And with my points I'm just trying to get more people to ask Why WE want to level the playing field. We are not the ones that should be doing it.Slaanax said:
US(and a bunch of other places) vs Libya, GO!
- Thread starter SovietSecrets
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah yes you found out my secret, I am a American fanatic that thinks the US is the most important place in the world.razer17 said:
I dunno, because it's only going to get worse for the people of Libya if someone doesn't Gaddafi he's complete and utter not job, who from reports is employing foreign mercs to help fight the rebels. The air strikes were targeted mostly at AA batteries to allow the enforcement. Why we are there may be debatable, but to sit by in this situation. Honestly until now the only involvement of the west was to denounce excessive force from current leaders of Middle East.Lopsided Weener said:
all I can say is, about time the French did something. We Brits were getting tired of having to pull the trigger.Kalezian said:
OT (more so anyway) heh, I think that the oil is but only part of the concern. Of course we're going to be worried about the oil as full scale combat is about to break out and could damage the pipe lines.
In fact, I've looked at the ma provided on the BBC website and it looks like any attacks coming on the sea, yes a battle ship has opened fire I believe, are going to have to be careful of hitting the pipes near the coast.
But, I think that this but only a 'sub' reason why we did it, cause it seems that at the moment our leaders seem to be more concerned with sorting out over peoples Governments rather then their own.
On the other hand, it's good we haven't fully mobilised as only using air craft should prevent the loss of deaths on our side. But, I think that using air forces could put the civilian public at more of a risk then using ground troops.
I mean. The reason we went in was to help the population there. Right?
Oh yes, on that note, the leader of Libya has also began setting up 'Weapon Depots' so that the general public can help 'defend the country'.
Overall, I think we just need to careful that this doesn't escalate into a full scale war.
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972
I'm glad my country (Germany) isn't actively supporting it, as nobody can see if the Libyan population can benefit from a rushed military operation with a non clearly specified objective (maybe they give us some inside info later, but "protecting civilian life" is not a specified objective for a large scale military operation, everybody who has actualy served in the army will know what i mean)...
There are open legal questions as well, as much as everbody despises Gadaffis actions, a Goverment has the the right for supressing a revolt but the legal foundation for the intervention is highly debatable. Now let's hope that this ends quickly with a minimum casulties.
Some of the comments in this thread make me wonder if a lot of the users are 14 years olds with a highly questionable perspective of the world...
There are open legal questions as well, as much as everbody despises Gadaffis actions, a Goverment has the the right for supressing a revolt but the legal foundation for the intervention is highly debatable. Now let's hope that this ends quickly with a minimum casulties.
Some of the comments in this thread make me wonder if a lot of the users are 14 years olds with a highly questionable perspective of the world...
Not to take his side... but Waco and Ruby Ridge spring instantly to mind. And there are a ton of stories about what the "military" and "police" did to "citizens" during Katrina too that got buried. We aren't as bad as Gaddafi, but we aren't exactly without our own flaws. Then there's the whole matter of George Bush leading us into two wars under questionable pretenses... sending your people to die in unnecessary conflicts kinda constitutes "killing your own people" in my book. Although these are all debatable as to whether they fall under the guise of "crimes" and certainly don't equate to what is happening in Libya.AccursedTheory said:
To be fair, we don't know WHAT Kim Jong Il is doing over there because they lock out ALL foreigners and any journalists foolish enough to try to venture in and get a look about end up being arrested as spies. There are PLENTY of horror stories from North Korean defectors and people who have escaped there, but nobody is listening or cares.Shoggoth2588 said:
But why use North korea as an example? If the U.N. was really concerned about human rights violations, Libya would be MUCH further down the list, you know, behind Somalia, Burma, Honduras, Rwanda, and even China. Or has everyone forgotten Tibet? That's what makes me suspicious of what's going on. Why Libya? Why now? Why this cause? Yemen just flat out fired onto it's own protesters, killing dozens of them and the story barely registered as a blip on the news.
I don't know the lybian constitution to make an accurate statement, but nearly every country has a passage in its constitution which clarifies the use of military and police inlands (mostly when the existence of state or constitution is at stake) In Germany it's for examplezehydra said:
Article 87 and 91 afaik, you can look it up for your country as well it's probably somewhere in the part about executive power.
While this is rushed and under some leary pretenses, when the rebellion didn't "crush like a steamroller" Gadhaffi's regime, and his regime didn't stop the rebellion after the first city, it was inevitable, what with both the oil and international interest that intervention was going to occur. While I agree with a previous poster that all governments have in their constitution(s) the right to suppress or control rebellions, that is easier applied in an abstract, "just" governemnt. Especially with Gadhaffi's tenure you can call it anything but just. Several comparisons have been made between this and Iraq, but there ARE key differences. The biggest is an ACTIVE rebellion in progress, made many gain ON THEIR OWN, BEFORE international invervention. That will make the biggest difference in this war torn country. I've heard the comparision (and tend to agree) that this will most likely turn into a Bosnia-esqe situation. Hopefully, this ends quickly, and if boots have to hit the ground its not just primarily US boots.
Iraq had an active rebellion too prior to the U.S. intervention... people forget the Kurds in the north, and the Shiite rebellion groups. The difference is, Saddam and Chemical Ali were easily dealing with them by GASSING them into oblivion. And nobody cared.Ktownknight said:
And what about the Ivory Coast? Yemen? Hell, Yemen security forces just killed more civilian "protesters" yesterday than have died in two weeks of fighting in Libya. Yet, the "International community" is awfully quiet on the subject of Yemen.
Because North Korea still has not outlived its usefulness. Oooh... controversial statements!Souplex said:
But seriously, for years, its been a convenient barrier between US influenced spheres and well, now Chinese, but formerlly Soviet. With ties between China and the US deepening, lacking that land bridge to South Korea is no longer convenient.
But how would they intervene? I'm going to assume by "they" you are referring to the US and say that North Korea hasn't exactly shown any ability to harm the US. Furthermore, any attempt to intervene is:
a) castrating South Korea's influence in the region yet again, and removing their chances of _peaceful_ reuinification with a country that includes many of their citizens' sorely missed BLOOD RELATIVES.
b) a threat to South Korea as the North has artillary AIMED AT SEOUL 24/7 which South Korean sources state confidently it is unlikely to use UNLESS in a last ditch sorta-suicide attack of anger.
c) a trigger to a refugee crisis unlike the world has yet seen, and for which South Korea does not yet have the resources to mitigate (although a South Korean reunification tax is on the cards to garner those liquid funds).
So there's a few reasons. Yes, I've missed a lot of points, and this is incredibly simplified, so please excuse any slight generalisations but you need to understand that war or invasion is RARELY A SOLUTION.
As an aside, I find the undercurrent in title of this thread concerning.
