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

[Wicky_42]

Screw it, lets just blow them all up. Everyone, on all sides. Mass extinction = problem solved.

This is the easiest way to deal with all of these problems. Unfortunately, people with morale standards seem to believe mass extinction as a bad thing. (anyone else realize that the world's population started to skyrocket once the medical fields became advanced and the world decided it wanted to protect everyone)

http://subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/enviro_worldPopGrowth_charts.htm
the fact that the worlds population is basically exploding, a few mass exterminations could possibly help make our resources last longer. not that its likely to every happen.

If you're that concerned about it, why don't you volunteer your own country's population, hmm? You could start off with your home town - gotta save those resources! Especially useful if you're American, as they are the most wasteful per person, so would make the biggest difference! Better start with the babies; investing in lower resource use for the future.

 

[Dark Knifer]

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

 

[Azex]

cant wait for next years war...here's holding thumbs for WW3...itll give the CoD's more material to work with :<

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

Why does any country do that? Its because they could easily get resources with a friendly relationship. But now he's getting a might too big for his britches and needs to be settled down. Plus, the nations that did put him into power need to show they have a sense of control on their little lap dog, since what he's doing is causing unrest, which is disrupting oil supplies (I'm assuming thats what you're stating this is for, cause thats been the common answer).

Its a circle really. The country needs to be stable to resources, and resources help make the country stable. If one conflicts iwth the other (which it is now) then actions will need to be taken. Why this is under the guise of humanitarian efforts to save the people is so that the countries involved (mainly a France and Britain led UN, with some help from America cause we're all buddy buddy and enjoy the oil), is its alot easier to say that to the UN council and help get that support. There's equal parts on both sides as to why you would do this.

I really just see it as Britain cleaning up their mess, like what the US is trying to do in the Middle East (bin Laden) and what they tried to do in Viet Nam (Diem).

Also, I dont know how many bombers and missile the Congo has being launched over itself, so a No fly zone there would be something of a pointless effort.

 

[Wicky_42]

Whats the point in getting all Liberal about it, its still going to happen, the least we can do is support it.

Wow, that sounds like something a rapist would say...

Seriously, though, does anyone else get the itching feeling that we have have just witnessed the first shots of WWIII? Russia's already getting angry over this, Qadaffi's calling for support from all Islamic nations, and who knows what other countries may jump on board and start forming their own coalition...

I doubt it somewhat as the Arab League gave full support to the UN over the no fly zone.

Also, can everyone stop calling this a "war" that the USA started? It was a joint British-French initiative at the behest of the Libyan rebels. Last week, The British government was criticised by Washington over "loose talk" about the possibility of a no fly zone. I'm not saying that the US will have no part in the operations in Libya. They undoubtedly will, my point is simply that a lot of US politicians were not champing at the bit for another round in the middle east.

... US played a huge role in the opening salvoes, launching over a hundred of tommahawks from subs and ships against Libya's AA system in conjunction with a couple of British ships.

To quote the US's DoD:

Operation Odyssey Dawn is commanded by US Navy Adm Samuel J Locklear aboard the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Mount Whitney joins 24 other ships from Italy, Canada, the United Kingdom and France in launching the operation.

Cruise missiles from US submarines and frigates began the attack on the anti-aircraft system. A senior defense official speaking on background said the attacks will "open up the environment so we could enforce the no-fly zone from east to west throughout Libya."

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

 

[Cpt Corallis]

If anybody believes that the reason this is whole intervention is to protect civilians, then they need to open their eyes. What the hell are we doing going into another country, and interfering with an interior problem? No matter how much of a dick their government is, it's the official government. I understand that they fired on peaceful protesters, but when these peaceful protesters took up arms, the government suddenly has every right to use force against them. If you have your own civilians staging an armed uprising against you, organised by who know who, what would you do?

If you look at the world in black and white this intervention probably seems fully justified, especially if you're the white. But the world is just a load of different shades of grey, and you shouldn't ever look at anything one sided.

Meh. ramble ramble.

.

