• 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!

What, if anything, should the West do to help Libya?

What, if anything, should the West do to help Libya?

  • We should set up a no-fly zone

    Votes: 10 29.4%

  • We should invade Tripoli and depose Gaddafi

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • We should provide guns and ammo to the rebels

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • We should provide food and humanitarian assistance

    Votes: 18 52.9%

  • We should stay out of it entirely

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • Total voters
    34
Catawba said:
Exactly, the people have said they want to do this on their own! And in the view by the rest of the Middle East, our involvement would change it from a homegrown democratic movement to just another example of US military imperialism.
Click to expand...

US military imperialism? lol typical hippy talk
 
Cmdr Shepard said:
US military imperialism? lol typical hippy talk
Click to expand...

You don't read too well. He clearly said:
And in the view by the rest of the Middle East
Click to expand...
i.e. it's not his opinion but how he believes ME opinion would fall. What's hippy talk about that? You think the ME would applaud US military intervention in Libya?
 
A no-fly zone would be fraught with logistical impossibilities. The U.S. should not be directing anything, but should participate in whatever UN action is taken. And, we can send food and medicine.

We do not need another black hawk down scenario.
 
THERE ARE INNOCENTS ****ING DYING!!!!!


it'svery sim[ple






you.... [io]protect[/i].... the innocent.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Shouldn't the US remain out of this conflict? I mean, if Gadaffi(s) wins, the last thing we want is fore him to spew more anti-western propagadna to the rest of the world just because we provided assistance to the rebels.
Click to expand...

He's already been doing that for years. Nobody frankly gives a flying **** about his delusional rants.
 
repeter said:
Realistically, we can't afford to do anything in Libya, and I highly doubt we can depend on NATO or the UN to do anything of value, so I think we should provide intelligence, and set up something to help organize the rebels into a cohesive fighting force, at least on paper. We should provide theoretical support to the rebels, because I think its obvious they're oging to win, and we should do what we can so we're on good terms with the people of Libya.

EDIT: I also think it wouldn't hurt to divert a Predator to Libya and maybe just cut the head of the snake off.
Click to expand...

Predators are useless if you don't have good human intelligence assets on the ground that can tell you where the target will be at a certain time. Not to mention "cutting the head off the snake" carries with it certain moral and legal implications.
 
StillBallin75 said:
He's already been doing that for years. Nobody frankly gives a flying **** about his delusional rants.
Click to expand...

bingo..f ucke mhim **** the uN **** NATO, **** evryone else, wheen ethe ere arep oele dying in front of youa you DO furcking something.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Predators are useless if you don't have good human intelligence assets on the ground that can tell you where the target will be at a certain time. Not to mention "cutting the head off the snake" carries with it certain moral and legal implications.
Click to expand...

It was more a target of opportunity sort of thing. If we happen to get some SIGINT of Gaddhafi talking into a radio or cell phone from his palace, we should take the time to level the palace.

There are also major moral and legal implications when you allow Gaddhafi to murder his people en masse, and then turn around and lie to the world about it.
 
repeter said:
It was more a target of opportunity sort of thing. If we happen to get some SIGINT of Gaddhafi talking into a radio or cell phone from his palace, we should take the time to level the palace.

There are also major moral and legal implications when you allow Gaddhafi to murder his people en masse, and then turn around and lie to the world about it.
Click to expand...

The good thing is that they are being given a chance to fight back. I personally hope they're successful, but the decision for the West to intervene is not a simple black-and-white choice. Each choice carries with it consequences, including the choice to decide to intervene or take out a particular head of state.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The good thing is that they are being given a chance to fight back. I personally hope they're successful, but the decision for the West to intervene is not a simple black-and-white choice. Each choice carries with it consequences, including the choice to decide to intervene or take out a particular head of state.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there aren't some consequences along with the any decision to intervene, but given the circumstances, my opinion is that they warrant intervention on behalf of the rebels.

To quote cpwill, "wheen ethe ere arep oele dying in front of youa you DO furcking something."
 
repeter said:
I'm not saying there aren't some consequences along with the any decision to intervene, but given the circumstances, my opinion is that they warrant intervention on behalf of the rebels.

To quote cpwill, "wheen ethe ere arep oele dying in front of youa you DO furcking something."
Click to expand...

If I were a Marine, I personally would like nothing more than to land on the beach at Tripoli and take that son of a bitch out myself. But for a President who is looking at the situation from a macro scale, it's not a simple matter of conscience and wanting to help those in need. If we intervened on behalf of everyone in the world who was getting massacred, we'd be in the Congo, we whould have been in the Sudan, too many ****ing places to count.

