In all fairness, they started this war. They weren't being purged before, and they certainly didn't have to rise up guns blazing. They walked into the line of fire and then cried foul when they got sprayed with bullets.
Evolution, perhaps?
UN Sanctioned Attack on Libya (As Reported by MSNBC)
- Thread starter SilentTrinity
- Start date
|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
- Status
In all fairness, they started this war. They weren't being purged before, and they certainly didn't have to rise up guns blazing. They walked into the line of fire and then cried foul when they got sprayed with bullets.
Evolution, perhaps?
Did you read the tweet? He's talking about the public support. Bush spun everyone into an Iraq frenzy for no reason and yet here, we're presented with an opportunity to help people that want help our help and no one cares.
A group of rebels that have been able to claim several cities. That doesn't sound like a fraction to me. Not only that but he ordered his men to fire on peaceful protesters - Libyan Tyrant Gaddafi Authorizing Live Fire on Protesters [Graphic videos] | The Islamic Workplace
But this would have been worth it. To aide Egypt would have been worth it.
How do you justify Iraq?
We're not talking about a few dozen rebels willing to die for their country. We're talking about a city with women, children, elderly, etc. We're talking about a city with schools and hospitals and orphanages. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people who's only sin was being caught in the crossfire between a rebellion and a tyrant. Should we have let them die because it's not our business?
Absolutely not. I'm not saying nothing should have been done, to be quite honest I'm willing to chock it up to yet another necessary action.
However, that doesn't mean I have to approve of it, and it certainly doesn't mean I have to like it. There's more than one side to every coin, and so many are willing to just chock it all up to a humanitarian effort, but I don't see anything humanitarian about unloading $600,000,000 worth of cruise missiles and bombs onto a country, regardless of the actions and commands of their literally insane leader.
Not to mention these rebels are not much better than Gadhafi himself. Sure, they're not shooting up everything in sight, but they wouldn't, otherwise they wouldn't have international support. Nonetheless, if they had disarmed when told to, and taken the MYRIAD of better options available to them at the time, all of this could have been avoided.
It's all good and well to divert accountability to the tyrannical, insane dictator, how do you argue against civilian slaughter?
However, there should be some damn accountability on the side of the people who KNEW this was going to happen and still chose to do what they've done. They are partially responsible for condemning the lives of those people, as well as their own. Without international aid they must have known they never stood a chance at winning this rebellion, which means they've played us all for fools and suckers, knowing we would rush to their aid once Gadhafi lost the rest of his marbles.
It's dirty politics, and I would just as well like to go and save those who want to be saved, and leave the rest to rot. I'd expect the same if I ran into the White House with a gun and said I was overthrowing the long-established government no matter what they did.
For the same reason you justify Libya. The only thing different is the news coverage. Hussein was a monster, subverting the rule of law at every turn, gassing and murdering swarms of people all over Iraq, oppressing the people, and stifling their ability to speak out against him.
Ever been to Iraq? I have.
You'd be surprised how happy most of them are when they see soldiers, because unlike what the news gets good ratings off of, most of it isn't as bad as they'd like you to believe, because war in general is completely unpopular. If we went to war in Libya, it would be another hugely costly occupation, just like Iraq. The only difference would be is that now we'd be sitting around with our thumbs up our asses with nothing to do but keep some completely untrained and untested rebel leaders from killing each other off for power.
Honestly, this whole thing infuriates me. Optimism is one thing, and humanitarianism is the duty of every nation and person with the ability to do so, but this is just blind foolishness built on misguided good will.
However, that's just my opinion.
However, that doesn't mean I have to approve of it, and it certainly doesn't mean I have to like it. There's more than one side to every coin, and so many are willing to just chock it all up to a humanitarian effort, but I don't see anything humanitarian about unloading $600,000,000 worth of cruise missiles and bombs onto a country, regardless of the actions and commands of their literally insane leader.
Not to mention these rebels are not much better than Gadhafi himself. Sure, they're not shooting up everything in sight, but they wouldn't, otherwise they wouldn't have international support. Nonetheless, if they had disarmed when told to, and taken the MYRIAD of better options available to them at the time, all of this could have been avoided.
It's all good and well to divert accountability to the tyrannical, insane dictator, how do you argue against civilian slaughter?
However, there should be some damn accountability on the side of the people who KNEW this was going to happen and still chose to do what they've done. They are partially responsible for condemning the lives of those people, as well as their own. Without international aid they must have known they never stood a chance at winning this rebellion, which means they've played us all for fools and suckers, knowing we would rush to their aid once Gadhafi lost the rest of his marbles.
It's dirty politics, and I would just as well like to go and save those who want to be saved, and leave the rest to rot. I'd expect the same if I ran into the White House with a gun and said I was overthrowing the long-established government no matter what they did.
For the same reason you justify Libya. The only thing different is the news coverage. Hussein was a monster, subverting the rule of law at every turn, gassing and murdering swarms of people all over Iraq, oppressing the people, and stifling their ability to speak out against him.
Ever been to Iraq? I have.
You'd be surprised how happy most of them are when they see soldiers, because unlike what the news gets good ratings off of, most of it isn't as bad as they'd like you to believe, because war in general is completely unpopular. If we went to war in Libya, it would be another hugely costly occupation, just like Iraq. The only difference would be is that now we'd be sitting around with our thumbs up our asses with nothing to do but keep some completely untrained and untested rebel leaders from killing each other off for power.
Honestly, this whole thing infuriates me. Optimism is one thing, and humanitarianism is the duty of every nation and person with the ability to do so, but this is just blind foolishness built on misguided good will.
However, that's just my opinion.
How many civilians have died because of the intervention?
How? Gaddafi violated his own ceasefire 3 times.
Same question as above: how many civilians have died because of the coalition?
How do you figure? Everybody thought they were going to win. Without international aid, they made it all the way to Bin Jawad, and even western Misrata was taken.
We're not interfering in Syria, even though they've killed dozens of protesters. We're interfering in Libya because thousands of people had died, and hundreds of thousands were in danger.
I believe Yahoo and AP have put it at around 2,000.
Not to mention all those in the rebellion who have died, all the civilians who have been injured and displaced, and everyone who is pissed about this.
And the rebels did the same. Not to mention the ceasefire was a farce from the start. It's dirty, but it's guerrilla tactics 101.
I don't know through what sources you've been following this, but there was never any real hope of them winning. Gadhafi hesitated to unleash his full military force. The rebels are under-funded, and under-manned, with older and even crappier tech, and no real chain of leadership. In the end they were able to hold one city without fail after Gadhafi began his return strike, which could have been avoided had they backed down beforehand.
Fighting blindly and ignorantly of something, regardless of how strongly you feel about it, does NOT make it righteous and just.
It makes it foolish and irresponsible, and terribly unsafe.
Ok. There are a lot of places where military intervention would have been "worth it," but we did and are doing jack shit. Like the genocide in Darfur. So why do we choose Libya? The publicity. The cynic in me sees this as nothing more than a political move. It's viewed as an easy win, another Gulf War, something to boost public morale and to show that we can still "win." That way there'd be more support for Afghanistan and Obama's policies in general. It's pretty opportune timing, with presidential elections coming up next year.
Not at all. It was their revolution, and for once, we didn't stick our nose in it. Thankfully there wasn't enough violence/death to use as a justification for intervention. By comparison, it was pretty peaceful. If we had aided them, we would have been doing nothing more than instigating unnecessary conflict.
Also, with how many billions of dollars we send to Egypt, coupled with the fact that we supported Mubarak in the past, taking a more reserved approach was definitely worth it. Otherwise we would have been bigger hypocrites than we already are.
Last edited:
Can you please link me? I've actually heard of no civilian deaths because of the coalition airstrikes.
