Libya

[Booze Zombie]

I have a question for you, people of The Escapist. Do you believe that if any country had armed rebels in it, it wouldn't respond in a similar manner to Col Gaddafi?

There are reports of the rebels capturing mercenaries and setting them on fire in a police station, lynching police officers and other violent and terrible actions occurring.
If you had violent rebels running amok in your country, can you honestly say that the person in charge would not shoot them, if you were in charge that you would not shoot them?

Now, I'm not saying I'm a Gaddafi supporter here, but I find it hard to believe that Western forces are complaining about collateral here, when they've all done it in Iraq and if they had a civil war, they'd be shooting their own people, I'd bet you anything.

What do you guys think?

 

[x0ny]

Well, removing Gaddaffi would leave a sort of power vaccuum, that's when the really nasty people move in, and civil war of course.

Yeah we'd remove the armed rebels in a similar fashion, but Gaddaffi was removing them before they were armed, they protested quite peacefully at first.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Well, removing Gaddaffi would leave a sort of power vaccuum, that's when the really nasty people move in, and civil war of course.

Yeah we'd remove the armed rebels in a similar fashion, but Gaddaffi was removing them before they were armed, they protested quite peacefully at first.

That's why I said "similar" to Col Gaddafi, not exactly like him and also why I made sure to clarify that I wasn't a supporter of his. I can understand him shooting armed rebels like this, though... it's not like Western powers don't open up on protesters, however.
This isn't something only he does, as much as I disapprove of it.

 

[Shirokurou]

War is pretty ugly from any side of the trench.
We generally align ourselves with the idea, rather than the execution.

 

[KaiRai]

It's kind of different for them I guess. He's a dictator. He seized power through force and not a democratic election, ergo people are not happy with him and the way they are treated. It would be like Bush putting a bullet in Obama and declaring himself president of the USA again. I'm pretty sure most people would be arming themselves silly in such a situation.

Not completely sure how accurate I was there, but there's my two cents. Certainly in my coutry if Labour decided to try and take over by force I'd be on Downing street with a stolen tank ASAP.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So... rebellion isnt allowed anymore? Cause I'm pretty sure thats how EVERY country came to be today.

yeah, I get what you're saying, these rebels are behaving like Gaddaffi and thats evil, but they're not killing INNOCENT people. At least with mercenaries there's a reason to.

 

[Booze Zombie]

War is pretty ugly from any side of the trench.
We generally align ourselves with the idea, rather than the execution.

That seems to be our thing as "intelligent" creatures, as long as we can explain it away with a philosophy or idea, we can live with almost any outcome.

I sometimes wonder why we even bother existing if we've got to invent so much.

Not completely sure how accurate I was there, but there's my two cents. Certainly in my coutry if Labour decided to try and take over by force I'd be on Downing street with a stolen tank ASAP.

The main issue is everyone wasn't bothered with the Colonel until they noticed a weak spot (the rebels and chaos) where they could strike and try to steal his assets (oil).
I don't think you're stupid, by the way; I'm just clarifying as I'm told I don't always talk clearly.

So... rebellion isnt allowed anymore? Cause I'm pretty sure thats how EVERY country came to be today.

yeah, I get what you're saying, these rebels are behaving like Gaddaffi and thats evil, but they're not killing INNOCENT people. At least with mercenaries there's a reason to.

Two main issues: Define innocent, as one could argue that almost everyone in Libya is innocent to the rest of the world as they haven't really done anything to it. Second one is that the U.N is backing these rebels preforming violent acts, pretty much ensuing that if they win, the same violent dictatorship will unfold and nothing will change except the U.S and some other countries will have sucked up some oil and shot a few foreigners, lost some men and women... same old, same old.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

He seized power through force and not a democratic election

Like David Cameron -.-

 

[Baneat]

He seized power through force and not a democratic election

Like David Cameron -.-

Oooohh meow!

 

[KaiRai]

He seized power through force and not a democratic election

Like David Cameron -.-

I voted Tory. If anything the Lib Dems were the one's trying to seize power by forming an alliance with whoever happened to be the biggest bully in the playground at any given time. Pre-election it was Labour, as they were already in power, post-election, it was the Tories, due to the fact they won.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

He seized power through force and not a democratic election

Like David Cameron -.-

I voted Tory. If anything the Lib Dems were the one's trying to seize power by forming an alliance with whoever happened to be the biggest bully in the playground at any given time. Pre-election it was Labour, as they were already in power, post-election, it was the Tories, due to the fact they won.

Nobody won the election it was the support of the Lib Dems that allowed them to take power. Grats on fail vote. You probably cost alot of people their jobs.

At op if you look back on twitter on the BBC news site you see stories like a lad saying that his brothers were killed during a peaceful protest Gaddaf's men brought grenade launchers and killed all of the protesters they could. Its the civilians we are going into protect at this stage not the rebels.

 

[Booze Zombie]

At op if you look back on twitter on the BBC news site you see stories like a lad saying that his brothers were killed during a peaceful protest Gaddaf's men brought grenade launchers and killed all of the protesters they could. Its the civilians we are going into protect at this stage not the rebels.

He's been like that four forty years, we (the international community) didn't give a shit until he was weak enough that we could roll over him and steal his resources, uh, I mean, FREE TEH PEEPS!

