CNN: "airstrikes begin against Libya
(...)
American, French and British military forces, convinced that Gadhafi was not adhering to a United Nations-mandated cease-fire, on Saturday, hammered Libyan military positions with missiles and fighter jets in the first phase of an operation that will include enforcement of a no-fly zone.'

'The US and allies' have begun airstrikes on Libya."

sources: 'http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03 ... 1&iref=BN1'
CNN (Live television)

The Libya question has been going on for a little while now.
I'm very curious to hear all of your opinions. Is it rightious for the US and allies UK and France to commence active agression against the Libyan governmental forces? Is it a good thing that the Libyan public has revolted against the Gadhafi regime? It seems these actions will result in open warfare, is it necessary for Western countries (USA, European countries) to intervene?

Let's open up a civilised and mature discussion. No 'ad hominem' and please, people, don't defend your first opinion just because you're stubborn. I would be overjoyed if people actually learned from other people's opinions and adjusted their views accordingly (which is, in my view, one of the best ways to become a more intelligent and sophisticated person). You don't need to agree with everyone, just make sure your opinion is not dogmatic and please be prepared to accept and even appreciate other people's views.
This is how we become better people.
Go! Discuss! Let's get this ball rolling!

_________________
'Belgium, a country with many homos also have a pedophile party as far as i know.' - Violetblood

I am dissapointed Germany pussed out tbh.
Gaddafi thinks he can do what he wants, harming his own people and not caring at all, he's crazy.
In the end the jets are there to protect civil people from the army, so airstrikes dont hit people that are not involved at all.
If I was the one to decide, I would go and kick some ass in Libya. To clear it from all that rubbish for once and forever.

He'll just position his AA next to schools....

From a scientific point of view this is all very exciting to me, not just Libya but the whole Middle East going through these changes, cause I'm in my second semester of Middle Eastern Studies. In dutch we call that "met je neus in de boter vallen".

_________________
Faberyayoooo
"War is just God's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce

The stuff he has his people say at press conferences makes be believe he really has lost it and is completely mad. I think the UN is right to intervene.

That said I think many in the UK are getting fed up with always being the one of the few countries who have to send our guys in. Why can't the Arab countries do something? Saudia Arabia was quick enough to send troops to Bharain.

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

The man is a dictator, and when monarchs/dictators with huge egos and ideas which go against the public are in power clashes are bound to occur. As for the the UN's higher powers hopping in there, it's their job to help people and to stop injustice in the world. They're a humanitarian group with the interests of the rest of the world and international cooperation at heart. That's why they have things like UNESCO and other such organizations dedicated to our cultural survival and unity in general.

They wouldn't have jumped in if they didn't think it was necessary, both morally and obligator-ily. (if that's a word.)

Or that's the impression I've gotten from Australian education.

I also support the UN decision to intervene. And I am quite surprised by the mixture of countries that initially joins this operation. From what I gather from the news a lot of european airfighters have assambled on Italian airbases carrying out strikes.

I agree that a "larger power" is needed to stop something like this , the public made the first step and it is a duty of anyone who can to help those civilians.

What annoys me is that the UN is made of a lot more countries than just the UK, and in a time when we are in an economical crisis, with particular emphasis on the fact that we are cutting jobs in the army. People who are going to help on our behalf could come back jobless. Thats a different story but my point still remains that the UK should have sat out of this one because we can't afford it.

I Don't understand why closer countries couldn't have intervened either.

And from I gather , we are pre-empting again aren't we? So many wars are built on the fear of something going to happen. We haven't even pulled our troops out of Afghanistan yet... I wish the Uk was as fun-loving as Austrailia

You're in your second semester of Middle Eastern studies, and yet at no point in time did anybody ever tell you what countries actually make it up?

Cause I've got a rather alarming news flash for you... Libya is in Africa! Go tell that to your lecturers, and watch their minds literally explode. Like they've got IED's lodged in their synuses.

Apart from that Geographical discrepancy though, I do find this revolution to be just as exciting, and I think that the UN and 'developed' countries should be lending a hand to these people. I mean, they're actually asking for it. They want help to overthrow vicious dictators and oppressive regimes and Egypt and Tunisia have really lit a fire under people who have simply had enough and are fighting back, even if it costs lives.

