Libya

[Kahn]

Do you think the intervention of foreign military forces is warranted in Libya? Discuss.

Personally, I believe it was right of us to do so. In our revolution, we had the help of external forces. France and Spain were the two most prominent, though we had to prove ourselves to them before they invested into our cause. I believe they deserve such a right, and the coalitions hand in their affairs is needed.

[Iceman]

Meh, can we never just stay the fuck in America. I guess it was needed in order to protect the oil grounds over there, but it gets old. In no time we will have troops over there, which was said would never happen.

[TopGear]

I agree. I believe that when people of a country speak ( ie Egypt and Libya) as a whole, and don't get what they have asked for, then yes someone should step in and take control. I do not agree with the US doing it on it's own, Why because thats what the UN is for.

[Kahn]

Meh, can we never just stay the fuck in America. I guess it was needed in order to protect the oil grounds over there, but it gets old. In no time we will have troops over there, which was said would never happen.

We're the last remaining super-power. We try to regulate world events, make sure they go our way. Everything that happens, we need to pay attention to. You're an isolationist and I admire that. I am as well. I hate the fact that we're the essential 'policeman' of the world, but, as Top Gear said, when the people of a nation unite against an oppressive regime, it is only fair that we offer them help.

I do believe that after the upheaval, we shouldn't occupy the nation with troops.

[TopGear]

I wouldn't say we are the last remaining super-power, there are a few left, but we are the last to stand up to the call of freedom, And believe in the right of democracy. Only 235 years ago where we in the same position against one of the biggest super powers of that time. Every country deservers the right/chance to democracy, but thats up to its people. no government can run if its not backed by its own people.

And The golden rule to running a country is to not kill your own people, The nutcase in libya has been doing that. He set war to his own people and that itself was a reason to go in.

[Iceman]

No we shouldn't bring troop in. The only thing I have positive is is if the U.S. wasn't a super-power, someone else would be, and we would be their bitch. But I still think it would be possible to be a super-power, but not get involved in every single thing.

Something that Gaddafi said was directed at Obama. He said if the people (of America) protested violently, would Obama sit there and let them do that? The answer is no, we would use tear gas and other "friendly" ways to attempt to suppress them, who knows what he would resort to.

[Severus Snape]

The US shouldn't waste its time and money interfering in all these little quarrels all over the world. Fortunately it does seem that at last the military and civilian authorities understand that the American populace doesn't wan't any long term intervention and drafted a plan of attack that involved quickly giving up leadership and participation in missions to other NATO members. I don't approve of ME intervention as a whole but I am glad that this was quick.

Absolutely no boots on the ground though.

edit- As an aside, I would consider Dutch financial aid in the revolution worth mentioning as well. Just my inner history geek coming out again

[TopGear]

we would use tear gas and other "friendly" ways to attempt to suppress them, who knows what he would resort to.

Yeah exactly, he would use tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bags. Our government wouldn't kill us.

[Iceman]

Yeah exactly, he would use tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bags. Our government wouldn't kill us.

No one knows what they would do.

[TopGear]

No one knows what they would do.


I have a very hard time believing that the US government would as far as killing our own people to stop a protest. It's in our Constitution for the Right to freedom of speech, Which includes protest.

[Iceman]

Peaceful protest though. If we started bringing out AK's, burning buildings, and shit, they wouldn't throw rubber balls at us.

[Severus Snape]

I have a very hard time believing that the US government would as far as killing our own people to stop a protest. It's in our Constitution for the Right to freedom of speech, Which includes protest.

While I agree with you I will point out that most, if not all, legal demonstrations require the approval of local, state, or federal government in the form of permits.

I seriously doubt the American military would ever open fire on US citizens though. Half the reason Qaddafi's troops are so brutal is they are mercs, no ties to the Libyan people at all. They're simply killing for a paycheck. US soldiers, however, take an oath not only to obey the president, but to defend and uphold the constitution. The latter part is the trump card military leaders could pull to disobey a hypothetically Qaddafi-like president.

@ Socko,

they would likely match deadly force with deadly force, but in a very precise manner. I don't think they would open fire into a crowd with maybe several armed members with a .50 caliber mounted gun.

[Iceman]

Killing is killing. Bow and arrow, to Barrett Model 99.

But yes, I don't think they would bomb entire cities though.

[TopGear]

Does this look like a violent protest?

_ZIPLLERpKI

[Severus Snape]

Its very tragic to watch, but stuff like this seems to happen in Africa very frequently...I don't think it is feasible to respond every time.

[Iceman]

Does this look like a violent protest?