 

[Veloxe]

At op if you look back on twitter on the BBC news site you see stories like a lad saying that his brothers were killed during a peaceful protest Gaddaf's men brought grenade launchers and killed all of the protesters they could. Its the civilians we are going into protect at this stage not the rebels.

He's been like that four forty years, we (the international community) didn't give a shit until he was weak enough that we could roll over him and steal his resources, uh, I mean, FREE TEH PEEPS!

I was listening to the radio last night and they brought up the possibility that he might have nukes hidden in the desert! Here that? We have to go stop him and get the oil nukes out of the desert!

As for the OT, see, I think if I've got armed rebels running around in my country and killing the people then I have clearly failed as a ruler of said country. Democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, whatever. At the point where a large group of my citizens stand up, say they want my head, then proceeded to start destroying things (possibly because I kill them in order to try and keep them in line) that I might be a little off base.

I think the international community came in way too late to do anything of use in Libya other then literally step in and take a side. In the week or 2 (can't remember how long since this whole thing started) that it took them to decided on any sort of no fly zone or attempt to "level the playing field" Gaddafi basically won. Sure there is still a rebel force, but had it taken any longer to even step in and they would have been basically crushed as well. At least until the people stood up again.

 

[Griffolion]

If we are to intervene i'd say our loyalty is to the civillians, not the rebels or Gadaffi's forces. Unfortunately, when these types of conflicts happen, it's the innocent and the peaceful that end up dying for no good reason.

 

[Booze Zombie]

As for the OT, see, I think if I've got armed rebels running around in my country and killing the people then I have clearly failed as a ruler of said country. Democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, whatever. At the point where a large group of my citizens stand up, say they want my head, then proceeded to start destroying things (possibly because I kill them in order to try and keep them in line) that I might be a little off base.

I think the international community came in way too late to do anything of use in Libya other then literally step in and take a side. In the week or 2 (can't remember how long since this whole thing started) that it took them to decided on any sort of no fly zone or attempt to "level the playing field" Gaddafi basically won. Sure there is still a rebel force, but had it taken any longer to even step in and they would have been basically crushed as well. At least until the people stood up again.

Thing is, it's almost like rebelling and having a dictator is on a rotor, as it happens like freakin' clockwork in places like Libya.

It's like a tradition to have a military dictatorship, almost.

Also, yes, UN response was a joke.

Fun fact: During the American Revolution, we lynched people and dumped boiling tar over their bodies. Getting that shit off generally involved having your skin and flesh torn from your body, and if it's not removed, you're pretty much not gonna live. If we're not gonna support a rebellion because people are killing, I feel there is a great deal of hypocrasy and undeserved feelings of superiority

My point was: choose either side, they're both violent and angry and no better than each other.
You'll get the same result, no matter which of the two sides stays in charge: a violent dictatorship.

See, there's only a number of responses you can give to armed rebels: Surrender, fight or co-operate.
Most governments would look at working with rebels the same as working with terrorists.

If we are to intervene i'd say our loyalty is to the civillians, not the rebels or Gadaffi's forces. Unfortunately, when these types of conflicts happen, it's the innocent and the peaceful that end up dying for no good reason.

Indeed, just look at any war in the last 1000 years. Of course, it became easier once explosives started being used, but well, it's always happened.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

What really confuses me is, when the shit first hit the fan months ago, Gaddafi was a horrible, terrorist Dictator gunning down his own people with fucking gunships and dropping bombs on the peaceful protesters as they took cities like Benghazi to the east.

......and then out of nowhere, that "revolution of the people" has now become "Armed Rebels", A militarized violent minority, while the rest of the populace seemingly backs the guy who bombed them a week ago? I just do NOT understand what the hell is going on?

Were we hearing the wrong things from the very start? Propaganda on behalf of the protesters that lied(and exaggerated) about what the govt was doing?

 

[Booze Zombie]

Were we hearing the wrong things from the very start? Propaganda on behalf of the protestors that lied about what the govt. was doing?

It would most certainly be in the best interests of the oil companies to drum up international support and anger towards a singular man and his army standing in their way.

Nothing too fancy, mind you. Simple smash and grab, no elaborate scheme, really.

If those 'violent rebels' started off as peaceful protesters and you gunned them down with fucking bomber planes, you're asking for it.

We may not use planes, but people die and are injured in protests all over the world.
As the post above mentioned, these people "who need freeing" and "who are being attacked by the Colonel" are actually mostly behind him.

So, maybe there's something we're not being told.
Without being there, I really can't tell you what's propaganda and what's the truth.

 

[Bobic]

At op if you look back on twitter on the BBC news site you see stories like a lad saying that his brothers were killed during a peaceful protest Gaddaf's men brought grenade launchers and killed all of the protesters they could. Its the civilians we are going into protect at this stage not the rebels.

He's been like that four forty years, we (the international community) didn't give a shit until he was weak enough that we could roll over him and steal his resources, uh, I mean, FREE TEH PEEPS!

Weak enough to roll over him and steal his resources? We could've flattened him at any point in the last forty years, Libya's army is nothing compared to the combined forces of the US, various European nations and whoever else is joining in. Truth is we were happy to trade with him. But now his country is falling apart and he's actively shooting his people, yes we do have to get involved. Not everything is some moronic conspiracy.