BF2S Forums The Situation in Libya

Kmar wrote:

Yea.. or as Winston Churchhill said, "History is written by the victors".

After reading up on the American civil war I actually wonder, compared to Libya where the rebels wanted a change of government and America where the south tried to secede from the Union, it actually sounds like the Union was more in the wrong than Gadaffi. I mean, the Unions existence wasn't threatened like Gadaffis government. Ignoring the whole tyrannical regime thing.

LBJ wrote:

This, RAAF doctrine is almost identical in this case, it is a perfectly normal Offensive Counter Air (OCA) operation. It's not like this is some "omgomg Americans are blood thirsty" bullshit.

Offensive Counter Air Operation and enforcing a no-fly zone are two different things.

BALTINS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Yea.. or as Winston Churchhill said, "History is written by the victors".

After reading up on the American civil war I actually wonder, compared to Libya where the rebels wanted a change of government and America where the south tried to secede from the Union, it actually sounds like the Union was more in the wrong than Gadaffi. I mean, the Unions existence wasn't threatened like Gadaffis government. Ignoring the whole tyrannical regime thing.

I don't see why they didn't have the right to secede, if thats what they wanted.

Right or wrong it is doctrine; and when the UN gave the go ahead they knew what sort of operations it would entail.

You really don't get it do you?

You impose a no fly zone on a country without its consent (obviously).

Would it be a good idea to keep AA emplacements on the ground intact, despite them being controlled by said country? Good idea to have them take potshots at you?

Come on Dilbert, even you have to realise that that is a completely retarded thing to do.

How can you call it a ceasefire? That would imply mutual agreement, there is none.

And passively standing at the sideline worked out great didn't it?

BALTINS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Yea.. or as Winston Churchhill said, "History is written by the victors".

After reading up on the American civil war I actually wonder, compared to Libya where the rebels wanted a change of government and America where the south tried to secede from the Union, it actually sounds like the Union was more in the wrong than Gadaffi. I mean, the Unions existence wasn't threatened like Gadaffis government. Ignoring the whole tyrannical regime thing.

Yeah, because all rebel groups are fluffy bunnies deserving their own country.

Shocking wrote:

Come on Dilbert, even you have to realise that that is a completely retarded thing to do.

you could tell dilbert the sun was shining and he'd argue the point.

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yeah, because all rebel groups are fluffy bunnies deserving their own country.

Well, a justified rebellion is in the eyes of the beholder.

For example, I doubt most British see our Revolution as a justified one.

I just think Wilson set a really fucking awful precedent with his self determination bullshit. Yes, it's fantastic in theory, but those peoples who wanted to set up their own nation should've gone through the internal struggle on their own. Using the League of Nations or the UN to decide arbitrarily who has a legitimate claim was an asinine and meddlesome way to go about things.

I'm just sick of the whole 'they're rebels, so they must be right' mentality displayed by people in their teens and early twenties. It's ridiculously childish.

No argument here...   I generally prefer staying out of conflicts, but then again, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over entering them either.

It's just business as usual at this point.  We've been addicted to interventionism for about a century now.

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pretty sure the Serbs didn't happily agree to any ceasefires or safe zones.

Yes, but they did agree to murder a lot of people.

so?

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'm just sick of the whole 'they're rebels, so they must be right' mentality displayed by people in their teens and early twenties.

They weren't rebels to begin with, if you followed this earlier as soon as it started. They were just protesting like they did in Egypt, except the violence that hit them back was like never seen before. They had to become rebels/armed militia, or die.

When it comes to real dictators and people like Gaddafi, it's hard to not sympathise with those who want him gone.

He keeps saying the same shit, bringing up irrelevant crap about Sandanistas and things as if it correlates with this shit. He doesn't even know what he's talking about, it seems like he's barely bothered to see what the situation is and is instead using history to jump to silly conclusions in order to justify whatever opinions he holds.

Shocking wrote:

We didn't have a choice, there are interests involved in the intervention - some of which economic. By going in there we're protecting those, I'm sure that otherwise this would've been handled like 90% of the civil wars around the planets - dontgiveafuck. It's simply convenient that Gadaffi is a dictator that way you can easily get all the lost idealists behind your cause. I just see the humanitarian side as one of many variables in the equation.

The whole UN blabber however is ridiculous and a bit scary at the same time, that place shouldn't have a legislative function to begin with.

I'm glad we agree on the UN.  It is pretty useless.

We do have a choice.  We always do.  It's just that the choices we make are most palatable to our leaders of industry.

Granted, I'm not really complaining.  I don't really expect us to operate any differently.  Libya is just another notch on our belt.  Whatever we learn from this will just be forgotten in another decade, and things will continue as usual.