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

[Shycte]

You know, I think it's good of democracy is spreading and all that. But you have to remember that this has been no peaceful demostation. Not all of those rebels are nice guys.

Also, ask that CNN-reporter who basicly got ganged rape sexual harrast in Cairo if she thinks that everything is going smoothly.

 

[Baneat]

People should abandon the pretension that governments are helping purely out of moral interest. We have something to gain through intervention, we always do.

This UN resolution has the backing of the Arab nations. There will be no occupation. This isn't about stealing a country's resources - if you want to be cynical, the angle you should be gunning for is that, what with Western Democracies verbally supporting the rebels, if Gaddafi remains in power he can use his oil as an economic weapon to get revenge against those supporting the revolutionaries. By helping the revolution militarily, said powers will hope to support regime change to one that is thankful for their intervention and will provide favourable rates of trade on the oil.

That's pretty much as negative as you can get, and it's pretty tame really - especially considering all the other excuses Gaddafi's been giving everyone else to kick him out.

Just cause I think you quoted the wrong guy before, and this applies to you too

Nah, the right guy, was backing the point. It just seems.. odd that the UK rarely lifts a finger to aid countries, but coincidentally when that country holds value to them (Resources or something like that) we're all humanitarians. I don't buy it.

 

[Wicky_42]

People should abandon the pretension that governments are helping purely out of moral interest. We have something to gain through intervention, we always do.

This UN resolution has the backing of the Arab nations. There will be no occupation. This isn't about stealing a country's resources - if you want to be cynical, the angle you should be gunning for is that, what with Western Democracies verbally supporting the rebels, if Gaddafi remains in power he can use his oil as an economic weapon to get revenge against those supporting the revolutionaries. By helping the revolution militarily, said powers will hope to support regime change to one that is thankful for their intervention and will provide favourable rates of trade on the oil.

That's pretty much as negative as you can get, and it's pretty tame really - especially considering all the other excuses Gaddafi's been giving everyone else to kick him out.

Just cause I think you quoted the wrong guy before, and this applies to you too

Nah, the right guy, was backing the point. It just seems.. odd that the UK rarely lifts a finger to aid countries, but coincidentally when that country holds value to them (Resources or something like that) we're all humanitarians. I don't buy it.

We give loads of aid to third world countries - like, £3 billion worth or something. We just generally don't send in the troops unless there's a good excuse - and protecting the future supply of oil AT THE SAME TIME AS saving countless lives from what is basically straight forward slaughter. Sure, there's very likely to be economic reasons being high in the consideration (like I said above), but are you seriously saying that saving the civilians is completely irrelevant?!

 

[Maclennan]

They have some economically exploitable off shore deposits, nothing truly significant but you can't say they have no oil.

The better explanation is they have a much larger army with training from the Chinese military and have the ability to detonate nuclear bombs. Not missiles mind you, its unlikely they can miniaturize nuclear technology yet but they could build a suicide boat with a nuclear payload and run that into a valuable seat port if they are backed into a corner.

 

[Furioso]

Why are you people assuming it's the US doing this, France fired the first shots

 

[spartandude]

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

Because while both Korea and Libya have been doing pretty horrible things, Libya is alot weaker and has alot more oil than North Korea

 

[yaik7a]

This could be useful:

Allied forces

UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines

France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships

US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney

Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available

Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel

I can't understand how certain individuals can support human rights (or even the bill of rights) and not support internationalist interventionism at the same time.

Because there is no reason why UN has the authority to do this to other countries.

 

[acer840]

I hope Gaddafi Wins in this conflict.

I'm sorry, but why? Opening fire on a peaceful protest doesn't seem like what a respectable leader would do.

 

[Baradiel]

This could be useful:

Allied forces

UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines

France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships

US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney

Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available

Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel

I can't understand how certain individuals can support human rights (or even the bill of rights) and not support internationalist interventionism at the same time.

Because there is no reason why UN has the authority to do this to other countries.

The UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, had virtually no power. It was established after the First World War to help prevent another conflict of those proportions, but it had no clout to back anything up.

How's your history? Was there a conflict, sometime after the First World War, that could be classed as a possible Second World War?

My point is, without any sort of power, the UN would be more useless than it is now. China and Russia, as the other two members of the Security Council, could have vetoed any action in Libya. To get to that stage, there has to be a vote in the United Nations involving every nation state.

Basically, it is the United Nations reason to exist, and joining the United Nations subscribes your country to their Charter.

 

[Bad Neighbour]

I don't understand why so many people are being so negative about this. We're going in to knock out probably the most obvious bad guy we've fought in a very long time. Shame on us if we didn't quite frankly. I'm in the OTC (officers training corps, university army thing basically) in the UK and our TA officers were itching for us (as in the army, not a bunch of students, lol) to go in and take the bastard out.

It's not about how 'fair' it is to attack someone who's obviously not as powerful as we are. It's about how unfair it is for him to send airstrikes against his own god damn citizens and stopping him from doing it any more. You can't reason with Gaddafi, because he's blatenty out of his tree, so he has to be taken out, and all the whining about how peace through war sucks isn't going to change that because other approaches clearly aren't going to work here. This isn't like Iraq where people thought 'hey lets invent shit so we can go in.' There is a very real and very obvious reason why we should and I personally think we've taken long enough about it already.

I'm also really bored of people throwing in the predictable North Korea argument. We fought them before remember? That's why there IS a fucking north and south Korea. We've already dealt with it, and for all the wacky crap that goes on there they're not blatently shelling their own people (you might not agree with the regime in NK but it's not exactly unstable is it?) and they're not doing anything aggressive that the US can't just turn round to and say 'gtfo North Korea.' When they looked aggressive before the US pretty much just paraded a bunch of warships around and that was that. North Korea is like a hissing house cat; pissed off but not very dangerous, certainly not as dangerous as a lot of people think, especially as they're surrounded by UN countries as someone already pointed out. Plus we're not needlessly winding up other countries by going into Libya like we would if we went into Korea.

It's a real shame Libya has oil really. Because it means everyone's going to whine that we're going in for that instead of going in to do the right thing.

Edit - Also I really resent the title of this thread. We're against Gaddafi, not Libya.

Editedit - Actually screw that, the entire thread title is horseshit. US (and a bunch of other places)? Just who the fuck do you think you are?

 

[AlexWinter]

I hope Gaddafi Wins in this conflict.

Quit trolling.

OT: I think this is a good thing, obviously someone had to interfere in Libya.

You don't watch your neighbours beat their kids without doing anything.

I'm slightly disappointed we didn't act sooner but I suppose we had to wait for it to get worse to avoid it looking like we were just after their oil.

 

[Magikarp]

When you say 'US & some other countries', It gives me an image of a fat redneck waving a shotgun is the air whilst chanting "USA! USA!".

 

[AlexWinter]

Actually, thats the people.

The US government CANNOT kill its own civilians. Only a criminal's fellow peers can.

I agree with you here that the death penalty is not the US government killing it's own people.

Yaik7a is most likely an attention starved 12-year-old that caught his parents playing hide the sausage once.

However there was a law passed a while ago giving the FBI (or the CIA, I don't quite remember) the power to kill US citizens. But that was only because of some terrorist that had somehow acquired US citizenship and not part of some conspiracy like Yaik7a seemed to be implying.

 

[Smokej]

My point is, without any sort of power, the UN would be more useless than it is now. China and Russia, as the other two members of the Security Council, could have vetoed any action in Libya. To get to that stage, there has to be a vote in the United Nations involving every nation state.

Basically, it is the United Nations reason to exist, and joining the United Nations subscribes your country to their Charter.

The legal foundation of this operation highly debatable. The installation of a No-Flight zone interferes with the sovereignty of a state. The No-Flight zone is an armed enforcement of peace regarding the UN Charta. This a protection responsibility which the UN claims to have but this is controversial according to international law (there was a statement of the UN Security Council regarding this concept, which was debated by several experts in international law these days)

The problem here is that the armed assault on Lybia's people wasn't enough of a reason for intervention; this is by no means the level of a full blown Genocide (Ruanda and the likes)

It's a sad truth that assaults of this level are pretty common, it's just that this conflict is very media-driven atm...

There is also the fact that Lybia wasn't threatening the international peace which would be the case if it attacks neighbors or the neighboring countries would start to militarily intervene in this conflict.

 

[HuCast]

Well...maybe just maybe Yaik7a lives in a different part of the world that does not totally agree with the UN/american interference into a national conflict in Lybia? Just guessin.
Not everybody in the world has to share the same opinion.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Because there is no reason why UN has the authority to do this to other countries.

Uh... Yes there is.

Human rights are for humans. The UN is supposed to enforce human rights. Human rights are being violated here, so the UN can step in to stop that violation.

Don't go saying that there are big violations going on which the UN isn't doing anything about, because you wouldn't know what you're talking about. The UN might not be doing well in those cases, but it is doing something, and in any case that wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing here.

 

[Baradiel]

My point is, without any sort of power, the UN would be more useless than it is now. China and Russia, as the other two members of the Security Council, could have vetoed any action in Libya. To get to that stage, there has to be a vote in the United Nations involving every nation state.

Basically, it is the United Nations reason to exist, and joining the United Nations subscribes your country to their Charter.

The legal foundation of this operation highly debatable. The installation of a No-Flight zone interferes with the sovereignty of a state. The No-Flight zone is an armed enforcement of peace regarding the UN Charta. This a protection responsibility which the UN claims to have but this is controversial according to international law (there was a statement of the UN Security Council regarding this concept, which was debated by several experts in international law these days)

The problem here is that the armed assault on Lybia's people wasn't enough of a reason for intervention; this is by no means the level of a full blown Genocide (Ruanda and the likes)

It's a sad truth that assaults of this level are pretty common, it's just that this conflict is very media-driven atm...

There is also the fact that Lybia wasn't threatening the international peace which would be the case if it attacks neighbors or the neighboring countries would start to militarily intervene in this conflict.

Very good points. I suppose this intervention is heavily motivated by the media attention its gained.