Do you agree with military action in Libya (poll included.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by garethDT
In all the news coverage there has not been any footage of these air strikes supposedly being carried out on the Libyan people. Ironically the first air strikes we have seen have been French planes bombing Libyans!
Oh and as I understand it a no-fly zone would mean Libyan planes were not allowed to fly in Libyan airspace. Yet we are bombing tanks and bombarding them with missiles, explain to me what that has to do with a 'no fly zone'.
Oh and as I understand it a no-fly zone would mean Libyan planes were not allowed to fly in Libyan airspace. Yet we are bombing tanks and bombarding them with missiles, explain to me what that has to do with a 'no fly zone'.
couldnt agree more
Original post by garethDT
In all the news coverage there has not been any footage of these air strikes supposedly being carried out on the Libyan people. Ironically the first air strikes we have seen have been French planes bombing Libyans!
Oh and as I understand it a no-fly zone would mean Libyan planes were not allowed to fly in Libyan airspace. Yet we are bombing tanks and bombarding them with missiles, explain to me what that has to do with a 'no fly zone'.
Oh and as I understand it a no-fly zone would mean Libyan planes were not allowed to fly in Libyan airspace. Yet we are bombing tanks and bombarding them with missiles, explain to me what that has to do with a 'no fly zone'.
4. Authorises member states that have notified the secretary-general, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the secretary-general, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the member states concerned to inform the secretary-general immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
From resolution 1973. In terms of bombing other fixed targets to enforce the no fly zone:
6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;
authorises member states… to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above,
authorises member states… to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above,
(edited 13 years ago)
Disagree with it.
So first you sell weapons to the government and then you try to fight against it?!
It makes no sense to me, but then again the invasion to Iraq didn't make much sense either.
So first you sell weapons to the government and then you try to fight against it?!
It makes no sense to me, but then again the invasion to Iraq didn't make much sense either.
Original post by Aj12
Well Qatar's jets just entered Libya so they can't be that annoyed.
Qatar isn't the whole Arab world is it. Qatar is known for being liberal and pro-Western, for an Arab monarchy.
Part of the legitimacy for this whole affait was based in support from the Arab states. If they don't want Libyan lives to be saved, they can have their massacre. Of course plenty of them have their own protests at home.
Original post by garethDT
Except he isn't slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians, that's just propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence of this.
And you can't call the rebels innocent civilians when they're carrying guns and in uniform, they are a military organisation and Libya, like any other country, has the right to defend itself.
And you can't call the rebels innocent civilians when they're carrying guns and in uniform, they are a military organisation and Libya, like any other country, has the right to defend itself.
Oh geez, another one who is refusing to acknowledge the truth. What do you mean by there is no evidence of this???????? Are you stupid? Over 200 000 people have fled the borders, wounded and telling their stories. There are zillions of pictures, clips, and live streams out there.
All NGO's and journalists have confirmed this. Oh no, Doctors without Borders is just chilling down there and the Red Cross and the UNHCR have nothing better to do than hang around a place where they are not needed. Yeah, right. God, you are an absolute idiot.
Have you actually read/watched any news???? The rebels arent in uniforms, you are getting this mixed up with pro-Gaddafi forces. The arms the rebels have are from weapons storage that belonged to Gaddafi. They had 0 weapons when the protests started, the protests were peaceful at first. Some military staff of Gaddafi has defected to the Rebels, these are experienced soldiers, the rest are regular people. YOU ARE AN IDIOT and you make it way to easy to squash you in an argument since you are so blatantly oblivious to the facts and it is painfully obvious that you know nothing about what is actually happening down there. Keep up.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Leonie01
Oh geez, another one who is refusing to acknowledge the truth. What do you mean by there is no evidence of this???????? Are you stupid? Over 200 000 people have fled the borders, wounded and telling their stories. There are zillions of pictures, clips, and live streams out there.
