Turn on thread page Beta

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

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

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ano1)
    So do those 409 people also think there should be military intervention in Ivory Coast now as well?
    Well the French troops are already there. Plus the fight is fairly even and a no fly zone would do nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    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.
    What consequences? We flatten an evil dictators army which helps, at best, to over throw the country or, at worse, cause the country to be separated.
    Why is that an issue?
    Damage to ourselves? Lolwut. Unless a B2 misses the wrong country and ****ing continent, what are you on about?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    What consequences? We flatten an evil dictators army which helps, at best, to over throw the country or, at worse, cause the country to be separated.
    Why is that an issue?
    Damage to ourselves? Lolwut. Unless a B2 misses the wrong country and ****ing continent, what are you on about?
    We annoy more people than we please, create yet more animosity for ourselves in a region not predisposed to like us, be accused or empire building or resource grabbing.

    It's an issue because international opinion is what got us into this position. The will of other countries to stand up and say "actually, yeah, that's gone a bit far, stop it, will you?". When those countries decide we dive into things like this for the wrong reasons, we'll no longer get asked. That in of itself, no massive deal, frankly our Armed Forces could do with the breather, but our international standing? Shot to pieces. We are, despite our size, one of the world's diplomatic leaders, with influence almost everywhere. If the UK's PM phones a world leader, they speak to them straightaway, might sound a bit simplistic, but damaging our position at the forefront of the world's diplomatic community isn't always worth it.

    Besides, more than anything else, this obligates us to do the same in every other country with issues the world over. Something we simply can't handle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    We annoy more people than we please, create yet more animosity for ourselves in a region not predisposed to like us, be accused or empire building or resource grabbing.

    It's an issue because international opinion is what got us into this position. The will of other countries to stand up and say "actually, yeah, that's gone a bit far, stop it, will you?". When those countries decide we dive into things like this for the wrong reasons, we'll no longer get asked. That in of itself, no massive deal, frankly our Armed Forces could do with the breather, but our international standing? Shot to pieces. We are, despite our size, one of the world's diplomatic leaders, with influence almost everywhere. If the UK's PM phones a world leader, they speak to them straightaway, might sound a bit simplistic, but damaging our position at the forefront of the world's diplomatic community isn't always worth it.

    Besides, more than anything else, this obligates us to do the same in every other country with issues the world over. Something we simply can't handle.
    Oh right I forgot we instigated all the riots in the Middle East! It's not like the people got fed up of having a crappy dictator....:rofl:
    Do you have a memory? Action in Libya is UN sanctioned and Arab backed. The only way it could be seen as better if Ghandi was to rise from the dead and give it his blessing as well :rolleyes:

    Come back to reality. This isn't Iraq Mk.3, this is entirely different and last time I checked, Bosnia didn't give the US and UK a bad rep so why should this?
    And there are 12 other UN Peace keeping operations in place. The UN PK's are not limitless but voluntary - there is therefore no obligation to help everywhere.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Oh right I forgot we instigated all the riots in the Middle East! It's not like the people got fed up of having a crappy dictator....:rofl:
    Do you have a memory? Action in Libya is UN sanctioned and Arab backed. The only way it could be seen as better if Ghandi was to rise from the dead and give it his blessing as well :rolleyes:
    For all the people in Iraq/Bosnia who liked what 'we' [the international community] did in removing the former leaders there are many who didn't appreciate it and hold us accountable for things going badly in the transition. Those people will eventually have positions of power/respect within their countries. Creating that level of animosity is futile and can be avoided. Look at NI... that's taken 40yrs to almost settle down. Will we have to be in the middle east, in Africa, in Afg that long too?

    It was UN backed. As was intervention in Iraq previously. But we all know that political approval isn't the same as popular approval, nor should we be naive enough to think so.


    FWIW, imo action in Libya was correct, but it is limited and won't change the end result, just the score. And we [the UK] are not in a position militarily to do anything else if it was allowed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    For all the people in Iraq/Bosnia who liked what 'we' [the international community] did in removing the former leaders there are many who didn't appreciate it and hold us accountable for things going badly in the transition. Those people will eventually have positions of power/respect within their countries. Creating that level of animosity is futile and can be avoided. Look at NI... that's taken 40yrs to almost settle down. Will we have to be in the middle east, in Africa, in Afg that long too?

    It was UN backed. As was intervention in Iraq previously. But we all know that political approval isn't the same as popular approval, nor should we be naive enough to think so.


