The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

SafeSurfer

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.
Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

twinytwo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.
Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

you think there are doing it for the people?

its all about the oil full stop.

galwayrush

Here we go again, US/ UK attacking poor misunderstood Gadiffi. I'm sure Israel will also be blamed before long.:rolleyes:

ejmaztec

It's a shame that the Libyan situation has reached the stage that it has, because it means that the poor Sky News viewers will have to put up with that insufferable smug wanker Tim Marshall, who thinks he knows everything.

Minstrel27

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's a shame that the Libyan situation has reached the stage that it has, because it means that the poor Sky News viewers will have to put up with that insufferable smug wanker Tim Marshall, who thinks he knows everything.

Anyone who chooses to watch that **** deserves all they get.

Saila

they are doing wargames ala iraq before the ground invasion just enjoy the show..if we get to see it that is

Metallitroll

galwayrush wrote: »

Here we go again, US/ UK attacking poor misunderstood Gadiffi. I'm sure Israel will also be blamed before long.:rolleyes:

seems the only person being blamed for anything is gaddaffi himself

he's a goddamn rockstar. last of a dying breed maaan... theyr all jealous :rolleyes:

HavingCrack

To be honest, comparing Libya to Bahrain and Yemen isn't exactly fair. While both those states have experienced emergency law, civil unrest, military occupation and the murders of protestors by government loyalists neither are experiencing a full scale civil war as Libya is, yet. If no fly zones were declared over Yemen or Bahrain who would they attack?

The Libyan rebels begged for a no fly zone once they realised they'd probably lose and in order to be seen to be supporting democracy the west had to do something. As far as I know, no ground intervention is being proposed as yet. Likewise I don't know if the Bahranis and Yemenese have asked for military intervetion in those states.

Dionysus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A military assault on Libya little over a month after the pro democracy protests commenced. Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner so suddenly with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.
Whatever happened to negotiations. If there isn't similiar military intervention in Baharin and Yemen it is nothing but a sham.

I think you're mistaken in that view.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Gadaffi is a bad bastard without a doubt and I'm delighted to see the rebellion.
But I can't help thinking that maybe sometimes such countries, in the absence of a genociden or somesuch, should just be left to their own devices to sort out their own affairs and find their own balance.
I think most countries have had some sort of civil war and of course the loss of life is always tragic, but why should foreign countries back one side?
It's pretty obvious in this case that gadaffi is a bad bastard but, hypothetically, what if the majority of the people supported him? We dont really know....

I'm playing devils advocate here but what do you think, in the absence of genocide or chemical weapons or the mass slaughtering of civilians, should a country just be left to their own devices?
It can often take such tragedy for a country to truly mature and establish itself and its institutions in such a manner to ensure such things are less likely to happen again, without foreugn interruption and the inevitable establishment of "vested interests"

It can sound cold but some of the most solid countries on this planet have grown solid from such strife. Depriving countries of this might could lead to years of instability, loss of identity and even festering resentment causing further strife, but then as good humans we should do whatever we can to minimise immediate casualties....
These are tricky situations to say the least

ilovesleep

To be honest i dont understand the situation in Libya. I know there are riots and thats about it.

SafeSurfer

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be honest, comparing Libya to Bahrain and Yemen isn't exactly fair. While both those states have experienced emergency law, civil unrest, military occupation and the murders of protestors by government loyalists neither are experiencing a full scale civil war as Libya is, yet. If no fly zones were declared over Yemen or Bahrain who would they attack?

The Libyan rebels begged for a no fly zone once they realised they'd probably lose and in order to be seen to be supporting democracy the west had to do something. As far as I know, no ground intervention is being proposed as yet. Likewise I don't know if the Bahranis and Yemenese have asked for military intervetion in those states.

They have asked for military intervention. There are over a thousand Saudi and other Arab states military in Bahrain as we speak.

MagicMarker

ilovesleep wrote: »

To be honest i dont understand the situation in Libya. I know there are riots and thats about it.

Basically one side think Oasis were the better band, but the other side are of the opinion that Blur were better. Talks are ongoing.

The Pontiac

MagicMarker wrote: »

Basically one side think Oasis were the better band, but the other side are of the opinion that Blur were better. Talks are ongoing.