Frankly, I'd prefer to see the British Army doing this, than occupying countries like fucking Afghanistan for what reason I don't know, losing a lot of Soldiers lives in the process, and generally just wasting millions of pounds worth of money on an absolutely fruitless and thankless campaign.

And don't even get me started on the farce that is Iraq.
Are you psychotic!? Everyday in Australia, 10 billion lives are lost due to hidden Spider attacks!!

Does that sound FUN to you!?!?!

This is 100% true. I can vouch for that fact. I am a scientist.

_________________
Breasts

My cousin died last week from a spider incident. So did three of my garden gnomes.

That shit is intense!

So is Egypt DrMcMoist, "Middle East" is not solely a geographical term. Actually it hardly is. Middle East from where?

_________________
Faberyayoooo
"War is just God's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce

I don't have TV at my dorm so I'm not very clued up, and there's two things I'd like to know. Why is the UN so selective when it comes to dealing with world injustice? When Libya becomes a no fly zone, what is going to happen next? The Rebels carry on with their assault against a grounded Gaddafi? or are they going to enforce the cease fire? It seems clear that Gaddafi, just has to go, so how is that going to happen during a ceasefire, when Gaddafi is pulling a 'Sadame', basically being a stubborn TINY LITTLE DINOSAUR ARMS making threats like it's going to be one hell of a tough war.

Simply put, where is the intervention in the ivory coast where TWO presidents fight each other for leadership. Where is the intervention when somalian pirates raid the seas and the bandits attack villages? Where the FUCK is the intervention of the PKK launching attacks from northern Iraq into turkish soil. WHERE IN GODS NAME IS THE UN WHEN ISRAEL BOMBS THE SHIT OUT OF THE PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS!

All in all, this thread is useless, the only thing the UN is concerned about is the high quality oil the libyan people have.
Afganistan? No Opium untill the americans raped and pillaged. Now it's a mass distributer.
Iraq? Northern part of it now bewlongs to the koerdish people and PKK. South Iraq is just a hell hole.

Now tell me, how is the UN concerned about people? Or just the money they can squeeze out of it?

Furthermore, how DUMB are these arabs? Haven't they learned anything? They just have their freedom back for the last 50 years and now they are just inviting Europe to occupy them -.-

Seriously, all in all.... the UN are a bunch of selfish, selfcentered, money hungry bunch of assholes.



My 2 cents.............

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.

From what I understand, the only form of military presence Europe will have there will be the airforce, cause the rebels don't stand a chance against Khadafi's air strikes. With that out of the way, they are on equal terms. So there won't such a thing as an occupation force?

_________________
Faberyayoooo
"War is just God's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce

my memory's a bit fuzzy on this, but as far as i can remember there are still UN peacekeeping forces active in the Ivory Coast. they went in to help the situation anyone after the elections, though it looks like in this case it was 'as the itsself UN' rather than 'the forces of the countries that are part of the UN', which is what the Libyan situation looks like. but i'm not learned enough on their involvement in the rest of Africa to engage in any real debate, just thought i'd bring it up

watching Hilory Clinton's press conference, she was very careful to point out that many of the Arab states were taking the lead in the situation - that this wasn't just the US/UK/European countries/other usual suspects sticking their nose in where it isn't wanted. though the French planes were the first in the air, i hope that this is the case; after the debacle in Iraq/Afghanistan, i hope that our leaders have learned not to be the saviours of the wider world on their own whims.

not that i think that this is what is happening. the situation: the people of a country express their overwhelming will to be rid of an oppressive (to say the least - more like absolutely batshit insane) government. when that government then uses force to oppress and kill its own people for the sake of its own survival, then already the point of no return has been crossed. at this point, militairy intervention from the wider world is morally justifiable, though there might have been the nagging question of whether they were been involved for ulterior otives (oil or what have you). but when that government agress on a ceasfire, and then sends tanks and warplanes into a city full of civilians - that really is the point of no return. now it's not just for the good of those at the mercy of Colonel Gaddafi's forces, but now there is little argument that the action of the international community is, for want of a better word, legally unfounded. it's what the UN is there for, and i can't see why anyone would not support its intervention.

