Is Western Action On Libya Justified?
 

Is this another west sticking its fucking nose into another sovereign country affairs or there a strong enough justification for action?

Be objective and give you opinion on whether you think this has been handled well or whether its just another stupid western adventure in an arab country.

Fuck me......... why cant they keep their fucking faces out of other peoples business? And now they wanna get them selves stuck into yet ANOTHER war.

Did they even heed Libya's request for international observers?

Its a fucking disgrace.

no comment

100% yes

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...pt=T1&iref=BN1

And your point is?

Just observing your UK location, and the flapping of your jaws.

That is all.

Carry on.

Oh shit........... you didnt figure that I might a person who disagrees with the policies of his own country?

You must be American and thick.

no
 

Of course not, one more conquest to take other's oil and property seen so many times before.

Scammers gonna scam.

Yep, that is me. American and thick.


But at least if I disagree with my countries policies I will start a thread about that, and comment as to why, instead of starting a thread bashing a country participating in the exact same military action as mine.

That's just how us illiterate, overweight, ignorant, world police hicks roll.

Great another War to pay for!
We had to help the little guys with little guns against the gov military.
If the people want a true revolt, a good portion of the military would switch sides also.

Geezzz, who is going to protect now the little guy of the Libyian Gov, since we have bigger guns...

i assume by *west* you mean the civilized world. because the u.s. hadn't even voiced its policy on the crisis until after the u.n. moved on it.

The phony Facebook revolution wasn't working and the guy had the nerve to build a water system with excess he could ship to his neighbors.

So what was America and the Western Powers supposed to do?

:ak47:

street revolutions in egypt were probably supported by the west. when they failed, it gave justification for invasion.

obama was quiet and let gaddafi strike back in order to justify war.

Difficult to say.

On one hand, they (the Libyan people) should not have picked a fight with Qudaffi if they were not willing to lose all and suffer mass casualties. They had to know going in that he was not going to go easy. So with this in mind, I have to say they picked the wrong dictator to try to overthrow and whatever he does is only a reaction to their action. Still, they continue to fight him.

Then on the other hand, there is a point where enough is enough and the rebels are being slaughtered. They are outgunned. They need help, because of they don't get it, they are all going to die.

As asshole of a thing as this is to say, I lean towards the old rule of, don't pick a fight with the biggest kid in school unless you're willing to get your ass kicked. This sets a poor example around the world, which is, TRY to overthrow your government, and if you lose and it gets too bloody, the rest of the world *may* help you.

That's what west/western usually means. Although it all gets fucking confusing if you try and explain it to someone Japanese.

Pentagon: 110 missiles fired on Libya thus far

i find it's good to clarify these sorts of comments here at the gfy :winkwink:

Where did I bash a country? Western action refers to a group of countries, largely comprised of western powers (of which the UK is one constituent), and it is their policy and actions we are debating - nothing more.

Id like to say put the crack pipe down but in your case I think its more a case of "put the meth pipe down!"

We made our decision long ago. We need oil. A democratic middle east is a better and more stable oil sales man than a dictator. So we support the uprising.

We must help the Libyan people (the same people who were just cheering for their "hero" who blew up the commercial plane over Lockerbie Scotland)

Bottom line...when the smoke clears and the new govt. is in place...they will end up being crazy Muslim theocrats who hate our guts

Then, in that case, given your definition of "western" in this thread, I owe you an apology. I took you to mean west as in west of Europe, not west as in non-Arabic/Middle East.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting your meaning.

dang, that's harsh. :(

Exactly....

Should the US have not intervened in WWII, or are you happy we routed Hitler?

Oil... Don't like it, then force your government to get off their fucking asses and seriously develop other sources of energy.. Until that happens all us western nations are going to remain involved over there.

always the best at times like this http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

Nah, thank you, but it's cool. :)

I went after him when I thought he was being stupid; he just did the same in return. He and I just define Western differently.

For the record, I am pretty much on the fence in regards to US involvement in this. While there are issues about the situation that concern me from a humanitarian standpoint, the same can be said for other countries that we aren't doing a thing about.

We didn't "intervene" We waited a few YEARS until Japan attacked us. Then we DECLARED WAR via the Congress on the Axis Powers.

The shit we're pulling the last decade is stuff that we never did before. I feel like history ain't gonna look that kindly in a couple of centuries at the only country to drop Atom bombs on civilian cities killing hundreds of thousand of women and children and the country that now occupies over 80 countries around the world with our military.

I was raised to believe we were a "shining beacon of hope" to the rest of the world.
Now I find myself living in a police state, being searched at airports, the govt. taking over everything, people wanting to build our own version of the Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, and our military attacking countries that didn't attack us or our allies and no declaration of war by Congress.

Just don't feel "American" to me...at least not the way I was brought up to believe (which may have all been lies to indoctrinate us as kids)

Spoken like a true American, hopefully there are enough of you guys left on US soil. :2 cents:

i call em like i see em. i found it uncool to start lobbing crack/meth addict insults do to a misinterpretation of the comment. thus my *west* comment earlier.

Don't know if you just complimented me or insulted me :1orglaugh

Not an insult. :thumbsup

Of course it's not justified. It is actually "illegal" under the United Nation's own charter. The ONLY reason for evoking CHAPTER VII articles, or engaging in an attack on a "UN member state" is for the restoration of international peace and security. Clearly in the case of Libya, the events there thus so far have at no time been a "threat to international peace or security."

This is all about the CIA/MI6 "destabilization program,? read: Color Revolution (to smash another sovereign state into pieces) not going as planned. Now the only remedy is an illegal (and precedent setting) military intervention.

Seems like some of them did. The only way they were able to stand up to the military was to have military grade weapons. They are shooting down aircraft, and that's not something you do with an AK47. I'm seeing them armed with anti-craft trucks.

The only difference is when they take off the uniform, they become rebels.

The aircraft that was shot down belonged to the rebels in the reports that
I read. It was falsely assumed to be a gov plane at first.

The truth is... the life in Libya wasn't that bad while Gaddafi ruled, he was a socialist in some way, he was building and doing a lot of good, there was free bread and fuel for every citizen. Just read about history of Libya on some encyclopedia. Now The West is going to destroy this country and help the very same religious extremists with which it fights in another countries... but yeah money talks, as always.
__________________
:warning This is sig area! :warning

Excellent post Robbie. :2 cents:

You have the wrong flag.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/rade0117/arc...re/un-flag.jpg

History is not going to look back fondly on the 1940s - World War II. This was a bad time for the entire world, very violent, with twenty million people dead; The value of a life wasn't much. In the case of the United States, we were attacked, and we fought back. We have this image that we are horrible for dropping the A Bomb, but the truth is carpet bombing in some cases did more damage.

History is not going to look back too fondly on our generation either. Not because of our action, but because of our inaction. We pay an unproportionate amount of attention to the Middle East; The Middle East can become a glass parking lot over night and the US will still get it's oil form the same place it does now - Canada and Mexico. Yet at the same time we pay no attention to Africa. The entire continent is dieing, decades of civil war, AIDS, starvation, and a huge lack of government control, and our entire generation didn't give a fucking shit about it.

Vendot, you're a fucking moron. Do the world a favor and stop making political threads.

Wow... Owned.

I always like it when retards on a porn forum throw out baseless conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure I agree. Aside from some diehard liberals and philosophy majors, current history looks favorably on the US during WWII.

And just what was the alternative?

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will." ... Neville Chamberlain
FAIL

.

Shhh, let these morons figure this one out.

Sounds fair.

chaching..