[Updated] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya

Originally Posted by Damien

Really don't understand why this intervention is unpopular.

We are going in with the full backing of the UN. Member states keep committing resources and we're going in to stop people being murdered by their own government, they asked us to do so...

It makes no difference whatsoever what the UN says or how many resolutions they pass ,the fact is if they are going in to protect the citizens then they should have done it 30 yrs ago and while they were at it they could have had popped over to the Sudan,Zimbabwe,north korea ,Saudi,China ect, ect all of which have terrible human rights records ,something which the UN is supposed to protect .

In my opinion we are either honest and tell the citizens that we won't protect them from any dictators unless raw materials required for our comfy lives in the west are at stake or we go in full throttle and start removing these dictators for the good of the rest of the world and the people who live in the countries

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Damien

Really don't understand why this intervention is unpopular.

We are going in with the full backing of the UN. Member states keep committing resources and we're going in to stop people being murdered by their own government, they asked us to do so...

I'm not opposed to it at all - unlike Iraq, the Libyan action has a clear & immediate need, has international support, and has explicit legal backing from the UN.

But, as mentioned by others in this thread, I think it is an example of Western hypocrisy... and that perhaps is why some people are critical.

We only intervene if something is in our own interests, not simply for ethical reasons.

Zimbabwe? No oil, so we don't care.

Bahrain? Crucial ally, so all we do is say "Please don't do that", while the regime brings in troops from its neighbours to crush the protests and kill civilians.

etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying we should be gallivanting around bombing everywhere, but I can easily see why people have issues with our selective interventions.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Damien

Really don't understand why this intervention is unpopular.

We are going in with the full backing of the UN. Member states keep committing resources and we're going in to stop people being murdered by their own government, they asked us to do so...

Because its sham.

Our human rights not good neither is french or americans.

French brutalised in Devil island political prisioners for years did anybody stop them.

We doing it on the back off massive cuts because so called sham governement says we cant afford our standards lets billions go in offshore tax havens by rich. So some of these cuts will fund there billion war in libya.

If UN so bothered why did the overlook french, american and our human rights.

Its all selective if your an african nation our got nothing value then tyrants get ignored. However if your rich in the black stuff and as long your small armed nation expect a wrath of britian/yanks.

Total hyprocracy is bombing them really going to help them lets be honest like I said they dont care about common people here or in libya.

Cuts here are scam and sham so is this military intervention by corrupt tory government.

Ravenheart not suprising now the worry is there next move & demands.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

Arab league chief criticises coalition bombing saying it's not what they signed up to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

They don't seem to realise that to enforce a no-fly zone you have to make the skies safe for the enforcement aircraft

Originally Posted by Kymmy

They don't seem to realise that to enforce a no-fly zone you have to make the skies safe for the enforcement aircraft

how long before one of ours gets shot down by the rebels trying to protect the rebels ...accidently

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by martyh

how long before one of ours gets shot down by the rebels trying to protect the rebels ...accidently

friendly fire -the yanks have that covered-usually

Originally Posted by papa smurf

friendly fire -the yanks have that covered-usually

lol :d

[DocDutch]

what the rebels got anything stronger then a ZSU-23?

Dont think any coalition planes will get shot down as the sam sites will be obliterated before 1 even gets close.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

Really don't understand why this intervention is unpopular.

We are going in with the full backing of the UN. Member states keep committing resources and we're going in to stop people being murdered by their own government, they asked us to do so...

So would you be expecting the UN to do this for countries that DONT have oil, Lets face it there are lots of countries murdering there own people??

I don't see the UN getting involved in ANY other spats to this level were a country does NOT have oil.

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Originally Posted by DocDutch

what the rebels got anything stronger then a ZSU-23?

Dont think any coalition planes will get shot down as the sam sites will be obliterated before 1 even gets close.

Sam sites are not the problem to be honest as they will be hit as soon as there radar goes active, Its the shoulder launched weapons that they need to worry about.

Originally Posted by Sirius

So would you be expecting the UN to do this for countries that DONT have oil, Lets face it there are lots of countries murdering there own people??

I don't see the UN getting involved in ANY other spats to this level were a country does NOT have oil.

Well we're not invading. As of yet we are enforcing a no-fly zone and protecting the rebels which doesn't do much to protect our Oil supply. Libya was a country we had only recently done big Oil deals with and from our perspective we would have been fine with Gaddafi.

This no fly zone removes certainly from the situation. We don't know what will happen if Gaddari goes..

[DocDutch]

the UN has done in the past... think of Bosnia and Kosovo neither of which have 710 around

Zimba will be done sooner or later Mugabe isnt going to last forever he is 87 already so will have a heart attack in a couple of years.

I think one key reason we don't intervene in those other countries is that they often lack an air force. Pointless enforcing a no fly zone on a government (regime) that doesn't have fighter planes. In those cases an intervention is a lot harder as it requires a force on the ground and a bigger commitment from the governments..

[mertle]

People saying this with UN blessing.

So what would happened if the council said NO. You telling me the yanks, brits would sent there forces to sit around doing nothing.

Nope they was going in with or without UN blessing.

Dont anybody think it was strange why jets and warships was already primed ready as soon as meeting sanctions it.

It takes days to organise strategies look how long it took to mobilise for iraq.

I think UN gave it under extreme pressure especialy when brits/yanks say we mobilised for nothing. I would not be suprised even probably said they was going to do something with or without UN.

Strange, the "extreme pressure" didn't seem to work in providing a mandate for the Iraq fiasco......

Originally Posted by mertle

People saying this with UN blessing.

So what would happened if the council said NO. You telling me the yanks, brits would sent there forces to sit around doing nothing.

Nope they was going in with or without UN blessing.

No evidence of this. The UK government was extremely wary of doing this without international backing and reiterated time and time again that they would only intervene if it was within International Law and with a UN mandate. They explicitly mentioned this so many times that it would have been impossible for them to suddenly go against it.

The US have been taking a back seat so far. Indeed the French seem the most keen.

Dont anybody think it was strange why jets and warships was already primed ready as soon as meeting sanctions it.

It takes days to organise strategies look how long it took to mobilise for iraq.

No. Anything with a degree of common sense would know that you plan to be ready the moment the sanction was passed. The military would have been well aware in advance of the need to plan for a invention if the government ordered it and were preparing. It would incompetence beyond belief to be completely under prepared. This UN mandate was considered for a long time.

I think UN gave it under extreme pressure especialy when brits/yanks say we mobilised for nothing. I would not be suprised even probably said they was going to do something with or without UN.

Because that plan worked so well for Iraq! They didn't roll other then why would they now?