Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Hello, police? I think I'm getting trolled.

    How the **** is that evidence to support your argument?

    The fact the West buys oil from Libya =/= the West is trying to take control of Libya's oil supply

    lrn2formlogicalarguments

    There is no propaganda, anyone who has studied international relations from a neutral p.o.v. can easily see how ****ing retarded your arguments are.
    Just because you disagree with what I said, don't make me a troll.
    You've said nothing to prove me wrong... oh wait, you've studied international relations.. wow.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    French jets "destroyed a number of tanks and armoured vehicles", a defence ministry official told Reuters, adding that he could not immediately confirm the number.
    Good ****.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    What about the people in Africa who campaign for democracy and has tyrannical leaders far longer than those in Libya?

    Why don't the west intervene in Zimbabwe? In the Democratic Republic of Congo where ethnic cleansing is rife in addition to rape and murder?

    Or is it because the West does not care about the blacks and only care if there is some financial reward behind it?
    You know we're in Congo right? The UN I mean? But we're shackled by what the Congelese ;government' allow us to do, that's why there's still so many problems.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano1)
    Just because you disagree with what I said, don't make me a troll.
    You've said nothing to prove me wrong... oh wait, you've studied international relations.. wow.
    It's hard to believe that someone is actually this ignorant, hence why I believe you to be a troll.

    What is there to prove wrong? You haven't even formed a legitimate argument. I cba to repeat myself, but if you browse through my previous posts you may realise how ridiculous your claims are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Vive la FRANCE! :france:

    About ****ing time. Gaddafi needs to be sectioned.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Hedger)
    Viva le FRANCE! :france:
    Vive la France
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Vive la France
    Edited accordingly
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This no fly zone will only achieve in the loss of more lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Gaddafi is the longest ruling African leader by some way.



    Because there's no way that Western forces would be accepted by a lot of the population who do actually support Mugabe and ZANU-PF - it would be seen as neocolonialism. It would be a long, bloody and fairly pointless deployment.



    Err, the largest UN Peacekeeping mission in history is currently deployed in the Congo to stabilise the east of the country.

    It's not appropriate to use military force in every situation.
    So why do the Western forces intervene in a country where the majority of the population do not want them? The Pro-gaddafi supporters outweigh the rebel forces and Gadaffai certainly does not want them in his country. In addition, the rebels also do want a full western military offensive in their country because they know that if they beat gaddafi, then they are going to have to give up some lucrative oil wells and other concessions to oil companies.

    And is not what the Western forces are doing across the middle east by building bases regarded as neocolonialism?

    What are the UN doing to stop the atrocities that have been happening since the war started? The UN is a shambles, only intervening where it deems necessary to protect the developed world countries, in particular America which has influence. Why do Western countries go running to the UN when they want a favorable solution to their problems but do not denounce any impartial investigations? Why did the UN react so promptly and bow to pressure when it came to Libya and not the Democratic Republic of Congo?

    So in which situations should you use military force?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    So why do the Western forces intervene in a country where the majority of the population do not want them? The Pro-gaddafi supporters outweigh the rebel forces and Gadaffai certainly does not want them in his country. In addition, the rebels also do want a full western military offensive in their country because they know that if they beat gaddafi, then they are going to have to give up some lucrative oil wells and other concessions to oil companies.

    And is not what the Western forces are doing across the middle east by building bases regarded as neocolonialism?

    What are the UN doing to stop the atrocities that have been happening since the war started? The UN is a shambles, only intervening where it deems necessary to protect the developed world countries, in particular America which has influence. Why do Western countries go running to the UN when they want a favorable solution to their problems but do not denounce any impartial investigations? Why did the UN react so promptly and bow to pressure when it came to Libya and not the Democratic Republic of Congo?

    So in which situations should you use military force?
    I really can't be bothered any more, I'm tired of explaining the whole situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    How many ****ing times do I need to keep repeating this.

    Does anyone seriously not remember Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia?

