US(and a bunch of other places) vs Libya, GO!

[Project Nemesis]

I don't get how they can go after Libya, and continue to ignore North Korea.

North Korea has nuclear weapons and an alliance with China...

Now THIS is the real reason. I wanted to say it first but you were faster. It's quite easy to understand why the US (or anyone else) doesn't pick on N Korea yet. N Korea has nukes and an alliance with China (which means a shitload more of nukes and world's largest economy). So unless the US wants Armageddon they won't dare to fuck with China. No one fucks with China and expects to get away with it alive.

PS: I am not Chinese.

 

[Baradiel]

I don't get how they can go after Libya, and continue to ignore North Korea.

North Korea has the backing of China and, to some extent, Russia. Either of those countries could veto any UN action, and it could easily escalate if one of those super powers decided to help their ally. Libya is a international pariah.

Also, if your cynical, North Korea doesn't have any oil...

Even china is growing sick of North Korea and the reason why korea has been quite of late is because china told them to stand down, so I doubt china or russia would object to UN action if North Korea started making noise again.

And being cynical on subjects like this, I'd go as far to say that they have been waiting for lybia to go into civil war or maybe even initiated it for the oil, though that might be going too far. But we all know the UN has a history of being free of corruption, backing up just causes for no profit, bringing peace wherever they go and not being biased...

To your first point; true, China does seem to be getting tired with their little brother, but I believe that they would still step in to help. Removing the "Communist" system in North Korea would lead to a unified Korea, backed (most likely) by the US. Sino-American relations may be pretty steady, but I doubt they would be willing to allow their historic enemy another foothold closer to China.

To your second; I hope your last sentence is tongue-in-cheek. Seriously. It can't not be. Please tell me its sarcastic. PLEASE!

I thought it was obvious it was sarcasm. I'll put /sarcasm in next time for you then

I was pretty sure that it was sarcastic, but I needed to hear it from you

 

[RabbiiFrystofsk]

Just remember people, if it all goes tits up we can always "BLAME CANADA!, BLAME CANADA!"

 

[RabbiiFrystofsk]

Quick question.

Right before I went to bed, the Old Media(here in the US) was going on and on about France destroying one truck with a bunch of fighter jets. Why was that such a big deal? I woke up and they were back to normal, but that first bit was really odd.


Normally they hate France. A lot. Like if the French ambassador said the sky was blue, they'd have a dissertation ready explaining that the sky is everything but blue because of reflection of various wavelengths of light or something.

If i remember from what i heard on BBC last night it was because the French did it without consultation from the rest of the coalition (i.e US, UK etc) which is a pretty stupid move to take really.
But it's France, they can't do shit right.

 

[Project Nemesis]

Just remember people, if it all goes tits up we can always "BLAME CANADA!, BLAME CANADA!"

Now that u mention it...Gaddafi's elite bodyguards are women

 

[Zaik]

Quick question.

Right before I went to bed, the Old Media(here in the US) was going on and on about France destroying one truck with a bunch of fighter jets. Why was that such a big deal? I woke up and they were back to normal, but that first bit was really odd.


Normally they hate France. A lot. Like if the French ambassador said the sky was blue, they'd have a dissertation ready explaining that the sky is everything but blue because of reflection of various wavelengths of light or something.

If i remember from what i heard on BBC last night it was because the French did it without consultation from the rest of the coalition (i.e US, UK etc) which is a pretty stupid move to take really.
But it's France, they can't do shit right.

Ah. That's fairly uncharacteristic of them, from a very western perspective. I can see why they'd make a fuss about it.

To clarify, it sounded like they were going to throw a party over it, not condemn it, which is generally what we see every time something from France happens.

 

[Baradiel]

I hope Gaddafi Wins in this conflict.

Can I infer as to why?

Well attacking your own civilians is not a big deal and the rest of the worlds countries should mind there own shit and even though Gaddafi is winning if the rebels win there will still be civil war and a power vacuum.

Yeah, I kinda stopped listening to you after the first 10 words.

He has a pint though, considering nothing was done about China killing its own people, its all becuase there is oil envolved.

Or because, you know, China has a population of over a billion and is one of the most powerful nations in the world? I could imagine that playing a pretty big factor...

Right because its only their job to play world police when its easy. Either you make everyone play by your rules or dont even bother.

That's exactly how being "world police" works. If the US government *truly* believed in freedom for all people and all that bull, they would attempt to topple every totalitarian government in the world (eg, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt [America backed Mubarak])

For some reason or other, they don't. For China, it's probably because they are a world power, have nuclear weapons, have a strong military and have good trade links with the US. The US government doesn't want to deal with China.

Saudi Arabia has oil, and has used the control of oil to great effect in the past (Yom Kippur War, for example). The Saudi King is also quite friendly to the West. Invading Saudi Arabia could create an alliance between other Arab states, and could quickly escalate. Again, no reason for the US government to intervene in Saudi affairs.

Mubarak was reasonably friendly to Israel, Americas satellite state in the Middle East. Making the regime unstable could have led to "regional instability", so the Americans ignored the fact they were on good terms with a dictator.

If America truly was the "World Police", I'd hate to have them as my local police force. "Oh, we can't break up that smuggling ring because its too dangerous." "Ooh, sorry, that rapist gives us money." America only imposes its will on countries unable to fight back properly and unwilling to benefit America. Just the way it is.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I don't get how they can go after Libya, and continue to ignore North Korea.

Because North Korea hasn't openly used military assets in a war level responce against its own populace.

Libya's air force has been bombing civilian installations, killing innocent people that have nothing to do with the rebels.

And why have they done this?
To instill fear amongst the people, to show that by simply being in close proximity to what the government deems 'rebels' makes you are a target.

 

[Baradiel]

Quick question.

