why USA and NATO force involved in libya not in Sri Lanka...?

why USA and NATO force involved in libya not in Sri Lanka...? NATO force enter Libya (oil tank )country and searching kadabi but why they did not take action in Srilanka(sea water)...anyone have any guess plz share ......

 

#1 USA is part of NATO

#2 No NATO forces are in Libya

#3 WTF is kadabi

#4 NATO is only enforcing a UN security resolution proposed by the Arab League

#5 Sri Lanka is not part of the NATO sphere of defence

#6 There was no UN resolution for Sri Lanka

 

welcome apocalyosexl i agree with you about NATO force...why USA not interested in sri lanka problem..... if USA think means they will solve the problem....what think about this

 

If we send troops we're interfering, if we don't we're heartless SOBs. Either way, we're stretched a little thin at present. Maybe the fine people of India could take a break from creating multiple forum logins long enough to quit sitting on their haunches and go handle it themself instead of thinking up ways for us to get more of our own kids shot at.

 

I'm not that knowledgeable on this conflict, but what may have played a role is that a conventional "invasion" (with fighting) would not have been likely, considering the Sri Lanka government was at war with the Tamil Tigers. Here's what it says about the Tamil Tigers on FBI.gov. I've read there are allegations of war crimes on both sides, that have become public at the end of the civil war. I did watch your video from the other thread, and feel badly for all the civilians that were just trying to find safety.

 

lybia has oil

 

let me put this way, OP is a tamizhan (or do u prefer to be called as Tamilan - huh) - I have found this irritating to me on lots of occasions they are way too concerned about Sri Lanka over the India, some times it does confuse if they assume Sri Lanka to be part of India or vice-versa. Mind you, I lived in Chennai for 6 years, so I am very well aware of the issues.

now coming back to the point,
1. Why should Nato be involved in Sri-Lanka at a first point ?
2. Sri-Lankan people haven't revolted against the govt like Libya or etc (its not kadabi damn, its Gaddafi)
3. Its too close to the Indian borders and India govt. is personally involved (good) with relations to Sri-Lanka, so anything which NATO does could start an un-necessary revolt against India and it could be un-called for tragedy in the making (forget about lives, business relations is something any of the NATO countries would be aware of, by the war).
4. If a country or force gets obsessive about each country's problems - then the buck doesn't stop with Sri Lanka, you have a lot more to add up.
5. Finally neither US nor NATO has no profit marginal source by sending their troops to SL, SL is not a resource rich country. If SL was rich on some natural resources, then may be they might have thought about it - if not involved.
6. UN hasn't passed a resolution neither SL has nuke warhead or Invisible WMD to blow off US

 

Why are you all so naive Americans are in control.

 

That's an old talk I guess - but still Uncle Sam is the one who is ready for wars every where unlike others - don't u think

 

It makes absolute sense, think for a moment - the West is out to monopolize every possible regions on Earth, Libya is on top of the African continent which is very close to Europe. The allies will try to install a puppet regime once Qaddafi is out of power. Sri Lanka? Who gives a shit about a curry-eating zest poll anyways.

 

It's really simple Sri Lanka is in India's sphere of influence.

 

Also this conflict has been over for almost 3 years now .

 

500.000 people got slaughtered in Rwanda nobody lifted a jet...a very very clear picture

 

I've heard Serbia was quick to respond and proposed a UN resolution on the matter .

 

actually no serbia was accused of committing the "worst act of genocide since WW2" in srebrenica where more than 8000 people were murdered...how 8000 is more than 500.000 in a few days is beyond me of course ... as i said : 500.000 people got murdered in rwanda = A CLEAR MESSAGE that your "humanitarian" reasons for intervention are pure bullshit...

not to mention how many people the USA murdered in korea, vietnam, iran, cambodia, laos, grenada, lybia , iraq, sudan, avghanistan, former yugoslavia, then iraq again now lybia again ect ect...and that just the USA bomb dropping on citizens who never did shit to you campaigns

 

The worst genocide since WW2 was performed by Stalin . And again if Serbia is so concerned about Rwanda why didn't it propose UN resolution on the matter ? Is it because you guys don't give an arse ?

 

completely true we dont give a shit...nobody gave a shit...500.000 got massacred...only next time you hear americans did something out of "humanitarian reasons" you know its a lie LOL ...oh and american media claimed that serbia commited the worst act of ethnic cleansing since WW2 so your stalin fact must be wrong LOL ...shit it was all over CNN i mean they would not lie would they?

 

WTF India has to do anything with Sri Lanka??

USA does recognize LTTE as a terrorist organization. What else you want, a burger with some fries?

Every government should take care of their problem, and last I heard Sri Lankam govt. did take care of LTTE, they killed the leader of LTTE and terrorist supporters, didn't they?

 

Proximity comes to mind. Check the map, it's right off their coast.

The thread was started by an Indian wanting to know why WE don't get involved. My question is, if they see a need, whats holding them back? We aren't their personal security force to dispatch wherever they want... they can go get some of their own youth shot.

 

actually India did. India sent a contingent, IPKF. but prabhakaran got pissed off and sent some of his suicide bombers who blew up the then/late Indian prime minister rajiv gandhi.