But the correct answer was Radiohead.

whiskeyman

I'm just glad this all didn't happen when George W was in charge, otherwise Liberia would have been bombed to f**k by now...

partyatmygaff

twinytwo wrote: »

you think there are doing it for the people?

its all about the oil full stop.

Do you even know anything of the situation in Libya or is it the typical uninformed rubbish.

The people asked for this intervention.

whiskeyman wrote: »

I'm just glad this all didn't happen when George W was in charge, otherwise Liberia would have been bombed to f**k by now...

I wouldn't be surprised... Terrible aim and all that

Dirk Gently

HavingCrack wrote: »

in order to be seen to be supporting democracy.

lol.

HavingCrack

Barrett Fancy Saloon wrote: »

Gadaffi is a bad bastard without a doubt and I'm delighted to see the rebellion.
But I can't help thinking that maybe sometimes such countries, in the absence of a genocidenor somesuch, should just be left to their own devices to sort out their own affairs and find their own balance.
I think most countries have had some sort of civil war and of course the loss of life is always tragic, but why should foreign countries back one side?

I think it basically comes down to a sense of morality. At what stage does the death of innocents and brutal oppression become too much to stand by and ignore? It's a rhetorical question really, every state and person would have their own standards. I always imagine that if Hitler had never invaded Poland there's every chance the Nazi regime would never have fallen for a long, long time.

Barrett Fancy Saloon wrote: »

It's pretty obvious in this case that gadaffi is a bad bastard but, hypothetically, what if the majority of the people supported him? We dont really know....

It's the same type of question really, at what stage do we have to say, enough is enough. Do we just stay inside the imaginary lines drawn on the earths surface and say '**** it, nothing happening over there is anything to do with us'? There's no right or wrong answer really.

Barrett Fancy Saloon wrote: »

I'm playing devils advocate here but what do you think, in the absence of genocide or chemical weapons or the mass slaughtering of civilians, should a country just be left to their own devices?

It's all to do with your own moral compass really. Should the North Korean and Iranian regimes just be left alone because they don't really concern us? This policy happened in Latin America and saw lots of nasty regimes flourish for quite a long time. I would say no but lots would disagree with me.

Barrett Fancy Saloon wrote: »

It can often take such tragedy for a country to truly mature and establish itself and its institutions in such a manner to ensure such things are less likely to happen again, without foreugn interruption and the inevitable establishment of "vested interests"

To be honest, from a historical perspective it's a very mixed bag as to how well a country recovers from civil war. The United States recovered remarkably well considering the numbers who died but it certainly left its legacy in the Jim Crowe laws of later years. The Spanish experience wasn't so neat. Franco continued to murder people for several years after the war ended and most of the population continued to live in dire poverty for a long time afterwards. China has been left with a a fairly totalitarian regime in the present day. Congo is still unstable and seeing constant low level fighting, rapes and killings. Bosnia is still divided etc.Lebannon appears to recover but I get the impression a lot of tension is waiting to flare up beneath the surface. A mixed bag indeed.

Offy

Has he got weapons of mass destruction? Another war started for oil under the guise of protecting innocent people. Anybody that believes its over anything other than oil is mad.

HavingCrack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They have asked for military intervention. There are over a thousand Saudi and other Arab states military in Bahrain as we speak.

Pro-government intervention though, not on the side of the protestors.

clown bag wrote: »

lol.

Appear being the most important word in that sentence

Cybertron85

It's completely fjucked, I have no love for Ghaddafi and he's definitely a dictator, but it's cringeworthy listening to these lying scumbags like Clinton or Cameron claim they're doing it for the poor people of Libya. They'll probably kill just as many or more Libyans over the next few days than Ghaddafi did over the past weeks.

Also...will they be taking such a hardline stance with Bahrain, Yemen or now Syria too? Doubtful, they like their standards double.

mike65

Here we go again, the coalition of the stupid all jumping into an After Hours thread to attack a programme designed to stop a city being leveled by a nutty dictator.

Its not about the oil and gas, the west can buy as much as it likes from Libya and has been doing so for a good few years now.

A Primal Nut

Offy wrote: »

Has he got weapons of mass destruction? Another war started for oil under the guise of protecting innocent people. Anybody that believes its over anything other than oil is mad.

In what way do they benefit from interfering against Gadaffi? Many western companies have favourable oil deals with Gadaffi and don't want to see him gone. If it was about oil, they would protect Gadaffi and fight the rebels.

Its rediculously simplistic analysis and doesn't change the fact that they are fighting on the right side.

kraggy

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be honest, comparing Libya to Bahrain and Yemen isn't exactly fair. While both those states have experienced emergency law, civil unrest, military occupation and the murders of protestors by government loyalists neither are experiencing a full scale civil war as Libya is, yet. If no fly zones were declared over Yemen or Bahrain who would they attack?The Libyan rebels begged for a no fly zone once they realised they'd probably lose and in order to be seen to be supporting democracy the west had to do something. As far as I know, no ground intervention is being proposed as yet. Likewise I don't know if the Bahranis and Yemenese have asked for military intervetion in those states.

The regime's tanks and artillery stations that are killing innocent civilians?

In Bahrain, the country is run by a minority Sunni regime. The majority of the country are Shias. They want democracy. And because of their demands, they are being murdered.

partyatmygaff

Offy wrote: »

Has he got weapons of mass destruction? Another war started for oil under the guise of protecting innocent people. Anybody that believes its over anything other than oil is mad.

Do you actually know what's going on in Libya?

Or did you just read "America" "Middle East" "Attack" and go on from there?

A Primal Nut

kraggy wrote: »

The regime's tanks and artillery stations that are killing innocent civilians?

In Bahrain, the country is run by a minority Sunni regime. The majority of the country are Shias. They want democracy. And because of their demands, they are being murdered.

Yes but the West don't have the support of surrounding Arab states which would make interference in Bahrain a disaster. They have the support of the Arab states in Libya which makes the interference practical.

These decisions aren't just based on morals, but also the practical implications - will the interference have a positive or negative impact on the country and region?

Cybertron85

mike65 wrote: »

Here we go again, the coalition of the stupid all jumping into an After Hours thread to attack a programme designed to stop a city being leveled by a nutty dictator.

Its not about the oil and gas, the west can buy as much as it likes from Libya and has been doing so for a good few years now.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me it's about the sheer hypocrisy. Selling arms to a 'nutty dictator' and then attacking him when he uses them against an armed uprising in his own country for whatever reasons.

They attack him for something he didn't even do (yet), and they don't lift a finger when then Yemeni government or Saudi governments kill peaceful unarmed protesters?

It's the callousness of it all, the absolute disregard for the morals we in the West supposedly stand for and support.

HavingCrack

kraggy wrote: »

The regime's tanks and artillery stations that are killing innocent civilians?

In Bahrain, the country is run by a minority Sunni regime. The majority of the country are Shias. They want democracy. And because of their demands, they are being murdered.

I don't think there's any artillery being used in Bahrain or Yemen? I may be wrong though.

Attacking tanks in the urban quarters of Bahrain or Sa'na is much more difficult taks than bombing tanks sitting in the middle of the desert. The risk of hitting civilians by accident is much higher, which would cause all manner of problems for any UN nation intervening. There's a reason airpower is not as effective in cities as it is in open coutnry, it's much harder to make out who your friends and enemies are.

mike65

Cybertron85 wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me it's about the sheer hypocrisy. Selling arms to a 'nutty dictator' and then attacking him when he uses them against an armed uprising in his own country for whatever reasons.

They attack him for something he didn't even do (yet), and they don't lift a finger when then Yemeni government or Saudi governments kill peaceful unarmed protesters?

It's the callousness of it all, the absolute disregard for the morals we in the West supposedly stand for and support.

Yemen needs dealing with, the Arab League needs to get its own act together, ditto whats happening in Bahrain. Saudis really are scumbags. This coalition can't be everywhere all at once though.

Dionysus

Cybertron85 wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me it's about the sheer hypocrisy. Selling arms to a 'nutty dictator' and then attacking him when he uses them against an armed uprising in his own country for whatever reasons.

You're definitely on to something big there.

Still, the world might be slightly better without him, and we can hope that Libya will be substantially better.

partyatmygaff

mike65 wrote: »

Yemen needs dealing with, the Arab League needs to get its own act together, ditto whats happening in Bahrain. Saudis really are scumbags. This coalition can't be everywhere all at once though.

What can they do? The only country in the Arab league with the military power to intervene is Egypt and the Egyptian military is preoccupied with running and policing Egypt at the moment.