This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Libya
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Alright, there's a big issue that's going on here, and no one on this site really seems to be addressing it. So I made this thread.
While Egypt and Tunisia had relatively bloodless revolutions, Libya has erupted into all out civil war. After more than a month of waiting, a no-fly zone has been implemented by international powers in Libya to stop Gaddafi from bombing his own people.
However, support for this has been mixed in the US and UK, at least. This baffles me.
Perhaps I'm just too idealistic (Ha!), but I don't beleive that it's ever right to sit on your thumbs and ignore butchery by dictators. I wish we could do more than just institute a no-fly zone, but I understand that that may be the best we can do under the circumstances.
Yes, we're currently engaged in two wars, and cannot afford to start another one, but Libya demands immediate action, in my perspective. People are being killed, tortured, and raped, and I would be extremely disappointed in my country if we just sat by and let it happen without lifting a finger.
So what do you think?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Depends on what you mean by intervention.
I sure as hell don't want another Afghanistan, or another Iraq for that matter...but we still haven't even pulled out of the first one :P
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
People are being killed, tortured, and raped, and I would be extremely disappointed in my country if we just sat by and let it happen without lifting a finger.Um......what about GITMO?
Post by
313143
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Treskol
I'm not sure
We were told they were enforcing a no-fly zone, which the majorirty were happy enough with, and then they started bombing the !@#$ out of the pro-Gaddafi forces.
Heck, even that would be fine if it was restricted to air force bases only, but why are they bombing tanks?
It seems to me that this is the west supporting the rebels in a civil war, without actually sending in troops like Iraq and Afghanistan
Post by
Tauge
My biggest problem with the intervention in Libya is the unknown. The population of the nation, according to everything I've read, is fractured with more loyalties to their tribe than the nation or any ideals. You've got a group of people whose only common interest is a desire to see Gaddafi removed from power. What happens if/when he loses and he's gone? Another civil war? And what effects will a prolonged civil war have on the markets? Gaddafi may be a thug, but he represents stability. There is no post-Gaddafi plan...at all neither with the internation forces, nor with the rebels.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe anyone should kill their citizenry, not do I believe that democracy, or any type of self-rule of the people would occur under him. Nor do I think letting him stay in power would be moral or just. But I'm concerned that in choosing to get involved, we all have put ourselves in a very difficult position. If the rebels win, the nation faces, at best a period of transition to a new government, at far worst, it's Somalia all over again. If Gaddafi wins, Libya returns to being closed off. He goes on the offensive just like he did in the 80's, likely using the same "tools" he used to lash out at the west back then, which mostly consisted of blowing up airliners.
And technically we, the international coalition, have already gone beyond a no fly-zone, with the air strikes on ground targets. Now, since the UN mandate was extremely broad, it's not a "big deal" (to me at least), but we're more of less actively supporting the rebels now. We may not have troops on the ground fighting them, but we are firmly on their side. Notice the fact that they were nearly on the ropes 2 weeks ago, and now they have control of nearly have the country.
...All that and I've not really answered the question...
Ultimately, yes...I do support the international "no fly-zone". But I'm still concerned about what happens next.
Post by
Skreeran
People are being killed, tortured, and raped, and I would be extremely disappointed in my country if we just sat by and let it happen without lifting a finger.Um......what about GITMO?A. That's not quite comparable. Gitmo is at least supposed to be for terrorists, whereas in Libya it's normal citizens that are being tortured and raped by their government.
B. I don't support Gitmo, and I think that it violates the Bill of Rights.
Depends on what you mean by intervention.
I sure as hell don't want another Afghanistan, or another Iraq for that matter...but we still haven't even pulled out of the first one :PI don't want that either, but I think we should at least do
something
even if it's as simple as keeping Gaddafi from dropping bombs on people.
...All that and I've not really answered the question...
Ultimately, yes...I do support the international "no fly-zone". But I'm still concerned about what happens next.I agree with you here. Even if the rebels win, it's not going to be all sunshine and rainbows for Libya. But I don't think we could have just sat by and watch Gaddafi's government rape (
literally, in some cases
) their citizens.
