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

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?

Iran clearly has more oil, why didn't we intervene there? It would actually be ridiculously easy for the US. Simply deploy more forces in Iraq and blitz Iran from there.

I do agree though that the oil is a part of it, especially now that Gaddafi-European relations have reached a low point of no return. But not a significant part. If the oil had been the main interest of the West, they would have simply turned a blind eye on the rebels, if not supported Gaddafi.

That said, I think the main reason is political and therefore symbolic. Right at the shores of Europe, the West would look weak if they did not intervene to such a situations, especially when there was a request by the Arab League.

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.

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.

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.

and more importantly why did the sas have explosives?

Another war,another attempt to bring democracy.
It worked for Iraq,why not here?

Civilian causality will exist either ways... There could have been talks,negotiations than the use of force. What remains in the bold is that as long humans exist so will war.Instead this has provoked some segment of the country into the belief of the 'west' is after our resources.

Btw. who is leading this coalition ? Where are those arab nations which voted over this ?
Oppresion occurs daily,everywhere.

Palestine,Kashmir,China,Mozambique,Somalia why don't we lead one for these too ?

^^
One thing is clear,value of human life is equivalent to what's returned in exchange.

EDIT:If qaddafi was really a righteous ruler he would've stepped down but I guess one reaches the point of in-denial over a prolonged time.

Its a member of the Arab League though.

Yes, why don't we attack China

EDIT: Oh and btw you might want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29#Mission_shift

Yes, one of twenty two

China? now what has it got to do with this?
Clearly USA can't meddle with an exponentially booming economy.

Your point?

One country does not speak for the league nor does one man. Might as well Say Ban Ki Moon speaks for the entire world.

I think that was my point?

I was being sarcastic. The poster before me had suggested that if we attack Libya on human rights grounds, presumably we should attack China amongst others.

I'm just wondering what next... they're saying taking Gaddafi out isn't priority, just all of his military capabilities/anti air batteries, tanks etc.... then what, arm the rebels? Let them fight it out? I doubt that'll happen

Intervention could go further, which is what I think will happen