(edit: full of typos and erros, will fix it when i'm on a less terrible browser)

_________________
ュ~ちゃんgamer.jp Pinky: true genius
ュ~ちゃんgamer.jp Pinky: doesn't make sense
ュ~ちゃんgamer.jp Pinky: till you're senseless

Simply put, they are not there, because they LOVE LIBYA OR IT'S PEOPLE! Changing one evil for another isn't actually a good thing. Khaddafi was put there by the americans. Saddam aswell. Hosni Mubarak was a lapdog of both israel and america. Most arabic countries nowadays were after WW1 under imperial(english) and french rule untill like the 1950's. These things are what actually makes me soooo furious, the lack of braincells these arabs have in calling in people who don't give a crap about them. One dictator will be removed for another.

Only evil can destroy evil.

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.

The US and the UN cannot get elbow deep into every minor skirmish: that is not what they are there for. Sure Israel is no minor skirmish, but its Israel! That is a conflict in which you just do not get involved.
No - I just cannot agree with that. Looking at the UN and the US as the bullies of the world who are just out to take what they want from these poor, wartorn states is a very naive way of viewing things. Oil factors into these conflicts, as it did in the Gulf, but that is because it has to. Oil fuels the world: it is responsible for a vast amount of the produce and products you use every day. Had they not secured the supply of this vital substance, all those who decry them as greedy and interfering would be up in arms demanding to know how they are supposed to fuel their car and get to work. The door swings both ways...

As to Ghaddafi: he is a terrorist, a despot and a war criminal. My only complaint is that the greatest military forces in the world had to wait for his down-trodden, peasant populace to begin the charge before they pitched in.

_________________
"Fire rained from the sky on the day I was born: 10,000 lives I ended before drawing first breath. Do not speak to me of guilt or regret, Jonathan.” - Brayan, The Keepers of the Fire

...shit

_________________
ュ~ちゃんgamer.jp Pinky: true genius
ュ~ちゃんgamer.jp Pinky: doesn't make sense
ュ~ちゃんgamer.jp Pinky: till you're senseless

Like I said, they don't give a crap about the civilians or Democracy.

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.

In general I don't approve of countries playing global police BUT in this instance I think I support the intervention.
What sets this situation apart from the others is the fact that there was a strong internal resistance in the country already. When people WANT change in a country themselves but don't have the power to push through I think interventions (and getting the fuck out of the country later) are warranted. If you invade a country with the weakest of pretexts AND the internal opposition is not strong enough to make permanent changes foreign help will do nothing - see Iraq.

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

Don't get involved, other than creating the conditions for it to start that is.

My worry with the Ivory Coast is that's 20 million people (compared to Israel's 7 and between 2 and 3 million Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza) the minor incidences we've seen of property clearances are on a larger scale than Israel's were and the potential for ethnic cleansing is much greater. The UN refused to get involved with the Congo conflict and the rhetoric used there is almost exactly the same. While the Congo has a population 3 times that of the Ivory Coast, African war and conflict spreads out into every neighbouring country the atrocities committed are as bad as any conflict the UN steps into (which is its mandate) and are verging on the scale of the ones it didn't (Burma, Cambodia). With 5.4 Million dead the Congolese wars have dwarfed that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined, so what then is defined as a skirmish?

The other problem to consider is that at the moment northern Africa is in conflict, Central Africa has a 15 year long conflict under-way with as many as 45,000 people dying a month and Sudan's stability is now in question as the southern half of the country tries to split from the northern. Each war in Africa seems to be proceeded by a war in a neighbouring country, Rwanda leads to Congo, Nigeria/Libya to Chad, Angola to Zaire, Zaire to Congo, Guinea to Liberia the list just goes on and on. The point is the largest body counts in the world are potentially the African conflicts, the difference between a repeat of the Congo and a minor skirmish may just be the UN intervention. Though I get the impression it will be in Sudan, oil rich Sudan, southern Sudan.

This by the way from my friend Nadin, who's spent the last 5 years in Sudan dealing with the people promoting and perusing these conflicts.

