Techious
http://www.techious.com/forums/

PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?
http://www.techious.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=6971
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Si [ Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

So a quite "current affairs" poll this week, should the UN be involved with Libya in their current attempt to stop Gaddafi?

Author:  Skillers [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Involved? Definitely. It's the UNs job to be involved with world affairs.

Militarily? Yes, but carefully. Gaddafi has gone a bit crazy and is attempting to kill thousands of members of the public there, but a full invasion is not what is needed.

Author:  Lord Metritutus [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Skillers wrote:
Involved? Definitely. It's the UNs job to be involved with world affairs.

Militarily? Yes, but carefully. Gaddafi has gone a bit crazy and is attempting to kill thousands of members of the public there, but a full invasion is not what is needed.


As far as I am aware no full-scale invasion is going on, no ground troops are being committed I believe. Not yet, anyway.

Author:  Skillers [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Exactly, they are doing what I think they should be doing, atm; protecting the people by taking out aircraft and strategically striking military bases.

Author:  Hawke [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Yes, of course.

Author:  Si [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

So it seems most people are in favour, though quite a few (quite rightly) don't want things going too far, though there is just one No.

Author:  Skillers [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

I'd be quite interested to know the reasoning behind the no, actually.

Author:  DHR-107 [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Skillers wrote:
I'd be quite interested to know the reasoning behind the no, actually.


History. Nearly every fully developed country went through a phase just like this one, a revolution which overturned oppressive government. Whilst it is distressing to people and I agree that Gadaffi has to go, I do not think we should of gotten involved so soon. We didn't get involved in Tunisia, Egypt or Bahrain...

Granted he has a military which he is now using to force the civilians into line, it's OUR surplus arms which he is using. Blair sold them to him...

If that hadn't of happened it may have gone differently and we may of never had to get involved. The other reason is obviously Oil. Libya is one of the biggest exporters of oil in the world. If Gadaffi is left in charge, we won't get any oil from there (I don't know how much we get from there anyway, but you get the point). Going into military action for that whilst not publicised reason is wrong. Just like the Invasion to Iraq was wrong.

Flame me all you want, as of now, I would probably agree that action needs to be taken. At the time I voted I didn't know much of what had been going on, so I was voting on the principle we shouldn't get involved in other nations political and historical growth. We didn't for the other nations involved in all this uprising stuff...

Author:  Skillers [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Not going to flame, was actually looking for an interesting discussion.

The issue with Libya as opposed to Tunisia, Egypt etc is that the revolution isn't working. It started off alright, but now Gadaffi has pulled military power out and is bombing the rebels. Tunisia and Egypt lasted about a week of relatively peaceful protests - the militaries were barely involved in either (infact, in Egypt, the military was on the side of the rebels).

As for it being our arms that we sold to him, I don't see that as a reason we shouldn't help. Also, if it wasn't us, it would have just been another country, like China, I don't see any issue in us making money when either way it wouldn't make any difference to the end result.

Oil wise, we already get loads of oil from Gadaffi, I don't think it makes much difference and for once, I don't think this is about oil. Bear in mind this is not just the US+UK (+ a few other smaller countries) like Iraq, but the UN (a few countries abstained, like Russia and China, but they were expected to veto as they usually do). The first planes in Libya were actually French.

Yes, it would be best if we didn't get involved, but unlike the other countries this has turned into a civil war, pretty much. There should also probably be more coverage about what's going on in Bahrain, as that's getting pretty nasty from what I've seen.

Author:  schlurbi [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

Gaddafi himself is probably one of the main Issues why the Alliance started the Bombings. He mostly speaks Garbage (you should read a few Quotes), you've seen how he uses his Military Forces, he'd do a lot of bad Stuff for unnecessary Reasons, for Example he took swiss Hostages when one of his Sons was arrested for Violence and possible Slavery in Switzerland.

You now see the Result of his Actions. He was kicked out of the UNO, his own Folk is rebelling, the Alliance is bombing his Military, etc.

*No Colour because of srz bznz

Author:  Wigouche [ Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

i acturly blame the military in libia more than gaddafi , if they stood up and sed thy wouldnt shoot at there own contrymen ( like the successsfull rebelions) rather than being 2 arfriad of(or bourght out by) someone who without them would b powerless to do anything atall against the rebbel and mite have been over and done with by now without bloodsheed, theres no excuess for a hevily armed soldier shooting unarmed protesters or bombing civilian areas yet a lot of reports are coming out as such, even if its under orders they should b able to think for themselve and see how wrong it is.

currently i agree with the un millitaryt action but see no reason to get involved in anythi8ng than defencive action afainst millitary. once there out of the picture gadafi will ether b foced into exile or forcfully removed by his own people .

Author:  Skillers [ Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the "military" Gadaffi is using are actually mercenaries from nearby countries. I also know that a few of the Libyan military did refuse to attack - the first fighter jets ordered to bomb the rebels flew to Malta.

Author:  Wigouche [ Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PotW 20Mar11: Should the UN be involved with Libya?

yeah i know but still tru that a large amout still doin it and the mercs are why i put the bought out bit , its still stand that thyv got as bad if not worce morals to attack civilian

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/