French military jets over Libya

I'm fine with them going to war, as the Libyan people deserve democracy and civil rights. But; the allied forces, when the jobs done (removing Gaddafi) should just leave. Let the Libyan people form their country, we should not intervene and start getting our claws into their system... for oil.

But yes, if we do the job and leave, then good on the West. But i'll be suprised if they do just leave...

Ignoring the absurd claims that the only reason the West are involving themselves is for oil, if you leave the two sides to continue the civil war, a brutal conflict would just be continued until the rebels would probably get massacred . The whole point is to try and avoid unnecessary bloodshed, you seem to want to encourage that.

But I'm sure mass casualties would be OK because there will be no "imperialists" involved.

Your ignorance truly disgusts me.

Reply 21

Swell

14

Original post by Bishy786

What about the people in Africa who campaign for democracy and has tyrannical leaders far longer than those in Libya?

Why don't the west intervene in Zimbabwe? In the Democratic Republic of Congo where ethnic cleansing is rife in addition to rape and murder?

Or is it because the West does not care about the blacks and only care if there is some financial reward behind it?

Well if you have seen my other posts on other threads you will see I feel the same. But look at it this way, there is alot more attention being put on these other countries, not the same extent as Libya, but more. And hopefully the UN will be pressured to intervene and do whats right by the people.

And hopefully, the countries that have suceeded in revolution will help each other out. Like Egypt did with the Libyan Freedom Fighters. But i do agree man, its frustrating to just see Libya get help when these other countries have been suffering for years and years.

Reply 22

Aphotic Cosmos

17

Original post by Bishy786

What about the people in Africa who campaign for democracy and has tyrannical leaders far longer than those in Libya?

Gaddafi is the longest ruling African leader by some way.

Why don't the west intervene in Zimbabwe?

Because there's no way that Western forces would be accepted by a lot of the population who do actually support Mugabe and ZANU-PF - it would be seen as neocolonialism. It would be a long, bloody and fairly pointless deployment.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo where ethnic cleansing is rife in addition to rape and murder?

Err, the largest UN Peacekeeping mission in history is currently deployed in the Congo to stabilise the east of the country.

It's not appropriate to use military force in every situation.

Reply 23

username424278

Original post by Golly-Gosh

reality is, America and the Western government don't give a flying toss about the innocent Libyans that are been killed by their own government. all they care about is the OIL. yes the OIL.
if it weren't for that oil, they wouldn't help the Libyans.
lets be honest, the West is being double standard about this. the very people that put Gadhafi in power. the very people that buy oil from him, make him rich, help him save his money on their banks. the very people that made Gadhaffi the monster he is today. is now claiming they want to help the Libyans against Gadhaffi. please spare me the tail.

I don't know who this "Gadhafi" character is, but I don't see how he's relevant to this topic. Oh, you mean Gadaffi. Well in his case, the West did not actually put him in power, at first they actually wanted to remove him from power.

Have you not paid attention to international affairs for the last 20 years? The West has intervened in humanitarian crises such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. Was any oil gained from these efforts? You have to be seriously mentally deficient to believe that the only motivation for Western Humanitarian intervention is oil.

Bitches should really lrn2history, or I'm gonna shell somebody.

Reply 24

username424278

Original post by princessnavi22

I fully agree.

If they were that concerned about innocent civilians they would go and help the poor people under mugabe, but where are they there? Is there a UN Intervention? Are we back the civilians in Zimbabwe?

Are we hell. No oil, no 'help'.

Seriously?

What about humanitarian intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia? I suppose they are secretly oil hotspots.

Reply 25

username424278

Original post by Bishy786

What about the people in Africa who campaign for democracy and has tyrannical leaders far longer than those in Libya?

Why don't the west intervene in Zimbabwe? In the Democratic Republic of Congo where ethnic cleansing is rife in addition to rape and murder?

Or is it because the West does not care about the blacks and only care if there is some financial reward behind it?

How many ****ing times do I need to keep repeating this.

Does anyone seriously not remember Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia?

Reply 26

Aj12

18

Original post by princessnavi22

I fully agree.

If they were that concerned about innocent civilians they would go and help the poor people under mugabe, but where are they there? Is there a UN Intervention? Are we back the civilians in Zimbabwe?

Are we hell. No oil, no 'help'.

Shame there is no rebellion in Zimbabwe to support

Reply 27

imperial maniac

16

I find it totally hypocritical that a country which annihilated two civilian cities with nukes within living memory is now acting as the enforcement squad against any leader that tries to use force to sort out terrorist members of their own population.

Reply 28

Hamesh

6

Original post by Golly-Gosh

reality is, America and the Western government don't give a flying toss about the innocent Libyans that are been killed by their own government. all they care about is the OIL. yes the OIL.
if it weren't for that oil, they wouldn't help the Libyans.
lets be honest, the West is being double standard about this. the very people that put Gadhafi in power. the very people that buy oil from him, make him rich, help him save his money on their banks. the very people that made Gadhaffi the monster he is today. is now claiming they want to help the Libyans against Gadhaffi. please spare me the tail.

China was also involved in supplying arms, the Guardian reported.

And they didn't give it out of good-will. :wink:

Reply 29

tehFrance

17

Original post by imperial maniac

I find it totally hypocritical that a country which annihilated two civilian cities with nukes within living memory is now acting as the enforcement squad against any leader that tries to use force to sort out terrorist members of their own population.

