This thread is for discussing the conflict in Libya. Personally I think we did the right thing to intervene. As long as we just provide a no-fly zone and don't deploy ground troops. This conflict is for the people of Libya, and this is their fight against the dictatorship. Hopefully with the air support provided by western forces, the rebels will crush Gaddafi and his supporters. I'm interested in hearing your opinions.
I voted no for my reasons I'll post a random news article from about a year ago Article Yes I think it's another war for oil basicly.
i do agree with the west positive involvement as long as no troops are deployed because if that happened the outcome will be really bad . gaddafi is mad this is the only way to assure the lybian people's safety.And a unanimous vote for agreement was done by the arabian league for the west involvement and thats a first. so i'm really hopeful that this will work out for the best interest of the lybian rebels and civilians.
It's good to see that other Arab countries are following suit after Eypt and it's Revolution. It's just a shame they're not going as peacefully. Gaddafi is clearly delusional and mentally unstable. I'm surprised Libyans have tolerated him for so long. Anyway, there has been more violence in Yemen and Ivory Coast. It won't be a surprise if they go back into civil war soon.
it's never black and white, obviously in the short run this will benefit the rebels, but the US or UK will want something out of it. They earn money from conflict, and i'm sure it effects what happens
You could be right about the US or UK wanting something in return. But even so, which is more important, people's lives or money/oil? And let the fighting continue for however long it could continue? If no other countries do anything about it then I'm sure the conflict wouldn't end soon. Gaddafi is insane. He is bombing cities, hospitals, houses, killing innocent men, women and children. The rebels have been struggling because Gaddafi has been bombing them. From my understanding the rebels want USA, UK and France to provide a no-fly zone, so they can fight back against Gaddafi without being bombed.
The United States does not need to get itself into another war, we are already in 2. I don't think America could take another war, we are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt everyday by spending money on Iraq and Afghanistan. That being said, I do believe the rebels in Lybia need military assistance, but from other countries that can afford to support the rebels.
But the west is just assuming it'll have a positive impact, there's every chance it'll have a negative one It's true, but their current policies are incredibly hypocritical. They're stopping protesters in Bahrain and, "Gaddafi is insane. He is bombing cities, hospitals, houses, killing innocent men, women and children." could easily be "Israel is insane. They are bombing cities, hospitals, houses, killing innocent men, women and children."
No I voted no. I think it's a terrible mistake for the West to get involved in another military conflict in the Middle-East. This is a particularly bad move in light of our collective silence to what recently happened in Bahrain. Cynics will rightly accuse us of turning a blind eye to the brutal suppression of opposition forces in Bahrain because it, unlike Libya, is an allied country. In other words, we pick and choose where to display our righteous indignation and that diminishes our moral authority even if our motive in this case is noble. What's going on in Libya is a civil war. The bombings alone will not dislodge Qaddafi from power. The West is counting on the rebels to finish the job in the ground. It's a wishful thinking, not unless we supply them with weapons. Are we ready to cross that Rubicon? Look at how long Saddam Hussein survived despite the No-Fly zone. More than 10 years. Qaddafi has the money, will, manpower, firepower and time to ride this out. By the way, it's funny how politicians have no problem finding money to fund wars even in times of fiscal belt-tightening.
Canada's there too. It's a UN decision, not just the US taking charge again and dragging the UK into it No matter what we do there's always going to be a backlash. Look at Twitter posts coming out of Libya, for the past few weeks the citizens have been saying "We're being killed, where is the US?". When we intervene people moan, when we don't, people moan. If there's one thing that's for certain it's that allowing Gaddafi to mindlessly slaughter his own people is wrong. If David Cameron started doing that in the UK I'd expect him to get bombed as well. Also of note, Obama seems interested in keeping this as un-personal as possible with the "no ground troops" statement.
This. I agree with the major powers attempting to help agreeable peoples earn their freedom and rights, but sometimes it seems like no matter what the US or UK or any other major power does (or doesn't do) militarily, we catch a lot of flak for it. It's unfortunate, and drags our nations into bigger pits, but hey - what else are we supposed to do?
I feel that no ground troops should be deployed but the no fly zone is correct. As I saw it written somewhere the UN is basically acting as a referee for the conflict. They are trying to make both sides even. So the rebels have a chance.
Well yeah, USA joining the coalition wasn't necessary IMO. Especially when you consider how far away from Libya they are. I don't know if they have any air bases nearby. There's an air base in Cyprus which the RAF are using which is pretty close to Libya.
YOU ARE 100% RIGHT!!! Its a fight for oil and thats it. Nothing more nothing less. The governments are using this as a type of scape goat. Plus we need some conspiracy theories on this. Visit my Conspracy Theories thread.
Conspiracy theorists are far more annoying than the conspiracies they claim are true, even if said conspiracies are actually true. Nothing less than oil? Governments can be amazingly greedy and corrupt at times, but to assume if there were no oil they'd stand by idly and watch people be massacred by the man that's supposed to protect them? That's still quite a stretch.
I agree, there are motives for war other than oil, the killing of civilians by an insane dictator is one of them.
