Libya: The Tables Have Turned.

Scroll to see replies

But they could shoot down the aircraft if they are participating in bombing missions. Why do they feel the need to bomb non-operating aircraft that are on the ground?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/uk-libya-britain-idUKTRE72D28Z20110314

http://rt.com/usa/news/egypt-arming-libyan-rebels/

So basically, they are attempting a coup.

I think the mandate allows for that as it says that all neccessary measures can be used to ensure the safety of the Libyan people. If Gadaffi continues to state that the rebels will be massacred if we don't intervene (which he has) then ensuring their safety will require the removal of Gadaffi. Of course the international community want him gone - how that comes to pass is open for debate but I'd be very surprised if Gadaffi maintains any sort of power after this.

Reply 101

Aj12

Original post by Bishy786

Well, they could shoot surface to air missiles from ships off the coast of Libya, and they could defend the city of Benghazi by patrolling its shores and shooting any aircraft that comes near it. But they do not need to take out Qaddafi's aircraft which are just sitting there.

But if the rebels in Benghazi say that they do not want you to bomb tanks and other armories, why does the UN, NATO and its allies feel they can bomb them?

The UN, NATO and its allies are not trying to create a ceasefire, they are arming the rebels to the teeth and clearing the roads of tanks so that the rebels can march into Tripoli and take over the government and depose of Gaddafi.

No the could't. The resolution is to protect civilians from Gadaffi's forces. We need to be able to have aircraft across Libya to make sure is not flying in mercs or bombing cities.

He has been using his aircraft and we need to make sure he does not use them to attack us. We also needed to take out his air defenses to make sure he does not on a whim decide to wipe out a load of our planes if they have to attack tanks who are trying to shell Benghazi.

Nato is not involved yet. The last reports I saw on Sky the BBC and in other places including individual reports from people in Benghazi was that they want the air strikes. We are there to protect civilians that is why we are hitting tanks and artillery that have been used to attack civilians.

Pretty much I won't deny that that is the likely plan . Good riddance to Gadaffi and his corrupt dictatorship.

Reply 102

Aj12

Original post by The_Male_Melons

We certainly cocked up those agreements.
The very people that sold him weapons (now being used) are the very people so concerned with the well-being of the Libyan people.
Brings another point of this irony in the so called "moral duty", we are funding dictatorships in other countries- now why is Libya so different?

Watch Massacres- essentially we will have to, we have a deficit to reduce and not increase. David Starkey highlighted that no revolution has never been peaceful, it has always seen blood. Noam Chomsky goes further comparing Gadaffi airstrikes to the USA drone attacks. What is the difference?

There was no support for the Iraq, Tony Blair went ahead. No support for this intervention, Cameron went ahead. Government falling- purlease?

Such help is viewed suspicion- you seem to ignore this. They aren't exactly greeting this but treating this help with some scepticism.

Its not the very same people though is it. Its a completely different government. The coalition government did not sell those weapons. Go bleat to Brown and Blair about that.

Because Libya has a armed rebellion to support. None of the other dictatorships have this.

Us drone strikes are against foreign terrorists that have spent the last 30 years trying to attack US interests all over the middle East finally culminating in 9/11. Its a false comparison and a weak one at that. A comparison would be the US bombing protests in Texas.

You honestly think the people will stand for troops in Libya? Really? You actually think there would not be a massive protest ?As well as many Lib Dems running as far from the coalition as they could? Plenty of tories are ok with a no fly zone but full intervention?

Good for them. Maybe they will be more happy when they reach Tripoli. Thanks to us and can set up their own government.

Reply 103

lonelykatana

Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£

Before, the situation was supposedly Gadaffi supporters against the "rebels". Now, however, the situation has changed... drastically.

The Western "Liberators" (i.e. Britain, France, USA etc) have flown in (literally) to "save the Libyan people" (oh, how I have lost faith in these immoral world Leaders - it almost makes me wish how our Prime Minister was an actual real and sensible Conservative Christian/Jew - and I am not even religious or Christian!) and now we have a different world.

That is, beforehand, the Gadaffi regime were the evil enemies and agressors and the "Libyan people" (those who the West are supposedly going to "save") were the poor victims. (Moving away from the media propaganda, if you have not realized - a lot of the "rebels" are actually Islamic fundamentalists - there were even a few pictured waving RPGs and screaming "Allahu Akbar"!! - they seem to have taken over from the actual protesters now!)

Now, however, the Western "Liberators" are now the aggressors and the country of Libya as a whole, the victims!! (Beware, that Gadaffi did warn Libya that the "West" would come and invade Libya...)

It is my opinion that other countries should not have invaded (that is what they are doing!) Libya - largely because their motives are obviously not sweet, innocent and moral - the picture of Cameron looking all professional makes me cringe and froth at the mouth - he is very, very immoral (at least, Gordon Brown looked like a "good" man (even if he was not!)). The motives are not good, so they should not have invaded!

Secondly, what becomes of Libya after they have been "liberated"?? (That is, if Libya does not unite to fight against their new enemy - the Western Aggressors!!) Will the West "help" them set up a "democratic government"?

This situation is ridiculous - how many British Prime Ministers will plunge Britain into more wars??? I only applaud Churchill, however Gadaffi is no Hitler and he certainly is not threatening to take over the world!!

Sorry for my rant, but Cameron gets on my nerves strutting about like he is a moral and "good" man and he knows best. Check out what he said:

" What we are doing is necessary, it is legal and it is right. "

Right?? In whose eyes??

"Tonight British forces are in action over Libya.
They are part of an international coalition that has come together to enforce the will of the United Nations and protect the Libyan people...."

Protect?? Oh Lord, save us. :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390035/Libya-Live.html

So, why have we not invaded Zimbabwe?? Somalia?? North Korea?? China??? Pakistan?? Turkmenistan?? Saudi Arabia??

I think all that is left to say is:

Will we "save" Yemen next?

Oh, the hypocrisy and immorality...

Why are the British people not protesting en masse about this?? (Maybe because they have been controlled by the press and think that we really are doing the right thing against this so "evil dictator" Gaddafi.....?)

This will not end well...

Since when did praising their god make them Islamic fundamentalists?

You clearly know jack **** about the war

All but 5 countries in the EU. (On of which is still helping.)

Seriously, how can a child be dropped on its head as many times as you clearly were.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 104

Bishy786

Original post by Logi

The mandate states all Libyan people, but the pro-Gaddafi supporters are also Libyan. So would the UN and its forces attack the Rebels and the Pro-Gaddafi forces who are fighting each other. Surely that would be contradictory to the safety of the Libyan people.

Reply 105

lonelykatana

Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£

Do you not still like me? :redface:

Many Chinese people have also called for our help - why do we not help them?

There is a degree of corruption and self-interest here and you know it!

There is a fine line between helping the people of a nation, and going to war with a superpower with the largest profesional army in the world.

One is is a stupid thing to do, that will end in many many more deaths. I'll let you decide which :smile:

Reply 106

Logi

Original post by Bishy786

I think we're hoping for more defections and for the majority of Libyan public opinion to be behind the rebels once they're no longer under the threat of Gaddafi. If not then we'll probably leave the rebels to sort that bit out.

Reply 107

adam_zed

Original post by Aj12

Pretty much. We can't help every or even some countries. Its just the world we live. At least we are doing something for once rather than sitting back and watching. This may put other dictators on edge to. Show that they cannot bomb their own people without consequence.

Depends. If the British government had been using tanks and planes to put down unrest and if it had a 40 year history of brutally against its own people. Then yes I would.

"Just the world we live in" is a feeble excuse, akin to excusing violence as "human nature". Why does bombing your own civillians suddenly mean more then shooting them as we see is happening as we speak in Gulf countries?

Surely with intervention there must be some level of consistancy. I mean if we applied the same system to our legal system, where one murderer was punished but others were allowed to carry on un-hindered, then understandabley there would be outcry. Now you continually try to bat the reasonable question of "why specifically Libya" away with the fact that Libya currently has an armed rebellion. Do you not even bat an eyelid to the fact that we are quite obviously meddling in another country's affairs? Before you come back with that whole "so you support the murder of innocent people" rhetoric, ofcourse I dont. In my perfect world, anyone who has a position of power and refuses to allow himself to be accountable to the people, whilst also killing off dissent, would be immediately usurped. However I understand in the real world, such an effort would cost us dearly in financial terms and so is not feasible.

Lets be honest with ourselves, this has nothing or at least very little to do with saving the life of innocent people. Gaddafi had been murdering even whilst Tony gave him cuddles and the world warmed to him. It was only when the world media showed us what Gaddafi was really like that the worlds leaders, criticised for their reaction to Mubarek, were forced to condemn Gaddafi. Now he reacted quite angrily to this, and I am sure western leaders knew that they would be made to pay for this "betrayal" should Gaddafi prevail. So why you sit there thinking of the hard done by people of Libya and congratulate the west for saving the lives, I sit here thinking of the people of many other countries, going beyond the Gulf and Mahgreb who are being killed by their leaders even whilst our own leaders revel in our ignorance to their plight and do business with them. Please explain how the "existing rebellion" and protecting people who are using guns to reach their desired goal point carries any more weight then protecting a group of peaceful protesters being mown down by the armies of their homeland. I would say that the latter aremuch more deserving of our help, would you?

Finally let me re-iterate I am neither for nor against intervening and I know full well that it is a lot easier to sit here and make judgement then to actually sit at a conference full of world leaders having ahd little sleep and with the world being critical of you, forcing you to make some decision. I just find it amusing and also annoying how easily people jump on bandwagons, either saying unconditionally that this is the right thing to do and anyone who says opposite is a tyrants apologist or the other side who say that this is uncatergorically wrong and the west are doing it for the oil.

Reply 108

Bishy786

Original post by Aj12

So whose going to protect the Pro-Gaddafi forces from fighting the Rebels who are protected by the UN and its forces. But the point about mercs and bombing cities is contradictory when the Allies are bombing Tripoli using Western forces which is just an updated definition of a mercenary.

But the UN and its allies decided to invade its airspace. As the Libyan government correctly said that it is and "internal issue" and so why are the UN, America, France and its allies so eager to bomb the **** out of Libya to make Gaddafi resign. If you initiated the hostile moves, then you should expect the consequences.

NATO is involved: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/nato-countries-weighing-libya-action-may-face-resistance-over-no-fly-zone.html

Also, the only reason they are intervening is because of the new high of the Oil prices. If they return Libya to stability, then the Oil prices will decrease but if Gaddafi keeps on his rule, then they will become even higher. That is why they need to get Gaddafi out now.

Reply 109

Bishy786

Original post by Logi

So basically, your saying is that we bomb the **** out of the Libyan government, then leave their war torn country in pieces, probably civil war would follow between the Pro and Anti Gaddafi forces but we don't give a **** because the only reason we went there was to stabilize the increasing oil prices and get the anti-western leader out of power.

Reminds anyone of Iraq?

By the way, Extensive bombings of every airfield in Libya is an act of war under international law.

Reply 110

paddyman4

Original post by Bishy786

Also, the only reason they are intervening is because of the new high of the Oil prices. If they return Libya to stability, then the Oil prices will decrease but if Gaddafi keeps on his rule, then they will become even higher. That is why they need to get Gaddafi out now.

Before, Libya was ruled for 42 years by an iron-fisted dictator. That is stability.

Now, the country is tearing itself apart, Western forces are bombing it, there is no Western intent to win the war for the rebels, but instead to just protect them. There is no guarantee that Gaddafi will go, or how long it will take if he does go. If he does go, the country will be in complete shambles, with cities raised to the ground. The country will be controlled by completely disorganised rebels, there will be no way to know how long it will take for the fighting to die completely or how long it will take before there is an established government. And you think that this situation will inspire confidence in the markets and stabilise oil prices?

Reply 111

Logi

Original post by Bishy786

And this is where your argument breaks down. Yes we want him out and that is the main motivation behind this but not simply because of oil. Anyone who simplifies it to that extent is ignoring much of the situation.

Reply 112

Hamesh

We'll have to wait & see how this unfolds.

This same agruments about ''liberating Libyans'' against '' Western double standards'' have been repeated throughout every thread about Libya. It's getting both circular and tedious. Fact: the West has intervened. TSRians cannot change this.

Reply 113

Bishy786

Original post by paddyman4

No, you misunderstood my position, I am against a no fly zone because it is considered and act of war invading and carrying out extensive bombings to destroy aircraft and in the process they kill civilians too.

Reply 114

Bishy786

Original post by Logi

So what is the point of Military intervention if not for oil.

True, they also have another motive which is to protect the rebels in Benghazi but if they are carrying out bombing runs on the pro Gaddafi forces, then who is protecting them?

As you said, you want him out but not "simply because of oil", that means you are advocating the right to use military force to stabilize the rocket high oil prices, So the lure of oil is also playing a part in this foreign military scale invasion.

Reply 115

Logi

Original post by Bishy786

As you said, you want him out but not "simply because of oil", that means you are advocating the right to use military force to stabilize the rocket high oil prices, So the lure of oil is also playing a part in this foreign military scale invasion.

It's already been explained to you that this intervention will cause prices to go up, not down.

Original post by paddyman4

Oil is always going to be an influence but in this instance you're overstating it massively. It's such a lazy, over-used retort by people who can't be arsed to look a little further or who just dislike the west.

Reply 116

jcockerill1

Bomb the whole of the Middle East.

Reply 117

Hamesh

Original post by jcockerill1

Bomb the whole of the Middle East.

Or putting an end to funding despotic regimes perhaps and stronger involvement from the international community in the Israeli siege of Gaza?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 118

nonotrly

It looks good if the west finally decide Gadaffi's nasty and overthrow him.

We don't invade countries unless we can benefit from it. And by we I mean the area I live in, rather than myself.

Oil, an influence in the arab world/middle-east, personal vendettas, stifling the rise of potential superpower competitors or weapons development.

Invading Zimbabwe holds no non-moral benefits, looking for Osama in Saudi Arabia wlll take away precious money and oil.

Imagine you were in the middle-east, about 10 years ago. "Hey, it turns out that Osama nutjob was right. Gee, maybe we should join him. I've been reading this Koran all wrong!"

Nice work, West.

Reply 119

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£

" What we are doing is necessary, it is legal and it is right. "

Right?? In whose eyes??

In the eyes of anyone who wouldn't, having the ability to intervene, simply stand by and watch as people protesting merely for a say in their government are butchered by a mad tyrant.