Then there is the UN itself, which is made up with a good number of countries who themselves are not free democratic states. Those states deal with the despots and tyrants that the UN is there to protect against, how many times has China Veto'd action against North Korea? Then there's the forces themselves, I spent enough time working with child prostitutes in Cambodia and hearing about how money was pumped in by "Blue helmets" to have drawn a wonderful conclusion about them. According to my contacts in Save The Children this pattern is repeated in almost every country in which they intervene. Then again, the same is true of both the English and American military in Korea and Vietnam. Intervention will always be a double edged sword. Picking how when and where and what the fall out will be is an art akin to necromancy and alchemy.

I agree about Ghaddafi I just don't know why we wait so long to do anything about these people, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-il (whose starving his people to death). I guess there's no profit in some conflicts.

The problem is I agree, to view Ghaddafi as someone elses problem, the UN as incompetent or Evil or African conflicts as skirmishes would be naive. There are no easy options and no easy answers, Africa is now more unstable than any other place in the world and Africa's instability leads to very long protracted civil wars and genocides. Intervening anywhere for any reason could be as fatal as not doing so. That said one less dictator in the world may well be a good thing.

_________________

I like turtles...

_________________
"What are you guys talking about?"
ZombieStalin: ... God... and Porn....
"NIIIIICEEEEEE"

The UN was right to act. Libya's people (unlike most of Iraq or Afghanistan) really want help. They stood up for themselves, hoping that maybe the countries of Europe or North America might assist them. No matter where you live in the world, a leader can't just suddenly bomb his citizens because they disagree with him. That's just not humane. I'm an American, and the only reason we invaded Iraq was because of September 11th. I wouldn't stand around and do nothing either. The UN is meant to protect the places in the world where justice is lacking. Also, compared to the UN, the Libya situation is a minor inconvenience. The news is just making it a big deal because its something exciting to talk about.

As for the situation about the UN not getting involved in every conflict that pops up: Sometimes, such as the conflict in Israel, its just best NOT to get involved. If the UN was to get involved in every single skirmish that popped up, they might as well station troops in every freaking country.

_________________

America invaded AFGANISTAN BECAUSE OF 9-11!!!!!!

Iraq had a Q in it like Al Qaida. Because they didn't find ANY weapons of mass destruction. So your whole opinion is now obsolete


O yeah, so the other people who don't rise up against Khaddafi are Crazy? Come on man, geez, don't be naive like a 12 year old.

_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most.

yeah but snapping turtles could rip your fucking arm off!

Also, on topic!

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

The other country I mentioned is also African.

If you were doing Northern African studies, you'd be quid's be.

And if you feel like being pedantic, countries like Japan, China and Vietnam are often refered to as being in the Far East. So, the Middle East is a Geographical term for the countries which are... wait for it... West of them. Funny eh?

So I suppose, North African countries like Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are the.. what? Near East?

No. They're North African.

Thanks for playing. Here's what you could have won.

Oh god I think this is how funny someone to has to be, to excuse themselves out of being a bit of an arse.

Orange I really admire you for trying to make a topic of serious discussion in these forums but within one page it has already devolved into exactly what we knew it would: Crackhead has gone totally militant and is attacking SpA members like we are in fact the UN, Balls has started cracking wise and posting funny gif's and McMoist is picking a side argument over semantics. (BTW, Moist: you are wrong. Africa IS called the Near easr and the Middle east. It is a term left over from when the British Empire ruled the world ).

So - business as usual really...

_________________
"Fire rained from the sky on the day I was born: 10,000 lives I ended before drawing first breath. Do not speak to me of guilt or regret, Jonathan.” - Brayan, The Keepers of the Fire

Pretty much any North African country is generally considered to be part of the Middle East. Even Near East is acceptable. Or Greater Middle East. So you're spot on In fact, for students of the Arabic version of Modern Middle Eastern studies, Cairo is usually the place where the second semester of the second year can be taken.

_________________
Faberyayoooo
"War is just God's way of teaching Americans geography" - Ambrose Bierce

I was just disagreeing to my boy Kaos's point about Testudines.

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."