Should the US Intervene in Libya?

i was gonna say that facts are very important when it comes to discussing interfering with another sovereign country

but then an image of colin powell and the Bush administrations facts appeared before me ..... and i realised that facts really aren't important at all

so no, to me it really doesn't matter which country is responsible for the internet

 

I suggest we intervene in our own country. Might want to start with the ghettoes that have existed for decades. Too bad there are no resources in them to steal. Goes to show the business of america is to fascillitate the business of america.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12672640

No fly zone proposition gathering pace, Britain and France to introduce resolution to the UN security council, Arab Gulf states back proposal as Arab league calls for emergency meeting. Russia however appears to still be opposed while China remains quiet.

 

I dont think any country should be responsible for the internet. The internet is a free forum, a mass gathering of information and communication for the collective populace. If any one country claims power over the internet, that is the day i die.

The United States Can't afford to get into Libya right now. The US has troops stationed around the world, and feeds out billions and billions of dollars a week. Imagine a stimulus of twenty billion dollars going into the economy, to consumers, or going toward alternative energies and infrastructure. thats less than two weeks of the current US military spending budget. The United States contributes to almost half of the worlds total military spending.

The US needs to get their stuff together, and spend on the people, or all people in general, at least. Otherwise, it's going to crash like britain after world war 2, or Spain did in the 1800's, or like portugal before that. World power comes in cycles. A country gains power rapidly and gets the number one spot. Then, it all comes crashing down overnight. The US hasn't done that yet. If it isnt brought together and prevented, it's going to happen soon.

I'm all for stopping whats going on over there, helping the people to depose Gaddafi. But, if that is done primarily by the united states and the economy is overspent, then it will crumple and the United States will crash, and hard. I do not think that this would be a good development, not only for the three hundred million United States citizens, but for the world.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

 

britain didn't crash after world war 2 .. the USA demanded all our gold reserves, us to give up our remaining colonies, a 100 year lease on every naval base we owned outside of mainland britain and a 2% interest on the 4.34 billion it billed us for it's aid (which we finally finished repaying in 2006)

we didn't crash, we were kept economically poor by paying the bill sent to us by our allies for fighting facists :mickey:

god bless capitalism

just a small point, enjoyed the rest of ya post alex

 

I dont think the US needs to go and do Iraq 2.0 , but who knows what would happen in Gadafy remains in control?

We've got decide is it worth the risk NOT providing military aid.

 

You know intervention =/= full out invasion.

 

I know but will the military leave when the troubles been resolved? Your quite fond of your =/= , I see

 

Why would the military even be there period, that would imply invasion.

 

What are the chances that the US would provide military aid without stationing a few troops there? I'm writing from common sense, you most likely know more than myself on this, I'm just voicing my opinion

 

A no fly zone and it wouldn't be just American planes, it's Britain and France who introduced the resolution to the UN security council, the US already said it won't to impose a no fly zone without it being a multilateral operation and with legal authority from the UN.

 

If the US were to enforce a no fly zone, then military planes that gaddafi put up would have to be shot down. then there are the antiaircraft guns and ground to air missiles. Any planes that were shot down would automatically require that ground forces be sent in to search for survivors of the downed craft. Therefore, a ground presence as well. And in that, we all know that Gaddafi is going to get ticked and declare war on US troops and gun for them as well as the rebels.

apologies Oz, Thanks for the clarification, and in the future I can claim a greater degree of accuracy.

Edit: another oversight with the UN involvement (thanks Syd) a similar situation will occur with the UN in terms of military. Not the economic crumble, but the military retaliation to the enforcement of a no fly zone

 

A no fly zone would in fact require military operations from the air, but I don't think Ghaddafi could shoot down any American, or any western nation fighter/bomber for that matter. The military of Libya for a long time has been neglected for years, and pro Ghaddafi forces control less than half the country. I wouldn't be surprised if Libya only has a few jets that are even operational.

 

No....Remember the Prime Directive....Don't mettle in the internal affairs of other worlds....:-/

 

I hate when people say it's a different world because it helps to perpetuate the idea that people in North Africa share some radically different mindset than people in Europe, and let's not even get into the mindset of people of South America, ect. It's not another world, it's another country on this world. It's not even a different world in terms of society, these are not bushmen high up in the hills of Papau New Guinea, or some tribe deep in the Amazon rain forest. Libya has the highest human development index of any African nation, these are people in jeans, leather jackets, talking on cell phones, drinking coffee and tea, eating at restaurants, ect. And these people are being killed and bombed by high tech(well not really, more like cold war era) machine guns and MIG fighter jets, fighting for rights that are so universal they're part of the UN deceleration of universal human rights. There's nothing other wordly about this.

 

There is literally not a nation on earth that would stand a chance against the US in the sky. Libya would not take down a single plane.

We have some things that are more vulnerable, like B-52's, but even that's quite hard to shoot down. The planes that would be used to enforce a no-fly zone are some of the fastest in the world, undeniably the most deadly at what they do, and have the best evasion/defense mechanisms in the world.

Just saying.... We have absolute air superiority, all a no fly zone with US planes enforcing it would endanger is gaddafi's planes, if they tried to do anything it would be a suicide mission.

 

I have no problem with the u.s. imposing a no fly zone over lybia. Because it helps the rebels and gives none of are money to the privite interprises and corperations that run are militery industrial complex.

 

Who do you think built those crazy-expensive planes? Who do you think develops the pilot training for them, the flight procedures for them, the ground and maintainence procedures and equipment for them? Where do you think the jet fuel for them comes from? Who do you think flies them?

Boeing, lockheed-martin, the USAF, oil companies, etc.

 

Let's not forget most likely American planes(The Brits would use Malta I assume, France Corsica) are coming off one of those 12 aircraft carriers we have.(Rest of the world doesn't even have that put together)

In fact here's the number of carriers which doesn't count those under construction(We have at least one or two, Britain and France have 2 each, I don't know about anyone else)
United States -11
Britain - 1(3, 2 in reserve, one in active service)
France - 1
Russia - 1
Brazil - 1
Italy - 2
Spain - 1
India 1

 

Yes I know this. But to impose a no fly zone with the few air-crafts needed that we already have stationed near lybia doing nothing would cost little to nothing in comparison to any other militery action. The oil, planes and pilots already out there have already ben paid for.