Is bombing lybian forces a good idea?

1. 60

   nightwork4posted 13 years ago

   Is bombing lybian forces a good idea?
   
   will this solve anything or just cause civillian deaths and more hatred towards the U.S. and britian?

   replyreport
2. 61

   Caterinoposted 13 years ago

   i never thought war was a good idea, but if they learn from history, Reagan took out Qaddafi
   with one smart bomb and he kept quiet for 20 years till now.

   replyreport
3. 61

   furnituremanposted 13 years ago

   We have shown to the whole world that even a bloodless revolution could topple a dictator. The US should not interfere with the affairs of the Libyans. Let them solve their own crisis.

   replyreport
4. 0

   AMBASSADOR BUTLERposted 13 years ago

   We are doing the right thing in not allowing the Libian forces to bomb its own citizens without any restraints and consequences for their actions. We have to cut it off at the root from the leader commands of bombing and killing innocent people of its citizens. The time for action is now before it gets out of hand and save as many people as possible in not being killed by its own government that is ruling over them out of an evil heart and mind.

   replyreport
5. 0

   Kbraggposted 13 years ago

   Gadhafi cares for nobody but himself. Though he may actually, truly believe that the people of Libya are on his side, that is just a trait of his megalomania. He believes that, after decades of rule, he is omnipotent. Gadhafi is murdering his own citizens, innocents included, and even hiring foreign mercenaries to do this for him in some cases. Doing this shows that he is worried, and fears being toppled, and so he is not going to stop until either he comes out victorious or dead, and will use any means to win. This action by the United Nations, which includes not only the U.S. and Britain but a coalition of 22 nations such as Italy, France, and even many Arab nations, is necessary to ensure that civilian deaths do not increase. Unlike Iraq, where we forcibly installed a democracy, the people of Libya have reached out to us for our support of their efforts, and so it will serve to improve our image to these people.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 13 years ago

   If the UN performs air strikes, the only air strikes it should perform should be to destroy Gaddafi's air forces--air fields, command and control and attack aircraft. This will level the playing field for the rebels to have a fighting chance against Gaddafi's ground forces. Air forces give Gaddafi too much of an advantage. This should be the extent of UN interference, if any at all. The US should stay out of this completely and do nothing. If history has taught us anything at all, the US should stay out of this--no matter how tempting it might be to help those rebels out. Do not send in US or UN ground forces.

   replyreport
7. 59

   DannyMaioposted 13 years ago

   I do believe it is a good Idea, If they actually get rid of him. Just curious why we pick and choose who we help.

   replyreport
8. 58

   Freethinker79posted 13 years ago

   Yea if your are Bush and Cheney get a huge payday, the military will probably get a based over there. Its win win if youre one of the previously mentioned.

   replyreport
9. 59

   okta12posted 13 years ago

   I think we are not the right people to judge. What we do see is a piece of the so called "big picture".

   replyreport
10. 0

    khmohsinposted 13 years ago

    War is not the solution for every thing ,Although Qaddafi had no care for anyone,But there many other ways to solve this.

    replyreport
11. 70

    Dexter Yarbroughposted 13 years ago

    When I was younger, my mother used to say, "mind your own business!" It becomes your business when you become directly involved or indirectly affected.
    
    If the US was attacked directly by Libya, it becomes directly involved. If Canada is attacked by Libya, the US is indirectly impacted. The proper response should be meted out.
    
    Using diplomacy to have an effect on the behavior of another nation should trump costly "missions." Bombing a country in the midst of a civil war, while ignoring the abuses and threats from Iran, North Korea and China borders on being cowardly. I am sure these people could benefit from US intervention.
    
    I don't think the US would stand for another country dropping missiles on it if US citizens protested in Washington and called for the current leadership to step down.
    
    There are people having a very hard time in the US. My mother also said, "take care of home first."

    replyreport
12. 59

    ThatFatGuyposted 13 years ago

    I'm usually for staying out of foreign political affairs, but every once in a while it might actually benefit us. U.S.A. benefits more from democratic countries than dictatorships, so helping the Libyan revolution may prove to be beneficial. Also, since we're already against Gadhafi he won't send us oil, so helping the opposition might give us economic favor if they win. Plus the UN has already oppose Gadhafi war against his people so it's not like fighting Gadhafi is wrong in the international spotlight. And who else is going to stop Gadhafi? You need a big strong military and can back itself up if Gadhafi trys to fight back and fighting America isn't something any country would do, even if provoked. Besides, the USA isn't alone in this conflict, dozens of nations are involved in stopping Gadhafi, USA is more or less playing "referee" and can step in to deal a death blow to Gadhafi if things get seriously out of control.

    replyreport
13. 59

    Paul Kohlerposted 13 years ago

    I say no, because where will it end. The unrest is spreading into many countries with the government killing their citizens all over the middle east so where will we draw the line on who's life is good enough to try and save? I applaude their efforts for freedom but by picking our favorites and leaving the rest to fend for themselves will hurt us in the long run.

    replyreport
14. 73

    platinumOwl4posted 13 years ago

    Dropping bombs on humans is never a good idea. By this date the international community should have learned a great lesson. However, it appears they have not.

    replyreport
15. 66

    ptosisposted 13 years ago

    
    
    Why we pick and choose which country that kills it's own people or not.
    
    If country has oil, or next to a country that has oil - then WAR!
    
    If country has no oil resources or is not next to a country that has oil then IGNORE!
    
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
    
    Armenian genocide
    Rwandan genocide
    Georgia genocide
    Christian Genocide In Myanmar
    
    Here's some more - can you point them on a map?
    Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002)
    Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979)
    Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97)
    Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996)
    Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000)
    
    
    The US is no exception:
    
    Nixon and Kissinger are considered war criminals becuase they delayed the peace process for re-relection purposes:
    
    Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974), 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)

    replyreport