    FWIW, imo action in Libya was correct, but it is limited and won't change the end result, just the score. And we [the UK] are not in a position militarily to do anything else if it was allowed.
    Comparing NI to Libya?
    Oh whatever. Why don't you compare WW2 to Mogadishu while you're at it?
    Also the rebels wanted a no fly zone.
    Get a newspaper that isn't the Daily Sport and give it a read as you have not a ****ing clue what you are on about in regards to Libya and other military conflicts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Two factions at each other's throats? Some people wanting different leadership, others happy with the status quo? Guerilla fighting in and around towns? Links to state-sponsored terrorism? Mixed political will?

    Yeah, you're right, there are no similarities between NI and Libya. But that's not what my post was about, you know that, you're not thick enough to think it was, either.

    Did I say the rebels didn't want one? Or that they've been complaining that it hasn't done enough? No. So kindly stop putting words in my mouth/post.


    The point is, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For all the good that this action undoubtably can [and hopefully will] cause, there are equally a number of potential ills that can be caused. That is the same the world over and is not worth being completely disregarded.

    Once again, because you seem to have allowed it to escape your eyes, I'm behind the action. Many of my friends and former colleagues are directly involved in it, so I equally hope their actions are not in vain.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    For those of you who are in favour of intervention, would your stance change if the civilian death toll from coalition bombing surpassed that of the protesters shot at the outbreak of the conflict?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    For those of you who are in favour of intervention, would your stance change if the civilian death toll from coalition bombing surpassed that of the protesters shot at the outbreak of the conflict?
    Not particularly, because the question of responsibility still needs to be raised. From my perspective, if Gaddafi places his munitions, AA guns and other materials in civilian areas, he is responsible for their deaths (by using them as human shields). This just goes to show even more that he is a ruthless tyrant who needs to be deposed at all costs. The alternative was allowing Benghazi to fall to this same man, and sitting back as Libya became another Rwanda. Indeed, the only thing that is preventing him from launching another full-scale assault is the fear that the NATO forces will severely weaken his forces even further. Obviously, some people think that passivity in the face of evil is a better scenario than "letting the nasty imperialists seize the oil" (which, as with Iraq, self-evidently makes/made no sense).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Furthermore, it's almost distressing to see the number of people attempting to discredit the intervention in Libya by relating it to the equally just liberation of Iraq 8 years ago. This wave of protests across the Arab world would be unthinkable if Saddam Hussein was still exercising his poisonous influence over the region.

    Plus, people often forget that if it wasn't for the pressure placed on other lunatic dictators, as a direct consequence of the deposition of Saddam Hussein, Col. Gaddafi would still have his extensive arsenal of WMD; ready to use freely against the very opposition forces we're there to protect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree, I don't care if there were any underlying intentions (not saying there are). Thousands of people would've have been dead otherwise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What do you guys think will happen to Col. Gaddafi whenever he gets caught???

    Just curious
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Two factions at each other's throats? Some people wanting different leadership, others happy with the status quo? Guerilla fighting in and around towns? Links to state-sponsored terrorism? Mixed political will?

    Yeah, you're right, there are no similarities between NI and Libya. But that's not what my post was about, you know that, you're not thick enough to think it was, either.

    Did I say the rebels didn't want one? Or that they've been complaining that it hasn't done enough? No. So kindly stop putting words in my mouth/post.

    The point is, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For all the good that this action undoubtably can [and hopefully will] cause, there are equally a number of potential ills that can be caused. That is the same the world over and is not worth being completely disregarded.

    Once again, because you seem to have allowed it to escape your eyes, I'm behind the action. Many of my friends and former colleagues are directly involved in it, so I equally hope their actions are not in vain.
    Congratulations on completely over simplifying it.
    Any chance you can find photos where the Irish were bombing their own towns from the air, both sides had tanks and heavy arms etc. Plus were the Irish being ruled by a dictator who was of a different tribe?
    ****, your over simplification is just absurd and shows you do not understand what is going on in any depth kid.
    Ills that can occur? LIKE WHAT?? Stop being a pessimistic liberal and join reality.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    What do you guys think will happen to Col. Gaddafi whenever he gets caught???

    Just curious
    Three options.

    He goes down fighting

    He goes into Exile.

    He gets caught and put on trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Three options.

    He goes down fighting

    He goes into Exile.

    He gets caught and put on trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
    Wow, I hope the 3rd option comes to reality

    Thanks by the way!
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,107

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.