Was it morally right for Britain, Canada, France and the USA to airstrike Libya?

philologos

Simple question, I'm looking to see what you think.

As for me this is the greatest challenge to my belief in pacifism for a long time. I'm torn. I particularly don't want to see another war in the Middle East right now.

positron

No

Yes. And it's not airstriking entire Libya as you put it. It's taking out Gaddafi's forces who are shelling civilians in Bangazi and reducing his power to hurt civilians. That's all there is

(PS: okay, there might be more to it, but I don't know)

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

I'm torn too.
On the one hand, I think that somebody needed to step in and stand up for the innocent civilians. But isn't that the UNs' job?
Also - there are plenty of other countries who could do with being saved from civil war and dictatorships.
But they don't have 'black gold', so the armies of the world aren't taking much notice...

Stinicker

No

Jakkass wrote: »

Simple question, I'm looking to see what you think.

As for me this is the greatest challenge to my belief in pacifism for a long time. I'm torn. I particularly don't want to see another war in the Middle East right now.

Libya is in North Africa, the Libyan people have begun an uprising for change, Gaddaffi slaughters his own people so I do believe that the allies are both justified and right to go to war against him.

Some of the naysayers here would rather if Europe stayed dumb and let Hitler take over. Freedom isn't free and Gadaffi is a tyrant and hopefully they will get some bunkerbusters to blow him to smithereens.

philologos

positron wrote: »

Yes. And it's not airstriking entire Libya as you put it. It's taking out Gaddafi's forces who are shelling civilians in Bangazi and reducing his power to hurt civilians. That's all there is

(PS: okay, there might be more to it, but I don't know)

I think it is hypocritical given that troops from Saudi Arabia / Qatar and UAE are currently in Bahrain suppressing protest.

If the coalition were genuinely consistent they would have advocated airstrikes here also. They are still more interested in keeping their main oil partners I would suspect.

RichieC

I'm torn too, on the one hand I don't give a flying fk, on the other I don't want the yanks getting their grubby hands on another country.

Chuchoter

Sega Mega Drive

None of this had a thing to do with the US, Canada or France. Overall the death toll was very small, this was an uprising that got in the way of some oil and nothing more. This airstrike will destroy Libya and they will end up with yet another country ****ed up by some big countries deciding to stick their nose where it didn't belong.

Overheal

No

RichieC wrote: »

I'm torn too, on the one hand I don't give a flying fk, on the other I don't want the yanks getting their grubby hands on another country.

Yes. Thats exactly what we want. You got us

:rolleyes:

the groutch

No

if they have all those bombs, they've got to use them on someone

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

I agree with the above post.
It's quite obvious that there's more to these strikes than just saving civilians from Gadaffi.

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

Yes. Thats exactly what we want. You got us

:rolleyes:

lol, you know more about the back room dealings because why? you live in America?

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

Well I'd certainly hope that an American citizen would know more about US foreign policy than your average Irish person

philologos

Stinicker wrote: »

Libya is in North Africa, the Libyan people have begun an uprising for change, Gaddaffi slaughters his own people so I do believe that the allies are both justified and right to go to war against him.

It is included in some definitions of the Middle East but meh.

Some countries in the UN such as Venezuela suggested that it could be resolved better diplomatically.

RichieC

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Well I'd certainly hope that an American citizen would know more about US foreign policy than your average Irish person

He knows the same, what can be read on the internet or the papers, they don't have secret American news that only they can read.

TheGodBen

No

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

On the one hand, I think that somebody needed to step in and stand up for the innocent civilians. But isn't that the UNs' job?

You do realise that the UN doesn't have an army, right? All the UN could do is request member nations to intervene to protect civilians, which they did in resolution 1973, explicitly saying that they can use "all necessary measures". The coalition are now acting on the behalf of the UN.

philologos

crayolastereo wrote: »

None of this had a thing to do with the US, Canada or France.

They were the main advocates of this along with Britain, of course it has to do with them.

pigeonbutler

No

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Well I'd certainly hope that an American citizen would know more about US foreign policy than your average Irish person

Not generally the case in my experience!!

