• 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!

Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

Is Our tyrant better than their "tyrant" ?

"Uzbekistan's Stalinist strongman, Islam Karimov, brutally clamped down on a mass demonstration in Andijan against corruption and arbitrary detentions in May 2005, killing 500 and wounding 2,000, but Washington echoed the Uzbek government's claim that it was the handiwork of "Islamic terrorists".

Karimov, at the time of the tulip-revolution-inspired stirrings, had been the US's staunchest ally in the war on terrorism in central Asia, an insurance policy against democratisation pressures."


Democratisation, NGOs and "colour revolutions" | openDemocracy
 
Not to give into a lot of fabrications and truth-stretching some people are using, I just want to say that their seems to be this consensus that if everyone is saying something, then it must be true. However, many people argued that the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, when it was in reality false. Everyone said that Iraq had WMDs, we all know now that that was false. Many argued that the overthrow of the shah in Iran was due to the people, when it wasn't. In 1962, the US was planning to launch terrorist attacks on US soil as an excuse to blame Cuba (see here as well) and if that had occurred, everyone would have been blaming Cuba but that would not have been true.

My point being that we need to look at things from outside the box, just because everyone is saying something doesn't mean is true.
 
Just heard on NPR that some Italian journalists have been kidnapped. Yesterday I was watching coverage and saw journalists right in the middle of the fighting. I find it highly irresponsible for networks to put reporters at risk. They do the same during hurricanes. Putting reporters at risk is not better coverage.
 
This is a no fly zone, not a full scale war. The German military, the largest in Europe, is prepared enough to help us in Afghanistan, so they are prepared enough to enforce a no fly zone, but hey are not in NATO nor do they want to get involved on their own. I'd say the British has enough fighting force to enforce a no fly zone by themselves. They involved themselves in Iraq and we are in NATO, so if we can do it, I don't see why they can't...
He invaded Iraq. You can compare and speculate on their motives, but also be mindful of the obvious differences.
The facts are, Gaddafi had more power than the rebels and the rebels were losing, and he was willing to kill them all. Now we can speculate that the rebels knew all this when they decided to rise up against Gadaffi and his military. We can also speculate that they were counting on outside force to give them an upper hand.

I think that that is a good speculation.

They even knew what they wanted NATO to do.

0516-OHEARING-LIBYA-ICC-Qaddafi_full_380.jpg


But still, Libya is different. It isn't like Iraq. It's not even like Iran. When the Iranians were protesting after the elections, some people thought America should do something and get involved. America didn't get involved. Iran was actively trying to overthrow their government... they were rioting, but it wasn't a full blown revolutionary war.

The situation in Libya isn't a simple revolutionary war either, because the leader was attacking and murdering people. Gaddafi's murderous actions is what likely caused the protests to escalate into a full blown rebellion.

NATO decided to get involved on the legal grounds that Gaddafi was committing international crimes. NATO is protecting the civilians, but NATO is also helping to overthrow Gaddafi by enforcing the no fly zone. It could be very likely that NATO is more interested in killing Gadaffi than saving civilians. I wouldn't doubt it, but at the same time, they have legitimate reasons to enforce a no fly zone. It's not like NATO is breaking international law.

We have seen presidents issue bombing campaigns for less cause than this.
So...Syria huh? And Bahrain? Saudi?
 
Back
Top Bottom