Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    He isn't killing his own people unless they attack the military forces...

    There are civilian groups protesting in favour of gaddafi for crying out loud.
    At risk of Godwins law, there are still Neo-Nazi groups in Russia despite Slav's being considered inferior and killed by the Third Reich. The same applies here. Just because a few people support him doesn't mean he isn't killing the rebels. , so his supporters are likely either deluded or are doing it against their will.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...tml?view=print

    most are loyal libyan people against the regime, but their not working alone.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ano1)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...tml?view=print

    most are loyal libyan people against the regime, but their not working alone.
    To be fair the huffingtonpost wrote an article against intervention because the US had nothing to gain from it other than humanitarian goals.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James10000)
    We are going into Libya for oil its no different to Britain colonizing Africa for its resources 100 years ago. BP will get huge oil contracts and pay the new Libyan governments low royalties. The UK will tax petrol more and then say oh look price of oil has gone up so lets increase green taxes so we can waste more money. Its all about Money.

    Gaddafi is a monster but he is not corrupt

    Why do only muslim countries get 'liberated' why not burma or zimbabwe ?
    to me radicals who say the west it at war with Islam seem to have a very strong case
    Your a moron. The oil in Libya is worthless in the grand scheme of things. Saudi Arabia already covered any drop in production in Libya. Plus the UK gets very little oil from Libya same with the US and France.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    To be fair the huffingtonpost wrote an article against intervention because the US had nothing to gain from it other than humanitarian goals.
    its just food for though, im open to view this from both ways.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ano1)
    its just food for though, im open to view this from both ways.
    Hmm. To be fair no one deserves to be brutally murdered for their opinoin. Even if wee don't agree with it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    :france: I like how for once we aren't running away :lol:
    You just wait. :smug:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Your a moron. The oil in Libya is worthless in the grand scheme of things. Saudi Arabia already covered any drop in production in Libya. Plus the UK gets very little oil from Libya same with the US and France.
    Libyan oil reserves are the 9th largest in the world. So if you chose to resort to name calling, you'll find it is you who is the moron.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by AndroidLight)
    Libyan oil reserves are the 9th largest in the world. So if you chose to resort to name calling, you'll find it is you who is the moron.
    :facepalm2: if you look at what I said you will see I was talking about oil production, and who they sell it to.

    Anyway why bother with the 9th largest? Why not go for Kuwait or Iran
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    No, I think we should intervene certainly with a no-fly zone, and potentially with a ground force in the near-future.
    ohhh my god. Why? It's going to turn out just like Iraq or Afghanistan. We should keep completely out of it, as it will save lives, money and time. Why not focus on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, installing a government, perhaps a puppet dictator who we can kick off whenever we want.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Hmm. To be fair no one deserves to be brutally murdered for their opinoin. Even if wee don't agree with it
    Things like this happen allover the world though.

    You could probably make a list of rebel uprisings since darfur, and nothing happens. Why now? I wonder.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...bellions#2000s

    IMO its all business, why dont the west say **** about Tibet etc.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    We should note that this is NOT a war, they are just enforcing the no fly zone.

    Time will tell, and we'll see how this plays out I guess. I hope it wont be another Iraq.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    :facepalm2: if you look at what I said you will see I was talking about oil production, and who they sell it to.

    Anyway why bother with the 9th largest? Why not go for Kuwait or Iran
    You said the oil in Libya is worthless. It is far from worthless. Just by allowing foreign companies to develop the oil it becomes massively valuable.

    With Iran, they'd have an actual fight on their hands. Kuwait? No idea, don't know much about what their powers are like, but I can presume the western powers are all cozy with whomever is in charge. It's no coincidence that Gaddafi does not bend over for the western powers and no suddenly the whole world wants him gone. Very similar thing will the revolution in Iran a year or two ago, only it failed. This use of force was incredibly predictable. I'd love to believe it's only to ensure the people of Libya are safe, but that's for a fool to believe.

    D.Cameron wants us to believe it's to protect the poor civlians. Why isn't he in all the other multiple places that are far worse (killings, rapes) yet are desolate in economical value?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by AndroidLight)
    You said the oil in Libya is worthless. It is far from worthless. Just by allowing foreign companies to develop the oil it becomes massively valuable.

    With Iran, they'd have an actual fight on their hands. Kuwait? No idea, don't know much about what their powers are like, but I can presume the western powers are all cozy with whomever is in charge. It's no coincidence that Gaddafi does not bend over for the western powers and no suddenly the whole world wants him gone. Very similar thing will the revolution in Iran a year or two ago, only it failed. This use of force was incredibly predictable. I'd love to believe it's only to ensure the people of Libya are safe, but that's for a fool to believe.

    D.Cameron wants us to believe it's to protect the poor civlians. Why isn't he in all the other multiple places that are far worse (killings, rapes) yet are desolate in economical value?
    In a grand scheme it is. Its oil production has already been covered by other nations why bother invading for oil? An invasion that will cost far more than its worth. I'd also like to no how you can control a countries oil supply without any troops in the country?

    As I keep explaining to idiots on this forum. The west cannot go and help out every single country .Nor can we just invade nations. No other nation has a rebellion like this that we can actually help without having to resort to a ground invasion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The resolution 1973 of the UN excludes a ground action so it shouldn't be like Iraq with an invasion and occupation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Gaddafi's troops just sat back and didn't start killing protesters they wouldn't be in this mess the damn fools brought it upon themselves.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    At their own free will?
    Erm... yes, there's no reason to think otherwise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano1)
    Things like this happen allover the world though.

    You could probably make a list of rebel uprisings since darfur, and nothing happens. Why now? I wonder.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...bellions#2000s

    IMO its all business, why dont the west say **** about Tibet etc.
    Whereas there is a chance for a relatively swift return to stability, and a government not led by some crazed dictator that doesn't give two ****s about his people, in Libya, the same cannot be said for many of the other countries that experience uprisings.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The US is now saying Libya's air defences are severely disabled. It's downhill for Gaddafi once we've got complete control of the airspace.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    ohhh my god. Why? It's going to turn out just like Iraq or Afghanistan. We should keep completely out of it, as it will save lives, money and time. Why not focus on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, installing a government, perhaps a puppet dictator who we can kick off whenever we want.
    Well I explained my position before:

    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 don't consider this situation comparable to Iraq in the slightest: this is a response to the violent attacks on Libya's people following their demand for a change of power. The UN resolution gives the mandate to do anything to protect Libya's civilians, and that's absolutely right.

    I also explained at length my views on a ground invasion. The internal makeup of Libya has to be properly considered first. Maybe there'll be a civil war if the government collapses, but if so it won't be a civil war caused by America, but rather an inevitable result of the removal of government power. Iraq was like that too, it was always going to have a civil war, it was well over-due one. You can't keep a minority sect ruling a majority forever, and when it comes to a head it will be bloody. Not America's fault, rather Saddam's and Ghaddafi's.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.