The issue is that Gaddafi does not have a legitimate government in the first place, coming to power through armed coup (as far as I am aware, someone correct me if I am wrong) and that any claims he may have had to legitimate authority went out the window when he began using open and illegitimate coercion against peaceful progresses exercising their human and democratic rights.

If his government was truly illegitimate then why were western governments still willing to treat his government as legitimate before all of this? I believe there's videos of Tony Blair and other European nations welcoming Gaddaffi with open arms only a few years ago.

I understand what you're saying, and maybe good will come of this, but there's numerous other examples where ruthless dictators have committed crimes far worse than this and nothing has been done. You don't see the UN enforcing no fly zones over the Democratic Republic of Congo do you? The only
reason we're intervening is because it's in the interest of some other nations, and not in the interest of the people. (However in this case their interests
coincide.)

I think that the reason the western leaders were willing to deal with Gaddafi was that , for Blair at least, there was clear evidence that Gaddafi had given up nuclear weapons and so he was slightly more palatable to their tastes after this. Similarly, and with no cynicism, the west relies on oil. Anyone who is willing to trade with them can expect some of the more unpleasant aspects of their regime to be overlooked. Incidentally part of the reason that there has been such a reaction in Europe especially is that Gaddafi is effectively their neighbour. They don't mind so much when it's the DRC who lives several streets away that is a problem but when it's crazy Gaddafi that you have to go to the corner shop with, the european nations will take much more of an interest.

(apologies if the previous metaphor made no sense, it is one o clockin the morning where I'm typing this

 

[crazypsyko666]

I see this ending in two months.

 

[Danny Ocean]

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.

 

[Tdc2182]

Because the Country is in shit condition.

The Lybians have expressed their disapproval with Ghaddaffis (I will never be able to spell that right) reign, and they don't have the man power to do anything about it.

He has started a genocide, and the UN (including England, USA, France, etc.) have a moral obligation to help.

People need to stop thinking in terms of "it's none of our business", and more along the lines of "they want freedom, and they deserve freedom."

I'm sure I have the unpopular view that the war in Iraq was a necessary one. Sure, it was a political and retarded shit fest, but it was necessary. We put Sadam out of power, and we granted democracy over the people. Well worth it in my opinion.

What is the UN if it won't even step up to help smaller countries?

 

[Slaanax]

I wonder if this well give the US a chance to actually use their F-22 Raptors. I hope we can kick Gaddafi out of power. The cruise missiles probably cost more than the targets they are hitting.

 

[Lopsided Weener]

If anybody believes that the reason this is whole intervention is to protect civilians, then they need to open their eyes. What the hell are we doing going into another country, and interfering with an interior problem? No matter how much of a dick their government is, it's the official government. I understand that they fired on peaceful protesters, but when these peaceful protesters took up arms, the government suddenly has every right to use force against them. If you have your own civilians staging an armed uprising against you, organised by who know who, what would you do?

No. Gaddafi was using jets on civilian protests long before and 'rebellion' arose. He saw the troubles in neighbouring countries, saw a rise in popular opinion for regime change, and decided he would stay in power at all costs, or take everyone else down with him. He is a grade A asshole - he's not even an elected government, just a dickhead with guns. Why are you defending him?

"I understand he fired on peaceful protesters, but..." there is no "but" to that. Step back and think for a second about what that implies. I simply can't comprehend this sort of an attitude.

Finally, no one's "going in" - just bombing the shit out of him to STOP HIM ASSAULTING CIVILIANS WITH AN ARMY. No ground forces; just aerial support to the home-grown rebellion.

I am not defending Gaddafi, I think he is an absolute idiot, but will we bomb anybody just because we don't like them? Western nations supporting the home grown rebellion just gives him more justification for himself and supporters. I am just pointing out that this is NOTHING to do with us. This is an Arab problem that should be sorted out by themselves. I don't agree with what is happening, but we seem to have a very selective intervention policy, ala only in resource rich countries.

 

[Broken Orange]

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but i believe it was france who got this "war" going, not America.

 

[Baneat]

If anybody believes that the reason this is whole intervention is to protect civilians, then they need to open their eyes. What the hell are we doing going into another country, and interfering with an interior problem? No matter how much of a dick their government is, it's the official government. I understand that they fired on peaceful protesters, but when these peaceful protesters took up arms, the government suddenly has every right to use force against them. If you have your own civilians staging an armed uprising against you, organised by who know who, what would you do?

