• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

That's reasonable. If it has a good chance to work then I'd agree we should try that before direct US military intervention.

Something has to be done about Qaddafi's tanks and artillery as well. But taking out his air assets would be a positive step.

I favor the covert military aid approach. If the U.S. joins a no fly zone, I would not object, but believe the Transitional National Council in Libya should directly and formally request the no fly zone before it is created. However, I don't believe the U.S. should directly intervene to topple Gadhafi's regime. That latter outcome would create an opportunity for Gadhafi's loyalists to recast the revolution as a foreign undertaking and even after the regime is driven from power, the risk of a civil war would be greatly increased.
 
Because the other African and ME nations aren't going to do anything even if they could. The UN is still having meetings.

The Libyan people have little love for the US, but intervening on their side will not be forgotten. Neither will sitting on our hands.

There is a reason the people of Libya are looking toward the US for help. Our enemies are gauging our response as well and so far they have been encouraged.

We are not the ever-forgiving parent who continuously bails the bad child out of jail.

And I don't know where this 'the US IS the world's savior' sentiment even came from - we most certainly have abstained in the past from involving in the heavier affairs of the world and entered late into WWI, WWII - and so on - until it more heavily affected us.

All I know is that in the last decade our efforts to intervene on a country's behalf has created such serious problems for ourselves that we haven't dug ourselves out, yet - and we're still quite immersed in THOSE issues.

This would just add another layer of **** onto our problems and complicate things even more.
 
If North Korea had succeeded in conquering South Korea, the territory controlled by totalitarian governments would have expanded and the risk to neighboring states would have increased. At that time, the situation in Japan was still quite fragile with reconstruction under way.

In Libya, if the Gadhafi regime prevails (unlikely in the end, though it could hold on to part of the country for an extended period of time if it can gain/hold some of the oil facilities), that status quo would remain essentially unchanged. If Gadhafi's opponents win--and I hope they do--then there may be opportunity for a friendlier Libya (to Western interests), though the transition to political stability could be treacherous.

Even if one applied the 1950s era "domino theory," Libya's revolution and North Korea's invasion of South Korea are not analogous.

I was responding to the question posed by Radical Ron (no relation)
Originally Posted by Radical Ron
Why is intervention seemingly so necessary.


In my opinion South Korea is an excellent example of the free people of the world standing up to aggression. At that time it was communism. Today it’s tyrannical despots slaughtering their own people.

Either in 1930’s Europe, 1950’s South Korea or today in Libya intervention was/is necessary. That’s the point I’m making. I can’t speak for adpst, but it seems that was his point as well.

I’m well aware of the obvious strategic differences between 1950’s Korea and Libya today.
 
I favor the covert military aid approach. If the U.S. joins a no fly zone, I would not object, but believe the Transitional National Council in Libya should directly and formally request the no fly zone before it is created. However, I don't believe the U.S. should directly intervene to topple Gadhafi's regime. That latter outcome would create an opportunity for Gadhafi's loyalists to recast the revolution as a foreign undertaking and even after the regime is driven from power, the risk of a civil war would be greatly increased.

I don't believe a no-fly-zone is a good idea. It would take a massive air effort to be effective and would hinder, but not stop, Qaddafi's ground offensives. Taking out his air assets quickly and decisively is a better option over a NFZ.

Any effective measure short of direct US military intervention should be tried first. I think we're past diplomacy with Qaddafi. Besides some sort of armed intervention to cripple his military I don't know what else will work.
 
With respect to the Transitional National Council (TNC), it seems that they have called for a no-fly zone minutes ago. From BBC:

1346: The first meeting of the Transitional National Council, the administration set up to represent opponents of Col Gaddafi is being held in Benghazi. Spokesman Mustafa Gheriani told the BBC World Service they were trying to build a government from scratch. "We would like the international communtiy to recognise the council and not to deal with Mr Gaddafi anymore." He called for a no-fly zone in Libya and tactical strikes on some of Gaddafi strongholds: "We need everyhing short of having foot soldiers on our land," he said.

