U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
- Thread starter Incodcito
- Start date
Libya is right across the Mediterranean from Europe. It's a bit harder to ignore the excesses. Oh, and oil.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
civver_764
Deity
You know, if Libya were to fire missiles at the US, we'd probably nuke them, then have some memorial holiday to those that were lost.
Lots of petroleum involved with Libya.
Supporting violence is equivalent to violence.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
Hey, wasn't this our pretense to invade? Interesting how that works.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
So, since the rebels started the violence, where are the air strikes on them?
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Except when it prevents even more violence in the foreseeable future.
I don't worrying about a future regime or a precedent is really necessary. If you are worrying about a future regime, then you may as well be on Gaddafi's side independent of foreign intervention; you wouldn't want the rebels to win in any case because them as an alternative could possibly be worse. And really it's an isolated incident. The only precedent it sets is that there can be foreign intervention against human rights violations, not that there will be. The refugee problem was presumably weighed up and decided to be worth the risk. In fact, one of the main reasons for the intervention is probably because it has been judged that it will result in a lower amount of refugees; rebels won't be fleeing in droves.
That's the best way to do it, I guess.This is a difficult issue and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer necessarily. In a sense I am thinking out loud in this thread.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I think this is key to really understand what's going on here. We really have the Iraq War II being played out again, this time by Europe and a reluctant US president. This is nothing but an excuse to topple a highly unpopular regime.
That's just nutty speak.
civver_764
Deity
You need to start looking at reality. Last time we were attacked on our own soil by a state = pearl harbor. We nuked Japan. Then when we got attacked on 9/11 every year since we've had huge memorial services.
The memorial, sure. The nuke part is crazy talk.
The rebels did not start the violence. They were forced into a military insurrection when Gaddafi started shooting at his own people, who were protesting peacefully.
I disagree.
Just because there are other regimes that need to be toppled doesn't mean that this one doesn't. Just because you could be donating money to starving children in Africa doesn't mean that you are a bad person for donating money to ease the lives of people with disabilities in your neighbourhood.
Are you attempting to equate the US and Libya? I think it's safe to make a judgement about who is the 'good guy' and who is the 'bad guy'.
No it isn't; grow up a bit. NEXT!
Xanikk999
History junkie
With how I percieve europeans on this board to view America and American's in general I hate to say it but if European posters on Civfanatics and the rest of the internet are any indication of what they really think, I think they might confuse us with the bad guys. (Terrible run-on sentence I know)
If anything I sort of agree with them on their perception of us. We have some terrible people running our country that make us look foolish and many of our citizens are right wing extremists, nutjobs, religious fanatics, or horrible racists or any combination of these.
There isn't any other time in History where the U.S has had a worse public image than right now.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I agree completely. This one may very well be worth doing.
But let's not hide behind all the propaganda being generated to rationalize it. The world is now vilifying Muammar Gaddafi much as the US vilifed all Japanese after Pearl Harbor and Muslim extremists after 9/11. It has become a righteous crusade to eradicate evil™.
I think you're getting the wrong impression. People complain about the US because it is expected to be a pinnacle. If it's not quite up to shape, then that is a bad thing. That doesn't mean that people think it's equal to Libya, it just means that people think there is room for improvement. The public image of the US relative to a comparable country isn't entirely relevant when you are comparing it to Libya instead.
Perhaps not, but the difference is insufficient to warrant different treatment.
Well, Gaddafi is pure evil.
What we can agree on, though, is that there's propaganda making it look like we're willing to help eradicate this kind of evil wherever possible - which is simple not true. We only do it where it's convenient.
