Turn on thread page Beta

Libya No Fly Zone- I can no longer support the "savings". watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The Libyan cause is more of a humanitarian effort. There is a sizeable resistance that has the potential to topple a despotic dictator, given the rightly deserved help.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    Of course Gadaffi is a tyrant that needs to be stopped. Let the Libyan people deal with Gadaffi on their terms. I hope they do.
    The UK doesn't need to intervene, we have a deficit to reduce and a debt to pay. We can't afford to go willy nilly around the world like Blair.
    Humanitarian effort- Zimbabwe, North Korea, what about Saudi Arabia?
    I find this whole thing bizarre, how can we give on one hand Gadafi the weapons then on another hand be concerned?
    It's all relative. There's no evidence to show that the North Korean people are willing to, or capable of toppling their regime. There is however, evidence to do so in Libya. That's what this concerns. When there was no evidence of a popular uprising, it made sense to open diplomatic and trade channels with Libya, in order to gain a strategic ally. Whilst of course it's not the best outcome, you make the best out of what you can get. Now that we know that Libya is potentially capable of toppling him, it makes sense to help those that wish to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The Libyan cause is more of a humanitarian effort. There is a sizeable resistance that has the potential to topple a despotic dictator, given the rightly deserved help.
    I agree, I think for once intervention might just be a good idea. Remains to be seen although the Libyan government have announced a ceasefire, not sure what their intentions are yet.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    I always maintained that the coalition government were doing a great job and that savings were needed. Of course we need to make further savings to reduce and sort out the mess of the Labour government.

    I always agree with what Cameron is doing and his reforms and ideas for the UK is good. He is leading the way.


    After today, the UK will be intervening in another country. The UK should not get involved. Iraq was a disaster and Afghanistan is unwinnable. Libya isn't Cameron's Balkans or Falklands. The "no fly zone" or any other military action has no support from the British people or even from the Arab people themselves.

    The idea of going into Libya based on ethical and moral reasons is laughable. What about Bahrain, Egypt, or even Zimbabwe?
    Its annoying that I keep having to explain this.

    Libya has a full blown rebellion that can fight and with air support will have a bloody good chance of taking the country. No other nation has this.

    The rebels have been begging for this for the last week and the entire Arab league bar one nation supports it. For Gods sake Belgium Norway and Denmark will be involved. This is hardly another Iraq.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There is a clear, obvious distinction between Libya and Zimbabwe/N Korea/Russia/China/ whichever other distasteful dictatorship you care to name as a possible target for intervention:

    Gaddafi is actively attacking his own citizens, many of them innocent, on a mass scale, using foreign mercenaries.

    His forces have negligible power compared to those of N Korea, Russia and China's all three of which are nuclear powers.

    Mugabe is terrible but he is not attacking his own citizens as Gaddafi is.

    It makes me laugh that 90% of people 1 week ago were saying "Why can't we help the rebels to overthrow Gaddafi!?" and now they're saying "NOT ANOTHER WAR DIDN'T YOU LURN FROM IRAQ?!1111".

    This is not going to be another Iraq or Afghanistan. British forces are going to be involved on a small scale to prevent the aerial butchering of a legitimate rebel force that is trying to resist the tyrant who is butchering innocent civilians. Personally I don't see the problem.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    There isn't consistency here. We were aware of the Egypt uprising, Mubarak did kill protestors - no calls for military intervention. Same with Tunisia. At first, shockingly, the west had supported Ben Ali and Mubarak etc...

    2 months ago, Gadaffi was a friend now a foe. Let the Libyan do it for themselves without our intervention.

    What about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco? The Arab world is revolting. Where are the calls for intervention? Why single Libya?

    Enough is enough. This isn't Bosnia or the Falklands. We have a deficit and a debt and we need reforms. We don't need another Vietnam or Iraq or even an Afghanistan.
    You aren't understanding why the case of Libya is much different to those of other countries.

    Egypt and Tunisia's revolutions were quickly won by the rebels. There was very little violence. There was absolutely no need to intervene, except to freeze Ben Ali and Mubarak's assets (which should have been done faster in Mubarak's case). There is simply no comparison in terms of the level of violence employed by the governments of these two countries' and Gaddafi's, and the fact that you mention them reveals your naivity regarding the matter.

    Bahrain's protests at the moment are still in progress. I wouldn't be overly surprised if intervention is considered at some point in the next few months. Right now, though, the level of violence against civilians totally pales in comparison to that in Libya. Gaddafi is using his air force against unprotected protestors and foot soldiers. This is not happening in any other country; hence why we are imposing a no-fly zone in Libya alone.

    The protests in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Morocoo have been totally small scale and the government's response, again, has been a thousand times more lenient than Gaddafi's.

    Please give a little more consideration to the situation before you condemn Cameron, the UN, or the morality of intervention in Libya.


