Laughed into my glass of coke and spilt it everywhere when I read 'nuking Libya'

Learn what a missile is



Firstly, you're massively oversimplifying things. Military spending does not equal economic crisis.

Secondly, millions would have been massacred had we not intervened. People say it's "their business" but I fail to see the difference between them and us. We are all people, why discriminate who you help based on nationality? How is that different that doing the same thing for, let's say, race?

If somebody needs help, I will offer it. I believe this and I'm glad my government does too.

I think oil is certainly a factor in this. Not to take it per se, but so that the prices of a barrel do not increase any further. The faster Libya is under a new democracy, the faster the production of oil is back to normal, the faster the prices stop increasing like they have been doing since the start of this revolutionary act.

I am not saying oil is the only reason why the West are helping, but it has most definitely been taken into account in making the decision to interfere. I'm sure the ulterior motive is to save the citizens from an inevitable massacre.

Pretty sure that even if we are 'oil thieving imperialists', the rebels are glad just to be alive. Oil's a reasonable payment for service rendered.

NB: Not saying I think we actually will monopolise their oil. Frankly I think drawing those parallels between Iraq and Libya is ridiculous.

Fundamental differences:
Libya: UN
Iraq: USA&co

Libya: Invited
Iraq: Uninvited

Libya: New government already in place - no outside intervention needed for regime change.
Iraq: Total intervention to the extent that Iraq effectively became a puppet state - This is what caused so much backlash against occupying forces.

The House of Commons (UK parliament) is having a debate on this right now, and they are expected to vote heavily in favour of the action. This basically means that David Cameron has done the right thing.

Anyway, my opinion: I think that the no fly zone is a good idea but where the military action should finish is up for debate. Should we target Gadaffi? Or are we just defending civilians? Personally I'm in the second camp, and I feel that is all the UN resolution allows.

FIrst of all there using smart bombs. That dictator is said to be the FBI (Federal Bureau I forget) 7 most wanted man. Osama Bin Laden is the 1. No innocent people have been killed so far. I believe as long as they use smart bombs its ok. THESE ARE MOST OF THE FACTS. It has nothing to do with oil. Nothing to do with land. Barack Obama could've blown up Libya but hasn't for one thing, Not to kill innocent people. Im not sure about England. Im listening to the News right now for a matter of fact.

Hundreds, if not thousands have. Hell, most of Gaddafi's militia are forced into fighting for him. Many with threats against their lives or the lives of their families if they don't.



Clearly you don't know that many of the facts. Obama's hesitation to come to a decision on the UN resolution delayed nations like the UK and France who tried to push it through earlier.

Obama has a lot of blood on his hands already.

i believe the allied response was wrong.
they fire missiles at anti-air defenses and civilians got killed
they could have just mediated between Gaddafi and the rebels

(but gaddafi is as stubborn as a rock but still i believe they should not have done what the have did)

They tried, Gaddafi ignored them and continued with his plans to massacre the rebels. If the UN had not stepped in, there would have been a genocide by now.