French military jets over Libya

Hello, police? I think I'm getting trolled.

How the **** is that evidence to support your argument?

The fact the West buys oil from Libya =/= the West is trying to take control of Libya's oil supply

lrn2formlogicalarguments

There is no propaganda, anyone who has studied international relations from a neutral p.o.v. can easily see how ****ing retarded your arguments are.

French jets "destroyed a number of tanks and armoured vehicles", a defence ministry official told Reuters, adding that he could not immediately confirm the number.

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?

Just because you disagree with what I said, don't make me a troll.
You've said nothing to prove me wrong... oh wait, you've studied international relations.. wow.

Viva le FRANCE!

Vive la France

Gaddafi is the longest ruling African leader by some way.



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.



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.

So why do the Western forces intervene in a country where the majority of the population do not want them? The Pro-gaddafi supporters outweigh the rebel forces and Gadaffai certainly does not want them in his country. In addition, the rebels also do want a full western military offensive in their country because they know that if they beat gaddafi, then they are going to have to give up some lucrative oil wells and other concessions to oil companies.

And is not what the Western forces are doing across the middle east by building bases regarded as neocolonialism?

What are the UN doing to stop the atrocities that have been happening since the war started? The UN is a shambles, only intervening where it deems necessary to protect the developed world countries, in particular America which has influence. Why do Western countries go running to the UN when they want a favorable solution to their problems but do not denounce any impartial investigations? Why did the UN react so promptly and bow to pressure when it came to Libya and not the Democratic Republic of Congo?

So in which situations should you use military force?

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

Does anyone seriously not remember Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia?

Not that I like Gadaffi in any way, we should keep the **** out of this. It may, if we intervene turn out like Iraq or Afghanistan. Besides Libya were a prosperous country before, and pretty harmless to the west. We should just keep ourselves out of this, and let them sort themselves out.

As for France, they are ruled by an egotistic napoleon complex sufferer, and also need to keep their noses out of other country's businesses.

And as for Syria, WTF was Cameron thinking when he encouraged revolutions there?
it just proves that he has very little of an understanding about how the world runs. Although he is very intelligent, he is a bad leader.

I really can't be bothered any more, I'm tired of explaining the whole situation.

You know we're in Congo right? The UN I mean? But we're shackled by what the Congelese ;government' allow us to do, that's why there's still so many problems.

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.

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 meant the one in pakistan, my bad. ive made my point about the oil, if people want to think its about civilians (rebels in arms) then do that.

edit - so why dont the arab league deal with their problems? did they help with bosnia etc (in europe). no.

I don't understand how anyone can accept to have dictators little better than Hitler oppressing their own people and using weapons against them. Hundreds upon hundreds of civilians are being killed. We have the planes, we have the guns, and we spend hundreds of millions on them. Putting them to use to protect civilians can only be a good thing.

Two things I keep hearing:

1) We are doing this for our own interests-oil, unpopularity of Cameron, Obama etc.

Are there ulterior motives here further to it being a purely humanitarian mission? Yes, of course there are, and it would be bizzare (and dangerous) to have a government who did not consider practical interests on various levels, and operated on a purely ideological level.

Having said that, Gaddafi was opening up trade to the West in the run up to this, and his government did provide stable oil trade that was used by Western companies. The Middle Eastern dictators have at least provided the region with a form of stability which a protracted struggle with an unpredictable outcome may not. This isn't about oil, like Iraq 1991. This can absolutely be called a humanitarian mission with full UN backing, making it legal (unlike Iraq 03, which was illegal).

2) It could turn out to be a full-scale Civil war, from which we will not be able to disentangle ourselves, like many other recent wars.

This is a more practical criticism, and I think it's valid for a ground invasion. However, it is not valid for a no-fly zone, which could be stopped much easier. The question is not whether there could be a protracted "civil war" between pro-government and anti-government forces-the government could be toppled easily by Western Military. The question is whether there are other sectarian, ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions in the country which could be brought out after the fall of the government and turn into a civil war.

I don't know much about Libya's internal makeup, so I can't comment on that, but that question needs to be answered. If that is the case, then no doubt there would be a civil war whether the West intervened or not, and probably an even more bloody one without Western Military forces to police it. The only difference is that if America is there and 100,000 people die, the world will burn American flags. If 500,000 die and America is not there, no-one will give a ****.

So I don't think the question is whether military interference will spark a civil war, rather whether we care about the Libyans enough to make a go of it when a few hundred of our soldiers may die.

So what's the point of the UN being there if you are being forced around by the Congolese government?

The UN just sit around all day in their compound whilst the butchering and rape carries on because the Congolese government forbids the UN from going out of their compounds?

i meant the one in pakistan, my bad. ive made my point about the oil, if people want to think its about civilians (rebels in arms) then do that.

edit - so why dont the arab league deal with their problems? did they help with bosnia etc (in europe). no.