All NGO's and journalists have confirmed this. Oh no, Doctors without Borders is just chilling down there and the Red Cross and the UNHCR have nothing better to do than hang around a place where they are not needed. Yeah, right. God, you are an absolute idiot.
Have you actually read/watched any news???? The rebels arent in uniforms, you are getting this mixed up with pro-Gaddafi forces. The arms the rebels have are from weapons storage that belonged to Gaddafi. They had 0 weapons when the protests started, the protests were peaceful at first. Some military staff of Gaddafi has defected to the Rebels, these are experienced soldiers, the rest are regular people. YOU ARE AN IDIOT and you make it way to easy to squash you in an argument since you are so blatantly oblivious to the facts and it is painfully obvious that you know nothing about what is actually happening down there. Keep up.
All NGO's and journalists have confirmed this. Oh no, Doctors without Borders is just chilling down there and the Red Cross and the UNHCR have nothing better to do than hang around a place where they are not needed. Yeah, right. God, you are an absolute idiot.
Have you actually read/watched any news???? The rebels arent in uniforms, you are getting this mixed up with pro-Gaddafi forces. The arms the rebels have are from weapons storage that belonged to Gaddafi. They had 0 weapons when the protests started, the protests were peaceful at first. Some military staff of Gaddafi has defected to the Rebels, these are experienced soldiers, the rest are regular people. YOU ARE AN IDIOT and you make it way to easy to squash you in an argument since you are so blatantly oblivious to the facts and it is painfully obvious that you know nothing about what is actually happening down there. Keep up.
Of course people are fleeing and there red cross are there, it's a war zone! The footage I have seen shows the rebels in makeshift uniforms and with weapons which makes them a legitimate target for Libyan forces regardless of what you think of Gadaffi or his regime.
people are forgetting that however mad Qaddafi maybe, he is a master strategist like banana boy over here - 
Original post by Cicerao
There have already been tens of civilian deaths. I don't care what they think they're targeting, they're killing even more innocent people.
erm, there hasnt been a single verified report about civilian casualties from the UN site yet. But yesterday morning BEFORE the no fly zone was in action Gaddafi troops had entered Benghazi trying to kill everyone, killing babies and children.
Yet YOU prefer that instead of thousands of people it is worse if maybe a much much smaller number will be killed? How disgusting of you.
Original post by Cicerao
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.
And yes, it is wrong since there will be inevitable retaliation attacks on us and our citizens.
How does it not concern us when a people are being massacred? You seem like the person who would walk by if someone next to to them gets raped or beaten up. Human rights concern everyone, duh. Your lack of intelligence is disturbing.
Original post by Leonie01
erm, there hasnt been a single verified report about civilian casualties from the UN site yet. But yesterday morning BEFORE the no fly zone was in action Gaddafi troops had entered Benghazi trying to kill everyone, killing babies and children.
Yet YOU prefer that instead of thousands of people it is worse if maybe a much much smaller number will be killed? How disgusting of you.
Yet YOU prefer that instead of thousands of people it is worse if maybe a much much smaller number will be killed? How disgusting of you.
Notice how they don't try to "liberate" Dafur or Zimbabwe any other places. If you think the motivation behind it is compassion, then more fool you.
Original post by Cicerao
Notice how they don't try to "liberate" Dafur or Zimbabwe any other places. If you think the motivation behind it is compassion, then more fool you.
Taking out Gaddafi is partly liberating Darfur given the links Gaddafi has in that country.
Compassion isn't solely the reason, a multitude of factors form the reason for this intervention - namely, just like Kosovo, it is taking place damn close to Europe. Regardless of the specifics to this complex issue, helping people overthrow a man like Gaddafi is a good thing. It's true we can't intervene in every pocket of the world; but when we can, why not?
Original post by garethDT
In all the news coverage there has not been any footage of these air strikes supposedly being carried out on the Libyan people. Ironically the first air strikes we have seen have been French planes bombing Libyans!
Oh and as I understand it a no-fly zone would mean Libyan planes were not allowed to fly in Libyan airspace. Yet we are bombing tanks and bombarding them with missiles, explain to me what that has to do with a 'no fly zone'.
Oh and as I understand it a no-fly zone would mean Libyan planes were not allowed to fly in Libyan airspace. Yet we are bombing tanks and bombarding them with missiles, explain to me what that has to do with a 'no fly zone'.
um yeah einstein, the gaddafi troops wouldnt let any journalists and camera teams record their airstrikes. They control where the journalists go and often put them under house arrest, some cities they arent allowed to enter at all. This shows they have something to hide.
Although airstrikes havent been seen, the shells, bullets, wounded, tanks, dead, refugees have been seen. Not good enough for you? Then complain to the Libyan government for not letting the journalists go where they wanna go and stop with the pathetic conspiracy theories.
The No fly zone is ONE part of the resolution. Clearly you havent read it because it does allow for bombing tanks. Maybe read up first before you try to make a point? Otherwise it just looks sad.
Original post by Cicerao
Notice how they don't try to "liberate" Dafur or Zimbabwe any other places. If you think the motivation behind it is compassion, then more fool you.
Why are you completely ignoring my response to your crazy claim about civilian casualties? Trying to deflect. Let's try this again. Why are you saying there have been civilian casualties even though there isnt a single verified report out there? Please try to answer this.
Also, why do you prefer thousands to be killed than much fewer people? Please answer me this.
Not sure why you are suddenly blabbing about Zimbabwe or Darfur, my response had nothing to do with that. Try to focus, you are all over the place.
Original post by garethDT
Of course people are fleeing and there red cross are there, it's a war zone! The footage I have seen shows the rebels in makeshift uniforms and with weapons which makes them a legitimate target for Libyan forces regardless of what you think of Gadaffi or his regime.
You screamed for evidence. So i am asking you, how are the reports of the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, the UNHCR not evidence of people being killed and wounded by Gaddafi forces? They are not working for the media that you consider so evil, so why would you refuse to believe their accounts?
The rebels are so numerous, if some made makeshift uniforms, that doesnt mean they are a " military organisation" as you claimed, the majority of them wears normal clothes. Most of them have no military experience and some of the defected soldiers from Gaddafi's army tried to teach them.
Libyan forces have attacked the rebels (or protesters as they were known then) BEFORE they were armed as i said and you chose to ignore. AFTER the Libyan army used force, they raided weapon storages to defend themselves.
You justifying what Gaddafi's army is doing is insane. So the rebels who have endured decades of dictatorship are in the wrong for defending themselves with weapons. Ok.
Original post by bj_945
Do you like leaving Gaddafi's forces to murder people?
The "British kids" will not be deliberately targeting one civilian.
Gaddafi's forces have already deliberately targeted thousands of civilians. That we would kill anything like that is unimaginable, and they would be mistakes made in very carefully planned, difficult operations. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces are shooting civilians in cold blood and you are suggesting that we sit back and watch.
The "British kids" will not be deliberately targeting one civilian.
Gaddafi's forces have already deliberately targeted thousands of civilians. That we would kill anything like that is unimaginable, and they would be mistakes made in very carefully planned, difficult operations. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces are shooting civilians in cold blood and you are suggesting that we sit back and watch.
are they shooting civilians or rebels, deaths are in the hundreds the country has a population like scotlands, in the congo 200,000 are dead, go help out there.
that civil war in libya was going to be over within 2 days, now it will last far far longer.
attacking libya is untenable, let them be, or do the same for other countries, including denouncing bahrain.
and more importantly why did the sas have explosives?
Original post by Brandmon
Note people, that the West would have had easy access to the oil if they simply supported Gaddafi. Remember when many foreign oil workers pulled out of Libya?
