U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces

[civver_764]

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'.

Yeah, one country is predominately brown and the other is predominately white. Amirite?

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, one country is predominately brown and the other is predominately white. Amirite?

No, you're not.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think they are both guilty of essentially the same crime: Trying to meddle in international politics way too much.

Fortunately, we can do something about Libya.

 

[aelf]

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.

You mean the protesters did not riot and cause damage to property owned by others? Why should a government not take steps to put a halt to the reckless endangerment of life and property by a mob?

They did it in China and the world held the Olympic games to celebrate. They do it in Libya and the world wants to bomb the country?

 

[Abaddon]

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.

When you elected bush a second term. Then, not now we had the worst opinion of you.

 

[Xanikk999]

When you elected bush a second term. Then, not now we had the worst opinion of you.

Well at least in hindsight most American's probably regretted it seeing his incredibly low approval ratings right before he left office.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That was only after much of his support deserted him for being so "big government", e.g. after the economy went down the tubes.

 

[Masada]

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.

... Yes, right. Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally designed to get revenge on the Nips for Pearl Harbour and had nothing to do with ending a damn world war.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm sure there was perfectly good reason to demand unconditional surrender, then give them the only concession they wanted all along, even though it was clear they were going to unconditionally surrender anyway.

 

[Dachs]

even though it was clear they were going to unconditionally surrender anyway.

Moderator Action: Please don't make smiley only posts, that's spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Arwon]

Given that it's France and the UK seemingly leading all the fighting so far, it's a bit weird that everyone's talking about America being teh evils.

 

[Disgustipated]

I really think the U.S. should stay out of this war and let the French and other European countries handle it. We simply cannot afford a war. Money doesn't grow on trees you know. Obama has no clear objective. Are we going to be committed to this for years now? I hate this situation. Why do things half assed? Haven't we learned from Vietnam? You can't half ass things. We should just do the regime change, or we'll be stuck with a situation like Iraq in the 90's. Although personally I'm against all intervention. From the first Gulf War (which caused us to be bombed on 9/11), to the second gulf war, to Afghanistan, to Bosnia in the 90's. It's none of our business. Stay out.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10281766&postcount=25

Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

In his "third person" autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated:

The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials. (See p. 327, Chapter 26)

The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:

The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. (See p. 334, Chapter 27)
In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." (See p. 334, Chapter 27)

And on and on and on...

 

[Dachs]

Given that it's France and the UK seemingly leading all the fighting so far, it's a bit weird that everyone's talking about America being teh evils.

Broken record. Not surprising at all!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10281766&postcount=25

Moderator Action: And that's trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Godwynn]

 

[Holycannoli]

HAHA that makes this whole thread worth it!

Omfg hahahaha!

 

[GoodSarmatian]

That was funny 71 years ago, except there's nothing funny about WW 2...

 

[Bei1052]

For a moment, I thought this was real.

Anyway, after thinking about it some more, I'm of the mind that the U.N. is in the wrong here. Unless one nation is threatening the sovereignty of another, or there is an imminent threat of one nation threatening the sovereignty of another, the U.N. shouldn't inolve itself in the internal affairs of a nation, regardless of the situation. The nation and it's people should solve their own conflicts.

 

[Arwon]

For a moment, I thought this was real.

Anyway, after thinking about it some more, I'm of the mind that the U.N. is in the wrong here. Unless one nation is threatening the sovereignty of another, or there is an imminent threat of one nation threatening the sovereignty of another, the U.N. shouldn't inolve itself in the internal affairs of a nation, regardless of the situation. The nation and it's people should solve their own conflicts.

It's hardly unprecedented, remember Yugoslavia and Kosovo and East Timor also involved foreign forces under UN sanction intervening in local affairs.

Also: the people are solving their conflicts, the UN forces are just helping them.

 

[Defiant47]

You mean the protesters did not riot and cause damage to property owned by others? Why should a government not take steps to put a halt to the reckless endangerment of life and property by a mob?

I don't know what version of events you're getting, but the protesters were peaceful, latching onto the idea of democracy from the other revolts happening around the region. Even if some were more violent, deadly force was not justified.

They did it in China and the world held the Olympic games to celebrate. They do it in Libya and the world wants to bomb the country?

We're not bombing the country. We're bombing an illegitimate government that is attempting to slaughter its people.

We don't have a war on Libya. We have a war with Libya.