Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The War On Libya Is A Mistake.

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    Exactly. The reason it is happening here and not in other countries is because its easier with much less risk of civilian/western military casualties than interfering in Bahrain, Iran or North Korea. I would have thought this was obvious. But instead people insist on using those countries as examples of hypocrisy.
    Indeed. It's a bit silly to say "you shouldn't get involved here, because you didn't get involved there." Maybe they should have intervened at other times, and maybe they should intervene in other places today, but those are seperate matters -- they got it right this time.


  • Options
    #63
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Nodin wrote: »
    Seeing as there are to be no occupying forces, "NATO troops" wll be, in the main, fine.

    "The lives of his own people" were already in danger, as he was shelling and bombing them, even while claiming he was observing a ceasefire.

    As a footnote, I'd like to think you started this thread just for divilment...

    You can like to think what you want. You say he was shelling and bombing his own people. But the rebels were shelling and bombing his loyal troops and civilians too. The rebels even had their own air power if you believe the news.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #64
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Do you actually know what's going on in Libya?

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

    lol I dont need to know whats going on in Libya, Ive watched America spread BS about so many countries in the past that I know enough to know they dont care about innocent people, they only care about the dollar. Why dont they stop Isreal if they are so worried about innocent lives?


  • Options
    #65
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Dave! wrote: »
    Indeed. It's a bit silly to say "you shouldn't get involved here, because you didn't get involved there." Maybe they should have intervened at other times, and maybe they should intervene in other places today, but those are seperate matters -- they got it right this time.

    Indeed. The fact they're a shower of hypocrites doesn't change the fact they'd doing the right thing here.


  • Options
    #66
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Nodin wrote: »
    ..what point are you trying to make?

    Never mind, quick look your missing Fox News.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    epgc3fyqirnbsx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭epgc3fyqirnbsx


    Dave! wrote: »
    Indeed. It's a bit silly to say "you shouldn't get involved here, because you didn't get involved there." Maybe they should have intervened at other times, and maybe they should intervene in other places today, but those are seperate matters -- they got it right this time.

    I think I agree. Got a bit longwinded (read tipsy) earlier, but do you ever think that maybe a nation should be let sort out their own domestic issues or shpuld be intervene as far is praticable?


  • Options
    #68
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Never mind, quick look your missing Fox News.
    Man you're so edgy. You must get your news direct from local sources on the ground. My hero!


  • Options
    #69
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    You can like to think what you want. You say he was shelling and bombing his own people..


    He was, its not just me saying it.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    But the rebels were shelling and bombing his loyal troops and civilians too. The rebels even had their own air power if you believe the news.

    ...because they don't want to be ruled by a half mad arsehole for another few decades, and one of his offspring after that. Tired of the torture, maybe, and the odd dissappearance. Now you might think they should sit there and take it, but obviously they've tried that, and want something different now.


  • Options
    #70
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Never mind, quick look your missing Fox News.

    Wonderful, incisive wit there - topical and exposing my notorious right wing views.

    Doesn't explain what point you were trying to make though.


  • Options
    #71
    johnmcdnl
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭johnmcdnl


    3/1 that USA troops will still be in Libya by 2018 anyone??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Whatever happened to negotiations.

    *points at OP*

    AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA......


    etc etc

    Op thinks Gadaffi would have negotiated.

    He responded to protests in the streets by sending fighter jets to bomb and strafe the protests. Let the bastard rot.


  • Options
    #73
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    3/1 that USA troops will still be in Libya by 2018 anyone??

    Seeing as the resolution explicitly excludes occupation, why would you be opening betting?


  • Options
    #74
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    *points at OP*

    AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA......


    etc etc

    Op thinks Gadaffi would have negotiated.

    He responded to protests in the streets by sending fighter jets to bomb and strafe the protests. Let the bastard rot.

    Your use of bigger letters is a convicing argument.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #75
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Nodin wrote: »
    Seeing as the resolution explicitly excludes occupation, why would you be opening betting?

    The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #76
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

    The same French that blew up a greenpeace boat? Ya they really protect the innocent.


  • Options
    #77
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Backing a military dictator with considerable firepower into a corner...

    I think that's the first time anyone has classed the Libyan military as having considerable firepower. The military performance against rag tag rebels thus far, has illustrated their military incompetence.
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    ..with no way out for him is putting the lives of his own people and NATO troops in unnecessary danger.

    Gaddafi has being doing quite a good job of putting the lives of his own people at risk, through the actions of his loyal forces for the last few weeks.


  • Options
    #78
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    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.

    Anyone who believes this is all about oil is either spectacularly uninformed, or deliberately ignoring all the evidence against such an analysis for partisan purposes. Gadaffi has friendly relations with most of the nations involved in this alliance, has bi-lateral agreements with more, and has signed massive economic agreements with foreign companies. He has not threatened to interrupt the supply of oil; indeed, he has been quite eagar to open Libya's natural resources to the international market. In light of this, your assertion is absolutely nonsensical. It's as lazy, and reactionary an analysis as they come.

    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.

    I agree that there's a huge amount of hypocrisy at play in international relations, but that shouldn't prevent us from supporting the rare instances when a good decision is taken. You seem to be saying that, as the West doesn't always act out of genuine goodwill, then it should never do so. How would that help the Libyans? Far better I think, to be hypocritical and inconsistent, and do some small amount of good, than to be entirely consistent by doing no good at all.
    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?

    Well, to be honest, what exactly would a no fly-zone achieve over Saudi and Bahrain?
    It's the callousness of it all, the absolute disregard for the morals we in the West supposedly stand for and support.

    I don't see how refusing the pleas of the Libyan people for help would ameliorate such Western (international) hypocrisy. Better to do some good and be accused of hypocrisy, than do no good and free of such charges. I'm pretty sure the people of Benghazi are willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the West in this instance.
    Cybertron85 wrote: »
    Well, they sure took their sweet time if that was the case. They were being shelled for atleast a week and a half even though we see that from putting the vote to the UN to having French jets make a first confirmed kill took less than 24 hours.

    In fairness, one of the main objections to the Iraq war was its lack of a UN mandate, which therefore made it an illegal action in the eyes of many. I don't see how people can demand a mandate for one action, and then object to the seeking of one for another? How is that consistent?
    twinytwo wrote: »
    you think there are doing it for the people?

    its all about the oil full stop.

    I really think some people just see "America" "war" and "Arab/Middle Eastern nation" in a headline, and immediately scream oil without any attempt to actually think about the situation. It's bloody tiresome. If America or the West were so concerned about oil, then they'd be backing Gadaffi to the hilt!!


  • Options
    #79
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The resolution seeks to enforce a no fly zone and the French attack tanks with no anti aircraft capability, go figure.

    I'm normally a complete bastard but I'm going soft in my old age. Heres a hint - reading the resolution would help you no end.
    • It authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory''.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/un-security-council-resolution-key-points


  • Options
    #80
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Offy wrote: »
    The same French that blew up a greenpeace boat? Ya they really protect the innocent.

    That was 26 years ago. Seriously, how can people judge current actions on events of a quarter of a century ago? When Germany adopts a positive stance on something, do you seek to dismiss by bringing up the Nazis?


  • Options
    #81
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm normally a complete bastard but I'm going soft in my old age. Heres a hint - reading the resolution would help you no end.


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/un-security-council-resolution-key-points

    So they won't be killing any civilians themselves then.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    Einhard wrote: »
    Anyone who believes this is all about oil is either spectacularly uninformed, or deliberately ignoring all the evidence against such an analysis for partisan purposes. Gadaffi has friendly relations with most of the nations involved in this alliance, has bi-lateral agreements with more, and has signed massive economic agreements with foreign companies. He has not threatened to interrupt the supply of oil; indeed, he has been quite eagar to open Libya's natural resources to the international market. In light of this, your assertion is absolutely nonsensical. It's as lazy, and reactionary an analysis as they come.

    With the agreements you speak of foreign countries buy the oil, thats not the American way so I just dont believe it. Time will tell but by then it will be to late plus it really doesnt matter what any of us say, it wont change anything so Im off for some frags!:D


  • Options
    #83
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    Einhard wrote: »
    That was 26 years ago. Seriously, how can people judge current actions on events of a quarter of a century ago? When Germany adopts a positive stance on something, do you seek to dismiss by bringing up the Nazis?

    No I bring up the EU and Irelands bailout!


  • Options
    #84
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Does anyone know what the resolution mandates in the event that the rebels move against Gadaffi, and he counters them militarily? It seems to be quite vague on his use of the military for defensive operations.


  • Options
    #85
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Offy wrote: »
    With the agreements you speak of foreign countries buy the oil, thats not the American way so I just dont believe it. Time will tell but by then it will be to late plus it really doesnt matter what any of us say, it wont change anything so Im off for some frags!:D

    Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!
    Offy wrote: »
    No I bring up the EU and Irelands bailout!

    Ah, but the Krauts haven't forced anything on us!


  • Options
    #86
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Einhard wrote: »
    Does anyone know what the resolution mandates in the event that the rebels move against Gadaffi, and he counters them militarily? It seems to be quite vague on his use of the military for defensive operations.


    Don't be so disingenuous. The rebels can shoot at his forces, they will be armed by the "Allies" but Gadaffi's forces can't shoot back. The resolution that you refer to covers all bases. Guns pointed in rebels direction = threat to civilians = airstrikes.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #87
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Einhard wrote: »
    Well it is the American way. Or do you have evidence that America just steals massive amounts of oil from foreign nations? Even in Iraq, a nation America supposedly invaded for oil and gas, most of the contracts agreed by the Iraqi government have gone to other nations, especially China. The Yanks aren't exactly getting a good return for their investment!!

    Stratigicaly it leaves them nicely placed to keep manners on Iran.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #88
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Don't be so disingenuous. The rebels can shhot at his forces, they will be armed by the "Allie" but Gadaffi's forces can't shhot back the resolution that you refer to covers all bases. Guns pointed in rebels direction = threat to civilians = airstrikes.

    I think it's pretty much impossible to be disingenuous whilst asking a genuine question of others...


  • Options
    #89
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Stratigicaly it leaves them nicely placed to keep manners on Iran.

    Eh no, it doesn't. Seriously, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!


  • Options
    #90
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Einhard wrote: »
    Does anyone know what the resolution mandates in the event that the rebels move against Gadaffi, and he counters them militarily? It seems to be quite vague on his use of the military for defensive operations.

    Isn't this what resulted in the mandate in the first place?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Einhard wrote: »
    Eh no, it doesn't. Seriously, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

    Really? :rolleyes:

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



Advertisement