Also, the oil Libya provides is not at all significant. It could easily be replaced by either getting oil from the Saudis or relying on more Russian oil and gas.
Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries
* Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
* Russia (6.67)
* Norway (2.91)
* Iran (2.55)
* Venezuela (2.36)
* United Arab Emirates (2.33)
* Kuwait (2.20)
* Nigeria (2.19)
* Mexico (1.80)
* Algeria (1.68)
As you can see, the West would have profited more Oil-wise if it made an excuse to invade Algeria.
So knowing that the "We did it for the oil" is bull****, and the West has no interest to colonise Libya: Yes, I fully support this military action.
Also, the oil Libya provides is not at all significant. It could easily be replaced by either getting oil from the Saudis or relying on more Russian oil and gas.
Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries
* Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
* Russia (6.67)
* Norway (2.91)
* Iran (2.55)
* Venezuela (2.36)
* United Arab Emirates (2.33)
* Kuwait (2.20)
* Nigeria (2.19)
* Mexico (1.80)
* Algeria (1.68)
As you can see, the West would have profited more Oil-wise if it made an excuse to invade Algeria.
So knowing that the "We did it for the oil" is bull****, and the West has no interest to colonise Libya: Yes, I fully support this military action.
Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene when those countries were in the same position....None of those countries have anything the West desires.
Besides, they'd rather they intervened and end the conflict than let it roll into a civil war where oil from the region would be hard to access.
I'm not saying that oil is the soul reason but it plays a size-able part. If the west were really bothered about the oppression of the people in Libya why didn't we start intervening years ago, by not selling arms to Libya's government?
The really important question here is.... What would Charlie Sheen do... if he had the option of Military action or not
At the end of the day, whether you agree with Libya or not, it's just a warm up/distraction.
The real endgame is the Iran-sponsored rebellions going on in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Saudi.
The final conflict will be in Saudi. And THAT's when the **** will hit the fan good and proper.
The real endgame is the Iran-sponsored rebellions going on in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Saudi.
The final conflict will be in Saudi. And THAT's when the **** will hit the fan good and proper.
Original post by NoFunnyBusiness
Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene when those countries were in the same position....None of those countries have anything the West desires.
Besides, they'd rather they intervened and end the conflict than let it roll into a civil war where oil from the region would be hard to access.
I'm not saying that oil is the soul reason but it plays a size-able part. If the west were really bothered about the oppression of the people in Libya why didn't we start intervening years ago, by not selling arms to Libya's government?
Besides, they'd rather they intervened and end the conflict than let it roll into a civil war where oil from the region would be hard to access.
I'm not saying that oil is the soul reason but it plays a size-able part. If the west were really bothered about the oppression of the people in Libya why didn't we start intervening years ago, by not selling arms to Libya's government?
This has already been explained a few pages back, sigh. There were UN troops in Rwanda but there was no resolution bc some member states were against it. You should also check in what countries the UN has troops at the moment is intervening, what do they desire in Timor as someone earlier said, please answer this?
It is simply not true that the UN has only intervened in countries where they could gain from. Also, the costs of the intervention will heavily outweigh any Libyan oil resources. The West would have done much easier to side with Gaddafi had they wanted oil so badly. Ugh, why do people keep asking the same things over and over again?
The arms trade is ugly but again sanctions and arm embargos also need approval. Libya got lots of arms from Russia, do you think Russia would agree to an embargo? Your mistake is to lump the UN and the West together. I advise you to check out the good things UN troops have done and are currently doing before accusing them of only intervening in countries where something is to be gained other than peace.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Great Personalities II
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- A Level AQA English Literature B 7717 - Elements of Crime Writing [Exam Discussion]
- OCR A level History
- Feeling a bit lost?
- Deed poll
- Making Othello statment question-A level english literature aqa b
- Two-year leave of absence for the military service
- Community Awards 2023: Feedback and suggestions
- history epq
- Student finance help!
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- A level history coursework
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
