Do you support the intervention by the US and the other Powers against the Gadaffhi regime of Libya?
I’m tenuous on this but I say yes(2nd option).
Gaddafi’s been behaving alright for a few years now, but I still consider him an enemy of the US and there’s no telling when he’ll decide to destabilize another part of Africa. So go for it.
I voted No. No help, no involvment. I sympathise with the rebels, but I am tired of American military adventurism. My military policy opinions are in line with the Libertarian party stance, we should protect our borders, support any treaties we have signed, and use diplomacy aggressivly. This does not fall in these catagories; we are not the World’s policeman and I regret using taxpayer dollars to kill people in a country that we have nothing to do with. If they didn’t have oil and were not on the EU’s border, we would not be having this discussion…
All that said, now we are fucked. We have unwisely started this intervention, and rational analysis of the situation may lead to the conclusion that we have to continue. I am not stating that, I don’t actually know, but I recognize that this could be the case… I regret Iraq and Libya and would have done things differently in Afghanistan.
I voted no and no aid to the rebels. This is predicated that we were not already involved.
As we are in, and are making a mess of it, I would probably now support going in hard and finishing the job rather than create a quagmire. But I am not positive on this. Rather we shouldn’t be involved in the first place.
I mean where are we regarding Syria, Bahrain and Yemen? Answer - where we should be regarding Libya.
Come on Curtis, don’t be so lazy, at least express your own opinion on the issue.
If you want posters to participate in your poll maybe a little participation should be forthcoming on your side.
And I only bring this up as it’s become such a habit for you. Seeking input from others without offering any of your own looks kind of lazy to me.
So, what do YOU think?
I really don’t get our current level of commitment in Lybia. We will try to stop the Gadaffhi regime from killing the rebels but we won’t try to help the rebels overthrow the Gadaffhi regime. So, it looks like our policy is to prepetuate the conflict as long as possible, making sure neither side gets an overwhemling advantage. Why? Are we selling arms to both sides?
I support finding out where Khadafy is and bombing the crap out of it. I don’t see the rebels as having proved themselves worthy of boots on the ground, but am willing to bet they’re better than Khadafy so I don’t mind helping them topple him.
I support the effort, for now. Gaddafi has no problem killing his own people; he needs to go.
Nope. No threat. Didn’t do anything to us. Internal problem. Way, way different than Afghanistan and what we thought Iraq was at first.
I believe we should provide some material aid but no significant military action (meaning no direct action, no drone strikes.)
I am an American and I believe American foreign policy must be based on an America-first perspective. This is how France, Germany, Russia, China, all operate. Arguably the only other major power that consistently does not act in its own self interest in international affairs is the UK, and like us she would be better off if she did.
Large scale war between major powers is now so disastrous that no possible benefit to the victor could ever make up for the costs of the war.
Further, large scale wars of conquest in which a major power conquers a lesser power are so expensive and costly that no benefit of the conquest can possibly make up for the costs of the war.
For this reason I believe essentially we need to dramatically change our military and scale it down immensely. We do not need to worry about open war with China or Russia because such wars are impossible for either side and would be complete ruination. We have a military something like 10 times as mighty as China or Russia, we could cut it in half easily and still be as powerful as we need to be.
I do believe that in select cases military intervention will still be necessary in the future. For example we may have to become involved militarily in Mexico at some point, intervention did need to happen in Libya, intervention may need to happen in Yemen, intervention may need to happen at some point again with Georgia.
In those cases I believe by and large regional military powers need to take responsibility for keeping the reckless smaller countries in line. As part of that line of thinking I would say anything in North Africa or the Balkans needs to be the responsibility of the European Union. Obviously the United States will have to be responsible for the Western Hemisphere, but we should push Brazil into becoming a more significant player in the future and should actively encourage Brazil’s military growth. Africa is a large continent and will have to be dealt with collectively by the great powers. Much of Asia I feel should be handled by the Russians and Chinese, but because of historical involvement there we may potentially need to be involved in Asia.
No, and don’t aid the rebels.
First of all, we (speaking the USA here) jump into too many of these conflicts, but in a willy nilly fashion. Seriously, if it’s about human rights, well, we should certainly be looking to Saudi Arabia as well, but that isn’t even considered.
The USA really needs to step back, pack up, and work on setting our own house in order. I cannot help but feel that far too many of the conflicts we (as a US Citizen) stick our nose into are nothing more the expensive political ploys to appeal to XYZ demographic for various polls.
I think the intervention is morally right. Like most people I was horrified to see innocent civilians being fired on not just by ground troops but from the air.
If I saw a guy beating up a child I would intervene, and this is similar on an international scale. Fuck borders.
Of course, ideally, the US would not have had the war in Iraq and so would not be in the position of worrying about looking evil even while doing good.
And of course, the rest of the nations that supported the intervention should contribute more material help and more vocal support.
But ya know…we’re doing our best in a bad situation.
France? Sarkozy was perhaps the main figure calling for the no-fly zone.
And they’ve contributed plenty of planes / soldiers…not sure if it’s more than the US, I can’t seem to find a breakdown anywhere.
No intervention and no aid. Qadaffi hasn’t bothered us in 30 years. It’s a bit late to be seeking revenge. As for the rebels, frankly they seem to be too incompetant to run Libya. Even with all the help NATO bombing is providing, they aren’t able to make any headway. Plus, there have been indications that the rebels hate the sub-Saharan Africans that live in southern Libya, so they very well might end up starting an ethnic cleansing (if not an outright genocide) when/if they take control.
It’s really no secret why NATO is involved: Europe wants Libyan oil. The US has no dog in this fight, but Obama stupidly let us get dragged into it. The “human rights” excuse is bullshit; if that’s the case, why haven’t we invaded Syria yet? Why didn’t we invade Sudan years (or even decades) ago?
I support the effort and was hoping we’d get involved earlier. Had we (US, NATO, France, whoever) gotten into it when the rebels were pressing west with momentum on their side rather than waiting for them to be days away from overrun back in Benghazi, this would probably be over by now. Instead we waited for the situation to be critical as a pretext to getting involved and now we’re where we’re at.
I don’t support ground troops or occupying forces but I’m in support of the air missions.
Hey, the US would might have been effed if it weren’t for Lafayette and the rest of them As policy, it would be bad to send in troops, but as a human, I say help them out… we have the resources and why not use them? [Mutters angrily at EU and especially Italy].
That’s what generally happens when the other side has more armor and heavy weapons.
I support intervention and as Douhet’s theories of air power are quite untrue I support limited intervention by ground troops (ie commandoes taking out key figures initially, perhaps dispatching an Afrika Korps if need be). We will avenge Lockerbie and overthrow a brutal tyrant.
Domestically there’s not much more the US government can do. Socially we are stable and economically its up to the private sector, not us.
We must weigh the two sides.
I believe we ought to have intervened in Sudan with regards to Darfur but in Syria for most of its history until recently its people seemed content with the Assad government.
I agree, contrary to Douhet simple air power has never won a war.
Non-US citizen. Absolute no - I am strongly against this action for many of the reasons already stated by other posters above.
To be more specific-
The ostensible justification for this action is untenable - directly aiding insurgents against an oppressive regime sounds plausible until you consider all of the oppressive regimes around the world, Where are the planes protecting peaceful protestors over Syria, Bahrein, Saudi Arabia and the rest? Why weren’t similar measures taken against Sri Lanka when they crushed the Tamil insurgency a year or two ago?
The staggering hypocrisy involved - A year ago many of the same countries now bombing fell overthemselves to embrace Ghadaffi and sign trade deals and the like. One of his sons was awarded a PhD by the London School of Economics for heaven’s sake (albeit in very questionable circumstances). And now the very same leaders who greeted him with open arms are gravely telling us the man’s a monster?
The methods employed are morally questionable - while air strikes on tanks and so on might be justified bombing targets in built up areas necessarily entails killing civilians. Why is ‘protection’ given to civilians in Misratah and Benghazi when citizens in Tripoli die from Nato bombs? No, saying that the intention is to only strike military targets is not an excuse. the euphemism ‘collateral damage’ does not absolve the bombers of their moral guilt for killing civilians.
The actions taken are being presented dishonestly - The strikes targetted on Ghaddafi’s palaces are clearly attempts to kill him yet NATO lacks the honesty to say that is their intention. Much of the coverage I have seen is extremely biased - with reporters trying to justify the destruction of houses by saying their were military installations nearby and the like. Some of the stories appear to be blatent lies designed to demonise the opposition - such as the story about viagra being distributed amongst Ghadaffi’s troops to facilitate rape. Not even cartoon villians behave like this - are we really to believe such propaganda?
The rebels being supported are an unknown quantity - their objectives beyond dethroning Ghaddaffi are unclear, their identities are vague and it is unlikely that their is any viable leadership which can takeover which will not resort to the same methods which Ghaddafi is excoriated for. Much as in Kosovo, NATO appears ot be assisting a bunch of malcontents with dubious legitimacy.
Interfering in internal conflicts sets a bad precedent - now this line has been crossed every insurgency will be queueing up to get their cause heard and supported in a similar manner. While some of these causes may meet your approval you can be sure that others won’t.
The cost/benefit analysis doesn’t stack up - A selfish objection to be sure but one that needs to be answered. In these straitened economic times, when every one of the NATO countries needs to cut budgets why should their taxpayers foot the bill for this foreign adventure? And if the answer is that Libyan oil is going to pay for it all then this simply becomes a matter of colonialism by proxy.
For these reasons (and not through any love for Ghadaffi) I am strongly against the continued NATO involvement. I see little upside from its successful conclusion and many downsides form becoming involved at all.
Oh and ‘avenging Lockerbie’ as a reason for support? please, you’re as bad (if not worse than) as Ghaddafi if that’s your reason. And remember: the world is full of brutal tyrants, most of them are good customers of your defence industries.
The Tamil Tigers did not have support of any large segment of the population nor was the government commiting mass murder against the civilians. In that case the elimination of the rebels were good and brought stability to an island which is badly in need of it.
We were allied with Stalin in World War II. Sometimes you have to tolerate bastards and wait for the right opportunity to strike.
Otherwise modern warfare is impossible.
“Cartoon villains”? Was Pol Pot just a fiction? Considering the abominable dictators of the last century, Gadaffhi’s actions are perfectly believable.
And Kosovo turned out just fine.
The US has intervened in other internal conflicts and haven’t in others.
The NATO governments are cutting trivalities and frivolities not things that are matters of life and death like this.
How are we bad. Typical “You are as bad as Bin Laden/Gadaffhi/Stalin/” type.
Standard practice; the assassination of leaders is taboo, so you are supposed to lie about what you are doing and make a point of endangering or killing multitudes of other people in the process of killing your target.
Say what? Mass rape is an unfortunately common terror tactic. Just look at what the Serbs did in the recent Balkan wars.
And while the phrase you use is a common one, if anything “cartoon villains” are generally a lot less barbaric than the real world ones. You aren’t likely to see cartoon Darkseid rape Wonder Woman and castrate Superman.
And? There’s a rather large gray area between “never intervene” and “always intervene on the side of the rebels”; the only thing the two positions have in common is that they abrogate all judgment in favor of an inflexible rule.