No. Gaddafi was using jets on civilian protests long before and 'rebellion' arose. He saw the troubles in neighbouring countries, saw a rise in popular opinion for regime change, and decided he would stay in power at all costs, or take everyone else down with him. He is a grade A asshole - he's not even an elected government, just a dickhead with guns. Why are you defending him?

"I understand he fired on peaceful protesters, but..." there is no "but" to that. Step back and think for a second about what that implies. I simply can't comprehend this sort of an attitude.

Finally, no one's "going in" - just bombing the shit out of him to STOP HIM ASSAULTING CIVILIANS WITH AN ARMY. No ground forces; just aerial support to the home-grown rebellion.

I am not defending Gaddafi, I think he is an absolute idiot, but will we bomb anybody just because we don't like them? Western nations supporting the home grown rebellion just gives him more justification for himself and supporters. I am just pointing out that this is NOTHING to do with us. This is an Arab problem that should be sorted out by themselves. I don't agree with what is happening, but we seem to have a very selective intervention policy, ala only in resource rich countries.

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

 

[Slaanax]

I am not defending Gaddafi, I think he is an absolute idiot, but will we bomb anybody just because we don't like them? Western nations supporting the home grown rebellion just gives him more justification for himself and supporters. I am just pointing out that this is NOTHING to do with us. This is an Arab problem that should be sorted out by themselves. I don't agree with what is happening, but we seem to have a very selective intervention policy, ala only in resource rich countries.

woops didn't mean to do that, we do take more interest in nations that are rich in resources, but the people of Libya need our help so they can effectively fight their tyrant leader, the rebels won't be able to do much against tanks and aircraft. Just trying to level the playing field.

 

[Wicky_42]

If anybody believes that the reason this is whole intervention is to protect civilians, then they need to open their eyes. What the hell are we doing going into another country, and interfering with an interior problem? No matter how much of a dick their government is, it's the official government. I understand that they fired on peaceful protesters, but when these peaceful protesters took up arms, the government suddenly has every right to use force against them. If you have your own civilians staging an armed uprising against you, organised by who know who, what would you do?

No. Gaddafi was using jets on civilian protests long before and 'rebellion' arose. He saw the troubles in neighbouring countries, saw a rise in popular opinion for regime change, and decided he would stay in power at all costs, or take everyone else down with him. He is a grade A asshole - he's not even an elected government, just a dickhead with guns. Why are you defending him?

"I understand he fired on peaceful protesters, but..." there is no "but" to that. Step back and think for a second about what that implies. I simply can't comprehend this sort of an attitude.

Finally, no one's "going in" - just bombing the shit out of him to STOP HIM ASSAULTING CIVILIANS WITH AN ARMY. No ground forces; just aerial support to the home-grown rebellion.

I am not defending Gaddafi, I think he is an absolute idiot, but will we bomb anybody just because we don't like them? Western nations supporting the home grown rebellion just gives him more justification for himself and supporters. I am just pointing out that this is NOTHING to do with us. This is an Arab problem that should be sorted out by themselves. I don't agree with what is happening, but we seem to have a very selective intervention policy, ala only in resource rich countries.

You were defending him, but hey. One point of the UN is to provide an international peace-keeping force. Gaddafi was bombing peaceful protesters; that's not being peaceful. He has an illegitimate regime using extreme force against his own populace to prevent a democratic swelling of change. What is the West to do - sit back and let the atrocities continue? Let the region destabilise and tacitly allow the rule of force and oppression, in direct contradiction to the morals and principles upon which our countries are founded and governed?

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.

 

[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

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Did anyone not see this ages ago? The Libyans have oil, and that's motivation enough
Anyway, it's probably just going to make things worse for Libyans in the short term. Let's hope the long term benefits to the people of Libya outweigh the short/mid term suffering.

It'd be really nice if the US could stop going to war with everyone though, and just be happy with peace for once.

/edit
I don't think this is going to be as bad as Iraq, because the people are already in rebellion, and once the current Libyan government is gone, the violence will hopefully die down pretty quickly.

The US isnt THE driving force behind this one. Sure, they're one of them, but this is France and Britain. Actuallly, this is really the UN (mainly) but specifically France and Britain. Both of whom do enjoy Oil too.

The title (and perception) needs a complete overhaul to accurately assess the situation.

Especially since US isn't sending anything that has to do with combat. Surveillance mostly, gonna link to an article again as everyone ignored it in the last thread about this. Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya

 

[martin's a madman]

I think this is a good thing.
Ghadafi (spelling of his name varies, i know) must not be allowed to commit genocide.

I applaud the US and France (with the rest of the UN ofc.) for this initiative.
How can we sit back and watch while this goes on?
His is a dictator and must be brought to justice by the Libyan people.

And yes, I know there are places in the world that needs just as much intervention by the world society as Libya, but that is besides the point.

We have an obligation (in my opinion) to intervene when there is a possible genocide looming.

I watch with pride the revolutions going on in the middle east.
I do not care what religion or economic system they follow, as long as it is a democracy.

LIBERTY FOR THE PEOPLE!

Hypothetical: What if the first action of a people's liberty is to surrender their entire lives to a dictator? Is that okay for you?

 

[emeraldrafael]

It'd be really nice if the US could stop going to war with everyone though, and just be happy with peace for once.

The US isnt THE driving force behind this one. Sure, they're one of them, but this is France and Britain. Actuallly, this is really the UN (mainly) but specifically France and Britain. Both of whom do enjoy Oil too.

The title (and perception) needs a complete overhaul to accurately assess the situation.

Especially since US isn't sending anything that has to do with combat. Surveillance mostly, gonna link to an article again as everyone ignored it in the last thread about this. Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya

Thanks. I wasnt aware how much the US was doing, but I knew we werent doing a lot. Hopefully people will read and learn.

 

[Lopsided Weener]

If anybody believes that the reason this is whole intervention is to protect civilians, then they need to open their eyes. What the hell are we doing going into another country, and interfering with an interior problem? No matter how much of a dick their government is, it's the official government. I understand that they fired on peaceful protesters, but when these peaceful protesters took up arms, the government suddenly has every right to use force against them. If you have your own civilians staging an armed uprising against you, organised by who know who, what would you do?

No. Gaddafi was using jets on civilian protests long before and 'rebellion' arose. He saw the troubles in neighbouring countries, saw a rise in popular opinion for regime change, and decided he would stay in power at all costs, or take everyone else down with him. He is a grade A asshole - he's not even an elected government, just a dickhead with guns. Why are you defending him?

"I understand he fired on peaceful protesters, but..." there is no "but" to that. Step back and think for a second about what that implies. I simply can't comprehend this sort of an attitude.

Finally, no one's "going in" - just bombing the shit out of him to STOP HIM ASSAULTING CIVILIANS WITH AN ARMY. No ground forces; just aerial support to the home-grown rebellion.

I am not defending Gaddafi, I think he is an absolute idiot, but will we bomb anybody just because we don't like them? Western nations supporting the home grown rebellion just gives him more justification for himself and supporters. I am just pointing out that this is NOTHING to do with us. This is an Arab problem that should be sorted out by themselves. I don't agree with what is happening, but we seem to have a very selective intervention policy, ala only in resource rich countries.

You were defending him, but hey. One point of the UN is to provide an international peace-keeping force. Gaddafi was bombing peaceful protesters; that's not being peaceful. He has an illegitimate regime using extreme force against his own populace to prevent a democratic swelling of change. What is the West to do - sit back and let the atrocities continue? Let the region destabilise and tacitly allow the rule of force and oppression, in direct contradiction to the morals and principles upon which our countries are founded and governed?

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.

Apologies if it came across as defending Gaddafi himself, I was referring to it from a more general perspective, not looking at Gaddafi himself. We don't know the real reasons behind intervention, but you say it's for a more stable middle eaat? That's resources right there. Regardless, my only point is that the reason for intervention is not Protection of civilians, which is what is being rammed down our throats.