Libyan Uprising - Page 59

On March 20 2011 00:10 oldahe wrote:
Gadaffi is aiming for the 1vs7 insane ai achievement....

World leaders have announced immediate military action to protect civilians in Libya.
As combat rages between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces and rebel fighters, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, confirmed his nation's air force was already in the air over Libya.
Mr Sarkozy, speaking after an emergency summit in Paris, said leaders had agreed "as of now" to use "all the necessary means" to prevent further bloodshed.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister, said after the summit: "The time for action has come. We cannot allow the slaughter of civilians to continue."

On March 20 2011 00:38 xarthaz wrote:

So typical. "Lets intervene and increase the amount of violence done to prevent more violence from being done". As if the Libyans themselves didnt have enough guns to kill each other with. Just as in all the other interventionist wars, this will only make the situation worse and prevent a political natural equilibrium within the country from forming. But of course, there has to to be some use of the aggressive weaponry in foreign wars, otherwise the money spent on it would be considered useless.

On March 20 2011 01:58 whiteguycash wrote:
I support France's Actions against the criminal against humanity, Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.

I am slightly ashamed that the United States was not at the forefront of this operation to preserve lives of Citizens who want the freedom to decide how to live their lives.

On March 20 2011 01:58 pylonsalad wrote:

So typical. "Lets intervene and increase the amount of violence done to prevent more violence from being done". As if the Libyans themselves didnt have enough guns to kill each other with. Just as in all the other interventionist wars, this will only make the situation worse and prevent a political natural equilibrium within the country from forming. But of course, there has to to be some use of the aggressive weaponry in foreign wars, otherwise the money spent on it would be considered useless.

I think the issue here is how to stop the violence without taking down Gaddafi (goes beyond UN mandate).

On March 20 2011 01:58 pylonsalad wrote:


I guess the US shouldn't have intervened in WWII then. Jesus, this kind of argument ignores any moral responsibility for the formation of the UN in the first place. Natural equilibrium? We are talking about one side with modern military training and hardware and the resources of a relatively rich state versus civilians with no training and little weaponry. You don't mind the massacre that's going to happen if no one bullies the bully?

On March 20 2011 02:10 xarthaz wrote:
There will be no massacre if rebels dissolved themselves(or the current state administration, whichever feels the weaker). A bully can never be gotten rid of, thats a fact of life. There is the strongest organisation of violence in any given area, and they bully others. The would be rebel enforced state would be no different, perhaps other than slight ideological differences, the practical means of conducting policy is the same.

And yes, there wouldve been much less violence in WW2 absent US intervention. Though the colors on the flags of the countries mightve differed somewhat from what they turned out to be, that is purely a nationalist argument.

And yes, there wouldve been much less violence in WW2 absent US intervention. Though the colors on the flags of the countries mightve differed somewhat from what they turned out to be, that is purely a nationalist argument.

There will be no massacre if rebels dissolved themselves.

And yes(though this is a tangent), there wouldve been much less violence in WW2 absent US intervention. In fact there would never have been a world war, neither the first nor the second one if foreign intervention were avoided. Though the colors on the flags of the countries mightve differed somewhat from what they turned out to be, that is purely a nationalist argument.

You're assuming that the end-game of all confrontations is initial causality count, ignoring the implications of one country taking over another. Who is to judge that Germany, or England, or America, or any given one country has legitimacy to rule over everything? Do you think an aggressive state willing to take military action to spread their power would treat Europe fairly and justly?

Alright, then who decides the completely subjective notions of fairness and justness in a country? And what should be done when one party thinks (not necessarily is, but thinks) that the other is not complying with the general sense of action in a country?

17.09 Spokesman for the French military confirms French aircraft destroyed ground vehicle in first attack

Multiple reports that Gaddafi troops are attacking Zintan

On March 20 2011 02:26 xarthaz wrote:
Yes, those are the forseeable consequences of challenging the rules of those in power. And the more they are challenged, the more bloodshed is to be expected. Which is my point, to show the fallacy of Sarkozys claims.

Indeed this is completely subjective and nationalist(fairness,justness,legitimacy), hence pointless to argue upon. Not everyone likes the same ice cream flavour.

On March 20 2011 02:27 Mofisto wrote:
Destruction of vehicle by french fighter confirmed



Also reports of libyan military attacking other targets



Cant find anymore details on this. Will post back if i find something