    Oh yeah I do, they had a chance to intervene earlier on but they said no **** it! we wait till they butcher some more Muslims than we intervene like we are heroes!

    Your examples are few and far between. You got your asses kicked in Somalia.


    Does anyone remember Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Somalia and soon to be the whole of the middle east?

    Why don't they intervene in Chechnya if they really cared about it? No! because they can't stand up to Russian Firepower because the gas and oil, not to mention investments in Western countries will dry up like the oilfields of Iraq.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Not that I like Gadaffi in any way, we should keep the **** out of this. It may, if we intervene turn out like Iraq or Afghanistan. Besides Libya were a prosperous country before, and pretty harmless to the west. We should just keep ourselves out of this, and let them sort themselves out.

    As for France, they are ruled by an egotistic napoleon complex sufferer, and also need to keep their noses out of other country's businesses.

    And as for Syria, WTF was Cameron thinking when he encouraged revolutions there?
    it just proves that he has very little of an understanding about how the world runs. Although he is very intelligent, he is a bad leader.
    I don't understand how anyone can accept to have dictators little better than Hitler oppressing their own people and using weapons against them. Hundreds upon hundreds of civilians are being killed. We have the planes, we have the guns, and we spend hundreds of millions on them. Putting them to use to protect civilians can only be a good thing.

    Two things I keep hearing:

    1) We are doing this for our own interests-oil, unpopularity of Cameron, Obama etc.

    Are there ulterior motives here further to it being a purely humanitarian mission? Yes, of course there are, and it would be bizzare (and dangerous) to have a government who did not consider practical interests on various levels, and operated on a purely ideological level.

    Having said that, Gaddafi was opening up trade to the West in the run up to this, and his government did provide stable oil trade that was used by Western companies. The Middle Eastern dictators have at least provided the region with a form of stability which a protracted struggle with an unpredictable outcome may not. This isn't about oil, like Iraq 1991. This can absolutely be called a humanitarian mission with full UN backing, making it legal (unlike Iraq 03, which was illegal).

    2) It could turn out to be a full-scale Civil war, from which we will not be able to disentangle ourselves, like many other recent wars.

    This is a more practical criticism, and I think it's valid for a ground invasion. However, it is not valid for a no-fly zone, which could be stopped much easier. The question is not whether there could be a protracted "civil war" between pro-government and anti-government forces-the government could be toppled easily by Western Military. The question is whether there are other sectarian, ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions in the country which could be brought out after the fall of the government and turn into a civil war.

    I don't know much about Libya's internal makeup, so I can't comment on that, but that question needs to be answered. If that is the case, then no doubt there would be a civil war whether the West intervened or not, and probably an even more bloody one without Western Military forces to police it. The only difference is that if America is there and 100,000 people die, the world will burn American flags. If 500,000 die and America is not there, no-one will give a ****.

    So I don't think the question is whether military interference will spark a civil war, rather whether we care about the Libyans enough to make a go of it when a few hundred of our soldiers may die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    I really can't be bothered any more, I'm tired of explaining the whole situation.
    or is it because you can't answer my questions so you decided to negative rep me?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    You know we're in Congo right? The UN I mean? But we're shackled by what the Congelese ;government' allow us to do, that's why there's still so many problems.
    So what's the point of the UN being there if you are being forced around by the Congolese government?

    The UN just sit around all day in their compound whilst the butchering and rape carries on because the Congolese government forbids the UN from going out of their compounds?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ano1)
    Don't you get tired of being fed this propaganda, and swallowing it up?



    I wonder why countries like Brazil and India aren't in Libya.

    It’s about the OIL, it always has been. Who do you think funds these governments in the first place.
    Why did Germany try to block the resolution and why did Italy allow us to use their air bases> Surely juding by your little pie chart they should be at the forefront of any intervention
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golly-Gosh)
    reality is, America and the Western government don't give a flying toss about the innocent Libyans that are been killed by their own government. all they care about is the OIL. yes the OIL.
    if it weren't for that oil, they wouldn't help the Libyans.
    lets be honest, the West is being double standard about this. the very people that put Gadhafi in power. the very people that buy oil from him, make him rich, help him save his money on their banks. the very people that made Gadhaffi the monster he is today. is now claiming they want to help the Libyans against Gadhaffi. please spare me the tail.
    I reckon that oil has now become a rather lazy attempt at delving deeper towards the ulterior motives of western nations, therefore tainting any sort of credibility on criticisms of their actions. How is bombing some tanks going to secure oil supplies?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ano1)
    i meant the one in pakistan, my bad. ive made my point about the oil, if people want to think its about civilians (rebels in arms) then do that.

    edit - so why dont the arab league deal with their problems? did they help with bosnia etc (in europe). no.
    They want UN support for what they are doing
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    I don't understand how anyone can accept to have dictators little better than Hitler oppressing their own people and using weapons against them. Hundreds upon hundreds of civilians are being killed. We have the planes, we have the guns, and we spend hundreds of millions on them. Putting them to use to protect civilians can only be a good thing.

    Two things I keep hearing:

    1) We are doing this for our own interests-oil, unpopularity of Cameron, Obama etc.

    Are there ulterior motives here further to it being a purely humanitarian mission? Yes, of course there are, and it would be bizzare (and dangerous) to have a government who did not consider practical interests on various levels, and operated on a purely ideological level.

    Having said that, Gaddafi was opening up trade to the West in the run up to this, and his government did provide stable oil trade that was used by Western companies. The Middle Eastern dictators have at least provided the region with a form of stability which a protracted struggle with an unpredictable outcome may not. This isn't about oil, like Iraq 1991. This can absolutely be called a humanitarian mission with full UN backing, making it legal (unlike Iraq 03, which was illegal).

    2) It could turn out to be a full-scale Civil war, from which we will not be able to disentangle ourselves, like many other recent wars.

    This is a more practical criticism, and I think it's valid for a ground invasion. However, it is not valid for a no-fly zone, which could be stopped much easier. The question is not whether there could be a protracted "civil war" between pro-government and anti-government forces-the government could be toppled easily by Western Military. The question is whether there are other sectarian, ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions in the country which could be brought out after the fall of the government and turn into a civil war.

    I don't know much about Libya's internal makeup, so I can't comment on that, but that question needs to be answered. If that is the case, then no doubt there would be a civil war whether the West intervened or not, and probably an even more bloody one without Western Military forces to police it. The only difference is that if America is there and 100,000 people die, the world will burn American flags. If 500,000 die and America is not there, no-one will give a ****.

    So I don't think the question is whether military interference will spark a civil war, rather whether we care about the Libyans enough to make a go of it when a few hundred of our soldiers may die.
    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say... You seem to be agreeing with me or what?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    So what's the point of the UN being there if you are being forced around by the Congolese government?

    The UN just sit around all day in their compound whilst the butchering and rape carries on because the Congolese government forbids the UN from going out of their compounds?
    Essentially this. The UN are there, but have strict controls on what they can and cannot do. Imposed by the UN upon them, and futher that by the Congolese government.

    The problem is, once we begin ignoring a sovereign entities right to tell us to shove off we get into a whole heap of issues. As it is, the Congelese government is combating the rebels to an extent, but infact damn near every armed person in that country excpet the UN is doing the dirty on the Congelese people. Sad but ture, and we are rendered impotent by the UN's decision to respect the 'government's' wishes.

    As I've said time and time again, as an international body we need more power. The power to strike quickly and efficiently and do what needs to be done. What we have at the moment is the equivilent of sending a PCSO after the IRA. At very best around the world the UN is a plaster over a gaping wound, when what we need is decisisve surgery.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano1)
    i meant the one in pakistan, my bad. ive made my point about the oil, if people want to think its about civilians (rebels in arms) then do that.

    edit - so why dont the arab league deal with their problems? did they help with bosnia etc (in europe). no.
    The Arab League support the UN resolution.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.