• 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
Kandahar

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's not often that I agree with George Will rather than The Economist, but this week I think the conservative commentator got it exactly right by expressing extreme reluctance to get involved in Libya...even while the normally-reasonable Economist was beating the war drums.

Some of the questions that Will poses:

- If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
-If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
-Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
-Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
-Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
-Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
-In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?

George F. Will - On Libya, too many questions
Click to expand...

I think that those who want to impose a no-fly zone need to clearly articulate what problem it will solve. Most of the aircraft that have been killing rebels are helicopters, not bombers. A no-fly zone won't stop them.

Furthermore, it is simply not reasonable to expect any mission to go perfectly. Are we really prepared to be implicated in the deaths of Libyan civilians? Are we prepared to escalate the mission by putting troops on the ground if Gaddafi escalates it? The National Libyan Council (i.e. the semi-official umbrella group for the rebels) has specifically asked the West NOT to intervene with troops on the ground. It is highly unlikely that our presence would be welcomed, especially if we're killing civilians.
 
The US will only create itself a worse name if tries to help because civilians will die and some of those deaths at least will be blamed on us.
I don't think we should help the people who specifically asked us not to help them when it comes to fighting.
 
iamitter said:
The US will only create itself a worse name if tries to help because civilians will die and some of those deaths at least will be blamed on us.
I don't think we should help the people who specifically asked us not to help them when it comes to fighting.
Click to expand...

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.
 
All of the above. The USA should not get involved unilaterally. If NATO votes to get involved, then we of course should be part of the NATO force... but all NATO countries must understand that "friendly" civilians will be killed by NATO actions during the scope of their involvement in a Libyan civil war. About the only thing NATO could immediately do to help the rebels would be to bomb military fighters and helicopters while they are on the tarmack... understanding that in doing so, Libyan forces have enough anti-aircraft arms to potentially blow a few NATO fighters out of the sky.

I understand the stomach-turning knots that most of us feel when watching the horrific news of what is happening over there. We WANT to help those poor people. The problem is that no matter what we do to help, it will end up hurting at least some of them... and for that, they will never forgive us.

Edit: I voted in the wrong box. I have no problem with sending humanitarian aid.
 
Last edited:
I say do nothing...absolutely nothing. England use to own them. Let them sort it.
 
DiAnna said:
All of the above. The USA should not get involved unilaterally. If NATO votes to get involved, then we of course should be part of the NATO force... but all NATO countries must understand that "friendly" civilians will be killed by NATO actions during the scope of their involvement in a Libyan civil war. About the only thing NATO could immediately do to help the rebels would be to bomb military fighters and helicopters while they are on the tarmack... understanding that in doing so, Libyan forces have enough anti-aircraft arms to potentially blow a few NATO fighters out of the sky.

I understand the stomach-turning knots that most of us feel when watching the horrific news of what is happening over there. We WANT to help those poor people. The problem is that no matter what we do to help, it will end up hurting at least some of them... and for that, they will never forgive us.
Click to expand...

Would you support giving them supplies (food, clothing, water) and do the humanitarian aid or nothing at all.. ?
 
Ockham said:
Would you support giving them supplies (food, clothing, water) and do the humanitarian aid or nothing at all.. ?
Click to expand...

I already edited my post to confess I had accidentally hit the wrong box. I would support humanitarian supplies, of course.
 
There's only one thing the west can do to end this crisis.

They must send in...

Chuck_Norris.jpg


Chuck Norris.
 
I said no-fly zone and food and humanitarian assistance. But even a no-fly zone carries with it certain implications and consequences, as it is essentially an act of war, so if it is implemented we really need to be careful. As the saying goes, "You break it, you buy it."
 
In my opinion, we should stay out of it. We are not the world's police and we cannot afford to be. We have international organizations that can provide humanitarian assistance (most of which are supported by the U.S.). As far as providing arms or political support...the Libyan people need to determine their own fate. The only point where we should get involved is if Libyans are all dying from starvation/thirst/etc.
 
We should continue to try and persuade the NATO forces and the European countries to have a unanimous decision to enforce a no-fly zone. That way, people can't come back later and blame the U.S. for everything for just trying to help. Just like what George Bush Senior did.
 
NATO will basically go along with whatever the US decides regarding a no-fly zone over Libya. I just question why it's necessary. A no-fly zone will most likely result in civilian casualties, could very possibly result in NATO casualties, and probably won't even accomplish the intended goal unless we're willing to escalate the conflict.
 
Last edited:
Let's face it the only concern here is oil. If there wasn't oil involved this would be a global speedbump. The only reason to take any action would be to secure the oilfields. Gaddafi doesn't care much about his own people. Why should we?
 
We need to stay out of it period, I would hope that our government would have learned the last two times but then again that might be asking a lot......
 
Resist the gov. said:
We need to stay out of it period, I would hope that our government would have learned the last two times but then again that might be asking a lot......
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between all three situations: intervening the middle of a humanitarian crisis and potential civil war, retaliating after a terrorist attack, and invading a soveign nation based on bad intelligence and false pretexts.
 
I say STAY OUT OF IT! I dont want one tax dollar helping anyone in that Country and I dont want one American even HURT! No more Afghanistan-like crap!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Until we can drill in anwar, mine shale, or drill closer to the coast let's secure that oil baby and get rid of that puke dictator...
 
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.
 
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.
 
LookingGlass said:
Yes it was. I stand corrected. I guess Italy's conspicuous absence has to do with the PM and all his current woes.
Click to expand...

No, it has to do with the fact that Berlusconi and Gaddafi are bosom buddies and have shared teenage prostitutes together.
 
Have we even been asked for help? If not, we certainly shouldn't be getting involved. And even if we were asked, I don't know how much aid we should be giving them. I'd be okay with some humanitarian aid if it was requested. I'd even be okay with some limited military intervention as part of NATO or UN forces, but that's about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom