Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Let's say the UN decided they need to step in. Would you support a UN effort to remove Gaddafi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest howyousawtheworld Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I actually supported the invasion of Iraq not because I was scared of alleged WMDs but because it was unacceptable to sit back and allow the tyranny of Hussein's acts on his own people to continue. More people died a day under Hussein's regime than they do today. I still feel Iraq will benefit in the long term and there are signs of recovery in that country. And because of what Gaddafi is committing on his people I would support an invasion on Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalomania Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Definitely. He shouldn't be able to go around killing his citizens. And us saying "We strongly disagree with his actions" isn't going to stop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-military-counter-libya-preparation-update-uss-enterprise-now-back-mediterranean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not sure. The people of Libya have said that they don't want any help, and that it's their revolution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gloaming09 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 If it's the UN then yes, but if we have to do it ourselves (US), then no... too much money has been spent on Iraq & Afghanistan already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingmuffin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I say no, and the reason for that is. the united states is not the police of the world. plus we don't have enough troops to be invadeing every country that has problems as well as defend our own country. if we ahd an infinate amount of troops and supplies I might change my answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gloaming09 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I say no, and the reason for that is. the united states is not the police of the world. plus we don't have enough troops to be invadeing every country that has problems as well as defend our own country. if we ahd an infinate amount of troops and supplies I might change my answer. what if it's the UN that invades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingmuffin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think people forget the UN is seen as quite linked to the US It might cause issues too, so I'm really not sure. I don't like the idea of the US marching in for 'democratic freedoms' solely due to the hypocrisy of it really. I am odd like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaths_friend Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 UN taking action? LOL!!! they need to grow a pair first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_face_of_light Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think people forget the UN is seen as quite linked to the US It might cause issues too, so I'm really not sure. I don't like the idea of the US marching in for 'democratic freedoms' solely due to the hypocrisy of it really. I am odd like that. I couldn't have put it better myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingmuffin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think people forget the UN is seen as quite linked to the US It might cause issues too, so I'm really not sure. I don't like the idea of the US marching in for 'democratic freedoms' solely due to the hypocrisy of it really. I am odd like that. hmm... that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Track Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 No, what Cobalt said. I'd feel embarrassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest howyousawtheworld Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not sure. The people of Libya have said that they don't want any help, and that it's their revolution... A lot of the rebel groups have actually called for UN airstrikes on Gaddafi. It seems they would welcome military intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 ^ Oops, if that is recent, I am going by older news... :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyan Kat Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 at this moment in time I'm really unsure ... I mean I don't agree with what Gaddafi's doing but like what Cobalt said, troops invading will look bad and like we're being hipocrits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burningmonk Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Military invasion is the last thing Libya needs. Gaddafi could easily use that as a way to shore up support and use it as an excuse that he's defending his country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Myshkin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Sit it out and wait whilst providing support to those you can. I think it's vital that the people of Libya get the chance to try this revolution alone. They are the ones who started it, they are the ones who wanted change. It's no use them despising whoever invades when they are making significant ground alone. They're wound up enough right now, hijacking their hard work will only make any invader their enemy. Recently, with focus on Gene Sharp's book 'From dictatorship to democracy' (which came through in the post for me a couple of days ago) many people have commented how the tactics used match the layout of Sharps methods of non-violent protest. Egyptians don't seem too impressed at being linked to an American academic and are keen to stress that it is an Egyptian revolution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reilly Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 UN taking action? LOL!!! they need to grow a pair first. I don't even see how the UN have ever been relevant in any major issues worldwide, I don't understand how they have ever 'stepped in', if anything they have passively seen army's step in, and then decide that that's fine because it's already happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotdensestate Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I don't think that would a) work, as it's the UN or b) be good Also, what's been mentioned about how tied together the UN and US are. America marching in to liberate other countries from non-democratic political systems is ridic. Not something we need to be doing, because nobody fucking appreciates it, and if we did set up a real democracy in countries in that region, most of them would turn around and bite us in the ass anyway. And I'm not saying if the UN did a military strike it would just be all America-centric, just that America supporting a UN strike is bad for the reasons enumerated above. America's well past the zenith of its power, not least due to developing interventionism over the past few generations; I don't think it's a good idea to be encouraging international conflict on the scale we are. (Or at all.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh42 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I think a US special forces team could easily move in and knock him out. That or a strategic airstrike. I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, if the US sends forces in, they'll probably be there for decades, so I really hope that doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh42 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I think the best solution is for the US/UN to support the rebels by air-dropping weapons and ammunition (along with food/care packages of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gloaming09 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I think the best solution is for the US/UN to support the rebels by air-dropping weapons and ammunition (along with food/care packages of course). I don't know about doing that. First of all you might airdrop it in the hands of the govt' and also it seems w/ our track record, whenever we try to help rebels it comes to bite us in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotdensestate Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I think a US special forces team could easily move in and knock him out. That or a strategic airstrike. I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, if the US sends forces in, they'll probably be there for decades, so I really hope that doesn't happen. Forces as in, infantry-type "real troops" you mean, right? Dear god please no. And I really am of the opinion that it's the Libyan peoples' conflict, and if they want a new system, they're going to have to fight for it themselves. It's sort of like an international rite of passage or something, I don't think they'd be able to sustain a new anything really if they piggyback on direct foreign intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(1).thumb.png.4eba209dc40059c13694859b20e23ec1.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now