Your opinion on the Libyan conflict

[~Lynn~]

My view pretty much is; We (the US/Canada/Mexico) should out of our own interests be helping Japan with the issue at hand. The middle east/north africa/"over there" is a quagmire of insanity and I'd be happy enough to sit and watch it unravel. There is no sane hope for stability there. If NATO wants to go meddle around, fine. Good luck.

 

[El Stormo]

It seems that people are supporting Ghaddafi in the west but maybe it's a propaganda trick or people opposing him are reluctant and afraid to step up and show their opinion...

I think it's more a case of wanting to bet on the winning horse. Many people still believe Khadafi will come out on top, and they think he'll be grateful and reward them when it's over. I don't think, but I could be wrong of course, that many people support Khadafi because they think he's such a good leader.

If NATO wants to go meddle around, fine. Good luck.

It's not fine, actually. The NATO is a defensive organisation, and in theory, should only intervene when one of its nations is attacked. It's not meant to muck around in another country, no matter the reason.

And like in all those types of conflicts, it's extremely hypocritical of the US to suddenly start a crusade against a dictator they've kept in his chair for so long, simply because PR demands it.

 

[replicated]

It's interesting that for the past decade, we have been fighting Al-Qaeda, and now that they are allied with the rebel forces in Libya, we are fighting together.

It's best not to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East as Al-Qaeda will exploit people's desire for freedom to establish another oppressive Islamic state. We should have learned this from Iraq.

You cannot establish democracy in a country where the populace is largely uneducated and hold extremist religious beliefs that promote the oppression of all non-believers. Despite what people say, all Islam is extreme and promotes values that simply don't fit the way the world operates today. They should all be exterminated. :hotjump:

 

[El Stormo]

A lot of your points in the first part of your post make sense, why end it with such an unconvincing Internet Tough Guy rant?

 

[replicated]

It's not a tough guy act. I honestly do not like Muslims. Why pretend otherwise?

 

[El Stormo]

Not liking a certain kind of people is one thing (I don't like muslems, or at least their religion, either), but going all "they should all be exterminated" is ITG'ism.

 

[derek]

Thanks, Chris. I'm blushing now.

Our governments were chummy with Gaddafi provided Western investments in Libya were protected and he managed to keep his despotic leadership out of the Western press. Once that all went tits up, it was time to send in the warships, create chaos and call it democracy.

Let's be honest, we're not there to protect the Libyan people, we're not there to help them achieve democracy. We're there because Gaddafi couldn't keep a lid on his shit and ultimately, if you can no longer pander to us and your people create instability to our cash flow, we'll swing on by and try to forcibly remove you from power, although we'll pretend it's finally because we've had enough of your terrible human rights record.

Libya is yet another example of Western interference coming at the behest of financial considerations, but for no other genuine reasons. Ultimately the buck will be carried by whoever has the most invested in Libya. I don't really care whether it's the U.S or N.A.T.O or whoever.

EDIT: Politics HAS to happen in forums like this, in peoples living rooms, on the streets, wherever, because it sure as fuck isn't happening in local, regional or national governments.

 

[Karmic]

And the fact that it's been us supplying Ghaddafi with most of his firepower as well as a means to try and deal with the illegal immigration from Africa and whatnot. I'm kinda with derek here, it doesn't really feel too much like a "here we come to save you" as much as a "here we come to save our own screw up". But hell, whatever makes everyone feel good about what their country is supposedly doing then. As whatever forces there are as far as I've heard not participating on ground level and only with air bombing on the heavy weaponry, I think most of the outside is just trying to "help" just as much as they need to but are hesitant to do anything else.

Still, it's another factor to an interesting trend going on in the middle east and even with one or more of these uprisings leading to bloodshed, I'm curious to see what change it'll bring around.

 

[Dead Winter]

I think it's a combination of things. I completely agree that the cat is out of the bag on the human rights abuses in Libya, and we can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch what we've secretly known for the past 30 years. Is there a bit of hypocrisy here? Sure, but I think everyone knew it would come to this one day. After all the revolutions started, it was only a matter of time before military forces would have to get involved, simply for the nature of the region. We've kept a lid on it this long and kept Libya out of the news simply because Gaddhafi wasn't openly shelling his own citizens on international news; he was just killing them in secret. Europe has been the most complacent this whole time, enjoying lucrative work contracts and relying on Libyan oil. This is why I say it's not a US problem. NATO is more than capable of handling the situation but is playing off of the impatience of the US, knowing that if they argue and bicker long enough, the US will just push them aside and tell them to get the fuck out of the way while the US ends up spearheading the mission. This is something I do not want, and I don't think anyone else in the US wants it either. For once, we can safely say it's completely not our problem and it's a European issue. For some reason, however, politicians just can't grasp the scope of how bad it is in the US today and how Americans want their own shit fixed first and how sick they are of being the world's police.

I have to agree entirely with derek. If this were such a dangerous issue in the first place, we wouldn't have stopped when we first bombed Tripoli in 1985. But as derek said, fuck up our cash flow and make waves in the media and we'll swing on by to install our own puppet government. Once again, money is the word of the day. Should Europe come clean about this issue, it would garner far more support.

Ironically, I haven't seen any demonstrations against the Libyan conflict around Europe, which I find very hypocritical. There's really no difference between Saddam Hussein and Gaddhafi, so where are the "no blood for oil" demonstrations around Europe? Oh that's right! When Europe needs the oil, I guess it's ok to go to war and hide it as a, "we're bringing freedom" operation. It's just not ok when the US does it. Hypocrisy for everyone! Don't worry, there's plenty to go around!

But then again, there WAS that little, teeny-tiny bit of WMD controversy in Iraq that kinda screwed the pooch for trusting the US ever again.

 

[Liverslapper]

Bleh

 

[El Stormo]

Ironically, I haven't seen any demonstrations against the Libyan conflict around Europe, which I find very hypocritical. There's really no difference between Saddam Hussein and Gaddhafi, so where are the "no blood for oil" demonstrations around Europe?

1) Not everyone knows that primarily Europe uses, as you say, Libyan oil. In fact, this is the first I've heard of it too.

2) There is a difference between Saddam Hussein and Khadafi - The Iraqi people didn't ask for Western support, and they weren't being bombed by their own government - they were just being dragged from their homes at night, like in Khadafi's regime before the revolution.

3) Everyone knows that it's all about ousting Khadafi and installing a puppet government, but a Western puppet government, in this instance, is far preferable to letting Khadafi stay in power. That also went for Hussein's government, true, but it goes for a lot of other governments as well, but the US never touched those, because there was no oil to be had.

4) Thus far, the Libyan conflict has not escalated to ground assault level yet, and this is also not currently the intention. Casualties will be far less than in the second Gulf war. Supposedly, the targets are strictly military ones, and they are all attacked with a stand-off tactic. It's different from letting your own people get shot up in a desert or blown to bloody shreds by IEDs.

5) The intervention in Libya is a NATO decision, made with good reasons, and supported by NATO states - not a single-handed warmongering ploy from one nation and based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and 9/11. True, there's oil and gain to be had, but are you honestly telling me an organisation like the NATO shouldn't stop some mad hatter from bombarding his own people? Well, there is the "NATO as a defensive organisation" argument, but leaving that out of the discussion, surely you'll agree that a large organization dedicated to protect its member states and claiming to operate based on sound moral judgment, can't just shrug when a dictator bombs his own people?


I'm not saying you don't have a point, I am saying that comparing the Gulf War to this one is apples and oranges.

 

[Djöfull]

What's with the Al Quaeda hysteria? That is propaganda from Ghaddafi himself and Fox news( coz that's the way they see or want to see the world). The libyan opposition is fighting for democracy and to rule themselves. You never see debate about Al Quaeda on BBC or Al Jazeera. Why? Because it not so relevant. I'm not saying there might not be extremist here and there. But they are in a minority and they strongly contradict the goals of the rebellion. They are not fomenting the uprising. Al Quaeda going democratic?.. Bloody likely...

 

[Dead Winter]

1) Not everyone knows that primarily Europe uses, as you say, Libyan oil. In fact, this is the first I've heard of it too.

2) There is a difference between Saddam Hussein and Khadafi - The Iraqi people didn't ask for Western support, and they weren't being bombed by their own government - they were just being dragged from their homes at night, like in Khadafi's regime before the revolution.

3) Everyone knows that it's all about ousting Khadafi and installing a puppet government, but a Western puppet government, in this instance, is far preferable to letting Khadafi stay in power. That also went for Hussein's government, true, but it goes for a lot of other governments as well, but the US never touched those, because there was no oil to be had.

4) Thus far, the Libyan conflict has not escalated to ground assault level yet, and this is also not currently the intention. Casualties will be far less than in the second Gulf war. Supposedly, the targets are strictly military ones, and they are all attacked with a stand-off tactic. It's different from letting your own people get shot up in a desert or blown to bloody shreds by IEDs.

5) The intervention in Libya is a NATO decision, made with good reasons, and supported by NATO states - not a single-handed warmongering ploy from one nation and based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and 9/11. True, there's oil and gain to be had, but are you honestly telling me an organisation like the NATO shouldn't stop some mad hatter from bombarding his own people? Well, there is the "NATO as a defensive organisation" argument, but leaving that out of the discussion, surely you'll agree that a large organization dedicated to protect its member states and claiming to operate based on sound moral judgment, can't just shrug when a dictator bombs his own people?


I'm not saying you don't have a point, I am saying that comparing the Gulf War to this one is apples and oranges.

Agreed on all points, I'm just saying that the people who were shouting "No blood for oil" seemed to be shouting that when the oil wasn't being piped to them. Now that it is, there's a noticeably different air around the whole thing. Spain, Italy, Austria, and France all have oil coming from Libya.

Saddam didn't bomb his own people, he just gassed them, tortured them, and buried them in mass graves.

That said, who are we kidding here? We all know that regime change is the endgame. True, the Bush administration made up a bunch of shit about WMD in Iraq, but the protests had been going on long before OIF started. Before any bombs were dropped, before a single boot was on Iraqi soil, millions of people were protesting the war. I'm not saying they were wrong, I'm just looking at it from a neutral perspective. The real controversy started after the fact...a year after, actually. In my opinion, the only thing different now is we're not looking for WMD.

 

[El Stormo]

Saddam didn't bomb his own people, he just gassed them, tortured them, and buried them in mass graves.

But he did so quietly, and there's the big difference. This war can count on much more public sympathy (justified or not, that depends on your own opinion), so there's far less protest against it. The second Gulf war was perceived by just about anyone (including many US citizens) as arbitrary, unprovoked and unjust - this one is seen in a far more favourable light.

 

[Dead_Lioness]

mk. My point was, it's useless discussing opinions with people that aren't willing to do anything about them anyways.

Why? Intellectual conversation is good for the mind and soul, my friend.
One does not have to 'do' something about anything per-se, in order to enjoy a good political debate. Or any debate for that matter.

I suppose we shouldn't talk about anything anymore until one of us is willing to take some action!
and yes, I am talking about small-talk conversations about the weather either! .... since non of us is going to do anything about those damn hurricanes and earthquakes... really.

Lots of people here come from lots of different backgrounds and have different points of view...it would be foolish to write them off as forum spammers, especially with all the politically charged debates that have gone on in the past here. Everything from gun control to war to elections to the legalization of marijuana to corporatism has been covered before and, to be honest, people here ARE quite involved in social and political programs, whether they're simply writing they're congressmen, serving in the military, participating in political rallies, or simply just getting the message out.

If anything, this forum runs the gamut of experience of all kinds. Karen is a former Israeli soldier who is very politically active, I served in Iraq and decided to stay abroad instead of returning to the US, Captain, neal, and Kriggy are very pro-gun and are strong proponents of The Second Amendment, Kevin and Brooks have very liberal views while Lynn is typically quite conservative, and derek is a very learned individual living abroad who has very interesting and well-articulated views on just about any subject you can think of. On almost any hot-button topic, all of these people (and everyone else) regularly give their opinions which are usually based on first-hand experience.

There's a wealth of information coming from this forum; it's definitely head and shoulders above anything you'd find on any news organization site. I can remember on several occasions news popping up in this forum even before it hit mainstream sites.

Yeah, it's an interesting place to hear some good views because of the diversity of the people who come here. I agree. ....and DW, I also have liberal views, just sayin'

 

[Dead_Lioness]

Let's be honest, we're not there to protect the Libyan people, we're not there to help them achieve democracy. We're there because Gaddafi couldn't keep a lid on his shit and ultimately, if you can no longer pander to us and your people create instability to our cash flow, we'll swing on by and try to forcibly remove you from power, although we'll pretend it's finally because we've had enough of your terrible human rights record.

^ EXACTLY.

5) The intervention in Libya is a NATO decision, made with good reasons, and supported by NATO states - not a single-handed warmongering ploy from one nation and based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and 9/11. True, there's oil and gain to be had, but are you honestly telling me an organisation like the NATO shouldn't stop some mad hatter from bombarding his own people? Well, there is the "NATO as a defensive organisation" argument, but leaving that out of the discussion, surely you'll agree that a large organization dedicated to protect its member states and claiming to operate based on sound moral judgment, can't just shrug when a dictator bombs his own people?

^ It's made with good reasons, and I see your point about this Stormo, but it was a well known fact for years that there were 'serious human rights' issue in Lybia... I can't hep but wonder about the REAL reasons that all of this is taking place now, and I have to lean towards the reason that has the color green and rhymes with 'honey'....


HOWEVER!
There is also a political interest in countries like that and with helping places like Lybia achieve democracy. If anything, it is a huge benefit for the western world, to have a 'puppet' in that area that they crafted with their own hands.

 

[Dead Winter]

Why? Intellectual conversation is good for the mind and soul, my friend.
One does not have to 'do' something about anything per-se, in order to enjoy a good political debate. Or any debate for that matter.

I suppose we shouldn't talk about anything anymore until one of us is willing to take some action!
and yes, I am talking about small-talk conversations about the weather either! .... since non of us is going to do anything about those damn hurricanes and earthquakes... really.




Yeah, it's an interesting place to hear some good views because of the diversity of the people who come here. I agree. ....and DW, I also have liberal views, just sayin'

Well, most of us here do, silly. That goes without saying.

 

[Dead_Lioness]

^ about certain things...I hold conservative views
One cannot be entirely 'this' or 'that' IMO

 

[Dead Winter]

But he did so quietly, and there's the big difference. This war can count on much more public sympathy (justified or not, that depends on your own opinion), so there's far less protest against it. The second Gulf war was perceived by just about anyone (including many US citizens) as arbitrary, unprovoked and unjust - this one is seen in a far more favourable light.

That's kind of my point. It's seen in a favorable light because it directly affects Europe and because people are asleep at the wheel. Europe is simply manipulating this situation and angling for regime change so they can make money; it's no different than the Iraq war, just a different perception. I understand the media is manipulating the public due to all the publicity of what has transpired, but now I'm going to ask you a question Europeans absolutely love to ask Americans, only the role is reversed: what about all the other regimes that are brutalizing and killing its own citizens? Would NATO have gone and helped the Egyptians? What about Syria, now that they're starting to flare up? What about Tunisia? If NATO is so concerned for the welfare of the people, where were they then? It's not as easy as that, is it? It's obviously both a rhetorical and ridiculous question, however. Now you're just getting a taste of what the US has been dealing with for decades.

Saddam didn't do anything quietly. In fact, he very loudly invaded Kuwait and then a few years later committed genocide on the Kurds. Operation Southern Watch, the no-fly zone including sanctions had been going for over ten years until Operation Iraqi Freedom started in 2003.

Let's not forget the Balkans either. That shit had been going on for years and the EU wouldn't lift a fucking finger to do anything because there was no monetary gain in it for them. The US had to come in and take care of it because no one else would.

My point is simply that it's hypocritical to protest OIF when this Libyan conflict parallels it (not mimics...there are differences, after all), yet where are the protests? Where is the outrage against human suffering? It says to me that people don't like war unless they personally can have a stake in the spoils, and to blast the US for such practices but not the EU is hypocrisy.

It's starting again...NATO is already looking to the US to start taking out Gaddhafi's ground force, when we CLEARLY stated we want this to be a NATO operation and that the US was there for a boost in the beginning, nothing more. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and force NATO's hand to do something besides argue.

 

[Dead Winter]

^ about certain things...I hold conservative views

As do I.