Poll: Libya and my mother

[LitleWaffle]

I just had a 20 minute argument with my mother. She believes that we shouldn't have launched missiles at Libya, while I believe it was a good decision.

Personally, I believe that if innocent lives are being decimated, then yes we should interfere with the people killing them, and if a no-fly zone will help that, than i'm all for it.

So what I ask you escapist people:

Is it right for us to interfere with their dilemmas?

Should America police the world?(If you don't live in America, you could think of your own country with the same capabilities as America or something along those lines).

Is it right for us to save innocent lives at the cost of killing a side you don't like? Would that make it justified for another country to do that to yours?

 

[moretimethansense]

I believe that America (and anyone else for that matter) should absolutly NOT police the world, on the other hand some people just need missile'd.
Short awnser: I don't know.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

I think invading the oil-richest country in Africa is a brilliant idea and I'm actually real surprised that we haven't done this earlier.

 

[Littlee300]

A no fly zone and weapon distribution would be good. Also extremely safe missiles that are sure to only hit military personnel. If there is a really good looking opportunity that would only work for ground units than they should take it but it'd be best for the rebels to do this own their own. It may save the life of the person who finds the cure for cancer or something.

Is it right for us to save innocent lives at the cost of killing a side you don't like?

Well that takes simple logic to decide on.

 

[The_Healer]

Well for one, this time it wasn't the US's decision.
The UN have completely sanctioned this one guys.

Although I think it would have made more sense to send in a special forces team to assasinate Gaddafi, but what do I know?

 

[JRCB]

Eh, there are never truly good intentions behind any actions. I agree that saving civilians is good, and helping get rid of dictators is good, but they shouldn't play world police. Nobody should, as everyone will try to go in with their own intentions.

Now, if only we would allow mercenaries with a good moral compass to do these things.

 

[CCountZero]

The way I see it, pretty much all countries have had their share of problems.

A lot of the "policing" being done internationally isn't neccesarily "right".

I don't believe we have a "right" to interfere with the inner workings of another nation, regardless of what happens, genocide or not.

However, we do interfere. Many would hide it behind "human rights" and "geneva conventions", but those concepts are just BS ways of making us feel righteous.

It all comes down to us wanting to dictate our ways unto others.
I don't disagree that we should.

There is no universal right or truth that allows us to interfere. We just do it anyway, because we can, and that's important to remember.

 

[CCountZero]

I think it would have made more sense to send in a special forces team to assasinate Gaddafi, but what do I know?

That would have been my preference as well. I hate the man with a passion. He's a tyrant and is truely one of the very few people in the world who deserves capital punishment.

However, an assasination would have started a massive shitstorm, with people rallying against the west, seeing us as the new tyrant.

 

[jawakiller]

I think the countries natural resources alone make it worth conqu- I mean liberating. Haha. Nobody makes the rules in world politics. The UN is a joke, they can't enforce anything. So to answer the question, yes the U.S. should. It makes perfect military sense. And according to most people, truth is subjective. And there are no absolutes. So using popular reasoning; there is no reason why not.

 

[Smagmuck_]

My own father believes that the coalition should not be involved in Libya at all, stating that if it doesn't harm any civilians or military personal of it, we should not interfere. Plus, he believes that the Rebel Faction is art of the Al Qaida/Taliban system. Now, I think other wise, but I can see why he thinks this as he had a very poor experience with a Muslim neighbor of ours several years back that lead him to generalize all of the Islamic Religion and I can see no way to sway him of this...

OT: I believe the United States should have a minimal involvement, I support the need for humanitarian relief to Libya's civilian population and such, But I don't not want out military there unless we're directly affected by the Loyalist Factions...

 

[k3v1n]

yes, in fact, it will interfer soon(Spain), although I don't fully aprove what they're doing, it seems like they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons...

 

[Eagle Est1986]

If a government starts shooting it's own people then other nations definitely should intervene. The UK is one of the countries enforcing the no fly zone and I fully support it. I only have a problem when we have troops occupying the country, send them in to clean up what the air force can't do but don't base them there for years, there's no need.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

The way I see it, pretty much all countries have had their share of problems.

A lot of the "policing" being done internationally isn't neccesarily "right".

I don't believe we have a "right" to interfere with the inner workings of another nation, regardless of what happens, genocide or not.

However, we do interfere. Many would hide it behind "human rights" and "geneva conventions", but those concepts are just BS ways of making us feel righteous.

It all comes down to us wanting to dictate our ways unto others.
I don't disagree that we should.

There is no universal right or truth that allows us to interfere. We just do it anyway, because we can, and that's important to remember.

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that if genocide is occurring in a country the rest of the world should just turn a blind eye?

 

[HellspawnCandy]

No it is not. We don't know if we're saving lives, they're missles I'm sure we're killing innocents as I write this. Not to mention who comes after Gaddaffi could be worse or could be better, we don't know.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I read this as Labia and my mother.

Expected a totally different story.

 

[SilentCom]

I'm not sure if the U.S. should have involvment in Libya. We're already fighting in Afghanistan and to my knowledge, the Libyan people did not ask for our assistance. I'm for helping Libya overthrow a tyrant if they ask for our help, otherwise if they didn't then I don't want my country to be viewed as an intruder into Libya's civil strife. Frankly, since it's UN forces getting involved, it doesn't seem so bad.

 

[2fish]

This is the lovely question of you see a person being murdered do you help but on a national scale. Sure as long as it doesn't impede on their rights.

Also I love the phrase America policing the world. I always see troops in Europe handing out tickets for driving on the wrong side of the road

 

[voetballeeuw]

What? The UN has sanctioned these actions, and the US, the UK, France are taking out Libya's air force to equalize the fight. The US is not walking around in Libya. The fight is still going to be between the rebels and Gaddafi.
I think it's the right thing to do. When people are getting slaughtered by an oppressive ruler, intervention is necessary.

 

[willsham45]

Simply put, I could put it in different ways, but simply put libia did nothing to anyone except themselves, from what I heard most things that gadaffi did was fabricated not to say he is a good guy, but what is happening in libya is a civil war. No country has any right to interfear we can root for one side or the other but we should not get involved.

You should never go to war with anyone who does not effect you and to add to that there are too many wars going on already and none of them are slowing down or going to end quickly no matter how much we are told otherwise.

And to go a little further this war was started by the UN since when do they have any authority to declare wars on nations.