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

Recommended Videos

sir.rutthed

Stormfather take you!
Nov 10, 2009
979
0
0
Honestly, I'm tired of all this "war for oil is wrong" crap. Do people not realize that seizing resources is probably the most common cause for war in our world? Yet they act like it's a new thing when it's been done since the days of the Egyptian old kingdom, and probably long before that. Ya, war sucks and in a perfect world we wouldn't have it. But you know what? Sometimes leaders need to do terrible things to secure their country's future and present prosperity. The sooner we all realize that America isn't the world's police, and stop expecting us to act like anything other than a Super Power trying to maintain its power, the sooner we'll be able to move on and have constructive discussion.
 

Cliff_m85

New member
Feb 6, 2009
2,581
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
Cliff_m85 said:
When the UN doesn't punish those who did such, they are all bound to be judged.
Except it did punish them, as much as it could. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Investigations]

You've got to remember that the troops the UN uses are not the UN's troops, they are the militaries of separate sovereign nations. It'd be like the US punishing UK troops for the actions of those troops in Iraq or something, except even more unlikely than that.

That and the fact that it's not really a United Nation, as many countries (America, for instance) get more say than other countries.
I suppose you're one of those who thinks that the USA isn't really a democracy, either.
Seeing how it's a republic, I'd say that I don't think it is a democracy as we elect representatives rather than vote on everything individually.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
oh fuck me. ANOTHER WAR?

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

Setupdown

New member
Jun 13, 2010
11
0
0
Oh god the amount of morons in this threads hurts. Rebels were going to be mass murdered. A near genocide of sorts. The only MERCS are hired by gaddafi. The rebels are a mix of civilians turned freedom fighters (yeah they're not rebels. Infact they're defending themselves) and defected military forces whom don't want to slaughter their people.

Really Escapist. We have Yatzee on this site yet I still see some really uneducated blind opinions. On the topic of oil, well maybe we might get rewarded by the rebels with oil if they succede in taking Libya from Gaddafi's iron grip. We save their arses we get some oil in return. Only fair.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
Cliff_m85 said:
Seeing how it's a republic, I'd say that I don't think it is a democracy as we elect representatives rather than vote on everything individually.
Thought so. Where the hell did this definition of Democracy come from? It's far too narrow. It's like people use 'Democracy' as shorthand for 'Direct Democracy'

A Republic is just a state without a monarchy. It doesn't specify the power structure beyond that. You can have a Republic without people voting at all. The two aren't one and the same, and they aren't mutually exclusive.

A Democracy is a power structure where the power is held by the people and authority conferred from their consent in the form of a mandate. The US is a democracy despite having representatives, it's just not a Direct Democracy. It's a Representative Democracy.

Or, if you want to be more specific, a Republican Representative Democracy.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
For once I'm glad to see the UN are actually doing something about the violence instead of merely condemning breaches of human rights in the background while innocent people suffer. I'm usually agaisnt war but the cost to the people of Liyba will be too great if Gadaffi is allowed to stay in power, I think the world cannot stand back and watch this happen.
 

Pyro Paul

New member
Dec 7, 2007
842
0
0
funguy2121 said:
BoosterGold said:
Bek359 said:
Did they actually declare war, or just the no-fly zone? Because there is a difference, you see.
War was declared,
Source! The people call for a source! And anything from Wikipedia shall be struck from the record!
There isn't any.

US, French, and British forces are setting up elements to enforce the no-fly zone.

each nation already has a contengency plan in the event that the Libyan airforce doesn't follow this 'No-fly' order. This contengency includes attacks on Military installations, Airfields, Military Radar installations, and Anti-Aircraft sites all in the goal to gain Air Superiority and prevent flight of Unauthorized personal.

as far as i have seen, no decleration of war nor sign of hostile actions have taken place.
 

Madman123456

New member
Feb 11, 2011
590
0
0
Another War. I would begin to think this is a good thing, since humanity could use a little trimming. With all the warmongers around.
Sadly, this will not kill a single one of those warmongers but rather soldiers and loads of innocent People.
 

SPARTAN-117

New member
Aug 29, 2009
27
0
0
no, no they havent
removing the loony genocidal bastard from power would be great right about now but it looks like the UN would prefer to not be actively involved in the conflict
and they can decide what to do about the oil later, personally id like to think we're in it for more than just the material benefits but oh well
(more spellings of "Gaddafi" than you could possibly imagine, i lol XD)
 

Brawndo

New member
Jun 29, 2010
2,165
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Bah, more 'We's iz there for teh oilz!' rhetoric.

It grows tiresome.
Why, because it's often true?

The UN and United States never pushed earnestly for intervention in Darfur... but Libya produces 2% of the world's oil, and the US and UK have a score to settle with Qaddafi. There's usually an ulterior motive.
 

chiggerwood

Lurker Extrordinaire
May 10, 2009
865
0
0
BoosterGold said:
I don't believe it, another war, isn't the United Nations Peace Council supposed to keep peace. Seems like the only thing they do now is approve of wars.
The unfortunate thing that many people can't seem to grasp is that many times for there to be peace there must be war. Peace, and freedom are born as a child; with pain, blood, and the tears of mothers. Especially when dealing like a mad man like Muammar Gaddafi.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
I love how so many conservatives (notice I didn't say all or most) will plug their ears when liberals decry the bullshit war in Iraq only to "turn it around on them" when we support justified military action for humanitarian reasons. It's like mocking us for being mad when you punch someone in the face for no reason, then calling us hypocrits when we punch someone in the face for brutally assaulting an innocent person.

If you don't understand the importance of context, you probably shouldn't be deciding ANYTHING.

Edit: and to clarify, I think Democrats are basically corrupt cowards. But you probably don't want to know what I think of Republicans.
 

lewiswhitling

New member
May 18, 2009
102
0
0
JaceValm said:
Continuity said:
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.
The Libyan rebels actually want that to happen, they requested an assasination attempt on G/Qadaffi
Some libyan rebels actually captured some SAS and MI6 personel - and locked them up, because they didnt want "western" intervention sullying their strive for freedom. This should probably never be allowed to become a ground war.
 

ekkaman

New member
Feb 19, 2009
126
0
0
Continuity said:
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.
Like the ones that got captured by a bunch of rag tag rebels?
 

Continuity

New member
May 20, 2010
2,053
0
0
ekkaman said:
Continuity said:
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.
Like the ones that got captured by a bunch of rag tag rebels?
Ok you're like the 4th person to quote me mentioning this... yes its amusing but that wasn't an SAS hit squad, they were just escorting a diplomat and they were "captured" by allies
 

SPARTAN-117

New member
Aug 29, 2009
27
0
0
Fleischer said:
Tdc2182 said:
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 Musilins 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? -.-
 

Calcium

New member
Dec 30, 2010
529
0
0
We didn't declare war.

I think there's justification for intervention, but it's not a full out war. Peaceful protestors were being shot till things turned ugly. Then Ghadafi bombs his own people. Two Libyan pilots even flew their planes out of Libya to take asylum in Malta because they had the courage and sensibility to disobey orders and not bomb their own people.

If it wasn't for the fiasco of Iraq would people be so hesitant about Libya today? I doubt it. Libya is a much more 'acceptable' target, but of course it begs the question: Will we be getting involved in other countries in the region?

At least the threat of war has been enough to stop the offensive... for now.
 

Doive

New member
Nov 6, 2010
165
0
0
BoosterGold said:
Bek359 said:
Did they actually declare war, or just the no-fly zone? Because there is a difference, you see.
War was declared,
No, war has not been declared. A no-fly zone has been imposed, meaning gaddafi is not allowed to operate aircraft. UN forces are also allowed to air strike/bombard libyan military if they are going to harm civilians and can shoot down libyan aircraft if they are in violation of the no-fly zone.

This is not currently a war, look up the definition of war and the terms of the UN agreement before starting a thread based on inaccuracies.