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
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?If it's going on as bad as it is in Libya elsewhere, I haven't heard of it, and I don't just get my news from "The Media" (as so many Conservative personalities so hypocritically call it).
I'm aware of the Rwandan genocide that happened in 1994, and the dictatorships in Latin America, but to my knowledge, Libya is the biggest active conflict going on at the moment.
Edit: Was just looking on Wikipedia:
List of Ongoing Military Conflicts
There are those, but they are different from Libya in a few ways:
1. Rather than a slow burning feud, Libya is burning extremely hot right now, with 3000 to 15,000 deaths. That demands immediate attention, imo.
2. While many of those conflicts are just two rival sides killing eachother, Libya is an oppressive government killing it's own civilians. Given the disadvantage the civilians have, they deserve attention.
3. Rather than taking sides in a war, we're just keeping Gaddafi's planes on the ground so he can't bomb civilians. Something like what has been happening in Somali is much harder to deal with.
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.I'm afraid I don't understand you here. If there's a joke, I don't see it.
Post by
Monday
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?
Because the rebels can counter knives and rocks, but have no way to counter #$%^ing
tanks
.
What is happening is that the West is siding with the Rebels, but trying to maintain the facade that they are not taking sides.
I'm fairly certain several countries have already come out and said they are siding with the rebels.
I'm sorry Skree, but I'm calling bull^&*! on that; as bad as it is in Libya, there are places in Africa where it's a thousand times worse, as well as in Central American and South America.
You have to look at cost + gains.
Gains: Oil, I'd assume, moral victory, restoring stability.
Cost: Lots of money, ammunition, soldiers.
Now let's look at Africa
Cost: Lots of soldiers, ammunition, money, supplies, etc.
Gains: Moral victory, restoring stability that will probably topple soon after they leave.
Post by
Adamsm
Heh, like the 'restored' stability in Afghanistan right?
Post by
Treskol
We were told they were enforcing a no-fly zone, which the majorirty were happy enough with, and then they started bombing the !@#$ 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.
Basically yeah.
I wonder if Gaddafi will try and play the system though
Retreat until they are outside Tripoli, like last time, but instead of going on a massive offensive rampage, claim that the rebels are 'killing innocent civilians' and that they should get bombed.
I also wonder whether the West want something out of this; Libya has oil, and lots of it too. If the rebels were to say, offer a deal of 50% off for the next 10 years to the coalition countries, they have the incentive to bomb Gaddafi and then claim it was for their countries best interest.
Post by
Monday
Heh, like the 'restored' stability in Afghanistan right?
There are still soldiers in Afghanistan, so your point is null. America cannot be in every country at all times to keep stability, so they pick countries that provide gains to help. It's cold, but true.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Because the rebels can counter knives and rocks, but have no way to counter #$%^ing
tanks
.So NATO have sided with the rebels as a whole, you would argue? The UN resolution, which the West insists is still being followed, did not call to side with the rebels. Again, that goes back to my point about the rebels having the capability to kill and harm civilians who may be against their cause.
I'm fairly certain several countries have already come out and said they are siding with the rebels.This is conflicting. Some politicians insist that the door for diplomacy is still open, whereas Cameron and Sarkozy (particularly) are calling for Gaddafi to step down, and for his supporters to abandon him
'before it is too late'
. That could easily be interpreted as a threat against Libyan citizens, which would completely go against the UN resolution.
You have to look at cost + gains.
<snip>
So you are agreeing that oil is a major incentive for the involvement of the global community in the Libyan conflict?
Post by
Monday
So you are agreeing that oil is a major incentive for the involvement of the global community in the Libyan conflict?
Yes. I'm not saying that it's the only reason, but it's there.
This is conflicting. Some politicians insist that the door for diplomacy is still open, whereas Cameron and Sarkozy (particularly) are calling for Gaddafi to step down, and for his supporters to abandon him 'before it is too late'. That could easily be interpreted as a threat against Libyan citizens, which would completely go against the UN resolution.
If they're calling for Gadahfi's supporters to step down, then they are probably talking about his soldiers and the ones gunning down civilians.
Again, that goes back to my point about the rebels having the capability to kill and harm civilians who may be against their cause.
If that happens on a major scale (there are always collateral damage in war), then the West would side against them as well.
Post by
Adamsm
Heh, like the 'restored' stability in Afghanistan right?
There are still soldiers in Afghanistan, so your point is null. America cannot be in every country at all times to keep stability, so they pick countries that provide gains to help. It's cold, but true.
Yeah......Canadian forces, and UN forces, yet where have the American forces been since then? Off dealing with the so called 'greater' threat that was in Iraq, which was a threat the States helped to set up in the first place, same as that little problem that came out of Afghanistan and attacked them too.
I'm all for taking out dictators and threats...but most of the times, the things that are put in power are just as bad. So yes, I'm sorry if it's cold, callous and vicious to not overtly care that civilians are being cut down....but really, it's something that has been happening anywhere there are humans and have been since the first proto-human fell out of the tree and probably ended up killing his neighbor for his apple.
Post by
Skreeran
Heh, like the 'restored' stability in Afghanistan right?
There are still soldiers in Afghanistan, so your point is null. America cannot be in every country at all times to keep stability, so they pick countries that provide gains to help. It's cold, but true.
Yeah......Canadian forces, and UN forces, yet where have the American forces been since then? Off dealing with the so called 'greater' threat that was in Iraq, which was a threat the States helped to set up in the first place, same as that little problem that came out of Afghanistan and attacked them too.Are you seriously suggesting that there are not American soldiers in Afghanistan?
. . .
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Yeah......Canadian forces, and UN forces, yet where have the American forces been since then? Off dealing with the so called 'greater' threat that was in Iraq, which was a threat the States helped to set up in the first place, same as that little problem that came out of Afghanistan and attacked them too.
