Poll: Did the UN Just Declare War on Libya?! Yes they did
- Thread starter BoosterGold
- Start date
Recommended Videos
they just try to level the field, and no one is doing it for free, all the democratic countries try to make their voters happykatsabas said:Things are already burning up in the whole Islamic world while Obama is sending his troops home and Kadafi is trying to keep his stomach full. Quite a knot. But I am gonna go ahead and say that the Libyans have to sort this one out themselves. If UN makes a move on Libya and they win, they are gonna eat each other, dividing the spoils on one hand and deciding what to do with the Islamic uproar on the other.
Libya has to sort this out without our help. Trying to fend off someone who has been tearing them apart for about 20 years in a row and is willing to shoot his own fucking men for not executing unarmed civilians mustn't go down with outside help. It is their independence and they have to fight for it. And come on, since when did the US and UN get all altruistic?
Oh. Right...
Shame on you OP for your horribly misleading thread title. There is a major difference between imposing a no fly zone and declaring war. Go read up on the situation, use the correct terminology and explain the situation in Libya properly, and stop trying to be so inflammatory, and maybe then you will have a respectable thread worth replying to properly.
I'm not going to comment on the issue as a whole, but you are confused. Neo-liberal does not mean "liberal" in the way Rush Limbaugh likes to use it as though it were a swear. Neo-liberalism refers to the resurgence of classical liberalism, that is, anti-statism. In the US it is known as libertarianism and generally opposes all foreign intervention.BoosterGold said:
So no, neo-libs aren't rejoicing, and now you know something about the terms you are throwing around.
Don't be silly. They don't wear the blue helmets if it'd be prudent not to, it's just a helmet cover.emeraldrafael said:
Actually, the UN peacekeeping army is pretty big... [footnote](All this info is straight from the UN, although it might be a little out of date. The Secretariat is normally quite good at keeping things refreshed)[/footnote]
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.
The U.N wouldn't give a shit about this if the country didn't have an intelligent, brutal man sitting on top of a tonne of oil committing these violent actions.
He'd just be another warlord if he didn't have the cash crop.
I'm on the left and I'm saying this, by the way.
Any other power wouldn't care about these people being collateral damage if their army was the one "bringing order" to areas and I guarantee you'll probably have more people die from the U.N war.
He'd just be another warlord if he didn't have the cash crop.
I'm on the left and I'm saying this, by the way.
Any other power wouldn't care about these people being collateral damage if their army was the one "bringing order" to areas and I guarantee you'll probably have more people die from the U.N war.
I dunno, there's (a little) more to attacking Gaddafi than just oil.BoosterGold said:
Whether he survives this round of Oil wars or not, there are a lot of people in both the UK and America who have been waiting for a chance to drop a bunker buster on his (specifically his) head for 22-ish years.
Even if they don't get the chance this time around I'm sure they will get the chance sooner or later. It may not be the noblest of causes but revenge is a powerful motivator.
As for the practicalities of it.
Libya has outdated, poorly disciplined and poorly equipped air and ground forces. they'll do it the same way they did Iraq both times, fly in at medium level, drop guided munitions, fly out again. Barring aircraft malfunctions or somebody screwing up their job, the chances of Libyans shooting anything down are slim.
For comparison, during the first Gulf War the Iraqis managed to shoot down 44 aircraft out of over 100'000 sorties flown. That was with better equipment and training than Libya has now, against Nato aircraft and tactics from twenty years ago. There probably will be some losses, but as a percentage of forces it will be near zero. The civilians on the ground will suffer most.
For the politics, British forces have been commited somewhere nearly everyday of the last sixty years, at the risk of sounding incredibly cynical it's the same shit different targets.
The only time a nations government will enter a war for humanitarian efforts is if there is a massive backlash from its citizens due to its inaction. Perhaps I should have said they would never voluntarily enter a war due to humanitarian efforts.skibadaa said:
(EDIT: Forgot the quote)
And I never said the US contributed most. But they like to stream line assualts either as a separate force or politically with the UN to through its weight around and bring in its allies (since when they do it usually looks like the war is with the the US and UN and to go against either is go against both). I only mentioned the US because the way the OP post was worded it, it made it seem like this was the US doing all the work.
Anyway, sorry about the blue helmets. That was more of a joke then anything else (just cause it looks really funny to see them with it, and thats the only time i ever see them wearing a helmet its blue. But I'll apologize for that.
Well, I'll have to make the point again that that number can fluctuate since the UN is dependent on its member countries to make up its army. And thats not particularly a large army (since you dont just add up all those numbers together). The two is under 125kDanny Ocean said:
And I never said the US contributed most. But they like to stream line assualts either as a separate force or politically with the UN to through its weight around and bring in its allies (since when they do it usually looks like the war is with the the US and UN and to go against either is go against both). I only mentioned the US because the way the OP post was worded it, it made it seem like this was the US doing all the work.
Anyway, sorry about the blue helmets. That was more of a joke then anything else (just cause it looks really funny to see them with it, and thats the only time i ever see them wearing a helmet its blue. But I'll apologize for that.
I think it should have happened sooner, the no-fly zone will and is only designed to slow Gaddafi's advance and now they are closing in on Benghazi - it's too late.
I was thinking a couple of weeks ago that it could turn into another Iraq, but the news said that the UN said no ground forces could be used, so hopefully no civilians will be killed.
I was thinking a couple of weeks ago that it could turn into another Iraq, but the news said that the UN said no ground forces could be used, so hopefully no civilians will be killed.
Yeah screw those suffering people!
I'm sorry but when fellow Humans/Muslims are suffering yeah we should get involved
I'm sorry but when fellow Humans/Muslims are suffering yeah we should get involved
Peace through greater firepower....and if we go over there and shit stomp that guy...."who's son said "WERE GOING TO CHARGE YOU AN ARM AND A LEG SO FUCK YOU FOR SAYING WE SHOULD BACK DOWN" we all might save money...." its fucked up but...hey. We would have an ally perminantly from a *US mainly/UK mostlikely/europe standpoint of whoever helps*BoosterGold said: