Poll: Did the UN Just Declare War on Libya?! Yes they did
- Thread starter BoosterGold
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Seriously, how is anyone supposed to argue against shit like this that people pull right out of their ass?
Yeah, as we all know that laws are ALWAYS set forth by the good and benevolent, and always broken by the evil and unclean. *rolls eyes*
You can't just push a country into a civil war without some major fire starter already in place. If you could, the US would have had two or three civil wars already. Just look around at all the conservative lies, bullshit and misinformation vs. liberal lies, bullshit and misinformation we have to put up with year after year.
This planet needs a serious asteroid sized enema.
In this case, 'internal conflict' is the violent supression of civil unrest against a long running dictatorship. The American civil war was long before international law, so hardly reflects any hypocrisy on the part of the U.N. It was also a symmetrical war between two divided political entities, rather than an asymmetrical conflict between civilians and the army. The protesters are certainly not criminals and mercenaries. The reason the civil war started in the first place was due to aggressive government action against political protesters, not in response to mercenary activity. Libya is hardly a peaceful country, or at least not due to contentment. Gadaffi is a militant dictator; if his country was peaceful, it was forced. On top of all of that, there hasn't even been a declaration of war at all. The U.N. has implemented a no fly zone, and are negotiating an end to conflict, although admittedly the threat of military action is present, should Libya refuse to cooperate. This is exactly what the U.N. are for.Srdjan said:
Because Gadaffi is a murdering psychopath oppressing his people and killing those who protest his actions, most (including myself) would like to see him out of power. So thats probably why there are so many yes's.Khada said:
Actually just read the two above statements to clarify things.
Taking over land peoples through conquest and subsequent annexation isn't uniting genius. Beside if such an absurd thing was true then leaving Saddam and Gadaffi in power would've worked great since the constant antagonism of them would have stopped anything like that from happening.spartan231490 said:
No? Last time I checked, having a coherent empire containing multiple peoples that lasts for generations is pretty much the definition of unity. And I don't know about Gadaffi, but Saddam was a strong leader. He may have been a despot, but he maintained order and the people obeyed, and he maintained stable power for years.Boborappa said:
Well, I certainly don't know much about the situation in Libya, but I had heard that the rebels wanted sympathetic nations with military power to establish a blockade and a no-fly zone over the country to help them even the odds by preventing Gadaffi's supporters from using air and naval superiority to crush the rebellion outright, but did not want them to commit any ground forces out of fear that the assisting nations would then seize control over the country.Dr Snakeman said:
Of course, as is now apparently the case, if the rebels are going to lose anyway I imagine they'd rather have foreign control than Gadaffi control.
Short History Lesson: The only reason the United States was able to defeat Britain during the revolutionary war was because we got the French to step in and give us military support. And the only reason the French decided to help was because it seemed like a good way to screw Britain over.KushinLos said:
The Take-Away: Throwing in behind a revolution doesn't necessarily have to end up as imperialism. And this is a bit different from Iraq in that the Libyans decided to rebel against Gadaffi on their own, whereas in Iraq the U.S. pretty much just unseated Saddam because they wanted to.
I do have a question for you though. I'm not one to rush to the "oh we are only there for oil" argument, honestly I get tired of it too. But I have noticed that all of the wars and genocides in African countries you never saw any country rush in to help protect the citizens other than a few UN peacekeepers which don't do anything unless fired on first. Yet you see all these countries mounting up arms to help a country rich in oil. You have to admit even the smallest amount that it seems rather suspicious.Daystar Clarion said:
i thought the UN,US,NATO and any other western organisation with a military power should have gone in long ago into all areas to deal with the instability, in enough force to deal with the problem in 5 mins. For a few reasons i believe this.
1) with backing the wars could be over soon and prolonged war leads to more casualties so stopping the war fast is a good thing.
2) Most of the current rulers are about as close to cartoon evil as one can get without actually changing there name to Dr Evil.
3) Unlike in the past, i.e american civil war as someone said on page one, the world is a much bigger global economy as such destabilization in one region, especially one with a vital resource, is sure to effect others a quicker resolution will mean less disruption for the rest of the world.
4) if the majority of said country wants to have a change in governing style, in most of these countries either dictatorships or absolute monarchy and put in place a democracy etc, even more so when the current government makes life hell for the people. but the government says no and call Mr Army to help then it is other countries duty to step in and help the people of that country. A dumbed down example is a school if one kid hogs all the toys should the teacher not step and and change things? or should the kid who bully's the rest have all the toys to himself?
thats my opinion anyway.
1) with backing the wars could be over soon and prolonged war leads to more casualties so stopping the war fast is a good thing.
2) Most of the current rulers are about as close to cartoon evil as one can get without actually changing there name to Dr Evil.
3) Unlike in the past, i.e american civil war as someone said on page one, the world is a much bigger global economy as such destabilization in one region, especially one with a vital resource, is sure to effect others a quicker resolution will mean less disruption for the rest of the world.
4) if the majority of said country wants to have a change in governing style, in most of these countries either dictatorships or absolute monarchy and put in place a democracy etc, even more so when the current government makes life hell for the people. but the government says no and call Mr Army to help then it is other countries duty to step in and help the people of that country. A dumbed down example is a school if one kid hogs all the toys should the teacher not step and and change things? or should the kid who bully's the rest have all the toys to himself?
thats my opinion anyway.
The UN cant declare war
Also the middle east is a complicated palce with dictatorships, theocracys and a Monarchy (Saudi Arabia, one of the last real monarchys)
On a side note this is not a good place to debate politics as most people are very uninformed
Also the middle east is a complicated palce with dictatorships, theocracys and a Monarchy (Saudi Arabia, one of the last real monarchys)
On a side note this is not a good place to debate politics as most people are very uninformed
United States will probably be blamed again. [http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/?hpt=T1] Damn American's with their air traffic control, surveillance aircraft/drones, and fueling aircraft.
Frankly, its too little too late. The international community should have stepped in back when the deadliest weapons the protesters had were their picket signs- but they were being gunned down from fucking fighter jets anyway.
Now, all they're doing is backing the loosing side in what has essentialy devolved into, practically, a civil war. What they're doing is escalating the conflict. Plus, the rebels don't even WANT us to help them.
I say, let them solve their own differences. Once protesters pick up guns and form militias, you really can't call them 'civilians' any more, now can you? We don't have any real stake in the conflict, it isn't our place to get involved. We let the humanitarian crisis pass by, and now it's too late to help, only make things worse.
Also, whoever says this war is for oil is a fucking retard. The US doesn't even get any oil from Libya in the first place.
Now, all they're doing is backing the loosing side in what has essentialy devolved into, practically, a civil war. What they're doing is escalating the conflict. Plus, the rebels don't even WANT us to help them.
I say, let them solve their own differences. Once protesters pick up guns and form militias, you really can't call them 'civilians' any more, now can you? We don't have any real stake in the conflict, it isn't our place to get involved. We let the humanitarian crisis pass by, and now it's too late to help, only make things worse.
Also, whoever says this war is for oil is a fucking retard. The US doesn't even get any oil from Libya in the first place.
The Un was originally founded to make sure war never happens again. Since its creation at the end of WW2, there have been more than 150 wars around the world. The UN is about as useful as a one-legged man in as ass kicking contest over chocolate teapots.BoosterGold said:
I hope this doesn't escalate, and I also hope that the U.S doesn't get involved. It would be nice if my country focused more at home and on Allied nations then oily deserts. Not saying thats what all this is about, but it does seem that we have been ending up there more often.
Because there weren't civilians being killed before? Wow, someone is really not paying attention.
If you want to be concerned about this, there are far better reasons to do so- not least that if the UN enters the fray and Qadafis forces hold the country anyway, it will likely mean a renewal of Libya's terrorism against western nations after many years of relative peace.
You can broach that subject without the utterly groundless and inflammatory pinning of UN activities on Obama.
If you want to be concerned about this, there are far better reasons to do so- not least that if the UN enters the fray and Qadafis forces hold the country anyway, it will likely mean a renewal of Libya's terrorism against western nations after many years of relative peace.
You can broach that subject without the utterly groundless and inflammatory pinning of UN activities on Obama.