All those not in a time, please do not post in this thread, thanks.

Prompt: Was the foreign intervention in the Libya situation right?

For: IQ, LC, Taz
Against: Xeru, Simmen, mfreak

Free for all debate, no format. Do not get personal, do have fun.

If you could remove me, I'd appreciate it. Sorry, but I'm really busy with classes and volunteer work right now.

IQ is now in the 'for' side, meaning that we have full teams and can start.

Whoever wants to open debate can feel free.

Might as well start :

On the 19th March, a joint coalition force of the French, British and Americans. They implemented many effective tasks and to the benefit of the Libyan people.
Without this intervention, the objective to overthrow Qaddafi may never have occurred.

It was the Libyan people, the rebel army that pleaded to us foreigners that it was RIGHT for us to help them. The rebels at the time were hugely handicapped. They didn't have any aircraft at the time. They would be constantly bombed by Libyan Army aircraft. They maybe had one or two anti-aircraft guns maybe even none. Qaddafi had organization and a ruthless batch of criminals. The rebels, quite the opposite. Disorganized and out of place, they were the rag-tag group, old guns, unsure what to do. They were vulnerable. When the us (the foreign), intervened, it balanced the equation, it aided the rebels significantly.

Many people got very worried. People opposed. However it was because they were nervous from the beginnings of an Iraq war. Obviously it had the initial beginnings of one. Innocent deaths, Dictatorship and Terrorism. However, the rebels are fighting for us. We simply needed to aid them. There are many other key differences. The US invaded Iraq. We are just AIDING them. Many people believe we may be doing this for oil. However this is not the case. If it were for oil, and to control the oil, we would have to launch a fully scaled invasion and occupation. However we are just controlling the air.

One of the first tasks we undertook was to create a no fly zone. This no-fly zone may have saved hundreds of lives if not thousands. Qaddafi's air force were likely to bomb ruthlessly, probably the majority of deaths being innocent citizens. A naval blockage was also created. This cut-off supplies to the Qaddafi regime and slowly strangled them towards defeat. On the 23rd of February Nicolas Sarkosy (the french president) ordered the EU to freeze Qaddafi's assets. This would mean no new machinery or weapons were to be bought by the army. This would allow the rebels to push more slightly. The foreigners didn't intervene a lot. They did their best to avoid a war with Libya. Therefore, they aided taking out the armored tanks. These tanks were the major part in holding back the rebels. Once taken out, it was a much closer contest. The Libyan people took up arms because they were getting killed at peaceful protest. They didn't want war because they knew Qaddafi had superior weaponry and technology. Now war is occurring, we wouldn't just sit back and watch them die would we?

It is far to say from the above, Us foreigners did a lot to contribute to the war, military wise. We definitely aided in the victory of the rebels. It was definitely right. We weren't fighting for the rebels. We were protecting the CIVILIANS. We were following the rules of NATO, trying our best to protect the people. Qaddafi were innocently slaughtering thousands of children and women.

We as foreign nations, have not done anything apart form what the PEOPLE of Libya wanted. They wanted a no-fly zone. They got a no-fly zone. The other Arab nations are in support of the campaign. To stop Qaddafi killing innocent people. As long as the Libyan people say they need help, we need to offer help. WE shouldn't do anything they don't wish for and we should do everything n our capabilities to aid them as much as possible.

~IQ

I apologize in advance for the brevity of this post. 

Upon reading your post, it seems to me that your argument is centered around the assumption that foreign intervention in Libya saved civilian lives. Firstly, please do not say that the Libyan people are the rebel army. Let us remember that during the entire war there were always supporters of Gaddafi in tripoli an other strongholds. The rebel army wanted a no-fly zone--the rebel army in no way forms a complete demographic of the people of Libya, and such judgements are not yours to make. As long as the Libyan people need help...right, aside from the bungled attempt at insinuating rebel army=all the people, how good is foreign military intervention at giving help again? Time magazine recently sent a group of journalists to Afghanistan, the result of which was a conclusion that the people thought life was better under the Taliban. Your vivid description of the war I view to be nothing more than efforts to evoke pity. Yes, the rebels were outnumbered and outfought, thanks, we got that. 

I am quite frankly disturbed by your statement that the rebel army were fighting 'for' us (us being I assume the American gov plus NATO)? I would like to point out that if the American government turned the rebel army to the equivalent of an American force, this is not only a gross violation of National Sovereignty but also more importantly, the epitome of neocolonialism. Are you aware that neocolonialism is forbidden under intl law? Here's a word for you: oil. 

The above I can actually live with, barely. However, you said that you were only following the rules of NATO. I am astonished. By what moral compass are you deciding that the judgements of NATO are humane in any way? Yes, Gaddafi killed peaceful protesters. But are the armies of Gaddafi not people too? You say that Gaddai were [sic] slaughtering thousands of children and women. A). Care to give a source?, B). Once again a futile attempt at evoking pity by only stating women and children, C). Right and what about the NATO bombings? What about rebel sacking of cities? 

A lot of what IQ posted was about how NATO fought for the Libyan people. While I thank you for providing us with facts to base an argument on, I would like to point out some things that are...well, wrong. "This would allow the rebels to push more slightly. The foreigners didn't intervene a lot. They did their best to avoid a war with Libya. Therefore, they aided taking out the armored tanks." I would like a logically coherent explanation of this statement please. Let's do our best to avoid a war by taking out military?

Your entire second paragraph lacks a point. The only one I'm picking up is "Foreign intervention in Libya was right because it provided a fair fight", and unjustiied bias is once again shown by saying Gaddafi had a ruthless batch of criminals. Needless to say, that point is rather...pointless. 

"If it were for oil, and to control the oil, we would have to launch a fully scaled invasion and occupation. However we are just controlling the air." This is incorrect. Neocolonialism would grant the foreign countries the equivalent of control over the oil. Also, "controlling the air" is pretty funny. Let's add bombing into the equation? Foreign intervention in Libya was nothing short of a fully scaled invasion, the only difference being that the Rebel Army, in the pockets by the foreign countries, replaced their own army. Since rebel army was completely obedient to the countries helping them, and the subsequent government, this point is nullified. 

"Now war is occurring, we wouldn't just sit back and watch them die would we?" I'm confused. Is this before or after you took out the Libyan military through bombing? Also, I'm a bit surprised here. Let's not watch them die by bombing the other side to little bits. That would be more humane. 

The last paragraph was a bit too melodramatic for my taste. Also, the people of Afghanistan want you out of their country. Why not listen to them? The people of Palestine wants to blow the people of Israel to bits and vice versa, why not help them? What differentiates Libya?

(my fingers hurt, not doing this on an iPhone again. )

Okay so first of all your arguments are based on a LOT of assumptions and media (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) and propaganda. This is not true at all.



What effective tasks did the US and the NATO implement that benefitted the libyan people? Dont tell me no-fly zones etc. Really, how did the Libyan people benefit?



I do not know how strong the rebel army was. The rebel army does not represent the entire population of Libya. They are just a rebel group. Any rebel group is gonna ask for outside help, in order to meet their objectives. That does not however mean, that the people of Libya wanted US intervention.

Also, you have to understand that enforcing naval blockades, freezing assets, establishing no fly zones, and enforcing curfews etc are standard protocol during times of war or civilian unrest. Its not what people ASK for. I actually LOL'ed when you said - "They wanted a no-fly zone. They got a no-fly zone." Its not like they say - "Hey!! We want a no fly zone" LOL.

Now coming back to reality, let me explain what the NATO and the UNSC is. NATO and the UNSC are a power circle. ESPECIALLY the UNSC. They make policies that suit their respective interests. Now, right from the time of WW2, the US realized that War could be profitable. This gave rise to the military industrial complex. Now these guys are in the middle east, not just for oil, but for all other kinds of businesses as well. For example, they provide services to the US army. Eg: Halliburton and KBR etc. These wars cost an average of 500k USD a MINUTE for the US. And who do you think rakes in the profits? Its the corporations. Therefore, the sole purpose of war in the middle east is for political and economic gain. Like Duo said, neo-colonialism.

Now after the end of the British Colonial period, and after the UN got created, the UNSC came together and "assumed" responsibility of world peace. This further, led to war everywhere around the globe. In the form of "humanitarian intervention".

So its not like what you think. The libyan people get nothing. You mean to say, in order to stop the libyan airforce from bombing stuff, the american airforce has taken over and then do the same thing again? Its not like the US is spending billions in order to save the people of libya. Infact the Rebel leader - Abdul Hakim al Hasidi, is a Al-Qaeda asset. He himself has admitted to it

bump for IQ and company

I think we won. lol. By forfeit. lmao.

note to self:

next time put me and mfreak on seperate teams.

*Sorry*

So much for a team...

I will be writing mine shortly, as I still need to make those sigs, they have a priority.