Do you agree with military action in Libya (poll included.

Scroll to see replies

i agree with the no fly zone, i do not agree with how the coalition countries are abusing it!

i dont see why they couldnt send in the SAS to assasinate him... oh right they already tried that

Reply 241

Cicerao

Go support something that will lead to the UK being targeted in retaliation somewhere else.

Reply 242

Tut.exe

how is my comment ignorant? Present an argument to my statement then tell me ignorant if I cant argue with it. If I was liberal, I wouldve been against this intervention as it could classify as against human rights.

Tell me first, what did the british gain in fighting in the Korean war? Oil?

Reply 243

Smophy

Original post by Kenocide

It would be illegal.
It would make us no better than him.

Simples.

I know but it still seems mad to me. It is illegal to kill one man yet legal to kill as many is needed to get him to stand down.

Reply 244

Kenocide

Original post by Smophy

I know but it still seems mad to me. It is illegal to kill one man yet legal to kill as many is needed to get him to stand down.

Welcome to the way the world works, I guess.

If the rebels could get to him I'm sure the anti-Gadhafi coalition would be more than happy to let them kill him.

Reply 245

garethDT

Original post by Kenocide

Congratulations, 5 points to Gryffindor for realising we like oil!

You're quite right, we'll support whoever is willing to give us that oil. It's 'you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours', as it always has been in politics. But that doesn't make it a colonial war.

Yes it does, it's neo-colonialism. The aim is to make Libya part of the US's economic empire.

Reply 246

ish90an

This is going to get very ugly for Britain. People can say the Arab League should have read the paperwork before signing it, but when it comes to public support these guys are absolutely critical or it turns into yet another imperialist invasion for the Middle East. The US is going to do all it can to stop this public fiasco, even if(very unlikely) it means pulling out of the assault and leaving the UK and France stranded.

Reply 247

Kenocide

Original post by f00ddude

i agree with the no fly zone, i do not agree with how the coalition countries are abusing it!

i dont see why they couldnt send in the SAS to assasinate him... oh right they already tried that

How are we "abusing" the no-fly zone?

Reply 248

MostCompetitive

Yes. Gaddafi needs to go now.

Reply 249

Kenocide

Original post by garethDT

Yes it does, it's neo-colonialism. The aim is to make Libya part of the US's economic empire.

It could fit the bill of neo-colonialism I suppose but I think that if we do try to get our leader of choice in the hotseat in Libya it's just going to backfire anyway because the Arabs have realised their capability to retaliate and stand up for themselves.

Reply 250

Rascacielos

Original post by morris743

lol.

Of course I want Gadaffi out and the Libyan people to have far better lives. I do not believe that is why we are doing what we are, however. And motives like that can lead to more questionable methods.

What do you believe our motive is then?

Reply 251

Smophy

Original post by Kenocide

Welcome to the way the world works, I guess.

If the rebels could get to him I'm sure the anti-Gadhafi coalition would be more than happy to let them kill him.

Fingers crossed :tongue:

Reply 252

301lw

i hate it when people compare this to iraq. it's completely different. the iraq invasion was not only a war but was illegal. this is not a war, just a no-fly zone that has been imposed with the backing of the ARAB union (it's clear it's not another west invasion of an arab country) and it's legal.
EVERYONE wants gaddafi gone cause he's a ****ing psychopath who's willing to massacre his people till the 'last man, last bullet' he said there would be no mercy. the people of libya hate him, the world hates him, i'm surprised he hasn't commited suicide like Hitler.

oh and i'm for the no-fly zone, if the UN did impose it i think Gaddafi may have won and then killed the entire east of the country for rebelling.

Reply 253

Aj12

Original post by Cicerao

The UK government are terrorists. Simple as.

May I ask how :rolleyes:

So its wrong to intervene to stop a man using tanks to shell his own people and planes to bomb his own people.

Reply 254

garethDT

Original post by DoaaK

So if we only attack them from the air and launch missiles from sea it's not war? What sort of screwed up double speak is that?

Reply 255

Butane

Original post by Aj12

May I ask how :rolleyes:

So its wrong to intervene to stop a man using tanks to shell his own people and planes to bomb his own people.

From whom did Gaddafi purchase said weapons?

Reply 256

Cicerao

Original post by Aj12

May I ask how :rolleyes:

So its wrong to intervene to stop a man using tanks to shell his own people and planes to bomb his own people.

Going in guns blazing into matters that don't concern us at all, using terror to get what it wants. (Read: Oil, and glory for CamOron.)

And yes, it is wrong since there will be inevitable retaliation attacks on us and our citizens.

Reply 257

ak137

This is western imperialism at its best. Our soldiers are not heroes because there is nothing heroic about war. Its disastrous, kills and starves many people. Yet the people that send these soldiers to war hide in bunkers and behind a black door in 10 downing street.

Reply 258

lassiesuca

The West are only intervening because they are harping on about humanitarian reasons, when the truth is that it's all to do with oil! Libya is the main oil source and with all this **** going on, Gaddafi is annoyed at the U.S, U.K etc because they're all ''conspiring'' against him, he cuts off their oil, so if the British help the rebels take Gaddafi down, they'll be in the rebels good books, when a new rebel leader comes in = more oil for the West countries.

The reason I say this is because;
- Each missile costs around $10-50 million, they've already shot 100's of them, so now we're in the big bucks, not a particularly cheap rescue mission- but;

- There are millions of starving people in Africa, with Malaria, HIV/Aids, suffering etc- and although we do give aid- we're forking out millions to bomb somewhere in Libya, instead of perhaps sending a few million to help build suitable conditions for babies and medical equipment, or fund education for young Africans.

- America believe that what is going on in Libya is morally wrong; I quote ''The government are killing their own people''. In America, they have a death sentence- okay, it is for those who do morally wrong- but to Colonel Gadaffi, what they're doing in Libya, the rebelling, is wrong to him- he's punishing them for it ( I'm not condoning it whatsoever by the way!!!), basically, the American's are huge hypocrites because they're simply contradicting themselves, because they basically kill their own people themselves. America has no welfare state; so many people live on the streets, turn to prostitution etc.

I think we have to read between the lines here, our PM can put on a big smile and the whole ''We're doing this because it is legal and morally right'' when really, they want oil.

I do hope that Gadaffi is taken down, and the rebels get the freedom that they're obviously extremely passionate about, because enough is enough. I suppose regardless of the UN's selfish decision, it is aiding the rebels, who I feel do deserve the lucky break and our army can provide them with the artillery which they are lacking.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 259

Aj12

Original post by garethDT

So if we only attack them from the air and launch missiles from sea it's not war? What sort of screwed up double speak is that?

"A legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply"

There has been no declaration. We are merely protecting civilians as specified by a UN resolution. We will not be using ground troops nor trying to destroy the entire Libyan infrastructure other than air defenses.