1348: Mr Gheriani of the TNC also said Libya was rich in resources including oil, and "we will remember who our friends are and we will definitely reward them greatly". He added: "We are secure in the east of the country for at least six months."

The latter statement could be aimed at helping make it more in various countries' national interest to recognize the TNC and participate/support a no-fly zone.

IMO, formal diplomatic recognition should be given to the TNC. I would not object to U.S. participation in a no-fly zone given the TNC's request for it. Arab League support for the no-fly zone would be ideal.

Having said that, I still do not believe U.S. military intervention should go beyond that. Hence, I don't believe the U.S. should carry out tactical air strikes, except those that might be necessary to implement a no-fly zone. It can and should provide weapons to the TNC and perhaps satellite Intelligence. But the fighting should be carried out by Libyans.
 
I don't believe a no-fly-zone is a good idea. It would take a massive air effort to be effective and would hinder, but not stop, Qaddafi's ground offensives. Taking out his air assets quickly and decisively is a better option over a NFZ.

Any effective measure short of direct US military intervention should be tried first. I think we're past diplomacy with Qaddafi. Besides some sort of armed intervention to cripple his military I don't know what else will work.

My preference is covert arms aid e.g., supplying a limited arsenal of anti-aircraft weapons. I won't object to U.S. participation in a no-fly zone, but it isn't my preference.

As for diplomacy, I believe the U.S. should recognize the TNC as the transitional Libyan government. Given Gadhafi's strained relationship with the U.S., I don't believe the U.S. could contribute much to diplomatically persuading him to step down. Some other states with stronger ties might have such diplomatic capabilities.
 
We are not the ever-forgiving parent who continuously bails the bad child out of jail.

And I don't know where this 'the US IS the world's savior' sentiment even came from - we most certainly have abstained in the past from involving in the heavier affairs of the world and entered late into WWI, WWII - and so on - until it more heavily affected us.

All I know is that in the last decade our efforts to intervene on a country's behalf has created such serious problems for ourselves that we haven't dug ourselves out, yet - and we're still quite immersed in THOSE issues.

This would just add another layer of **** onto our problems and complicate things even more.

We are not the world’s police force and this wouldn't be bailing out a wayward child IMO.

This presents another opportunity for the US to side with people fighting for freedoms, human rights and self determination in a part of the world where such things have been practically non-existent.

We understand that free and peaceful nations are easier to deal with than nations run by dictators and terrorists. Our foreign policy efforts over the last few decades have been to achieve just that.
 
With respect to the Transitional National Council (TNC), it seems that they have called for a no-fly zone minutes ago. From BBC:



The latter statement could be aimed at helping make it more in various countries' national interest to recognize the TNC and participate/support a no-fly zone.

IMO, formal diplomatic recognition should be given to the TNC. I would not object to U.S. participation in a no-fly zone given the TNC's request for it. Arab League support for the no-fly zone would be ideal.

Having said that, I still do not believe U.S. military intervention should go beyond that. Hence, I don't believe the U.S. should carry out tactical air strikes, except those that might be necessary to implement a no-fly zone. It can and should provide weapons to the TNC and perhaps satellite Intelligence. But the fighting should be carried out by Libyans.

I hope the TNC succeeds in their efforts. I'd like to help them any way possible and if US intervention can be avoided then I’m all for that.

I still don’t believe a NFZ will stop Qaddafi. I could be wrong.

Nice find with the BBC article.
 
I feel for the people but our getting involved is a bad idea. This is part of the problem with Muslim country's etc hating us. We need to mind our own business. Not like we don't have enough problems of our own to work out.
 
s there some ratio you have that translates the amount of oil you produce into the number you are allowed to kill before we intervene.

geeez.. tell us you're not one of those 'no blood for oil' nimrods... if we were in Iraq for the free oil, why is it costing me double to fill my tank from about a year ago?
 
Back
Top Bottom