Post by
OverZealous
I'm guessing it's a pretty loaded subject here, as it is almost everywhere. My biggest problem with the intervention in Libya is the unknown. The population of the nation, according to everything I've read, is fractured with more loyalties to their tribe than the nation or any ideals. You've got a group of people whose only common interest is a desire to see Gaddafi removed from power. What happens if/when he loses and he's gone? Another civil war? And what effects will a prolonged civil war have on the markets? Gaddafi may be a thug, but he represents stability. There is no post-Gaddafi plan...at all neither with the internation forces, nor with the rebels.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe anyone should kill their citizenry, not do I believe that democracy, or any type of self-rule of the people would occur under him. Nor do I think letting him stay in power would be moral or just. But I'm concerned that in choosing to get involved, we all have put ourselves in a very difficult position. If the rebels win, the nation faces, at best a period of transition to a new government, at far worst, it's Somalia all over again. If Gaddafi wins, Libya returns to being closed off. He goes on the offensive just like he did in the 80's, likely using the same "tools" he used to lash out at the west back then, which mostly consisted of blowing up airliners.
And technically we, the international coalition, have already gone beyond a no fly-zone, with the air strikes on ground targets. Now, since the UN mandate was extremely broad, it's not a "big deal" (to me at least), but we're more of less actively supporting the rebels now. We may not have troops on the ground fighting them, but we are firmly on their side. Notice the fact that they were nearly on the ropes 2 weeks ago, and now they have control of nearly have the country.
...All that and I've not really answered the question...
Ultimately, yes...I do support the international "no fly-zone". But I'm still concerned about what happens next.
Hope you don't mind me quoting your very thought-out text, it pretty much sums up my thought on the subject, with a few additions.
Post by
Adamsm
Just saying, if we are going to stomp on another country for that, all countries that have 'hidden' locations just for that should get stomped on too.
Post by
Skreeran
Just saying, if we are going to stomp on another country for that, all countries that have 'hidden' locations just for that should get stomped on too.So your saying that because we have an unethical prison, we shouldn't have done anything to stop Gaddafi from bombing civilians?
Post by
Adamsm
So your saying that because we have an unethical prison, we shouldn't have done anything to stop Gaddafi from bombing civilians?Honestly....yes. Let the UN handle it; the US doesn't have to play Cowboy to the rest of the world. I mean hell, look at Afghanistan, sure the Tailban were driven out......and then the States took off to go fight in Iraq, leaving the rest of the world holding the bag to help clean it up.
Same thing will happen in Libya; the West will fight, then get bored, and go do something else, leaving the country to flounder. And again, taking down a dictator doesn't really mean much anymore; now a days you have to kill the entire cabinet in charge of the country as otherwise they will just keep going on with business as usual.
Does it suck that a country is attacking it's own citizens? Yes. But why does Libya rate much higher then any of the dozens of same situations that are happening in Africa right now? Is it because apparently, just like the rest of the Middle East, the Western World's oil is there?
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I did, I said Yes.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Perhaps I'm just too idealistic (Ha!), but I don't beleive that it's ever right to sit on your thumbs and ignore butchery by dictators. I wish we could do more than just institute a no-fly zone, but I understand that that may be the best we can do under the circumstances.
This ^
Honestly....yes. Let the UN handle it; the US doesn't have to play Cowboy to the rest of the world. I mean hell, look at Afghanistan, sure the Tailban were driven out......and then the States took off to go fight in Iraq, leaving the rest of the world holding the bag to help clean it up.
... you do realize there are still US soldiers in Afghanistan, yes?
Post by
Skreeran
So your saying that because we have an unethical prison, we shouldn't have done anything to stop Gaddafi from bombing civilians?Honestly....yes. Let the UN handle it; the US doesn't have to play Cowboy to the rest of the world. I mean hell, look at Afghanistan, sure the Tailban were driven out......and then the States took off to go fight in Iraq, leaving the rest of the world holding the bag to help clean it up.Sooo... Who cares that civilians are getting bombed? Obviously since we already have breached ethics a few times, we should never try to hold them up.
And what would the UN done? They basically just sent a strongly worded letter to Gaddafi and let him go about his business. On top of that, this isn't just the US.