    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    What about the Ivory Coast? Deadly force is being used by it's own government against the people in their uprising? Where is military intervention?
    Not on the same scale as Libya... again. Heavy diplomatic pressure is being put on the Ivorian leader/dictator to leave. Again, as far as I'm aware the Ivorian government's air force is not being used to kill protestors, which is why a no-fly zone is not being imposed.

    Although intervention in the Ivory Coast could be/have been desirable, perhaps the UN's leaders were put off the idea by the prospect of the electorates of their countries producing the same old predictable response to humanitarian intervention: namely condemning it utterly. The international community can only really act when it is absolutely necessary because people like you automatically reject it, even in a clear cut case like Libya. Why waste money to save a bunch of foreigners, after all?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only thing that annoys me is how long they've taken to intervene. Better late than never though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    There isn't consistency here. We were aware of the Egypt uprising, Mubarak did kill protestors - no calls for military intervention. Same with Tunisia. At first, shockingly, the west had supported Ben Ali and Mubarak etc...

    2 months ago, Gadaffi was a friend now a foe. Let the Libyan do it for themselves without our intervention.

    What about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco? The Arab world is revolting. Where are the calls for intervention? Why single Libya?

    Enough is enough. This isn't Bosnia or the Falklands. We have a deficit and a debt and we need reforms. We don't need another Vietnam or Iraq or even an Afghanistan.
    We didn't intervene in Tunisia because we didn't see it coming.
    We didn't intervene in Egpyt because it was over quickly (Libya's protests have already been going on for twice the length of the Egyptian revolution) and because it never escalated into widespread armed conflict where fighters and tanks were used against the populace.
    We're intervening in Libya because thousands, not hundreds, of people are dead and there was/is a real threat of Gaddafi mercilessly slaughtering the citizens of Benghazi as retribution.

    There could be a clear case for intervention in Bahrain if the regime there escalates it's efforts to crack down and starts calling in more foreign troops with no mandate. Morocco has already achieved wide ranging democratic reforms through peaceful measures and was more democratic to start with. The protests in Syria and Saudi Arabia aren't widespread enough for an international consensus to be developed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the_male_melons)
    What about the Ivory Coast? Are we going to intervene there? The force used against it's own people are quite scary. Where is the "no-fly zone" or "military intervention"? Are we going to ignore it or leave it until the Middle East revolution is completed?
    I've never understood the "What about Egypt or Bahrain" argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that I can't house all homeless people in London doesn't make it irrational to donate to homeless charities.

    THe situation in other countries is completely irrelevant to a discussion concerning Libya. Saying "why don't we go into county X too" is an issue regarding country X, it says nothing about the pros/cons of getting involved with Libya.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    What about the Ivory Coast? Are we going to intervene there? The force used against it's own people are quite scary. Where is the "no-fly zone" or "military intervention"? Are we going to ignore it or leave it until the Middle East revolution is completed?

    The protests in Saudi Arabia in particular Bahrain shown on Al Jazeera highlighted that protester being paralysed and killed. We can leave that for a couple of months.
    See above post, I edited in a bit wrt the Ivory Coast. The idea that we are "ignoring" the situation there is laughable, though.

    Yes, there have been a few deaths in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. That's not yet enough to warrant intervention and it pales in comparison to what is happening currently in Libya.

    If we let Libya alone now, Gaddafi's forces, including his air force, are going to siege Benghazi and kill thousands more innocents. If we leave Bahrain, there will not be many deaths at all, unless the political climate there changes drastically.


    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    I saw tanks in Cairo on the BBC. Were they just placed there randomly?

    Of course Gadaffi needs to be stopped. The Libyan people will do it themselves. Let them.

    This "no-fly zone" or any other military intervention will be viewed with suspicion. It has no support in Britain. Even in the Arab world, foreign intervention has no support.
    This post is just terrible, as well as laughable.

    Of course there was a tank in Cairo. The Egyptian military agreed to supervise the protest and remain neutral, thankfully.

    The Libyan people are trying to do it themselves but unfortunately, Gaddafi's forces are far superior to theirs. Not due to a lack of support on the rebels' behalf but because of foreign mercenaries and an air force, which they clearly lack.

    Yes, unfortunately there is a lack of public support for intervention in Britain. Largely due to the gross oversights and overly swift judgements of people like you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It appears to have borne fruit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This step is fine, but no further.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    I saw tanks in Cairo on the BBC. Were they just placed there randomly?
    They were never used in anger, neither were the fighters. It was simply a show of force. The Libyan regime, in contrast, used it's military assets to engage opponents.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    Why don't you tell that to the families who seen their sons or daughters slaughtered whilst protesting?

    Let the arab people deal with the situation themselves. They will. I hope they do.

    Foreign intervention will not help matters but rather escalate it. It will be viewed with suspicion. It has no support.


    We got a deficit and a debt. We can't go around being the policing the world. The empire ended a century ago.
    I'm not saying that any deaths aren't tragic - of course they all are. You seem to employing a strong double standard here, though. What about the thousands of deaths that would be caused by a lack of intervention?

