Libya rebels face last stand as Gaddafi forces zero in on Benghazi Watch

hollywoodbudgie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
We cannot allow this. Frankly the time has passed for a no-fly zone, and we should be looking for a full peacekeeping intervention with land forces and naval blockades of Tripoli and Sirte to stop more mass murder.
I sometimes wonder whether Westerners suffer from political memory loss because surely they cannot be ignorant enough to have forgotton what happened in Iraq only a few years ago.

(Original post by Craig_D)
if we don't get involved there will be a massacre of Libyans who we will be made to feel responsible for the death of
Why the hell should we feel responsible?

Read the quote below:

(Original post by Barden)
I don't see why we don't just have another Iraq tbh - we could go in there, somewhat legally this time, and actually come away with some oil...
If we intervene, please do not kid yourself that it is because our goverment gives a **** about the well being of the oppressed Libyans.

(Original post by hamijack)
Yea, lets pick a side in a civil war so we can be accused of being Western Imperialists trying to undermine the legitimacy of an internal revolution. That'll end well :rolleyes:

But seriously, if we intervene it would be like declaring war on western Libya as Gaddafi has a lot of support there. We'd have to kill tonnes of civilians who picked up arms to support Gaddafi. Western international intervention would cause more problems than it would solve. The AU should be responsible for any international intervention, not NATO.
+rep.
2
quote
reply
Omar.Ebrahim
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
I'm just skimming through this.


(Original post by Barden)
Hence why I said that this time, we could actually steal some... Also, a war aginst Gaddaffi's forces would not be nearly as costly, given that Libya is closer, the rebel forces there are decent, and Gaddaffi is madder than Hitler in the bunker...
It'd teach the guy a lesson - don't **** with your own country

I'm against the Iraq/Afghan war as it's a waste of money and blood, but because this is turning into a civil war and Gaddafi's a pr1ck, there needs to be an offensive from the UK and US to try and stop his forces from killing every rebel - find the areas completely held by Gaddafi's forces (where there are no rebels) and use the same poison gas attack that was used in Jalalabad (okay, against UN and human rights, but might be an idea).

Also, Hitler was kinder.


(Original post by Fusilero)
Problem is we've half arsed it. We've demanded he go, we've made it absolutely clear we want him gone but we don't act on it.
Send the lazy *******s in prison and on benefits there. It'd solve part of the housing and benefits problem and free up space in prison, as they won't feel so hard when someone shoots back.
0
quote
reply
lukejoshjedi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
I'm not saying they won't, I'm just saying that they haven't had a chance to yet.

If the resolution falls through as it probably will do, then **** the UN. It proved how useless it was in 1994 when a million Rwandans were murdered in cold blood, it will prove useless again now. We shouldn't be afraid to get stuck in on our own if it's what is right. The UN is powerless and we do not need it's consent to take what is obviously the right course of action.
A-men brother, they re just gonna sit around discussing what to do next anyway while Gaddafi crushes the rebellion and kills the rebel insurgents and probably a lot of innocents in collateral damage while he doesn't give a damn anyway

someone should just take action if they believe it morally right and justified (when I say someone I mean a country)
1
quote
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
Why the hell should we feel responsible?
I didn't say we should feel guilty, just that that there will be those who try to make us. The hypocritical media will have a field day when the numbers of Libyan dead are revealed, and we're constantly asked if we could have stopped it.
0
quote
reply
ChaoticSkills
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by Swell)
Typical West, nothing in it for them so they just turn around and say they're "thinking about it"... They don't give two ****s about human rights aslong as they can still go and cuddle up to Gaddafi for some of his oil. The rebels stand no chance against the Army, its going to be a massacre and many innocent people will die, Gaddafi will reagin power and it'll all be over. Sickening!

Haha i'm so angry. No doubt they'll do nothing about Bahrain aswell, just claim the "Rebels" (Freedom Fighters) are supporters of The Muslim Brotherhood, of which the absolute majority are not.
What do you want them to do? they cant go sticking their nose into everything can they? if a country doesn't serve the wests interests chances are they arent willing to get their hands dirty. It's simply a case of "if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"

Like, the only reason why America and Israel are such good partners is because theres American-Israeli politicians in congress who speed up several bills to help them. I.E military aid, and cooperation etc. It's interesting to note, that they gain a lot of sympathy because they've adopted some of the same stances that the U.S has, I.E no tolerance on "terrorism" flexing of military muscle etc etc, its all about adopting the same policies to get another country on your side.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Turkey are their allies. Thats enough influence in the middle east and North Africa for them.

and by the West I am mainly referring to America and the UK I probably should have been more specific

The rebels arent going to win anything, the militaries easily pushing them back. They've just got the technological edge, its near enough impossible for this 'revolution' to fully occur without any outside help.

