Is NATO going to help the rebels win in Lybia?

NATO took over the UN resolution 1973 from the US a couple of weeks after the first attacks on Libya to implement the no fly zone. Do you think the NATO led force will help the rebels win in Lybia by ousting Colonel Gaadafi in some manner? The US has actually taken a back seat in this military campaign leaving it up to other nations of NATO. Personally, I believe it will take a lot longer for NATO and the rebels to oust Gaadafi than if the US took the iniative militarily and led the NATO/UN resolution.

NATO's only objective on the region is plant yet another foothold of US supremacy in the Islmic world. I guess Israel and Saudi Arabia isn't good enough.

OR they want to support a regime that won't train and export terrorists using government funds, like the Saudis do.

IDK, I'm still quite bittered. But I guess that discussing war and death wile listening to death metal helps in these situations.

JJLehto wrote: Well I meant more like "anti americanism" what a way to re-enter But yes, thrash to Sepultura until the rage is gone! Back on topic, I would kind of hope a UN action would be quicker, since they could deploy more troops to the situation. I have no clue though how it all works so I just have to wait and see.

I don't really see anti-americanism in my post. Just a statement that the US seeks more allies in the region and helping the rebels will be one chance of ammasing one more ally.

And Sepultura isn't even heavy enough. CC, Bolt Thrower, Carcass and Augury, here I go!

PS: you really think the UN cares? If they did, Africa in general and many other places around the world wound't be how they are now.


Edited by CCVP - May 27 2011 at 19:14

Volta pra SR cara, tá faltando mais derpage lá.

NO MAN RUN! They are in your town now.

And that's what I basically said, can't do much good as it is now. lol It would need it's own legit military so it could actually wield some power.

OMG WHO IS THAT GUY

JJLehto wrote: NO MAN RUN! They are in your town now. And that's what I basically said, can't do much good as it is now. lol It would need it's own legit military so it could actually wield some power.

thing is, it will never get for a number of reasons. First, all members of UN cannot be accountable by law of any country, creating some of the most ridiculous situations ever, like the rape for food case in Africa. (google that sh*t, DEM BLUE PASSAPORTS!) Second, which coultry would harbor a military force or even allow its entrence if the only thing that can judge its crimes is itself? Third, who will ever finace an organization that can interfere in their national interests to the point of military invasion?

These are just some of the problems I could pull out of my head. I bet that there are far worse ones.

JJLehto wrote: No idea, but glad it's happening. Only way I support use of military is for "humanitarian" reasons and if done by a multinational effort. Given his recent actions, I'd say his removal via force is acceptable and would always prefer it be done by the UN rather than unilaterally As for it taking longer or not, I can't even venture a guess. But the US can't lead the effort. The world is tired of that and I hope we let them deal with some problems for once grant their wish!

 

Polo wrote: JJLehto wrote: NOT ENGLISH! : O And don't tell me to get back to the SR polo. YOU DONT OWN ME I WAS TALKING TO CAIO, MR. GOOGLE TRANSLATE

May I kindly suggest you to use PM for messages directed to one person in any other language than English instead of the public part of the forum? Thanks in advance.

Edited by someone_else - May 28 2011 at 02:45