Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with the no-fly zone
    Yes
    432
    68.68%
    No
    194
    30.84%
    Unsure
    3
    0.48%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leonie01)
    Unfortunately I have no time to read to read for fun alongside uni or i will feel guilty about my text books piling up. Of course countries want allies and other countries to be friendly with. But if you say the reason that some countries welcomed the resolution then i can say that there are also motives why Russia, China, India etc... abstained. I dont agree that Libya is about oil, but i can agree that international relations play a role. But do all these motives really matter as long as this mission saves thousands of lives?

    It is in all of Europe's interest that the governments there are democratic and we have good relations with them, i dont see what the issue is here. Africa is way to unstable as a continent and i dont think that is gonna change in the near future. Oh and i also think the world is safer with the USA staying a superpower than China, so i dont really care if that is a side effect.
    sometimes it is better to read less, we may get less stressed that way. like a
    cow that cannot see the fence around its field, we may then stay happy and not expect our real purpose.

    indeed we do have motives as do russia and china and the usa, but they do lie to us through propaganda telling us there are no strategic motives and that it is only to stop genocide that they are invading libya.

    it is like something out of 1984.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Gadaffi's army is 8,000 strong. That is pathetic and easily crushed with UN peacekeepers and the rebels.
    Now with a no fly zone the rebels have a much better chance of winning. How will it be a long-drawn out war? The scales are tipped very much for the rebels favour now.
    The mandate clearly rules out boots on the ground.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    The mandate clearly rules out boots on the ground.
    But not air-to-surface action.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    But not air-to-surface action.
    Which goes back to my original point that an air campaign alone will not win this war (because lets face it, thats what we're doing here: its not so much about saving civilian life as it is about taking the rebels' side and acting as their air force), and that in order to prevent this from becoming a protracted war, the coalition will need to put some serious boots on the ground, other than the ones that are already there, directing airstrikes. And I think the UN resolution is vague enough to allow our leaders to pursue that course when it arrives.

    Btw, you give the rebels too much credit. They aren't so much rebels as they are civilians who've never fired a weapon in their life, now grabbing the nearest AK and heading for the frontlines. They are going to need training and arming (another thing the coalition will probably end up providing them, despite questionable justfication from the resolution) if they are going to pose a serious threat to Gaddafi's regime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    Which goes back to my original point that an air campaign alone will not win this war (because lets face it, thats what we're doing here: its not so much about saving civilian life as it is about taking the rebels' side and acting as their air force), and that in order to prevent this from becoming a protracted war, the coalition will need to put some serious boots on the ground, other than the ones that are already there, directing airstrikes. And I think the UN resolution is vague enough to allow our leaders to pursue that course when it arrives.

    Btw, you give the rebels too much credit. They aren't so much rebels as they are civilians who've never fired a weapon in their life, now grabbing the nearest AK and heading for the frontlines. They are going to need training and arming (another thing the coalition will probably end up providing them, despite questionable justfication from the resolution) if they are going to pose a serious threat to Gaddafi's regime.
    You clearly have **** all understanding of air superiority.
    There is no need for boots on the ground when you can drop a 250lb bomb within 6 ft of a target or drop a bomb that can decimate entire armoured columns.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    You clearly have **** all understanding of air superiority.
    There is no need for boots on the ground when you can drop a 250lb bomb within 6 ft of a target or drop a bomb that can decimate entire armoured columns.
    Such a stupid remark, I dont even know where to begin. How the **** do you select your targets? What if your targets are within densely populated civilian areas? If wars can be won and regimes toppled by air power alone why the **** did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan you numpty armchair general? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    Such a stupid remark, I dont even know where to begin. How the **** do you select your targets? What if your targets are within densely populated civilian areas? If wars can be won and regimes toppled by air power alone why the **** did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan you numpty armchair general? :rolleyes:
    Select targets via Pleideas and other satellite sensors with resolutions >50cm.
    250lb bomb only has an effective blast of a few feet, and yet can penetrate up to 2m of reinforced concrete and accuracy up to 6ft.

    I know military hardware etc. You don't, so irony that you claim it's a stupid remark when you have no idea what is out there.

    Iraq and Afghanistan actually helped with the development of these weapons. Smooth going there lad.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So do those 409 people also think there should be military intervention in Ivory Coast now as well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Select targets via Pleideas and other satellite sensors with resolutions >50cm.
    250lb bomb only has an effective blast of a few feet, and yet can penetrate up to 2m of reinforced concrete and accuracy up to 6ft.

    I know military hardware etc. You don't, so irony that you claim it's a stupid remark when you have no idea what is out there.

    Iraq and Afghanistan actually helped with the development of these weapons. Smooth going there lad.
    You can have a wikipedia knowledge of weaponry, but your common sense is piss poor I'm afraid.

    Battlefield technology is advanced, but to claim this campaign can be won from the sky alone is so incredibly stupid. If they could rely on satellites alone, why the **** would they risk having special forces on the ground gathering intelligence and directing their laser guided munition. Simple answer is that an accurate blue-on-blue is still a mistake.

    Of course, your entire argument falls flat on its miserable face when you look at reality. If this campaign could be won solely by air power, it would have been implemented by now and successfully closed. It hasn't. Its had limited successes, but has left us in the stalement I said it would, and unless something changes on the ground, we're going nowhere fast with this.

    The enemy has resorted to dispersing into small highly mobile units similar to what the rebels are using which are much much more harder to hit than your stationary installations. And I dont need to repeat the problem faced by engaging enemy targets within populated areas, no matter how accurate your fire is. Go back to playing on your Xbox and watching your hollywood bs you deluded clown.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    You can have a wikipedia knowledge of weaponry, but your common sense is piss poor I'm afraid.

    Battlefield technology is advanced, but to claim this campaign can be won from the sky alone is so incredibly stupid. If they could rely on satellites alone, why the **** would they risk having special forces on the ground gathering intelligence and directing their laser guided munition. Simple answer is that an accurate blue-on-blue is still a mistake.

    Of course, your entire argument falls flat on its miserable face when you look at reality. If this campaign could be won solely by air power, it would have been implemented by now and successfully closed. It hasn't. Its had limited successes, but has left us in the stalement I said it would, and unless something changes on the ground, we're going nowhere fast with this.

    The enemy has resorted to dispersing into small highly mobile units similar to what the rebels are using which are much much more harder to hit than your stationary installations. And I dont need to repeat the problem faced by engaging enemy targets within populated areas, no matter how accurate your fire is. Go back to playing on your Xbox and watching your hollywood bs you deluded clown.
    Ho ho ho you have no idea on my knowledge of battlefield tech - it's certainly a bit more than wiki
    Here is a hint - they don't have special forces on the ground anymore. This isn't the first Gulf War kid.
    Friendly fire isn't going to happen unless there are a few folks sipping tea with Gaddaffi's men.

    Get an education that is a bit more than "BOMG GOES BOOM AND THEYVE LIKE THESE CAMRAS IN DER SKY".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matzy)
    Now with a no fly zone the rebels have a much better chance of winning. How will it be a long-drawn out war? The scales are tipped very much for the rebels favour now.
    Oh and great tactical assessment Cap'n!

    Yeah, the rebels are doing a swell job, they're so ****ing far forward into Gaddafi's strongholds they're going backwards. :rolleyes:

    What an embarrassment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Get an education.
    You simply do not understand what we are actually doing.

    The Mandate is to protect civllians, not blow them to pieces. Or Gaddaffi for that matter. This is politics, not open war. If Gaddafi only defends what he holds currently, then we have no Mandate and our JDAMs are no more than drums.

    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    Go back to playing on your Xbox and watching your hollywood bs you deluded clown.
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    The Mandate is to protect civllians, not blow them to pieces. Or Gaddaffi for that matter. This is politics, not open war. If Gaddafi only defends what he holds currently, then we have no Mandate, and our JDAMs are no more than drums.
    1)Why does bombing suddenly mean blowing civilians to pieces?
    2)Ever heard of collateral damage?
    3)End of the day, it's about making sure the rebels have a fair fight. It's one thing to rebel, it's another to bomb the **** out of your own people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    1)Why does bombing suddenly mean blowing civilians to pieces?
    Plain and simple, thats what you sound like. As if we are the ones rebeling against Gaddaffi, and that we should go to Tripoli. Thats not our objective, and it shouldnt be our mentality.

    If we were to go on the offensive ourselves, it would envolve plenty of civilian deaths.

    (Original post by Mazty)
    2)Ever heard of collateral damage?
    So the ends justify the means? and its all right?

    (Original post by Mazty)
    1)3)End of the day, it's about making sure the rebels have a fair fight. It's one thing to rebel, it's another to bomb the **** out of your own people.
    No, we are doing that for him.
    Thats why we were clearing the roads for the Rebel Advance last week?

    If you fight a consequentialist war, you end up with an insurgency.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    Plain and simple, thats what you sound like. As if we are the ones rebeling against Gaddaffi, and that we should go to Tripoli. Thats not our objective, and it shouldnt be our mentality.

    If we were to go on the offensive ourselves, it would envolve plenty of civilian deaths.

    So the ends justify the means? and its all right?

    No, we are doing that for him.
    Thats why we were clearing the roads for the Rebel Advance last week?
    So all bombing kills civilians? Uhuh...
    1 life to save many - seems ****, but fair.
    And accidents happen. Point?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    So all bombing kills civilians? Uhuh...
    1 life to save many - seems ****, but fair.
    And accidents happen. Point?
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Ever heard of collateral damage?

    No! thats not ****ing good enough for the people who plant bombs in roads.
    Iraqi, and Northen Ireland. It may seem fair to us, a couple thousand miles away, but we are not the ones whos blood is being spilled.

    If we just laid waste to the whole ****ing country, and ask questions about it later it will cost us dearly. We are licking the arse of Arab League already.

    You seem to undervalue the price of the lives we are charged to protect, and your not even aware of the minefield we are steering ourselves through diplomatically.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    No! thats not ****ing good enough for the people who plant bombs in roads.
    Iraqi, and Northen Ireland. It may seem fair to us, a couple thousand miles away, but we are not the ones whos blood is being spilled.

    If we just laid waste to the whole ****ing country, and ask questions about it later it will cost us dearly. We are licking the arse of Arab League already.

    You seem to undervalue the price of the lives we are charged to protect.
    No you seem extremely naive of reality and the consequences of no actions.
    **** happens. It's sad, upsetting etc BUT if nothing had happened how many 1000's would now be dead in the smouldering ruins of Benghazi? More than any killed by coliltion bombs and the people still have a chance to challenge their dictator over rule.
    Get your head out of the clouds and look at reality. Sometimes it comes down to a few lives weighed against many. It's a ****ty situation, but that is reality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    No you seem extremely naive of reality and the consequences of no actions..
    How am I Naiive for stating the fact that civilians will die because our actions? That is somthing you said yourself. you are not using that word correct to its definition.

    Im not arguing against the coalition. You are Naiive to the potential consquences of our actions

    The Reality is that we are tredding a fine line on our mandate between the protection we are suppost to be doing and our ulterior motives to remove Gaddaffi, In a state that harboured terrorists. In a region where we NEED to be winning hearts and minds Can you even understand the notion of us doing wrong at all?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    How am I Naiive for stating the fact that civilians will die because our actions? you are not using that word correct to its definition.
    So you think less civilians would die if Gaddafi was left to his own devices?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    So you think less civilians would die if Gaddafi was left to his own devices?
    You dont ****ing get it. I dont support Gaddaffi, and I believe the Military intervention was the right option. I never actually questioned the operation or its motives.
    Im questioning you, and your complete failure to understand the consequences of our actions, and the damage we could do to ourselves.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.