UN "No Fly Zone" Resolution: US will use Lybia as aerial target practice

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rasmasyean, Mar 18, 2011.

  1. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #1
    Here's a video on the latest developments in Lybia. The "No Fly Zone" really means, "No Fly for Quadaffi plus Yes Bombing for US and UK".

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42143060#42143060

    Is it me, or does war seem kind of rediculous now. :cool:

    I mean, I understand the need for "non occupational forces", but this is getting kind of rediculous. It almost seems like it's almost a capitalist motive to demonstrate weapons for sale at every opportunity. :D
     
  2. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #2
    You know it. I would even go so far as to say it's ridiculous! :rolleyes:

    In full disclosure, I've had a borderline man-crush on Obama since he announced he was running for POTUS... but when I heard about this UN resolution, my heart just sank. Eight years of Bush "forcefully spreading the gospel of democracy 'round the world" idiocy and we appear to have learned nothing. Nothing. :(
     
  3. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #3
    Would you rather have the Libyan people (who have called for help!) slaughtered by Gaddafi?
     
  4. steviem macrumors 68020

    steviem

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    New York, Baby!
    #4
    The only way to impose a no fly zone is to have your fighter jets and bombers in the region. Also they have to destroy/disarm Libya's SAMs and possibly destroy/disable Libyan Air Force air fields.

    Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.

    There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.

    I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
     
  5. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #5
    How very humanitarian (and dramatic) of you.

    Can you please provide a chart of how many "slaughtered" we are required to acknowledge before we take military action? I would like to know what the threshold is.

    ...Because I have a hard time believing this is the only aggressive dictator in existence at this moment. If I have to choose between Libyans being slaughtered/not slaughtered, I want you to choose which atrocities in the world to respond to, and which to ignore. Be prepared to to explain why you did not depose Dictator "X" who was violating human rights as opposed to Libya's Dictator "Y." Or, in the odd chance you would choose to involve the USA in every single non-democratic nation with an unloved and power-hungry misanthropic leader, you may demonstrate how such a widespread show of American force might affect world opinions of our foreign policy, particularly in regions of the world where we may already be viewed as imperialist heathens.

    For extra credit, you may describe in 100 words or less how either selective or across-the-board military responses benefit economic or social problems within the United States itself.
     
  6. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #6
    In Libya, there's a massive peace movement against Gaddafi. You don't have that in country "X".
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did, the difference between here and Iraq is that the Iraqis weren't asking for us to come but the Libian rebels are. Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
     
  8. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #8
    I don't think it (or any of the other times) really had to do much with "democracy" unless it serves the end goal. Secure the oil.

    Lets put it this way.

    If we let Quadafi "win" which he would, by slaughtering or not...heck it's civil war right? They have a right to kill eachother in war and then the loser will face crimes for it as usual.

    If we support the "rebel government", we will get oil favors theoretically from the new regime AND, since we destroyed all Quadafi's high value military assets, we can sell "new and improved" weapons to the new regime.

    As always, I think there's a deep economic angle...but this time, it's almost like it's a "wow...cool, someone is fighting again so lets try to maximize our potential future weapons sales by saying saying only ONE side is not allowed to kill ppl! ". It's almost hilarious if you think about it.
     
  9. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
  10. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #10
    They do not have the right to kill each other.

    Also why do we need two threads, one with a over the top title which implies allot before anything has happened?
     
  11. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #11
    I think that really depends on what country "X" is, and on your perspective.

    Is this the peace movement you mean?

    [​IMG]

    Yet.

    Are missiles okay? How about bombs?
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    As long as we are using them only against military targets, and not handing them over to the rebels to use how they want I see no problem. It will end with a lot fewer people dead than if we let Gadaffi kill his own people. Plus having the international community stand up to him will show other dictators that if their people want them to go they can't use force to stay.
     
  13. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #13
    And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?

    No.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
  15. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #15
    Yup.

    You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...

    It might need to be taken.

    We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.

    That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Well given there is a UN resolution in favour its not a coalition of the willing.
     
  17. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    No, but we were asked to help out. We aren't sticking our noses into a mess we are not welcome in.

    As long as we are not sending ground troops in, I support it. Right now, the Air Force and Navy are capable of bombing runs. They'll probably send in B-2's and F-22's for the initial strike to get rid of the anti-aircraft systems since they are stealth planes and then probably turn most of the enforcement of the no-fly zone over to the Europeans.
     
  18. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #18
    phht...I'm pretty sure the reason why there is "international action" this time is because it's not only easy to justify, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the US "going in" will result in victory. And this is a tiny weak nation too. At least Iraq was able to off a decent amount of "coalition forces" even though it's still a pin prick. And since Lybia has a lot of oil, "other nations" will be really easy to be persuaded to "save lives of rebels" or whatever. Heck, even the "French" are throwing on the gloves. Which I'm sure many ppl feel we should just shoot them out of the air ourselves. :p I mean, the Frence aren't going to miss out on this one, especially since it's like a given victory with "air support".

    I mean, this "cease fire" that's going on. Why is there no ceasfire? Because the West doesn't want it. It's already in motion. Whether it be jamming communications or "rebels staging attacks on themselves for show", it's clear that we've made the decision to go for blood...civilians or not in harms way...to put the regime WE want, into power. They aren't "peaceful"...they look just like those in that picture above in the truck. They struck a deal. Oil for help. And the Frence sadly are apparently in on it too.
     
  19. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #19
    Must we get involved in this? Can't France do something for once by themselves, or any other european nations for that matter? When was the last time they even fired a weapon? You know, the taliban were once known as freedom fighters too. I'm so sick of these countries, let them self destruct, maybe some day they will choose to civilize themselves. Please, no more US to the rescue, and then they all wonder why many Americans have a feeling of exceptionalism. :rolleyes:
     
  20. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #20
    :confused: Do you even know whats going on in Libya right now? These are all strange conclusions to make considering that there are French fighter jets flying over Libya.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    The US isn't the only country in the UN...
     
  22. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #22
    I sort of support this, but as has been said before I think its time that America puts a heavier burden on allied nations to provide military assistance for UN resolutions.

    America is constantly being blamed for policing the world and I think it is a criticism we often deserve.

    But if the UN / international community is willing to allow/support the enforcement of a no fly zone. Than they should bear equal responsibility for the execution of the movement, the US shouldn't be providing 90% of the military support and funds.
     
  23. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #23
    Bingo.

    The USA will probably get all of the blame for mistakes or things which happen too, regardless of involvement... I really would like the USA to take a much less active role in this than I expect it will do.
     
  24. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #24
    This is being led by the UK and France... Obama has been dragging his feet.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20110318-cameron-sarkozy-lead-no-fly-zone-effort-libya-benghazi

    Doesn't seem to stop Obama from going on TV to claim credit though.
     
  25. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25

Share This Page