Poll: Did the UN Just Declare War on Libya?! Yes they did

[Penguinness]

I tend to just think everything everyone does is wrong by a good portion of people. So fuck it. One things for sure.. I'm not in their position making the decisions and I don't know enough to form a reasonable and factually correct opinion.

 

[Slick Samurai]

Either this is way blown out of proportion or it's another war in some third world country. If it's the latter, then woopy, more people get to die for someone else's problems. Do they really have to be the knight in shining armor? Can't they just go neutral and worry about their own damn business?

If it's the former, well, ok, more shit about Libya I don't care about.

 

[LightningBanks]

I guess the war needs to be sorted, well just have to wait and asee how long they decide to stick around for after.

 

[Coop83]

They are killing each other anyway - would it not do us to help get in there, remove the cancer that is Gadaffi and help to install someone to run the place who isn't a radical Islamist, like Iran wants to do?

Your suggested course of action is exactly what Islamic terrorist groups are hoping will happen.

That it may be, but if nothing is done, would you rather Gadaffi were overthrown and replaced with radical Islamists, like the Taliban and those Ayatollah nutters in Iran?

 

[Erja_Perttu]

The Islamic terrorist don't want an extremist in government?

I know that they aren't exactly the most rational people, but I really don't think that makes sense.

If a western backed force goes into Libya, knocks Ghaddfi out of power and then installs a government of their liking, then terrorist factions such as Al Quaeda are being given a perfect example to turn moderate Muslims into people willing to fight and die under these terrorist fundamentalist groups. It'd give Al Quaeda and other groups a massive surge in funding as well as recruitment, nevermind it'd turn back all of the diplomatic efforts the West has been making to Islamic nations.

It is the right of the Libyan people to choose their leader, not the US, not the UN. No one has that right, save the Libyan people. To install a pro-Western government in Libyan would be a grave error.

what
the
fuck
are you talking about? -.-

As badly as it's put, Fleischer does have the makings of a point. I think, and I may be wrong, that what he's trying to say is that outside interference in middle eastern politics, especially from the west (e.g. the USA & the UK) is seen as manipulation by terrorist factions and is very inflammatory.

The west is seen by some factions, terrorist or otherwise, to have an almost gestapo-like presence, trying to influence and divide the people of whatever particular country is on the menu. I think this is most evident in the changing way that journalists in Libya are being viewed. As time goes on, even the rebels are starting to be distrustful of them, and Pro-Gaddifi forces are openly harming them - they think the journalists are western agents spreading disinformation; part of the propaganda Gaddafi is churning out these days (I'll try and find a link to the article I read about this in, it was somewhere on Slate). EDIT: Can't find the exact thing I was reading, but this has some similar information: http://www.slate.com/id/2288214/

To 'install' any government could send an inflammatory message to the people who believe the west is trying to interfere and that message would be that they can take your freedom and replace the government of a given nation at will, through war. With the right mix of fear mongering from organisations like Al Quaeda, there probably will be some people who believe the situation in Libya is the fault of foreign powers, and chose to become terrorists because of it. I don't however think that helping a new government to take power in Libya is a 'grave error' as Fleischer put it. I think it's just a very delicate situation.

 

[spartan231490]

Bah, more 'We's iz there for teh oilz!' rhetoric.

It grows tiresome.

If you're tired of the rhetoric, how can you not be tired of the reality?
OT: The thing with Iraq showed that the US doesn't have the power to control the UN, especially now that we pissed them all off with the war in Iraq. As much as I would like to blame another war on the greed of american politicians, this doesn't fit the bill. It might still be about oil, but instead of American greed, it's gotta be "western" greed, specifically western Europe. Either that, or it might actually be about what it says it's about. That's the problem with all these things. It makes sense if it's about oil, but it also makes sense if it's about what they say it's about. Maybe even both. Oil and PR? Seems like a good combo to me.

 

[Caligulove]

So wait, we're not here to debate whether a No-Fly-Zone means declaring War on a nation, it's already been declared for us in this thread?

I don't think you're hear to discuss this.

 

[Sarge034]

seems to me like its too little too late, the rebels have practically lost already and air power alone wont stop the remaining from being killed. We ought to just send in the bloody SAS to take out Gadaffi.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH >wipes tear from eye< air power wont stop them from being killed? Let me give you a history lesson. The only reason we had to step foot in Iraq in the first Gulf war was because we had to take their SAM sites. We were decimating their forces for two straight weeks from Kuwait because we had air supiriority. So much so that one group, think it was about 20 people or so, surrenderd to an unarmed UAV. Also, look up highway of death. A10's were responsible for that, the ground forces only went in to secure munitions.

I'll tell you how this will go down. F-117's or B-2's will go in and destroy the known AA emplacements. Then depending on how they want to play this, they will send in the F-16's or the F-22's to scare up any hidden AA positions. Then the fighters will just troll aroud looking for targets while the A-10's and armed UAV's encurage the Libyan army/death squads to keep their distance...... or just mop them up...... depends on the orders I guess. :? )

So long as they don't start hiding behind civilians this will be over quickly.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think it needed to be done. The man was murdering his own civilians. I'm sad that so many innocents had to die before the world finally decided to do the right thing.

 

[Magikarp]

Wait, the UN has an army? Oh crap, Command & Conquer is one step closer to coming true.

Does the army happen to have the name "Global Defense Initiative"?

Okay seriously I'm not making fun of this, especially since real war is always a scary thing. And this just seems off to me. I dunno how or why.

Yeah the UN does have an Army its called the United States Army. Screw the UN why the hell do we always go? Send france or someone else everytime i hear UN this the UN that, i think what is the US doing now? Seriously every other country in the UN sits on thier asses and say send the americans under our flag. Wtf the UN has no business sticking thier noses into a civil war in the first place.

Since when has the US been the first to go for the UN? Britain & France started the initiative for the no-fly zone, & Britain is enforcing it. Also, Britain & France are prepared to start bombing runs within a few hours' notice. Where does the US come into this?
Of course it's the UN's business, this is exactly the sort of thing it was created for; to rally countries together to prevent injustice.

 

[Sarge034]

Bah, more 'We's iz there for teh oilz!' rhetoric.

It grows tiresome.

If you're tired of the rhetoric, how can you not be tired of the reality?
OT: The thing with Iraq showed that the US doesn't have the power to control the UN, especially now that we pissed them all off with the war in Iraq. As much as I would like to blame another war on the greed of american politicians, this doesn't fit the bill. It might still be about oil, but instead of American greed, it's gotta be "western" greed, specifically western Europe. Either that, or it might actually be about what it says it's about. That's the problem with all these things. It makes sense if it's about oil, but it also makes sense if it's about what they say it's about. Maybe even both. Oil and PR? Seems like a good combo to me.

You do know that Iraq keeps the oil money right? What small portion they do pay us does not even begin to pay for the war. So how can people say the war was about the oil? That would be like taking out a $10,000 loan to start a grocery store then only charging $.02 per sale. If it was about the oil, we would take the wells and let the people rot.

 

[Eggsnham]

I mean, it's likely for a good reason, but do we really need another war right now?

 

[Sovvolf]

Well I'm sure this is just a no-fly zone but what ever... Though if it was a war then the U.N would have my full support here. Gadafi is a psychopath who treats his people like shit, he's had it coming for a long time and I'd be happy to see him gone.

 

[Continuity]

seems to me like its too little too late, the rebels have practically lost already and air power alone wont stop the remaining from being killed. We ought to just send in the bloody SAS to take out Gadaffi.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH >wipes tear from eye< air power wont stop them from being killed? Let me give you a history lesson. The only reason we had to step foot in Iraq in the first Gulf war was because we had to take their SAM sites. We were decimating their forces for two straight weeks from Kuwait because we had air supiriority. So much so that one group, think it was about 20 people or so, surrenderd to an unarmed UAV. Also, look up highway of death. A10's were responsible for that, the ground forces only went in to secure munitions.

I'll tell you how this will go down. F-117's or B-2's will go in and destroy the known AA emplacements. Then depending on how they want to play this, they will send in the F-16's or the F-22's to scare up any hidden AA positions. Then the fighters will just troll aroud looking for targets while the A-10's and armed UAV's encurage the Libyan army/death squads to keep their distance...... or just mop them up...... depends on the orders I guess. :? )

So long as they don't start hiding behind civilians this will be over quickly.

Well I hope you're right. The big difference here though is that the conflict is a civil war, the fighting is taking place inside cities; I imagine that airstrikes would be too blunt an instrument to use in the case of street to street fighting where there are civilians all around, and I wouldn put any tactic past gadaffi, he's quite nuts.

