Libyan Civil War Megathread

[Josephus]

You guys got me wrong. I'm not editorializing, this time.  I've hated Gadaffi since I first came across him  in the mid 70s. I was just trying to clarify what the UN position on this.

[Razgovory]

I'm not exactly clear what is trying to be accomplish here actually. 

[jimmy olsen]

I'm not exactly clear what is trying to be accomplish here actually.

Regime change 

[DGuller]

While Gaddafi's death is long overdue, I'm a little uneasy about how quickly a "no-fly zone" turned into a regime change campaign.  One day the no-fly zone seemed like a distant possibility, the next day we suddenly get a resolution allowing us to bomb all kinds of shit.

[Razgovory]

I'm not exactly clear what is trying to be accomplish here actually.

Now I'm trying to figure out what the subject of this sentence was.

[Viking]

While Gaddafi's death is long overdue, I'm a little uneasy about how quickly a "no-fly zone" turned into a regime change campaign.  One day the no-fly zone seemed like a distant possibility, the next day we suddenly get a resolution allowing us to bomb all kinds of shit.

That happened when Gaddafi decided to start slaughtering peaceful protesters who were hell bent on regime change. The "It's either him or us" dichotomy in this case is driven by internal Libyan politics.

[garbon]

While Gaddafi's death is long overdue, I'm a little uneasy about how quickly a "no-fly zone" turned into a regime change campaign.  One day the no-fly zone seemed like a distant possibility, the next day we suddenly get a resolution allowing us to bomb all kinds of shit.

To be accurate, the calls from Western govts for Gaddafi to stand down started long before the "no-fly zone" was ever implemented.

[Martinus]

The attack on regime positions in Libya is probably the most moral thing the West has done, militarily-wise, in decades. Unlike Iraq, this actually is a "just war".

I like to think that Western leaders have done so out of their deep seated moral sense of right and wrong, but even if not, at least they are smart enough (unlike some people on Languish) to know that if they sat that one through, they would have lost any remains of moral high ground they claim to have.

[Martinus]

I suppose the Arkestras of the world would always prefer us to sit on our hands seeing as how they critique all of the West's major operations in the last few decades.

I think it's more to do with him being a Croat. They like to finish slaughtering each other without some Americans or Europeans intervening to stop them. Takes all the fun out of genocide.

[Mr.Penguin]

[Slargos]

This is taking sides in an internal conflict.

Well boo-fucking-hoo.

It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!

You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.

This is absolutely appalling! 

[Viking]

This is taking sides in an internal conflict.

Well boo-fucking-hoo.

It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!

You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.

This is absolutely appalling! 

Now we see where GWB went wrong. He should just have "implemented the no fly zone" more aggressively rather than calling it an invasion.

[Martinus]

This is taking sides in an internal conflict.

Well boo-fucking-hoo.

It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!

You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.

This is absolutely appalling! 

Now we see where GWB went wrong. He should just have "implemented the no fly zone" more aggressively rather than calling it an invasion.

I may be missing something, but did GWB invade Iraq because Saddam was at the time shelling his own people and it was the only way to stop the bloodshed? I thought it had to do with the weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

The difference between both operations is not in what you call them, but the motives/reasons for starting it.

I hope you are right and Saddam was indeed slaughtering his own people en masse when Americans invaded. As otherwise your post would just prove you are a fucking idiot.

[Slargos]

This is taking sides in an internal conflict.

Well boo-fucking-hoo.

It's one thing to denounce a man for attacking his own citizens, but doing something about it...despicable!

You broke the chain of escalation. Where were the strongly worded letters? The vehement denouncals? The pleas for reason? I didn't see even ONE signature campaign.

This is absolutely appalling! 

Now we see where GWB went wrong. He should just have "implemented the no fly zone" more aggressively rather than calling it an invasion.

I may be missing something, but did GWB invade Iraq because Saddam was at the time shelling his own people and it was the only way to stop the bloodshed? I thought it had to do with the weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

The difference between both operations is not in what you call them, but the motives/reasons for starting it.

I hope you are right and Saddam was indeed slaughtering his own people en masse when Americans invaded. As otherwise your post would just prove you are a fucking idiot.

Look at the nigerian calling the icelander black. 

[Warspite]

I suppose the Arkestras of the world would always prefer us to sit on our hands seeing as how they critique all of the West's major operations in the last few decades.

I think it's more to do with him being a Croat. They like to finish slaughtering each other without some Americans or Europeans intervening to stop them. Takes all the fun out of genocide.

Your knowledge of international relations and intervention appears as sound as your grasp of the law.