Right before I went to bed, the Old Media(here in the US) was going on and on about France destroying one truck with a bunch of fighter jets. Why was that such a big deal? I woke up and they were back to normal, but that first bit was really odd.


Normally they hate France. A lot. Like if the French ambassador said the sky was blue, they'd have a dissertation ready explaining that the sky is everything but blue because of reflection of various wavelengths of light or something.

HAHAHAHA! That made me laugh so much! By the "Old Media", do you mean right-wing conservative channels like Fox and all that?

 

[Zaik]

Quick question.

Right before I went to bed, the Old Media(here in the US) was going on and on about France destroying one truck with a bunch of fighter jets. Why was that such a big deal? I woke up and they were back to normal, but that first bit was really odd.


Normally they hate France. A lot. Like if the French ambassador said the sky was blue, they'd have a dissertation ready explaining that the sky is everything but blue because of reflection of various wavelengths of light or something.

HAHAHAHA! That made me laugh so much! By the "Old Media", do you mean right-wing conservative channels like Fox and all that?

Spoiler

# Radio

* Rush Limbaugh
* Howard Stern
* Opie & Anthony

# Television

* Networks: CNN, Fox, MSNBC, MTV, BET
* Liberal media
* Bill O'Reilly
* Keith Olbermann
* Sean Hannity
* Dan Rather
* Glenn Beck

# Tabloids

* Annalise Walliker

# Magazines

* Time Magazine
* The Economist

# Newspapers

* The Guardian

# Web 1.0

* Yahoo!
* Wikipedia
* Drudge Report

# MRI

* Iworshipsatin

# BBS

* Citadel
* Cult of the Dead Cow
* &TOTSE

Is what ED has to say on the matter. I'd have just linked to the page but the first thing you see is a guy with a telephone half hanging out his ass, so I'll just copy and paste.

 

[rex922]

Honestly im pretty sure that we have much bigger problems to solve than libya(world hunger anyone?)

On top of that: im willing to bet that majority of the countries that are supporting the US's removal of Gaddafi is in a debt of some sort or needs money(just guessing here)

Anyway i dont really know how the people there are feeling or living so i cant comment on that but im not sure that the action the UN is taking is the appropriate one

 

[supermariner]

I don't get how they can go after Libya, and continue to ignore North Korea.

thats very simple
if they go after North Korea there's a possibility they can actually fight back

plus Libya is attacking it's own citizens and is in a state of revolution
North Korea may be a fascist state, but it's not the job of any other country to go in and change that just because they disagree with it if the countries own citizens aren't fighting for their freedom themselves

 

[Baradiel]

I hope Gaddafi Wins in this conflict.

Can I infer as to why?

Well attacking your own civilians is not a big deal and the rest of the worlds countries should mind there own shit and even though Gaddafi is winning if the rebels win there will still be civil war and a power vacuum.

Yeah, I kinda stopped listening to you after the first 10 words.

He has a pint though, considering nothing was done about China killing its own people, its all becuase there is oil envolved.

Or because, you know, China has a population of over a billion and is one of the most powerful nations in the world? I could imagine that playing a pretty big factor...

Right because its only their job to play world police when its easy. Either you make everyone play by your rules or dont even bother.

That's exactly how being "world police" works. If the US government *truly* believed in freedom for all people and all that bull, they would attempt to topple every totalitarian government in the world (eg, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt [America backed Mubarak])

For some reason or other, they don't. For China, it's probably because they are a world power, have nuclear weapons, have a strong military and have good trade links with the US. The US government doesn't want to deal with China.

Saudi Arabia has oil, and has used the control of oil to great effect in the past (Yom Kippur War, for example). The Saudi King is also quite friendly to the West. Invading Saudi Arabia could create an alliance between other Arab states, and could quickly escalate. Again, no reason for the US government to intervene in Saudi affairs.

Mubarak was reasonably friendly to Israel, Americas satellite state in the Middle East. Making the regime unstable could have led to "regional instability", so the Americans ignored the fact they were on good terms with a dictator.

If America truly was the "World Police", I'd hate to have them as my local police force. "Oh, we can't break up that smuggling ring because its too dangerous." "Ooh, sorry, that rapist gives us money." America only imposes its will on countries unable to fight back properly and unwilling to benefit America. Just the way it is.

Which is pretty much why I think its pathetic the world gets envolved, its either becuase we want god terms with rebels when they get the oil or its becuase its an easy one sided fight.

Probably both =/

 

[Baldry]

Yey...War.

It's saddening that "peace" has to be achieved by battle, can't wait to see how this goes and play the game that eventually come out!

 

[Korolev]

As no doubt 100 others have said, this isn't the US Vs Libya. The US isn't taking the lead, and initially, wanted NOTHING to do with this conflict. Yes, believe it or not, France and the UK are the ones who pushed for this. Why France was so eager to fight just miiiiight have something to do with Sarkozy's upcoming election, in which he lags behind in the polls. Cameron's hoping for a "Thatcher-like" moment, and the US is busy shaking its head saying "oh why me?". For once the US doesn't actually want to fight, but is doing so because the UK helped them in Iraq and the French are helping them in Afghanistan, so it would seem awfully rude for them to not chip in.

And it's not "Vs Libya". It's "Vs Gaddafi". Gaddafi isn't Libya anymore than Saddam was Iraq.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Huh. They actually finally did something?

That's a bit surprising.

Well, yeah, Gaddafi had it coming, unfortunately. It took the UN too long, I say.

Will they go after Yemen next? Their government fucking fired at their own protesters too, killing over 40 people.

 

[Macrobstar]

War. War never changes

 

[Doug]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

I can see this ending well for the rebellion.

So, the French start this, and yet you jump up with "US (and some people who don't matter), wooooooo!"