Poll: DELETED_74993

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 306 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 295 49.1%
  • Total voters
    601
Status
Not open for further replies.
xibinim said:
Touche. So what happened to the civilians that were injured during the rescue attempt of the downed pilot?
Click to expand...

The same that happens to the wedding party guests and others in the tribal regions of Pakistan when the US drops bombs from drones. They are left to get on with their shattered lives and labelled as collateral damage by the US.
 
OldCoals said:
The simple fact is the west would prefer Gaddafi dead and the best way for that to happen is at the hands of the rebels.
Click to expand...

Except the rebels do not have the training or leadership to do it. Hague's message could have been translated as "Please leave....we will not prosecute you if you do". It shows the desperation in the US/UK camp.
 
Haven't the US denied shooting them during the rescue? Funny because this time [if the US did it] the civilians didn't sound like they were holding a grudge, instead just grateful for them helping to oust Gaddafi (despite getting shot).
 
MooMoo444 said:
I'm amazed how evenly split the poll is. Voted yes as I think the people there need the help, it's not fair for anyone to live under a dictator.
Click to expand...

Sometimes its better though, not for them but for us, if the country falls to the Al Qaeda backed rebels then I don't see it being as controlled as it is under Gaddafi.



Does anybody else find it ironic that Britain/France are the ones shouting most to help the rebels overthrow Gaddafi when it was mister G that lead the coup that ousted the puppet ruler of Libya put in place by Britain/France when they officially gave Libya its independence? (Libya was until that point three countries two ruled by Britain and the third by France)
 
Last edited:
I had to laugh at the Rebels saying they are running low on Ammo... Well maybe if they stoped wasting a full clip of Ammo shooting into the sky whenever media cameras are on them lol.
 
ubersonic said:
Sometimes its better though, not for them but for us, if the country falls to the Al Qaeda backed rebels then I don't see it being as controlled as it is under Gaddafi.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember the UK trained some AlQ and other fighters in the highlands of Scotland at a training camp when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Future events often come back to haunt you later.

Does anybody else find it ironic that Britain/France are the ones shouting most to help the rebels overthrow Gaddafi when it was mister G that lead the coup that ousted the puppet ruler of Libya put in place by Britain/France when they officially gave Libya its independence? (Libya was until that point three countries two ruled by Britain and the third by France)
Click to expand...

As long as they are the West's dictators they are OK. Compare the condemnation from the West of Bahrain(US sixth fleet anchorage) with Syria or Yemen. A couple of lame messages against outright condemnation and telling the leaders to go.
 
Moses said:
You mean under UNSC resolution 1970. But as someone has said, 1973 talks about all necessary measures... which arguably would allow arming, no?
Click to expand...

It says they must protect civilians by all necessary measure, which will be interesting if the rebels manage to advance to a pro Gaddafi city :P
 
Moses said:
You mean under UNSC resolution 1970. But as someone has said, 1973 talks about all necessary measures... which arguably would allow arming, no?
Click to expand...

I think this is the relevant paragraph:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
Click to expand...

or maybe:

Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Click to expand...

How do you help support humanitarian assistance by prolonging the conflict by continually arming one side.
 
Watching Russia and China with interest.
As with most conflicts the term 'legal' is moot. Lots of cynicism developing which some have maintained from day 1.
 
When do civilians become armed rebels and vice versa?

The Libyan army has been pushed back they are no longer simply shelling random cities. The rebels are attacking the defenders - how does resolution 1970/3 give the right to do airstrikes on the defenders as they are no longer attacking un armed civilians. They are fighting armed combatants as the rebels are clearly packing some heavy weapons of their own.

I don't Luke it, we have clearly overstepped the mark time and time again here - killing Libyan soldiers needlessly.
 
Domo said:
Watching Russia and China with interest.
As with most conflicts the term 'legal' is moot. Lots of cynicism developing which some have maintained from day 1.
Click to expand...

Russia not too happy but can they do anything.

"We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council resolution," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday.
Click to expand...

Others

One Security Council diplomat says: "It would leave a bit of a bitter taste if anyone interpreted it as a blanket authority to arm the rebels - you'd lose political credit."
Click to expand...
 
Looks like the law that prohibits the arming of the rebels could be bypassed under the UN resolution that "civilians must be protected by all means necessary"

do_ron_ron said:
Something dramatic like one of Gaddafi's bodyguards shooting him like the Indian occasion.

Like Afghanistan and drones?? You mean like killing innocent wedding party guests and agitating people you are claiming to be acting for.

I think that would just about guarantee another 7/7 or worse.
Click to expand...

Say if the alternative to drones is our own boots on the ground then I'll take the drones.
 
how can you protect civilians by arming an offensive bunch of rebels with links to terrorist groups...

do the civlians in gaddafis cities not matter? only the rebel civlians?
 
Nah clearly the lives of the soldiers and civilians mean nothing to the west in this case. They simply want Gadaffi gone, and are seemingly willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve this.

I dont understand why they dont simply cut to the chase and instead of wasting so many lives of those in the army, just 'cut off the head' so to speak and land a bunker buster on gadaffis house? That would save many more lives than using airstrikes on sitting ducks cowering in their tanks near the front lines...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom