French military jets over Libya

Scroll to see replies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html?view=print

most are loyal libyan people against the regime, but their not working alone.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 101

Aj12

Original post by Ano1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html?view=print

most are loyal libyan people against the regime, but their not working alone.

To be fair the huffingtonpost wrote an article against intervention because the US had nothing to gain from it other than humanitarian goals.

Reply 102

Aj12

Original post by James10000

We are going into Libya for oil its no different to Britain colonizing Africa for its resources 100 years ago. BP will get huge oil contracts and pay the new Libyan governments low royalties. The UK will tax petrol more and then say oh look price of oil has gone up so lets increase green taxes so we can waste more money. Its all about Money.

Gaddafi is a monster but he is not corrupt

Why do only muslim countries get 'liberated' why not burma or zimbabwe ?
to me radicals who say the west it at war with Islam seem to have a very strong case

Your a moron. The oil in Libya is worthless in the grand scheme of things. Saudi Arabia already covered any drop in production in Libya. Plus the UK gets very little oil from Libya same with the US and France.

Reply 103

Ano1

Original post by Aj12

To be fair the huffingtonpost wrote an article against intervention because the US had nothing to gain from it other than humanitarian goals.

its just food for though, im open to view this from both ways.

Reply 104

Aj12

Original post by Ano1

its just food for though, im open to view this from both ways.

Hmm. To be fair no one deserves to be brutally murdered for their opinoin. Even if wee don't agree with it

Reply 105

Sovr'gnChancellor£

Original post by tehFrance

I like how for once we aren't running away :lol:

You just wait. :smug:

Reply 106

AndroidLight

Original post by Aj12

Libyan oil reserves are the 9th largest in the world. So if you chose to resort to name calling, you'll find it is you who is the moron.

Reply 107

Aj12

Original post by AndroidLight

Libyan oil reserves are the 9th largest in the world. So if you chose to resort to name calling, you'll find it is you who is the moron.

if you look at what I said you will see I was talking about oil production, and who they sell it to.

Anyway why bother with the 9th largest? Why not go for Kuwait or Iran

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 108

mevidek

Original post by bj_945

No, I think we should intervene certainly with a no-fly zone, and potentially with a ground force in the near-future.

ohhh my god. Why? It's going to turn out just like Iraq or Afghanistan. We should keep completely out of it, as it will save lives, money and time. Why not focus on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, installing a government, perhaps a puppet dictator who we can kick off whenever we want.

Reply 109

Ano1

Original post by Aj12

Hmm. To be fair no one deserves to be brutally murdered for their opinoin. Even if wee don't agree with it

Things like this happen allover the world though.

You could probably make a list of rebel uprisings since darfur, and nothing happens. Why now? I wonder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#2000s

IMO its all business, why dont the west say **** about Tibet etc.

Reply 110

Ano1

We should note that this is NOT a war, they are just enforcing the no fly zone.

Time will tell, and we'll see how this plays out I guess. I hope it wont be another Iraq.

Reply 111

AndroidLight

Original post by Aj12

if you look at what I said you will see I was talking about oil production, and who they sell it to.

Anyway why bother with the 9th largest? Why not go for Kuwait or Iran

You said the oil in Libya is worthless. It is far from worthless. Just by allowing foreign companies to develop the oil it becomes massively valuable.

With Iran, they'd have an actual fight on their hands. Kuwait? No idea, don't know much about what their powers are like, but I can presume the western powers are all cozy with whomever is in charge. It's no coincidence that Gaddafi does not bend over for the western powers and no suddenly the whole world wants him gone. Very similar thing will the revolution in Iran a year or two ago, only it failed. This use of force was incredibly predictable. I'd love to believe it's only to ensure the people of Libya are safe, but that's for a fool to believe.

D.Cameron wants us to believe it's to protect the poor civlians. Why isn't he in all the other multiple places that are far worse (killings, rapes) yet are desolate in economical value?

Reply 112

Aj12

Original post by AndroidLight

In a grand scheme it is. Its oil production has already been covered by other nations why bother invading for oil? An invasion that will cost far more than its worth. I'd also like to no how you can control a countries oil supply without any troops in the country?

As I keep explaining to idiots on this forum. The west cannot go and help out every single country .Nor can we just invade nations. No other nation has a rebellion like this that we can actually help without having to resort to a ground invasion.

Reply 113

Xurvi

The resolution 1973 of the UN excludes a ground action so it shouldn't be like Iraq with an invasion and occupation.

Reply 114

Jacktri

If Gaddafi's troops just sat back and didn't start killing protesters they wouldn't be in this mess the damn fools brought it upon themselves.

Reply 115

imperial maniac

Original post by tehFrance

At their own free will?

Erm... yes, there's no reason to think otherwise.

Reply 116

concubine

Original post by Ano1

Whereas there is a chance for a relatively swift return to stability, and a government not led by some crazed dictator that doesn't give two ****s about his people, in Libya, the same cannot be said for many of the other countries that experience uprisings.

Reply 117

Lack of Creativity

The US is now saying Libya's air defences are severely disabled. It's downhill for Gaddafi once we've got complete control of the airspace.

Reply 118

bj_945

Original post by mevidek

Well I explained my position before:

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.

---------------------------------------------------

I don't consider this situation comparable to Iraq in the slightest: this is a response to the violent attacks on Libya's people following their demand for a change of power. The UN resolution gives the mandate to do anything to protect Libya's civilians, and that's absolutely right.

I also explained at length my views on a ground invasion. The internal makeup of Libya has to be properly considered first. Maybe there'll be a civil war if the government collapses, but if so it won't be a civil war caused by America, but rather an inevitable result of the removal of government power. Iraq was like that too, it was always going to have a civil war, it was well over-due one. You can't keep a minority sect ruling a majority forever, and when it comes to a head it will be bloody. Not America's fault, rather Saddam's and Ghaddafi's.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 119

James10000

Learn to spell

Original post by Aj12

You a moron, BP has huge oil interest in Libya.It worth full enough to warrant an invasion when Zimbabwe is not.Saudi Arabia increased production by 300,000 not enough.Libya has no plans to stop oil production anyway.There are also other interest in play such BAE systems,Haliburton,Domestic Poll Ratings and the main one bring Libya under US influence.

Original post by U.S Lecce

what are you on about?

Original post by Lack of Creativity

Please remove yourself from the cave you seem to have been living in.

Just Because the BBC said he was corrupt, that makes him corrupt ? . Money is distributed by peoples committees and Gaddafi lives in a Tent.

All Gaddafi is doing is disarming groups of people in Eastern Libya, who happen to hate him for historical reasons amongst which is overthrowing the king who cam from one of the eastern tribes.

In america 30 years ago, Native Indians took over a small town to protesta against living conditions,the FBI came in shot 2 dead and wounded half a dozens others. So america wouldve done the same.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-72128021.html

Gaddafi is facing a much bigger and well armed bunch of rebels. As for Corporate News reports of him using his airforce to bomb civilians, he is only bombing armed men and over run Military Baracks. Civilians dont carry guns.Sure I think Gaddafi should try to engage in talks with the rebels and try for peace but its a internal matter, none of the UNs business. If this was Gaza and Israel there would a resolutions to a call for both sides to return to stop violence but no UN Peacekeeping force.