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

Hyperbullet · 20-03-2011 11:58PM

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 · 20-03-2011 11:59PM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:00AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:00AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:00AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:02AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:02AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:02AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:02AM

Sega Mega Drive

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

Foreverdelayed · 21-03-2011 12:03AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:05AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:07AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:08AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:10AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:10AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:11AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:11AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:14AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:16AM

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 · 21-03-2011 12:21AM

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.

RichieC · 21-03-2011 12:22AM

Nodin wrote: »

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.

wouldn't be so sure, wait and see what happens when it comes to rebuilding the place.

philologos · 21-03-2011 12:22AM

Nodin wrote: »

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.

Couldn't one in time put forward another resolution?

galwayrush · 21-03-2011 12:26AM

No

Sega megadrive beating the bleeding hearts...:pac::pac:

Duiske · 21-03-2011 12:32AM

Sega Mega Drive

Gadaffi's residencial compound has come under missile attack tonight, apparently from a british submarine in the med. Seem's they have now gone from being enforcers of a no-fly zone to becoming active participant's in a civil war.

strobe · 21-03-2011 12:32AM

I am glad that the air strikes have happened but am under no illusion that they have happened because 'ohhh what about the poor Libyan civilians Gadaffi is killing'.

Is it morally right? Well does motivation come into play in terms of morality, or is it just the actions that count?

I don't think the reasons for the air strikes are morally motivated but I think they should have been. I think it was morally right to intervene but that is not why the intervention has happened.

(Good question man.)

Yes......I think?

Nodin · 21-03-2011 12:33AM

No

RichieC wrote: »

wouldn't be so sure, wait and see what happens when it comes to rebuilding the place.

jakkass wrote:

Couldn't one in time put forward another resolution? .

As the Russians and Chinese only let the first through with the understanding of no occupation, its unlikely they'd approve a second with that inserted.

Overheal · 21-03-2011 12:35AM

No

galwayrush wrote: »

Sega megadrive beating the bleeding hearts...:pac::pac:

A lot of that is likely down to people being morally torn on the issue. They might not like the coalition using its war power, but neither do they like Ghadaffi ordering the deaths of his own people. Understandable. One way or the other people will die through direct intent or collateral damage.

strobe · 21-03-2011 12:43AM

Overheal wrote: »

A lot of that is likely down to people being morally torn on the issue. They might not like the coalition using its war power, but neither do they like Ghadaffi ordering the deaths of his own people. Understandable. One way or the other people will die through direct intent or collateral damage.

I think you think too much of us Overheal. I'd say most of it is down to people having owned Sega Megadrives and appreciate it being in there instead of the Atari option.

"You think too much of me, kid. I'm not that clever."
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5_gnhmCjS1o/Srd66t9MlhI/AAAAAAAAALM/N0u2jlt9upE/s320/Solazzo.gif

Overheal · 21-03-2011 12:45AM

No

Personally I never had a megadrive or would ever mess with one. Now, the Sega Genesis on the other hand, was a hell of a thing once you got over the boomerang controller - I mean hey it had 3 Right-side buttons to the Nintendo's 2. That was huge!

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 21-03-2011 01:02AM

What's happening is a civil war. We like most western countries had ours too and while it is devastating to see loss of life, I can't help thinking that maybe a country needs their own personal tragedies like this to develop as they should, particular to their own set of circumstances without any foreign interference. The rebels seem to be doing well and if they have enough popular support then they should win.

But there's also support for Gaddafi and, as walshb said, if there are people who support him then that's their business, however abhorrent that might seem to us. (I'd lovbe to see him hammered and gone btw)
For all we know there could be a majority who are happy with the regime...

I think in the absence of a genocide or any racial or religious conflict then domestic affairs are just that. Domestic.

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

Comments