far as people being happy and suddenly rising, NO they have enough reasons. Someone who have been ruling the country for such a long period should have made it a bit better by now. There was a time when people were happy because US aids to Gaddafi used to brought money in the country and so a better life. But recently it stopped and recent global inflation worsened the matters. Now more people were suffering due to poverty, lack of opportunities and they were angry on Gaddafi that all these years he did things just to last temporarily. Country did improved in his reign but not as much as you would expect from someone ruling for so long. (Yet again since it a poor country in terms of economy or local; conditions, so Gaddafi never had clear chances either)
But if he's removed from the power and some other military guy takes over, things would change at least for sometime. See Gaddafi was never a democratic leader and nor would be the coming army men. But there would be inflow of dollars as U.S. would be keen to help the new leader and would make him come to thier own favorable terms like exploiting Libya's natural resources and in reply give some dollars. That had been struggling U.S. policy recently or at least it seems to me.
And one more thing, U.S. had been denying that they are not related with recent bombing on Libya, only they have agreed with EU's decision. US didn't want to mess in Libya. Robert Gates had said so much openly. Its more a French initiative this time. ANd the US has tagged along after deliberation. The key point to remember is that while Ghadaffi might be evil, he is not attacking anyone else and is only trying to crush a revolt within his own country. I feel a very dangerous precedent has been set by this action. I think UN should obey national boundaries and sovereignty. Action was needed when the guy did something evil, not on the pretext that he might do something evil. There is a major difference between the two.
-
Why does The Economist write "Qaddafi"? :-\
-
Why does The Economist write "Qaddafi"? :-\
In Arabic it is pronounced Ka-dafi not Gha-dafi.
-
In Arabic it is pronounced Ka-dafi not Gha-dafi.
Q, you mean...? Ah, so the pronunciation makes the difference... but still, cannot change a person's name... :-\
-
Why does The Economist write "Qaddafi"? :-\
Muammar al-Gaddafi (Arabic: Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi)
-
Q, you mean...? Ah, so the pronunciation makes the difference... but still, cannot change a person's name... :-\
No, man. In Arabic his name would be spelt (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2906/67743500.jpg)
The first letter after the Al is k
So its pronounced as Kadaffi since it is SPELT as Kadafi.
Gadaffi is an anglicised version.
-
Muammar al-Gaddafi (Arabic: Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi)
And now, why does France24 writes Kaddafi?
Media is set to crush his name... ::)
No, man. In Arabic his name would be spelt (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2906/67743500.jpg)
The first letter after the Al is k
So its pronounced as Kadaffi since it is SPELT as Kadafi.
Gadaffi is an anglicised version.
Image, blocked, woman.
My name isn't pronounced the way it's written... still...
-
And now, why does France24 writes Kaddafi?
Media is set to crush his name... ::)
Image, blocked, woman.
My name isn't pronounced the way it's written... still...
its just that some ppl think they can mess up with others names :'( :'( :P :P
-
its just that some ppl think they can mess up with others names :'( :'( :P :P
Sense, now. ::)
-
Sense, now. ::)
lol !!!
by the way howz the libyan thingi going on ??