Then why would the rebels have disarmed if everybody knew Gaddafi wasn't going to stop killing them?
I'm not sure what your argument is. You said the rebels had no chance, which is false. They gambled that Gaddafi wouldn't use his military force for fear of international reprisal, and then Gaddafi gambled that he could crush the rebellion before the international reprisal came. Both were wrong. All rebellions are uphill battles. Are you saying that the Americans, the French, the Egyptians or anyone nation that has ever undergone a revolution are foolish and irresponsible?
We're getting away from the main point, however. I've already said that the civilians in Benghazi (including children) didn't deserve that their city be purged for any reason, but this was the reality. Is your argument that the international community should not have interfered? Keep in mind that diplomacy wouldn't have worked; Gaddafi had already managed to get some of his tanks inside of the city and had promised no mercy.
Airstrikes continue on Libya, civilian deaths reported | lazacode.com
Civilian casualties in Libya as air strikes begin in earnest | Newstime Africa
Air Strikes on Libya 'So Far Very Effective" | wltx.com
There are a bunch of different number collections that I have seen looking through all the different reports, no one can seem to get any real concrete information. I wish I could find the original report I'd read on Yahoo, all I can remember is it was from Alternative Press.
However, there is one thing even those claiming no civilians have died can agree on. There WILL be innocent casualties, it is the very nature of war, it's unavoidable. A leader should be able to look toward the future, not just the past and the present. That's why they lead.
Another reason why I see so much subversion going on around this war. Many people are reporting different things. Some say they never did disarm, that they called Gadhafi on his crap and kept up the fight.
When done right, a rebellion can produce great results, but yes, generally, they are a terrible plan. You've listed the successful revolutions, I'm sure you can imagine the many that have utterly failed. You're right, both gambits were utterly wrong, however if they'd never taken up arms and attempted a peaceful resolution from the start, all of this could have been avoided. They didn't even try a better plan, they went in head on and hoped that the world would come to their rescue, which is exactly what we've done.
No, I guess I should pull back for a moment.
I do NOT think we should not have gotten involved, at this point there wasn't much option unless we wanted to sit around and watch a bloodbath. They made the right call, given the circumstances.
I'm blaming the rebels for causing an uprising with no real chance of winning, clearly with the knowledge in mind that if they fail, they will get back up from international forces. I believe that's a form of extortion, except we've just been extorted fro about $600 million that we can NOT afford to spend on a country that is not our own. We are not the policemen of the world, we should not be expected to be responsible for the misgivings of every madman and revolt.
I'm just angry at the circumstances, and on the verge of saying I'd be willing to say, "You started this, YOU finish it."
I personally believe the intervention came in several weeks too late. I don't think the rebels, even with international air support, can really muster enough forces to oust Qadaffi. They're way too disorganized and untrained to battle his army which by Western standards is pretty bad considering the weapons we're talking about.
Well, it seems as if the rebels have almost taken the whole of Misrata. A rebel office was opened in the UK, and there's a rebel going to the White House. Recognition of the Transitional Council seems like the logical next step.
This might be over soon. The rebels are inside Tripoli fighting the Gaddafi forces. They've taken several neighborhoods, and according to the tweets, have even disconnected the Libyan State TV. A rebellion from within, a NATO run and a three-pronged attack from the east, south and west. Well, good luck, rebels.
I'm glad for the rebels, but I hope Gaddafi is not preparing a cliche bad guy exit move "I lose, but so do you" to them
UPDATE 1-Nuclear experts warn of Libya dirty bomb material | Reuters
Not to mention the possibility of hidden biological weapon. The man got nothing to lose, and is getting borderline insane so I wouldn't be that surprised if he tried to wipe out his own peoples.
UPDATE 1-Nuclear experts warn of Libya dirty bomb material | Reuters
Not to mention the possibility of hidden biological weapon. The man got nothing to lose, and is getting borderline insane so I wouldn't be that surprised if he tried to wipe out his own peoples.
- Status