Canada, France, Norway, Greece, Spain, the UK... they're all donating planes (and some of them ships). The US isn't even running it anymore, NATO is.
Same thing will happen in Libya; the West will fight, then get bored, and go do something else, leaving the country to flounder. And again, taking down a dictator doesn't really mean much anymore; now a days you have to kill the entire cabinet in charge of the country as otherwise they will just keep going on with business as usual.The alternative is to do nothing and let Gaddafi break all resistance in his people. Already he's executed a large number of soldiers who refused to fight for him. What do you think he'd do to his people if he returned to power?
It may not be an easily winnable situation, but we have to do something to try and help.
Does it suck that a country is attacking it's own citizens? Yes. But why does Libya rate much higher then any of the dozens of same situations that are happening in Africa right now? Is it because apparently, just like the rest of the Middle East, the Western World's oil is there?Libya rates higher because there is an active conflict going on that has resulted in the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. I don't like any dictatorships, but at least most of them are stable, and killing is minimized, even if the government is oppressive and other human rights are being violated.
In Libya, however, there is a great deal of active violence, and we're obligated to try and keep more civilians from dying. They just as much human beings as you or I.
And I am seriously disappointed to hear you suggest that we're going into Libya for the oil. That accusation for the Iraq war is one thing (even though the Iraq war has cost something to the effect of 2.4 trillion dollars, which is more than the value of all the oil in Iraq, and the fact that oil prices have only gone
up
since the war), but we haven't even set foot on Libyan soil, how on earth are we supposed to take all their oil (right under the noses of all the other countries involved in the military intervention)?
Post by
Verement432
So your saying that because we have an unethical prison, we shouldn't have done anything to stop Gaddafi from bombing civilians?Honestly....yes. Let the UN handle it
Lol- had to point this out.
Post by
Patty
We were told they were enforcing a no-fly zone, which the majorirty were happy enough with, and then they started bombing the !@#$ out of the pro-Gaddafi forces.
Heck, even that would be fine if it was restricted to air force bases only, but why are they bombing tanks?
They argue that the tanks and ammunition hold-outs that have been targeted could have been used on civilians...which while true, is unrealistic in terms of the aims of protecting the Libyan people. Why don't they destroy every knife, rock and anything that can kill someone (which is quite literally anything) as well then?
What is happening is that the West is siding with the Rebels, but trying to maintain the facade that they are not taking sides. Some rebels may take the opportunity to kill civilians who may be staunch Gaddafi supporters, yet this hasn't been considered so far. Whilst I understand that the focus is against the regime, who
have
killed civilians, the rebels' activities cannot be ignored either.
Either way, it's difficult to ensure there are no civilian casualties when there are no or very few NATO forces on the ground, which brings another set of problems for the international coalition in Libya.
Post by
Adamsm
Libya rates higher because there is an active conflict going on that has resulted in the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. I don't like any dictatorships, but at least most of them are stable, and killing is minimized, even if the government is oppressive and other human rights are being violated.
In Libya, however, there is a great deal of active violence, and we're obligated to try and keep more civilians from dying. They just as much human beings as you or I.I'm sorry Skree, but I'm calling bull^&*! on that; as bad as it is in Libya, there are places in Africa where it's a thousand times worse, as well as in Central American and South America. Libya is only getting 'national press' on it because of where it is: if it wasn't in the Middle East, it would get regulated to the back of the paper as 'look at what those silly people are doing now'. At least in Libya entire villages are not being rounded up, slaughtered, with the women being dragged off to be raped to death or sold in that new slavery that exists.
I'm really just saying: Why does this one country rate so much higher then the other ones, where it's been going on for just as long?
And I am seriously disappointed to hear you suggest that we're going into Libya for the oil. That accusation for the Iraq war is one thing (even though the Iraq war has cost something to the effect of 2.4 trillion dollars, which is more than the value of all the oil in Iraq, and the fact that oil prices have only gone up since the war), but we haven't even set foot on Libyan soil, how on earth are we supposed to take all their oil (right under the noses of all the other countries involved in the military intervention)?Bad joke is horrible, I'll admit, but you know it's out there.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.