Support NeoGAF

[LOVE & TRUTH]

LOVE & TRUTH, stop joke-posting.

How can I joke when America and France has already murdered 49 people and wounded 150? Most of which are civilians.

This is a joke only for the civilized people like youself, my friend. Keep believing in "democracy" and "freedom".

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I applaud FoxNews and CNN - their brainwashing skills are incredible.

I get neither Fox News nor CNN because I'm Australian and I don't pay money for cable. Nice try though, your baseless accusation would have been correctly targeted 9 times out of 10.

Fantastic. You forgot to mention "democracy" and "freedom", that the people of Libya "unfortunately" lacks.

Blah blah blah. There's a revolution going on and the military is massacring civilians to try to put the revolution down. Either deny that this is occurring (some CNN conspiracy theory no doubt), or continue spewing your vile, amoral nonsense about how sovereignty trumps human rights and how we should protect dictators instead of civilian populations.

Either way, the only person you're convincing here is yourself.

 

[Joel Was Right]

So you support letting dictators do whatever they want with countries (ethnic cleansing, extermination etc) because they are "sovereign"? If not, then you admit that there are circumstances in which intervening is morally acceptable, and "help a country rebel against its oppressive dictatorship by denying them the ability to airstrike their own population" is assuredly one of them.

Read my above post.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Should the US intervene against every government that violently oppresses its people? Bahrain, Yemen, etc...where does it stop?

I think most people would like it if the House of Saud was eradicated from the face of the Earth.

Also, the US seemed pretty ambivalent about committing military forces to yet another foreign conflict. Most Americans are pretty dismayed about what a disaster everything that happened in Iraq ended up being and are growing very restless about continued involvement in Afghanistan. There's a reason why all the Americans are doing is sitting in ships off the coast firing missiles, we DO NOT WANT another invasion, we DO NOT WANT more of our soldiers getting killed for no apparent reason. So it's up the UK to do the heavy lifting here, it seems.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I honestly can´t see the actions against Libya ending without committing ground troops.
It is so disgusting that some of these dictators would rather have their people killed, their countries ruined, just to stay in power.

 

[KRS7]

As someone oblivious to the history, could you explain?

Guessing that refers to the American bombing of Libya in 1980s. Back then, France denied us event the right to fly over their territory, forcing us to go the long way.

 

[Veidt]

I honestly can´t see the actions against Libya ending without committing ground troops.
It is so disgusting that some of these dictators would rather have their people killed, their countries ruined, just to stay in power.

I hope the fact that most of these have been put in place/given support, by western nations, disgusts you more.

 

[KRS7]

How can I joke when America and France has already murdered 49 people and wounded 150? Most of which are civilians.

This is a joke only for the civilized people like youself, my friend. Keep believing in "democracy" and "freedom".

Russia killed over 200 civilians in Georgia. Let's nuke Moscow.

 

[Swifty]

I wish Russia wasn't governed by the american whores, then we'd beat the living hell out of the american and french murderers.

Hang on, Libya! The fight is not lost yet!

So there are no such things as Libyan rebels, the protests never happened, and Ghaddaffi never bombed unarmed protesters. It is all a fabrication by Fox News and CNN. Oh, and Al Jazeera. Clearly Al Jazeera are also puppets of Amerika.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Read my above post.

Even if you think the we're intervening for selfish reasons, that doesn't mean we ought not do it. Furthermore, "we should be intervening in countries Y and Z as well" is not an argument against intervening in country X. In this case, Obama was carefully tiptoeing around this issue and quietly reassuring Gaddafi for the first few days, waiting to see which way the wind was blowing. Now that it's apparent that not only the American public but most of the United Nations too were supporting this action, the U.S. Government has smelled blood in the water and is preparing to pounce.

Again - don't appeal to motivations (i.e. "they're only helping because they want oil/hookers/whatever), but explain to me why I shouldn't be behind this action, which is itself not an actual invasion ala Iraqistan? The US supports regional dictators the world over, but Realpolitik demands that they do this for pragmatic reasons. I'm disgusted by it, yes, but that does not imply that I shouldn't be supportive when the goals of the US Gov and the morally acceptable intervention happen to coincide.

 

[LOVE & TRUTH]

Either way, the only person you're convincing here is yourself.

I'm not convincing anyone and I've made my mind long ago. America and the "free world" are the enemies of humanity, run by evil dictators, hungry for money. The USA is the epithome of evil.

Russia killed over 200 civilians in Georgia. Let's nuke Moscow.

I'm sure all "civilized world" dreams of it.

Oh and the obligatory:

I'm out of here. Continue your gloating over the human deaths.

 

[Salazar]

I hope the fact that most of these have been put in place/given support, by western nations, disgusts you more.

Well, I'm not more disgusted by Britain than by Mugabe. I'm not more disgusted by the US than by Saddam.

There's a start.

 

[poisonelf]

At least as far as things have played out now, this is what the UN should exist for. Dictator murdering his own people to retain power? Send in world coalition forces to rape his ass.

Then again, who knows what the fuck the real reasons are, under whose influence Libya will now fall, who will control the oil, who will have military bases there ("embassies"?), etc. Actually, when I say 'who knows' I mean who knows how the US, the UK and France will divide these.

Still, for once, this was called for. I guess Bahrain and the Saudis are next? (LOL).

Also, wtf at Greece providing 4 f-16s, a warship, etc. We are fucking bankrupt, the overlords within the EU are salivating over what part of our country to acquire at imposed prices, businesses are closing and people are getting fired, but we have enough money for this?

I mean, proportionally to financial capabilities I find it insane, much more than what any other country other than the big 3 are sending. Fucking world.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm not convincing anyone and I've made my mind long ago. America and the "free world" are the enemies of humanity, run by evil dictators, hungry for money. The USA is the epithome of evil.


I'm sure all civilized world dreams of it.

 

[subversus]

I like his umbrella.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I hope the fact that most of these have been put in place/given support, by western nations, disgusts you more.

You know that all of these dictators are relic of the cold war. I would rather have these dictators, which were more like proxies, than a full blown war between the USA and the USSR.
It does make me uneasy, that the west is hypocritical about this, especially the Noth Korean situation. I want them to deal with NK as soon as possible.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

You know that all of these dictators are relic of the cold war. I would rather have these dictators, which were more like proxies, than a full blown war between the USA and the USSR.
It does make me uneasy, that the west is hypocritical about this, especially the Noth Korean situation. I want them to deal with NK as soon as possible.

North Korea should have been invaded instead of Iraq in 2003, before they had any bombs. Now that they do it's too late to invade (they have no plausible delivery mechanisms for those weapons, but they could simply detonate it inside their cities if we invaded, CoD4 style, and inflict significant casualties), and so we should devote our efforts to a peaceful transition as soon as Dear Leader kicks the bucket.

 

[raphier]

North Korea should have been invaded instead of Iraq in 2003, before they had any bombs. Now that they do it's too late to invade (they have no plausible delivery mechanisms for those weapons, but they could simply detonate it inside their cities if we invaded, CoD4 style, and inflict significant casualties), and so we should devote our efforts to a peaceful transition as soon as Dear Leader kicks the bucket.

shut up with your Cod4. It would be nothing like it and game's scenario is implausible. China would strongly object and it could turn into largest turmoil in the area on no-ones benefit.

It would be terrible then and it's terrible decision today.

 

[Steelrain]

North Korea should have been invaded instead of Iraq in 2003, before they had any bombs. Now that they do it's too late to invade (they have no plausible delivery mechanisms for those weapons, but they could simply detonate it inside their cities if we invaded, CoD4 style, and inflict significant casualties), and so we should devote our efforts to a peaceful transition as soon as Dear Leader kicks the bucket.

lol no. China says whats up.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

shut up with your Cod4. It would be nothing like it. China would strongly object and it could turn into largest turmoil in the area on no-ones benefit.

It would be terrible then and it's terrible decision today.

China would strongly object, yes. China would do anything other than rattle its cage and make a lot of noise, no. I am discussing what was moral to do, not what was politically convenient. North Korea isn't a state that should be allowed to continue to exist in its current form.

 

[_Xenon_]

LOL @ China bashing again in literally every world policy thread.

Seriously, why do we need to butt into other country's problem along with you guys? The more you spend on bombing foreign civilians the more you have to borrow from us which means more interests in our pockets. Keep bombing the shit out of middle east & Africa as if doing so would somehow get your economy fixed & people employed & health care upgraded. Win-win situation indeed.

EDIT: WTF the double post just disappeared by itself?

 

[Swifty]

You know that all of these dictators are relic of the cold war. I would rather have these dictators, which were more like proxies, than a full blown war between the USA and the USSR.
It does make me uneasy, that the west is hypocritical about this, especially the Noth Korean situation. I want them to deal with NK as soon as possible.

It's frustrating seeing these calls of hypocrisy of the US and allies not dealing with other regimes such as North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Bahrain, etc.

War is a calculus of expected costs, expected benefits, and an expected probability of winning. This is basic political science war studies 101. The governments of the world don't have unlimited resources. Of course they're going to cherry pick who they fight and who they don't fight. And of course they're going to take into account the risks involved while also figuring out what the benefits will be.

 

[Salazar]

LOL @ China bashing again in literally every world policy thread.

Seriously, why do we need to butt into other country's problem along with you guys? The more you spend on bombing foreign civilians the more you have to borrow from us which means more interests in our pockets. Keep bombing the shit out of middle east & Africa as if doing so would somehow get your economy fixed & people employed & health care upgraded. Win-win situation indeed.

Well, this is the sort of obnoxiousness that inclines people to resent China's omniscient press-releases ostensibly from the high ground.

 

[Veidt]

LOL @ China bashing again in literally every world policy thread.

Seriously, why do we need to butt into other country's problem along with you guys? The more you spend on bombing foreign civilians the more you have to borrow from us which means more interests in our pockets. Keep bombing the shit out of middle east & Africa as if doing so would somehow get your economy fixed & people employed & health care upgraded. Win-win situation indeed.

oh shit

 

[Joel Was Right]

Even if you think the reason we're intervening is for selfish reasons, that doesn't mean we ought not do it. Furthermore, "we should be intervening in countries Y and Z as well" is not an argument against intervening in country X. In this case, Obama was carefully tiptoeing around this issue and quietly reassuring Gaddafi for the first few days, waiting to see which way the wind was blowing. Now that it's apparent that not only the American public but most of the United Nations too were supporting this action, the U.S. Government has smelled blood in the water and is preparing to pounce.

Again - don't appeal to motivations (i.e. "they're only helping because they want oil/hookers/whatever), but explain to me why I shouldn't be behind this action, which is itself not an actual invasion ala Iraqistan? The US supports regional dictators the world over, but Realpolitik demands that they do this for pragmatic reasons. I'm disgusted by it, yes, but that does not imply that I shouldn't be supportive when the goals of the US Gov and the morally acceptable intervention happen to coincide.

The motivation behind this imposition is fundamentally, underlined, reiterated and re-emphasised at every opportunity, to be humanitarian in nature. Why? Because you have X government, or 'regime' when you want to bomb them, has/is responded with violence against the growing wave of revolutionary intent. But the notion is based on protecting the people. As that long article highlights, this is in not in line with previous policy and whilst you may be quick to underline the word previous, the question remains - will the UN intervene in Yemen or Bahrain, especially if it escalates? You could not find me one person here who would expect it, and subsequently it therefore brings into the question what the political motives of this intervention are because it clearly is not based on purely on humanitarian reasons.

This dictatorship was a financial and regional partner as only as recent as 2007 when the former British Prime Minister signed an agreement with Gadaffi, including military resources. The deal was sealed with a photograph between them, echoing the infamous Donald Rumsfeld handshake with Saddam Hussein underpinning US relations with the dictator prior. Lord Mandelson - a recently former cabinet member clearly stated "He was giving money to terrorist organisations all around the world including in Northern Ireland", which suggests Britain was well aware of the man's character and previous actions. He was making the comment in response to the photos of former PM Tony Blair signing an agreement with Gadaffi, irrespective of what they knew. These are the governments that have, at least in public championed one thing, and then been selective of who they deal with. Governments have 'interests', naturally, but what it should illustrate at the very least is that there is a trend of supporting one dictator whilst waring with another because they are a dictator. You may feel, 'well, removing one is better than nothing", but from what I have read so far, I am sceptical about the motives behind this recent conflict and the countries involved with it. It's a sour mix, especially with their recent history. An uncomfortable mix, and with all things considered looks to be undermining the supposed intent, with every missile fired and every innocent Libyan that dies because of them. I hope we do not lose sight of these issues like we did when invading Iraq

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

LOL @ China bashing again in literally every world policy thread.

_Xenon_
Doesn't understand politics fundamentals
(Today, 09:14 PM)

the question remains - will the UN intervene in Yemen or Bahrain, especially if it escalates? You could not find me one person here who would expect it, and subsequently it therefore brings into the question what the political motives of this intervention are because it clearly is not based on purely on humanitarian reasons.

Yes, Nation-states are cold, calculating and display a remarkable "ethical flexibility". That said, when they do something that is positive, it doesn't become bad because they were doing it for "the wrong reasons". It's still a positive outcome. Do you at least agree here that something good is happening?

I certainly don't expect the impotent United Nations to do anything productive in the other nations, but I would certainly be thrilled if they did, yeah?

 

[subversus]

LOL @ China bashing again in literally every world policy thread.

Seriously, why do we need to butt into other country's problem along with you guys? The more you spend on bombing foreign civilians the more you have to borrow from us which means more interests in our pockets. Keep bombing the shit out of middle east & Africa as if doing so would somehow get your economy fixed & people employed & health care upgraded. Win-win situation indeed.

EDIT: WTF the double post just disappeared by itself?

I think US intervening was stupid just because of financial reasons.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

China would strongly object, yes. China would do anything other than rattle its cage and make a lot of noise, no. I am discussing what was moral to do, not what was politically convenient. North Korea isn't a state that should be allowed to continue to exist in its current form.

First China would object. Then China would watch millions of Koreans die in a bloody war. Then China would send it's troops in as peacekeepers and help ensure that a government friendly to China regained power after the blood ran through the streets of Pyongyang and Seoul.

China is a lot smarter than the West gives them credit for, which is why China currently holds enough American debt that they can pretty much get whatever they want, they just need to squeeze America's economic balls a bit if America does something they don't like. The "Peaceful Rise" doctrine is probably the most ingenious bit of foreign policy currently being practiced in the 21st century.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I'm not convincing anyone and I've made my mind long ago. America and the "free world" are the enemies of humanity, run by evil dictators, hungry for money. The USA is the epithome of evil.

joke poster. The only rational explanation for this type of absurdity.

 

[Swifty]

According to CBS, three B-2 stealth bombers did a ninja raid on a major Gaddafi airfield.

Three B-2 stealth bombers flying non-stop from the United States have dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield tonight in an attempt to destroy much of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's air force, CBS News David Martin reports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20044969-503543.html

 

[_Xenon_]

_Xenon_
Doesn't understand politics fundamentals
(Today, 09:14 PM)

Sure, because bringing up the idea of invading N.Korea somehow shows your understanding of politics fundamentals.

 

[subversus]

First China would object. Then China would watch millions of Koreans die in a bloody war. Then China would send it's troops in as peacekeepers and help ensure that a government friendly to China regained power after the blood ran through the streets of Pyongyang and Seoul.

China is a lot smarter than the West gives them credit for, which is why China currently holds enough American debt that they can pretty much get whatever they want, they just need to squeeze America's economic balls a bit if America does something they don't like. The "Peaceful Rise" doctrine is probably the most ingenious bit of foreign policy currently being practiced in the 21st century.

QFT

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Sure, because bringing up the idea of invading N.Korea somehow shows your understanding of politics fundamentals.

Do you have reading comprehension issues too, or do you selectively read posts?

 

[Veidt]

I'm expecting for a real 'merican to come in this thread now and shout:

"good luck getting money out of a nation that has the most powerful weaponry on the planet."


And so, the inevitable China vs US war begins.

I'm sorry China, but I'm gonna have to side with the US. Your escapades in Africa are responsible for this.

 

[_Xenon_]

Do you have reading comprehension issues too, or do you selectively read posts?

I selectively read posts, and I don't give a shit. It's your money down the toilet by throwing missiles into desert anyway.

 

[Steelrain]

I selectively read posts, and I don't give a shit. It's your money down the toilet by throwing missiles into desert anyway.

So just trolling. Ah, ok.

 

[subversus]

I selectively read posts, and I don't give a shit. It's your money down the toilet by throwing missiles into desert anyway.

I can't understand why USA had to intervene while UK and France were already on the case.

 

[Your Excellency]

Umm is this a trick question?

Spoiler

the answer is white people

LOL!

 

[Joel Was Right]

Yes, Nation-states are cold, calculating and display a remarkable "ethical flexibility". That said, when they do something that is positive, it doesn't become bad because they were doing it for "the wrong reasons". It's still a positive outcome. Do you at least agree here that something good is happening?

I certainly don't expect the impotent United Nations to do anything productive in the other nations, but I would certainly be thrilled if they did, yeah?

With all due respect, I feel like you are ignoring the point of my comment. Yes, I believe the innocent and weaker should be protected, and if need be, by the military, but few conflicts in modern history have been without broader political motivations. That article explains why we haven't in the past, and may not do in the future, although I do agree that does not undermine the concept of doing something in this particular case. However, I would contest that subsequently, because this is particular conflict is being chosen to intervene in, it suggests that there are other reasons for getting involved, reasons more so poignant than humanitarian reasons - because that alone is obviously not a mandate to get involved in.

When war was looming with Iraq and people were asking questions about the alleged WMDs, some were responding by invoking the idea of an Arab democracy in the ME, as if that was enough reason to go to war with. And now, when the evidence suggests there is something going on in this case, we are choosing to instead look towards the sentimental. Let me ask you for a favour. Consider it a challenge. Adopt my perspective for the next two days and see whether it makes sense to you, see whether the sceptical opinion pieces are agreeable.

 

[raphier]

According to CBS, three B-2 stealth bombers did a ninja raid on a major Gaddafi airfield.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20044969-503543.html

I am all for the engagements against Gaddafi, but they seem to be pretty much careless. Especially yesterday's 120 tomahawks seemed like grave overreaction from US part.

Thus is why I am concerned by the fact US takes over the command from France. I'd be much comfortable if France made the ordering.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I can't understand why USA had to intervene while UK and France were already on the case.

Official answer - "Because it is right!"
Actual reason - Get valuable combat experience for pilots and navy, win public support.

 

[Tabris]

This is such a joke. Not because of them wanting to defend a move towards democracy against a dictatorship (I am in full support of this), but because they are only doing it for Libya and ignoring Yemen and Bahrain.

It should be changed from "We'll defend the middle east's movement for freedom" to "We'll defend the middle east's movement for freedom as long as Saudi Arabia says it's A-OK"

 

[Salazar]

This is such a joke. Not because of them wanting defend a move towards democracy against a dictatorship, but because they are only doing it for Libya and ignoring Yemen and Bahrain.

One out of three is OBJECTIVELY AND ULTIMATELY BAD.

Right.

On one hand, we have condemnation of the action on the grounds that you can't tread on all these geo-political eggshells. On the other, we have condemnation on the grounds that nations are unwilling to unleash hell on multiple fronts.

 

[_Xenon_]

I can't understand why USA had to intervene while UK and France were already on the case.

My crack pot theory while waiting for downloading BG&E XBLA:

They want a bigger pie of Libya oil. EU used to get 80% of it and that's why EU are the most butt hurt ones about this region's unstability (and the first ones to start attack too). Now the US is in the game. I'm not so sure if France is too happy about it. China didn't veto it is probably because of the same reason: we've invested quite a lot there but still can't get shit (all of the investments in Libya are in red I heard).

 

[Tabris]

One out of three is OBJECTIVELY AND ULTIMATELY BAD.

Right.

Nope. It's a good thing they are doing something, it's just hypocritical.

 

[Veidt]

Nope. It's a good thing they are doing something, it's just hypocritical.

I agree.

 

[Salazar]

Nope. It's a good thing they are doing something, it's just hypocritical.

Somewhere between "strategic" and "hypocritical", but I see your point.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Every single day comes, and the more I read about Quadaffi, the less I think he is mad

 

[Your Excellency]

We don't assassinate people.

Capet bomb to the stone age, now that's OK.

Why aren't they assassinating Gaddafi? It's not like he's in hiding in a cave like Bin Laden, I'm sure it's not hard to find the guy?


Regime change isn't always a good idea but in this case I think it would be ideal. I can't imagine there being much of a civil war after he goes down, because only Gaddafi's family and tribe are on his side.

 

[Salazar]

Every single day comes, and the more I read about Quadaffi, the less I think he is mad

Capable of calculatedly taking deranged options.