Stinicker

No

Jakkass wrote: »

It is included in some definitions of the Middle East but meh.

Some countries in the UN such as Venezuela suggested that it could be resolved better diplomatically.

The time for talking had come and passed there is somethings that can be only resolved through action. Venezuela should count itself lucky if doesn't find itself on the receiving end of Military action at some point in the future also. GWB drew up invasion plans for the country during his tenure IIRC.

dabestman1

if libya didnt have oil, this wouldnt have happened, wonder will they bomb burma, on another note they wont bomb bahrain or saudi arabia because they like their dictators.

positron

No

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is hypocritical given that troops from Saudi Arabia / Qatar and UAE are currently in Bahrain suppressing protest.

If the coalition were genuinely consistent they would have advocated airstrikes here also. They are still more interested in keeping their main oil partners I would suspect.

Please don't tell me you didn't notice the difference in scale of the situation between Libya and rest of the countries? Saudi, UAE etc are what currently similar to what happenend in Egypt, it's awful and no doubt that the people should be given the choice to reform, but they are getting repression. However, there's a huge difference between that, to Gaddafi going on radio and tv making his intentions clear that he will conduct house-to-house searches in Bengazi and kill every single rebel - aka - anyone they wish - aka - ethnic cleansing. Not only that, he has the history of doing such insane things too. Already there's many 100s of thousands attempting to flee the situation, so it's a crisis in much larger scale than that of UAE / Yemen etc.

Ideally UN should be there everywhere protecting civilians, but, we don't live in an ideal world now, do we?

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

RichieC wrote: »

He knows the same, what can be read on the internet or the papers, they don't have secret American news that only they can read.

What I meant was that as a US citizen, I'd presume that he'd take more of an interest in US foreign policy than an Irish citizen

Looking at the big picture, morals don't come into it!
Maintaining a supply of oil does, if Libya wasn't an oil exporter, there would be little incentive for the west to go in, but they do and there is a huge incentintive to go in and stabalise the country as soon as possible so the oil supply will resume.

There was quite a delay before anything was done, maybe the governments thought that Gadaffi would rapidly crush the rebellion and continue as before, or the rebels would get a quick victory. Either way is good for the west.

It should be remembered that food prices are directly related to oil prices and as the prices of both continue to rapidly rise, food & fuel riots are likely just about anywhere on the planet.

Restoring stability and stabalising oil supply and cost is what this is about.

Hyperbullet

Sega Mega Drive

Jakkass wrote: »

It is included in some definitions of the Middle East but meh.

Some countries in the UN such as Venezuela suggested that it could be resolved better diplomatically.

Bit rich coming from Venezuela, considering it isn't the most politically sound country either.

philologos

Stinicker wrote: »

The time for talking had come and passed there is somethings that can be only resolved through action. Venezuela should count itself lucky if doesn't find itself on the receiving end of Military action at some point in the future also. GWB drew up invasion plans for the country during his tenure IIRC.

Had it though? I hadn't heard of any means of initiating negotiations before airstrikes. They passed the resolution and then there was a "ceasefire" that the Libyans didn't honour. The first move should have been negotiations, maybe?

As for Bush, could you provide a link where you got that from?

Mike 1972

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

I'm torn too.
On the one hand, I think that somebody needed to step in and stand up for the innocent civilians. But isn't that the UNs' job?

Does the UN have an airforce ?

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

TheGodBen wrote: »

You do realise that the UN doesn't have an army, right? All the UN could do is request member nations to intervene to protect civilians, which they did in resolution 1973, explicitly saying that they can use "all necessary measures". The coalition are now acting on the behalf of the UN.

Yes I do. I don't believe that the coalition are acting on behalf of the UN. Who's pulling the strings?

walshb

Sega Mega Drive

I think it is obscene that the French, UK and U.S. are bombing this country.
It's nothing but games and target practice to them. They couldn't give a flying fcuk about Libyan people. The Colonel obviously has supporters; Libya is a sovereign country, an independent country, and just because the yanks and brits don't agree with Gadaffi ruling, what ****ing right does that give them to attack the country. Pure terrorism.