Let's try pushing for this no fly-zone ASAP, if Gaddafi doesnt comply then just do what happened in the Kosovo conflict. Make a united battallion consisting of Nato forces i.e The U.S, Spain, Turkey, Denmark, Greece, Italy etc and clean it up. Instead of threatening attacks on countries like Iran and North Korea, do something useful with your overbloated military budgets :mad:

I'd say that the Arab League should be involved, but their too incompetent to do anything. If anybodies going to intervene, let it actually be a military organisation thats carried out successful operations in the past. Plus Saudi Arabias already helped Bahrain the other day they sent out a convey of 100 armed trucks to quell protests by Shia demonstrators, Egypt has its own problems, as does Tunisia, Iran etc... such calls for 'revolution' are only going to encourage these countries populations to start similar social movements.
1
quote
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by hamijack)
Yea, lets pick a side in a civil war so we can be accused of being Western Imperialists trying to undermine the legitimacy of an internal revolution. That'll end well :rolleyes:

But seriously, if we intervene it would be like declaring war on western Libya as Gaddafi has a lot of support there. We'd have to kill tonnes of civilians who picked up arms to support Gaddafi. Western international intervention would cause more problems than it would solve. The AU should be responsible for any international intervention, not NATO.

A full scale invasion isn't needed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should have one either. Most of Gadaffis recent success comes from the huge bombardments using heavy artillery and aircraft. Using strategic bombing it should be fairly easy to take them out, especially the aircraft considering he does have a huge number.

I am not sure why the AU should be responsible. They are incompetent. Neither am I sure why South Africa or Nigera should have a greater say in the matter when the countries of Southern Europe would be more affected by such an action.
0
quote
reply
Aphotic Cosmos
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
I sometimes wonder whether Westerners suffer from political memory loss because surely they cannot be ignorant enough to have forgotton what happened in Iraq only a few years ago.
The difference between Iraq (which I did not agree with at the time or now, but do accept that it removed a ruthless dictator from power) and what should happen in Libya is that Saddam wasn't really doing anything more objectionable than any other dictator in 2003, whereas Gaddafi is in the process of slaughtering his own people. Like I said - if he gets to Benghazi, it will be a massacre.

Frankly I don't give a damn whether this has ramifications in the "war on terror" or wider relations with the Arabic or Islamic world, there are thousands of people dying at the hands of their leader and as mature, powerful democracies we would do well to help them. We should not cast aside what is right for the sake of what is expedient.
0
quote
reply
big-bang-theory
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
(Original post by hamijack)
Yea, lets pick a side in a civil war so we can be accused of being Western Imperialists trying to undermine the legitimacy of an internal revolution. That'll end well :rolleyes:

But seriously, if we intervene it would be like declaring war on western Libya as Gaddafi has a lot of support there. We'd have to kill tonnes of civilians who picked up arms to support Gaddafi. Western international intervention would cause more problems than it would solve. The AU should be responsible for any international intervention, not NATO.
Except the African Union and Arab league support a no fly zone and the rebel leaders have requested international support. This doesn't mean we should interfere but it does mean we shouldn't dismiss the option out of refusal to want to appear interventionist. There's a diference between Iraq, where international and internal support was near non-existent, and now where both are in vehement opposition to Gadaffi and support of the rebels.
0
quote
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by Swell)
Money money money. Give him a wod of cash and he'll give you oil.
Gadaffi barely produces much oil on a global scale. The Saudis have already covered the drop in production so this is hardly about oil. In terms of the black gold Gadaffi is small fry especially considering he sells very little of it to the UK
0
quote
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Except the African Union and Arab league support a no fly zone and the rebel leaders have requested international support. This doesn't mean we should interfere but it does mean we shouldn't dismiss the option out of refusal to want to appear interventionist. There's a diference between Iraq, where international and internal support was near non-existent, and now where both are in vehement opposition to Gadaffi and support of the rebels.
Exactly...The people of the Middle East and Libya have the ability to distingush between interventionism as a result of Western Strategic interests and the intervention on a "humanitarian" basis.
0
quote
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
I sometimes wonder whether Westerners suffer from political memory loss because surely they cannot be ignorant enough to have forgotton what happened in Iraq only a few years ago.
Iraq and Libya are two very different scenarios.

Why the hell should we feel responsible?
The same reason you feel the need to help the Palestinians, despite not being Palestinian yourself.

If we intervene, please do not kid yourself that it is because our goverment gives a **** about the well being of the oppressed Libyans.
Why can't our government deem the lives of a few million Libyans its top priority?
2
quote
reply
Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by Fusilero)
Problem is we've half arsed it. We've demanded he go, we've made it absolutely clear we want him gone but we don't act on it.
Well we did, but the SAS botched it.
0
quote
reply
In2deep
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Except the African Union and Arab league support a no fly zone and the rebel leaders have requested international support. This doesn't mean we should interfere but it does mean we shouldn't dismiss the option out of refusal to want to appear interventionist.
Are you advocating a full-out war against the Libyan forces, who happen to have a significantly better army the Iraq and who I doubt would flee as soon as "Operation Free Libya" or some other ironically named intervention starts, because that is exactly what will happen. I don't know any sovereign nation that would allow it's airspace to be controlled by others.