_ZIPLLERpKI

That was not in Libya.
This (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112167051422444.html) is in Libya.

[TopGear]

Thats just one of many videos that show people taking it to the streets to show what they believe in and then getting gunned down by Gaddafi's forces. Its absolutely terrible to see this happen and there are many more that show alot more then what we just saw.

[TopGear]

the video that you linked shows no violent what so ever. you are not helping your cause.

[Iceman]

Also the video that you linked shows no violent what so ever. you are not helping your cause.

"In the southern city of Zentan, 120km south of Tripoli, hundreds of people marched through the streets and set fire to security headquarters and a police station, then set up tents in the heart of the town, as a wave of unrest spread south and westwards across the country.
Activists had earlier clashed with government supporters and police, who reportedly shot rubber-coated steel bullets and used water cannon in Benghazi city"

That was the article. They torched the police station! And they at first did use non-lethal forces.

[Amnesiac]

No, I don't believe the intervention was right. As the events have played out in Libya, it seems like a conclusion to the civil war will not be reached for some time. Non-interventionism is the best foreign policy. Nations need to keep to themselves; it's a waste of money and time to go and regulate every conflict going on in the world. Unless some massive genocide is taking place, which was not the case in Libya, we should not intervene.

[TopGear]

dude, Shit happens when you get hundreds of pissed off people who are trying to send a message to the world. They should be lucky they didn't torch the entire city.

Buddy, Change is good. Just got to make sure its the right kind of change. If those people in libya weren't protesting we wouldn't be there, but they are and they need a country like the US to back them up.

[Iceman]

No, I don't believe the intervention was right. As the events have played out in Libya, it seems like a conclusion to the civil war will not be reached for some time. Non-interventionism is the best foreign policy. Nations need to keep to themselves; it's a waste of money and time to go and regulate every conflict going on in the world. Unless some massive genocide is taking place, which was not the case in Libya, we should not intervene.

The only justified reason I could think of, is to protect the oil. We aren't self dependent, so if oil stopped flowing in, prices would be outrageous.

They don't need it. If you aren't strong enough to fight against something don't go poking a needle in it's toe.

[Amnesiac]

The only justified reason I could think of, is to protect the oil. We aren't self dependent, so if oil stopped flowing in, prices would be outrageous.

I don't know how much of an impact Libya actually has on international oil prices, but I doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) it's enough to merit a Western intervention. Really, I can't wrap my mind around why the coalition wants to intervene in Libya, but I'm not going to automatically jump on the oil conspiracy bandwagon like everyone else.

[TopGear]

No, I don't believe the intervention was right. As the events have played out in Libya, it seems like a conclusion to the civil war will not be reached for some time. Non-interventionism is the best foreign policy. Nations need to keep to themselves; it's a waste of money and time to go and regulate every conflict going on in the world. Unless some massive genocide is taking place, which was not the case in Libya, we should not intervene.

Of course the conclusion to the civil war hasn't be reached, It takes time and since there are so many rules to war we can't just go in and do what we really should and need to do (witch would be the easiest and quickest). Our civil war lasted 4 years and thats pretty short compared to some. Then you have some like Sri Lankan Civil War that has been going on for almost 30 years. War takes time and civil wars take longer.

We don't go into every conflict thats going on in the world. Only the ones that effect us.

As for the massive genocide, We are trying to prevent something like that. If we had a Non-interventionism foreign policy that would open the doors for that to happen. It is called prevention. Thats why Teachers step in during a fight, so that one of the two students doesn't kill the other one. You stop something that could be a possible threat.

[Amnesiac]

Of course the conclusion to the civil war hasn't be reached, It takes time and since there are so many rules to war we can't just go in and do what we really should and need to do (witch would be the easiest and quickest). Our civil war lasted 4 years and thats pretty short compared to some. Then you have some like Sri Lankan Civil War that has been going on for almost 30 years. War takes time and civil wars take longer.

But is it our responsibility to be there? I mean, it's their civil war. It's their problem. Really, why the hell would we want to be involved in a third war, where a much more powerful ruling government tries to fight off a bunch of rag-tag rebels? Hell, we don't even know if they would be able to form a stable democratic nation if they won, which is extremely doubtful.

We don't go into every conflict thats going on in the world. Only the ones that effect us.

And this one doesn't. Only when a nation attacks the United States directly should we respond with military action.

As for the massive genocide, We are trying to prevent something like that. If we had a Non-interventionism foreign policy that would open the doors for that to happen. It is called prevention. Thats why Teachers step in during a fight, so that one of the two students doesn't kill the other one. You stop something that could be a possible threat.