So, what would happen if several thousand Irish people protested against the government here and demanded change thru force; would that be ok for the westerners to bomb and attack?

Same in Palestine. Hamas rule there because Hamas have support. That is their choice, their right
and their people. The Brits and U.S need to stop ****ing interfering with other countries rulers and rulings.
These countries will sort their problems.

philologos

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

I'm torn too.
On the one hand, I think that somebody needed to step in and stand up for the innocent civilians. But isn't that the UNs' job?

Perhaps, but I'm very very wary about this considering that Arab, Russian and Chinese support is waning already.

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Does the UN have an airforce ?

I didn't mean 'stand up for civilians' in an agressive way.

Overheal

No

RichieC wrote: »

He knows the same, what can be read on the internet or the papers, they don't have secret American news that only they can read.

I do however have American news that for the most part only Americans bother to read and view. We have no interest in deploying ground forces or occupying the county in any form. Admiral Mullen at the very least has even said the mission is only to protect the rebel citizens by any means necessary under the UN resolution. Some generals though seem to believe the end game should be Ghadaffi out of there, but they are unsure of how that will be accomplished, it would have to be through the acts of the rebel people, which with the removal of Ghadaffi's tanks and planes will be a much less of a one-ended slaughter. Ghaddafi cannot simply be bombed as a) it's not the mission or approved by the resolution and b) he's using innocent bystanders as his entourage, forming a human shield.

Financially there's little or nothing to gain from this except a thankful Libyan people who may repay the favor when they restore the country. As it is though I wager we've already burned through $1,000,000,000.00+ since the start of operations the other day, half of that cost in Tomahawk cruise missiles alone.

dabestman1

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Bit rich coming from Venezuela, considering it isn't the most politically sound country either.

good to note that america only recognises decomcracy when it suits them, Chavez is elected. None of these middle east would recognise democracy but that suits america.

Hyperbullet

Sega Mega Drive

walshb wrote: »

I think it is obscene that the French, UK and U.S. are bombing this country.
It's nothing but games and target practice to them. They couldn't give a flying fcuk about Libyan people. The Colonel obviously has supporters; Libya is a sovereign country, an independent country, and just because the yanks and brits don't agree with Gadaffi ruling, what ****ing right does that give them to attack the country. Pure terrorism.

So, what would happen if several thousand Irish people protested against the government here and demanded change thru force; would that be ok for the westerners to bomb and attack?

Same in Palestine. Hamas rule there because Hamas have support. That is their choice, their right
and their people. The Brits and U.S need to stop ****ing interfering with other countries rulers and rulings.
These countries will sort their problems.

Mayo and Galway having some of the finest damn pilots west of the shannon. :pac:

Agree though, country should be left alone to sort out its own problems. This global policing lark is getting a little old.

Nijmegen

No

The facts as far as Libya is concerned:

• Pro-democracy uprising in the country
• Nobody doubts that Gadaffi is a nut who will and has murdered innocents
• Counter-attacked by loyalist forces, some of whom are foreign mercenaries
• Leader of country says various things about hunting down rebels and killing them wherever they are
• Loyalist forces kill civilians
• Gadaffi says he will honour a ceasefire to comply with UN resolution. Promptly proceeds to attack a rebel held city

Gadaffi is a liar, a murderer, and a madman, and the UN resolution lays out clear grounds to put an end to his bloody romp across Libya.

Yes, there are arguments to be made around other countries. But if I were a Libyan freedom fighter coming under attack from superior government forces, I wouldn't particularly mind that today. It's better, as a Guardian op-ed observed, to be idealistic some of the time than cynical all of the time. Real Politik.

As for Libyan oil, I didn't see that there was much trouble with Western oil contracts in the country before now. Indeed, the US had to be dragged to the table on this one.

And there wasn't oil in Yugoslavia, so saying that western powers only interfere where there's oil is not true.

Fact is, if you're a pacifist your biggest trouble in life is when you meet people like Gadaffi who aren't similarly minded. You meet fire with larger, more accurate fire, in cases like this.

RichieC

dabestman1 wrote: »

good to note that america only recognises decomcracy when it suits them, Chavez is elected. None of these middle east would recognise democracy but that suits america.

yea but he's a lefty... only pro America right wing juntas are acceptable.

Overheal

No

WalshB wrote:

The Brits and U.S need to stop ****ing interfering with other countries rulers and rulings.
These countries will sort their problems.

I addressed other parts of your dupe post in another thread.

We could indeed simply let Ghadaffi slaughter his own oppossition. Is that what you would prefer the Coalition do?

TheGodBen

No

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Yes I do. I don't believe that the coalition are acting on behalf of the UN. Who's pulling the strings?

What?

There was a vote at the UN Security Council on Thursday night asking for member nations to intervene to protect civilians in Libya. This vote was put forth by Lebanon, an Arab nation. This vote passed; 10 voted for it, 0 voted against it and 5 nations abstained. You said that it should be the UN intervening. They did, but they can only intervene by asking countries to intervene on their behalf. The US, UK, France and others stepped up to the plate.

So what's your problem exactly?

Solnskaya

Gadaffi has form for pi55ing off the big boys, so its payback time. The fact that there is oil present distorts the whole thing(there was no great rush to bomb the serbs, the Janjaweed, the Burmese regime etc) The UN are good at sitting on their hands while people suffer, then just sending in innefectual peacekeepers, the speed of this responce is a bit suspicious, even if the Libyan rebels say it is too slow. I smell oil-lust.

philologos

positron wrote: »

Please don't tell me you didn't notice the difference in scale of the situation between Libya and rest of the countries? Saudi, UAE etc are what currently similar to what happenend in Egypt, it's awful and no doubt that the people should be given the choice to reform, but they are getting repression. However, there's a huge difference between that, to Gaddafi going on radio and tv making his intentions clear that he will conduct house-to-house searches in Bengazi and kill every single rebel - aka - anyone they wish - aka - ethnic cleansing. Not only that, he has the history of doing such insane things too. Already there's many 100s of thousands attempting to flee the situation, so it's a crisis in much larger scale than that of UAE / Yemen etc.

You've missed my point. There are 1000 troops from Saudi Arabia and others in Bahrain right now to deal with the protest. If the US / UK / France etc was applying the same logic they would be attempting to oust these troops as well.

positron wrote: »

Ideally UN should be there everywhere protecting civilians, but, we don't live in an ideal world now, do we?

I'm an idealist. I think we should move away from bankrolling corrupt dictators.

Seaneh

why the west chose to 'help' Lybia rebels and not rebels in Bahrain or Sudan.

In Lybia the west (particularly Britian, France and The US) have VERY favourable trade for oil deals with the Lybian government.
They were perfectly happy to allow the Lybian government stay in power so long as they controlled the oil flow north and they got it for cheap.
in return for cheap oil they give Lybia cheap weapons and Britian even trained the Lybian Army and Police forces regularly. The SAS and PSNI, for instance, were used to train elite police and army troops in the last 18 ,months.

The revolt started, the oil stopped flowing, the west realised the oil wasn't going to flow again anytime soon, they realised they had a chance to help remove Gadaffi's government, which they never liked dealing with.
So they act like it's for the 'protection of civilians'.

None of the allies wants an occupation, they just want to bomb the military infrastructure, cut off the head and let the rebels do the rest, then the oil flows north again and everyone is happy.


Bahrain and sudan's governments still control the oil fields and refineries, the oil still flows north, the west sees no benefit to their own ends in disrupting the slaughter and displacement of millions.

Sauve

Sega Mega Drive

I need to read up on this a bit more I think...

Foreverdelayed

walshb wrote: »

I think it is obscene that the French, UK and U.S. are bombing this country.
It's nothing but games and target practice to them. They couldn't give a flying fcuk about Libyan people. The Colonel obviously has supporters; Libya is a sovereign country, an independent country, and just because the yanks and brits don't agree with Gadaffi ruling, what ****ing right does that give them to attack the country. Pure terrorism.

