Is it time to Revolt against the United States?

[CreepersWiener]

Really...another war in Libya? It just doesn't make any sense! If the rebels there want freedom and democracy, then let them FIGHT for it on their own! Does the US have to intervene in every global conflict? Obama can piss off...I do not support this war. It is illegal and unneeded from anAmerican stand point.

[Army of GOD]

inb4 saxi talks about US oil interests and then posts a picture of Clinton looking like a vampire

[Night Strike]

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

[BigBallinStalin]

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

That's a good point, but how do you know that these rebels are the popular option compared to Gaddafi?

And, why do you think Obama has made the correct decision regarding US involvement?

[Night Strike]

That's a good point, but how do you know that these rebels are the popular option compared to Gaddafi?

And, why do you think Obama has made the correct decision regarding US involvement?

The answer to both is because of the violence used by Qaddafi's regime to quell the dissent. When threatened with violence, most people will choose to stay silent rather than speak their true feelings. If the rebels were just a small minority and as long as they did not use violence first, then the government would have no need to violently oppose them: the rebels would eventually go away. But because the government knows that the rebels' claims are valid and may lead more people to boldly agree with the rebels, it had to be forcefully crushed. It's just unfortunate that the allies entered the scene when the rebels were down to their final city as opposed to when they were actually making gains 10-14 days ago. That just shows the ineptitude of the UN and the unwillingness of Obama to do what's right. They both finally did the right thing in helping those who are in need, and Britain and France have already indicated that they plan to be the leaders if any ground assault is needed. The US may be leading this first attack, but that doesn't mean we're leading the entire effort.

[pimpdave]

That's a good point, but how do you know that these rebels are the popular option compared to Gaddafi?

And, why do you think Obama has made the correct decision regarding US involvement?

More importantly, why hasn't France surrendered yet?

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a good point, but how do you know that these rebels are the popular option compared to Gaddafi?

And, why do you think Obama has made the correct decision regarding US involvement?

More importantly, why hasn't France surrendered yet?

An excellent question, sir.

[Army of GOD]

1. It's their fault for living there
2. We all know the real reason we're in Libya (as I mentioned in my inb4 post). We don't care about their lives or their freedom, we care about their oil. This should be the U.N.'s job, not ours.

[comic boy]

That's a good point, but how do you know that these rebels are the popular option compared to Gaddafi?

And, why do you think Obama has made the correct decision regarding US involvement?

The answer to both is because of the violence used by Qaddafi's regime to quell the dissent. When threatened with violence, most people will choose to stay silent rather than speak their true feelings. If the rebels were just a small minority and as long as they did not use violence first, then the government would have no need to violently oppose them: the rebels would eventually go away. But because the government knows that the rebels' claims are valid and may lead more people to boldly agree with the rebels, it had to be forcefully crushed. It's just unfortunate that the allies entered the scene when the rebels were down to their final city as opposed to when they were actually making gains 10-14 days ago. That just shows the ineptitude of the UN and the unwillingness of Obama to do what's right. They both finally did the right thing in helping those who are in need, and Britain and France have already indicated that they plan to be the leaders if any ground assault is needed. The US may be leading this first attack, but that doesn't mean we're leading the entire effort.

I agree with most of what you have said but you are wrong about Obama , he has actually played it very well and it is only your extreme bias that indicates otherwise. What was imperative was that a broad coalition was in place as it was essential that any action was not viewed as simply US aggression , this took time as certain European and Arab countries needed a degree of persuasion.
What you view as an unwaranted delay was not caused by the dithering of Obama , rather it was the result of the previous blundering by Bush and Blair , the consequencies of which have caused others to be wary.

[pimpdave]

1. It's their fault for living there

Yeah, I mean, they knew the risks. Why did they choose to live there?

[Night Strike]

I agree with most of what you have said but you are wrong about Obama , he has actually played it very well and it is only your extreme bias that indicates otherwise. What was imperative was that a broad coalition was in place as it was essential that any action was not viewed as simply US aggression , this took time as certain European and Arab countries needed a degree of persuasion.
What you view as an unwaranted delay was not caused by the dithering of Obama , rather it was the result of the previous blundering by Bush and Blair , the consequencies of which have caused others to be wary.

Some delay was warranted to make sure all of our people got out of the country while they had an opportunity as well as move possible military assets into the region. That should have taken a maximum of 7-10 days (maybe a few more for the military). It was 32 days before Obama and the UN took actual actions. The difference between Iraq and the current situation in Libya is that people are actively rebelling and getting killed. In a situation like that, quick and decisive actions are necessary, not long-term dithering. In Iraq, there was no active rebellion that needed support.

[Hannibał]

Gaadafi put it best when in a open address he asked obama to please tell him what he would do put in his shoes..priceless. You fight violence with violence, he's the leader so of course he's going to defend his position. We really do need to mind our buissness, we have enough problems.. just because another country starts dipping in (france flying over libya) we have to one up them and send missles..which by the way, why is this no fly zone only directed at the country who's air space it is..pretty assinine..

The middle east has a long history of violence, it won't ever stop no matter who the united states places in power for their interests. Crazyness.

[Hannibał]

inb4 saxi talks about US oil interests and then posts a picture of Clinton looking like a vampire

[pimpdave]

Oh, and on a matter more related to the thread title, if you want to revolt against the US and you plan on doing so by invading us, good luck. We're all armed and ready to roll. Bring it on.

Instead, you should have a cheeseburger while you listen to a pop song.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a good point, but how do you know that these rebels are the popular option compared to Gaddafi?

And, why do you think Obama has made the correct decision regarding US involvement?

The answer to both is because of the violence used by Qaddafi's regime to quell the dissent. When threatened with violence, most people will choose to stay silent rather than speak their true feelings. If the rebels were just a small minority and as long as they did not use violence first, then the government would have no need to violently oppose them: the rebels would eventually go away. But because the government knows that the rebels' claims are valid and may lead more people to boldly agree with the rebels, it had to be forcefully crushed. It's just unfortunate that the allies entered the scene when the rebels were down to their final city as opposed to when they were actually making gains 10-14 days ago. That just shows the ineptitude of the UN and the unwillingness of Obama to do what's right. They both finally did the right thing in helping those who are in need, and Britain and France have already indicated that they plan to be the leaders if any ground assault is needed. The US may be leading this first attack, but that doesn't mean we're leading the entire effort.

But you're conveniently ignoring the history and effects of backfiring. What chances are there that the NFSL will install a "democratic" form of government? Given all these sources from wikipedia:

Keeble, Richard. "The Secret War Against Libya" (in English). http://www.medialens.org. http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_a ... t_war.html. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
# ^ Vandewalle, Dirk (2006) (in English). Α History of Modern Libya. Cambridge University Press.
# ^ Woodward, Bob (2005) (in English). Veil: The secret wars of the CIA, 1981-1987. Simon and Schuster.
# ^ Nutter, John Jacob (1999) (in English). The CIA's black opts. Prometheus Books.

there's a huge indication that the same disastrous thing will occur to Libya's people (especially since the CIA is involved, that there's massive business interests at play, and for the following reason:).


The trend of US military intervention in some foreign country involves installing some non-democratic or pseudo-democratic government. Even if the regime selected is one emulating "liberal democratic" attributes, it has failed to produce beneficial results (see Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003/2002 respectively).

You are assuming that this government will actually be good to its people, but given the above, chances are, if it's US-backed, it most likely won't be.

And, regarding the people, their indifference, or exerting no forms of resistance whether its passive or active, is not a good indicator of whether or not the majority of Libyan support either Gaddafi or even the NFSL, so you can't claim that the people support the rebels (simply because you have no way of knowing). There's the strong possibility that many people aren't willing to side with either faction, and given the US' history of international fuck-ups for such situations, it's best for the US to do nothing.

Conclusion: Given all of the above, it's best for the US to do nothing, which is why it's best to let such disputes handle themselves.

Now, the US could give the rebels money and advisers (but never becoming directly involved through military intervention); however, such a policy has sown the seeds of unintended consequences like various guerrilla factions which the US battles today--namely, Al-Qaeda.



tl;dr:
For those who claim that the US should do something, then they should put their money where their mouth is, and donate to the NFSL.

For those who say "NO, I want the US to do it"--those very people are also supporting the notion that the US should extract hard-earned money from our economy and from our future (since it won't be spent on paying off debt), and instead spend that money on supporting some violent, rebellious faction which has a remote chance of bringing long-term peace and prosperity to a country of about 6.4 million people.

Those people who force their wills upon us and on the Libyans have no right to do this.

[BigBallinStalin]

As for revolting against US policies, the best I can do is show others that the decisions made by the US federal government are wrong.

I'm doing my part, are you? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc)

[Hannibał]

Oh, and on a matter more related to the thread title, if you want to revolt against the US and you plan on doing so by invading us, good luck. We're all armed and ready to roll. Bring it on.

Instead, you should have a cheeseburger while you listen to a pop song.

Hooah!
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828?ca=rdt < Most armed nation = USA. Aprox 90 weapons to 100 citizens. 270millon of the worlds 875m weapons.

[Woodruff]

The difference between Iraq and the current situation in Libya is that people are actively rebelling and getting killed. In a situation like that, quick and decisive actions are necessary, not long-term dithering. In Iraq, there was no active rebellion that needed support.

You mean like the Kurds and Shiites?

[Qwert]

by Night Strike on Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:14 pm

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

You realy belive in that? Somalian LEgal Goverment, who are Backed from UN, and US and Britain and France, have quite trouble to put in control all Somalia, and hold maybe 10% of Country. Almost 10 years they try to win against islamic rebelions. Why UN dont bring resolution,and send troops , why US,France,Britain dont send expedition force and crush islamic rebels,and to bring democraty to Somalia? Why they alove that 300000 be killed in civil war?
I have one reason, maybe not importan- somalia are not rich with oil like Libya.
Libya are in 5th place with oil reserves- these sound quite good to mess.

[saxitoxin]

Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

Your country wouldn't have needed help from other nations if other nations (see: 30,000 German troops) hadn't been backing the UK first. Remind me again, didn't George Washington say something about "entangling alliances"?

When NATO slaughtered the Serbians 10 years ago Bill Cohen said as many as 400,000 Kosovars had died. After NATO killed 5,000 Serbs UNICEF sent a fact-finding mission in and found that between 3,000 to 4,000 Kosovars were actually killed (most of them armed KLA fighters). In other words, NATO killed more people than the Serbians!

[radiojake]

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

Wow - I do not believe I have ever seen a post from you that has declared an Obama desicion to be a correct one (I apologize if you have and I missed it) - What a suprise, however, that it is in regard to a military intervention of another oil-rich middle eastern country. You guys sure love your dead Muslims.

Nothing like spreading a bit of 'liberal democracy' hegemony around the world - Especially when it ends in the death of thousands of civillians

[jefjef]

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

Wow - I do not believe I have ever seen a post from you that has declared an Obama desicion to be a correct one (I apologize if you have and I missed it) - What a suprise, however, that it is in regard to a military intervention of another oil-rich middle eastern country. You guys sure love your dead Muslims.

Nothing like spreading a bit of 'liberal democracy' hegemony around the world - Especially when it ends in the death of thousands of civillians

The ARAB LEAGUE was the main push for and requested UN intervention on behalf of the Libyans being slaughtered by Godaffy. Guess you're saying they love dead Muslims too.

[saxitoxin]

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

Wow - I do not believe I have ever seen a post from you that has declared an Obama desicion to be a correct one (I apologize if you have and I missed it) - What a suprise, however, that it is in regard to a military intervention of another oil-rich middle eastern country. You guys sure love your dead Muslims.

Nothing like spreading a bit of 'liberal democracy' hegemony around the world - Especially when it ends in the death of thousands of civillians

The ARAB LEAGUE was the main push for and requested UN intervention on behalf of the Libyans being slaughtered by Godaffy. Guess you're saying they love dead Muslims too.

The Arab League is filled with US client states. Dr. Ron Paul said asmuch last week when he denounced plans for a No-Fly Zone and referred to "our puppet government in Saudi Arabia."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qm9U3X3EU

Even with that stacked deck, though, the Arab League reversed course today and is demanding an immediate end to the NATO gang's War of Aggression.

Let us all pray for a swift end to this conflict and hope that Obama, Sarkozy, Harper and Cameron are dragged before the International Criminal Court in shackles to answer for their great crimes against humanity.

[radiojake]

Funny how all wars are illegal. Isn't the Libyan government killing its own citizens illegal? By the way, Obama is actually doing the right thing in this situation (except that he was about 3 weeks too late), and he does not plan to send our troops (and maybe even planes) into the country. All we've done so far is use our intelligence and missiles to soften up their built-in defenses. The rebels asked for assistance so we have finally helped. Don't forget, our country wouldn't have earned independence without help from other nations.

Wow - I do not believe I have ever seen a post from you that has declared an Obama desicion to be a correct one (I apologize if you have and I missed it) - What a suprise, however, that it is in regard to a military intervention of another oil-rich middle eastern country. You guys sure love your dead Muslims.

Nothing like spreading a bit of 'liberal democracy' hegemony around the world - Especially when it ends in the death of thousands of civillians

The ARAB LEAGUE was the main push for and requested UN intervention on behalf of the Libyans being slaughtered by Godaffy. Guess you're saying they love dead Muslims too.

No, I am just too cynical to trust any US backed intervention - Why should I believe anything they say? The history of US intervention speaks for itself. If you believe that the US is totally looking after the interests of the Libyan people then you are an ignorant fool. There is a high price oil contract on the line for someone if Gadaffi is removed. I have never, EVER, heard a rebel army in the Middle East being called 'a rebellion' on the mainstream news - They have always been 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' - Why now has the Western Media jumped onto this rebellion's bandwagon? Something stinks -

[comic boy]

I agree with most of what you have said but you are wrong about Obama , he has actually played it very well and it is only your extreme bias that indicates otherwise. What was imperative was that a broad coalition was in place as it was essential that any action was not viewed as simply US aggression , this took time as certain European and Arab countries needed a degree of persuasion.
What you view as an unwaranted delay was not caused by the dithering of Obama , rather it was the result of the previous blundering by Bush and Blair , the consequencies of which have caused others to be wary.

Some delay was warranted to make sure all of our people got out of the country while they had an opportunity as well as move possible military assets into the region. That should have taken a maximum of 7-10 days (maybe a few more for the military). It was 32 days before Obama and the UN took actual actions. The difference between Iraq and the current situation in Libya is that people are actively rebelling and getting killed. In a situation like that, quick and decisive actions are necessary, not long-term dithering. In Iraq, there was no active rebellion that needed support.

I tried to have a debate with you but its pointless, your a blinkered idiot