While this is the only valid reason I can see for going into Libya, it still doesn't convince me fully. Sure, Ghadaffi said he was willing to hunt down those who opposed him, but the way events were unfolding in Libya before the intervention, it wasn't comparable to what happened in Nazi Germany or Rwanda. When the world decides to intervene in a nation, there should be clear evidence of a large-scale genocide against a group of people occurring.

I mean, the Chinese and Iranians also mercilessly resist protesters. Are you suggesting that we go into those countries in the name of prevention?

[TopGear]

But is it our responsibility to be there? I mean, it's their civil war. It's their problem. Really, why the hell would we want to be involved in a third war, where a much more powerful ruling government tries to fight off a bunch of rag-tag rebels? Hell, we don't even know if they would be able to form a stable democratic nation if they won, which is extremely doubtful.

We are in one war, that is against Terrorism. We aren't in this as a war anyways, ITS THE UN! and its just that the head of the UN is Our President. As for them being able to form a stable democratic nation if they won, who knows. Did you think the British thought we could back in 1776? They said the same thing about us.



And this one doesn't. Only when a nation attacks the United States directly should we respond with military action.


Yes, yes it does. It effects our way of transportation. Even if the amount of oil that comes from that region isn't enough to make a difference, They still say that the 'unrest' in the middle east is causing gas to sky rocket.


While this is the only valid reason I can see for going into Libya, it still doesn't convince me fully. Sure, Ghadaffi said he was willing to hunt down those who opposed him, but the way events were unfolding in Libya before the intervention, it wasn't comparable to what happened in Nazi Germany or Rwanda. When the world decides to intervene in a nation, there should be clear evidence of a large-scale genocide against a group of people occurring.

I mean, the Chinese and Iranians also mercilessly resist protesters. Are you suggesting that we go into those countries in the name of prevention?

He isn't Nazi Germany yet, and we don't know if thats what he plans on being or if this is it. We don't know and the best thing we can do is prevent it before it happens again.

[Amnesiac]

We are in one war, that is against Terrorism. We aren't in this as a war anyways, ITS THE UN! and its just that the head of the UN is Our President. As for them being able to form a stable democratic nation if they won, who knows. Did you think the British thought we could back in 1776? They said the same thing about us.

What do you mean the "head of the UN is Our President"? The head of the UN (I'm assuming you're referring to the secretary general) does not adopt measures on behalf of the UN. This intervention was allowed by the Security Council. That doesn't mean we have to join them, it was simply allowed. As for NATO, that's a different story.

Also, the British fought for our tax money and resources. Democracy was not a political concept in the 1700s.

Yes, yes it does. It effects our way of transportation. Even if the amount of oil that comes from that region isn't enough to make a difference, They still say that the 'unrest' in the middle east is causing gas to sky rocket.

That's not a threat to our national security. You don't respond to changes in the prices of resources by invading the countries that hold them, you instead convert to alternative resources or import them from different nations. Going into countries with oil because we 'need' it is absolutely ridiculous.

He isn't Nazi Germany yet, and we don't know if thats what he plans on being or if this is it. We don't know and the best thing we can do is prevent it before it happens again.

It probably isn't. Does Ghadaffi target specific ethnic groups and try to eradicate them? No. Resisting change is nothing like genocide. Ghadaffi isn't looking to kill people, he just wants to stay in power. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Ghadaffi is pulling a Hitler.

[thingmebob]

the head of the UN is Our President.

The President of the United States is not the head of the United Nations, never has and never will be. The UN Secretary General can't be a leader of a country aswell. That would be rediculous. Ban Ki Moon is the current Secretary General (the head of the UN) and he is South Korean. So I don't know where you got that from.

I personally think that countries who have the means, should intervene - under certain circumstances. There are countless dictators in the world, who all have similar regimes to Ghadaffi and to intervene in each case would be rediculous. The main reason, I feel, why so many countries have come to the aid of the Libyan rebels, is the fact that it has the UN approval. The UN now controls most countries foreign policies as far as military intervention is concerned, so governments have to tread carefully when the UN has voted.

I feel my government made the correct decision to use Her Magesties large and effective military to help overcome the tyranny in Libya.

Btw Commander Awsome, democracy has been a political consept for over two thousand years! It was implimented by many Greek City States and some claim it goes as far back as the 6th century BC!

[Amnesiac]

Btw Commander Awsome, democracy has been a political consept for over two thousand years! It was implimented by many Greek City States and some claim it goes as far back as the 6th century BC!

I'm well aware that democracy has existed as a form of government for centuries. However, at that particular time (the mid to late 1700s) it was simply not prevalent in the world, particularly Europe.