So, what would happen if several thousand Irish people protested against the government here and demanded change thru force; would that be ok for the westerners to bomb and attack?

Same in Palestine. Hamas rule there because Hamas have support. That is their choice, their right
and their people. The Brits and U.S need to stop ****ing interfering with other countries rulers and rulings.
These countries will sort their problems.

Your missing the point that Gadaffi has on many occasions in the last number of weeks, said he would systematically murder those who did not openly support him in the conflict. If Libya was left to its own doings, Gadaffi would almost certainly regain control and could potentially embark on a spree of mass murder ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. The rebel forces have FAR more than several thousand supporters, in fact it would be Gadaffi's supporters that would number less.

I'm sure if the situation was similar in Ireland, a coalition force would step in.

Nijmegen

No

Seaneh wrote: »

Qatar and sudan's governments still control the oil fields and refineries, the oil still flows north, the west sees no benefit to their own ends in disrupting the slaughter and displacement of millions.

Now, let's say you're a Libyan pro-democracy freedom fighter.

Do you give a flying f*** about that, or are you just happy to see western powers blowing Gadaffi's army to bits?

keithc83

No

dabestman1 wrote: »

if libya didnt have oil, this wouldnt have happened, wonder will they bomb burma, on another note they wont bomb bahrain or saudi arabia because they like their dictators.

Of course it is to do with oil. The invasion of Iraq by American forces was to secure oil fields...definitely not to free the people of Iraq. Have they caught Osama Bin Laden? No. They don't care about catching him either.

But what i will say is that they did need to act. Gaddhafi was attacking the rebels after declaring a ceasefire and he has killed many innocent civilians. I think it was a final straw for the Allied forces. As long as they don't invade i agree with their actions up to this point.

Nodin

No

Jakkass wrote: »

Simple question, I'm looking to see what you think.

As for me this is the greatest challenge to my belief in pacifism for a long time. I'm torn. I particularly don't want to see another war in the Middle East right now.

It's the UN acting, entirely legally, through those countries.

philologos

Nijmegen wrote: »

Now, let's say you're a Libyan pro-democracy freedom fighter.

Do you give a flying f*** about that, or are you just happy to see western powers blowing Gadaffi's army to bits?

Motives have a lot to do with how ethical an action is which is the main impetus behind this thread.

Personally I'd rather that the world was demanding change in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, as well as Libya. Unfortunately for as long as we have this oil-lust we won't stand up to these tyrannous regimes and tell them that they are wrong.

Sheeps

No

I am indifferent. I have never been to Libya nor do I plan to ever go to Libya. Seeing jets being shot down on TV is cool though.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

It's the UN acting, entirely legally, through those countries.

This thread is asking whether or not it is moral. Moral and legal can be very different things.

Metallitroll

Sega Mega Drive

couldn't be bothered with that poll, too many meek lurkers voting without comment influenced since birth by media saturation from the nations we're sandwiched between and all the propaganda that entails it'll have no impact. the battle for young hearts and minds was won since birth regarding most of em, at least make an IQ test mandatory with a mere entry level requirement of 100. i love a lot of western culture too, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that comes from there and be pathetically biased, balance it out some and show us you're not a retard...

won't happen.

Nodin

No

Jakkass wrote: »

This thread is asking whether or not it is moral. Moral and legal can be very different things.

The thread is asking Was it morally right for Britain, Canada, France and the USA to airstrike Libya

This gives the impression it's some rerun of the 2003 Iraq fiasco, and a number of states acting on their own. What your poll should ask is Was it morally right for the UN to authorise airstrikes against Libya

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

This gives the impression it's some rerun of the 2003 Iraq fiasco, and a number of states acting on their own. What your poll should ask is Was it morally right for the UN to authorise airstrikes against Libya

Hopefully it won't become another rerun. I can't be sure that it won't hence why I'm torn on this.

Nodin

No

Jakkass wrote: »

Hopefully it won't become another rerun. I can't be sure that it won't hence why I'm torn on this.

Well occupation is excluded specifically from the resolution, its not being pushed by some bunch of ideologues, so really no, its not going to. People will die, however, of that you may be assured.