katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Some people say we should do put a no fly zone, some people say we should attack the country, some people say join with the international community and condemn it. What do you all thin?
libya
- Thread starter katy perry is hot
- Start date
D
Deleted member 4320
It's going crazy over there, put a no fly zone up and leave it be till it fixes itself, if things get worse, countries need to come together an put a stop to everyone there and calm it down.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Yeah but the no fly zone involves the use of military force. eg we would have to destroy libyan ground to air defense. And no fly also doesn't mean just telling them they can't fly. It means if they fly, they get shot down, it can't just be as simple as the US charging in there with planes without anyone on our side.Dan said:
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
You can't just link to your blog like that in regular posts man 😛avguste said:
According to Fox News, France has fighter jets over Libya right now. The Libya government is bombing it's own people. If we don't let them get planes into the air, then we can stop that. I'd support a no fly zone.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
as long as it's an international effort and not just the US flying in there alone like usual.Joe said:
I seriously don't get it?
Why is it that us British and you Americans are always the ones to start the air strikes, what gives us the right to think it's OK to go bombing other countries?....
How come we will go and attack a small country like Libya to remove Gadaffi, bomb Iraq, Afghanistan... yet we do nothing to remove a tyrant like Mugabe or the heads of state in places like North Korea, China or Russia?
We are nothing more than bullies....and sometimes I'm ashamed to admit I'm British 😳
Why is it that us British and you Americans are always the ones to start the air strikes, what gives us the right to think it's OK to go bombing other countries?....
How come we will go and attack a small country like Libya to remove Gadaffi, bomb Iraq, Afghanistan... yet we do nothing to remove a tyrant like Mugabe or the heads of state in places like North Korea, China or Russia?
We are nothing more than bullies....and sometimes I'm ashamed to admit I'm British 😳
MissTake said:
The situation in Libya is not a civil war matter anymore; it's a global humanitarian and human rights issue when Gaddafi is killing Libyans. It's not like the world's just going to sit back and watch thousands of people die at the hands of a dictatorship.
And I don't understand the example of China and Russia. Both have relatively stable governments nowadays which aren't in conflict; do note how both governments have overcome their peak of communism (ie. USSR rise and Maosim rise have both gone). If you are going to talk about China and Russia about 60 years back, then there wasn't a United Nations of modern power to govern the world, and plus, with Sino-Russian relations, chances are Russia or China will help each other by vetoing any clause which would go against either of them.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Actually the French began it this time around 😛MissTake said:
And it wasn't like Iraq. This is totally different from Iraq. This was an international effort called upon by the United Nations, Arab League, etc. This is simply not the same thing, and remember, the UN did a similar thing to this in 1990 with the first Gulf war.
You can read this article here, it was actually very informative and it helps break down the points you brought up in your post.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/20/b ... tml?hpt=T1
DavidL said:
Sorry but that's a load of tripe!
Mugabe - killed and still killing loads of Zimbabweans, by the sickest and most cruel of ways, what have the UN done? Absolutely Jack! We're all sitting back and watching people dying at the hands of dictatorship!
Global humanitarian and human rights?
As for China, 60 years ago? ......you only have to go back to 1989 Tiananmen Square, Chinese dictator giving the nod to kill protesting students?
.....and as for the bullying...you only have to look at Guantanimo, do you seriously think that we would have allowed any other country in the world to imprison so many innocent people for so long without question?
Do understand that these things take time; when Mugabe led his regime at the height of it, yes, he did commit quite some atrocities, but did the UN have that much global power to do anything? It's almost impossible to compare things over time; why isn't the UN abolishing the death penalty? Why isn't the UN doing anything about the general situation in Africa? Well, it's a time thing, and they have placed sanctions on Mugabe, they have causes for humanitarian aid in Africa, they have campaigned against the death penalty via NGOs.MissTake said:
Where are you getting that information from? From a US/UK source? From a Chinese source? Do note that on immediate reporting, the number of dead ranged from 200 to over 10,000. Why the large discrepancy? Not all reports can be correct, so that already is an issue. Any sound historian knows they must look at the whole picture; there is not sufficient evidence to suggest any one was killed at the hands of the Chinese People's Liberation Army on the night of June 3-4, 1989. Yes, around the Square, but not in. Also understand that under Chinese Martial Law, should a civilian shoot or assault a PLA officer, it is within their power to shoot back in order to save themselves. There is evidence from both sides that civilians did shoot and assault PLA officers. There is not sufficient information to suggest death tolls of thousands; in fact one group called the Tiananmen Mothers have after 20 years identified only less than 200 killed, and even with that number, there is sufficient evidence showing not all were killed by PLA officers and not all killed on the Square. You really are being filled with pro-democratic propaganda towards what happened, and many historians and journalists realize that the stories of what happened need to be re-checked. There are verifiable witnesses saying that the PLA soldiers did not commit a massacre, and there are plenty of verifiable footage and photos of the Square showing of no deaths, from Western media. Even student leaders say they did not witness a massacre. Also, with the many statements saying of a massacre, they have not been verified and are not independent which a historian of sound methodology must rule out. I think you need to provide a sufficient argument before using Tiananmen Square as an example; I can assure you that you will eventually become objective through more research.
So why hasn't the UN done anything? Why are they sitting back? I'm not saying US/UK are not bullies, but I think there just isn't a strong enough world police force to do anything.
What I don't get is why you're against the UN doing something about it. Sure they didn't do much 10, 20 years ago, but the concept of "time" is very self-centered. 10 years in the span of modern history isn't a lot, and over time, it shows in 10 years, not much has been done. If they are doing something now for the better, then how can you be opposed to it?
Time has absolutely nothing to do with it?
I think you'll find that there's nothing so big as Chinese propaganda......the majority of Chinese citizens don't even know that half the biggest world websites exist? They are brain washed into believing what they are told constantly.
Magabe
Since 2000, the Mugabe-led government embarked on a controversial fast-track land reform program intended to correct the inequitable land distribution created by colonial rule. The period has been marked by the deterioration of the Zimbabwean economic situation. Mugabe's policies have been condemned in some quarters at home and abroad, especially receiving harsh criticism from the British and American governments arguing they amount to an often violent land seizure. Eventually a wide range of sanctions was imposed by the US government and European Union against the person of Mugabe, individuals, private companies, parastatals and the government of Zimbabwe.
In 2008, his party suffered a tight defeat in national parliamentary elections, but after disputed presidential elections, Mugabe retained presidential power with the signing of a power-sharing deal with opposition leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party.
They still can't get rid of the man, he still does the same as he did then....but they haven't once sent a single bomb over?
I say they are bullies because they only choose to attack the countries that mean something to them, be it for arms, money or oil! African has nothing we want, hence no action 😉
I don't totally believe the reasons why they do certain things, UN peace keeping missions ...fine, air strikes and showing off their muscles, wrong. :shake:
I think you'll find that there's nothing so big as Chinese propaganda......the majority of Chinese citizens don't even know that half the biggest world websites exist? They are brain washed into believing what they are told constantly.
Magabe
Since 2000, the Mugabe-led government embarked on a controversial fast-track land reform program intended to correct the inequitable land distribution created by colonial rule. The period has been marked by the deterioration of the Zimbabwean economic situation. Mugabe's policies have been condemned in some quarters at home and abroad, especially receiving harsh criticism from the British and American governments arguing they amount to an often violent land seizure. Eventually a wide range of sanctions was imposed by the US government and European Union against the person of Mugabe, individuals, private companies, parastatals and the government of Zimbabwe.
In 2008, his party suffered a tight defeat in national parliamentary elections, but after disputed presidential elections, Mugabe retained presidential power with the signing of a power-sharing deal with opposition leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party.
They still can't get rid of the man, he still does the same as he did then....but they haven't once sent a single bomb over?
I say they are bullies because they only choose to attack the countries that mean something to them, be it for arms, money or oil! African has nothing we want, hence no action 😉
I don't totally believe the reasons why they do certain things, UN peace keeping missions ...fine, air strikes and showing off their muscles, wrong. :shake:
MissTake said:
Time has everything to do with it. At this point in time, there is no widespread uprising in Zimbabwe; The power-sharing deal disallows UN to deal any further because there is some level of democratic change which the UN would not want to affect; the fact that Tsvangirai is Prime Minister is enough to show that Mugabe is willing to negotiate to an extent which allows democratic change. Note the long reigns of Gaddafi, Castro, Mao, Kim and Mubarak have all ended because of time; Mugabe isn't that far away as well, but at this point in time, there hasn't been much uprising because Tsvangirai is in government which people see this as a positive thing.
Diplomatic negotiations and peace talks aren't going to achieve anything. It's not like Obama or Cameron is going to sit down with Gaddafi and negotiate something; UN has kept it's peace to the people, which is its aim, not governments. If the UN can prevent civilian deaths with bombings, then has it done its job? I think so.
DavidL said:
Ah but my point was that the UN did nothing when Mugabe was ripping his own country apart, which was not that long ago?
.....also Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, have all been guilty of turning on their own people in this current crisis and likewise the Tibet pro-democracy people a few years back, what have the UN done.......nothing, well certainly not air strikes that's for sure?
...and as for Libya, civilians are deliberately congregating in the area's that are being targeted by the bombers, if the bombing continues there WILL be civilian deaths.
I'm not alone in this opinion, a poll taken this morning on a UK TV show showed that the majority of British residents agreed, it is not our war and non of our business and AGAIN our forces will be needlessly losing lives.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Misstake, first, our forces won't be losing any lives. These are air and naval missions. No one is on the ground.
And the reason why the UN didn't step in when Mugabe was tearing through his people was because they didn't have the same power and influence, and also because there was no popular uprising. There was no equiped rebel force that was being bombed. There is here, and here, we see the international community voting to do this. This was not Iraq. This isn't the US and the UK going in like a bunch of idiots.
The reason why airstrikes are occurring is to take out air defenses so our planes aren't shot down. It's not like airstrikes are being initiated on random places to weaken the country.
And the reason why the UN didn't step in when Mugabe was tearing through his people was because they didn't have the same power and influence, and also because there was no popular uprising. There was no equiped rebel force that was being bombed. There is here, and here, we see the international community voting to do this. This was not Iraq. This isn't the US and the UK going in like a bunch of idiots.
The reason why airstrikes are occurring is to take out air defenses so our planes aren't shot down. It's not like airstrikes are being initiated on random places to weaken the country.
Affiliates
