Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:12 pm
Bombing for peace.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:36 pm
It's Worked before
P.S.- please excuse the timing, but this is too great an analogy to what dox said.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Well they started it nicely with the French, but it's pretty much just the US now, within hours of it starting! Looks like the UK just have a token sub floating about and the french jets went home because one of them hit a seagull or something.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:23 pm
I've heard that there's (varying levels of..) involvement from Italy, UAE, Spain, Qatar, Canada, France, Italy, UK and of course the US.. I'll bet some of those contributions would likely just be a couple of aircraft or opening up of land/sea bases for air missions while others carry the majority of the weight.. Ah well, so long as we're wanted
, right? #-o
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:43 pm
thats because we started moving our fleets there ahead of time.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Here there be involvement:
I'm with dox on this one, self-rightiously imposing your own idea of democracy upon other people every time there's an uproar is a joke. First off, using such a poor democratic system as the US government (it's a fucking republic coalition with weighted voting and poor voters attendance, for crying out loud) as the "role model" of democracy makes me laugh.
Second off, this holier than thou attitude that "everyone need our help and guidance" is just as bad. I think Power raised the most valid point of all here. "Who says the rebels are for human rights?"
Remember Afghanistan? You know, how the US sort of trained and armed the talibans? But hey, the were against U.S.S.R. so there can't be any long-term effects of giving them full military support, right?
this may sound harsh, but to some degree you should let the people involved have the freedom of playing this out by themselves, for themselves. If we try to enforce peace as well as our beliefs on freedom and justice, or anything else like system of government or whatever, we might unite the people to work towards or against a common goal. But it'll most likely be against their new common enemy... you.
and I'm not naive, I don't sit here in my little secure bauble, turning a blind eye to what goes on in the world. I'm not saying we should "leave them be and let them solve their own problems, as long as they don't ruin our little illusion of peace in our corner of the world". Sure, I'm glad I live where I do and I'm glad I didn't have to live during the times when my country dealt with internal conflicts in such a violent fashion as a rebel uprising, but I'm saying that most countries have been through this and for any long term stability, the people have to maintain the right to resolve their problems more or less on their own. They have to get to shape their own country, since it's mainly going to hold THEIR future, not ours. What I'm saying is that any involvement at all should be more of a passiv support rather than active insurgencies.
We can't be going in and bombing what we currently believe is the "bad guys" and arming what we currently acknowledge as the "good guys" (I.e. the ones with the most similiar ideas to our, or the ones with the same idea of who the "bad guys" are). We can't use this turmoil as an opportunity to turn this nation into something that fits our template of what a country should look like. Everytime we try such a thing we encourage a vain paradigm that we have evolved the optimal form of government. Democracy as it looks today in general is not the optimal form of government, it's just one of the least broken ones.
Also, just because democracy works in our parts of the world (let's just say it does, which I personally doubt), what's there to say that the same applies everywhere else? Let's just say for the sake of argument that in some parts of the world, due to cultural and historical variables, democracy isn't the best form of government. Suppose that in those places a dictatorship, or some other form of non-democratical governments would work better for everyone involved? I'm personally in favor of democracy rather than any other type of government, but does that mean I should enforce it on everyone else?
"We meddle. People don't like when we meddle"
That being said, I don't claim to hold the key to solving this nor do I state that I know what's best, so I'm just going to passivly watch this and see how it plays out, but I'm sure as hell not going to support anything that imposes or enforces the involved peoples choices, from neither side.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:16 pm
I've just seen on the news that Russia aren't happy bunnies regarding our involvement and feel we should withdraw. Uh oh!
Shhhh everyone - no one annoy Russia please :-/
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:54 pm
Crystal wrote:I've just seen on the news that Russia aren't happy bunnies regarding our involvement and feel we should withdraw. Uh oh!
Which is why they used their UN Security Council veto. oh wait...
If they're really that pissed off about it then they should have done something about it when they had the ability to.
In other news, UN coalition bombs the living crap out of libya, arab leaders pissed off about the "severity of the bombardment". Nothing ever changes does it. ](*,)
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:21 pm
Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×109 m3) as of 2007.
Do you guys really believe this is just about democracy and saving the rebels? Just trying to defend our oil supplies.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:30 am
That's the most annoying part of all this. A while back a report on the bbc said that Libya produces something like 2% of the global supply of oil. Even if it was nuked off the face of the earth there should be spare production capacity in the rest of the world to cover demand in the short-term. The impact the whole Libya crisis is having on the price of petrol in the UK (and presumably elsewhere - I'm not up on global oil prices at the moment) is completely disproportionate (in my view) to the actual impact on global supply.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:41 am
Atomic wrote:in the short-term.
This is where they tell you it's for a long-term? :D
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:47 pm
I feel we should have supported a No Fly zone..
Apparently UN leaders believe a No Fly Zone consist of destroying any Anti Air Craft personal and equipment.. Thus the bombings. Imho that is bull shit. We (UN) should just be making sure aircraft are not being used to kill innocent people that is it.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:25 pm
i believe they should take out the figure head immediately.
bomb the palace where the snake is hiding.
then leave them alone.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:08 pm
wouldn't that just turn him into a martyr? I suspect that he is deliberately being left alone so he can be strung up in an international court once the dust settles (much like Saddam Hussein was)
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:39 pm
I bet he's long gone by now - probably in another country already.