Reply 30

Brandmon

2

Original post by imperial maniac

I find it totally hypocritical that a country which annihilated two civilian cities with nukes within living memory is now acting as the enforcement squad against any leader that tries to use force to sort out terrorist members of their own population.

Worst example you can possible bring up. We will quickly forget what the Japanese did to deserve getting nuked in the first place just so we can diss the Americans, huh? In case you forgot what the Japanese did, ask the Chinese.

Ah and my opinion about the OP: Vive la France :france:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 31

imperial maniac

16

Original post by tehFrance

what? That's perfectly logical.

America is having a massive whine about civilian casualties, but when their places are reversed, they don't give a damn about civilians.

Reply 32

Aphotic Cosmos

17

Original post by imperial maniac

I find it totally hypocritical that a country which annihilated two civilian cities with nukes within living memory is now acting as the enforcement squad against any leader that tries to use force to sort out terrorist members of their own population.

1. Whilst I do not condone the use of nuclear weapons at all, fact is that the bombings brought the deadliest conflict (or event of any kind) in human history to a close months (years) before it would have ended should the Allies have had to invade Japan and slog through every town. Would you like to think how many millions more would have died then had the war gone on even longer? Japan's armed forces were prepared to fly fighters into the decks of aircraft carriers to kill thousands of allied personnel, and the Imperial Japanese Army can be held directly responsible for one of the worst atrocities of the war - the Rape of Nanjing. Millions died in Manchuria.

2. Just because a state has committed terrible acts in the past (lord knows that pretty much every state has a dark chapter in it's history) does not mean it should not be allowed to constructively to a more peaceful future. Where's the logic in that?

3. So rebels with legitimate grievances against an illegitimate regime that seized power are terrorists, now? Gadaffi and his cronies are better described as the terrorists here - do you have any idea of the amount of funding and resources that Gaddafi's regime put into the IRA and other terrorist groups around the world in the 70s and 80s? His agents were directly responsible for Lockerbie, one of the worst terrorist atrocities in history, and for that he will never be forgiven.

GTFO.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 33

mirin?

Wow, the French still haven't surrendered yet...

Reply 34

Brandmon

2

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

GTFO.

Yes.

Reply 35

imperial maniac

16

Original post by Brandmon

Worst example you can possible bring up. We will quickly forget what the Japanese did to deserve getting nuked in the first place just so we can diss the Americans, huh? In case you forgot what the Japanese did, ask the Chinese.

Ah and my opinion about the OP: Vive la France :france:

I'm saying that the Americans are being hypocritical.

The civilians in Hiroshima an Nagasaki were innocent, and were killed as a consequence of war.

Libya is in the midst of a civil war, the rebels have FIGHTER JETS AND MORTARS, they are not a bunch of civilians armed only with determination and an AK-47. Civilians die in wars, and the US has the gumption to launch an invasion on the basis that there are civilian casualties?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 36

Ano1

11

Original post by yituool

Ignoring the absurd claims that the only reason the West are involving themselves is for oil, if you leave the two sides to continue the civil war, a brutal conflict would just be continued until the rebels would probably get massacred . The whole point is to try and avoid unnecessary bloodshed, you seem to want to encourage that.

But I'm sure mass casualties would be OK because there will be no "imperialists" involved.

Your ignorance truly disgusts me.

Don't you get tired of being fed this propaganda, and swallowing it up?

I wonder why countries like Brazil and India aren't in Libya.

It’s about the OIL, it always has been. Who do you think funds these governments in the first place.

Reply 37

Brandmon

2

Original post by imperial maniac

I'm saying that the Americans are being hypocritical.

The civilians in Hiroshima an Nagasaki were innocent, and were killed as a consequence of war.

Libya is in the midst of a civil war, the rebels have FIGHTER JETS AND MORTARS, they are not a bunch of civilians armed only with determination and an AK-47. Civilians die in wars, and the US has the gumption to launch an invasion on the basis that their are civilian casualties?

Three things. Firstly, is it the same administration that nuked Japan that we have today? No. So already your argument has been rendered invalid.

Secondly, they were civilians, not innocent. Remember that Japan has been responsible for millions of innocent deaths in China. It would either have been the Japanese innocents being reminded what their country had been doing for more than 7 years or many times the number of casualties in an invasion of Japan to convince the stubborn Japanese. It is a cruel world we life in and the nuke has been the lesser of all evils.

Finally, the US is not leading this time at all. It is mostly a French initiative with the US this time supporting rather than deciding for us.

Reply 38

Brandmon

2

Original post by Ano1

Don't you get tired of being fed this propaganda, and swallowing it up?

I wonder why countries like Brazil and India aren't in Libya.

It’s about the OIL, it always has been. Who do you think funds these governments in the first place.

Couldn't the West have just supported Gaddafi then if their aim was oil? I am certain that they would have better access to oil if they helped crush the rebels and keep the oil intact.

There: Oil is not the reason.

Reply 39

Xurvi

11

Original post by imperial maniac

I'm saying that the Americans are being hypocritical.

The civilians in Hiroshima an Nagasaki were innocent, and were killed as a consequence of war.

Libya is in the midst of a civil war, the rebels have FIGHTER JETS AND MORTARS, they are not a bunch of civilians armed only with determination and an AK-47. Civilians die in wars, and the US has the gumption to launch an invasion on the basis that there are civilian casualties?

That's where you're wrong. It's not an invasion. The jets are only striking back and, at least in the case of France, war won't happen on the ground. The jets are only there to prevent any more massacres and enforce the cease fire.

French military jets over Libya

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you