Well I'm sure this is just a no-fly zone but what ever... Though if it was a war then the U.N would have my full support here. Gadafi is a psychopath who treats his people like shit, he's had it coming for a long time and I'd be happy to see him gone.

I believe the resolution was for both a no fly zone and airstrikes

 

[hem dazon 90]

oh fuck me. ANOTHER WAR?

Can we as a species go one, fucking, decade with out fucking things up royally?

Cause helping people is bad

 

[emeraldrafael]

Yeah the UN does have an Army its called the United States Army. Screw the UN why the hell do we always go? Send france or someone else everytime i hear UN this the UN that, i think what is the US doing now? Seriously every other country in the UN sits on thier asses and say send the americans under our flag. Wtf the UN has no business sticking thier noses into a civil war in the first place.

The US army makes the bulk of the UN army. UN sticking their noses in people business is their job. Ok their job is to prevent Superpowers from wanting to kill each other, but still to promote peace and to make nations look good.

This is to both of you:

And most of the troops don't come from the USA...

The US ranks a lowly 65 out of 114, with only 93 troops committed.

That might change now.

I have ot thank Danny Ocean. i didnt think he was serious when he said I could use this for just waht you two are stating.

EDIT:
And actually, France and Britain want to make this happen more then the US, and I can see why, at least Britain in particular. This is turning into Britain's Bin Laden or Diem (guy who ran Viet Nam for the US back during the war before shit got REALLY bad).

EDIT2:
Whenever I think about this.... I think about Guernica.

 

[spartan231490]

Bah, more 'We's iz there for teh oilz!' rhetoric.

It grows tiresome.

If you're tired of the rhetoric, how can you not be tired of the reality?
OT: The thing with Iraq showed that the US doesn't have the power to control the UN, especially now that we pissed them all off with the war in Iraq. As much as I would like to blame another war on the greed of american politicians, this doesn't fit the bill. It might still be about oil, but instead of American greed, it's gotta be "western" greed, specifically western Europe. Either that, or it might actually be about what it says it's about. That's the problem with all these things. It makes sense if it's about oil, but it also makes sense if it's about what they say it's about. Maybe even both. Oil and PR? Seems like a good combo to me.

You do know that Iraq keeps the oil money right? What small portion they do pay us does not even begin to pay for the war. So how can people say the war was about the oil? That would be like taking out a $10,000 loan to start a grocery store then only charging $.02 per sale. If it was about the oil, we would take the wells and let the people rot.

we can't just take the wells and let the people rot, we have to maintain appearances. We are a very powerful nation, but even we would be in a tough spot if we did something like that and pissed off half the world.

Also, it's not about the money, it's probably about the oil itself, and access to it. To use your grocery store example, we might lose money, but if the shit hits the fan and we run out of food, we can take some right off the shelves.

That's just my opinion, but I don't see any other legitimate reason for the war. There were no WMDs, and even if there were, Iraq isn't the only nation developing these weapons, or even the most dangerous. There was no relation to 9/11, and as for unseating Saddam, we left him in power in the '90s, why turn around and take him out now. Especially now, when there are so many places with far more despotic rulers.

Also, I think it's only partially about oil, I think it's more a part of the continuing effort to destabilize the middle-east so they don't unite like they have historically.(once again, just my opinion) If they did unite, the resulting nation/alliance would likely be the most powerful in the world, mostly because of oil.

 

[Blue_vision]

What the fuck?!! They didn't do this 2 weeks ago?? I thought this was being taken up as a UN Resolution 2 weeks ago!

They sure as hell should. The UN needs to be getting off it's ass more and actually helping the people and world it's supposed to be protecting. This was a perfect opportunity to show what exactly the UN could do; set up a no-fly zone to prevent government bombings, send in peacekeepers to prevent conflict, arrest the Gaddafi on war crimes charges, and set up a citizen council while elections get underway. But no, while they had the option to do something, they dicked around for a month and a half as innocent civilians and people simply wishing for democratic government got slaughtered, and a popular uprising against a brutal dictator got crushed by oil money and foreign mercenaries.

Perhaps if we get troops in within a week, Libya might be salvageable. But it doesn't look like that's happening, and if it does it may well just be in the form of a US/Western-friendly government that doesn't resolve internal conflicts.

Great fucking job. Perhaps they could get things right in Bahrain. Starting small, I guess.