Should NATO invade Libya?

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Well like we are a stakeholder in nato so i decide we use nat
o nukes to nuke the fo-shizzle out of the libyan cretins.

Ireland isn't in NATO

prinz wrote: »

AFAIK the two ships (one of which is a supply ship) are due to enter the Med tomorrow, if at all according to some news reports. There are conflicting news reports over the last few days, ships are continuing, ships withdrew application to use canal, Egyptians are postponing rights to use canal.... all a bit up in the air.

Although the Suez is regarded as an internal Egyptian waterway, there are international agreements in place as to fair usage etc., with Egypt only being allowed to block civilian international shipping from a certain country if at war with that country.

Military shipping has to get clearance (which is only denied if the military shipping is deemed a security risk to Egypt itself) from the Egyptian authorities to make the journey through the canal which the Iranians seem to have done and paid the cost of passing (something like quarter of a million dollars). As for this being a new departure, I looked for examples of Iranians requesting access to military ships before and being denied by Mubarak's Egypt and haven't found any records. Could it be that it hasn't happened before because the Iranian Navy never requested passage before?

So you're saying Iran is testing the new Egyptian regime. Here is some background info on Suleiman:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html

Royal Irish wrote: »

But worse still the likes of the muslim brotherhood will introduce Sharia Law, which in my opinion is just medieval savagery. They have already been quoted as saying that they will introduce it and people will still vote for it. I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live with the possibility of one of my sisters being stoned to death because she came home from a night out with a 1.5 inch scrape on her bum. If they even go as far as very strict Sharia Law that the Pashto Taliban live under, that would mean that young girls wont be allowed an education. Stuff like that just shouldnt happen in the 21st century and its where those countries a heading.

Ignoring all the "ifs" here; It's still democracy. If a democratic population wishes to vote for strongly mysogynistic laws, then quite frankly that's their perogative.
We'd be horrified if the UK voted the BNP into majority tomorrow, but would that give the EU the right to intervene and install an EU-friendly dictatorship? Of course not.

There are equally many hardline religious people who will look at Ireland's democratic society allowing the "abominations" of homosexuality, non-marital sex and universal suffrage and decide that we are nothing more than Romanesque Hedonist who need to be dragged into their modern world.

As they say, a democratic population votes for the government that it deserves. If a society wants to vote itself into savagery and ignorance, then at least its being given that choice.
In reality democratic totalitarian regimes tend not to exist because no one regime has the complete support of the population. So democratic governments tend to do what they can to make everyone as happy as possible.
The ruthless application of Sharia law is not something that will keep a democratic government in power.

We have a tendency in the west to assume that all countries should adopt our way of thinking overnight, neglecting the time it took us to get to where we are. While we can condemn things like stonings and religious laws, we have to go hands-off to a certain extent and allow these countries to evolve themselves. Turning around and trying to turn Libya into a secular democracy overnight will simply cause the hardliners to become more hardline and seize control.

prinz wrote: »

I am saying the Iranians are doing a bit of strutting showing off their first home-built frigate about the region. As for testing the new regime.... I'm still not aware they 'tested' the old regime. Could just be a coincidence of timing, as the Iranian navy has not ventured that far 'til now. The two ships pose no serious threat in and of themselves so I was failing to see the reasoning Egypt could give for refusing them passage.

What has Suleiman to do with what I said



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110216/ts_nm/us_israel_iran_warships_4

Sorry . It seems I completely misunderstood your post.

I thought you were implying that if the Egyptians were to allow the Iranian ships passage it would signal a negative shift in the relationship between Israel and Egypt. Also the fact that you pointed out to the best of your knowledge Iran hadn't sought to use this passage under Mubarak, this signalled that the Iranians were looking to see how the new Egyptian leadership would respond to such a request. Therefore I thought it was a good idea to give you background info on Suleiman, since I interperted your posts as being apprehensive that Egypt if it granted Iran permission to use the canal would herald a change in the relationship between Israel and Egypt

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness, do you honestly believe that the displaced regimes are going to be replaced with bona fide democracies, which allow freedom of speech and expression. You just get the feeling that OBL and his henchmen are nudging all this along. It's all too coincidental.

I have no idea what will replace them, and I think these peaceful protests have shown how completely irrelevant Osama is to the people of the ME. He has more relevance to people in the West, as a boogie man. Osama is a joke, living in a cave, with some nut jobs who still follow him.

Right now, the people want democracies, and I am hopeful they can pull it off.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Oh so simplistic view of America. Tell me - do you use any American-made products? Or maybe some of that oil from the ME?

well are you going to deny they do it????

what does it matter if we use american goods or not - no one mentioned anything about supporting the tactic - just that they do it;)

OP - Why would NATO invade Libya? They can barely manage or agree on a strategy in Afghanistan ffs!