In addition we don't know who these rebels are. From everything I've learned, they are not a united force, there different factions fighting for different causes. How do we know some of the won't turn their backs on us once they're in power, as has happened multiple times throughout US foreign relations history? That's why I supported the no-fly zone, it is intervening but it's not really taking one side or another, rather preventing people from getting massacred from the air.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
bingo..f ucke mhim **** the uN **** NATO, **** evryone else, wheen ethe ere arep oele dying in front of youa you DO furcking something.
Click to expand...

Fight the saki! I know it's hard, but dammit, fight, man, fight! Put...the...glass...down... now!!! ;)
 
cpwill said:
THERE ARE INNOCENTS ****ING DYING!!!!!


it'svery sim[ple






you.... [io]protect[/i].... the innocent.
Click to expand...


Except it's NOT that simple. What do you propose doing - Air strikes or invasion? And how will either of those accomplish the goal of protecting the innocent? Will they result in more innocent casualties than they prevent? Where are the money/troops going to come from? How far should we be willing to escalate? Do you imagine that we will be welcomed by ANY of the parties involved?
 
Cephus said:
I have no problem providing humanitarian aid, but we should have no part whatsoever militarily. They don't want our help, we need to keep our nose out of other people's business.
Click to expand...

They actually do want our help, civilians are protesting asking for a no-fly zone
 
NATO sends ships to Libya, mulls no-fly zone
(AFP)

11 March 2011,
BRUSSELS — "NATO agreed Thursday to send more ships towards Libya’s coast but put off any decision on imposing a no-fly zone against the regime, saying it needed a clear legal mandate for military action.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the allied naval ships would bolster surveillance of Libya and monitor an arms embargo, amid an escalating war between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s loyalists and opposition forces.

“It has been decided to increase the presence of NATO maritime assets in the central Mediterranean,” he told a press conference after a meeting of defence chiefs.

However, there was no decision to launch a no-fly zone against Gaddafi’s regime — a step favoured by Britain and France but opposed by Germany — with the alliance endorsing further military planning if the United Nations endorsed the move.

“We considered as well initial options regarding a possible no fly-zone in case NATO were to receive a clear United Nations mandate,” he said. “Ministers agreed further planning will be required.”

But with Russia opposed to an air exclusion area, UN backing appeared unlikely for any move to shut down Gaddafi’s air force.

The session underscored divisions in the alliance over how to respond to the mounting conflict in Libya, with advocates of intervention worried about possible atrocities and the consequences of Gaddafi staying in power.

Many alliance ministers, including the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, remain wary of a no-fly zone or other military action, saying it poses a host of risks, including a possible anti-Western backlash in the Middle East.

NATO allies are “very mindful of opinion in the region,” Gates told reporters.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, planned to propose air strikes on Gaddafi’s command headquarters to EU leaders, a source close to discussions told AFP.

Until now, the most drastic measure advocated by some NATO members has been the imposition of a no-fly zone, not full-fledged bombing raids.

The ministers also called for urgent “detailed planning” for humanitarian efforts and for possible measures to enforce the arms embargo if called on by the UN Security Council, he said.

Thursday’s decision meant the top NATO commander, Admiral Jim Stavridis, had the authority to redeploy three warships already in the Mediterranean along with minesweeper vessels, said a NATO official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The United States, Britain and France have already deployed ships to the area, with the Americans sending three warships with hundreds of Marines on board.

Despite signs of discord over how to respond to the crisis, the NATO chief said the ministers were “united”.

“Our message today is NATO is united, NATO is vigilant, NATO is ready to act,” he said.

The ministers said any military intervention against Gaddafi would have to have a legal basis and support from countries in the region, he said.

Rasmussen said “if there is a demonstrable need, if we have a clear mandate and strong regional support, we stand ready to help.

“Time is of the essence.”

Rasmussen earlier announced the start of 24-hour surveillance of Libya’s air space with radar-equipped aircraft, saying that “we are watching what the Libyan regime does to its people very closely indeed.”

Although top US officials have sounded skeptical over a no-fly zone, there are signs Washington and its allies are mulling a possible plan of last-resort to deter Gaddafi from carrying out a mass slaughter of civilians from the air.

The US defence chief, Gates, has warned that a no-fly zone would entail attacks on air defense systems — which would likely be seen by Gaddafi and others as an act of war. "

NATO sends ships to Libya, mulls no-fly zone
 
NATO is a giant committee. By the time they decide to take a vote, the war will be over and Gadaffi will have won.
 
celticwar17 said:
They actually do want our help, civilians are protesting asking for a no-fly zone
Click to expand...

Yes but they've also specifically warned us not to send ground troops. So the question, then, is what happens if Gaddafi's forces shoot down one of our planes and/or take one of the pilots hostage? Do we escalate at that point?

Furthermore, what exactly are we trying to accomplish with the no-fly zone? It won't stop helicopters from gunning down rebels, which is the biggest air threat right now.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes but they've also specifically warned us not to send ground troops. So the question, then, is what happens if Gaddafi's forces shoot down one of our planes and/or take one of the pilots hostage? Do we escalate at that point?

Furthermore, what exactly are we trying to accomplish with the no-fly zone? It won't stop helicopters from gunning down rebels, which is the biggest air threat right now.
Click to expand...

Depends on how it's done. As for the pilot scenario, they'll definitely have TRAP teams on standby. Get the **** in, get the **** out. Real fast.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Depends on how it's done.
Click to expand...

Typically in a no-fly zone, the planes that patrol it fly at a considerably higher altitude than the helicopters that Gaddafi is using to shoot rebels. Furthermore, destroying the air bases would not necessarily ground helicopters.

StillBallin75 said:
As for the pilot scenario, they'll definitely have TRAP teams on standby. Get the **** in, get the **** out. Real fast.
Click to expand...

And what happens if the TRAP team is captured? This sounds like a recipe for a quagmire. And as much as I hate to draw comparisons between one foreign conflict and another, this is pretty much exactly how Black Hawk Down played out.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes but they've also specifically warned us not to send ground troops. So the question, then, is what happens if Gaddafi's forces shoot down one of our planes and/or take one of the pilots hostage? Do we escalate at that point?

Furthermore, what exactly are we trying to accomplish with the no-fly zone? It won't stop helicopters from gunning down rebels, which is the biggest air threat right now.
Click to expand...

What would have to be done is for NATO aircraft to take out all Gadaffi's fighters and helicopters on the tarmack. There is substantial evidence that the fighters are bombing rebel-held cities until they are nearly in ruins. Not that it matters. Clearly NATO hasn't changed since the 90's, when it wrung its hands for 5 years while Serbians massacred their way through Croatia and Bosnia.

If NATO doesn't do it, the USA should either decide to provide unilateral humanitarian aid or do nothing at all.
 
Typically in a no-fly zone, the planes that patrol it fly at a considerably higher altitude than the helicopters that Gaddafi is using to shoot rebels. Furthermore, destroying the air bases would not necessarily ground helicopters.
Click to expand...

Use low-flying fighter or attack aircraft, or use our own helicopters. There's definitely certain aircraft in our arsenal that can pick out an attack helicopter on radar (thinking F-15Es). Admittedly all options carry with them certain risks. I don't know the state of the Libyan air force's logistics train but we could also target jet fuel stores.

And what happens if the TRAP team is captured? This sounds like a recipe for a quagmire. And as much as I hate to draw comparisons between one foreign conflict and another, this is pretty much exactly how Black Hawk Down played out.
Click to expand...

You're spot on. I think the real risky business of enforcing a no-fly zone occurs within the first few days. After that it becomes a much more passive operation, so the window for something terrible to happen is rather short.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
What would have to be done is for NATO aircraft to take out all Gadaffi's fighters and helicopters on the tarmack. There is substantial evidence that the fighters are bombing rebel-held cities until they are nearly in ruins. Not that it matters. Clearly NATO hasn't changed since the 90's, when it wrung its hands for 5 years while Serbians massacred their way through Croatia and Bosnia.
Click to expand...

Actually we ruled the airspace over Serbia for over two months. But it didn't matter, because the major fighting was on the ground. That hardly speaks to our ability to implement serious change via a no-fly zone in Libya.

DiAnna said:
If NATO doesn't do it, the USA should either decide to provide unilateral humanitarian aid or do nothing at all.
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes, NATO is just a foreign policy arm of the US government when it comes to Libya. NATO will do whatever the United States wants, because any military operation will essentially be an American mission anyway. I agree that we should provide humanitarian aid, but I'm highly skeptical of any military involvement.
 
Actually we ruled the airspace over Serbia for over two months. But it didn't matter, because the major fighting was on the ground. That hardly speaks to our ability to implement serious change via a no-fly zone in Libya.
Click to expand...

That's very true. However some will argue that doing SOMETHING is better than doing nothing at all.
 
Help Libya? They've already got one foot in the grave, do they really need the push?

We could sell both sides guns and bombs, perhaps, to help our economy out.

But mostly we should sit back and enjoy the show of a nation willing to put bombs on civillian airplanes tearing itself up. Let them pile their bodies to the roof before we even thing about doing anything for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom