Libya vs Iraq

Goddamnit Van.

Key differences include:
1) This intervention is supported by the U.N. The U.S. is not waging an illegal war, in other words.
2) The motivation behind this intervention isn't revenge (oil). Even with solid evidence, revenge doesn't win you points amongst your peers; and there most certainly was not solid evidence.

People were upset with the States (over Iraq) because the motion to wage war was dismissed by the U.N. The States went ahead and did it anyway, with fabricated evidence.

People are not upset with the States over Libya because the motion to wage war (with the no-fly zone) was supported by the U.N. In fact, iirc, noone voted against the motion (though Germany, China, and Russia? abstained from voting). So this time, the States went about this the right way; and tbh, I doubt the attacks would've been ordered had the U.N. disagreed, as there was nothing to really be gained (remember, America liked Gaddafi).

Not only that, but the States have faded from center stage, allowing NATO to take charge of the operation. It's not "America's war" this time around - it's the Western World's.

I know you're hardcore republican, and I'm well aware we all have our confirmation biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), but for the love of lucifer, don't form opinions without adequate information.

P.S. Fox News does not constitute adequate information.
 
OmniNept said:
People are not upset with the States over Libya because the motion to wage war (with the no-fly zone) was supported by the U.N. In fact, iirc, noone voted against the motion (though Germany, China, and Russia? abstained from voting). So this time, the States went about this the right way; and tbh, I doubt the attacks would've been ordered had the U.N. disagreed, as there was nothing to really be gained (remember, America liked Gaddafi).
Click to expand...


Nothing to be gained by the US, we don't get our oil from them. Europeans do. Of course they voted for it.

Frankly, I always thought we should have just went to war with Iraq for the same "surface" reason of the current intervention in Libya.
 
OmniNept said:
Goddamnit Van.

Key differences include:
1) This intervention is supported by the U.N. The U.S. is not waging an illegal war, in other words.
2) The motivation behind this intervention isn't revenge (oil). Even with solid evidence, revenge doesn't win you points amongst your peers; and there most certainly was not solid evidence.

People were upset with the States (over Iraq) because the motion to wage war was dismissed by the U.N. The States went ahead and did it anyway, with fabricated evidence.

People are not upset with the States over Libya because the motion to wage war (with the no-fly zone) was supported by the U.N. In fact, iirc, noone voted against the motion (though Germany, China, and Russia? abstained from voting). So this time, the States went about this the right way; and tbh, I doubt the attacks would've been ordered had the U.N. disagreed, as there was nothing to really be gained (remember, America liked Gaddafi).

Not only that, but the States have faded from center stage, allowing NATO to take charge of the operation. It's not "America's war" this time around - it's the Western World's.

I know you're hardcore republican, and I'm well aware we all have our confirmation biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), but for the love of lucifer, don't form opinions without adequate information.
Click to expand...
So you're saying we need approval from the U.N. to assist the people under dictators? .....
 
OmniNept said:
confirmation biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)
Click to expand...
I wonder how many times you've brought that up in IRC with Van. Even so, this has become the reason why I despise both the media and politics. Politics is violent, deceiving, and unforgiving, and the media only intensifies the pain, the frustration, and the hate.
On another note, though, I do have to say that Obama has not kept true to a few things he advocated or promised before becoming President, so I really hope he knows what he's doing.
 
Sin said:
So you're saying we need approval from the U.N. to assist the people under dictators? .....
Click to expand...

With military action? I'm pretty sure we do. From what I understand the U.N. Security Council will create a "resolution" for a situation and members will vote on it. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, I only took a brief look at U.N. policy and such) that 9 members need to vote on the resolution and it cannot be vetoed by any one member in a permanent seat on the council (China, France, Russia, the UK and America), if a/the resolution is vetoed and you continue with it or act on the situation in any other way without permission/support it's considered illegal. A good example of that is the Iraq war. I'm not sure what happens when you do that though, because I don't remember America getting anything but a verbal slap on the hand for the Iraq nonsense. I don't enjoy watching the news though so I could be very wrong.
 
the U.S., or any other nation for that matter, does not need approval from the U.N., or any other such entity, to go to war. Having approval from the U.N. simply makes it look better.
 
Dacil said:
neither does CBS, CNN, or NBC.... go with BBC for non-brainwashing and non-seriously biased news.
Click to expand...

yeah, I watch them all with a grain of salt. Really, the only time I really watch the news is when at Guard duty, and we flip pretty evenly between Fox and CNN. Both biased in their own ways. But, what news source isn't biased. There is no such thing as "bias free".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top