Poll: Rebels rolling into Tripoli

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 291 49.7%

  • No

    Votes: 294 50.3%
  • Total voters
    585
scorza said:
Do you honestly expect them to explicitly state that we're taking military action to secure our oil supplies? Sorry but the world doesn't work like that and never will. At least they didn't make up complete BS this time about Gadaffi having WMD.
Click to expand...

They only said they were doing it to protect civilians. The US, France, UK push a BS reolution through the UN to legitimise their take-over. Iraq, Libya - some thing never change.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's a coup d'état whichever way you look at it, like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Its a coup d'etat for sure - but in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan we rolled in with hundreds of thousands of troops, killed a load of people, destroyed the old governement, took over power for a while then handed it over to someone we felt we could work with.

In the case of libya it was Libyans alone who rolled in and took out (in the process of taking out) the existing government and will set up the new one. Our role was mainly close air support with a handful of military trainers in Benghazi.
 
[TW]Fox;19888316 said:
We are so lucky to have so many well informed statesmen here on the internet. Hopefully one day all the people on the internet who know best can take over from the jokers who actually do it for a living.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! :D
 
do_ron_ron said:
They only said they were doing it to protect civilians. The US, France, UK push a BS reolution through the UN to legitimise their take-over. Iraq, Libya - some thing never change.
Click to expand...

We did protect civilians, first in Benghazi then Mizrata and now in Tripoli ;) I'm glad you acknowledge that this military action was legitimate as it was signed off by the UNSC.
 
gettothechopper said:
1. we are already overstreched with two opertations we were with just afghanistan..
2. we dont have backing from arab league, yet they are condemming syria all the time
3. no NATO resolution , the libya one was broken anyway
4. Libya had full scale revolution where syria has just protestors only because the western media spun it as a full scale revolution they only hads a few hundred protestors with guns
5. Syria would take a lot more military effort than libya and thats the real reason , we would likely suffer loads of casulaties
6. we are probably very reluctant to be seen fighting in another muslim country we are?
Click to expand...
 
[TW]Fox;19888316 said:
We are so lucky to have so many well informed statesmen here on the internet. Hopefully one day all the people on the internet who know best can take over from the jokers who actually do it for a living.
Click to expand...

God help us if they do. :D
 
I long for the day when arknor is prime minister personally. He always knows best when it comes to these things and his obviously expert knowledge of international law along with his detailed statesmanship ability and talent for decisive and critical thinking would make him so much better suited to the task than any current western leader.
 
scorza said:
We did protect civilians, first in Benghazi then Mizrata and now in Tripoli ;) I'm glad you acknowledge that this military action was legitimate as it was signed off by the UNSC.
Click to expand...

Oh please the UN is a fallacious pile of ass that needs to end its for show military arm and council.

Humanitarian things, im fine with, but nothing more.
 
do_ron_ron said:
The Russians did this for many years.
Click to expand...

As did Americans.



cmndr_andi said:
Its a coup d'etat for sure
Click to expand...

Ironically how Gaddafi came to power ^^



cmndr_andi said:
In the case of libya it was Libyans alone who rolled in and took out (in the process of taking out) the existing government and will set up the new one. Our role was mainly close air support with a handful of military trainers in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Without us the rebellion would have been crushed in Bengazi, we won this civil war for them at every step, they would have needed to be ultra inept in order to have failed.



scorza said:
We did protect civilians, first in Benghazi then Mizrata and now in Tripoli ;) I'm glad you acknowledge that this military action was legitimate as it was signed off by the UNSC.
Click to expand...

We protected civilians on one side of a civil war, we did noting to protect the pro Gaddafi supporters beaten/raped/murdered by the rebels and we did nothing to stop the war crimes of the rebel military, we entered another country's civil war and acted as one sides air force, hardly a humanitarian act...
 
arknor said:
arknors post
Click to expand...

1. not really, but I dont think they would commit such a large percentage of our forces to one operation
2. fine but we still dont have backing from them
3. is it ? the usual UN members dont seem to be condeming us for that? or are you the only expert on international law that knows whats right?
4. so all those people celebrating last night are just extras hired by sky news :p
5. i dont think we would, but would take all our resources (including the ones being used right now in Afghan)
6. i would think so from the US reluctance to the libya action
 
ubersonic said:
We protected civilians on one side of a civil war, we did noting to protect the pro Gaddafi supporters beaten/raped/murdered by the rebels and we did nothing to stop the war crimes of the rebel military, we entered another country's civil war and acted as one sides air force, hardly a humanitarian act...
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to protect civilians that way with air power alone, for that we'd need an occupying force. Something explicitly prohibited in the UNSC resolution. What you can protect civilians against with air power alone is artillery and armour, which is what we did do.
 
scorza said:
Kinda hard to protect civilians that way with air power alone, for that we'd need an occupying force. Something explicitly prohibited in the UNSC resolution. What you can protect civilians against with air power alone is artillery and armour, which is what we did do.
Click to expand...

We protected civilians from Gaddafi's artillery and armour, we didn't do anything about the rebels, in fact iirc the USAF even apologised for blowing up some rebel tanks that were closing on an area full of Gaddafi supporters as they only destroyed them because they thought they were Gaddafi tanks closing on rebel supporters. We did nothing about rebel artillery (rocket) strikes on civilian targets.
 
ubersonic said:
We protected civilians from Gaddafi's artillery and armour, we didn't do anything about the rebels, in fact iirc the USAF even apologised for blowing up some rebel tanks that were closing on an area full of Gaddafi supporters as they only destroyed them because they thought they were Gaddafi tanks closing on rebel supporters. We did nothing about rebel artillery (rocket) strikes on civilian targets.
Click to expand...

That would be because the rebels had nothing like the level of kit that the Gadaffi forces had and their tactics were entirely different.

Gadaffi was using grad rockets (long range, relatively inaccurate rockets), tanks and artillery pieces pretty indiscriminately for area bombardment against civilian population centres like Misrata.

The rebels in contrast only had much smaller rocket systems and when they did capture a small number of tanks they seemed to use them mainly for gaining and holding ground.

I do remember in the first days of the rebel advance out of benghazi that nato warned the rebels that they would engage them too if they targeted civilians.
 
Last edited:
Am I allowed to post a link to a picture of a supposedly dead Gaddafi that's just started doing the rounds?

Edit: its fake, I couldn't tell by the pixels though
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom