BF2S Forums Libya Forces "Capture Gadaffi"

Macbeth wrote:

@anyone who supported Libya

Do you think we should also take action in Syria, Tibet-China, Yemen? All bad people oppressing someone right? Should we do that whole world police thing Euros tend to whine about?

Well if we could completely ignore the middle east, INCLUDING Israel + Saudi Arabia, our so called allies, well, hell no, fuck intervention

But you know thats not how the world works.  Like it or not, we're there, and there to stay.  Might as well use opportunities when we see them.  (if we do it carefully)

It's not just euros that whine about it, it's an increasing number of your citizens.

Jenspm wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

@anyone who supported Libya

Do you think we should also take action in Syria, Tibet-China, Yemen? All bad people oppressing someone right? Should we do that whole world police thing Euros tend to whine about?

You could go in hard with the whole state sovereignty it's-none-of-our-business stuff, but personally I think we should view them as a collection of people (ie Libyans) rather than a state (ie Libya).

So yes, if we see universal human rights breached (e.g. genocide), and we have the power and resources to do something about it, then I think we not only should, but are morally obliged to do so. Just like I think we have a moral obligation to not sit back and watch as poverty and hunger kills off bucket-loads of (East) Africans.

Who, what and how is a different question (It doesn't have to involve military force), but the whole status-quo-hugging we-currently-have-good-relations-why-risk-ruining-it idea doesn't work for me.

As long as it's not Iraq amirite?

Shahter wrote:

Shocking wrote:

We had vital interests in Libya, in Tibet we don't. Simple as that.

"simple"? remind me, since when you having interests in some place gives you right to declare local government "illegitimate", and then go in and destroy it?.

For a considerable amount of human history...

Hillary Clinton reacts to news of Muammar Gadhafi's capture in Libya

Defense official confirms that armed U.S. Predator drone, along with French fighter plane, fired on Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s convoy.

Shahter wrote:

jord wrote:

Shahter wrote:

"simple"? remind me, since when you having interests in some place gives you right to declare local government "illegitimate", and then go in and destroy it?.

For a considerable amount of human history...

... that kinda stuff had been called "war" or "intervention". but lately they started behaving like fucking up whomever doesn't play by their rules is a walk in the park. "they don't agree with us? - bam, they are illegitimate! get'em, folks! oh, and let's call this shit "righteous uprising against horrible dictatorship" - if nothing else it's good for lulz."

It's okay because Bush isn't involved.

Vilham wrote:

Shahter you know that it's laughable when a Russian uses an argument like that right. You do realise that your country invaded Gorgia like 2 years ago.

That wasn't for oil...




it was for the oil pipeline.

Pubic wrote:

Shahter wrote:

jord wrote:

Shahter wrote:

"simple"? remind me, since when you having interests in some place gives you right to declare local government "illegitimate", and then go in and destroy it?.

For a considerable amount of human history...

... that kinda stuff had been called "war" or "intervention". but lately they started behaving like fucking up whomever doesn't play by their rules is a walk in the park. "they don't agree with us? - bam, they are illegitimate! get'em, folks! oh, and let's call this shit "righteous uprising against horrible dictatorship" - if nothing else it's good for lulz."

The guy wasn't playing by many peoples rules, international and regional condemnation, internal uprising.. The 'law' is only a set of rules everyone is supposed to agree on. If the majority agreed he was out of line, including many of his own people, then why shouldn't other be able to step in and give a hand?

Vilham wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Shahter you know that it's laughable when a Russian uses an argument like that right. You do realise that your country invaded Gorgia like 2 years ago.

you know that it's laughable when you use ones nationality to make an "argument" like that, right? i did not invade georgia, i wasn't asked if we should invade georgia, i'm a ordinary man who had no say in the matter. that said, russia did not invade georgia at all - it acted strictly within it's UN peace keeping mandate which was issued long ago. yes, russia got involved in that shit only because of its interests in the region, which is an oil pipeline AR so handily mentioned. but russia didn't declare any government "illegitimate" nor did it topple any - all it did was restore the status quo in the region as per UN mandate.

sorry, you phail. try again.

There was no UN mandate for you to invade Gorgia which was stopping a region that was part of it's own country being effectively stolen by Russia.

Try again.

You also just based your arguement entirely around basically ensuring your own oil supply while critising other countrys that stopped a Dictator that was murdering thousands of his own people. Who had support from the region and a UN mandate. Great argument there Stalin.

Because he's Russian he can't have an opinion because his country invaded Georgia? That's like saying no American opinion is valid in regards to Libya because we're all guilty by association of invading Iraq. Sorry, that logic fails.

Vilham wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Shahter you know that it's laughable when a Russian uses an argument like that right. You do realise that your country invaded Gorgia like 2 years ago.

you know that it's laughable when you use ones nationality to make an "argument" like that, right? i did not invade georgia, i wasn't asked if we should invade georgia, i'm a ordinary man who had no say in the matter. that said, russia did not invade georgia at all - it acted strictly within it's UN peace keeping mandate which was issued long ago. yes, russia got involved in that shit only because of its interests in the region, which is an oil pipeline AR so handily mentioned. but russia didn't declare any government "illegitimate" nor did it topple any - all it did was restore the status quo in the region as per UN mandate.

sorry, you phail. try again.

There was no UN mandate for you to invade Gorgia

what should peace keepers do when they are being shelled? stand their ground and "keep peace"? i always thought they should call for reinforcements and then bomb the crap out of whoever was firing at them - and that's what happened.

which was stopping a region that was part of it's own country being effectively stolen by Russia.

this argument could be considered, yes, but the way Kosovo was handled by so called "enlightened west" set a pretty clear precedent. ossetian separatists took the opportunity to play this in their favor and russia backed them up because that was going along with their interests in the region. you know, politics - fascinating shit. when saakashvili and his "friends" from the west saw the situation slip in unfavorable direction they did the only thing possible - escalated the conflict. i dunno what they were hoping for, maybe that russia wouldn't risk direct military confrontation, but instead saakashbili got his ass handed back to him. oops.

Try again.

really? you think you actually presented an argument there, don't you, kiddo? you think your fox-news-and-twitter-cooked bullshit would stand against me here? how many ossetians have you talked to about this? what about georgians? not many? i thought so. setting aside political and economical motivations, russia protected ossetians (many of whom are russian citizens, btw) from certain genocide by georgia that time - and for the second time too - nobody doubts that in those parts. but of course fox news doesn't report anything of the kind.

You also just based your arguement entirely around basically ensuring your own oil supply

oil supply? russia needs to be supplied with oil? are you drunk or something?

while critising other countrys that stopped a Dictator that was murdering thousands of his own people.

yeah yeah, heard that before. last time they used "wmd"-es and it didn't go too well because they couldn't produce any. this time it's "one dictator" and "thousands of murdered" - a lot easier to cook up: of dictator we'll show 'em a photo, and thousands of dead are very easy to come by in a country torn apart by civil war.

Who had support from the region and a UN mandate.

the UN mandate have been grossly overstepped, and you know it. and "support of the region" doesn't give anyone the right to go in guns blazing and destroy a sovereign nation's government.

Great argument there Stalin.

thank you for the compliment, but i'm just an ordinary man. the only real difference between you and me is that i don't believe in fairy tales.

Jay wrote:

I have to disagree vehemently right here. History is on the side of tyrannical governments following revolutions. Sunshine and daisies happened maybe a handful of times. Democracy is the exception, not the norm, throughout human history.

One dictator replacing the other? For that the rebel movement would have to be organised with clear leadership, it isn't. Second is the reason why the revolutions started; to oust dictatorship as per example of what happened in Egypt, I doubt they'd easily settle for more of the same.

The worst that could happen is that after Gadaffi's works are all cleaned up the situation turns into a civil war, but I don't think that's very likely.

Shahter wrote:

jord wrote:

Shahter wrote:

"simple"? remind me, since when you having interests in some place gives you right to declare local government "illegitimate", and then go in and destroy it?.

For a considerable amount of human history...

... that kinda stuff had been called "war" or "intervention". but lately they started behaving like fucking up whomever doesn't play by their rules is a walk in the park. "they don't agree with us? - bam, they are illegitimate! get'em, folks! oh, and let's call this shit "righteous uprising against horrible dictatorship" - if nothing else it's good for lulz."

It's politics, you have to keep the support of the voters back home to do anything on foreign soil nowadays with the age of information.