    You don't seem to grasp that rebel forces in Libya are losing the civil war. Badly. They lack an airforce, which Gaddafi is/was using to full effect against vulnerable foot soldiers. He has employed many foreign mercenaries.

    You then revert to the "but we are in a recession" argument. I say *******s to that. Recession or no recession, the people of this country enjoy a higher living standard than any typical Libyan. If we're going to continue spending billions on an army, then we should bloody well be using it to help people in need - whether they are Britons, Libyans, or anybody else. The middle class might have to pay a little more tax... so what? There are innocent women, children and protestors being butchered in Libya en masse, and we as a rich country have a moral obligation to save them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    There isn't consistency here. We were aware of the Egypt uprising, Mubarak did kill protestors - no calls for military intervention. Same with Tunisia. At first, shockingly, the west had supported Ben Ali and Mubarak etc...

    2 months ago, Gadaffi was a friend now a foe. Let the Libyan do it for themselves without our intervention.

    What about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco? The Arab world is revolting. Where are the calls for intervention? Why single Libya?

    Enough is enough. This isn't Bosnia or the Falklands. We have a deficit and a debt and we need reforms. We don't need another Vietnam or Iraq or even an Afghanistan.
    The difference between all those you have mentioned and Libya is that Gaddafi has completely abandoned the rule of law. In Egypt the army was called upon to restore order, and they essentially just tried to try to prevent violence and destruction ofproperty. There were and are legal precedents for the use of the military to restore order, the use of a curfew, and the use of rubber bullets and tear gas etc (which is not to make them right, but is to make the legal distinction).

    In Libya the army is literally murdering the people utilising live rounds, artillery and air power. There is no legal basis for this, it is the pure and simple defence of a despotic power.

    The problem is that you are not thinking about this in terms of making distinctions, you are trying quite actively to blur them together and thus completely avoiding the distinctions to be made. There is, in legal and philosophical terms, an enormous difference between someone actively trying to restore the rule of law using means which have legal precedent, and someone completely ignoring law in order to protect their own power.

    If we don't set a precedent in this case that the UN is willing to act when a despot blatantly and openly ignores the rule of law and commits state murder, when we have the full support both of the people and neighbouring countries in intervening, then the UN might as well not exist. Despots around the globe will feel free to do the same in the confidence they will not be stopped, because they have seen that even the most blatant breaches of so-called law won't be defended against.

    Where states stick to the letter of the law, then no matter how nasty they become it is extremely difficult to justify intervention, especially where the regime has even a shred of democratic legitimacy. Where states act in ways against the rule of law in secret, and we suspect it, we can accuse them, and demand that they stop--as we have hundreds of times over the past decade. But only where the openly defy the rule of law, in a way which breaches human rights, then we have justification to act with force. If you think that does not provide justification for intervention (the question of whether the other circumstances do or not being a different question, if worthwhile), I think you might want to question how far your moral values extend beyond your own borders, and how you would feel if others who claimed to share those moral values did not intervene were your government to break so openly with them.


    Also, you might want to justify your claim that the Arab people don't support intervention, or else stop making the claim, because the photos of women in Libya carrying posters saying 'Barack Obama, No Fly Zone' would seem to disagree with your assertion, and you don't seem to have any basis for it whatsoever.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The UN resolution which gave permission for the military intervention in Libya ruled out sending in ground troops. Why does everybody seemed to have missed that? This is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    It was also used.

    Of course, Gadaffi forces are superior- who gave him the weapons? The very people concerned with the well-being of the libyan people.

    It has no support from the British public- the government should answer to that.
    Even the arab people (not their government) THE PEOPLE, don't want foreign intervention.
    The Egyptian military didn't get involved in the protest after a certain point, hence why it succeeded.. Some foreign mercenary foot soldiers fought protestors for a day or two, that was all.

    British arms industries may have sold weapons to Gaddafi, but frankly whoever sold him the weapons is irrelevant when it comes to making a decision over intervention. As Cameron has pointed out, we have strict controls over our arms industries, but the government can only control the market to a certain extent.

    The people don't always know what's best for them, I'm afraid, as your argument here clearly shows. I suppose that yours is the majority opinion, judging from my facebook page. I'm certainly glad that it isn't shared by Cameron and the UN.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't another Iraq or Afghanistan. We're just going to deploy a few planes near Libya, not stage an occupation. For the benefits to both Britain and the people of Libya it's well worth it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    This isn't another Iraq or Afghanistan. We're just going to deploy a few planes near Libya, not stage an occupation. For the benefits to both Britain and the people of Libya it's well worth it.
    It's already achieving it's effect's partially as well, Gaddafi has called for a ceasefire. Although it is a bit more than "a few planes" it's "a **** load of planes, supporting naval vessels and helicopters" but I do get your point - we're not sending in any ground pounders, the resolution clearly excluded that action.

    Western Libya/Eastern Libya 20th meridian east demarcation line anyone? :ahee:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 18, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

1,096

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.