There are still American forces in Afghanistan. I had a friend there less than a year ago.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Heh, less than a year ago (last May iirc) the number of American troops in Afghanistan surpassed the number in Iraq. I don't think the numbers have changed much since then.
Post by
Treskol
Apparently Obama saying first troops will be out in July
Post by
Patty
If they're calling for Gadahfi's supporters to step down, then they are probably talking about his soldiers and the ones gunning down civilians.
That's not been specified. That may be what they meant, but think what a field day the Libyan media with pro-Gaddafi tendencies, due to fear or genuine agreement, is having with statements like 'drop him before it is too late'. Will that really help the effort to enforce the UN resolution?
Post by
Adamsm
Last post in this thread; apologizing for my out burst, but I still don't see this conflict as being as earth shaking as everyone else does.
Post by
gnomerdon
As much as I want to help Libya, we Americans have our own problems to deal with.
ex. The deficit, wars, oil, and many others. Putting Libya as one of our priorities will create a bigger hole for the next generation.
It would also be wrong to help Libya because in the past, we let many revolutions go to war without any intervening. If we did intervene in this war, the whole world will think the only reason why we want to engage in this war is for oil, nothing more.
So, from a American standpoint, leave them the hell alone. If we had our own civil war, would any developed country send aid to stop the tyrant to bring peace or would they point and laugh at us?
I say before we do anything (with good intentions), we need to fix all of our problems at home first.
Post by
Monday
It would also be wrong to help Libya because in the past, we let many revolutions go to war without any intervening.
I typed about five responses to this before deciding to just say: The above statement makes no sense.
If we had our own civil war, would any developed country send aid to stop the tyrant to bring peace or would they point and laugh at us?
Britain was going to help the Confederacy before... Gettysburg I believe it was.
ex. The deficit, wars, oil, and many others. Putting Libya as one of our priorities will create a bigger hole for the next generation.
Oil will be helped by stabilizing Libya. The Deficit cannot be fixed overnight. Not taking part in any global affairs before the deficit is fixed (which will take a long time) is stupid.
wars
Please expand on this.
I say before we do anything (with good intentions), we need to fix all of our problems at home first.
So you're an isolationist? Do you think we should have entered WWI/WWII?
Post by
Dragalthor
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?If it's going on as bad as it is in Libya elsewhere, I haven't heard of it, and I don't just get my news from "The Media" (as so many Conservative personalities so hypocritically call it).
I'm aware of the Rwandan genocide that happened in 1994, and the dictatorships in Latin America, but to my knowledge, Libya is the biggest active conflict going on at the moment.
Edit: Was just looking on Wikipedia:
List of Ongoing Military Conflicts
There are those, but they are different from Libya in a few ways:
1. Rather than a slow burning feud, Libya is burning extremely hot right now, with 3000 to 15,000 deaths. That demands immediate attention, imo.
2. While many of those conflicts are just two rival sides killing each other, Libya is an oppressive government killing it's own civilians. Given the disadvantage the civilians have, they deserve attention.
3. Rather than taking sides in a war, we're just keeping Gaddafi's planes on the ground so he can't bomb civilians. Something like what has been happening in Somali is much harder to deal with.
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.I'm afraid I don't understand you here. If there's a joke, I don't see it.
Whilst I certainly don't agree with the Gaddafi regime my current concern is that we are only doing what we are doing because it is currently all over the media and is the 'big' issue of the moment.
This no-fly zone and the UN resolution were first tabled by jointly by Britain and France though it almost certainly wouldn't have passed if it hadn't been for the support of the US and more importantly, so I believe, backed by the Arab league.
However, the way I see it is that we have become embroiled in another civil war and are attempting to take the side which we in the West beleive is in our best interests, read Oil (as Gaddafi is opposed to selling Libya's oil to western countries). A lot of which is borne out by the fact that the so-called Rebels just see the no-fly zone and the bombing of Gaddafi's military equipment as 'top cover' for their own counter attacks.
Anyway back to the reason that I have quoted the post above - If you think that Libya is currently the biggest wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, I shall try and direct your eyes towards the Ivory Coast, where the current civil has a death toll reaching, I beleive, into the 10's of thousands, whilst we in the West stand back wringing our hands and saying it is a problem for Africa to solve and it is not for us to intervene. I think that the whole story would be different if the Ivory Coast had oil.
Post by
gnomerdon
I'm not an isolationists. The way I see things are very simple. Imagine a family under huge debt, the father works a minimum wage job to pay for rent and food. He receives his paycheck. He then sees a homeless / someone in need who desperately needs money. Would he give a portion of his paycheck to help this "person" out of compassion. If he does, he wouldn't have enough money to provide for his family.
We are in the same situation as this man. Should we use what limited resource we have to help another country or should we help ourselves first so that the kids have food on the table, the bills are paid for.
During the WW2 era, it was the great depression, I figure entering into a war would jumpstart the economy again and it did, but I don't think that going into Libya would jumpstart our economy like what WW2 did. I can safely say that it would create a bigger deficit if we did engage into Libya unless you can prove me wrong.
I guess as long as the united states works under the united nations with restrictions and limited liability, maybe we could engage. But if the U.N. expects us to do most of the dirty work and send more troops compared to other nations (france, england), I would simply pull out. Even though we are regarded as the police of the world, we are still seeking the American interest to better our people in the short and long run.
Wars. The war in Afghanistan and the stability in Iraq. These 2 wars have costed the United States lots of money. I don't have the specific figures though. Was it really necessary to take out Saddam Hussein or did Bush wanted him dead because he threatened his father in the past? We will never know the true motive for invading Iraq.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.