Libyan War

[krekiller]

The Libyan Plague

http://www.historyguy.com/libya_war_2011.jpg

 

 

 

Is the Libyan war a correct war? If yes, do you think that an alliance of USA, UK and France is the right authority to continue this war? In my opinion The correct authority should be the ONU, in fact, now seems that these three countries are invading an other country and raises suspects on the petrol companies of these three countries. In facts seems that these countries are running this war just to gather petrol from Libya, that we know, has a very big deposit of it. While giving to the ONU the lead of the war operations, all will be organized better , and no unfairnesses will be made.

 

What is your opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

In this topic I would like to host a debate representing your ideas, the purpose of this topic, is to clarify our ideas on this subject. Please do not get off topic. And follow the debate's rules. THANKS!

[csgators]

We still don't know who the rebels are or what would replace the Colonel. It could easily result in an even worse government than the one they presently have. Not well thought out in my opinion and the USA has no business getting involved in a 3rd theater of operations.

[marharth]

Well clearly we need to invade countries to help people and get oil!

 

We should go invade North Korea and China next, as well as Saudi Arabia!

 

It would just be insane to not help people by bombing them wouldn't it?

[JimboUK]

I can see the thinking behind the no fly zone, Gaddafi was bombing his own people, not just rebels but civilian areas too. Unfortunately we've now taken sides in a civil war and have openly admitted we're engaging in regime change contrary to international law, what started off as a humanitarian mission is turning into yet another war. Should we have got involved? probably not but hindsight is a wonderful thing and it probably felt like the right thing to do at the time.

[evilneko]

Define "correct war" first. :thumbsup:

 

I haven't really been following the continuing saga of Libya lately. I think we were right to go there in the first place, and actually I think we should probably stick it out until the legal limit of our involvement without congressional approval (which would be, IIRC, May 20/21). At that point Congress will decide whether or not to stay (though Obama may have already decided not to stay past that, I seem to remember reading somewhere that he does not intend to seek approval and so would be legally bound to withdraw by then), and will likely vote no--especially since formerly-hawkish republicans have flip-flopped to saying we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, not to mention some of the dems have been staunchly against intervention the entire time anyway.

 

In any case I doubt we'll get stuck there with the current political climate, unless the situation changes favorably in the next month or so. Maybe I'm being optimistic but I seriously doubt Libya will become another Iraq.

[DarkZerker]

Just one phrase. This creates new jobs how?

 

Gadhaffi isn't a bad dictator by any means. He made Libya better than places like Iraq and Iran. I fail to see what's so good about a democracy if the President that the U.S sets up is about 100x worse than the dictator the citizens died for to replace. At least the dictator has no restrictions in making his country a better place.

 

As for the U.S and NATO involvement, they shouldn't waste lives, money, or manpower to fight a war that isn't theirs. Why care for a county that needs to resolve a problem on THEIR OWN. If it were a foreign power that invaded Libya, I'd be all for sending troops to defend Libya but it's their own problem.

[JimboUK]

And so the mission creep begins.... http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-British-Military-Experts-Sent-To-Benghazi-To-Advise-Rebels-On-Fighting-Muammar-Gaddafi/Article/201104315975077?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15975077_Libya%3A_British_Military_Experts_Sent_To_Benghazi_To_Advise_Rebels_On_Fighting_Muammar_Gaddafi

 

No one can argue that the UN mandate covers this.

[evilneko]

 

Hyperbole does not serve you well.

 

And so the mission creep begins.... http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-British-Military-Experts-Sent-To-Benghazi-To-Advise-Rebels-On-Fighting-Muammar-Gaddafi/Article/201104315975077?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15975077_Libya%3A_British_Military_Experts_Sent_To_Benghazi_To_Advise_Rebels_On_Fighting_Muammar_Gaddafi

 

No one can argue that the UN mandate covers this.

 

Actually, it would seem that it does. In fact it would seem that it only expressly forbids landing a military fighting force.

 

Despite the situation lately improving for the rebels, I think they could use the help, and will definitely be thankful for it.

 

As my dad once said in jest, "let's round up a bunch of hillbillies and send 'em over there and point 'em at Qadafi. They'd probably do better than the rebels." :teehee:

 

On the other hand Vietnam started with "advisors" too.... though I think it's a bit too early to draw that comparison so directly, the nations participating would do well to bear its lessons in mind.

[Mitchell04]

There is no justified reason NATO or the U.S.A should be in Libya.

 

For starters, The rebels are only a only a small majority within Libya. If Gaddafi was truly unpopular in Libya the war would have ended months ago. Ever since the military coup Gaddafi has been a legitimate, effective and mostly popular leader for decades which is more than can be said for many western leaders.

 

If we remove Gaddafi from power why don't we remove leaders such as Fidel Castro,Hugo Chavez, Frank Bainimarama and Robert Mugabe?

Edited April 21, 2011 by Mitchell04

[marharth]

It is hypocritical to support this war if you did not support the Iraq war, and it is hypocritical to not support this war if you supported the Iraq war.

 

When it comes down to it, they are both for humanitarian reasons. Intel has shown that Iraq never had WMDs before the war.

 

 

It seems that quite a lot of the left and right are being quite a bit hypocritical.

 

There is no reason why the left should support the war. The right should support the war if they wanted the Iraq war.