Helping the freedom fighters might be the moral thing to do but that doesn't take into account the many Libyan citizens who actually still support the Gaddafi regime.

Also, the Arab League is a gathering of dictatorial puppet-states who base their foreign regional policy on petty personal disputes. Anyone who knows about or watches the Arab League Summit knows how much Gaddafi is hated for speaking the truth (and acting like an idiot).



(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Exactly...The people of the Middle East and Libya have the ability to distingush between interventionism as a result of Western Strategic interests and the intervention on a "humanitarian" basis.
Only that in all honesty, "our" leaders have no idea what the difference is. If there was no strategic interest on the table, no matter how bad it got in Libya, no Western power would intervene on "humanitarian" grounds.
0
quote
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by Drunk Punx)
Well we did, but the SAS botched it.
The SAS were there to talk to the provisional government, not overthrow or fight the Gaddafi Regime.
0
quote
reply
Swell
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by Aj12)
Gadaffi barely produces much oil on a global scale. The Saudis have already covered the drop in production so this is hardly about oil. In terms of the black gold Gadaffi is small fry especially considering he sells very little of it to the UK
May only be a small fry, but he's still important to the West. Any Oil is.
0
quote
reply
Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by Fusilero)
The SAS were there to talk to the provisional government, not overthrow or fight the Gaddafi Regime.
But it was still an act of sorts. An act doesn't have to be violent.

Have there been any attempts at talking to the provisional government since? I'm really out of the loop concerning Libya.
0
quote
reply
big-bang-theory
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by In2deep)
Are you advocating a full-out war against the Libyan forces, who happen to have a significantly better army the Iraq and who I doubt would flee as soon as "Operation Free Libya" or some other ironically named intervention starts, because that is exactly what will happen. I don't know any sovereign nation that would allow it's airspace to be controlled by others.

Helping the freedom fighters might be the moral thing to do but that doesn't take into account the many Libyan citizens who actually still support the Gaddafi regime.

Also, the Arab League is a gathering of dictatorial puppet-states who base their foreign regional policy on petty personal disputes. Anyone who knows about or watches the Arab League Summit knows how much Gaddafi is hated for speaking the truth (and acting like an idiot).
My point was that not wanting to appear "interventionist" or as it was so eloquently put as "Western Imperialists trying to undermine the legitimacy of an internal revolution" is simply not an issue. Due to not only regional support but internal requests from the rebels. I advocated nothing but that the argument I quoted was a bad one. For my own part I don't think we should interfere on land as Gaddafi still has citizen support in large parts of Libya and until this base of support is all but eradicated we can't risk simply worsening this already chaotic civil war. A no fly zone however simply makes the rebels have a realistic chance of fighting back.
0
quote
reply
HARRY PUTAH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
I stopped caring the second they demanded we shouldn't intervene.

They like to die martyrs over there so let them die udner the tank tracks of their enemy, its 'glorious' as they put it. Lessons in not biting the hand that beats you is a harsh one over there.
1
quote
reply
In2deep
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by big-bang-theory)
My point was that not wanting to appear "interventionist" or as it was so eloquently put as "Western Imperialists trying to undermine the legitimacy of an internal revolution" is simply not an issue. Due to not only regional support but internal requests from the rebels. I advocated nothing but that the argument I quoted was a bad one. For my own part I don't think we should interfere on land as Gaddafi still has citizen support in large parts of Libya and until this base of support is all but eradicated we can't risk simply worsening this already chaotic civil war. A no fly zone however simply makes the rebels have a realistic chance of fighting back.
My point is that a no-fly zone would need US/British/EU aircraft in Libyan airspace. Many aircrafts that need to patrol a very large country with several airbases. It might also mean destroying the air capabilites of Gaddafi. This is not taking into account the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Libyan Army.

You could see how this can quickly deteriorate. A simple no-fly zone could quickly become a full-scale war and a probable annihilation of the Libyan defence forces with significant losses on the other side. If that is not taking sided in a civil war then I don't know what is.
0
quote
reply
Aphotic Cosmos
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by In2deep)
My point is that a no-fly zone would need US/British/EU aircraft in Libyan airspace. Many aircrafts that need to patrol a very large country with several airbases.
Considering that virtually everyone in Libya lives on the coast and all the fighting is taking place there, it's a pretty narrow corridor which actually needs to be patrolled. Also, Gaddafi's air force is pretty poorly equipped - the Mirages that he relied on have now all been lost through defections, crashes and combat losses and he's left with very old Sukhois that wouldn't be a match for the fighters of 20 years ago, let alone an entire US carrier wing.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (169)
18.61%
No (553)
60.9%
Not really bothered about them (186)
20.48%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise