The international community has established itself, with differences on the military intervention in Libya. Countries such as Germany and Italy in Europe, Syria and Algeria from the Arab League, or China, Brazil and India have shown a reluctance to attack Libya. In Spain, has asked not to compare the war in Iraq.
On the one hand, passive inaction means that the killing of Gaddafi, on the other hand, the intervention involves the use of force in the internal affairs of a country, with negative consequences for the civilian population. Meanwhile, the Libyan dictator does not budge. What readers have opined about it? Toni Segarra Leo 'believes that war is always an expression of "destructive power" and we must change the paradigm and moral.
For Victor, "the use of violence should always be the last resort", but remember that Gaddafi supports global terrorism and that "it is dangerous to leave a free hand to continue slaughtering the Libyan people." On the other hand, Anton does not see much sense in a military intervention because they believe that when the attackers withdrew, the dictator "will return to their old ways and do not leave any opposition." The reader 'senglar' writes that Gaddafi will not give up power because the war made him and others for Bedouin origin and age, "no longer afraid of death." 'Abandoned' view that the intervention should have come earlier, and lack of coordination of the West has allowed the dictator to get organized.
The reader 'no hi ha cap misteri' says the international community did nothing at the beginning of the rebellion against Gadhafi because he had "importantíssims Petroli purchase contracts sold d'armament i i serveis to Libya, and now have decided to intervene because Gaddafi "is threatening to vendre deixa amb Petroli the West." The reader 'metal' believed to be the Arab League to take the reins and the West only through political means.
It has been argued that the objective of military intervention must end with Qaddafi or pacify the area without seeking their overthrow. On this issue, several readers have expressed support for the removal of the dictator. The comment of 'leak and Otilio' argues that the purpose of this and other wars is "doing business with the reconstruction and the sale of arms." Also 'andresito' is critical and notes with irony that the West has always negotiated with Libya, "by selling weapons, oil for human rights, business and political campaigns paid ...." Regarding the involvement of Spain in Libya, following the announcement of the budget of 25 million euros that the government will spend on it, many readers have been openly outraged.
Is the case with 'emp', who believes that should be allocated to health, unemployment, pensions, infrastructure, and so on. Also 'Jaume' believes that they should invest that money in health care and social assistance. Readers 'francisquet' and 'karson_18' saying that four million unemployed in Spain is not the time for this military spending.
The readers, in general, are divided between whether it is adequate or not Western military intervention in Libya or responsibility should be left to the Arab League. However, on the Spanish participation is more convergence of views that reject the high expense involved in economic crisis.
One of the most repeated words is "interest" and "oil", as many readers suspect that this is the real purpose behind the operation in western Libya. La Vanguardia. launched the survey is "Do you approve of Spain to participate in the military operation against Qaddafi?" and the results are balanced.
We encourage you to participate and give your opinion on the matter. 
On the one hand, passive inaction means that the killing of Gaddafi, on the other hand, the intervention involves the use of force in the internal affairs of a country, with negative consequences for the civilian population. Meanwhile, the Libyan dictator does not budge. What readers have opined about it? Toni Segarra Leo 'believes that war is always an expression of "destructive power" and we must change the paradigm and moral.
For Victor, "the use of violence should always be the last resort", but remember that Gaddafi supports global terrorism and that "it is dangerous to leave a free hand to continue slaughtering the Libyan people." On the other hand, Anton does not see much sense in a military intervention because they believe that when the attackers withdrew, the dictator "will return to their old ways and do not leave any opposition." The reader 'senglar' writes that Gaddafi will not give up power because the war made him and others for Bedouin origin and age, "no longer afraid of death." 'Abandoned' view that the intervention should have come earlier, and lack of coordination of the West has allowed the dictator to get organized.
The reader 'no hi ha cap misteri' says the international community did nothing at the beginning of the rebellion against Gadhafi because he had "importantíssims Petroli purchase contracts sold d'armament i i serveis to Libya, and now have decided to intervene because Gaddafi "is threatening to vendre deixa amb Petroli the West." The reader 'metal' believed to be the Arab League to take the reins and the West only through political means.
It has been argued that the objective of military intervention must end with Qaddafi or pacify the area without seeking their overthrow. On this issue, several readers have expressed support for the removal of the dictator. The comment of 'leak and Otilio' argues that the purpose of this and other wars is "doing business with the reconstruction and the sale of arms." Also 'andresito' is critical and notes with irony that the West has always negotiated with Libya, "by selling weapons, oil for human rights, business and political campaigns paid ...." Regarding the involvement of Spain in Libya, following the announcement of the budget of 25 million euros that the government will spend on it, many readers have been openly outraged.
Is the case with 'emp', who believes that should be allocated to health, unemployment, pensions, infrastructure, and so on. Also 'Jaume' believes that they should invest that money in health care and social assistance. Readers 'francisquet' and 'karson_18' saying that four million unemployed in Spain is not the time for this military spending.
The readers, in general, are divided between whether it is adequate or not Western military intervention in Libya or responsibility should be left to the Arab League. However, on the Spanish participation is more convergence of views that reject the high expense involved in economic crisis.
One of the most repeated words is "interest" and "oil", as many readers suspect that this is the real purpose behind the operation in western Libya. La Vanguardia. launched the survey is "Do you approve of Spain to participate in the military operation against Qaddafi?" and the results are balanced.
We encourage you to participate and give your opinion on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment