Poll: Did the UN Just Declare War on Libya?! Yes they did

[katsabas]

It is their independence and they have to fight for it.

Funny thing is wars of independence are often waged by the rebelling faction who courts and gains support of other nations. If the French did not ally with the British colonial rebels, I would be saluting the Union Jack, instead of the Stars and Stripes.

Back then, the world didn't need to get involved in the war simply to get their hands on today's black gold. Philhellenism is an example comes to mind as an example of selfless dedication from people you don't even know. Look up Lord Byron and Eugène Delacroix. But that is dead. The notion of romanticism is long gone. If war is really going to happen, it will not be for the well-being of the Libyans.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I'm always amused and interested in why people who are quick to say, "So and so is a brutal tyrant dictator madman murdering bastard who MUST be stopped! It is IMPERATIVE that this regime be stopped from doing whatever horrific thing it is that they are doing immediately by military intervention!" are still around to make such statements.

Those of you who believe in such sentiments, why haven't you grabbed your guns and at this very moment on an aircraft heading to Libya or whatever country you believe needs your aid? It's all well and good to sit back and talk about how much the people of wherever need help to obtain "freedom," but if you believe so strongly in that, why are you sitting back letting someone ELSE's brother, father, mother, sister, daughter, uncle, etc go fight and potentially DIE for your belief?

Grab your gun and go live up to your words. Go join the rebels and try to kill Qaddafi yourself, put YOUR OWN LIFE in jeopardy to help the Libyans or the Rwandans or the Lilliputians or whomever. But don't sit around casually condemning others to a meaningless death just because its something you think someone else should die for.

 

[Fleischer]

Back then, the world didn't need to get involved in the war simply to get their hands on today's black gold. Philhellenism is an example comes to mind as an example of selfless dedication from people you don't even know. Look up Lord Byron and Eugène Delacroix. But that is dead. The notion of romanticism is long gone. If war is really going to happen, it will not be for the well-being of the Libyans.

From the sources I've been able to track down [http://www.libyaonline.com/business/pages.php?cid=311], Libya doesn't have much more oil than Nigeria. It's a large sum of oil; however, it is not the greatest reserve out there. Even with the world being what is it, I have faith that the UN is setting up the no-fly zone, as well as authorizing further action if civilians are endangered, to save human life, not gain access to Libyan oil.

The Romantics are an interesting bunch, but I'm not going to base my political stances on people who favor emotion over logic. They're just too flighty of a bunch to provide a compass for world events. That said, I might have to crack open my old anthologies and read some Keats and Gray.

 

[Laxman9292]

There are many dimensions to this conflict, it's just a matter of who looks like the bigger dickhead. Right now it looks like the dickhead levels are even, though Libya will surely be made into an enemy of the world thanks the media.

Soooooo yeah, you guys have fun realizing the that war never ends. I gotta watch my NCAA brackets.

Or they will be made into an enemy of the world due to Libya's consistently low standards in the area of human rights. Maybe sometimes enemies are made because they should be. I for one am all for this no-fly zone (NOT A WAR PEOPLE! Jeez do a little reading/research), and if war needs to be declared to preserve basic human rights that the people want and simply were not strong enough to take it for themselves without help then I am all for it. This is not just some imposing of democracy on another nation, nor is is a power grab for oil. It is to ensure that all people have the right to not be murdered by their own government.

To state again, sometimes making a nation an enemy of the world and/or declaring war is warranted. If people like you and others who want to plug their ears and pretend nothing is going on or even worse, pretend that Libya does not deserve this, were alive during WWII we would all be speaking German right now as you say, "Have fun realizing war never ends. I gotta watch my friends and family be murdered for wanting basic human rights."

 

[yoyo13rom]

this is a civial war we should stay out of it

This is the short answer.
Now for the long useless rant(I feel like letting some steam out):

Neo-libs everywhere are rejoicing. Remember ? war is evil unless it?s sprinkled with the magic pixie dust of UN endorsement and ?humanitarian? rhetoric, in which case the dead bodies, the terror, and the screaming children are all worth it. The fact that Libya is the richest oil nation on the entire African continent is a mere coincidence. Go back to sleep ? basketball is on the TV. Soon you?ll be able to crack open a 6 pack and enjoy the air strikes like you would a Dwyane Wade slam dunk.
This is precisely what we predicted before Obama even took office?.
?Obama may eventually withdraw a portion of troops from Iraq, but mark our words, they won?t be home long before they are sent off to bomb another broken-backed third world country, this time in the name of a United Nations-backed ?humanitarian? war, just as Bill Clinton presided over in Somalia and Serbia with the full support of the establishment political left.?
-Paul Joseph Watson

Despite Mr. Watson's opinion about oil, I'm more concerned about the waging war thing, not that Libya wasn't doing a good job of that already

You're being very cynical about this. Iraq is honestly better off for the intervention despite the horrific motives and corrupt ideals that were backing it.

Sure, we might be going in to Libya in the spirit of capitalism, but if the west can prevent a mad dictator from regaining his grip on a nation to then punish the revolutionaries who opposed him in the name of nothing more complex than democracy, then that's a victory in one way. The West is certainly interested in profit more than anything, but putting a stop to Gaddafi and his forces and allowing the opposition to set up their own democratic government is preferable to leaving it in the name of pacifism. Interventions aren't simply black-and-white, you know. Yeah, we'll have to pay a price of human life, but I consider the well-being of humans everywhere (regardless of nation) is paramount, and if people can come out of this better off than before and be free of a madman thanks to the UN's involvement then I would say "roll on" even if it was just a side-effect of imperialist greed masquerading as humanitarianism.

I also noticed you seem to have a particularly anti-left bent to your opening post, which is rather curious given recent wars...

Anyway, you seem to think that we're all just sitting round like sheeple going "hur hur, dur gunna be a wor on some bad folks over in sum new country!" Well, actually a lot of us have thought about it, we're not all lowbrow hicks hypnotized by the TV just because we disagree with you. I'm not in favour of killing, but I am in favour of it if we're going to be rolling in to wipe out the pro-Gaddafi forces in an attempt to improve people's lives there and set up a peaceful order[footnote]I never ever thought I would find myself backing war of any kind....[/footnote]. I may feel humiliated if a new hateful regime comes to power or Libya ends up completely ruined, desolate and exploited. in which case, you can send me a big smug message about how my somewhat romantic assumptions came back to bite me in the ass and the intervention ends up doing more harm than good.

Ok, let's try to imagine this little scenario:
"The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and the democrats/liberals/those how hold a grudge against the president go like: Obama is evil, he crossed the line, he imposed law X that violates [insert human right here]! Oh the fed's and the CIA won't do anything of it because they're corrupt as well and the people that aren't with us have been brainwashed/duped/bribed/fool buy the government! We are the last how for the US: REVOLUTION/CIVIL WAR! Oh, noz, we can't win, please UN/NATO/[insert military power here] save us, and help us establish what kind of government ruling you/we want; democracy/his fake democracy is evil and if you don't help us our leaders will end up invading and nuking your countries!"

Now if Obama didn't have such a good reputation worldwide and everyone would consider him a creep, wouldn't you get the same shit as in Libya?

Anyway, I'm not trying to say that democracy is wrong or that the government is evil, or any of those stuff(although I didn't come up with any other imaginary example that doesn't make it sound like that). All I'm trying to say is that people should let others sort their own shit out. (And that war is evil buy I'm 100% bias)

 

[3aqua]

Yeah because the last time we interfered with a 3rd world country to get rid of a dictator it went sooooo well

 

[Fleischer]

Yeah because the last time we interfered with a 3rd world country to get rid of a dictator it went sooooo well

I'm not wholly sure that Iraq was a third world nation; in fact, Iraq had one of the most developed economies, save Israel. Saddam was a bloodthirsty dictator, but he allowed the secular portion of his popular push forward in technology, which aided their overall economy and gross domestic product.

 

[Fleischer]

Ok, let's try to imagine this little scenario:
"The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and the democrats/liberals/those how hold a grudge against the president go like: Obama is evil, he crossed the line, he imposed law X that violates [insert human right here]! Oh the fed's and the CIA won't do anything of it because they're corrupt as well and the people that aren't with us have been brainwashed/duped/bribed/fool buy the government! We are the last how for the US: REVOLUTION/CIVIL WAR! Oh, noz, we can't win, please UN/NATO/[insert military power here] save us, and help us establish what kind of government ruling you/we want; democracy/his fake democracy is evil and if you don't help us our leaders will end up invading and nuking your countries!"

Now if Obama didn't have such a good reputation worldwide and everyone would consider him a creep, wouldn't you get the same shit as in Libya?

No, he wouldn't. Obama has not gravely infringed upon the civil rights of his citizens. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed the right to the West Baptist Church to have freedom of speech, even if they find their message to be completely reprehensible. If you want to look at an explanation as to when and why a people can revolt against their government, look no further than the United State's Declaration of Independence [http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html]:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Pretty clear? When a government violates the social contract which requires governments to respect the civil rights of their citizens, then it is the DUTY of the citizens to rebel, destroy and then create a new government.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say that democracy is wrong or that the government is evil, or any of those stuff(although I didn't come up with any other imaginary example that doesn't make it sound like that). All I'm trying to say is that people should let others sort their own shit out. (And that war is evil buy I'm 100% bias)

Your statement is not in line with what the United Nation's Charter [http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtm] states:

From Article 1 - "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"

From Article 48 - "The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members."

It is the duty of members of the United Nation to confront a group or government when they infringe upon the rights of people. If nations sit by and "let others sort their own shit out," then those minorities across the world has no hope against a government that wants to commit genocide. Libya is a situation where a larger force - the UN - needs to step in and put a petulant party - Ghadaffi's government - in check. It is up to the Libyan people to topple him; however, without outside support, they will be completely unable to do so.

 

[thunderbug]

I'm always amused and interested in why people who are quick to say, "So and so is a brutal tyrant dictator madman murdering bastard who MUST be stopped! It is IMPERATIVE that this regime be stopped from doing whatever horrific thing it is that they are doing immediately by military intervention!" are still around to make such statements.

Those of you who believe in such sentiments, why haven't you grabbed your guns and at this very moment on an aircraft heading to Libya or whatever country you believe needs your aid? It's all well and good to sit back and talk about how much the people of wherever need help to obtain "freedom," but if you believe so strongly in that, why are you sitting back letting someone ELSE's brother, father, mother, sister, daughter, uncle, etc go fight and potentially DIE for your belief?

Grab your gun and go live up to your words. Go join the rebels and try to kill Qaddafi yourself, put YOUR OWN LIFE in jeopardy to help the Libyans or the Rwandans or the Lilliputians or whomever. But don't sit around casually condemning others to a meaningless death just because its something you think someone else should die for.

So what people are not allowed views and beliefs unless there in the military?

Thats a evil way to be thinking friend.

Just saying u might u wanna be careful, so u dont find yourself going "one million dollars" with your pinky finger next to your mouth.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I'm always amused and interested in why people who are quick to say, "So and so is a brutal tyrant dictator madman murdering bastard who MUST be stopped! It is IMPERATIVE that this regime be stopped from doing whatever horrific thing it is that they are doing immediately by military intervention!" are still around to make such statements.

Those of you who believe in such sentiments, why haven't you grabbed your guns and at this very moment on an aircraft heading to Libya or whatever country you believe needs your aid? It's all well and good to sit back and talk about how much the people of wherever need help to obtain "freedom," but if you believe so strongly in that, why are you sitting back letting someone ELSE's brother, father, mother, sister, daughter, uncle, etc go fight and potentially DIE for your belief?

Grab your gun and go live up to your words. Go join the rebels and try to kill Qaddafi yourself, put YOUR OWN LIFE in jeopardy to help the Libyans or the Rwandans or the Lilliputians or whomever. But don't sit around casually condemning others to a meaningless death just because its something you think someone else should die for.

So what people are not allowed views and beliefs unless there in the military?

Thats a evil way to be thinking friend.

Just saying u might u wanna be careful, so u dont find yourself going "one million dollars" with your pinky finger next to your mouth.

No, that's not at all what I said. What I said was that you should be ready to back up or support what you believe. Don't just believe it, but then turn around and be a hypocrite by refusing to do that which you believe in. Pretty simple concept, but I do recall someone putting it in much simpler terms:

"Put up or shut up."

 

[yoyo13rom]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you in the slightest. What is it you're saying? your comment isn't making a lot of sense.

Don't worry I usually don't make any sense
All I wanted to say is that war is bad, no matter what and every country should solve it's own internal conflicts.